← Back to portfolio

To Tyranny Have We Succumb: A Letter

Published on

Dear F_______,

When I initially wrote this letter, we had not had our discussion of your reasoning, and my information was limited to your rebuttal of my claim that the Professor of Ethics, Julia Ponesse at Western Ontario University had been sacked.

Nevertheless, I will express my surprise at your initial dismissal of this woman’s position and plight. I remember not long ago when faced with contractual and conditional changes to employee and student enrolment at R______________, you were in full support of not only fierce opposition but also strikes if my memory serves me right. If I am not mistaken, the threat of degrading teacher’s working conditions, as well as the erosion of student and teaching quality due to changes in the number of admissions to be granted. I must wonder then if you faced such remonstration as the professor from Ontario for your moral objection? Was you or any of your colleagues put on leave, or by force and fiat removed from your position?

In my experience, you have always been someone who has keenly felt and expressed the importance of peoples rights. Rights to individuation, rights to autonomy, the right to work in a dignified manner. I struggle to believe you would abandon such moral convictions now merely because an emergency has been declared. Or are all rights and the dignity of individuals to be ejected at the declaration of an emergency? I know you too well and believe in your powers of reasoning far too much to believe you cannot see where I am going with this.

If in fact, we are in an emergency… One thing which troubles me is that you, whom I have always looked to as an informed, bold, fervent and irreverent critic of the establishment, be it government or corporations, are seemingly so ready to accept the narrative peddled by just such an establishment. While I may have at times found it overly demanding, even somewhat futile to see you wrestle with your work in these areas, I have always admired the courage and conviction you displayed in besieging those who wield power and who should have the unblinking light of accountability shone upon them. This is why I search within myself for a reason to explain this sudden about-face in your consistent moral conviction and admit I am at a loss.

This Professor… is she a bioweapon? Does she come with the expressed purpose to do harm? Does she present a type of existential threat to her students by not wearing a mask, refusing either a test or vaccine? All of these measures and mandates represent varying degrees of medical intervention. Who is to say she is not taking prophylaxis, has already had COVID? Furthermore, what proof do we have, beyond a PCR or antigen test, both of which are deeply flawed, that she presents a risk of infection? If we are to consider the likelihood of transmission as an imperative, must we not also look at the risk that such an infection would pose to the demographics of the student body? What is the risk stratification not just for a case, or even infection, but for serious injury and death? Must we not have these figures in an accurate and comparable measure if we are to take the sacrosanct step of interceding in individual body autonomy?

By such logic, we might have seen followers of the Prophet who live in western countries forced to be screened for explosives when attending school or work. Or white Americans screened for Trump support before being allowed to enter any government building, or people entering gay clubs to be vetted for HIV before being allowed to enter. Is it such a world as this we wish to live?

It seems to be an absurd proposition that, by simply being a vector of disease, a person must now be forced into one of three medical interventions. Why then, are not such practices in place for HIV, Hepatitis, Influenza and et al. Where can the moral line be drawn if one is righteous and good and the other an infringement on the dignity and freedom of an individual? It is one thing to require a vaccine for a particular disease in regards to International travel where such vaccines and diseases have been under scrutiny for years and the dangers of the disease breaking from containment are serious and the desire to travel is voluntary. It is another entirely to force universal vaccination, testing and masking, and make them a prerequisite for employment in the nation in which one resides. Furthermore, to do so with largely experimental vaccines is against the Nuremberg Code which exists in some form in the statutes of most western democracies and numerous international and national laws. How have the lessons of the twentieth century been so suddenly subsumed?

As you know, better than most, ‘science’ is not a monolith. The spirit of the scientific method is a refutation. We pose our hypothesis, and all comers, be they ordained ‘scientists’ or otherwise, are free to attack and bring down the claim. A claim’s validity is only as strong and temporal as the body of attacks which has failed to refute the claim. Thus ‘Science’ per se, is never settled, and no empirical truth ever held absolute. Moral truths, especially those of natural law, can be held absolute, as we attempt to enshrine in the constitutions and laws of our lands. The right to autonomy, privacy, dignity and such.

