Vaccines For All & The Death of Worldviews

The vaccine battle, in many ways, comes down to a battle of worldviews and a crisis of meaning.

Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Turn your attention to your body and release any tension. Breathe slowly into the area of your heart for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Stay connected to your body as you read. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

---

I found myself reading a piece in The Atlantic titled What To Know About Fall COVID Vaccines.

I thought to myself:

• Are we going to hear how effective they are?

• Are we going to find out who needs them and who doesn’t?

• Are we going to hear about the risks of vaccination or problems we’ve been seeing with COVID shots?

• Can we expect a holistic picture in this conversation at all? Something that would truly inform readers?

Coming from the Atlantic, the last two bullet points are not likely. And it’s not because they don’t employ talented and smart writers and journalists, but because they employ people who generally don’t think outside the box when it comes to cultural norms in their country. (I talk about this in my piece How We Are Being Misled.)

In this piece I want to offer some thoughts and observations on what’s driving the consciousness of people in our current moment and why it’s important to consider in our sensemaking - especially as it relates to what many feel is an unfolding meaning crisis that may only get more chaotic.

Vaccines For All

The Atlantic piece starts with Katherine J. Wu, a science journalist, explaining the latest recommendations from the CDC.

Katherine J. Wu: “Experts at yesterday’s CDC advisory panel were really making it clear that everyone stands to benefit in some way from this vaccine. COVID is very much still a real threat. People are still dying, and people are still being debilitated by long COVID. Even if risk is not equal across everyone in the population, this is a really important public-health intervention.”

Just hearing this may bring about the thought “How the heck are people still buying into this?”

She continues:

Katherine J. Wu: “I am all for enthusiastically recommending this vaccine to everyone. Some people are at higher risk, so I would even more strongly encourage those people to go get it.

When we think about any vaccine, especially COVID-19 vaccines, we think most about preventing severe disease. But there are secondary benefits of these vaccines too: For at least a time, you will have a lower risk of getting infected and spreading the virus. And if you do get sick, your symptoms may be shorter if you’ve been recently vaccinated. There may even be a lower risk of developing long COVID down the road, which is an important thing to keep in mind because we know that it can come out of even mild infections. Also, there’s really not a concern at this point of the vaccine running out.

[…] To be clear, there is really widespread consensus that everyone needs at least a couple doses of the vaccine. There’s no doubt in experts’ minds that going from zero vaccines to two or three is essential. The gains are going to be massive for everyone.”

We can clearly see here that Wu is in full support of these vaccines, doesn’t seem to see any controversy around them, and believes everyone needs one. But it goes further as we look at another piece she recently wrote.

In her recent piece, Wu interviews Dr. Paul Offit and Dr. Tony Fauci for her story. Her idea was to understand why Offit is not recommending COVID vaccines as a high priority for everyone, while Fauci is. It seems she also wanted to explore whether Offit is taking the best approach to what he’s saying regarding COVID shots.

She starts with:

Paul Offit is not an anti-vaxxer. His résumé alone would tell you that: A pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, he is the co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine for infants that has been credited with saving “hundreds of lives every day”; he is the author of roughly a dozen books on immunization that repeatedly debunk anti-vaccine claims. And from the earliest days of COVID-19 vaccines, he’s stressed the importance of getting the shots. At least, up to a certain point.

I find it ironic she spends time convincing her audience that Offit is not an anti-vaxxer. Why would someone who has a nuanced position on something have to be considered anti-anything? Oh right, this is literally the response from mainstream thinking toward anyone who has had a different opinion on vaccines.

Interestingly enough, those who play along with that propaganda, as I’m sure Wu has during COVID, now have to backtrack it when they want to critique those ‘on their side.’

We can see that Wu doesn’t agree with Offit when she says she believes everyone should get it and can stand to benefit from it, while Offit believes it’s more so useful for the older population.

