Talk not division
Dr Brett Forge (Gaz 24/1) presents a long letter in response to my expression of concern about the way people blandly appeal to “the science” to justify their beliefs.
However it fails to address the core of my argument, which is simply that when a medical scientist like Dr Fauci makes contradictory statements, which of these comments reflect “the science”?
All that Dr Forge can muster up in response is to “suspect” that there is a “misquote”, or a comment “taken out of context”. With regard to Bill Gates’ blatant contradictions, Dr Forge says that Gates is “not an expert on COVID or vaccinations”, but everyone knows that Gates is the public face of an organisation that is at the heart of the vaccination program, and he does therefore represent “the science” upon which it bases its work and decisions.
We are still left with the problem: which of his comments represents his organisation’s “science” accurately? Dr Forge’s own comments appear to me to support the more negative scientific view when he says that his vaccinated patients are just 10 per cent to 40 per cent less likely to transmit COVID. Worst case scenario just 10 per cent?
That’s pretty cold comfort for those hoping their vaccination will prevent them transmitting the disease.
I wonder how people feel about that after being coerced by government into taking the jab. The fact is that our present coercive approach to vaccination in our country is a matter of concern for many, and those concerns are not answered by barely veiled abuse of those who are worried at what is happening.
I will admit, I am upset by reports I have heard about reactions to vaccinations. I am also disturbed by the lack of reporting on these adverse reactions in the mainline media.
Contrary to Dr Forge’s suggestion, me saying that I am “wary” of appeals to “the science” is not a matter of “identity politics”. To be honest, the issues associated with our vaccination program are too serious to be trivialised by such a response. We need to be talking and really listening to each other.
Nothing less than our nation’s welfare is at stake. Again, I thank the editor for allowing this issue to be discussed.
Keith Gillam, Drouin