Among the most liberticidal measures put in place to get us through the desert of the COVID-19 pandemic, the vaccine mandates are at the top of the list. This was disguised under the cloak of various vaccination obligations, including those imposed on federal government employees and all Canadian citizens for public transport inside and outside Canada. One would then be entitled to expect that these extraordinary measures of large-scale social engineering would be based on solid scientific evidence. Instead, we find the mirage of vaccination, which like a magic wand was to wipe away the pandemic forever.
The most lucid realize that this famous magic wand was only a decoy. A shiny object that had to be bought at all costs and at full speed on the premise that this revolutionary new technology of gene vaccines would be much better than the natural immunity that has resolved all other epidemics since the beginning of humanity. Really?
I’m old enough to remember a time when viewing natural immunity as an effective bulwark against infectious disease wasn’t discredited as a conspiracy theory. Those who claim that the protection conferred by these spike proteins targeted genetic vaccines would be greater than the natural immunity against the whole virus resulting from infection with successive variants, including the different Omicron variants, have the burden of proof.
Faced with successive waves of variants, including in particular Delta in the summer of 2021, as well as the series, which seems endless, of the different Omicron variants which began last November, the narrative that gene vaccines were going to prevent infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has definitely collapsed. The last bulwark of this thesis is that vaccination will prevent more severe forms of the disease and reduce mortality. Perhaps this was true for the Delta variant, at least temporarily, and for the most vulnerable individuals, but it remains to be proven true for the Omicron variants.
Knowing that only the elderly and those suffering from comorbidities are truly at risk, is the taking of experimental injections for possible individual and temporary protection sufficient justification to promote the generalized vaccination of a population, whose risks of disease are highly variable? Can we legitimately skip the individual assessment of the benefit/risk balance?
Reading the affidavits and cross-examinations of the trial reveals a host of shortcomings in the scientific studies cited in addition to sinking into extrapolations, interpretations, and speculations with shaky scientific foundations. Not to mention the lack of ethical considerations. We can and must highlight these shortcomings and hope that they will be formally established in the courts.
It is distressing to note the low scientific calibre of government technocrats and bureaucrats who have not demonstrated their ability to produce scientific knowledge through rigorous, long-term research. Not to mention their shortcomings in discerning flaws in the scientific literature in general, and in the field of health in particular. This makes them highly vulnerable to corporate ideology and Big Pharma propaganda. We are still looking for encouraging signs that, in the absence of a scientific culture worthy of the name with a solid foundation in epistemology, they would have at least developed good critical thinking. We search, but we do not find reassuring clues. Many navigate the troubled waters of incompetence, occasionally stranding themselves on the reefs of bad faith.
The biggest problem in these government institutions in need of reform is not the lack of competent, dedicated, and well-meaning people. I know there are many from having encountered them during my 35 years of service at the National Research Council of Canada. The fundamental problem, as in any organization with ineffective governance, is the lack of accountability, the presence of perverse incentives for promotion, compliance, and blind loyalty to its bosses. These faults are rarely compatible with rigour, probity, and scientific excellence.
What the court cross-examinations keep on revealing is this lack of accountability at the highest levels—especially with politicians, who allow themselves to flout the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if they feel they can escape the legal, media, or electoral consequences, or even profit from them. Many of them have lost their moral compass in the magnetic field of ideology that has confused them for a very long time. The “experts” in the machinery of government are just the useful idiots in this story, collateral, albeit willing, victims of the system.
We must continue to confront these leaders to unmask their incompetence. As can be seen in their evasive answers and their prevarications, they have not been promoted by demonstrating their ability to debate on the basis of scientific knowledge, but by their ability to formulate a message that will please their superiors and that above all avoid embarrassing them by exposing their ignorance. We are witnessing a systematic instrumentalization of “science” misguided into scientism, as in the past the power in place instrumentalized religious belief.
As long as we do not put in place robust firewalls to prevent the misappropriation of “science” for ideological political ends, we will remain stuck in this drift of Lysenkoism which will lead us sooner or later to the collapse of these institutions. One cannot cheat the laws of nature indefinitely without suffering the consequences. And it is particularly in these moments of crisis that we realize that we have to change things and stop ignoring what nature teaches us.
Every time you hear “the experts say…,” ask yourself questions. Which experts? What is their credibility? Are they free from conflicts of interest? Are they prepared to fairly debate the basis of their expert opinion? And if they are not ready to debate, it is because we are dealing with “experts” with feet of clay, impostors made by the technocratic system. We are rather dealing with a Zelig.