Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook and Instagram parent Meta has now admitted that they incorrectly censored information about the pandemic under pressure from governments.
In an interview with podcaster Lex Fridman released on June 8 Zuckerberg said:
“Just take some of the stuff around COVID earlier in the pandemic where there were real health implications, but there hadn’t been time to fully vet a bunch of the scientific assumptions,…And unfortunately, the establishment kind of waffled on a bunch of facts and asked for a bunch of things to be censored that, in retrospect, ended up being more debatable or true.”
So how did government departments come to censor social media, deleting factual information and genuine scientific debate? The answer reveals a lot about the ignorance of politicians and the media.
Since Galileo, science has been about verification of ideas via experiment. For four hundred years, evidence has been king, but it is no longer. Scientists working in this evidential mode and advising governments are now hard to find. Particularly since 2008, they have been replaced with technocrats.
Technocracy is a form of government where decisions formerly taken by politicians are left to experts—technocrats, who are individuals with technical training and occupations who perceive many important societal problems as being only solvable with modern technology.
Following a period of almost 100 years of a relatively settled scientific framework, technical and scientific professions have become dominated by individuals who are trained to apply technology but not question it. In most cases this works, as long as they follow established rules. Structural engineers for example mostly build safe bridges; but it doesn’t work that way in all professions, doctors routinely prescribe medicines, but don’t test them. Gradually medical misadventure became the third leading cause of death, during the pandemic this has leapfrogged to the number one spot.
Politicians appear unaware of the possibility that something has gone wrong. Boris Johnson for example has written in the UK Daily Mail “The wonder drug I hoped would stop my 11.30pm fridge raids for cheddar and chorizo didn’t work for me. But I still believe it could change the lives of millions”. Boris lets us in on a secret, Tory grandees and cabinet ministers are losing weight and looking lean and mean through miracle regular injections of Ozempic which suppresses appetite.
Boris took the drug himself and it worked for a few weeks until he began to feel very ill indeed, he was dreading his Ozempic injections, and eventually had to stop. The side effects of Ozempic include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, stomach pain, fatigue, facial changes, rebound weight gain (yes???), low blood sugar, vivid dreams, hair loss, pancreatitis, gallbladder disease, and kidney damage.
Now we come to the difficult and revealing part, Boris concludes that despite the long term effects, they should be made widely available and summarises:
“I see nothing morally wrong in using these drugs to help you lose weight, any more than it is wrong to use an electrically assisted bicycle to get up the hill. Even for us fatties, it turns out, there is such a thing as satiety — and science has found it.”
In other words, Boris has no difficulty in recommending a novel and sometimes deadly drug to the whole population including children. A drug he personally found to be damaging. How dumb is that conclusion? Boris Johnson, like most politicians, is in the hands of technocrats, overawed by their so-called expertise, but apparently unconcerned about their predilection for playing roulette with human life. Sound familiar?
Drilling further down into what has been going on during the pandemic, biotechnology poses risks that are distinctly different from conventional pharmaceutical drugs. Really serious and novel risks affecting the stability of life itself which need close examination. The technocrats advising governments all over the world were unwilling to admit to a new class of biotech risks and unwilling to undertake genuine scientific assessment of these risks.
Moreover they are eager to hide behind conventional explanations for unprecedented rates of cardiac illness and strokes. See this fit 32 year old’s stroke readily dismissed as stress. Now realise that tens of thousands of additional strokes and heart attacks in Australia alone, many occurring among young age groups, are being similarly dismissed by doctors as if stress was something new that coincidentally only started after mRNA vaccination. This amounts to a denial of the principles of experimental science and their replacement with technocratic dogma.
Once appointed, technocrats can simply tell the government what to do. Especially in highly technical areas, they are not required to justify their position to their political masters according to the normal standards of science. The mere existence of a lengthy position paper will be enough. Very often this will be supplied via the internet from international sources. A paper that politicians are unlikely to read beyond the executive summary. In the case of the pandemic and in many other cases, these sources have a financial interest in the outcome.
In fact, the motivations of technocrats are largely careerist, politicians understand this very well, they themselves fall into a similar category.
A key feature of technocracy is a reliance on computers and the misguided belief that computers can do the thinking for us. Anyone who has delved into The Emperor’s New Mind by physicist Roger Penrose will realise that computers are controlled by humans. At their best they can only regurgitate their masters’ opinions and bias, albeit much faster. It is the dizzying pace of pandemic policy that has contributed to its downfall. There was no time to think or assess. Policy itself became the experiment, and as the policy was already enacted, there was no need to measure the outcome.
Rapidly however, there emerged an overwhelming need for technocrats to hide the outcomes. People were dying. The result is a very strange world indeed. Trade Me Jobs is advertising a position as a ward clerk in the health service saying:
“It will be a condition of employment for this role that you are vaccinated against Covid-19, including a Booster Dose….Without a vaccine, there is the risk that you may contract Covid-19 or pass Covid-19 to other staff. This can place an increased burden on our healthcare system.”
This is not an isolated requirement among the professions in NZ because the government and the media have never bothered to update the public about research on mRNA vaccines. They don’t prevent transmission, infection, serious illness or even death. In fact, as we have reported elsewhere, recent studies show they increase your chance of illness. The health service vaccination policy is counterproductive, it makes people ill. It is not a measure “to keep people safe” as the job advert claims.
The scientific process has moved on since 2021, but technocrats have not. If you visit government websites claiming mRNA vaccine safety you will find a preponderance of outdated advice without scientific substance. Policy technocrats have their reputation and their position to protect. Politicians understand this very well. There is an election coming up and God forbid that anyone should sit down and really start to think through the causes of our current unprecedented level of excess deaths.
Given the intimate alliance between politicians of all persuasions and their technocrat advisors, our vote at the next election will not count towards positive change until the nation is prepared to enter into an informed and open public debate outside of the confines of blinkered technocracy and political allegiance. Left or right votes will count for little if both are happy to sail into biotech oblivion. We have to vote for knowledge, rather than discredited fantasy.