Normal & reality: a proposed definition for discussion

On one of the Facebook groups I follow, the conversation about the recent Arkansas law protecting conscience was diverted from the law itself by a sensational headline that reflected only the worst accusations of opponents & the reactions of group members to that headline. 

During the  conversation,  I was questioned about my use of the term “normal” for healthy bodily functions.  At the least, “normal” is that which doesn’t itself injure tissues & organs and doesn’t require technological intervention to produce or to prevent morbidity & mortality.

We are hearing & reading about demands that legitimate research results should be suppressed,  watching physicians and scientists who express heterodox opinions be censored. Then we’re told that there’s a “consensus,”  since none of the “objectionable” research is published, much less popularized, and the outliers are demonetized and covered with warning boxes.

Science  isn’t a “consensus.” In science, true hypotheses are testable,  with valid results capable of being confirmed by different observers under similar conditions in different labs. 

That’s also a good definition of reality or “normal.” One that  could be applicable to medical subjects like COVID or vaccines, as well as social and legal  matters.

We’re  being manipulated for reasons that have nothing to do with actual health, physical or mental.  I can’t fathom a reasonable explanation. It looks like an exertion of power – social, financial, then legal.

Patients won’t be helped at all by forcing moral injury by requiring medical professionals to act against their conscience and we all lose when rational discussion is suppressed in the  public sphere.