Guy Hatchard PhD
Guy Hatchard PhD is formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food testing and certification company
Sometimes we imagine we are involved in a rational argument about Covid vaccine safety and publish the evidence trusting that truth will have out, but mostly we puzzle about why there is no rational engagement in response.
Some people are writing about mass formation and looking to historical precedents in, dare I say it, 1930s Germany. Mainstream media would have us believe that NZ has become a nation of 90% converts. Perhaps it should be inscribed on our immigration landing forms: “Welcome to NZ, facts don’t matter, we have mandates”.
Despite this, it remains true that mass Covid vaccination is the result of innumerable individual decisions albeit taken under the sway of traditional vaccine safety and efficacy, fear of the unknown, tentative and often unreliable early research findings, and, in countries like ours, deliberate disinformation and in some cases compulsion. So how were so many persuaded to take an experimental drug using novel technology? Why was and is our government so keen to tell it’s free of adverse effects?
One of the most confounding factors has been the compartmentalisation of science disciplines and the resulting ignorance of science as a holistic body of interlocking facts and theories. Thus epidemiologists probably had little in their education to inform them about the appalling safety record of biotechnology. This has been the case for both animals (for a cattle breeder’s view see Gary Moller’s latest blog) and humans (see my YouTube video The Pandemic of Biotechnology). Similarly, popular science writers have been drilled in the myth of a rosy biotech future.
According to a little bird, in fact, a couple of little birds, just before our mRNA vaccine rollout, CARM the NZ system of adverse effect reporting was restaffed or perhaps re-educated to be less meticulous recorders of data. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the deliberate bloody-minded intention was to ensure that we all adopted biotechnology without question. We can imagine the do or die supporters of novel biotechnology saying “We are not going to let anything stand in the way this time, nothing like that GMO reluctance.” However, that still leaves us wondering how a gene therapy that has proved largely ineffective, wanes rapidly, and has an abominable safety profile is still alive and well, riding high in the media and seemingly impervious to critical science.
A master stroke was semantic only, calling genetic intervention a ‘vaccine’. Vaccines were widely known to be safe, effective, and were well recognised as a social good. Vaccination techniques have virtually eradicated some serious diseases including smallpox. Serious adverse effects of traditional vaccines are very very rare.
So back to mass formation. My undergraduate training was in theoretical physics. Even at that time, it was well understood through quantum measurement theory that consciousness is intimately connected to physical reality. Recently a ground breaking experiment has changed our view of how consciousness and physical reality are related. It appears to me that it points to an important lesson about collective consciousness and mass movements.
In essence, quantum mechanics leaves physical reality to evolve in a superposition of probabilities in an abstract multidimensional Hilbert space until it is measured or observed by someone and thereby becomes objective. In 1961 physicist Ernest Wigner proposed an interesting experiment called the two friends experiment. Suppose there is a closed box containing one friend who performs a measurement and gets a definite objective result. The other friend is outside the box and can’t see inside, by the rules of quantum mechanics, his answer about what happened in the box is that there is no definite answer, just a superposition of probabilities of what might happen. How can something be at the same time absolutely true and only probable? Are there two realities depending on your point of view? Remarkably an experiment that approximates this has now been performed.
The results show that one must give up at least one of three fundamental tenets of our current world view—locality (the friends’ choices do not influence one another), free will (the friends can freely choose their measurements), or observer independent facts (that all observers can reconcile and agree upon recorded facts, in other words objective reality). The authors and commentators discuss which of the the three must be abandoned without reaching any definite conclusion. However many believe there are reasons to suppose that giving up both locality and free will may be insufficient to resolve the contradiction. Therefore they are driven to entertain the idea that ‘facts’ are only relative to observers.
Philosophically this is fascinating, but it also may possibly have practical consequences. Not only matter and consciousness, and hence physiology and consciousness, are intimately connected, but also might people become connected to one another through the choices they make. Decisions taken by individuals are at the leading edge of their personal evolution, but it may also be the case that by taking a decision you could be almost unwittingly joining a group or unit of collective consciousness which has a life of its own and influences your thinking. In other words, there is a reciprocal relationship between individual and collective consciousness. Individuals create collective consciousness but they are in term influenced by it. Citizens of New York for example create the lively collective consciousness or feeling of the city through their individual choices, but they are also caught up in and influenced by the frenzy and excitement of New York.
Examples of groupings of collective consciousness include families, fans of particular football or sports clubs, national citizens, ethnic or religious affiliations, etc. The result of the ‘two friends’ experiment suggests that not only can groups be linked by shared ideas but they may also be linked together by the laws of physics. When you acquiesce to an action, join a group, or decide to ‘believe’ you may become linked to other people who have taken similar decisions (losing locality), give up a part of your capacity for independent thought (lose free will), and as a result you begin to live in a different reality (there is no longer only one objective reality). In this world view, deciding to ‘trust’ something can be a powerful form of hypnosis. It amounts to giving up your capacity to question the ideas you now ‘trust’ and thereby it changes the world you live in.
This of course is partly philosophical speculation, but it is absolutely the case that consciousness and physiology are intimately interlinked. The central organising hub of each individual is our unique DNA. Studies show RNA sequences including those in Covid vaccines can reverse transcribe into our DNA, therefore there is no knowing what effect that may have on our physiology and our psychology. More recently it has become realised through epigenetic research that the way our individual DNA expresses itself relies on the configuration of both cell microbiology and our wider physiology. This field of influence extends to the world around us, including for example our family history. We are part of a wider biological web. It should not be too much of a stretch to realise that our possible actions may be constrained or bounded by our connections, history, and perceptions—by the way we view the world.
All the great scientific, intellectual, and philosophical traditions, emphasise the goal of universal truth. Physicists such as Bohm discussing the two friends paradox suggest that this might be resolved by the existence of a ‘privileged observer’ who would have access to a ‘global wavefunction’.
In other words, there is a holistic truth and that can be articulated. In fact, it is a quintessentially human endeavour to find the truth, rather than take refuge in comforting ideas that have no basis in experience or experiment. Therefore we are going to continue trying to resolve the controversy surrounding mRNA vaccine through rational thought and we are going to be careful not to be swayed by ideas and allegiances that have no factual basis. Whether it is called mass formation or not, a nation desperately clinging to the irrational in the face of evidence to the contrary is in great danger.