New book — Untangling Trudeau: MAID, COVID, ABORTION, LGBTQ+

 

 

NEW BOOK

I am delighted to announce that my latest book is available at Amazon: Untangling Trudeau: MAID, COVID, ABORTION, LGBTQ+.

As you can see on the book’s cover, my “endorsements” are fictional (though they contain some large nuggets of truth) and humorous. I should add, for the sake of clarity, that the rest of the book is not fictional and not funny. The truths I write about are sad—and disturbing.

This self-published book is a collection of several of my previously-published articles concerning some faulty views of Canada’s soon-to-be former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. More specifically, this book is about Trudeau’s tangled-up thinking on the following four topics:

1. MAID (so-called “medical assistance in dying,” which, on Trudeau’s watch, turned into government promotion of killing instead of actual assistance in living);

2. COVID (via Trudeau’s mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis in Canada, Canadians ended up facing two pandemics: a COVID pandemic and a pandemic of prime ministerial power-mongering and ineptitude);

3. ABORTION (it turns out that Trudeau’s abortion-choice ideology is blind to reason, truth, and actual choice—and is even sexist);

4. LGBTQ+ (this is yet another of Trudeau’s blind-to-reason, blind-to-truth and blind-to-choice ideologies, leaving in its wake of wokeness little actual help for many confused young people).

Of course, many other topics could have been included in a book whose main title is Untangling Trudeau. Examples: Canada’s runaway inflation, wild deficit spending, censorship, carbon tax, housing crisis, SNC-Lavalin scandal, etc. These are important topics, for sure. But, to keep the book’s length manageable, I focus on the four topics listed in my book’s subtitle: MAID, COVID, ABORTION, LGBTQ+. It seems to me that careful truth-seeking thought on these four topics is hugely important but neglected in Canada’s public discourse. Hence, my book.

I hope my book helps Canadian citizens stand on guard intellectually and courageously to keep Canada strong and free. 

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.

Snippets from MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”: Thoughts for Canada’s trucker protest

 

                                           Martin Luther King Jr. in Birmingham City Jail

Snippets from MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”: Thoughts for Canada’s trucker protest

By Hendrik van der Breggen

February 11, 2022

 

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968) wrote his now-famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in 1963. It was a response to critics of his peaceful protests in the U.S. against racism and racial segregation. If there is a document that should be consulted about civil disobedience, MLK’s letter would be it.

Today I was re-reading MLK’s letter, hoping to get some insights into Canada’s trucker protest. Below are some snippets that stood out to me. Whether the reader supports the trucker protest or not, I think MLK’s letter can help us.

Note: I am not saying the COVID-19 mandates are analogous to the horrors of the racism that MLK faced; they aren’t. Rather, I am saying the truckers who are protesting against the injustices of COVID restrictions (I believe there are and have been real injustices) and the critics of such protests—both sides can learn from MLK’s letter. In my view: (a) truckers should heed MLK’s call to remain peaceful and act justly even in the face of vilification (as they have been, as far as I can tell) and even if the state flexes its muscles and resorts to police force (as seems imminent); and (b) persons with political power should heed MLK’s call to listen and negotiate (are you listening, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?).

Snippets from Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (written to fellow clergymen who had publicly expressed criticism of his work):

You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being.

You may well ask, "Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. … So, the purpose of direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was "well timed" according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation.

[T]here are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all." … Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosopher who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.

 

Hendrik’s articles relating to COVID

• Vaccine mandate propaganda?
• Does Canada’s federal government want to destroy Canadians? What happened to the ethical dimensions of public policy?
• Reframing the Covid-19 scapegoat: Trudeau is the culprit. Why wasn't Canada’s health care system built up enough to withstand being overwhelmed?
• We need some healthy scepticism about science and medicine. ‘Follow the science’ is not a scientific attitude
• ‘Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end’: Fallible thoughts about Covid-19 vaccination from an old and tired (and retired) Canadian philosopher
• Let’s wage a Just War on COVID

Vaccine mandate propaganda?

 

                    Cartoon by Peter Kuper, The New Yorker, Facebook post, February 4, 2022

Vaccine mandate propaganda?

By Hendrik van der Breggen

 

On February 4, 2022, The New Yorker presented a cartoon that smacks of vaccine mandate propaganda. The cartoon depicts two astronauts in outer space and one says, as he’s about to take off his helmet, “I’ve had it with the helmet mandates.”

The cartoon seems to be a visual form of argument (by analogy) in favour of COVID vaccine mandates: COVID vaccine mandates are like space helmets—so the COVID vaccine mandates protect us similarly.

But it’s a weak argument. I see (at least) three relevant dissimilarities that render the analogy deeply problematic from a logic/critical thinking point of view.

Relevant dissimilarity #1

Unlike helmetlessness in space, which kills everyone (as far as we know), COVID doesn’t kill everyone (as far as we know). COVID tends to kill primarily those people who are vulnerable: older folks, immunocompromised people, obese people, people with cardiovascular disease—i.e., people with serious underlying medical conditions.