To some extent it makes me feel her tension with Offit isn’t really about science or a holistic view of the COVID vaccine discussion, but more so with anyone who challenges exactly mom and dad say.. *I mean the CDC and FDA.

Does Wu view Australia as anti-vax? Their fall COVID recommendations state:

ATAGI recommends that all adults aged ≥ 75 years should receive an additional 2023 COVID-19 vaccine dose if 6 months have passed since their last dose.

ATAGI advises the following groups should consider an additional 2023 COVID-19 vaccine dose if 6 months have passed since their last dose, after discussion with their healthcare provider:

• All adults aged 65 to 74 years, and/or

• Adults aged 18 to 64 years with severe immunocompromise.

It feels that in Wu’s worldview, we can’t suggest public health agencies in her country ever get it wrong.

It doesn’t matter how obvious the need for questioning these organizations becomes, how much corruption is in their history, or how much evidence is brought forth, it’s simply “anti-vaxxer” nonsense.

Could the CDC SPIDER papers change Wu’s view of the CDC?

By this, I mean that in 2017 a group calling itself CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or CDC SPIDER, put a list of complaints in a letter to the CDC Chief of Staff and provided a copy of the letter to the public. It clearly stated:

"It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests... and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behaviour. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health."

CDC SPIDER

A huge theme within our current zeitgeist is that highly credentialed folks are suggesting the CDC cannot be trusted as it seems a captured regulatory agency.

Where is this in Wu’s piece as she blanket recommends the vaccine to The Atlantic’s millions of readers?

Summarizing Wu’s words we can consider:

1. Wu is a science writer, why does she have the ability to recommend vaccines when those with the same credentials who take a vaccine cautionary position are considered deplorable and ‘non-experts?’

2. She isn’t addressing the fact that literally tens of thousands of doctors and scientists are concerned that these vaccines have not been shown to be safe, have had many negative side effects, and have no long-term safety analysis to be recommending them unless absolutely necessary.

3. What was her reasoning for agreeing with Fauci’s point of view instead of Offit’s? When experts disagree, do we just go with the one who’s higher up in the societal expert chain?

4. Is Wu avoiding all of these things and blindly trusting the CDC simply because their corruption doesn’t fit into her worldview?

Beyond the obvious logical fallacies, fact avoidances, and overly simplified outlooks on COVID and vaccines by Wu, it’s number 4 in my list I’m most fascinated by.

Trust In The Existing Worldview

Interestingly the population likely won’t buy into the CDC’s advice. Last year there was less than 20% uptake on boosters in the US, much lower than what was expected by health authorities. Wu sees this as well:

“Last year, uptake for the fall COVID vaccine was abysmal; […] And certainly, with uptake that low, the goal will be to raise uptake this year.”

But why does she not offer any thoughts on why the uptake is so low? This is a fascinating piece in this whole discussion.

Is the vaccine uptake low because people no longer see COVID as a threat even if their government keeps claiming it is? Is vaccine uptake low because people are cautious of the vaccine? If so, what made them cautious? Is it true?

Have people seen the countless reports from experts showing the need to be cautious about this vaccine and therefore aren’t budging for it? Has Wu considered this?

Perhaps Wu has no idea about these facts and has not truly considered the evidence carefully brought forth by experts challenging the mainstream narrative.

But aside from not seeing the facts, having full trust in the CDC and government is a big part of her worldview. And this is the case for many people. To me, this is why they can’t consider anything outside the mainstream narrative.

This is also why it appears as though many of us are living in different worlds - because in some ways we are.

A Time of Transition & Changing Worldviews

Simply put if you have broken the illusion and come to realize that the narratives of the CDC, government and other regulatory agencies are incomplete and sometimes bogus, Wu’s words will appear insane to you.

Further, when you hear something from the CDC, you’re likely going to be highly skeptical of it. This isn’t because there is something wrong with you, but because your experience has told you there isn’t a good reason to trust the CDC blindly.

