Whenever possible, take the high road, and follow it along the middle way.
~ Maximus Freeman
Over the past twenty months, we have been privy to polarized opinions and perspectives on what, under the circumstances, is the ethical thing to do to save lives.
Those who believe the current narrative are content to outsource their healthcare to the “experts” and trust that the experimental treatment will save humanity, no matter how frequently the goalpost shifts.
I have watched some willingly comply with authoritarian “public health” directives that have little to do with health and much to do with the administration of a needle in every arm, creating dependents and patients for life.
From the outset, countless were led to believe that the mandates were for the greater good, to prevent harm to themselves and others and to expedite a return to normal. They fell for the unsubstantiated soundbites about flattening the curve and the safe and effective treatment that promised to help prevent severe disease, hospitalization and death.
Others, against their better judgment, succumbed to facilitate earning a living and alleviating the fear of vulnerable loved ones.
Still, others complied to facilitate attending school, enjoying the arts in person, travelling and participating in society.
The undemocratic response from my professional liberal-minded peers has been perplexing. If a friend chooses a different path, standing up for what they believe will serve humanity better, it is considered heresy. Debate and critical thinking have been suppressed or discouraged.
Buying into the apocalyptic story justifies extreme measures and abandoning democratic principles. Overlooked are the facts that the treatment of choice has failed and the possibility that civil rights and liberties may become hard to restore.
The curious, who see the facts beyond the story, know that the rational thing to do is to allow the healthy to acquire natural immunity while protecting the vulnerable. They also recognize that there is more to the agenda than population health. The lack of transparency creates resentment.
For clarity, I do not buy into the method public health proposes to protect the vulnerable. If the health of the elderly and the immune-compromised are the objective, inexpensive, time-tested, repurposed drugs and supplements, clinically proven to save lives, should be administered widely. Early treatment prevents death and transmission.
A recent study has shown that PhDs are the most resistant to the current “public health” agenda. It’s a U-shaped curve when it comes to education.
I suspect any life-long learner who remains curious and a critical thinker is hesitant. Institutionalized education does not trump self-directed learning, especially now with unprecedented access to information and the fact that the funding for research in academia by and large comes from those who have a vested interest in marketing and policy-based evidence-making. When healthy students who think outside the box are ousted from these institutions, be concerned.
Being a seeker of the middle way, I am confused. Why are the least educated and the most educated most hesitant? And why are those in the middlemost compliant? I don’t have the answers, but if what drives opposition is mistrust, hatred and fear, this becomes a war. Countless will suffer. A rational, transparent, compassionate approach is the only way to a peaceful outcome.
Closing thoughts
Revolutionary change is needed. It is tough to get people to consent to a collapse and rebuild of archaic institutions that are not serving anyone well. But for me, advocacy trumps activism.
I understand the righteous anger. But peaceful protests with honourable intent will save the day. We need not comply with tyrannical directives. Boycotts outperform bombs
.
Foregoing immediate gratification for sustainable transformation is why I will not comply.
Kommentare