Vaccines and Truth

A Viral Conversation with a True Believer:
Part Three of a Special Series

David Solway
October 9, 2021
“We’re all in this together” has been endlessly repeated throughout the pandemic – often in the same breath as we’re told to stay home and are barred from interacting with nearly anyone or doing any of the things we once did “together.” Far from bringing us together, one of the perverse aspects of society’s response to Covid-19 has been to drive people of different views even farther apart. Preserving one’s intellectual elbow-room to think and judge has been hard enough for independent minds like David Solway. Even harder, and far sadder, has been attempting to converse with people who could benefit from a few fresh thoughts. Part Three of a special series. Part One can be found here and Part Two here.
Vaccines and Truth

A Viral Conversation with a True Believer:
Part Three of a Special Series

David Solway
October 9, 2021
“We’re all in this together” has been endlessly repeated throughout the pandemic – often in the same breath as we’re told to stay home and are barred from interacting with nearly anyone or doing any of the things we once did “together.” Far from bringing us together, one of the perverse aspects of society’s response to Covid-19 has been to drive people of different views even farther apart. Preserving one’s intellectual elbow-room to think and judge has been hard enough for independent minds like David Solway. Even harder, and far sadder, has been attempting to converse with people who could benefit from a few fresh thoughts. Part Three of a special series. Part One can be found here and Part Two here.
Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter

I recently found myself embroiled in a heated dispute with an otherwise amiable young man, a lifeguard at the pool I frequent, on the vexed subject of vaccines and vaxxports, which I am highly skeptical of. Matthew insisted on the effectiveness of the vaccines and the necessity of vaxxports, or as I call them, vexxports. I suggested he might consult some of my many non-conformist and diligently researched articles on the question, easily accessible on half-a-dozen internet sites and magazines. Matthew was not interested.

“Are you a scientist?” he asked, in rebuttal.

“No,” I replied, “I have some mathematics from my university days but I’m not a scientist.”

No debating on the pool deck: An encounter with a lifeguard at his local pool revealed to author David Solway the inflexibility of the pro-vaccine perspective.

“In that case, there’s no point in reading you.”

“What if I told you,” I rejoined, “that I have abundant links and references in my writings from accredited immunologists and virologists, renowned scientific authorities, from around the world, who at the very least merit consideration.”

“I won’t read anything you’ve written,” he said, with renewed emphasis. “I know what I know, and besides, you’re not a scientist.”

“Are you?”

For a moment Matthew was taken aback. He did not know how to field a ricochet argument. Convinced that the vaccines were 100 percent beneficial, that adverse reactions were insignificant, that Big Pharma, provincial premiers, prime minister Justin Trudeau, the judiciary and the media were principled and ethical sources, and that vaxxports should be binding policy and practice with the force of law, he shut the discussion down. There was nothing more to be said on the topic.

You’re no scientist: As writer Irving Kristol noted in his 1994 essay Culture and Civilization, the Left has long perfected the art of ending discussions; these days the preferred debate stopper is to claim only scientists can have opinions about vaccines.

His attitude brought to mind Irving Kristol’s remark in his 1994 essay Culture and Civilization regarding the polemical tactics of the Left: “Ending the discussion is precisely the goal.” My discussion with Matthew ended relatively gently, but I should note that were I a concerned nurse or other health care worker, a dissident student or professor, or a skeptical corporate manager, in many instances I would risk shunning, demotion, expulsion or termination merely for trying to initiate such a discussion.

Like so many people, Matthew had no reliable or comprehensive data at his disposal. He reminded me of an earlier exchange with my luthier, who knows a lot about guitars but is woefully ignorant about the new vaccines. Believe it or not, he considers inoculation comparable to tattoo inking. 

Inks are not an mRNA delivery system which enters the bloodstream and circulates throughout the body’s vascular system. Tattoos do not bind to cells lining blood vessels and thus create the risk of blood clotting. They do not produce severe adverse reactions or terminal morbidity even if applied as directed. They are not a form of gene therapy. Cells producing the spike protein generated by the mRNA vaccines may be attacked by our own immune system, a reaction of which tattoo ink is innocent.

