The proof is in the pudding, as the saying has it, which means that a recipe is only as good as its finished product. Scrumptious, or not?
Science too proceeds primarily a posteriori, ‘from things that come afterwards’, namely, the evidence of our senses, whether or not these senses are augmented by technology (telescopes, microscopes, scanners and so on). Any theory which fails the test of evidence – and all theories must eventually be put to such a test – also fails the test of truth. Francis Bacon (+1626), one of the primary founders of the scientific method, calls this the ‘brutality of fact’.
Yes, we must be careful, for evidence itself is not always certain. Did we test properly? Take into account confounding factors? Were our instruments functioning properly?
At the end of the day, however, the truth of evidence must at some point be faced, and a decision made whether a theory be true or false. The history of science leaves a long trail of discarded hypotheses, many of them held by scientists of great repute, and declared true by consensus: Ptolemy’s geocentric cosmos; perfectly circular planetary orbits; fixed stars; an eternal and unchanging universe; atoms as indivisible; blood humours; bleeding as a means of curing; the heart as the organ of thought and feeling; the luminiferous ether; infinite speed; abiogenesis; the miasmic theory of disease transmission. And so on.
The theories that have been proven true, may one day be modified, if not declared false. As one experimenter put it, ‘if there is one thing always present in empirical research, it is doubt’.
Things become more fraught in the practical sciences, in which certain principles may be true, but not always so in their specific application. Medicine is like this, which is why it is more aptly called an art than a science, even if based on the latter. Psychotherapy seems to help some patients, but not all, and some techniques have been discarded. Cancer treatments such as radiation and chemotherapy may be ‘true’, but each patient must be treated uniquely. An improper intervention can be positively detrimental. First, do no harm.
Which brings us to the Covid vaccine. Ever since Jenner’s discovery that milkmaids exposed to cowpox were immune to smallpox, the use of vaccines (from vaccus, Latin, ‘cow’) has by and large benefited mankind. But this required a lot of evidence, freely shared, and openly discussed.
The principle is sound: That an attenuated version of a disease can trigger the immune system to develop antibodies, and consequent full or partial immunity, to a more serious and deadly form of a similar disease.
Still, the best immunity is natural, to get the actual disease and survive, but that’s a dodgy business, and leaves us prey to Darwin’s survival of the fittest.
The difference here is that Covid is eminently survivable, not in any way lethal for the vast majority, and the new vaccines are not vaccines in this traditional sense, but genetic therapies. Although each vaccine – it seems we must use that term – works slightly differently, they all follow the basic mechanism found in this schemata from the CDC: The mRNA in the vaccine enters the cell, prompting production of a version of the spike protein, similar to the one found on the surface of the Covid-19 virus. The presence of this protein in turn prompts the production of antibodies against the real Covid-19 virus – hence, as is purported, artificial immunity.
The claim is made that the spike protein is harmless, and does not travel throughout the body. These claims are now, to put it mildly, disputed as there are reports of it being found in the brain, ovaries, and various other organs. What does that imply? Well, we’re about to find out.
The problem is that none of these treatments has been fully tested, their efficacy uncertain, and their short-and-long term consequences unknown. The complex science of genetics, and more so genetic therapy, are still in their infancy.
The evidence of side effects from these vaccines, many greivous, that is unfolding – at least, what we are permitted to see, and what is not censored by government and the mainstream media – is not good, and may even end up being catastrophic. There has been a strange spike in reports of blood clots and other cardiovascular ‘events’, myocarditis, infant mortality, miscarriages, possible sterility…the list goes on.
The ‘brutality of fact’ is catching up even with the likes of the Globe and Mail, hardly a bastion of conservatism, sort of a Canadian-lite version of the New York Times, as one pro-vaccine physician now questions the need for vaccine mandates. The narrative is breaking down. Proponents of the vaccine are now reduced to touting the alleviation of severe symptoms in the elderly and most vulnerable, a tenuous claim that is difficult to disentangle from the natural attenuation of the virus itself.
If the reader looks further, the evidence seems overwhelming that these vaccines do not seem to protect one from Covid, and may even have an exacerbating effect, with increased illness and mortality; nor do they seem to prevent the transmission of Covid; and, for at least some, they have devastating consequences far worse than Covid, and we’re still early in the early phase of the a posteriori. See here and here – in the latter, note the list of young athletes, mostly male, who have suddenly and mysteriously died, some collapsing mid-stride.
Yes, anecdote is not science, but it is propaedeutic to science, should prompt scientific investigation, for it is how most scientific truths are discovered. The downfall of the miasmic theory of disease transmission began when someone noticed that cases of cholera were concentrated around a local water source, leading to the development of germ theory.
There’s a lot of damage – ‘brutal facts’ – concentrated around these vaccines, that also needs open and scientific investigation.
In the meantime, drop the mandates. They’re bad science, and even worse ethics.