On the flip side, Wu’s explanation for people who don’t believe in what the CDC, government, and regulatory agencies say is “they are conspiracy theorists, and likely anti-vaxxers.”

The idea that these authority figures can’t be trusted doesn’t fit into her worldview. Within her story there is a good definition for people like this: “alt-right conspiracy theorists.”

This obviously creates a disorienting moment for us collectively. How can we agree on the things that affect all of us if we are not only operating off of different facts but also completely different worldviews?

A troubling thought. Further, the question becomes, how do we engage with one another and seek progress if we are living in different worlds?

The Journey of Cultural Evolution

When I talk to people who have recently become fed up with government, mainstream media, and the current societal worldview, they state the same things.

• “At this point, the government has clearly lied so much.” (They then point out clear examples)

• “At this point, I have no reason to believe or trust them moving forward.”

• “The fact government, Big Tech and MSM silence and censor people who ask questions blows me away. It makes me think they are guilty.”

The people I’m talking about here are not even folks who regularly watch alternative media or tune into ‘anti-vaxxers’ on a regular basis. These are people who followed a gut instinct that something wasn’t right about what they were hearing and decided to look closer.

As they got curious enough, they opened their mind to having their worldview change.

Now, these people are experiencing something I mentioned in my previous article this week. They’ve dipped into our momentary meaning crisis.

I stated in my piece:

‘A meaning crisis happens when the existing story or philosophy that drives a society no longer resonates or makes sense to people. This can happen as we learn more and expand our knowledge collectively, or even as we evolve in what we feel is important to us.“

[…] it can often result in a shift in consciousness of sorts. The mind expands, we become aware of different things, and suddenly the story of ‘how the world works’ doesn’t quite fit. We begin to admit we may have been believing in an illusion of sorts and are forced to ask what else may not be true when it comes to things we’ve been told.

People’s trust in institutions is what’s falling apart, but it’s happening at different times for different people. I’ve been watching this process unfold for well over a decade, and it’s fascinating to see it moving toward a critical mass.

When people lie or mislead others who can obviously see it happening, they aren’t going to trust them anymore. When this happens on a societal level, the story most believe in, which is something like, ‘my government can be trusted and is doing its best to steward the population in a meaningful way,’ simply doesn’t explain reality anymore.

People end up feeling misplaced as if they are walking on quicksand, unsure of who to trust and who to believe. Over time people don’t know what the future looks like or where things are headed because there is no meaning or purpose behind the direction of society.

The challenge of our current moment, especially if you are someone who has already snapped out of the illusion of the old narrative, is to stay grounded enough to feel into and navigate the complexities of what’s unfolding around us.

Yes, reading Wu’s words, the decisions of regulatory agencies, and the government are going to sound insane. It’s likely not going to fit your view of the world anymore, so what do we do next?

The Importance of Framing

Since I started Collective Evolution in 2009 I’ve enjoyed framing what I see happening as a time-released shift in consciousness because it brings about a grounding effect.

Instead of viewing the world as an entirely random string of chaotic events where people are either ‘awake’ or ‘asleep,’ we can view what unfolds as a progression and a dance.

This framing gives us a better chance of staying grounded and of not losing empathy for our fellow humans as we begin seeing the world differently from one another and seek solid ground.

To answer the questions of how we engage as this process is unfolding, how we see and approach one another is crucial. We must avoid falling into camps, becoming ideological and fighting one another in bad faith.

I’ve spent the last 15 years of my life inviting people to open up to new and different ideas with love and respect. The approach matters (there is a research paper in here as well) and the energy you hold within yourself matters.

This isn’t entirely a logical pursuit either, but one that involves slowing down, becoming more embodied, appealing to intuition and other ways of knowing, and learning to connect meaningfully with one another to gain understanding.

Getting in touch with a deeper place within yourself that can help provide meaning and welcome the birth of an emerging worldview is important too.