by Nate Doromal and James Lyons-Weiler, Popular Rationalism, ©2023
(Nov. 15, 2023) — This article examines the application of critical theory and equity concepts on the matter of health. In no way is it an endorsement of critical race theory, wokeism, or applications of concepts of equity that involve taking from those who have to those who have not merely for the sake of wealth reallocation.
Health equity is the idea that everyone, regardless of race, demographic, or income level, can attain their highest levels of health through equal access to healthcare. It serves as a guiding principle for public health institutions in pursuing social justice, which aims for a fair division of resources, opportunities, and privileges in society.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the role of public health has expanded dramatically in society. It becomes all the more necessary for those who work in public health and those for whom it serves to critically assess how these institutions are fulfilling the role of social justice.
It is here where Critical Theory could, arguably, help. Critical Theory aims to reveal, critique, and challenge the existing power structures, enabling us to ask the essential question – Are our societal institutional structures providing social justice?
When fully applied to the COVID-19 public health response, it becomes clear that more complex ethical and moral issues need to be discussed beyond what government public health officials are telling us.
From a social justice standpoint, making sure everyone has a “life-saving vaccine” is a tempting one. “Inequities in access to healthcare” have been used by the vaccine industry to use government funds to promote vaccination in minority populations and the populace.
However, the reality of vaccine injury changes this dynamic significantly. As of October 27, 2023, there have been 35,501 deaths, over 211,257 hospitalizations, and 68,416 permanent disabilities reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
While public health officials argue that association-based reports to VAERS cannot be used to provide proof of cause, the system’s purpose is to identify safety signals, and these numbers are abnormally high relative to the other vaccines. Additionally, equivalent vaccine injury numbers have been seen in Europe and other areas, lending credence to safety concerns.
Moreover, the facts that data from VAERS is consistent with the literature regarding COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects, that temporal correlation is observed (in which many reported deaths within days of vaccine receipt), and a dose-response is seen (with higher percentages of adverse effects in occurring in those that receive a greater number of vaccines) suggest, when applying the Bradford-Hill criteria, that the COVID-19 vaccines are causal to the post-vaccine adverse effects. (Related: See Dr. Jessica Rose’s treatment of the BH Criteria to the problem of causal inferences using VAERS data):
But even more important are the personal stories of people hurt by vaccine injury and death. Many of these people had their lives ruined by doctors and public health authorities who told them that the jab would keep them safe. By ignoring them, the vaccine-injured have had to organize to have their voices heard.
One woman surveyed by the COVID-19 vaccine injury advocacy group React19 reported, I did it [take the vaccine] as my part to help end the pandemic. All it ended was my good health. Another man who received the jab as part of military service said, I did it to continue a lifetime of protecting my country. Now, who’s protecting me now?
To dismiss these cases as coincidental or causally lacking is cruel beyond measure.
Read the rest here.