More than two years since COVID-19 emerged, our kit of solutions – and the mindset needed to use them – is too small. It’s time to listen to the science in a broader way
The Globe and Mail actually published a massive op-ed from Dr Norman Doidge.
I do have two of his books in my home library ( I kid you not the amount of books we own qualifies our house as a small library!) “The Brain That Changes Itself” It’s a book worth reading. He really changed the thinking on how the brain heals itself after injury.
Link- but be aware it is behind a pay wall. Fortunately I managed to get the entire piece electronically before hand. It is 12 pages long ( as printed at home) I also have the print edition from Saturday’s Globe and Mail
The narrative is being shifted. This has to occur because the “vaccines” failed to live up to the hype. The jab did not end the pandemic. It did not perform as claimed because it was never tested or demonstrated in any way shape or form that demonstrated it’s ability to stop the transmission of the virus. Even the claim of it impeding severe illness was just another unverifiable but hoped for outcome/ claim.
Reading through the comments is particularly enlightening. You really come away with the idea that some people were totally enthralled with the vaccine as saviour narrative. Therefore they cannot accept the reality that is staring them straight in the face. They were fooled. Which brings to mind the saying below:
‘It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.’
Below are some excerpts from this very large article:
The Master/Meta Narrative
“culturally shared stories that tell us about a given culture, and provide guidance for how to be a ‘good’ member of a culture; they are a part of the structure of society.”
—is a narrative about narratives of historical meaning, experience, or knowledge, which offers a society legitimation
Consider how things appeared in April, 2020, when Bill Gates, whose foundation is the largest private contributor to the World Health Organization, said: “The ultimate solution, the only thing that really lets us go back completely to normal and feel good … is to create a vaccine.” His “only” meant, that in practice, our chief hope and focus – in research, policy, in the media, and even emotionally, for many – became the vaccines. Mr. Gates articulated what became our master narrative: Public health would stop the spread with extemporizing measures such as lockdowns, discouraging social functions and travel, and closing schools and businesses until the vaccines arrived, all of which would protect us until we achieved vaccine-induced herd immunity everywhere, which, we were told, would eliminate the virus. We put our faith in the vaccines, while other approaches – such as drugs for early treatment, or a role for our natural immunity, or lowering our personal risk factors, for instance – got comparatively less attention.
The Military Metaphor and Medicine
This military metaphor seems second nature in medicine. We are always in a “war against cancer,” or “combatting” heart disease, Alzheimer’s, and AIDS. But this way of thinking only became common in medicine several hundred years ago, after the philosopher Francis Bacon argued the goal of science should change from what it had been – “the study of nature” – to the very practical “conquest of nature.” Soon physicians were speaking of “conquering” disease, with “magic bullets.” We increasingly left behind the original Hippocratic mindset of medicine as an extension of nature, which involved working with it, as an ally, wherever possible – not to conquer, but to heal, often with the help of the patient’s own healing capacities.
At my google censored blog there were posts covering the militarization of medical care including the presentation of health care workers and doctors as being on the “front line”
You can find it via the internet archive
It was linked to a meta narrative propagandistic piece:
My commentary at the end as follows
Back to the Doidge piece
Scientists were to be soldiers in this new army. And here a problem arose. Despite some similarities, science (and medicine) is really best not construed as warfare – and the kind of virtues that may suit soldiers in an army (following an authority without questioning), are vices in science, which is a mode of critical inquiry. Modern science arose because the world was filled with too many dogmas and orthodoxies that were not to be questioned. That is why the motto of the Royal Society, the first national scientific institution, became Nullias in verba, “Take Nobody’s Word For It.” It’s the role of scientists, as Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman said, to question the experts, and fellow scientists, and debate each experimenter’s conclusions, which are based on human judgments and interpretations of data, until there is certainty the conclusion can resist all onslaughts.
Reappraisal of any prevailing narrative requires taking in new insights, which, by definition, arise from a minority viewpoint. When a military metaphor sweeps through a society or a bureaucracy beset by fear, all-or-nothing, you-are-with-us-or-against-us thinking follows. We become more prone to see someone who doesn’t go along with the majority view – including scientists who spot problems with the reigning narrative – as putting the rest of us at risk, and a “traitor,” rather than as someone doing their job. They are attacked, censored or self-censor to survive. In war, you shut up and follow orders, or get court-martialed.
I’ll continue this on in another post- Because this is getting too long