Reflections on Strange Times: Covid-19
1. Introduction
The Covid-19 pandemic has coincided with an unprecedented level of social and political polarisation. Public debate around lockdowns, vaccine mandates, emergency legislation, vaccine passports, and institutional trust has become increasingly charged. In my lifetime, I have never witnessed such profound divisions within communities — between friends, families, and even intimate partners.
In emotionally charged contexts, rational dialogue and good-faith engagement are often the first casualties. I include myself in this observation. Like many others, I have struggled at times to separate evidence from emotion, and to remain open to perspectives that challenge my own assumptions. Over the past year, I have therefore made a deliberate effort to listen carefully, to seek common ground, and to better understand the broader forces shaping our collective response to the pandemic.
This task has been complicated by prolonged lockdowns, social isolation, and the distortive effects of social media communication. In a climate of fear and urgency, the capacity for nuanced thinking, dissent, and open discussion becomes increasingly difficult to sustain. Events have unfolded rapidly, often with limited time for public deliberation: emergency health legislation, vaccine mandates, digital passes, and speech regulation have been introduced at a pace that makes careful scrutiny challenging.
I have also found the directive to regard the government as a “single source of truth” unsettling. While public health coordination is essential in emergencies, scientific inquiry depends on transparency, debate, and the continual testing of assumptions. For this reason, I wish to explore — as a devil’s advocate — a number of questions that challenge aspects of the prevailing Covid-19 policy framework.
My intent is not to deny the seriousness of Covid-19, nor to dismiss the potential benefits of vaccination. Rather, it is to resist censorship, and to defend the democratic and scientific principle that policy should remain open to evidence-based critique. The studies, articles, and expert discussions referenced below are drawn from mainstream or peer-reviewed sources and are presented as a counterpoint — not a final verdict — on our current pandemic response.
2. The Proposition
Below, I outline a series of questions. I do not claim that these questions are fully resolved, nor that the evidence is conclusive. However, I believe there is a growing body of professional concern that warrants serious consideration rather than dismissal.
Question 1
Have pharmaceutical regulatory agencies — institutions entrusted with independent oversight of public health — become vulnerable to conflicts of interest through financial or institutional alignment with industry?
Question 2
Given that the World Health Organization plays a coordinating role in global health policy, and that national regulators (such as Medsafe in New Zealand) operate within this broader framework, is it reasonable to question whether financial incentives may influence policy decisions — particularly when the economic scale of the current pandemic response is unprecedented?
Question 3
If regulatory capture were demonstrated, what would the implications be for global health decision-making during a pandemic — especially with respect to treatment approval, risk assessment, and public trust?
Question 4
Dr Pierre Kory (MD), a US clinician involved in early Covid-19 treatment, argues that the cumulative scientific evidence supporting ivermectin as a treatment is substantial, and that its adoption could have significantly reduced Covid-19 morbidity. Is it legitimate to ask whether economic incentives — including the lack of patent protection for ivermectin — may have contributed to resistance against its approval, rather than attributing such concerns solely to “conspiracy thinking”?
(See: NPR, “Some doctors think they’ve found a cheap generic drug which treats Covid-19 — so why hasn’t anyone heard of it?”)
Question 5
If low-cost therapeutic options are insufficiently explored or delayed, can policymakers be fully trusted to impartially evaluate the safety profile of newly developed vaccines — particularly where long-term safety data is, by definition, unavailable?
Question 6
Are these questions relevant to informed consent, human rights, and the ethical legitimacy of vaccine passports, particularly where participation in social and economic life is conditioned on compliance?
3. The Counterpoint
A detailed discussion between biologist Bret Weinstein (PhD) and physician Pierre Kory (MD) examines the evidence surrounding ivermectin and questions the regulatory barriers to its approval. A reference list of peer-reviewed studies cited in the discussion is available alongside the podcast.
Podcast: Covid, Ivermectin, and the Crime of the Century
https://podcasts.apple.com/no/podcast/covid-ivermectin-and-the-crime-of-the/id1471581521?i=1000523859023
Dr Kory argues that scientific findings inconsistent with a vaccine-centric strategy have been marginalised. Whether one agrees with this assessment or not, the claim itself raises legitimate questions about how scientific dissent is handled during emergencies.
Additional interviews (including discussions involving Dr Mobeen Syed and Steve Kirsch) raise broader concerns about regulatory independence and pharmaceutical influence. These discussions do not prove misconduct, but they articulate a pattern of concern shared by multiple professionals.
Regulatory liability and profit
In New Zealand, the Pfizer vaccine has been granted indemnity against injury claims. This is consistent with international practice during emergencies, but it nevertheless raises ethical questions. If vaccines are as safe as claimed, why does liability not extend to manufacturers? Should the financial burden of adverse outcomes fall entirely on taxpayers?
Pfizer reported approximately USD $33.5 billion in vaccine revenue in 2021. Profit alone does not imply wrongdoing, but in the context of public health mandates, it heightens the need for transparency and rigorous oversight.
Global equity and vaccine access
Economist Shamubeel Eaqub recently noted that Covid-19 is likely endemic due to uneven global vaccine distribution. This raises difficult ethical questions. While wealthy nations promote vaccination as a collective moral duty, poorer countries remain dependent on delayed access. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical executives receive substantial bonuses during the pandemic.
This disparity complicates narratives that frame vaccine hesitancy purely as ignorance or selfishness. Journalist Glenn Greenwald has highlighted the troubling trend of dehumanising rhetoric directed at the unvaccinated — rhetoric that often ignores structural, racial, and economic inequalities.
Scientific caution on boosters
An October 2021 Lancet article authored by senior FDA vaccine officials Marion Gruber and Phillip Krause raised concerns about widespread booster adoption without robust long-term safety and efficacy data. The authors argued that high-stakes decisions should be grounded in transparent, peer-reviewed evidence and international scientific debate.
They emphasised that existing data did not clearly support routine boosters and warned that policy driven by non-scientific pressures could prove counterproductive.
Following publication, both authors resigned from the FDA — a development that raises questions about the politicisation of vaccine policy and the tolerance for internal scientific dissent.
4. Conclusion
The pandemic response has produced extraordinary outcomes: rapid vaccine development, sweeping public health powers, and immense pharmaceutical profits. At the same time, citizens are being asked to accept novel medical technologies, ongoing boosters, restrictions on civil liberties, and economic disruption — often with limited opportunity for open debate.
I do not deny Covid-19’s seriousness, nor dismiss the potential benefits of vaccination. I have received many vaccines in my life and, until recently, assumed this would be no different. My hesitation is not ideological but ethical. I care deeply about the wellbeing of my community, and the prospect of causing harm to others weighs heavily on me.
For that reason, these questions matter. If they are unfounded, I will be relieved. If they are not, the implications for public trust, democratic governance, and scientific integrity are profound.
A healthy society should be able to ask difficult questions without fear, ridicule, or exclusion. That capacity may ultimately prove as important to our collective wellbeing as any medical intervention.
No comments:
Post a Comment