I differentiate between what is true and false on the basis of evidence. Everybody does this. Any other method is not a quest for truth. And if truth isn’t absolute, you cannot possibly hope to make sense even of the question “What is True?” We live in a society where everyone pretty much has access to the same information. I still find it rather amusing when some people argue against the validity of an argument because “you must have found that on the internet”. Every published piece of information is now available on the internet, from medical journals to legal decisions to entire university degrees. So, we have no excuse not to dig beneath the surface when information is presented to us, to weight the evidence of whether the information is true, or accurate, or if it is false, or inaccurate.
However, even with all of the information available, it’s not always easy to discern between the degrees of accuracy and inaccuracy in any subject, and I don’t know if there’s ever been a topic that has brought this truth to the fore as much as Covid-19. There are reams of medical information from highly qualified professionals, who don’t agree on everything! And this is as it should be. It’s how science advances, and how progress is made. Unfortunately, the recent trend is away from allowing that process of disagreement, and different interpretation, to interplay towards finding more accuracy and more truth. And this is largely because of government interference and censorship, which cascades through the media, and finally through social media as well. Anything that is outside the governmental narrative is stifled, black-listed and thrown down the memory-hole. Some 30,000 leading medical professionals signed on to the Great Barrington Declaration, and yet the mainstream did all it could, unsuccessfully, thankfully, to black-hole it. This type of information censoring has caused a tremendous regress in the ability for people to weigh the evidence and discover what is true/accurate and false/inaccurate, because the great preponderance of allowable opinion is controlled and skewed so heavily to one side, that great time and effort must be expended by people to even find and properly weigh evidence. Most people don’t take the time to even scratch below the surface, and simply swallow the “official narrative”, because in doing so they will always feel safe among the majority. However, science can only ever advance when ideas can be freely and openly challenged. Those days are over, it seems, for now.
One of the guiding principles that I try to apply when I approach an issue, especially a controversial one, is to say, “Does this issue point towards more freedom, or less freedom?” We must always move towards freedom because within a free market and with free individuals everyone has more wealth, better health, and we can serve each other to provide what the other needs. As it stands now we are indoctrinated into thinking we are dirty weapons of mass destruction and are alienated from family, friends, co-workers, and society in general. Because we have been forced to move away from freedom we are poorer, sicker, and not getting the help or relationships that we all need. And that’s why, for many issues around Covid-19, and laws, mandates, and medical issues, I am guided by that underlying libertarian principle. That is not a popular principle, because it has long since been eclipsed, in every facet of our lives, by safety. This is tragic and ruinous on so many levels. The underlying principle of freedom will always give room for the person to make their own decision, including decisions about their own safety.
That is why, despite this march that I organized being a Freedom March, the entirety of social media and most of corporate media, completely misconstrued our purpose as somehow being about masks, and particularly, anti-mask. But freedom is about letting you wear your mask if you are so inclined, or social distancing, or quarantining yourself after a flight abroad, or whatever other measures are now being viciously extracted from the realm of personal freedom, into the realm of government diktat, under the guise of safety. And while I am perfectly aware and cognisant that my freedoms may not infringe upon your freedoms, I make my decision with a great deal of care and thought about precisely that, and do a great deal of research to make sure that I am operating within the proper understanding of freedom. I am not responsible for what others do with their freedom, or whether they want to abuse their freedom, but I encourage everyone to stop the mud-slinging. This infantile, vacuous mindset that “you’re not following the science!” is spouted by people on both sides of every issue. Yet, as I have already noted, the world’s leading scientists are themselves not in agreement on any of the issues we are facing with Covid-19, and the only scientists and medical professionals that are allowed airtime (as they stand next to the politicians!), are the ones who will advance the political narrative. And just as the separation of the church and state must be upheld, I believe that medical freedom from the state is a crucial step in advancing medicine, and advancing freedom.