Natural and Unnatural Immunity
Another bright spot in the now-dead fictional pandemic narrative is that it has caused much serious critical thinking about all sorts of immunity, but most particularly two types: (1) the natural and mysterious immunity created by the miraculous human body; and (2) the toxic, unnatural legal immunity created by governments and its predictable effect on opportunistic Trousered Apes.
So, as the pandemic narrative fades away, let us take a moment to be grateful for the many things we have learned about ourselves and about the failed coup plotters over the last two years, and also learn about what we can do to immunize and protect our susceptible minds from future psychological assaults.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND NATURAL IMMUNITY
The first silver lining in the failed pandemic narrative is that, had Davos Man had not attempted the Covid Coup, many of us would not have had the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of what the scientific method really means and would probably still be accepting, without questioning, things like the efficacy of vaccines and the "germ theory" of disease. The pandemic narrative has shown us, as the great Professor Feynman famously pointed out in a 10 minute lecture, that the scientific method and certainty are antonyms, not synonyms. Science is only certain about things that don't work. The "laws" of science (the things that do work) are not laws; according to the true scientist, they are merely working hypotheses that have not yet been proven wrong. The best scientists are therefore those who have overcome the dangerous, baked-into-the-human-flesh certainty bias that we all have to some degree.
The pandemic narrative has also separated the wheat from the chaff in many spheres, including particularly political leadership, science, and health care. In the health care sphere, the pandemic narrative allowed true health professionals to distinguish themselves from those who are easily misled by propaganda and those who are led astray by the powerful psychological magnet of financial incentive bias. This is a real blessing as it will guide us going forward. Seeing in real time the dangerous allure of financial incentives and observing a disturbingly high percentage of "first-do-no-harm" oath-taking doctors actively kill thousands of their patients in exchange for a small federal stipend is a hard, but very beneficial, lesson that the pandemic narrative has taught us. The pandemic narrative has thankfully provided us with the sobering realization that doctors, like all of us, can act like Trousered Apes and that death-by-doctor is a very real and dangerous phenomenon. It clearly is an inherent risk in the allopathic, federally-subsidized Western medical care system. In the future, we should not be surprised if a bankrupt Leviathan with well over $222 trillion in unfunded future medical expense liabilities would act rationally and attempt to bribe gullible and malleable health care professionals into killing their patients in order to reduce Leviathan's future liabilities.
Accurate information, and particularly accurate risk information, is the most precious resource. The pandemic has given us sound and accurate risk information to help us pick our health care providers wisely. Another blessing.
Furthermore, the pandemic narrative has allowed our best health professionals to distinguish themselves as true scientists and has shown us what real science looks like. We find that the best health science is effective and at the same time messy and uncertain. Independent thinking doctors have addressed "Covid" with multiple "protocols," or combinations of home remedies, drugs and therapies, including Vitamins D, C, and A, zinc, and have also included allopathic methods such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Some have even employed, perhaps unwisely, "Emergency Use Authorization" drugs like monoclonal antibodies and pharmaceuticals like Prozac.
These health professionals have shown us their scientific work and professional judgment and we now see that the best doctors are those who are uncertain, do not claim to have all the answers, and do not violate the principles of informed consent by coercing their patients into taking unproven and untested experimental drugs. Rather, the best health care professionals ask the right questions, think critically, question government and Big Pharma narratives, respect their patients' choices, and work diligently with their patients to help their patients perform rational risk-benefit analyses. These doctors and uncertain scientists, some of whom have lost their professional licenses for crime of independent thought and the practical application of the scientific method, include the signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration, the Frontline Doctors and now the Alliance of Doctors and Scientists.
One protocol, the Tyson-Fareed Protocol, exemplifies both the diligence of caring doctors and at the same time the scientific uncertainty involved in serious and effective health care. The Fareed-Tyson Protocol has enjoyed a zero death rate with only three hospitalizations. A perusal of the kittywampus/kitchen sink Fareed-Tyson Protocol illustrates how little our best and most effective doctors "know" about the mystery of human health. Of the 10-15 odd things listed in the Fareed-Tyson Covid Protocol (Pepcid?), no one, including Drs. Fareed and Tyson, can tell us what it is that actually "works." The "system" works and they don't know how. The Trousered Ape part of the human mind wants clarity and certainty, yet we must accept that there is no magic bullet that "cures Covid." All we know (for now) is that, if we throw the Fareed-Tyson Protocol kitchen sink of homeopathic vitamins and minerals and low-risk allopathic medicines at the 202o Seasonal Flu, then Covid patients will experience a boost in their natural immune system that will eliminate their risk of death (so far) and minimize their risk of hospitalization. The paradoxical 100 percent effectiveness and lack of 100 percent clarity and certainty in the Fareed-Tyson Protocol is at the same time humbling and illuminating. And another blessing because it helps us see health care professionals more as humble partners than as demi-gods.
