The trick being pulled to mandate mRNA gene therapy vaccination is a philosophical inversion of reasonable doubt into reasonable belief to justify action.

The regulatory agencies have deemed it reasonable to believe that mRNA gene therapy vaccination is safe and effective:

“Based on these data, and review of manufacturing information regarding product quality and consistency, FDA concluded that it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine may be effective. Additionally, FDA determined it is reasonable to conclude, based on the totality of the scientific evidence available, that the known and potential benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine, for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older. ”

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reissue of authorisation for emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 , November 19 2021.

Then public health administrators have interpreted this reasonable belief to be beyond reasonable doubt by making it into a fact:

What You Need to Know
COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.”

CDC Guidance: Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines

The vaccine is safe and effective

The vaccine is safe and effective

The vaccine is safe and effective

The vaccine is safe and effective

The vaccine is safe and effective

The vaccine is safe and effective

This mantra has been chanted so much that reasonable belief has become ossified as a cold hard fact, which has inversely made it unreasonable to believe that mRNA gene therapy vaccination is unsafe or ineffective. And that because it is unreasonable to hold his view, it must inversely become reasonable to force mRNA gene therapy vaccination on people who don't want it through legal mandate.

In this way, the fundamental principle of having to prove something beyond reasonable doubt to know it has been circumvented. The regulatory institutions responsible for disclosing the primary scientific justification in the regulatory process have claimed 'reasonable belief' to justify authorisation of use. The private/public health institutions responsible for crafting policy have claimed 'beyond reasonable doubt' to justify recommendation of use. The politicians responsible for legal enforcement of this policy have claimed 'beyond all reasonable doubt' to justify enforcement of use.

Here we have three groups. Those who know the most say it can be used. Those who know less say it should be used. While those who know the least say it must be used.

Reasonable belief(authorisation) becomes Beyond reasonable doubt(recommendation) becomes Beyond all reasonable doubt(enforcement). Of course the scientific aspect of this process never surpassed the point of reasonable belief.

And so –
It is reasonable to believe it should be allowed. . .
It is beyond reasonable doubt that it should be used. . .
It is beyond all reasonable doubt that it must be used. . .

Notice the escalating intensity in belief the further from the source of information the messaging gets. Or you could say truth.

This is why the regulatory agencies are a good source of information. They don't want to be held accountable for what the politicians and public health officials are currently doing. So they use very responsible and cautious language within the scientific literature. They do not state anywhere, in any documentation which puts them on record, that the vaccine is safe or effective. The only fault they could be attributed is in acceptance of the integrity of data given to them by a commercial entity of vested interests.

As humans we presume life is good, and from this premise flows moral and ethical behaviour. Good behaviour is conducive to human life, bad behaviour is adverse to human life. Though of course things are complicated through logic, like greater good logic that alienates means from ends.

Generally though, good and bad behaviour, so far as we recognise through moral and ethical belief, we determine through the application of reason to empirical observation. Behaviour, as defined legally within system of justice, is justifiably good or bad by determining, subjectively through judgement, if it is beyond reasonable doubt to be known bad. If behavior is not known to be bad it is given the benefit of doubt.

If something is unknown, it is not beyond reasonable doubt. If something is known, it is beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus innocent until proven guilty avoids the bad behaviour of unjust punishment, while justifying the good behaviour of giving justice to victims of bad behaviour. This age old precedent, enshrined into law, places the onus or burden of proof, on a positive rather than a negative. If it did not do this, it would not be a 'justice' system in any meaningful sense of the word.

A negative, saying something isn't true, is reasonable until it is proved beyond reasonable doubt to be true. At which point it is unreasonable to say it is not true. Law does not operate on the conflation of these two categories. It is based on two value logic, that is, the binary determination that something is either beyond reasonable doubt or is reasonably doubtful and given the beenfit of doubt. Law cannot rule that something be both reasonably believed and reasonably doubted, as it gives benefit to doubt NOT belief.

It's amazing such a thing needs explanation, yet it does because it has been rendered such an unconcious process many have forgotten it. And is required for it to be understood why mRNA gene therapy vaccination is not 'safe and effective' in any meaningful way, let alone in a legal sense for the justification of its enforcement.

But it doesn't end there. Those who reasonably believe mRNA gene therapy is safe and effective then demand proof it is unreasonable for them to believe this. Which is of course impossible, one cannot prove God does not exist in the minds of others. They are working off the demonstrable false assumption that their belief is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be known. And over time, as the unknown becomes known, and evidence contrary to their belief which they can no longer deny manifests itself in reality, they modify their belief by calling it the 'scientific method'. The term used often is “The science changes, don't you know how science works. . .”, in a patronising sense to infer their beliefs had never been presented as facts. This could be called claiming a hypothesis after the fact, as opposed to before it.