No matter. To my luthier, a jab was no more serious an affair than a tattoo artist’s needle puncturing the epidermis. The level of scientific illiteracy was stunning.

Absurdities prevail: Some vaccine advocates claim there’s no difference between tattooing (left) and vaccine injections (right); beyond the fact both involve needles and rubber gloves, the two procedures are radically different in their effect on the body.

Another brief episode with a grocery store manager, who insisted I wear a mask on the premises, was equally fruitless. When I mentioned several reports from major organizations and institutions doubtful of masking, including the WHO, she replied “I don’t believe it,” and walked away, abruptly ending the discussion. It was clear she would not access any of the studies I brought to her attention. I could not detect the slightest iota of curiosity or willingness to parley. She was content to religiously follow the newly re-imposed government mandate without question. (You can read much more about the ineffectiveness of masking in this C2C two-parter, including the recent German analysis that shredded the case for universal masking as an “assumption-led claim.”)

When I recounted the incident to my wife, she reminded me that I was lucky not to be in Australia – yet. Pepper spray, rubber bullets, physical brutality and immediate arrest would have been among the chosen response methods had I directly confronted authority, also effectively ending the discussion.

I thought again of Matthew, no less adamant in his certainties. He knew only what he had been told by the broadcast media, the plethora of bogus “factcheckers,” a go-along-to-get-along medical consortium, the Canadian dailies (bought and paid for by the Liberal government) and the political class. Nearly all of this would be delivered or pushed automatically via the usual internet amplifiers, rather than requiring any conscious or self-directed inquiry on Matthew’s part, a form of scholarship that clearly did not qualify him as a scientist.

Dissenters be gone: Those opposed to Australia’s Covid-19 policies have been pepper-sprayed and arrested as government seeks to stifle all debate on the subject.

He did not even bother to consult the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which (uncharacteristically) showed the survival rate for Covid-19 among people aged 20 years and younger is 99.997 percent, the rate for those aged 20-49 is 99.98 percent and for those aged 50-69, 99.5 percent.Matthew had never heard of renowned Stanford University epidemiologist John Ioannidis, whose prodigious work on Covid-19 includes this review of studies of seroprevalence estimates which concluded that infection mortality rates were dramatically lower than generally reported (thus obviating the need for panic). Nor was Matthew willing to engage a dissenter in conversation on the subject. He was, in effect, a cultural apparatchik and would have been perfectly at home in any socialist republic – indeed, Canada is already very close to becoming one. I could see him as a proud member of INGSOC.

Such apathy and low-to-no-information ignorance, coupled with unshakeable self-assurance, is to be expected. Yet it always comes as something of a shock. No less disconcerting, when the talk turned to other subjects – the day’s temperature, pool schedules, the towering Douglas firs that circled the facility, etc. – Matthew proved, like my luthier (though not like the grocery store manager), to be pleasant and friendly.

This presented a dilemma. How does one relate to a person who may, generally speaking, be quite agreeable, yet is utterly dogmatic in his unexamined convictions, responds like a commissar if he is contradicted and refuses to entertain a variety of sources and possibilities? After some reflection I decided the best option in the current repressive climate was (a) to keep one’s mouth shut, and (b) to avoid as many people as possible in order to stifle the temptation to become embroiled in futile controversy – even if the science is far more complex and unsettling than they are willing to concede.

The Covid-19 dilemma: With dogma replacing debate and heterodox opinions declared off-limits, reasoned discussion has become impossible.

For reports abound that the vaccines have little staying power, appear to be ineffective against the surfeit of new variants – which, according to a number of acclaimed virologists, they may actually cause or facilitate – and may work against the acquisition of herd immunity. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla remains confident that the vaccines are effective, as he obviously must, but admits it is “likely” that vaccination will not “neutralize…future strains.”

The future, however, appears to be now. Governments around the world and the medical bureaucracy have created a disaster from which people will suffer for years to come as variants continue to proliferate along with the march of the boosters that never seem to catch up. One need only consult virologist and immunologist Robert Malone, the actual inventor of the mRNA vaccines, who warns against their use as Covid-19 suppressants and in consequence has been vilified by the array of official organs described above.

My young interlocutor has little doubt that he is in possession of the unvarnished scientific truth. And so have the millions of Matthews who will readily accept everything they have been told by their leaders and public opinion-makers. As we’ve seen, they will not listen to non-scientists. But they will not even heed some of the world’s finest, accredited and unbought scientists who have nothing to gain but loss of status, official rejection, psychological harassment and public perfidy, campaign ribbons to their honesty and courage.

But these guys ARE scientists: Renowned Stanford University epidemiologist John Ioannidis (left) and mRNA vaccine inventor Robert Malone (right) have both raised important questions about Covid-19 narratives and policies, yet are roundly ignored in public debates.

Of course, I could be wrong about any of this. Events could prove me mistaken, I could be missing key information, I might be misinterpreting things I think I understand, or I might even be misled from time to time. Those are the risks borne by any independent mind regarding nearly any serious issue, and I’m willing to practice some intellectual humility. But our political authorities, official scientists, experts and “top doctors” have been spectacularly and catastrophically wrong at critical steps of the pandemic and regarding essential aspects of the virus. Precious few evince an iota of humility or self-reflection, let alone admitting their errors. Far from it: the news and social media assist them in sending their past howlers down the memory hole.

In short, the issue has nothing to do with who is a scientist and who is not. The issue has everything to do with independence of mind and the willingness to canvas and investigate the spectrum of opinion, debate, clinical reports and authoritative documents, as well as – and this is crucial – the affiliations of their proponents. But we need to do this without discounting out-of-hand people and organizations we don’t like. I have cited both the WHO and the CDC in this essay, organizations with a checkered record. But they aren’t wrong about everything. We must take care to avoid becoming our own version of Matthew. The issue has to do with being alert, inquisitive and, yes, responsible citizens.

How about some fairness? Based on viral load evidence, Maximilian Forte, a professor of anthropology and sociology at Concordia University, argues that discriminating against unvaccinated citizens amounts to a violation of their human rights under Canadian law.

Responsibility involves knowledge and informed judgment. As Maximilian Forte, Professor of Anthropology and Sociology at Concordia University, argues, since “it is now solidly established that the fully vaccinated do carry as much viral load as the non-vaccinated, and do transmit the virus,” to subject the unvaccinated to coercive measures “while exempting others, is obviously unfair discrimination.” It is, in fact, immoral. Moreover, the government mandate violates “human rights conventions established under international law, to which Canada is a signatory.”

In the current milieu of contending claims and ever-changing narratives, and the evident failures of national Covid-19 policies – heavily vaccinated Iceland, Gibraltar, the U.K and Israel, for example, have experienced a significant rise rather than a reduction of cases– the government vaccine mandate is also in likely contravention of Section 1 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

In the current context of statistical variance, inconsistent testimony, conflicting reports and factious disaccord among the experts, as well as the example of other non-compliant countries such as Sweden and most recently Denmark, the “limits” to Section 1’s abrogation are by no means “reasonable.” Nor are they “demonstrably justified” – they are simply imposed by decrees that are often concocted behind closed doors during moments of panic.

The collateral and perhaps irreparable damage – social, political, economic – unleashed by government policies is not in doubt. They need to be rigorously re-assessed. Whether one is a scientist or not, one’s life and livelihood, as well as the democratic nature of our institutions, are at stake in getting this right.

