Tuesday, October 12, 2021

A Middle Ground Position on the COVID Vaccine

 Dear Fellow Human,


There are a lot of things up for discussion when it comes to COVID-19 and all of its associated sub-topics.  Disagreement abounds, with most taking a hardline position at polar opposite viewpoints.  Fair enough.  That is the world we live in.  In just a moment, I will circle back to one such hardline position that I take squarely in the middle ground, primarily about the COVID vaccine.  


If you have followed my writing over the years, you will understand how the dominance of polarization in our society might get under my skin, I self-awaringly say with a genuine smile.  My social media page’s likely top repeated phrase may well be “all or nothing thinking is the enemy of progress.”  At some point though, you just have to admit that it is what it is and pray to God that we are in the midst of an era that will eventually give way to mass consideration of the shades of gray on how to think, how to be, how to live, etc.  


Somehow, we keep finding ways to discriminate against each other.  That trend needs to stop, and the stopping needs to start with the push for mandatory COVID (and other) vaccines.  Let me state clearly that I get it if your initial response is that it is not discriminatory to ask people to do something that keeps other people safe.  My reply to you is a simple reminder of an undeniable truth: science is not a belief system, mandatory vaccines are based on a belief system, and it is a violation of our human and governmental rights to be forced to take any vaccine.  If I may paraphrase a divine quote you might know, science is patient, science is ever-expanding.  It does not discriminate, it is not righteous, it is not fixed or finite.  Science constantly seeks and rejoices with truth.  It is knowledge, and therefore infinite.  


The COVID vaccine has no established place in science, any more than do masking, social distancing, or lockdowns as protective measures.  It is based on theory, not fact.  Science is heavily open to interpretation because it is constantly changing.  Smoking was good for you, spraying DDT on children’s skin was okay, heroin was promoted in popular magazines, and adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals are between the first and third leading causes of death in America, according to which medical journal you read.  All of those things are based on a certain brand of science (see experimental, laboratory).  It is important for this subject to acknowledge that reality.  


Personally, I am most interested in why we base healthcare on studying sick people instead of healthy people; for example, the 219 million people worldwide who have been diagnosed with COVID instead of the 7 billion people who have not.  It is easier to keep well people healthy than get sick people well, a statement made in reference to a Dr. BJ Palmer quote reflecting lifestyle choices such as spine and nervous system integrity, nutrition, attitude, exercise, and overall wellness.  Hypothesis: dedicate 5% of the resources spent on the vaccine to simply teaching people how to be healthy and the population’s health will so drastically change that current vaccine conclusions can be reassessed.  


Look, I get it.  It would be quite predictable for this to devolve into the latest episode of the hit 2020 sitcom “Throwing Numbers at Each Other,” and make no mistake that there are hours upon hours of research to read on both sides of that argument (née discussion).  It has been 19 months since that dynamic flooded our lives and our society remains a powder keg.  So, let us try something different.  


Science flows both ways, at the very least.  Acknowledge this truth, for truth has no agenda.  Then, let us review the Nuremberg Code, which is the basis for the informed consent that mandatory vaccines directly violate.  Regarding ethics, the Nuremberg Code states that the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.  The United States of America grants us the rights to life and liberty, among other things, and this does not exclude informed consent.  


To quote Evelyne Shuster, PhD’s piece in the New England Journal of Medicine, “This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and

should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”


Humans have proven to irrationalize out of fear countless times throughout our history.  It is in our nature to do so, and is therefore excusable.  However, it is inexcusable not to expose the people to both sides of the coin so that rational, more thoughtful decisions can be made, too.  Once informed consent is bypassed, that is it, ladies and gentlemen.  It will be the literal end of the world as we knew it.  Power, not free will, shall be the dominant force in health science.  


Therefore, it is this simple: you do what you think is best based on what you have researched and who you trust, and let thy neighbor do the same.  Amen.  


Thinking good things for you,


Dr. Chad


1 comment:

  1. Yay Chad! I agree with you 100 percent! What a great article! I wish it could be read by many more people! I look at all that is happening as what the Bible predicts whag will happen in the last days! If you listen to David Jeremiah's sermons, he is preaching on this very thing!! God bless you! Keep telling the truth! You do it so well! ❤

    ReplyDelete