Live and let live

When I recently read in Denník N an interview with the spokesperson of the National March for Life movement, I was unpleasantly surprised at the kind of person who was given space in a media outlet that shapes opinions to spread their views. Firstly, the respondent demonstrated very poor knowledge of elementary school biology, specifically, when as an adult she did not know that a fetus moves in the uterus.

The spokesperson of the movement further showed a complete lack of understanding in the area she was discussing, specifically regarding the issue of same-sex marriage and their adoption of children. Today, educated people in this field have enough evidence to claim that same-sex marriage and adoption by these couples do not cause any harm to children or society compared to heterosexual couples. Children are harmed by environments of dysfunctional families, where, for example, a heterosexual man abuses his wife, or adults who abuse them, and so on. The gender of the parents in this case plays no relevant role.

Studies with opposite results have been shown to be methodologically flawed, biased, ideologically motivated, and have been rejected by most scientists in psychology, sociology, and pediatrics. Equal rights for sexual minorities or transgender people improve mental and physical health not only for themselves but also for their families, and at the same time strengthen the stability of society as a whole.

The respondent’s statements also demonstrated a significant degree of insensitivity or even callousness towards women, who certainly do not constitute a minority in society. Her idea of draconian anti-abortion legislation would make an already extremely difficult situation for many women even worse. Again, the same applies as with children in families. Research shows that if women live in a safe and loving environment, they will have fewer reasons to artificially terminate pregnancy. The threat of imprisonment will definitely not create such an environment. On the contrary, such policies will impose new barriers on women, further increasing their vulnerability.

I consider the worst part to be that the spokesperson plans to promote and implement these views at the societal level, in other words, to impose them on people who disagree with her and who are clearly aware of her lack of expertise and harmfulness.

Lesson with Measles

When in 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield published in the journal The Lancet a study claiming that children vaccinated against measles with the MMR vaccine have a higher risk of developing autism, he knew he was lying. He falsified his article on multiple levels. Firstly, Wakefield did not disclose a conflict of interest – he worked for a private company and was paid as an advisor in cases of diseases related to vaccination. He biased the selection of pediatric patients to achieve results that supported his hypothesis that vaccination causes autism. It’s like a doctor paid by the church selectively choosing only dysfunctional gay couples and comparing them only to functional heterosexual couples to prove the supposed dangers of homosexual couples. Wakefield even took control samples of healthy children from his son’s birthday party, paying each child five pounds for the sample, which also violated basic ethical rules in scientific research. His article was officially retracted from scientific publication.

However, the damage was already done. Due to the panic Wakefield caused, children are now dying from measles again, a disease we could have known only from textbooks thanks to vaccination, similar to smallpox or polio. Today, no responsible media will invite Dr. Wakefield for an interview. Likewise, no rational media should give space to people with conflicts of interest whose job is to spread manipulative and scientifically debunked disinformation aimed against LGBTQ+ people. Like Wakefield, they are causing harm to society as a whole.

Lesson from Sparta

Allowing people with conflicts of interest into the public sphere is a guaranteed recipe for the ruin of society. It gives them free access to the lives of everyone else. Whether they are women whose right to decide about their own bodies is denied, or people of different nationality, skin color, sexual orientation, or minority gender identity whose basic rights are restricted, their presence threatens societal stability.

Every part of the population, even the smallest, has an important role in maintaining society and thus the entire human species. If minorities were systematically and long-term persecuted in any society, people would start to fear having children, because they could be at risk of death. One of the most significant factors contributing to the fall of Sparta was its irreversible demographic decline. It was probably difficult to plan a family in an environment of constant fear that children might be thrown into the abyss at birth due to their weight below the norm, as Plutarch mentions in the biography of Lycurgus. Although this Spartan custom is now considered more of a legend rather than a historically verified fact, physically weaker individuals in the military state of Sparta had a hard time. Imagine if, from preschool age, boys needing glasses or left-handed children were systematically disadvantaged. Why should parents risk that their future child will not be an equal member of society?

And the same applies to women. If women are subjected to long-term violence, humiliation, and threats, what sense does it make for them to even get pregnant? Activists constantly persecuting LGBTQ+ people and undermining women’s integrity are diligently working on implementing a state doctrine dividing people into citizens of the first and second categories.

Only a civilization that is diverse, varied, and in which one part is not permanently persecuted can survive long-term. In the realm of wild nature, diversity is a given. Only human society shoots itself in the foot — and actually between the legs. Therefore, if someone says that minorities are against nature, they only reveal their ignorance. A believer believes that nature is God's creation. Therefore, if a believer says it is against God, they reveal their hypocrisy. They are blaspheming.

Lesson with Crazy Cows

All those who plan to intrude into others’ privacy, into their lives, and to control them, share one trait. They hide behind terms that sound noble and precious, whether it is family, God, love, or nation or homeland, but their true motivation is intolerance, hatred, and a lust for power.

If someone thinks that giving these people space to express themselves will immediately reveal their evil intentions and prevent all evil, they are tragically and condemnably mistaken. It will be exactly the opposite. Hesitant, unstable, and reckless people will take the wrong paths. Just like during the pandemic, when many previously quite rational people became victims of crazy hoaxes.

As a molecular immunologist, I recognize an analogy to this process in the disease called bovine spongiform encephalopathy, in Slovak called “mad cow disease,” which is not entirely accurate because the disease affects cows that are otherwise quite normal. Only when they are infected do they become mad. The disease is not caused by a virus or bacteria but by a protein. It is called a prion.

A prion is necessary in the brain for memory formation. However, it can happen that one prion molecule loses its proper shape. This alone would not be so serious. The worse part is when such a faulty molecule encounters another molecule with a correct shape. Then, instead of repairing, the bad one corrupts the good one. As a result, there are already two non-functional, and thus harmful, prions in the brain. Every functional prion molecule that comes into contact with a non-functional one will inevitably become corrupted. It won’t happen overnight, but eventually, this affected brain will cease to fulfill its purpose — to think.

Author is a scientist, biochemist, and immunologist working at the Slovak Academy of Sciences. Besides scientific work, he is involved in popularizing science and writing books.

The text was created with the support of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, with representation in the Czech Republic. The publisher is fully responsible for the content; the views expressed in the text do not necessarily reflect the stance of the foundation.