Over the course of the debacle that was the US government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the public was told by government and industry representatives to “trust the science.” The ersatz leader of this COVID-19 response, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases at the NIH, further clarified what exactly was meant by this phrase when he stated on the show Face the Nation on November 28, 2021, countering harsh criticism he personally had received, “So it’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous.”
Echoing this mantra were several other pandemic players in the helm of the official response, including Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the NIH; Dr. Rochelle Walensky, Director of the CDC, and Deborah Birx, White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator. Collins frequently spoke at public events promoting trust in government-sanctioned scientific processes for vaccine development and public health measures.
At the same time, Walensky urged the public to follow the CDC’s “science-driven recommendations.” Similarly, Birx would use the moniker “science” to promote public health policies now known to have no scientific basis, such as social distancing of 6 feet or more or widespread lockdowns of all people, not just those infected with coronavirus.
Distilled down, this very unscientific and outright dangerous messaging is best restated as “Trust us; we’re the experts” with the implicit implication, “and you’re not.” We now know that the “science” of these individuals was agenda-driven, fraught with myriad conflicts of interest and quite frankly, wrong.
Considering “the jab” touted as the primary measure for prophylaxis against COVID, we now know that:
1. Individuals receiving an mRNA-based shot were up to 25 times more likely to develop myocarditis, a debilitating condition with 5-year mortality rates that approach 50%. Risks associated with vaccination were seen especially in adolescent and young adult males.
2. The spike protein, which served as the basis for all vaccines on the market in the US and worldwide, causes coagulopathy leading to an increase in many types of clotting disorders, including stroke, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, cerebral venous thrombosis, as well as other arterial thrombotic events and hemorrhagic events.
3. Mortality associated with COVID shots eclipses that of all other vaccines, to such an extent that there are more reports of deaths from those jabs since their introduction in late 2020 than all other vaccines combined for the past 35 years, based on the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
4. Miscarriage prevalence as reported by VAERS was also over three times higher among pregnant women who received COVID shots, compared to all other vaccines given historically to pregnant women in the US. (Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak, p. 178)
5. Male fertility, as related by sperm count and quality, declines significantly after COVID vaccination.
This is just the tip of the iceberg regarding COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, which were evidently a sacrifice for what? A few months, perhaps of very limited protection against the virus? To add insult to injury, we now know that some studies show COVID infections were more prevalent in individuals who were vaccinated and boosted repeatedly, compared to those who are unvaccinated or received only the primary series of shots.
This doesn’t even include the many other measures in the pandemic, besides vaccines that have now been shown as ineffective and, in many cases, dangerous. Those measures included society-wide isolation, shuttering educational institutions and hospital treatment protocols based on remdesivir, followed by intubation and sedation with fentanyl, propofol, and morphine. In short, the “science” that we were told to trust was clearly wrong and untrustworthy.
I would instead propose that we all test the science. This is actually at the crux of the scientific method, which I taught prior to retiring from my university position a few years ago.
Within the scientific method:
1. We observe. Scientists make and record observations to identify consistent trends that could connote relationships, including “cause and effect.”
2. We develop hypotheses based on those observations. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation of the putative relationship(s) we observe and, by definition, must be testable.
3. We run experiments or make additional, more systematic and further enlightening observations. By collecting data and analyzing the results, we can make decisions based on where the data lead us, rather than simply putting our faith in others, who may or may not be correct.
4. We draw a conclusion to accept or reject the hypothesis based on where the data/analyses lead us.
I’m a PhD scientist with over 35 years of research experience. Frankly, because of my training, this is all easy and intuitive to me – if it weren’t, there would be a problem, and perhaps I shouldn’t be speaking about science.
However, I would propose that this type of “testing” of the science could and should be done by laypersons everywhere, especially when it comes to the things that you put in your body or the bodies of loved ones. At the crux of the scientific method are observations, questions, and evaluations.
We all make observations every day. Whether it’s observing the weather outside or if the water in your shower is too hot, we’re all continuously taking in information to be processed all the time. When it comes to health, patient and patient caregiver information is key and should always be considered - those observations that don’t come from people in white coats- are key to the entire diagnostic process in medicine and are science.
Based on those observations, we ask questions. Questions drive science. Einstein questioned Newtonian physics in the context of space, time, mass and gravity, and developed the Theory of Relativity.
Semmelweis questioned why he observed better outcomes when he washed his hands and changed his clothes after doing autopsies and before treating patients, and advanced good practices of antisepsis to prevent infection. Mendel questioned why and how certain offspring had traits of the previous generation and developed the field of genetics. Asking questions, not trusting, advances science.
On a personal level, asking questions based on your own observations advances better care for you and your loved ones, whether navigating your way through a pandemic or inourney regarding vaccine safety came after my son’s regression and diagnoses of multiple disabilities and medical maladies following his 15-month vaccinations. Initially, as my wife and I sought help for his medical issues, I was surprised by the lack of curiosity of some practitioners regarding the signs and symptoms we saw in our son. However, fortunately, we encountered an integrative medical doctor when my son was just two years old. That practitioner not only dared to hypothesize the role of vaccines in my son’s issues but also taught us how to essentially apply the scientific method to my son’s recovery, which has made all the difference in his trajectory towards wholeness.