In addition to separating the independent thinking wheat from the sleepwalking chaff among practicing health professionals, the failed Covid Coup has also spawned an even deeper investigation into the nature of disease and how optimal health is obtained and maintained. The thorough and persuasive Dr. Andrew Kaufman has reprised the 19th century "germ theory" and "terrain theory" debate between Louis Pasteur (germ) and his contemporary Claude Bernard (terrain). Legend says that Mr. Bernard won this debate 200 years ago when Pasteur, on his deathbed, confessed: "Bernard is right, the virus is nothing, the terrain is everything."
21st century Dr. Kaufman agrees with Claude Bernard and credibly posits that current virus theory is all wrong. Virologists have never isolated any virus in accordance with Koch's Postulates and have therefore failed to prove even the existence of viruses. In light of Professor Feynman's lecture above in which he warns against garbage-in-garbage-out "vagueness" in developing scientific hypotheses and in defining theorem terms, it is at least interesting to note that no one, including ardent virologists, disputes that viruses, unlike bacteria, do not exist "on their own" and so can only be observed and studied when "other" live organic cells are also present. Dr. Kaufman's point that virologists have failed to isolate viruses and instead have changed the definition of isolation to fit their hypotheses and accommodate their testing methods is therefore a sound one. Dr. Kaufman's thorough explication of his position can be found here.
The Covid Coup-spawned debate over the existence and nature of viruses may also be headed toward a larger spiritual awakening. The virus-no virus debate has caused a little kerfluffle between the radical (radical = rooted, like radish) terrain theorists like Dr. Kaufman and some of the heroic treating physicians and uncertain scientists who, while encouragingly are anti-vax, have lived, breathed, and based their life and livelihood on the germ theory. If the germ theory of disease is incorrect, if Western allopathic medicine and pharmaceuticals is mostly wrong in that it treat symptoms rather than root "terrain" causes, if healing and preventing disease is much more about taking balanced and proper care of the miraculous human body, if being "infected" with a "virus" is actually more like the body manifesting exosomes that show that it is in the process of healing and detoxifying, then the question ultimately leads to an epistemological one. That is: Who is really in charge here? If I am sick, do I first look to outside help from doctors or do I first look within for balance and better mental and physical habits? Will the good doctors and uncertain scientists someday include in their protocols things like prayer, fasting, and prostrations?
Because of my own epistemological bias and presumption--God is in charge here, over everyone, the good, the bad, and the ugly, me, you, Fauci, Gates, Bourla, everyone--I believe that the terrain theorists have already prevailed and that will become more obvious to everyone. The successful kitchen sink protocols above affirm this view. The protocols work generally not because they kill or counter a deadly virus, but likely because they generally supplement, salve, boost, and heal a weakened terrrain/body. And I could be wrong.
Finally, the case in favor of natural immunity continues to mount, confirming my epistemological bias. At the outset of the pandemic narrative, several groups of doctors performed serum antibody tests and determined that, between March and September of 2020, between five to 24 percent of the populations tested had already been exposed to "Covid." The CDC's own data now shows that nearly half of the United States (>147 million people) have had "covid." If we can trust this "data"--if viruses do not exist, then this is a big "if" because the presence of anti-bodies may not prove anything--then this data would prove what some of us accept as self-evident: natural immunity will always be superior to man-made immunity.
What a blessing.
LEGAL IMMUNITY, ECONOMIC INCENTIVES, AND TROUSERED APES
The pandemic narrative has also awakened us to the dangerous intersection of behavioral economics and governmental immunity. While we know that "incentives are superpowers," that "government subsidizes what it wants more of and taxes what it want less of," and sadly also that "for a piece of bread a man will transgress," never before have we seen on a global scale the dangerous and toxic mix of government subsidies and government immunity combined with the madness of crowds.
For those of us who are seasoned cynics of government's means, motives, and intentions, the internal conversation regarding the vaccine mandates went something like this:
Government: We want you to voluntarily submit to a drug experiment and take an experimental drug.
Government: Duh, because we are in the midst of a very dangerous pandemic.
Cynic: What if I say no?
Government: Then we will force you to walk around with cloth covering your face and force you to get your nasal cavity probed every week until you relent. And you will have to pay for the nasal probe.
Cynic: Interesting. Other than avoiding making my life miserable, are there any other good reasons to participate in your experiment?
