Ethical Bankruptcy and Western University
or the loss of academic integrity in the age of COVID hysteria
Plato, Protagoras (translation David Horan)
Being aware of his impetuousness and excitability, I asked: well, what has that to do with you? Protagoras hasn’t done you some injustice, has he?
After that we went out into the courtyard and walked about. And to test the resolve of Hippocrates, I probed him by asking questions. Tell me, Hippocrates, I asked: at the moment you are trying to gain access to Protagoras, and you will pay money to the man as a fee, on your own behalf; what sort of person will you be visiting, and what sort of person will you become as a result? For instance, if you intended to visit your own namesake, the Asklepiad, Hippocrates of Cos, and pay money to him on your own behalf as a fee, and someone asked you: tell me, Hippocrates, you are about to pay a fee to this Hippocrates, to someone who is, what? How would you reply?
I would say that I am paying a fee to someone who is a physician, he replied. In order to become what?
A physician, he replied.
And if you were going to visit Polycleitus of Argos or Pheidias of Athens, and pay a fee to these men on your own behalf, and someone asked you: “you propose to pay this money to Polycleitus and Pheidias; to people who are, what?” How would you reply?
To people who are sculptors, that’s what I would say. So that you yourself may become, what?
A sculptor, of course.
So be it, I said, but in the present case, where you and I are visiting Protagoras, we shall be prepared to pay money to him on your behalf, provided our own funds are sufficient to persuade him. If not, we shall spend even our friends’ money as well. If someone observing our extreme seriousness on these matters were to ask: “tell me, Socrates and Hippocrates, you intend to pay money to Protagoras; to someone who is, what?” How would we reply? What other name do we hear people using in relation to Protagoras, in the same way that “sculptor” is used in relation to Pheidias, and “poet” in relation to Homer? What title of this sort do we hear in relation to Protagoras?
Well now, Socrates, what they say anyway, is that the man is a sophist, he replied. So we are going to pay money to him as a sophist?
Certainly.
Now suppose someone were to ask you this additional question: if you yourself were to go to Protagoras, what would you intend to become?
The Core Question
Plato’s Protagoras is a masterful exegesis on the hazards of education. The core issue at stake in the dialogue is the nature of the Sophist and the precise knowledge a Sophist imparts to his students. The consequences of this relationship between teacher and student are profound:
The fact is you are about to submit your own soul to the care of a man whom you admit to be a sophist. Yet I would be surprised if you knew what precisely a sophist is. What’s more, if you are unaware of this, you do not know to whom you are handing over your soul; whether the arrangement be a good one or bad one.
Hippocrates is about to submit his soul to the care of a man whose precise expertise he cannot define, and as a consequence he cannot know if this knowledge is good or bad. While the dialogue eventually focuses on whether or not virtue is teachable, it also is emblematic of the profound role education plays in the shaping of people’s minds and souls.
The Protagoras begs the question: What should educators be teaching, and do educators even KNOW what they ought to be teaching or how they ought to be teaching or if their teaching is good or bad for their students.
Enter Western University…
On August 11, 2021 Western University, following “public health guidelines,” implemented a mandatory vaccine and masking policy on campus. Sarah Prichard (acting provost and vice-president) stated at the time: “The health and safety of our community is our top priority – and it’s a shared effort. Vaccination is our clearest path to a safe campus.” In response to Ontario’s lifting of the unethical and discriminatory Vaccine Passports and ending the unscientific mask mandates, Western decided to continue its discriminatory vaccine mandate. In fact, Western will continue the policy of mandatory vaccination up through September 2022. John Doerksen (acting provost and vice-president academic) stated: “As we stay focused on our goal of remaining on campus for the rest of the term, we will continue to adhere to a number of health and safety guidelines to keep our community healthy and safe.”
One of the more dystopian features of the COVID moment has been the instantiation of policies by academic institutions based on “health and safety” (as though we need any institution to look after our health or safety). University administration after administration repeats the mantra “health and safety” as a means by which to rationalize irrational policies and discriminatory practices.
Institutions like Western lose credibility and integrity the more they appeal to “health and safety” when they associate vaccination with health and safety. Western is no longer an academic institution, it is only the most recent addition to the COVID cult.
On mandating a medical intervention
A vaccine needs to satisfy a number of criteria in order to be mandated. If an institution is going to coerce a medical intervention in violation of informed consent it better have a fucking good reason.
The Vaccine must neutralize the disease.
The Vaccine must be profoundly and utterly safe.
The Disease in question must be equitably destructive (as many babies are dying as elderly).
The governing institutions must be beyond credible and trustworthy.
COVID vaccines do not neutralize the disease. A vaccinated person can and will spread the disease. A vaccinated person will acquire the disease (and then they will thank the 2 shots and the booster on Twitter). In addition, a vaccinated person will continue to need shots in order to be considered vaccinated.
The vaccines are not safe. They are causing harm. People are suffering mild negative outcomes from the vaccine. People are suffering major negative outcomes from the vaccine. People are dying from the vaccine. There will be a breaking point.
COVID does not operate according to Canadians’ favorite word: Equity. The average age of death from COVID orbits 80 with around an average of 4 comorbidities. If you have zero or one comorbidity it is extremely unlikely that you will have a negative outcome from COVID (“but what about long COVID!” Response: “why didn’t you ever care about long flu?”). The data is clear on this. If you are over 65 the risk of COVID increases. It’s real. While it is prudent for a 75 year old man with heart disease and obesity to vaccinate (shot after shot after shot), it is equally as imprudent for a healthy 20 year old to take the shot. And what does Western do to those healthy 20 year olds who chose to allow their immune systems (which is 99.997 percent effective at neutralizing the virus) do what our immune system is designed to do…just ask Harry Wade, who was forcibly removed from class and arrested, then expelled for rejecting the vaccine mandate. Not only is the disease not equitably destructive—and therefore a policy based on vaccine equity is the wrong policy as it takes focus and resources away from those who actually need protection and support—but in aggregate it is difficult to rationalize what we even mean by “destructive” during the COVID era. Prior pandemics in human history saw population decreases of 20, 30 and 40 percent. During the COVID pestilence human population has grown by 1.7 percent each year for a total of 162,000,000 new babies.
The evidence for institutional failures of credibility is ubiquitous; we only need to gesture to the religious zeal of mask mandates in order to understand the crisis of credibility in our public health authorities.
A public health crisis requires total and complete transparency, honesty, and rigorous debate.
That has not occurred.
The media has categorically failed to hold experts accountable. A news report or press conference goes something like this:
“Expert A” states we should continue masking, so we should continue masking.
That is the level of analysis. That is the entirety of the reporting.
This is what a journalist should be asking “Expert A”:
“While you suggest that masking stops transmission of the virus, how do you respond to the 2020 meta-analysis of masking and the flu by the CDC, in which they state: "‘In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35). Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.’
or a WHO meta-analysis which states that ‘There is also a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of improved respiratory etiquette and the use of face masks in community settings during influenza epidemics and pandemics.’
or the EU-CDC which states the evidence for each type of masking intervention was ‘small to moderate.’ The EU-CDC concludes: ‘Although there is only low to moderate certainty of evidence for a small to moderate effect of the use of medical face masks in the community for the prevention of COVID-19, the balance of results towards a protective effect across the wide variety of studies reviewed, the very low risk of serious adverse effects and applying the precautionary principle leads us to conclude that face masks should be considered an appropriate non- pharmaceutical intervention in combination with other measures in the effort to control the COVID-19 pandemic.’
Now, I could gesture to another 50 scientific studies that suggest masks have little evidence in stopping transmission of the virus, but given that the CDC, the WHO and the EU-CDC have all stated emphatically that masks have minimal impact on stopping viral transmission, do you agree, ‘Expert A,’ that while there is no medical evidence for the effectiveness of masks we should still apply the precautionary principle and force everyone to wear one anyway?”
Oh yeah, the flu virus is larger than Covid.
Any member of the public health establishment who suggests that masking mitigates viral spread is not being honest.
I see no reason to participate in a fictional health mandate. Like Western recently announced, Quebec too has extended its mask mandate due to the “sixth surge.” If masks were effective then how could there ever have been any surges, especially among populations of vaccinated individuals who actively participated in a society that blocked unvaccinated people from all indoor communal spaces?
Based on Western’s mandate I simply have to assume that the University does not understand the nature of these vaccines nor the nature of the virus. And so another academic institution loses credibility.
But here we are…
We now live in a society of health and safety (Thank you Western).
