The inversion of the ‘precautionary principle’

An enabler for the global power grab

The precautionary principle (PP), in its original form, counselled those considering the introduction of an innovative idea – a new way of doing things – to pause and think carefully about the balance between potential benefits and potential harms of the novel intervention, with the emphasis on ‘potential’, since by their nature innovations will invariably carry a high risk of unknown and unknowable potential harms. As such, the principle complemented the long-standing Hippocratic oath of our medical doctors to, First do no harm.

Regrettably, throughout the covid era, this sensible principle has been repeatedly ignored, or distorted, resulting in the imposition of a series of non-evidenced pandemic responses that have achieved little, while inflicting widespread collateral damage on entire populations. Even more alarming has been the systematic corruption of the PP to the point where, in its current mutated form, it can – under the cloak of achieving a ‘greater good’ – be deployed to justify any top-down, authoritarian interventions our world leaders wish to inflict upon their subjects. 

The original PP emerged in the 1970s in the context of growing public awareness of the dangers of industrial pollution from toxic chemicals. In keeping with the PP, if a business or corporation wished to introduce a novel process or intervention, there was a prior requirement for the innovator to gather and present evidence that the change would not result in net harms. Importantly, at this point in time, the burden of proof lay with the pioneers to conduct the due diligence. If evidence was not available to confidently dismiss the scenario where the change causes significant collateral damage, the central message emanating from the  original PP would be: ‘If in doubt, do nothing’. If only this wise counsel had been heeded throughout the covid event.

In 2020/22, adherence to the true PP would have ensured that our public health leaders followed the existing, carefully prepared, pandemic plan rather than using the country as a crucible for a series of live experiments to test out their speculative ideas. By following the letter and spirit of the original PP, our political leaders and their scientists would not have catapulted us into lockdowns, closed our schools, mandated masks, and indiscriminately pushed the experimental vaccines. Alas, over the last 30 years, the PP has evolved – or maybe ‘strategically mutated’ is a more apt expression – into a very different animal.

The dismantling of the PP gained momentum in 1992 when a United Nations General Assembly meeting of global leaders asserted (Principle 15) that:

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation’.

So, based on this consensus statement, an inferred environmental threat became sufficient for governments to impose ‘measures’, even in the absence of empirical evidence for net benefits of these interventions. It is difficult to fathom how one can claim that an intervention is ‘cost-effective’ when the balance of pros and cons associated with its introduction remains unscrutinised. In the aftermath of the United Nations’ proclamation, a succession of scientists and academics argued for further revisions of the original PP, culminating in the European Commission, in 2022, trumpeting its antithesis –  the ‘innovation principle’ – in which ‘the regulatory framework supports and enables the implementation of new out-of-the-box solutions to societal problems’.

During the covid event, this inversion of the PP empowered our public health leaders to recklessly encourage a series of pandemic responses that were both extraordinary and untested. Predictably, the collateral damage has been extensive. Confining healthy people to their homes has – in addition to the monumental economic damage – been instrumental in inflating all-cause excess mortality.

Acquiescing to the concerted efforts of the pro-mask lobby – with their ‘It’s only a mask’ and ‘what harm can it do’ mantras – has led to a range of negative consequences, including the stunting of our children’s social and emotional development to the point at which many cannot even recognise facial expressions. And, of course, the ‘innovation principle’ has been manna from heaven for Big Pharma, enabling the industry to market its latest drug or vaccine unencumbered by a prerequisite to demonstrate the safety of its products; the dire legacy of this regulatory relaxation has included the widespread vaccine damage from rushed-to-market products and the reckless mass vaccination of children.

The inversion of the PP has been an important factor in creating a world where our global leaders, in cahoots with large corporations, can – by claiming they are responding to an existential threat and acting for the ‘greater good’ – swiftly impose top-down restrictions and mandates on their citizens.

Brace yourselves for further assaults on our basic human rights, portrayed as necessary responses to threats posed by viral pandemics, climate Armageddon, lethal levels of pollution or war-mongering hostile nations.

Please follow and like us:
Visit Us