From World Health Organization: “Most people who fall sick with COVID-19 will experience mild to moderate symptoms and recover without special treatment. However, some will become seriously ill and require medical attention.”

Relevant dissimilarity #2

Unlike the fact that we all need helmets to live in outer space, not all of us need vaccines. In the COVID situation some (many?) people can live without “helmets” (vaccines). Again, as stated by WHO, “Most people who fall sick with COVID-19 will experience mild to moderate symptoms and recover without special treatment.” It also turns out that some (many?) people who have had COVID, and have survived, have developed a non-vaccine-induced immunity.

Relevant dissimilarity #3

Unlike helmetlessness in space, a situation in which it’s clear that helmetlessness is the culprit, it’s often not clear that in the COVID situations that COVID is the culprit. Hospitalizations due to COVID have been over-reported by up to 50%, as has been admitted recently by various medical officials (e.g., Dr. Kieran Moore, Ontario’s chief medical officer). And in recent weeks it’s become clear that health officials have failed to make a distinction between deaths with COVID and deaths because of COVID.

These three dissimilarities make the helmet mandate analogy to COVID vaccine mandates faulty.

So, yes, wear your helmet in outer space, but on earth a thinking cap is prolly enough.

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.

 

P.S.  I think the above cartoon of The New Yorker is propaganda for what some have called “vaccine-ism.” For additional thought about the new scientistic ideology called “vaccine-ism,” see Norman Doige’s “Needle Points” on Jordan B. Peterson’s podcast S4: E79. Dr. Norman Doige is a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and author of The Brain That Changes Itself and The Brain’s Way of Healing. He is Executive Director of Health and the Greater Good.  The podcast is a whopping 3.5 hours long. For a link to a transcript of Doige’s paper, which Doige reads on Peterson’s podcast, see here.

P.P.S. Objection: It’s only a cartoon. Reply: Only if you ignore all of the above.

Does Canada’s federal government want to destroy us?

 

                               Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (photo credit: Reuters)

Does Canada’s federal government want to destroy us?

Canadians should think about this question.

By Hendrik van der Breggen

Does Canada’s federal government want to destroy Canadians?

Yes, I confess, the question (and title) serves as click-bait. But I do believe it’s a reasonable question to ask. I have four reasons.

1. As is well known, COVID lockdowns destroy livelihoods and lives. Witness the toll on small businesses. Witness the loss of education that jeopardizes young Canadians’ present as well as future well-being. Witness the general social isolation, resulting in more and more cases of depression, drug abuse, and suicide.

Sure, the government has been promoting vaccines, though mass vaccine mandates are not, in my view, the way to go. I think vaccines are wise, depending on, in discussions with one’s personal physician, whether one has a high-risk profile for COVID or not. I think too, however, that one-size-fits-all vaccine mandates are morally wrong and a violation of charter rights (they violate bodily autonomy and informed consent and smack of government overreach and coercion; for more on my view see here and here).

Vaccine mandates aside, our federal government has been constantly failing in its leadership. How? By, at the get-go, not requiring—and not funding—a nation-wide mega-increase to the low capacity of Canada’s healthcare system so it can handle the COVID pandemic.

In fact, Canada’s healthcare system has pretty much remained static.

In fact, too, instead of increasing healthcare capacity, the federal government has been wasting taxpayers’ dollars (for more on the government’s frivolous spending, see here and here). And, to keep the festering wound from healing, the government has imposed (stupidly) vaccine mandates on much-needed healthcare workers—many of whom have been laid off.

Moreover, our healthcare system’s ongoing lack of capacity serves as an ongoing trigger for more lockdowns. And so the cycle continues, as more livelihoods and lives are destroyed.

It gets worse.

2. As the sometimes deadly, deep freeze of Canadian winter bears down on us, our federal government is unleashing inflation—inflation on the fuel we need to stay warm and on the food we need to eat. For Canadians (many Canadians) living on fixed incomes, and for Canadians (most Canadians) whose incomes don’t rise at the same rate as inflation, this may be disastrous.

And, as if to throw ice onto someone suffering from hypothermia, our federal government is cutting supply lines—life lines—by enforcing a vaccine mandate on cross-border truckers. As Canadian Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre correctly observes, this will leave grocery stores with empty shelves. According to Toronto Sun columnist and True North contributor Anthony Furey, it may also cause shortages in medical supplies.

It gets worse. In the cold darkness lurks a deeper darkness.

3. There is an issue that has taken a backseat in the mainstream news about COVID, but needs to be brought to the forefront of our thinking. That neglected issue is MAiD (medical assistance in dying, which is a euphemism for physicians killing patients).

Our federal government supports the “choice” for MAiD and, in recent years, has been making MAiD more accessible to more and more people by loosening restrictions (so it’s not just for the terminally ill). But, and this is hugely significant, the federal government supports the “choice” for medically-assisted suicide before ensuring that Canadians actually have real options.

It turns out that the vast majority of Canadians don’t have access to good palliative and hospice care. And this was the case even before the pandemic. So our government not only supports MAiD but also, by not increasing health care capacity, which includes palliative and hospice care, our government exacerbates the demand for MAiD. (For more on MAiD, see here.)

Think of the MAiD matter this way: Our federal government sets up conditions so citizens can more readily “choose” to die and, at the same time, by its dismal COVID healthcare response, also creates conditions to encourage that “choice” (conditions such as loss of livelihoods, depression, etc. coupled with lack of palliative care). Clearly, our federal government thinks that in Canada there are some lives not worthy of living.

This is deeply dark, especially if we think about history.

Consider the following passage from Dr. Leo Alexander (1905-1985), medical advisor to the U.S. Chief of Counsel at the Nuremberg Trials, trials in which Nazis were convicted of crimes against humanity (this passage is from Alexander's paper “Medical Science Under Dictatorship,” The New England Journal of Medicine, 241:2, July 14, 1949):

“Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived.”

Dr. Alexander continues: “This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in the category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitatable sick.”

Canada has gone beyond the nonrehabilitatable sick.

I don't believe that there is a Nazi Party on Canada's horizon (thank goodness). But I do believe that some of the deep philosophical principles of what Pope John Paul II (1920-2005) called the Culture of Death are becoming prevalent in our society.

So, again, I ask: Does Canada’s federal government want to destroy Canadians?

Now it gets even darker—and sinister.

4. I’d like to think that any possible destruction of Canada’s citizenry by its federal government isn’t deliberate. A more charitable interpretation is that it’s probably merely the result of stupidity. Remember Prime Minister Trudeau saying that he doesn’t think about monetary policy? Or that the budget will balance itself? Those are in fact stupid things for a prime minister to say, and especially so in view of Canada’s out-of-control debt and increasing inflation. (I’m not insulting the PM here. I’m merely observing some facts.)

Policies have consequences, in other words. And stupid policies can be disastrous. But, as the PM’s response to the COVID pandemic suggests to me, I’m not so sure it’s just stupidity. Bear with me as I explain.

Notice that, historically, disastrous stupidity has also been intertwined with an ideology of hate.

Think of the aforementioned Nazi German state and its crimes against humanity. And think of Stalin’s Holodomor in which millions of people died of starvation because of stupid government policies. Think, too, of Mao’s Cultural Revolution in which millions also died because of stupid government policies.

Significantly, Hitler’s and Stalin’s and Mao’s policies began with various people groups being “othered.” To “other” someone or some group of people is to diminish their dignity and humanity by attributing negative characteristics to them and thereby push them out of the social in-group because, well, they’re not “one of us,” not one of the enlightened, not a comrade, not to be tolerated.

It turns out that Prime Minister Trudeau has “othered” unvaccinated Canadians by insulting them publicly, saying “they are extremists who don’t believe in science, they’re often misogynists, also often racists” (when this is in fact false). The PM has also encouraged Canadians not to tolerate them.

In other words, the PM is scapegoating—and encouraging the scapegoating of—the unvaxxed.

This is serious. Really serious. And terribly, terribly dark.

Indeed, instead of wisely leading Canadians away from divisiveness—what a good leader should do—Prime Minister Trudeau is fanning its flames. He is, in fact, fomenting division and hatred.

This is alarming because, according to a poll reported by the National Post, “Many Canadians are in favour of harsh punishments for the unvaccinated, with 37 per cent saying in a new poll it would be acceptable to deny them publicly-funded health care—and 27 per cent that it would be OK to go as far as a short jail sentence.”

So not only has the “othering” begun, but also it’s being led by—and exacerbated by—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

But where will it end?

Recall that PM Trudeau admires China’s dictatorship and has been soft on condemning China’s Uyghur genocide. Recall, too, that when Cuban president Fidel Castro died, Trudeau praised Castro. Let me say that again: Trudeau praised Castro.

Canada’s Prime Minister praised Castro by saying Castro was a “remarkable” person who “served” and “had tremendous dedication and love for” the Cuban people.

But such praise makes sense only if “serve” and “dedication” and “love” do not preclude murdering thousands of political dissenters by firing squad, putting additional thousands of dissenters into inhumane prison cells, forcing thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children to flee in rickety boats in shark-infested waters while soldiers shoot at them, and then impoverishing the millions who didn't escape.

These were people Castro “othered.”

Canadians should wonder if the stupid policies of Canada’s federal government might also end up being murderous.

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.

