Have you learned your lesson?

Some questions concerning corona

“I do not think anyone is more easily brought to reveal his insights than me. Precisely because I admit to be an unschooled idiot, I am not afraid to answer. The learned philosophers and those who have a scientific reputation, are afraid to commit errors and are very cautious in sharing their opinions. But when you ask me a question, I will give you a straight answer.”

-Nicholas de Cusa, Idiota de Mente.

In a recent post, Conceptual Warfare: On disease and deception in the age of corona, I explained how the concept of disease we utilize, impacts the measures we take in response to a “pandemic” scenario. When it comes to the sanitary state of exception of the past years, people are realizing that the restrictions put in place by our governments made things worse, not better. The critique is usually of the form of: yes, covid-19 is a terrible disease, but it is not so terrible that we need to shut down the entire economy, close schools, etc. Concerning the vaccines: yes, covid-19 is a terrible disease, but it is not so bad that we have to enforce vaccination. Related to this; people proclaim things as: “this isn’t the plague!” or “this isn’t polio!” What these critiques have in common is that they only critique the degree to which measures and restrictions were implemented, but they don’t critique the fact of these measures by themselves. What they also implicitly admit is that, if the disease were much worse, these measures would be warranted. And perhaps even more restrictive measures would be warranted. 

It has increasingly become my belief that these critiques are misguided. They assume that the idiocy and corruption starts with the degree to which measures are implemented, not with the measures themselves. But in doing so, they pledge their allegiance to these same measures that they are supposedly critiquing. They confirm their belief in the same underlying ideology. These critics and enforcers of mandates alike, all believe that the only way to solve a pandemic is by locking down/ social distancing, and mass-vaccination. What differentiates the critic from the enforcer, is only the degree to which they believe vaccination is needed, and the degree to which we should lock down, in this specific case of covid-19. 

“It is only covid-19 that we are dealing with! This isn’t ebola!” So you would sell your freedom in case of ebola? You would renounce your bodily autonomy in case of polio? I am glad we didn’t have the same technologies of enforcement in the 50’s, and you weren’t around to beg for them.

Why would one believe that only social distancing works? And why would one believe that only vaccination works? One believes vaccination works because one believes vaccination is safe and effective, and that the human organism left to itself won’t be able to survive a virus. One believes social distancing works because one believes viruses attack the body from the outside, and the human organism itself doesn’t play a role in their expression. 

What these views admit, is a one-sided belief in a Germ-Theory of disease, and its related view on what a virus is. The Germ-Theory states that disease is caused by an outside agent (a germ, a virus,…) that attacks a person, and thus causes disease. A virus, in this theory, is a living microorganism that is able to live on outside of a host, and is contagious ( you can “catch” it). Such a virus is undiscriminating in its attack, meaning, it can attack everyone, everyone can “catch” it if one is exposed to it. If one believes that this is the only cause of disease, then lockdown and vaccination measures are quite reasonable and rational. Social distancing would be what prevents one from catching the virus. And because the virus attacks everyone in an equal manner, an outside agent is needed to protect us: vaccination. Both the enforcers of the current sanitary paradigm, and the critics I mentioned, ascribe themselves to these ideas. What differentiates them is the degree to which they believe that our current villain: covid-19, is dangerous enough to warrant the degree of social distancing we witnessed, and whether it is dangerous enough to warrant the use of an experimental medicine of which long-term effects are unknown. And we must admit, relative short term effects weren’t studied deep enough either. When we started vaccinating, it was believed a single inoculation would confer lasting immunity, we only later realized a booster was needed every three to four months. Tell me, if this wasn’t even known, then how are you so sure all other effects were studied in detail? As an example, in the case of the mRNA injections, it was claimed by manufacturers and scientists that the body would stop producing proteins a few days after injection. Now studies are coming out that seem to show the body still produces at a similar rate after 6 weeks. Follow up studies are barely done, and in fact, this is so for all vaccines. If a vaccine is made in such a way so that the body doesn’t easily get rid of the vaccine-contents, and these contents possibly remain present for an entire lifetime, wouldn’t it be necessary to follow people for their entire life? Instead, you hear that it is known after a few weeks whether a vaccine is safe or not. Right. If you can’t find an answer, the next best thing is to fabricate one.

We must ask ourselves. If we still believe all of this, then what will we do when we hear about an HIV epidemic? What will we do when we hear Ebola has entered the country? Our critics will be the first to mask their children, vaccinate their teens, shut down the country, and create another humanitarian crisis. If the disease is bad enough, most people would willingly drink poison in the hopes of killing their “infected” cells, or poison themselves to “protect the others.” Now is the time to ask yourself, why do you oppose these measures? Is it because you think they “go too far”? Or because they are based on a childish and fear-based conception of health and disease? A conception that discards the importance of the health of the individual? A conception that doesn’t care about strengthening individual immunity, but only about “avoiding” disease? A conception that locks up sick elderly people, instead of caring for them? A conception that sees viruses only as deadly predators, and not as creations of the body, that serve a very definite purpose in all of nature: to dissolve toxins. Now is the time to ask yourself these questions. Now is the time to realize that the theory from which you fight the enemy, is perhaps the same as your enemy’s. 

