The Science®
Do you remember ‘The Science®’ that dictated a 6ft separation during the Covid-19 pandemic? Or The Science® that allowed you to forego a face mask while seated in a restaurant, but insisted on wearing one when visiting the bathroom? “Following The Science®” was the favourite mantra of politicians and public health officials during 2020 and 2021. The Science® governed our lives, but recent revelations reveal that The Science® had no scientific basis.
Just two weeks ago, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former White House medical adviser, admitted in a closed-door session that the 6ft ‘social distancing’ guideline enforced during the Covid pandemic “sort of just appeared” — and was likely not based on scientific data. In the recent UK Covid inquiry, text messages from Scotland’s national clinical director, Jason Leitch, to Humza Yousaf proposed using a glass as a mask exemption: “Have a drink in your hands at all times. Then you’re exempt. So if someone comes over to you and you stand, lift your drink.”
So there you have it: The Science® that governed our lives for more than two years was complete and utter… bollocks.
‘Social distancing’ — 6ft in the US and 1.5m in The Netherlands — was touted as the best way to halt or slow the spread of Covid-19. We were urged to ‘Stay Apart to Stay Safe’. But, thanks to Dr. Fauci’s startling revelation, now we know that social distancing lacked scientific rhyme or reason.
The impact of The Science® was profound. When workplaces, shops, restaurants and cafés reopened in the summer of 2020, they had to spend money reconfiguring their operations to comply with the 6ft or 1.5m (or whatever the measurement was in your country) social distancing rule. This restriction often meant venues could only operate at around 50% capacity, rendering their business models unviable. Consequently, thousands of small firms were forced out of business. It’s nice of Dr. Fauci to acknowledge now that the social distancing rule lacked a scientific basis, and “sort of just appeared”.
The unscientific diktat wreaked havoc on humanity. It was an assault on personal relationships, emotional well-being, and basic human interactions. Much of it went way beyond what we generally regard as authoritarianism: even the East German Stasi didn’t forbid families from visiting dying relatives, or outlaw Christmas dinners between different households. It was a crime against humanity, perpetrated under the guise of The Science®. Three years later, I have come to terms with many of the losses inflicted by the draconian restrictions, including the loss of friendships, clients, and life savings. However, I can’t cope with the loss of life’s special moments, such visiting my elderly parents living abroad, celebrating family milestones or witnessing my son relish his final years in primary school. I’ll never get these moments back. Ever.
Let’s not forget that The Science® failed to inform. Instead, it merely scared and terrified the public into believing that Covid-19 was comparable to the Black Death. The Science® never placed the risk of Covid-19 in sufficient context, such as recognizing that the risk of death depends on age and comorbidities; or the average age of death from Covid-19 in the UK, where life expectancy is 81, was 82+; or that Covid-19 posed minimal to zero risk to children. Additionally, The Science® never informed us that the majority of deaths during ‘the first wave’ in the UK and Ireland occurred in nursing homes, where these unfortunate individuals were effectively abandoned and left to die. Alone.
The Science® also failed to discuss the several cheap, safe and effective treatments and preventative measures for Covid-19. Instead, The Science® dialled up the fear, and nudged the public into accepting the draconian lockdowns and the miracle vaccine.
This will be forever etched in my memory, as I questioned the logic behind The Science®. The absurd and arbitrary nature of many of the social distancing restrictions should have been a red flag, but blind adherence prevailed. I wrote about this in May 2020, when I questioned the rationale behind the round yellow floor markings, the hazard tape, the white circles in parks, the pool noodle-hats and the glass dining pods. The later project, de Serres Séparée, was even nominated for a Dutch Design Prize! Yet, my stance invited instant ridicule and demonisation. I was labelled a Covid-denier, a conspiracy theorist, and a crackpot (or ‘wappie’ in Dutch). I was seen as morally irresponsible and accused of being a ‘granny-killer’. I was told to just “Follow The Science®” and shut up!
Notably, and largely unknown to the general public, The Science® faced many challenges from eminent scientists and academics during this period. Compassionate and brave people such as Jay Bhattacharya, Sucharit Bhakdi, Dolores Cahill, Sunetra Gupta, Martin Kulldorff, Luc Montagnier, Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, Mike Yeadon, Michael Levitt, Carl Heneghan, and Geert Vanden Bossche all spoke out against The Science®. These experts, operating independently and free of any conflicts of interest (i.e. funding from Big Pharma), voiced their reservations about the efficacy of lockdowns, promoted safe and effective treatments and preventative measures, and advocated for a more tailored approach to managing Covid-19 (e.g. the Great Barrington Declaration). Unfortunately, rather than being heard, all these scientists were vilified, censored, deplatformed and, in some instances, fired from prestigious academic positions. Going against The Science® in 2020 was simply not tolerated.
The refusal to question The Science® is precisely the opposite of what actual science does. True science encourages challenge and debate, allowing for diverse perspectives and interpretations of data. However, during the pandemic, dissenting voices were suppressed, and alternative viewpoints were demonised. Witnessing this suppression made it clear that The Science® could not be trusted.
When Dr. Fauci’s closed-door testimony reveals a lack of solid scientific evidence supporting ‘social distancing’, it raises serious questions about the credibility of his other Covid-19 policies. For starters, what about The Science® for mask mandates? It’s worth remembering that at the onset of the pandemic in March 2020, Fauci stated: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.” Yet, within weeks, his guidance changed — and decades of peer-reviewed science binned.
Similarly, what about The Science® supporting the Covid vaccines? Many of the aforementioned scientists warned about the potential dangers of the novel mRNA vaccines back in 2020, suggesting that adverse events might manifest months or even years after vaccination. Let’s hope that their terrifying predictions are not linked to the concerning rise in excess mortality worldwide, or to the increase in heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular issues!
In fact, as international calls for the suspension of the Covid-19 jabs grow louder, and louder, do you still trust The Science®?
And, at what point will you stop “Following The Science®”?