Now all this would be fine, as belief is neither good nor bad, only potentially good or bad; so long as people recognise what they believe is not objectively the 'correct' belief to have. As the 'correct' belief in something isn't a belief, it is a fact, or a knowledge of knowing. And if they are operating on a set of facts not everyone agrees with them on, they will become frustrated as they come to believe they are dealing with people beyond all sense and reason. People who cannot be dealt with reasonably. And here it comes, that little dark seed growing in the minds of men and women, eventually blossoming into the logical conclusion that for 'the greater good' they must partake in or condone behaviour they know is bad, but justifiable since it leads to good. This seed gets planted when knowledge is conflated with ideology, the latter of which being the justification of ones actions.

It would seem that this seed has been planted, in our own time, through the development of a neo-scientific belief in quantitative reductionism for the philosophical basis of understanding reality, which has gorwn into a dogmatic sect of secular ideology within modern liberal democracies. And it now demands worship. It has produced the miracle of mRNA gene therapy vaccination to save people. People can only find salvation through its mRNA gene therapy. The natural immune system is evil and forced conversion to a synthetic one is necessary. An act through which one submits their will to The Science and rejects the evilness of flesh. And it demands you believe The Science is the following things but nothing else:

  1. It is beyond understanding (“You do not have the credentials to interpret the science.”)
  2. It cannot be questioned (“Your source of information is not a trusted authority on the science”)
  3. It is factual but always changing ("We know what the science says" - “The science changes, that is how science works”)
  4. It protects you from the danger of not believing in it (“You are free to make incorrect choices, but incorrect choices have consequences”)
  5. Everything it does, it does for the greater good

This is how a means based society tolerant of a plurality of views becomes an ends based society intolerant of all but an authoritative one. Or rather, how democracy dies through the gradual suppression of minority view 'rights' such as free speech and protest. Free speech becomes dangerous misinformation, or even disinformation. Protest becomes a demonstration of violent radicalism.

This cuts to the heart of the mass psychosis we are currently experiencing. A conflation of belief for fact. The justification of bad means for good ends. The removal of minority beliefs through speech and movement by a tyranny, of at least the political representation of a majority, who believe the minority beliefs that oppose them are pernicious to the facts of reality, and have become hellbent on not just perpetuating their majority view, but on making it a totality view through the suppression and elimination of all those who question it.

If this can be done, if they were ever to achieve this, it very much would no longer be a belief but become the actualisation of a new reality. A totalitarian reality. Not an authoritarian one, as such a thing infers a totality has not been reached yet. People generally don't understand the difference between the two, and suppose even, that Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984 are different representations of totalitarianism. But Brave New World is totalitarian not authoritarian, while 1984 is authoritarian but not totalitarian. As authoritarianism is the means through which totalitarian ends are met.

In Brave New World, the ability to question things has become almost extinct, with the narrative only doing so through the protagonist Bernard; an accounted for aberration due to having been given the personality endowments of an Alpha Plus without the physical characteristics of one, implying the biological controls used to facilitate genetic consistency within the hierarchy of types was not reflective of a breakdown in the constituency of the societies culture, but rather a rare, detectable, and most importantly preventable, mechanical fault in the machinery used to produce the biological potential of those types. Which makes the society of Brave New World consistently reliant on internal controls to enforce congruent patterns of behaviour. And hence the absence of a need for a police force, or any enforcement in general, as the concept of crime is more perplexing or a mystery to this society, than it is a readily understood fact of life in our own.

But in Orwell's world things are still very much authoritarian, as controls are almost 100% externalised and the process of internalised controls has seemingly only just begun. External controls(use of force or the threat of) would only be necessary within a society which did not totally embody The Party outlook. Thus The Party is in the process of creating, or at least attempting to create(really failing to), a totalitarian society through authoritarian measures used to forcefully instil a total outlook, done progressively through things like Newspeak.

You could call authoritarianism the process through which a society becomes totalitarian, a process which is complete once almost zero enforcement of rules is required, as everyone controls themselves. It is for this reason Winston is not killed, but spared. For The Party are aware of what they are trying to create, and Winston is a reflection of their failure to do so. It is for this reason, killing Winston will not solve their problem, only sweep it under the rug. They must set right what went wrong. Only 'correcting' Winston is an acceptable outcome, as their goal is to create a society where a Winston could never exist in the first place. And by the end of the novel Winston as a personality no longer exists. As he proclaims his love for Big Brother, this protagonist we've come to know as the personality identified as Winston, has been successfully erased.

1984 can be read as teething issues in what could eventuate over time into a Brave New World, which is set hundred of years later in 2540. But let us hope not. Because to reach consensus on what institutional authority claims to be the only acceptable truth, ultimately requires the liquidation of large segments of the population who cannot accept this willingly. Both books deal with this segment of the population differently. In 1984 they are a large underclass of proles, while in Brave New World they persist smaller in number as a primitive society kept on reservations.

Scientific and academic institutional authorities, as they currently exist, do not have the amount of credibility required to dictate their will. This means they can either back down and reform or double down and enforce.

Given that every view outside of the narrow minded institutional one is called a conspiracy theory these days, it follows that all views which don't accept the authority of institutions are becoming conspirators against it. An institutional belief which does not lend itself pleasantly to the future. For this is precisely what happened to the institution of Western religion in the lead up to and during the inquisition.

I suppose it was only a matter of time until science, as a valid and useful method for understanding the world, fell victim to its own institutionalisation.