What does this society look like?
You need to show your medical history in order to attend classes.
You needed to show your medical history to enter a bar or cafe (and you will again).
You were told you only needed two shots to end COVID forever, and now you are taking your third or fourth (Johnny Trudeau bought 11 shots for every man, woman and child in Canada in April 2021 as Canadian Health officials were advertising these vaccines as neutralizing).
You wear a mask everywhere, cause “follow the science.”
You call people who practiced informed consent “racists, misogynists, antivaxxers, a fringe minority, people with unacceptable views.”
You actively participated in discrimination and medical apartheid while attending academic institutions which love nothing more than to talk about Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity.
You believe your government even as you study the history of governmental abuses over time.
You believe in big pharma marketing campaigns (follow the $cience) even though you have always known pharmaceutical companies are some of the most unethical corporations on the planet.
You think you are virtuous. You think you are educated. You think you are one of the good ones, just doing your part.
You have supported the greatest policy disaster in human history. This is only a partial list of the policy harms, which Western supports in the name of “safety and health.”
Rise in suicide and suicidality
Rise in mental health issues, depression, and anxiety
Rise in Obesity
Rise in drug and alcohol abuse
Rise in overdoses from drugs and alcohol
Rise in rape, incest and sexual violence
Rise in sex trafficking
Rise in domestic violence
Rise in divorce
Rise in poverty and homelessness
Rise in negative outcomes from preventable diseases
Lowering of academic achievement
Increased harm against marginalized communities
Lowering in speech, emotional and cognitive development among children
Lowering in credibility in health, governmental and social instituions
Violations of civil and human rights (mobility rights, religious rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the employment of medical apartheid)
Rise in social division
Rise in crime (murder and robbery)
Rise in economic discrimination
Rise in misinformation (on all sides)
Rise in familial fragmentation
Rise in media malfeasance
Rise in propaganda and nudging
Rise in Pharmaceutical and Governmental collusion
Rise in bankruptcy
Rise in hate speech
Increased failure of small businesses, restaurants, and cafes
Rise in increasingly authoritarian STATES
Rise in increasingly authoritarian technologies like Digital IDs and vaccine passports (vaccine passports are ALREADY a Chinese style social credit system)
Negation of culturally important events like art festivals, communal events, music, parades, and national events
Rise in violations of informed consent through coercive measures such as job loss and social exclusion.
Feel safer yet?
To all the students at Western, your governmental and university leaders have failed you. Your livelihood and life now and in the future are MUCH less safe. The world you are entering is much less healthy. But know you are complicit.
Keep in mind, I support your health choices.
Why can’t you support those who made a different choice?
To the unvaccinated students and faculty at Western…
Hire Lawyers.
To the vaccinated students who understand the moral and ethical hazard of the vaccine mandates, or who were coerced into a medical intervention you didn’t feel like you needed…
Disenroll.
For the vaccinated students and faculty who support active discrimination and policy harms…
Read More. I shudder to think of the society that will follow in your wake. There is nothing left of you but a hollowed out core of fear and hysteria.
It is time for people to exhibit moral and ethical courage in the face of immoral and unethical actors.
You must ask yourself a simple question: To whom have you submitted your soul? How is it being formed? How are you being educated? Sophistry is alive and well at Western.
My thoughts exactly!
I'm at well over 200 by my count of RCT studies going back to the 1920s showing masks are useless - and even harmful. Yet....here we are. The interesting part is actual experts on masks like industrial hygienists (and even physicists) do not recommend masks in community settings but non-mask experts like physicians and epidemiologists continue to peddle them. Sans preuve, Hard.
Canada - and particularly Quebec - is the embodiment of what a society looks and sounds like with sophistry as its main mode of discourse frozen in 2020.
Canada (led by Quebec which by now is a psychological and scientific study onto itself. It's the only jurisdiction not just in North American with emergency measures in place but among most Western countries. Distinct indeed) has not evolved scientifically at all; its population further adrift from other Western nations wallowing in some superstitious trance slammed with Stockholm Syndrome. A Covid outlier among nations.....
....and PROUD of it.
Here's how I view Canada and Quebec. They're so far behind the race they think they're leading not realizing they've been lapped. But they think they're winning.
By the time they get to the finish line they find the medals ceremony is completed and wonder 'Wha happened?'