There is the conclusion that governments everywhere are selling us short on this issue. That the World Health Organisation has surrendered its authority to what is being referred to as “big pharma” is an immovably held conclusion by more people than it is comfortable to simply brush away.
Questioning of “the science” is often met with official and authoritative slap-down. This itself has led to timidity by many in the public space, who seek clarification on elements of the dictum from the podium. Witness the hostility with which reporter Urvashi Tewarie-Roopnarine was treated, posing a question to Dr Avery Hinds months ago. His colleague at the head-table felt it necessary to compare Dr Hinds’ “Cambridge University” credentials on the subject, with what he presumed was the reporter’s screen-grab of something off Google. She was later pummelled by others in the social media war zone, with little or no support from many of her colleagues.
In the best of times, and even in the face of the daily torrents of arguments over this, that and the other, prominent commentators still sneer at us for not addressing “the issues”. In letters to the editor, they complain about “silence” over the things that matter, to them.
Those who have issues and concerns with the official lines that we “take the vaccine” accuse the regular press of not engaging in robust enough questioning about what we have continued to be fed, for the better part of these last two years. Even some of them, however, profess to being immobilised by near-mortal fears of reprisals and of victimisation, if they come forward with what they purport to “know”.
When the “Ivermectin” efficacy began making the rounds months ago, one prominent Arima public advocate declined an offer to appear in person to present the case for it, as he knew it. He had been advised, he said, that he had more to lose by coming forward and facing the hostility that was ensured. He had irons in the fire, the smelting of which he was not prepared to accept. He was instead propositioning a reporter to “do the investigation”.
At the height of the massive resistance to the vaccine, manufactured by Donald Trump during the campaign for the US presidency around this time last year, one female supporter in Florida said it was “against God’s plan”, for people to wear masks. She was therefore not going to disobey God, to please man.
There is emerging in our own midst a new representative body called the National Contract Workers and General Employees Association of Trinidad and Tobago. In a webinar series spread over five evenings, this organisation brought together a mix of professionals and leadership types, to present their perspectives around the moot “Vaccinate to Operate”.
One of the discussants on a particular evening told the audience that Microsoft founder, philanthropist Bill Gates, had predicted more than a decade ago that humankind was facing the emergence of a new epidemic. This is it, he was suggesting; the conclusion to be drawn therefore was that Covid-19 was manmade, to suit a perilous grand design. Those who would benefit would be the constellation of the pharmaceutical companies that control the manufacture, the marketing and the distribution of the necessary remedies.
During the opening session of those discussions, internal medicine specialist, and public health commentator and columnist Dr David Joel Teelucksingh was extolling the vaccine’s virtues. The man who laid Covid hand and feet on Bill Gates accused Dr Teelucksingh in the comments margin, of “singing for his supper”.
A lady who had watched the series called one evening, wanting to share some of her own insights into what she said was the absolute danger up ahead. She was turned inside out with the idea of the “booster shot” being advocated for those who had previously been determined “fully vaccinated”.
She spoke in this context, of a manufactured chemical agent called mRNA. It is “not a vaccine”, she said desperately. It is something which “opens the doors to gene therapies, and will set the stage for the dangerous gene editing pool, CRISPR”, whatever that is. We have no legislation to treat with this possibility, she was protesting. Left unchecked, she warned, one end-result would be that in a generation or two, our offspring could be so genetically modified that there could be a proliferation of albino children in our midst.
Concerns such as this, held by not a few among us, are just the spear-point of the fear and trembling in the atmosphere.
One significant takeaway is this. Forget all the trumpeting of the reach of social media, compared with the collapse of influence of “traditional” radio, television and newspapers. These are the very outlets being relentlessly gone after, by those who seek legitimacy for their dire messaging.
—Andy Johnson is a veteran journalist