 

FOR ADDITIONAL THOUGHT

Past APOLOGIA posts: 

• Reframing the COVID scapegoat: Trudeau is the culprit
• About a vaccine mandate argument: Fallible thoughts from an old and tired (and retired) philosopher
• COVID vaccine mandates: Reflections from a Canadian historian
• Let’s wage a Just War on COVID

 Some True North posts/podcasts: 

• Poll suggests more than a quarter of Canadians think unvaccinated should be imprisoned
• Trudeau lashes out and blames Canadians for his failures
• Clip resurfaces of Trudeau calling unvaccinated “extremists, misogynists, racists”

National Post podcast: 

• The ethical failures in Canada’s pandemic response: Full Comment with Anthony Furey

 

Reframing the COVID scapegoat: Trudeau is the culprit

                       Photo of PM Justin Trudeau being photographed signing photographs of himself (Globe and Mail)

Reframing the COVID scapegoat: Trudeau is the culprit

By Hendrik van der Breggen

November 29, 2021

During the COVID pandemic, Canadians have often been told this: Our public health care system is being overwhelmed.

I don’t dispute this reality, but I ask why.

Why has the capacity of Canada’s health care system not been built up enough so as not to be overwhelmed?

I ask because it strikes me as odd that in our war against COVID—an ongoing war of nearly two years—we have not re-directed resources to the war effort as in wars past.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would have us blame unvaccinated Canadians. But I think his narrative lacks insight.

I submit that the ongoing status of our healthcare system being overwhelmed is due primarily to our federal government’s mishandling of our tax dollars. It’s Trudeau who is the culprit.

Here is my reason: PM Trudeau has been engaging in wasteful, frivolous tax spending instead of directing those misspent tax dollars to the war effort.

Wasteful, frivolous tax spending?

Yup.

Lots of examples could be listed, but space permits two.

Example 1. A few weeks ago, our PM and his entourage (276 people) travelled in jets and limousines to attend a climate conference across the Atlantic—a conference that could have been done by Zoom.

Besides the hypocrisy of polluting the world via fuel-guzzling jets and limousines, this trip wasted millions of taxpayers’ dollars. Millions that could have—should have—gone to hospitals.

Reminder: We are in the midst of a pandemic, and our healthcare system is being overwhelmed.

Example 2. Last September the PM called an election during the fourth wave of our COVID pandemic. The election was unnecessary, but the PM saw an opportunity for more power. The election, which changed nothing, cost taxpayers 610 million dollars. $610,000,000. That’s a lot of money.

Reminder: We are in the midst of a pandemic, and our healthcare system is being overwhelmed.

Let’s pause and ponder the $610M election cost. In Canada there are 150 Liberal Members of Parliament. This means each Liberal MP cost us $4,000,000.

Surely, though, a $4M payment to each of 150 hospitals across Canada would have been more appropriate. Or imagine 75 hospitals each getting an $8M payment. Or 50 hospitals each getting a $12M payment.

That’s just two examples. The upshot is that in our war against COVID the federal government has missed huge opportunities to increase the number of hospital beds, ICUs, nurses, and doctors across Canada.

For many Canadians, this has been deadly. Not only did COVID take its toll, but so did non-COVID illnesses (due to missed cancer screenings, surgeries, etc.).

The moral fact is that wasteful, frivolous federal tax spending should long ago have been cut and those tax dollars—millions upon millions of life-saving dollars—should have been re-directed to our (the taxpayers’) hospitals. Sure, make vaccines available, but also increase the capacity and threshold of readiness of the health care system. We are in a pandemic are we not?

There’s more.

What about other costs of not increasing healthcare capacity, costs triggered by political policies to cope with the healthcare system’s ongoing status of being overwhelmed?

That is to ask: What about the cost of lockdowns? What about the cost of destroyed businesses, destroyed livelihoods, and destroyed people (by suicides and drug overdoses)? What about lost education?

And what about the PM’s slithery-slippery slide into political authoritarianism by pushing vaccine mandates that smack of coercion and crass government overreach?

Canadians are facing two pandemics: a COVID pandemic and a pandemic of prime ministerial power-mongering and ineptitude.

Whom should we blame for our healthcare system’s inappropriately low threshold-of-readiness resulting in its near-constant state of being overwhelmed? Whom should we blame for the life-destroying consequences?

The appropriate scapegoat is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba. Dr. van der Breggen is double vaccinated, and he is inclined to think vaccinations are wise (depending on, in discussions with one’s doctor, whether one has a high-risk profile for COVID or not), and he is skeptical about the wisdom and efficacy of COVID vaccine mandates.

Addendum: Objection and reply (December 15, 2021)

Re: “Reframing the COVID Scapegoat: Trudeau is the Culprit”

Some readers of my article have set out variations of the following as a criticism: In Canada health care is a jurisdiction of the provinces, and in Manitoba the Conservatives have a history of making cuts to and weakening the health care system.

There is truth to the criticism, but I think the criticism misses the point of my article. Since I am the author, permit me to explain what I think the article’s point is. Here goes.

Trudeau has publicly blamed the unvaxxed for Canada’s healthcare system’s state of overwhelm (without, I would add, acknowledging the essential services provided by our many unvaxxed heroes over the last two years). By pushing his blame-the-unvaxxed narrative, however, Trudeau sidesteps the uncomfortable truth (uncomfortable for him) that because HE is Canada’s leader in the present war against Covid, HE is ultimately—and PRIMARILY—responsible for Canada’s response to the Covid crisis. Again: HE is Canada’s PRIME MINISTER, so HE should be LEADING us in the war against Covid.

