![]() ![]() They have to trust in some kind of authority or another. That authority may be placed in the party, as in the communist world, it might be in the popular opinion, so it might be in the mob, might be in the state, state absolutism, might be in the experts in the sciences.īut one way or another human beings need inescapably a principle of authority. And I think where we can start with a conversation like this is to recognize that human beings require of necessity, inescapably a concept of authority. I think there was an attempt for a period to suppress its circulation.Īnd that alerts us to something, and the way people speak about these things alerts us to something, that there's more going on here than just a question of the science or bare facts. But for the most part, it has been ignored, or at least set aside, overlooked, and at one point it was pretty difficult to even find on Google. It was encouraging to see the Barrington Declaration, some weeks back emerge, and the very much highly respected professionals in their field behind it.Īnd the signatures, many tens of thousands now of medical professionals and people involved in medicine as well as lay people now around the world who have signed it. So with these different messages that we're hearing out there, what exactly is happening here? Wow, how long have we got? It's a pretty comprehensive introduction to the issues. So we're hearing from other medical experts, however, these supporters of the Barrington Declaration that there's a completely different message here that all of this is foolishness, that this is not going to be a viable solution. We have other, yeah, that's right, yes, yeah, and we were just discussing the fact that churches are being closed in England as well. We need to close the restaurants, close the gyms, close the theaters and more. So just to get our discussion going, how do we reconcile all of this? We're told by the media, the World Health Organization, our prime minister, our premier in Ontario and all of the of their medical experts are saying that the solution to COVID-19 is to physically distance ourselves, and to the interaction to those in our immediate family, wear masks, and in many cases, even recently, over the weekend in England, Wales, we know about France, the city of Toronto, other regions here in Ontario. So this declaration, it now has tens of thousands of signatures for medical professionals all around the world. ![]() So this declaration it was authored by Sinetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University and Martin Koldorf of Harvard University. Lockdowns restrictions avoid all of these and instead focus on prevention measures for those individuals that are at risk. So really in other words, they propose that countries should be avoiding these stay at home orders. And it seeks to avoid or minimize the societal harm of the COVID-19 lockdowns. The declaration advocates an alternative risk based approach to COVID-19 that involves what they call focus protection of those most at risk. With that being said, what we hope to talk about today is what some medical experts have expressed in a document that was released in early October called the Berington Declaration. You keep talking about government overreach and your liberties being restricted, but I choose to follow the science and the medical experts. So I'm sure we've all heard some variation of this kind of sentiment over the past several months.Īnd it goes something like this. And our topic for today's discussion is the myth of neutrality and science. ![]() I'm Nathan Oblack and I'm once again joined by Dr. Hello and welcome to the podcast for cultural reformation. Our host for today's episode is Nathan Oblack. It's passed on as a prophecy every hear about this time. Welcome back to another installment of the podcast for cultural reformation brought to you by the Ezra Institute.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |