The Philosophy Behind Covid Policy Is Wrong
Whatever you do in life requires a philosophy. The word originates from the Greek “philo”, meaning love and “sophos, meaning wisdom. It’s the love of wisdom or search for knowledge. Another way to think of it is the “why”, the questioning of the world around us—the search for answers.
Ayn Rand, in her, Philosophy Who Needs It essays, stated,
“Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation — or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions…”
In philosophy, we often use deductive reasoning to expound a theoretical principle or premise based on rational thought. Science then verifies through experimentation and observation that the philosophy is sound. Suppose our premise is unsound, or through new information, we find it to be irrational. In that case, we have to revise our philosophical assumptions. This certainly applies to Covid during the past three years.
Conventional medical philosophy states that to gain immunity to an infectious illness, you must get a vaccine, traditionally with an attenuated virus. When it came to Covid, the rush to get an mRNA vaccine meant a relatively untested delivery system would be implemented on the world’s population. So people went along with it because of trust or coercion––no vaccine, no job. When an alarming rate of adverse events was noticed, people with some critical thinking started questioning what was happening.
Then in May 2021, six months after the vaccine rollout, viral immunologist Dr Byram Bridle received a Japanese biodistribution study showing that the lipid nanoparticle that houses the mRNA went into virtually every organ.
This meant the injection didn’t just stay in the deltoid muscle in the upper arm. Even more disturbing is that as early as January 2021, the TGA, Australia’s drug regulatory body knew that the mRNA was distributed throughout the body, as evidenced below, yet they said nothing.
The philosophy of the delivery system is what is troubling. How can you reconcile a jab purported to stay in the deltoid muscle with what has long been known; that it is distributed throughout the body? Instead of some critical thinking that this couldn’t be good and re-evaluating the principle of their vaccine, they are doubling down.
Suppose their intention is for the body to initiate an immune response to the jab in a muscle. In that case, if the contents go throughout the body, that response can be more widespread. So here we have a paper that confirms an inflammatory response in the heart that results in fibrosis––scarring.
“patients displayed signatures of inflammatory and profibrotic CCR2+ CD163+ monocytes, coupled with elevated serum-soluble CD163, that may be linked to the late gadolinium enhancement on cardiac MRI, which can persist for months after vaccination. Together, our results demonstrate up-regulation in inflammatory cytokines and corresponding lymphocytes with tissue-damaging capabilities, suggesting a cytokine-dependent pathology, which may further be accompanied by myeloid cell–associated cardiac fibrosis.”
So look at their conclusion in their discussion. Instead of recommending scuttling the platform by any rational measure, they think they can tweak the technology and even mention the “excellent safety profile”.
“Future studies building on the translational relevance of our work will be important to further optimize the excellent safety profile of mRNA vaccines among specific demographic subgroups.”
This is all wrong. It could be that the authors of the research needed to modify their conclusions to facilitate acceptance of the study because, as we know, if you don’t follow the accepted narrative, you are likely to get cancelled.
It’s not only the heart but many other organs that have been affected with unparalleled reports of adverse events. Any rational person looking at this chart would say, STOP!
Rationality has gone by the wayside.
The whole assumption of medical philosophy regarding vaccination is a false premise. There is a failure to acknowledge natural immunity, which is more effective as it’s targeted at the whole virus, not just one antigen–the spike. As B.J. Palmer used to say, “Get the big idea, and all else follows.” If your central premise is wrong, everything you do following that will be wrong.
The authorities, medical, political, and pharmaceutical all got it wrong, and the tragedy is the public who put their trust in these groups was poorly served. Many will no longer blindly trust these self-serving groups whose motivation is primarily financial.