Letter to the Experts

– Science will save your Life, but it may forget about your Soul –

Dear Experts,

Congratulations, you have scared the world senseless. Has it been worth it, turning the whole globe over its head and back, and then shaking it around a bit more? And if it has, who do you think it’s been worth it for the most? The lone, isolated and “plugged-away” individual perhaps? Or the businessman that is making that individual’s life convenient, entertained and distracted?

You have convinced us that we are born to be sickly for as long as we breathe, and that you also happen to have the perfect cure. You have convinced us that we, yet again, seem to take a liking to the idea of living in a world of segregation and that we can use our own democracy to vote it in. And while people distract themselves in arguing, our governments, politicians and everyone else supporting this world-wide movement are just like any true war profiteer, cashing in – cashing in so they can build us an even better future. So the claim goes. Of course, we used to have wars in trenches with fingers pulling triggers, now they are in people’s bedrooms, with fingers trolling social threads. All the while, the world is being promoted to be in some form of perpetual state of emergency.


– The year scientists became politicians –

Not only have you, the experts, put the planet into a complete state of panic over a mild pathogen, but you equally allowed large corporate institutions to elbow their way into our societies’ legal systems over it, and influence mandates and legislatures. Somehow though, your expertise miraculously failed to notice all the other global adversities, with fatalities orders of magnitude higher than this “pet bug” of yours. Shouldn’t these towering adversities deserve first dibs, or at the least have first right of refusal when it comes to passing global mandates and laws towards their prevention? They would save orders of magnitude more lives. How is it possible to have this massive discrepancy in our resource allocation and mandate selection in the health sector? The actual heavy weight champions of death, such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes create so many annual fatalities and hospitalizations, they make the death toll of this respiratory disease look like small change. Yet, we are obsessing over it nevertheless, because you, the experts, simply convinced us of it.

A rational approach to global health care would be to target the most adverse health impacts fore-mostly and proportionally allocate resources toward those, but of course, as much as all you experts love to slap the sticker of science on your favorite issues, rationality has long lost its way with this one.

Just because something happens “more suddenly” and has a word “contagion” attached to it doesn’t make it the largest threat of them all. This discrepancy directly exposes the fact that, although investing into making a society truly healthy would yield a great return when it comes to prevention of death and hospitalization, focusing instead on investing predominantly into the “treatment of symptoms” seems to yield an even better outcome. For whom? Well, for the heavy-weight investors of course. A less healthy society seems to emerge a perfect pocket of “guaranteed return on investment”, a massive branch of population that is better off staying slightly sickly rather than working on increasing its actual overall health – the blind watchmaker at its finest. This is, ironically, something that an actual virus would do, not kill its host but act on it as a parasite.

As for pragmatically dealing with the problem itself, prohibition of alcohol was also introduced to stop violence and accidents. Motivations of the prohibition weren’t wrong, the movement simply went too far. Laws are important, we have them for a reason. But we need to remember that every mandate ought to be granted only a certain amount of agency onto populations, an amount that is to some degree proportional to its adversity onto the populus, which is by the way, where science is also supposed to come into play.

If an issue bears societal weight, it should not have zero agency, but it should also never be granted 100% agency. Both approaches put us onto a slippery terrain towards tyrannical government, an unfortunate societal evolutionary byproduct, to witch no society is fully immune to.

And yes, science is about finding the truth, but it looks like the only truth on the table is the truth about a topic that you, the experts, want to talk about. This act of endorsing and pushing for your narratives and products is not science, it is politics and authoritarianism.

Or perhaps this is all in the name of the next big directive that you are cooking up? Baby steps towards the next big “leap” perhaps? I guess you don’t quite want to shove the entire cookie down the world’s throat all at once?

– Is science science? 

It seems that politicians of all walks of governance around the globe have the same client knocking at their doors, with a very very lucrative offer on the table, an offer that is very very hard to pass on, with the next highest bidders lurking behind closed doors, along with hordes of educated and eager scientists in their holster. Yes, that is where you, the experts, come in.

But science is not science anymore. Science has become an institution, with various lobbyists pushing for disproportional investment into certain scientific institutions, convincing us that we are correct to adopt new policies based not necessarily on how important an issue is, but rather, how important the solution to it sounds. The year 2020 and everything that has followed since has perfectly shown us how a scientific product gets made into a political tool.

Can an ideology still be called ideology even if it has science in its language, and science in the products that it endorses? Of course it can. The word ideology itself is defined as “a set of beliefs or philosophies, held for reasons in which practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones”. Now, we all know that making hypothetical guesses is one of the main fuels of science, so a claim that a “potential mutation just might wipe out half the human race” can be, and is being used and classified as a scientific statement. What this ends up building up is a colossally fear-mongering house of cards, and whenever you allow yourself to ignore and relinquish your core human rights in a fear-mongering house of cards, the next absurdity then gets even more easily introduced and imposed upon you, now that a low standard for calibrating your freedoms has been established.