Before it is a question of “is it warranted or not?”, it is a question of “is it true or not?” Not “are these measures warranted in this specific case?”, but “are these measures based in reason?” You would perhaps like to believe so. 

We all know that if I “have” coronavirus, this specific strain of coronavirus that I have, will be very different from the coronavirus you have. Viruses are not living organisms that live by themselves, they are created out of the DNA and RNA of the host. There is a reason we speak of “Human-Coronavirus”. When I have coronavirus, I have a coronavirus made up out of my own genetic material. When you have coronavirus, you have a coronavirus made up out of your genetic material. A virus cannot be isolated by itself, and no one will admit it can be. What happens is that a virus strain is observed in living tissue of a human, an animal, etc. Thus, one cannot observe the exact same virus in two persons or two animals. Now ask yourself, does it sound rational to inject foreign genetic material directly into your own bloodstream? Perhaps. Does this sound safe? Perhaps. Do you think your body will know what to do with it, in the same manner as it would if it had created the virus from itself? Perhaps. What do I know. This is an issue that pertains to all vaccines, and cuts to the core of the conceptual framework we base our medicine on. Many vaccines use a virus bred in animal-tissue. Now do you think it is rational to inject the genetic material of a monkey into your bloodstream? (I need not remind you that large parts of the protective mechanisms of what we call the immune system are circumvented when vaccination is preferred over contact with foreign material via skin, mouth, nose, etc.) And if you proceed to do so, would it not be your top priority to make sure the contents of your vial are as clean as possible? Yet again and again, we read about cases of pollution. “Too bad, but don’t worry, if you are lucky, in 60 years your body will be done fighting against the foreign toxin, it will be expelled in due time! Just make sure to get your booster!” But what do I know.

Do you think it is rational to administer the exact same dosage of this medicine for each and every individual? (Of course, children are given a smaller dose, although many stories arise of children accidentally getting an adult dose…). Isn’t health a highly individual affair? Aren’t some substances a poison to some, and a medicine to others? Don’t some people react well to certain dosages of certain foods, while others get an allergic reaction? Does this simple logic not apply to vaccines? Of course it does. But our jest for vaccination isn’t explained by the logic of the human organism is it? It is however perfectly explicable from a certain business logic: one virus = one cause = one cure = profit. Note that many people got an exemption for the new vaccines, because their doctor deemed them exempted because of some underlying condition. But ask yourself, how many people are there who should have gotten an exemption, but didn’t, because they aren’t as stupid to routinely visit a doctor, or because their doctor is a firm believer that vaccines are by definition safe and effective for everyone? Because their doctor believes vaccines to be only “good”, and never possibly bad? Because their doctor doesn’t want to lose his license for being labeled an anti-vaxxer? 

Nature works how it works, it has its reasons, it has its logic. But the moment one practice or phenomena is labeled as being incontrovertibly “good” or “bad”, this logic no longer applies in our minds. This is what has happened with the practice of vaccination. Harkening back to the saying of Dr Auguste Lutaud, we could say that in our time, you are allowed to be anything; you can be a communist, an anarchist, even a pedophile, but you are not allowed to question vaccination. You are allowed to subject 8 year olds to hormone-therapy, but you are not allowed to question vaccination.

You might believe yourself to have escaped deception, but you have only escaped this particular manifestation of it, not the root cause. You are critiquing solutions, while still believing in the underlying problem, from which these solutions rationally flow. In a sense, the enforcers of the sanitary regime are more honest individuals than you, for they actually act on their paradigm. There is no solution without a problem to which it responds, and the problem naturally carries with it the rules for solving it. The problem instructs. What is supposedly the problem? The virus, out there, trying to catch us. But what is a virus? And what does it mean to “catch” something? If viruses cause disease, and viruses are something you simply “catch”, then social distancing is a perfectly rational response. If viruses do not discriminate, and can catch everyone, the severity of disease is only determined by the force of the virus. If this is so, then the healthy individual is defenceless, and vaccination gains a reason. 

Imagine this; you take a shower, barely dry yourself off, your hair is still wet, and you decide to go for a run in the rain. You go back inside, and all of a sudden you have a runny nose, and perhaps a little cough. You go to the doctor, and he asks you if you did anything special? You tell him about your run through rain and wind, and he answers: “you must have caught a cold.” But did you? Did you “catch” something? Why is it, that when I go for an outside swim in winter, and I proceed to sit in the rain for minutes on end without drying off, I don’t “catch” a cold? Perhaps, there is nothing to be “caught.” Perhaps, these symptoms of a “cold” are created by the body, to help those whose immune system is too weak to handle the stress by themselves? Perhaps, what do I know.