How? By not letting provinces let their critical health services be overwhelmed (especially if they were or are not in a state of readiness) and by not misspending millions (probably billions) of tax dollars that should have gone to health services (especially in those provinces that needed it most).

My bit about not letting provinces let their critical health services be overwhelmed fits well with an annual report recently released by Dr. Theresa Tam, who is Canada’s chief public health officer. An article in CBC (December 13, 2021) states the following: “In that document [the annual report], Tam says the public health system is ‘stretched dangerously thin’ after two years of the COVID-19 crisis and a parallel opioid epidemic. To address some of the system's shortcomings, Tam said governments have to earmark more money for public health to bring an end to what she calls the ‘boom and bust’ cycle—a funding pattern where money flows during a time of crisis only to be clawed back when the situation stabilizes. Tam said money should be dedicated to recruiting and retaining health care workers, who have faced challenging working conditions during this pandemic.”

I suspect things may not have been differently handled under different prime ministers. And I would criticize them, too, if they did what Trudeau did. It remains, though, that: (a) Trudeau is our present prime minister; (b) he is scapegoating the unvaccinated; (c) he has wasted an awful lot of taxpayer money that could have—should have—gone to support hospitals, give raises and time off to overworked doctors and nurses, hire and train more staff, plus increase ICU beds, etc.; (d) his irresponsibility has hurt people who suffered from Covid directly or indirectly (by postponed treatments and surgeries); and (e) his irresponsibility has hurt people who suffered from the negative and even deadly effects of lockdowns—lockdowns triggered by the lack of readiness of Canada’s public health care system which Trudeau should have made ready.

Like pretty much everyone else in Canada, I would like to see the Covid situation change for the better. I believe it begins with Canadians demanding our Prime Minister be a better leader and with Canadians not permitting him to pass blame for his poor leadership to Canadians who have reasonable concerns about vaccines (and vaccine mandates).

Healthy skepticism about science and medicine

 

Healthy skepticism about science and medicine

Hendrik van der Breggen

October 5, 2021

 

In the past I’ve written about reasonable skepticism about radical skepticism (I argue it’s not reasonable to be radically skeptical, i.e., we can know some truths), but today I would like to make a brief case for reasonable skepticism about science and medicine.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for a radical or absolute skepticism about science and medicine; rather, I’m simply wishing to encourage a reasonable pause concerning science and medicine—a healthy skepticism.

To be clear, too, I think science and medicine are awesome. Science is a wonderful tool for understanding the goings-on in the physical world, and medicine has helped us immensely to be healthy. I am grateful for science and medicine.

Don't forget history

But I think history is awesome, too. The study of history helps us understand the goings-on in the past. We learn from the past, after all. And, as is well known, it’s wise not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

History, it seems to me, should provide at least some reasonable pause on contemporary claims of science and medicine. By reasonable pause, I mean (again) a healthy skepticism. Not an absolute or dogmatic or radical skepticism, but just taking some time for some caution for when science and medicine are promoted seemingly as gospel truth (as when we are told repeatedly nowadays to “follow the science,” as if taking some time for caution is anti-truth or anti-science or just plain dumb).

Why do I say this? Here are some of my reasons—reasons from history.

A few hundred years ago in science, it was once considered “settled” that the earth was the centre of our solar system. But now, thanks to Copernicus and Galileo and many other scientists, we realize this is not true (i.e., the sun is the centre).

Deadly medical advice

Not long ago, smoking cigarettes was considered fine—I remember advertisements featuring doctors promoting cigarettes. But now we realize that smoking has close causal connections with cancer.

Not long ago, too, the drug thalidomide was considered good and safe medicine for helping pregnant women deal with morning sickness. But now we realize that thalidomide caused deformities in thousands of children.

More recently, surgical “transitions” from female to male (and vice versa) were considered by many doctors to be safe and healthy. But now there is growing evidence this isn’t true. (See, for example, Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. Shrier argues that surgical transitions have serious harms.)

Also, abortion has been (and still is, sadly) considered “essential health care.” But now there is growing evidence that this isn’t true. (See, for example, my article Is Abortion ‘Health Care’? In this article I present evidence for thinking that well over 90% of abortions are not needed medically.)

What else are doctors lying about?

Moreover, in very recent history, medical groups such as Canada’s College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) have undermined public trust. For example, consider MAiD (“medical assistance in dying,” a euphemism for doctors killing patients). Doctors in Ontario who are now practicing MAiD are falsely reporting cause of death on death certificates. Indeed, blatant lying is promoted—required—by the CPSO.

My evidence: According to the CPSO website on MAiD: “When completing the death certificate physicians: a. must list the illness, disease, or disability leading to the request for MAID as the cause of death; and b. must not make any reference to MAID or the drugs administered on the death certificate.” (Bold in original. Reference: See #23 of CPSO on MAiD.)

Again: Blatant lying is promoted—required—by the CPSO. Alarmingly, when it comes to MAiD, lying has become a norm of practice for the CPSO. A reasonable question for Canadians to ask is this: What else are doctors lying about?

Yes indeed: What else are doctors lying about?

When political correctness determines medical correctness

Consider the origins of the Coronavirus. At first we were told by medical authorities that it originated in a wet market in Wuhan (and Facebook disallowed views to the contrary), but now it looks like it may have been a human made virus that was leaked out of a Wuhan lab (a lab funded by the US National Institutes of Health).

Or consider Covid-19 anti-lockdown and other protests. Anti-lockdown protests were considered threats to public health because of Covid. But then, other protests occurred.

The New York Times reports Catherine L. Troisi, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of Texas, saying the following: “I certainly condemned the anti-lockdown protests at the time, and I'm not condemning the [anti-racism] protests now, and I struggle with that… I have a hard time articulating why that is OK.” Indeed. Apparently some protests are more politically correct—and thus medically correct—than others.

The New York Times goes on to quote a letter signed by 1,300 epidemiologists and health workers: “As public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings [i.e., anti-racist protests] as risky for Covid-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health.”

Go figure.

The self-correction process takes time

Yes, the argument can be made that science and medicine are self-correcting as more data come in and as more investigations occur. This is important and good, truly.

But, as history strongly suggests, the self-correction process takes time. In the meantime, when it comes to contemporary claims of science and medicine a pause for some reasonable doubt—healthy skepticism—is appropriate.

---

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosopher who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada. One of his interests is and has been the history and philosophy of science. He is double vaccinated, and is inclined to think vaccinations are wise (depending on, in discussions with one’s doctor, whether one has a high-risk profile for Covid or not), but when it comes to Covid vaccine mandates (i.e., one-size-fits-all mandates), he thinks some reasonable doubt—healthy skepticism—is most appropriate.

---

For additional thought: 

Byram W. Bridle, PhD, Associate Professor of Viral Immunology, Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH

Brownstone Institute, Natural Immunity and Covid-19: Twenty-Nine Scientific Studies to Share with Employers, Health Officials, and Politicians

Emergency of Under-Treatment – Panel of 8 prominent doctors and scientists say earlier treatment is the only way out of health emergency (45 minute video)

Covid vaccine mandates: Reflections from a Canadian historian

 

      “The Inquisition Tribunal” (1812-1819) by Francisco Goya 

Covid vaccine mandates: Reflections from a Canadian historian

Re-think and act accordingly—lest we be judged by our descendants and found wanting. 

 

By Patricia Janzen Loewen, guest columnist

September 16, 2021

 

Until September 6, 2021, I was employed by Providence University College as Assistant Professor of History.  I submitted my resignation on the morning of September 3rd because of my objection to their vaccine requirement for students and employees.  I am grateful for the years I had there, and am thankful for the opportunity I had to teach.  These are treasured gifts that I received from Providence. 

My decision to resign is based on the teaching I did in courses such as Western Civilizations and History of Christianity.  In these survey classes I taught again and again about the instances of forced conversion that occurred at various times and places in history. One of the most notorious of such examples is the Inquisition. 

The Inquisition was not a single event but rather an on-going practice of ridding society of people who held to dangerous wrong beliefs. 

Significantly, such people were given the opportunity to recant through a series of increasingly more oppressive measures, including social stigmatization, imprisonment, torture, and execution.  Those with power used this power in an attempt to forcibly convert people to right belief. 

As I’ve thought about the Inquisition, I have observed that the inquisitors demonstrated two notable characteristics: first, a complete confidence that they knew the truth, and, second, love. 

Some might be surprised to see love as characteristic of an inquisitor, but I think it is actually a key trait.  You have to love someone intensely in order to go to such great lengths to save them from destruction.  You have to love society deeply in order to keep the contagion of wrong belief from spreading from the individual to others.  You have to love both individuals and society so intensely that you will use your power to do whatever it takes to forcibly bring someone to right belief. 

Of course there’s fear too, but if fear were the dominant emotion, you could simply eliminate someone with wrong belief without all the hard and gruesome work of forcible conversion. 

What worries me about our society at this moment is that a majority of people seem willing to allow institutions and businesses to act as inquisitors—to deprive people of ordinary social engagements (restaurants, gyms, museums, etc.), to deprive people of employment, and to deprive people of the opportunity of education—in order to force them into “right belief.”  What is today’s right belief? Get vaccinated. 

I have recently heard someone say with passion that “the loving thing to do” is to get vaccinated. I suggest that while vaccination might be “a” loving thing to do, the use of the definite article (“the” in “the loving thing to do”) makes two unhelpful implications.  First, that not getting vaccinated is unloving, and second that vaccination is the only thing that can be done. 

