Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser   

2021-04-10

Many may feel uneasy about the way in which the Covid situation has been approached by the medical establishment - pharmaceutical companies, medical journalists, regulatory authorities, and last but not least, governments.

Governments? How are they part of the medical establishment?

I would submit that they are their paymasters, certainly in the UK. They interpose themselves between the taxpayer / recipient of medical care, and the producer pharmaceutical (and other) companies; they appoint regulatory authorities to decide which treatments get to be approved and funded, and which treatments get to be denied funding and/or outlawed.

Also we must add august international bodies such as the WHO into the frame. Their "guidance" practically has the effect of law (even though they are funded in large part by philanthropic outfits with immense vested interests in vaccines).

All for our own good of course.

But who is to judge what is for our own good?

This is no minor question, for on the answer hangs the difference between oncoming tyranny (medical and otherwise) and a return to individual responsibility.

The government has spent untold sums of taxpayers' money on developing and ordering vast supplies of multiple vaccines - for an illness for which some say all previously accepted epidemiological and statistical good practice was turned upside down so as to spin the pandemic narrative.

As we have seen recently, they get to impose all manner of unwanted and apparently arbitrary restrictions on our freedoms, and to commission immensely expensive advertising campaigns to persuade us that we are in mortal danger from once-normal everyday activities, and that we must religiously adopt previously unheard-of and significantly repellent practices for which no substantive justification is offered.

Regardless of the costs, both to health and the economy, of these measures.

All this is nodded through by our supine representatives in Parliament, a few of whom do raise objections, but for the most part they simply acquiesce. Can we rely on them to protect our interests?

And Is that the worst of it? Sadly not.

The unspoken assumption underlying all of the above is that all the participants selflessly have nothing but the well-being of humanity at heart - but where are the safeguards if/when this assumption breaks down?

In a word, wanting.

The story below is but one of many that sometimes hit the headlines (as in the case of Alfie Evans) but often-times do not - it requires a herculean will to take on the massed ranks of the establishment and a satisfactory outcome is all too frequently elusive.

It is a work of considerable depth and great empathy for those who find themselves on the wrong end of a conflict with the authorities, whose primary instinct often seems to be to close ranks rather than to uncover the truth and prevent a recurrence.

I think it has lessons for us all, and I commend it to you.

 

 

.