There are people who live all by themselves in the woods, never seeing anyone, never going to any store. Why is it that all of a sudden they develop covid-19-disease, after having not seen anyone for weeks on end? Did some bats flying over from Wuhan shit in their water supply? Perhaps, what do I know.

You have to ask yourself these very simple questions. If the theory cannot explain these very elementary questions, something is deeply wrong. These questions, the mere asking of which is perceived as criminal in this day and age. The mere asking of which is ridiculed. What a strange time, people applaud themselves for their ignorance, for their inability to answer the most simple questions. You have to ask these questions, lest you be deceived into selling your freedom when the Wuhan-bats come dropping some HIV. 

Do you really believe that this is the first time you are being deceived concerning matters of health and disease? And do you think this is the last time you will be deceived? Do you think they are stupid, and for having dodged one form of stupidity, you are now fully bathing in truth? My friend, this is precisely the problem. Not only is your lack of knowledge the cause for letting yourself be deceived, but also your conviction that you do know. When national-media broadcasts that there is a “dangerous virus” in the country, and that as a matter of “public health” we should all quarantine, you fail to ask these simple questions: “what is a virus?”, “what does it mean for a virus to be dangerous?”, “what is health?”, “and what does health have to do with the public?” You think you know, but do you? Do you know what a virus is? Do you even know what disease is? Do you know what health is? You hear about how “immunity” will be achieved through vaccination. But what is immunity? Do you really know? 

We fail to ask these simple questions, and we fail to demand a simple answer. Perhaps you are ashamed to ask these simple questions, after all, you don’t want to seem like an idiot. Perhaps you think these questions are already solved by people smarter than you, and needn’t be asked again. But is this truly so? Questions do not disappear when an answer is given, you merely stop caring for them. 

You fail to see, that your inability to ask these questions, the fact that you didn’t care enough about these questions, is the exact reason why your brother had a heart-attack, your niece had a seizure after receiving an adult dose of the medicine, your children missed two years of education and are brainwashed to believe they should mask up for eternity lest they kill grandmother. You fail to see, that your inability to ask these questions, will lead to the normalization of experimental medicine for all sorts of diseases.

Of course, you might think this is all fine. It is perfectly normal to enforce medical procedures. It is perfectly normal that individual health should be sacrificed for the benefit of “public health.” It is perfectly normal to put people in camps. It is perfectly normal to utilize a “sanitary pass.” It is perfectly normal to eliminate the control group in a study. But you don’t believe this, you think they “just went a little bit too far with it all.” We should have only locked up the residents of care homes, we should have only made the elderly suffer from side effects, we should have only prevented alternative treatments for those who weren’t already dying from ventilators in the hospital. Perhaps you think this. 

Or perhaps it is hard to admit, that these things happen. Perhaps it is hard to admit that these things happened because you didn’t care enough about the matter to start asking questions. And if you do, are you ready to admit that you didn’t care enough about people dying from chemo-like AIDS-drugs in the 80’s? You didn’t care enough, or you would know. Are you ready to admit that you risked severe damage by giving your child tens of injections before it even had a fully developed immune system? Are you willing to entertain the idea, that your doctor’s prescriptions have done you more harm than good? And that maybe, your experts didn’t know as much as you’d like to believe? Are you willing to entertain the idea that the food-triangle you were taught in school is responsible for your fucked up hormones? 

It astonishes me how people think about doctors. The memory of most is quite frankly horrible. Do you remember what was taught in your history class in high-school? Hell, I don’t even remember most of the contents of a book I read a month ago. There are gifted individuals who remember everything, but most people aren’t like this. Now, why would you think that your doctor, so occupied with work that he hasn’t read an article of research in 40 years, remembers what he was taught 40 years ago? “Listen to your doctor, take the prescription, shut up, and never do your own research on the internet.” Where do you think your doctor learned about the drug he is going to prescribe you? Divine revelation perhaps? Going by how we admire these people, it wouldn’t surprise me if people really believe this. It is idiocy in all its splendour. 

Why do some people merely read the wikipedia page of a certain concept, and others devote their life to studying this same concept? Because the latter care more about the concept, they deem the concept more important. But when the concept is being injected into your bloodstream, and the bloodstream of your children, it is your duty to care.

I might be wrong, but I am not wrong in asking questions. I have no definite answers, and neither do you. This is precisely the problem, that we refuse to want answers, and that we refuse to acknowledge our ignorance. Perhaps I am wrong in asking these questions. Perhaps I am deluded. Perhaps social isolation of the unvaccinated has taken its toll. But show me that this is the case, please.

If idiots refrain from asking questions, more knowledgeable people will never be forced to give an answer. But will they give an answer when forced, when their reputation is on the line? Perhaps De Cusa is right, and we need more idiots to discover the truth.