During the recent health crisis, countless restrictions in the name of science have modulated human behaviour. The justification? To prevent the spread of infection and protect others. After all, it was the only thing to do in the face of the emergency and the arguments put forward were very logical and apparently sensible. The result? A successful change in behaviour, proving the thesis that no human being would be able to refuse to sacrifice themselves for a good cause, even more so if presented under the scientific narrative as an authority. However, there has never been scientific unanimity, and the evidence to the contrary is growing, namely the ineffectiveness of prevention through the use of masks and the risks of the experimental inoculation treatment applied (mRNA vaccines).
Already at the start of the pandemic in 2020, death figures from COVID-19 were widely publicised, while death and complications from the vaccine continue to be downplayed. The percentages of SARS-Cov-2 infection, including asymptomatic cases, have been repeatedly published, while the serious side effects of the injection continue to be widely questioned. I well remember evaluating the absolute public numbers of deaths in 2020, and not understanding why there was such a poignant narrative, if the overall numbers (from any cause), compared to previous years, hadn’t changed. At least not everywhere. A few years on, there seem to be more and more reports of an increase in sudden death and aggressive cancer, although we don’t see the same willingness to promote an urgent response in the face of the correlation with vaccination rates and periodic boosters that are still encouraged.
Evidence of serious consequences following vaccination began to appear rapidly through individual case reports, but was ostensibly questioned or ignored. It happened by ‘science’ itself, which should evaluate any symptoms and conditions, rare or not, under scientific methodological rigour and impartiality. It seems convenient to ignore the clinical case that is of no interest to the narrative that has been chosen to prove it, considering it a source of evidence of lesser weight when we know from science itself that, in the absence of larger, controlled studies, the clinical case and the opinion of specialists are the sources of information to be considered.
From the series of cases and the first samples, ‘science’ designed models that sought to indicate the course that the infectious disease of the pandemic might take. This could be good, because forecasting promotes prevention, and can be useful for public policy, provided that due care is taken. But mathematical modelling, which seeks to simplify true variants in order to understand phenomena, has ended up becoming stronger than the facts. A good model needs data, longitudinal analyses of cause and effect depend on time, and inferences based on cross-sectional analysis can stem from multiple associated factors. Quantitative data cannot be absolutely separated from particular cases, especially when you have a new situation that benefits from the individual narrative of these new cases. What’s more, the wealth of detail in each patient’s history cannot be completely simplified and replaced by generic references when it comes to diagnosis and individualised treatment.
A health crisis that has exposed the chronic crisis in health. This crisis is presented, among many other facets, by paradoxes:
- 1) diagnoses and treatments applied to unique human beings, but based on general sample content;
- 2) confidence in medicine based on scientifically proven evidence, disregarding the possible fragility of the basic tool of research, which is statistical probability;
- 3) preference for what is new or recent, as opposed to old formulas with more predictable results (such as repositioned drugs); and
- 4) the search for population strategies, with little being said about individual impact and particular cases. For every 1% who suffers from something, their suffering is 100% real.
As a result, the overall quantitative vision and the general narrative constructed eclipses evidence that shows the opposite, jeopardising individual health action and curtailing the particular freedom of choice to participate in both research protocols and newly developed elective procedures that concern one’s own personal condition. And everything is always spoken in the name of science, as a defined entity, which is not scientific at all. Just dogma and idolatry.
Science is built on the refutation of hypotheses, critical thinking, periods of paradigm crisis, and not on the definitive affirmation of certain truths that could justify the imposition of measures based on certainties. Good science depends on time; it is built on questions and doubts, on probabilities and on observing what has been done (without drawing conclusions about what has not), and cannot become a matter of faith and tyranny. Scientific conclusions open up the possibility of new explorations and the investigation of theories based on the confirmation of hypotheses, and are not crystallised determinations. And the more something scientific has been tested and observed, enduring over time, the greater the possibility of considering it reliable and secure, making old knowledge more tangible.