Science is not in the business of preventing ideology, but it sure can make an ideology sound smart. What we are witnessing is a real life example of science colluding with ideology, right before our eyes and everywhere we look. Corpus Delicti. But the emperor stands naked while the world is busy crunching numbers.

Has getting sick become a cardinal sin?
Or perhaps we have ceased being “born in sin”, but are now instead, “born into sickness”?
Have the masks and the arm bandages replaced the traditional symbols of creed, and is it heresy not to wear them?
Have nurses and doctors become the new regulators, and hospitals the new places of worship?
Has “turn the other cheek” changed to “turn the other arm”?
Have percentages become our modern prophesies and has immunization injection become our new “holy water”?
Has the pharmaceutical product become the almighty?
Is it a sin not to accept the newly prophecized product of redemption?
Should we have complete blind faith in institutions that make our medications?
Should we classify any victims of our scientific products as the “fallen angels of our time”?
One thing seems certain, this new ideology promises to save your life, but what is not certain is what it will offer your soul.

– Societal poison –

Divisive narratives that create social disruption are a societal toxin, and any governmental body that mandates divisive narratives onto its people is essentially contaminating its own society, and in essence, weakening it. That is what real parasites do to their hosts. It is more in the pathogen’s advantage if it doesn’t kill the host. Of course, the divisive narrative would need to be crafted to be of “not too invasive dose” with the citizens, and its administering would always need to be sold as a sacrifice in the name of creating better days for future generations – it is just a “small shot” of societal disruption to be made in the name of the grand “change for the better” – in the name of reaching that ultimate greater societal good in the future – the perfect heaven – just like one ought to only feel a little bit of headache and fever in the promise of full-proof future health of their body.

But how can we be certain that governments have their “psychological disruption dosage” properly calibrated, and whether the future will indeed end up better off as a result of it? What if a society overdoses in fear, depression or anger for that matter, all of which can easily get roused by creating new sudden and confusing mandates and legislations? What kind of a society will we end up with when mismanagement, incompetence, gerrymandering and corruption make matters even worse?

Divisive narratives isolate and interrupt community. How truly resilient is humanity to the incessant “waiting around to be in a non fear filled community” before we start to crack ? How many Sun’s cycles does it take before this essential human need starts to bounce back? Having a strong and stable family and community network is one of the most essential of human needs, and when tempered with, it usually bounces back with a vengeance. You, the experts, have endorsed division to reshuffle communities like a deck of cards so that you can play your little game, but in the real world, you don’t get to put the deck of cards in the drawer once you are finished, community is an essential need just as strong as staying alive and there is no drawer that can hold it back. It is literally what makes us human, and mandates that isolate will have hell to pay if they go too far, and they have, gone too far.

Science does not necessarily invest itself into tracking for “causation vs. correlation” when massive amounts of citizenry start becoming increasingly unhealthy, reactive or depressed, because, you the experts, tell us that there is nothing to see there and that the studies are not worth pursuing. Meanwhile, you continue being preoccupied with telling the world that science is so cool and amazing that it can calculate in what percentages lives are being saved or not, and what the best products for it all are. You are so confident that your products are this good, that you have eave convinced us to forego our own standardized trial measures. Perhaps we should abolish any testing of your scientific products all together, since we seem to finally have found this elixir of life at our disposal?

To add salt to injury, a depressed person may not even remember, or heaven forbid, have no experience of what having a stable community and family would feel like, all locked up in his solitary room, with his favorite widget there for entertainment. That same person will also promptly be presented with the next medically prescribed pill for their ailment. Why seek a community when you can medicate your way out of your depressive solitude?

– Ideology divides –

Science does not have feeling, science does not have children. Perhaps science ought not to be running human lives, but instead, it should fore-mostly simply aid them. And you, the experts, ought to be experts, not despots. We have interrupted the family structure, the community structure, the friendship structure, in order to quite literally, run a real-time world-wide reality-tv experiment on the entire human race. All this, because you, the experts, thought it was a good idea, because science told you it was a good idea. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

This is unfortunately, ultimately going to hurt trust in science as well, as it reveals how corruption and influence can easily sway its innocent and not ethically trained hand down the wrong path. After all, science in and of itself ought to not know ethics.

Going forward, should we worry about pathogen immunity, or legal immunity? Are we dealing with herd immunity, or herd mentality? Are we setting a precedent to creating emergency authorizations even once an emergency long dissipates?

And remember experts, this one goes for you as well, unless one is still legally allowed and free to make their own educated choice on a matter, as it is luckily still the case in many countries around the world, bullying and peer-pressuring anyone into doing something that doesn’t make their choice illegal is itself illegal, and if allowed to happen in your society, all it does is turn citizens into bullies and snitches of their neighbors, friends and family members, and only further pulls that dark veil over your the society’s skyline. It is corrosive, ideological, war-inducing and very dangerous.

Ideology divides, and science has now yet again, publicly demonstrated to us that it also knows very well how to execute division. And yes, yet again, we are to thank you, the experts, for all this.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *