‘Experts’ With Feet of Clay: The Push for Vaccine Mandates While Shunning Fair Debate

Commentary

Since the SARS/CoV-2 virus in Canada’s coronavirus, both the Canadian provinces as well the federal government have taken a variety of measures to manage the pandemic. These include masks, confinements, curfews and social distancing. The state has denigrated early treatment with generic chemicals proven safe and efficacious to make way for genetic vaccines. Their safety and effectiveness are also questionable.

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. These were hidden behind a variety of vaccination obligations that included those for federal employees as well as all Canadian citizens who use public transportation within and outside Canada. You would expect then that large-scale, social engineering measures would be supported by solid scientific evidence. We find instead the miracle of vaccination which, like a magic wand, was supposed to end the pandemic.

The most clear-eyed people will realize that the magic wand is only a trick. This shiny object had to be purchased at any cost and with full speed, on the assumption that gene vaccines were better than natural immunity. Really?

I’m old enough not to believe that natural immunity was a reliable bulwark against the spread of infectious diseases. The burden of proof rests with those who believe that these targeted spike protein genetic vaccines provide greater protection than natural immunity to the entire virus.

Natural infection is not without risks. However, vaccination can be dangerous, particularly during pandemics. The toll of individual risks associated with gene vaccines is worrying enough that tens of thousands of doctors and scientists around the world are calling for the suspension of general vaccination, and therefore of its disguised obligation. Contrary to some politician’s claims, the refusal of experimental injections has scientific and ethical bases.

Unless one is baffled by the Our World In Data data or does not understand the meaning of the data, it seems obvious that there is a positive correlation among vaccination rates and infections around the globe. Infection rates in countries with the highest vaccination levels are higher than those that have been least. This was not supposed to happen!

I have previously substantiated, with supporting sources, the weakness of the scientific foundations of the vaccine mandate and my analysis has been corroborated by a host of documents produced by the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, a collective of Canadian scientists who questioned many of the health measures.

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. This thesis still holds that vaccines will reduce the severity of the disease as well as mortality. This was possible for the Delta variant and the most vulnerable, but this is still to be proved for Omicron variants.

In the wake of being a vocal proponent of this campaign to prevent the pandemic from spreading, Dr. Deborah Birx (White House advisor for management) now admits that many “experts” overestimated gene vaccines’ ability to stop it. They also admitted that the vaccines were not likely to substantially reduce the possibility of transmission .

Knowing only elderly people and patients with comorbidities may be at greatest risk is it sufficient to justify the administration of vaccines in general? Is it possible to skip the assessment of individual risk/benefit ratio?

The Canadian State promulgated vaccine mandates for transport and public services, considering it has strong scientific foundations to support these extreme measures that are unprecedented in history. The validity of these mandates was challenged in a lawsuit brought notably by the Hon. Brian Peckford former premier, Newfoundland and Labrador. There were also a few others plaintiffs.

An examination of cross-examinations and affidavits of the trial revealed a number of flaws in the scientific studies mentioned, as well as extrapolations and interpretations that are based on weak scientific foundations. Not to mention ethical considerations. These flaws can be and should be highlighted and we hope they are formally recognized by the courts.

But it’s not always easy, when representatives of institutions in place refuse to engage in scientific discussion. Noe Chartier published a number of articles on this topic in The Epoch Times.

It is disturbing to see the poor scientific ability of bureaucrats, technocrats, and government officials who lack the capacity to create scientific knowledge by rigorous and long-term research. They are also unable to recognize flaws within scientific literature, especially in health. They are vulnerable to Big Pharma and corporate propaganda. Still, we are looking for signs that they could have developed at the very least good critical thinking skills in the absence the scientific culture with solid epistemology foundation. Although we search for reassuring clues, they are not found. Numerous people find themselves in the murky waters of incompetence and end up on the wrong side of the reefs.

The biggest problem with these institutions isn’t the shortage of qualified, committed, and well-meaning individuals. I know there are many from having encountered them during my 35 years of service at the National Research Council of Canada. As in all organizations with poor governance, there is a lack of accountability and perverse incentives to promote, comply, or blind loyalty towards its bosses. They are often incompatible with scientific integrity, probity and rigour.

What the court cross-examinations continue to reveal is the lack of accountability at high levels, especially with politicians who will flout Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to avoid the electoral, legal or media consequences or profit from them. They have been lost in the magnetic field that is ideology for so long, and many of them are now losing their moral compass. These “experts” are only the helpful idiots of this tale, and they’re willing victims.

We must confront the leaders and expose their incompetence. Their evasive responses and prevarications show that they were not promoted by showing their scientific ability, but rather by being able to communicate a message to their superiors that pleases them and, above all, avoids embarrassing them with their ignorance. As in the past, the power to impose religious beliefs was used as a means of instrumentalizing “science”. We now witness this systematic misuse of science.

As long as there are not strong firewalls in place to stop the misuse of science for political ideological ends, this Lysenkoism will continue. This will eventually lead to the demise of our institutions. You can’t cheat nature’s laws indefinitely and not suffer the consequences. It is in times of crisis, that it becomes clear that you have to make changes and not ignore the lessons that nature has for us.

The state apparatus doesn’t have scientific knowledge monopoly. Too often, in public service, promotions to decision-making posts are based on the compliance with certain doxas used by politicians. This is not just a problem at the provincial or federal level, it has been widespread across the world for many decades.

Ask yourself questions whenever you hear …,” being said by experts. What experts are they? How credible are they? Is there no conflict of interest between them? Is it possible for them to debate their expert opinions? If they don’t want to discuss, then it may be because they have feet made of clay by technocratic systems. Instead, we are dealing with Zelig.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.