I believe both implications need to be contested, but I shall not do so here.   Rather, I would ask this of those who support requiring vaccination for employment or education: In what way do you see using your power to forcibly convert those who disagree with you as loving?  If your answer is that doing so is for the good of the individual and society as a whole, I beg you to at least think about how this answer would have been the same as an inquisitor’s answer.  Is this really how you want your world to work?  Do you really think that this kind of behaviour will have positive long-term consequences? 

The question for me was, therefore, do I want to be a part of an institution that uses its power (to provide or deprive people of education and employment) to compel people to “right belief”? 

I do not know whether the vaccine is as safe and effective as the government has told us it is.  I’m not qualified to make an adjudication on this point.  I am an historian, not a scientist.  What I do know from the history of science is that science can be (and often has been) mistaken.  And what I do know from teaching about forced conversions for many years is that I don’t want to be part of society that condones such behaviour.  The Inquisition could not have conducted its activities if the majority of people did not agree with and perhaps even be grateful for their actions. And so, rather than blame my former place of employment, I beg all of my fellow citizens: Please re-think your support of the forcible conversion of others. 

I appreciate that you may believe that you absolutely know the truth of the matter and be filled with love for the vulnerable.  But to pursue this direction may very well lead us down some very dark paths, as history strongly—alarmingly—suggests. 

I believe that the way forward is through dialogue with everyone, regardless of vaccine status.  The path forward rejects the violence of exclusion and deprivation.  Re-think and act accordingly—lest we be judged by our descendants and found wanting.  Lest we destroy our democracy, our nation, our neighbours, and ultimately ourselves. 

 

Patricia Janzen Loewen, PhD, was, until recently, Assistant Professor of History at Providence University College (Manitoba, Canada).

 

For additional thought: 

About a vaccine mandate argument: Fallible thoughts from an old and tired (and retired) philosopher

About a vaccine mandate argument: Fallible thoughts from an old and tired (and retired) philosopher

 

About a vaccine mandate argument: Fallible thoughts from an old and tired (and retired) philosopher

By Hendrik van der Breggen

September 15, 2021

 

Last week, U.S. President Joe Biden defended his Covid19 vaccine mandate with this statement: “The unvaccinated overcrowd our hospitals, they’re overrunning emergency rooms and intensive care units, leaving no room for someone with a heart attack or pancreatitis or cancer.” 

In Canada, the argument is similar and oft-heard: We should require vaccinations because our hospitals and ICUs are being overwhelmed (primarily by the unvaccinated), causing those who need treatment for other medical issues to be neglected. 

In other words, the unvaccinated are causing grave danger to others by using scarce medical resources, so we should require—mandate—Covid19 vaccines.  Or else. 

Or so the argument goes. 

I find this argument puzzling. 

First, two clarifications. 

(1) As the #MeToo movement has made clear, an unwanted touch is a serious infringement on bodily autonomy and freedom. By implication, it seems to me, so too is an unwanted injection (and perhaps even an unwanted swab pushed deep—really deep—up one’s nose). 

(2) Coercion includes, among other things, the threat or duress of possible job loss. Such threats may be presented benignly as an “option.” Or as a “reasonable” encroachment of Charter rights in times of a pandemic.

Okay, let’s think. 

A piece of the puzzle that seems to go unnoticed in the above argument has to do with the apparently static health care resources that are, we are told, being stretched to their limits in our war against Covid. 

I don’t doubt the resources are being stretched. But it’s the oft-assumed static part that I find problematic. 

It’s odd to me that in our war against Covid—an ongoing war—we continue with “peacetime” health care resources. It seems to me that we (as a society) should re-direct resources to the war effort in a huge and unprecedented way. 

It also seems to me that we should not quash precious hard-won freedoms paid for in other wars by the blood of our forebears and guaranteed by Canada’s Charter (or the U.S. Constitution). Indeed, if we take Canada’s Charter seriously, such quashing could be illegal, and, if we take #MeToo seriously, immoral. 

So instead of possibly infringing on bodily autonomy and freedom by embracing coerced vaccine injections (and coerced eye-watering, bodily invasive nasal swabs) maybe we should first be making huge efforts to increase significantly our health care resources. Efforts to pursue the latter should be exhausted before we embrace the former. 

In other serious health matters—and there are many—we ensure health care is available, though we advise (i.e., persuade with reason, not coercion) that people choose not to engage in behaviours with high health risks. 

I’m thinking of the health concerns arising from obesity, sexually transmitted diseases, smoking, excess alcohol drinking, not taking prescribed medicines, diabetics who don’t manage diet properly, cervical cancer patients who didn’t get Pap smears, etc. 

Our health care system is there for them, thank goodness. And we don’t coerce them to change their behaviours by taking away their jobs. Rather, we persuade with reason. 

We don’t coerce, yet we care. Basic healthcare is a human right, after all, for all. 