Government: Yes, if you submit to the experiment you will help us make everyone safer, especially a lot of old, sweet grandmothers.
Cynic: OK, you got me, I'd like to help. If I am hurt or injured by the experimental drug, do you agree to be responsible and compensate my family if it kills me?
Cynic: Why not?
Government: Because we have sovereign immunity. We don't do liability.
Cynic: OK, what about the drug pusher, I mean seller? They will compensate me if this experiment injures me or kills me, right?
Government: Uh, no.
Cynic: Why not?
Government: Because we have given them statutory, legal immunity under something we are calling the PERP, I mean PREP, Act.
Cynic: Why did you do that?
Government: Because, you know, its an emergency. It has been for two years now. Don't you have a smartphone?
Cynic: Well, OK, yes two years have passed since this all started so we could disagree about how urgent this is. Anyway, I want to help you out here. Has the drug seller done any risk tests that I can look at?
Government: The shots are safe and effective.
Cynic: Uh, that didn't answer my question. Any tests?
Cynic: Can I see them?
Cynic: Why not?
Government: Trade secrets.
Cynic: Didn't you just say this was a health emergency?
Cynic: So, what you are saying is that you want me to voluntarily participate in a drug experiment, that you have given the drug seller complete legal immunity if I am killed or injured by the drug experiment and that the drug seller will not share its risk information with me because it feels that there is something so uniquely profitable about this drug and this experiment that they are claiming that it is trade secret?
Government: I don't like the way you phrased that.
Cynic: OK, I'm still willing to consider this but, as you can tell, I am a bit of cynic so a couple of more questions if you don't mind. Since this is a global health emergency, we are all in this together, and we all have to sacrifice to save innocent lives, would I be wrong to assume that the drug company, in order to preserve global health in this emergency, is providing this experimental drug for free?
Government: Not really.
Cynic: What do you mean, not really? Who is paying for it?
Government: We are.
Cynic: Are they at least giving it to the sweet old grandmothers that we are all trying to protect?
Government: No, we are paying for that too. And unlimited boosters for them until they, uh, never mind.
Cynic: OK, thank you, that helps. I am closer to a decision. Since we at least agree that this health emergency has lasted two years now, can you tell me how much just one drug seller has profited in the last year from your purchases of these emergency experimental drug treatments?
Government: $36 billion.
Cynic: No thank you.
This conversation illustrates just some of the financial incentives at work in the pandemic narrative. There were and are many, many more.
Was the entire pandemic narrative a scary ruse designed to simultaneously generate riskless profits for Big Pharma and restore legitimacy and control to government? Was it a eugenic experiment with the intent on reducing the Medicare and Medicaid rolls? Or was it all part of a much bigger economic reshuffling caused by decoupling trade with China that triggered the September 2019 repo crisis and ultimately caused the Fed to take complete control of the entire yield curve in March of 2020? Is the sad reality that the United States Federal Reserve System lost an economic war in 2019 and the pandemic narrative was the Big Lie necessary to protect us from the fact have have spent two years recovering from a lost economic war?
On this last point, the pandemic narrative timeline is at least suspicious. The repo market collapsed on September 17, 2019. Two days later, on September 19, 2019 President Donald J. Trump declared war on the seasonal flu and launched the pandemic narrative via Executive Order 13887.
AN OPTIMISTIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEW
Speaking of the Chinese, Watchman Nee provides a necessary post-pandemic lesson on what optimistic faith in a Sovereign God looks like. A man and his wife are traveling on a ship when the ship encounters a very dangerous storm that tosses and turns the ship. The storm is so violent that the couple hangs on to furniture and fixtures in their cabin to prevent themselves from being flung about. The wife is terrified and angry at her stoic husband because he does not appear to comprehend or acknowledge the grave danger they are in. She yells at him: "Do you not care that this storm might kill us?" The husband, across the room, picks up a kitchen knife and points it at her. The wife is unfazed. The husband says: "Why aren't you afraid?" The wife responds: "Because I know that you would never do anything to harm me." The husband concludes: "Dear, I am not afraid of this storm because this ship is in the Hands of Almighty God and I know that He would never do anything to harm us."
This must be our attitude going forward. We should not fear Leviathan or people like Fauci, Bourla, Wallensky, or Gates. We and they, like the ship, are all in the Hands of a Sovereign God. The pandemic narrative has provided us with the most valuable and scarcest resource: accurate risk information. We now know who is who among our political leaders, government agencies, potential employers, health professionals, and everyone around us.
We must be grateful for the trial and test that the pandemic narrative has provided because it has sharpened our critical thinking skills, given us practical wisdom and discernment, and, most importantly, caused us to recognize and trust in God and His Sovereignty.