I have been presented with a wide variety of papers, data, preprints and expert testimony which demonstrates that treatment for this virus is safe, effective and affordable. I have seen large bodies of evidence and argument that, furthermore, shows this virus is highly unlikely to spread asymptomatically in any meaningful way. In addition, a great deal of the studies and experts in question argue that this is effectively a disease of medical institutions, most predominantly, elderly care homes and that our current strategies are not only ineffective but are contributing to the devastation of public health now and into the future. I have presented you with a small selection of such information in two links.

One is a brief that I put together.

Another being a detailed and exhaustive letter assembled by Steve Kirsch, inventor of the optical mouse and the executive director of the COVID treatment early treatment fund.

Lastly, we must address the nature of this virus. It seems it is, firstly, dangerous, especially to those over 70 and with four or more comorbidities it is deadly. Not university students, children or healthy adults.

Secondly, it appears to have almost certainly been engineered and either accidentally or purposefully released. I hold to this hypothesis because it has not been disproved, and the evidence we currently have seems to favour such a hypothesis. Specifically the mutations (with syncytia functions and lymphocyte adaptions not seen in any coronavirus, and present usually only in retroviruses and cancers respectively), the lack of an animal reservoir, the fact this coronavirus cannot infect the bat it supposedly originated from, and the proximity of the Wuhan Institue of Virology to the initial outbreak. Given that there were warnings from American diplomats of safety issues with this lab and huge and growing body of evidence that bat coronaviruses underwent gain of function with funding from the United States National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases, as well emails revealing a likely cover-up orchestrated by Fauci, Daszak et al., via the Lancet, it seems the best-evidenced hypothesis yet.

Thirdly, due to binding contracts with vaccine companies and the nature of emergency use regulations in combination with regulator capture, early and effective treatment has been suppressed, doctors threatened, nurses who we hailed as heroes last year now face sacking if they refuse medical treatment. Natural immunity, which is, and always has been, durable and complete in comparison to vaccination, has been degraded to be considered less than that of the ‘protection’ given via inoculation. Prophylaxis, or prevention, through repurposed drugs, often the same, cheap, safe and universally available drugs as those proving extremely efficacious in early and outpatient treatment, has been suppressed entirely. Many doctors testify to a group thinking preponderance they call ‘treatment nihilism’ by which they describe the absolute reluctance of their colleagues to treat COVID. Many of them cite suppression and smearing by ‘health’ agencies of such effective drugs as ivermectin and HCQ as the reasons. Vaccine side effects, once the third rail of medical interventions has been suppressed and omitted from the conversation to a degree I deem criminal. Censorship of any and all information that might damage the narrative, any and all dissent, any and all alternative strategies and policies have been brutal, sweeping and effective. The demonisation of any and all deviation from the ‘one true' path, the new orthodoxy and dogma, the prevailing priesthood of ‘science’ has resulted in a dawning medical apartheid. A technological and biomedical tyranny posing as our only saviour.

We might be forgiven, then, for not trusting such ‘authoritative bodies’ as our media, be it social or mainstream, our governments and our health agencies are for being complicit and even orchestrating such madness, malice and stupidity as I have outlined above. We might wish to stop and think, what is occurring here? Why might it be that we are so divided and fed such contradictory narratives? And I would implore you, as a man of reason and moral conviction, to consider that what is happening is not a reason for sadness, but a cause for immediate suspicion and even cause for active resistance. When we abandon our individual integrity for the promise of safety, we sacrifice not only our own dignity but the common humanity of all. We place into the hands of the powerful (and thus the dangerous) the happiness and liberty of all mankind, if only because we are afraid and they have promised to make us safe. But such promises have never resulted in safety… most have led us to ruin, genocide and the degradation of the human race. If I am wrong, then I pray you will forgive me for wasting your time. If delusion has even only partially overtaken me, the dangers we face now are the gravest threat to humanity in a generation. It is for you, my friend, to contemplate the consequences for yourself.

Your Friend


0 Comments Add a Comment?

Add a comment
You can use markdown for links, quotes, bold, italics and lists. View a guide to Markdown
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. You will need to verify your email to approve this comment. All comments are subject to moderation.