So why treat differently a minority of generally good and decent citizens (included are some of my family members and friends, some with PhDs) who have serious and perhaps legitimate concerns about Covid vaccines and thus haven’t yet chosen to be vaccinated? Why take the coercive authoritarian route via vaccine mandate? 

Indeed, won’t taking the coercive authoritarian route make those who are vaccine hesitant even more hesitant? 

Reasonable persuasion, not coercion, would seem to be the way forward. The fact is that intelligent people of good will have different thresholds for being reasonably persuaded. A free and open society, it seems to me, should recognize this. 

Also in a free and open society, differences of view and debates should be encouraged to flourish, so if a view is correct then knowing that it’s correct will help the rest of us, and if it’s incorrect then that knowledge will also help the rest of us. (I’m pretty sure I’m following philosopher John Stuart Mill on this matter; see his 1859 essay “On Liberty.”) 

If we allow debates and open inquiry to flourish, then truth instead of mere power will prevail—and, as a bonus, conspiracy theories will tend to die off instead of get reinforced. 

At this juncture, one might object that, unlike those suffering from obesity and unlike others who engage in high risk health behaviours, the unvaxxed may spread Covid19. 

In reply, it helps to keep in mind that it’s the unvaxxed (mostly older folks, or persons with chronic medical conditions, or those with compromised immune systems) who are primarily at risk. And it’s their choice not to be vaxxed, so it’s their risk. 

Moreover, the vaxxed—nearly 80% of Canadians aged 12+ are fully vaccinated—are not at risk, or at least not at as great a risk. And they might transmit Covid, too. 

Think of it this way. For me to be concerned for intelligent adults to such an extent that they must give up their consent and human agency concerning what happens to them because of my concern for them—this seems to undermine my concern for them. It strikes me as a case of me being, well, a wee bit bossy. Maybe even imperialistic. 

Also, one might object: Aren’t the unvaxxed selfish? In my experience the answer is no. The majority of the unvaxxed whom I know are concerned not just for themselves but for all of us. They continue to have questions that are relevant not only to themselves but also to others. Some of their questions are fueled by past abuses of science: Remember thalidomide (a drug touted as safe for pregnant women but resulted in severe birth defects in thousands of children)? Remember the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (which violated the basic ethical principle of respect for autonomy of African Americans and harmed them by not treating their syphilis)? 

And the unvaxxed I know are vigilant about our—not just their—freedoms. And they are willing to risk not only their own health (think of nurses who work with Covid patients but refuse vaccination) but also marginalization and vilification from the larger community. This doesn’t sound selfish to me. 

It’s important, then, to pause before we unleash the might of government coercion onto the unvaxxed minority, a minority of our fellow citizens, of whom some are our family, friends, and neighbours. 

To me, the coercive authoritarian route seems unfair, discriminatory, and illegal. (I think it’s illegal because it’s an infringement of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, since plausible avenues and efforts to attain the Charter’s “reasonable limits” in Section 1 which justify violations of bodily autonomy/ security of the person guaranteed in Section 7 have not yet been exhausted; more on this below.) 

As one of my history professor friends tells me, the coercive authoritarian route historically has had very serious health risks and danger, too, and on a massive societal scale. And this is especially so, when, paradoxically, it is justified in terms of citizens’ safety and good. 

C. S. Lewis warns: “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity [greed, avarice] may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” 

So to ensure that seriously ill people do not die—especially those needing cancer treatments, surgeries, and such—let’s significantly and rapidly increase (double? triple?) our health care resources. 

How? 

For starters, Canadians could—and should—demand governments cut frivolous spending. 

I’m thinking we should cut wasteful tax spending on things like the following: giant boat-sized yellow rubber ducks, our prime minister’s $1.6 million family trip to India (complete with personal celebrity chef), our federal government’s $8.1 million temporary hockey rink in front of Ottawa’s parliament buildings (on which only relatively few skated), etc. 

And what about the $610 million waste—Rex Murphy correctly calls it a sham—of calling a federal election during a pandemic? 

And maybe we could say yes to some pipelines that would generate huge revenues and increase tax-dollar funding of our hospitals and ICUs? 

Surely, we all should first be championing the redirection of large amounts of tax money to super-fund our hospitals. That would be a reasonable third alternative to the false dichotomy of either (a) coercive vaccination or (b) people dying needlessly because of a shortage of medical resources. 

It would also put a check on government overreach. 

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who is double vaccinated, is inclined to think vaccinations are wise (especially if one has a high-risk profile for Covid19), but probably wouldn’t have gotten vaccinated if he were mandated to do so by government (because he has studied history as well as philosophy). Van der Breggen thinks the vaccine mandate issue not only is a puzzle with difficult parts to piece together but also a puzzle with moving parts. His mind isn’t as clear as it used to be, yet he’s pretty sure he sees darkness on the horizon.

For additional thought: 

Patricia Janzen Loewen, “Covid vaccine mandates: Reflections from a Canadian historian”

James Bryson,  “A Liberal Dose of Compulsory Confusion”