David Solway’s most recent volume of poetry, The Herb Garden, appeared in 2018 with Guernica Editions. His manifesto, Reflections on Music, Poetry & Politics, was released by Shomron Press in 2016. He has produced two CDs of original songs: Blood Guitar and Other Tales (2014) and Partial to Cain (2019) on which he is accompanied by his pianist wife Janice Fiamengo. His latest book is Notes from a Derelict Culture, Black House Publishing, 2019, London.

Source of main image: Shutterstock.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Why are Covid-19 Treatments so Controversial?

Part Four of a Special Series

Viagra began life as a high-blood-pressure medication. Hair-restorer Rogaine was originally an ulcer pill. The sleep aid Trazodone was intended as an anti-depressant. Medical history is filled with stories of repurposed drugs yielding useful or even miraculous results. Yet in the midst of a global pandemic that has taken millions of lives, innovation of this sort has become all-but officially forbidden. Dedicated physicians seeking new ways to treat their patients during the early stages of Covid-19 using inexpensive over-the-counter or repurposed medications have been harassed and bullied by the scientific/medical/regulatory establishment. Margret Kopala reports on the sinister institutional antipathy towards potential Covid-19 treatments aimed at keeping patients out of the hospital.

The Gas Tax is Running on Empty. How Governments Plan to Target Electric Vehicles Next

What are the attractions of an electric vehicle? Beyond the cool aura of modernity and virtue-signaling, there’s also the financial angle. Buyers of gasoline-powered cars and trucks pay sticker price in the showroom and then shell out for hefty fuel taxes once they’re on the road. EV owners get massive subsidies and then pay nothing to zip around town. But what happens when EVs become as commonplace as smartphones? Peter Shawn Taylor looks at the experience in jurisdictions already wrestling with the disappearance of gas tax revenue and warns Canadian drivers to brace themselves for some big changes in how they use the roads.

More from this author

Italian artist Giorgio de Chirico painted cities bereft of people and other forms of life.

Giorgio de Chirico and Our Modern-Day Curators of Disaster

Fascinated by the metaphysics of the city, 20th century Italian artist Giorgio de Chirico produced jarring urban scenes bereft of people and normal human bustle. He meant to trigger contemplation; he didn’t actually hate people. The tiny minds who run our governments, control our public health agencies and staff our hospital system seem to have taken de Chirico’s metaphorical presentations as an operating blueprint, for in David Solway’s view they have delivered a globe-girdling art installation using the world’s cities as their canvas. From soaring commercial vacancy rates and boarded-up businesses in hundreds of the world’s second-tier cities to the moonscape that Manhattan has largely become, Solway denounces the incalculable damage wrought not by SARS-CoV-2 itself – but the government response to it.

A father and son stand hand-in-hand in a field looking up at the sky. Invoking a strong sense of bond felt when one doesn't experience fatherlessness

The Scourge of Fatherlessness and the Death of God

It is almost inarguable that the once-rich and strong tapestry of family life has become seriously frayed, worn and patchy. Divorce is rampant – if marriage occurs at all – and dads have fallen into serious disrepute. Most would agree that it is children who suffer the most as a result. But why did all this happen, and where did it begin? Taking a wide view that ranges from Dostoevsky via Nietzsche to Kate Millett, David Solway traces the crisis centuries back to its spiritual roots as a rebellion against fatherhood – and lays the blame squarely at the feet of modern-day ideologues who seem intent on kicking fatherhood into oblivion.

No Laughing Matter: The March of Killjoy Culture

When the New York Times admonishes the unmistakeably satirical Babylon Bee for spreading “misinformation”, it’s likely a sign that humour is dying – or being killed off. Similarly when the formerly-fearless Bill Maher laments how it’s no longer safe to tell a joke at a party lest one be overheard by a Woke listener and ruined. And even more so when politicians threaten to ban internet memes that lampoon the elites. The eminently serious David Solway reminds us of the essential contribution of humour and laughter to the well-balanced and healthy life – of individual and culture – and points to the civilizational wreckage were levity stamped out. And before it’s too late, suggests we all head out for some subversive “gynecandrical” dancing.

Share This Story

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.