Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 128

[ecosophia]

We are now in the third year of these open posts. As the phrase "died suddenly" repeats in the mass media like a mantra, statistics for work days lost to illness and all-cause mortality mount up in heavily vaccinated nations, and more and more ugly facts about the official response to Covid spill out into public, we are entering what may well turn out to be the most difficult period of the Covid disaster -- the phase in which denial rises in lockstep with the death rate, and a great many people try not to admit what has been done to them by the people and institutions they trusted. It could get ugly, folks.

So it's time for another open post. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 
 
3. If you plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue. 

4. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. Also, please don't drag in current quarrels about sex, race, religions, etc. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

We started talking about this on last week's post, but I'm quite concerned about the fact that many of the risks of biotech won't become clear for quite some time, since there are many risks which won't appear until future generations. So, I'd like to bring this topic over, and discuss it further on this week's post.

We're starting to see evidence for this with the Covid vaccines (the study on rats that found neurological damage in rats born to mothers given the mRNA vaccines during pregnancy, for example); but this raises a serious question for me: given that in some cases these risks can be anticipated, why is it that so many otherwise smart and intelligent people, especially the kind of people who normally tear any argument they encounter apart, seem to be unable to see these risks?

This dynamic was quite clear during the Covid vaccine push; and it struck me as incredibly strange then. However, I'm starting to realize that it is not just with these mRNA injections where this dynamic is at work; and it's actually more dangerous in other cases, because there are applications of biotech which will work well for the current generation, but run risks of blowing up in ways which won't be noticeable for years, because they involve the children or grandchildren of the recipients.

One example of this dynamic that I see is the experiment in mutated S. mutans being marketed as a means to stop cavities*. This version of S mutans is given an antibiotic so it can outcompete other bacteria, and has its metabolism changed to produce alcohol instead of lactic acid, with the idea being that the amount of alcohol produced as it feeds on sugar in the mouth should be small enough to have no metabolic effect, and that without lactic acid, the teeth will be healthier. The antibiotic itself is safe enough; it breaks down in the stomach, and plenty of bacteria and fungus already produce them in the human microbiome.

I'm withholding judgement on this until I see the evidence from the people who take the bacteria, but it sounds to me like it could work; and that the risks to the people who receive it are likely to be minimal. This doesn't mean it won't blow up badly for the people who take it; but I'm not sure I see any plausible mechanism for it at this point in time for it to cause serious issues in healthy adults.

However, S. mutans is often found in the gut as a regular part of the human microbiome, despite not being able to pass through a normal human stomach; it gets there during infancy, alongside a host of others, many of them transmitted from the parents' mouth. So we now have a bacterium which can survive in the human gut, is designed to outcompete other bacteria, and produces alcohol. This sounds like a recipe for auto-brewery syndrome. The kicker though is that it won't affect healthy adults, and even most extremely unhealthy adults are not at serious risk of this, since the digestive system has to be in very bad shape before S mutans can survive. All of this means that adults can take this, most likely without issues; but there is a risk of this causing health problems in the form of auto-brewery syndrome in children exposed to this by a caregiver.

We won't know this is a problem until there are babies exposed to this, and they start to have health issues. How long it takes to figure out the cause is auto-brewery syndrome adds on to this (I'm not sure anyone knows what this looks like in infants, and it's rare enough in general it probably won't be on anyone's radar); and then there's the question of how long it takes before anyone figures out it's being caused by this bacteria their parents, or some other caregiver, took in order to prevent teeth decay however long before the baby was even born.

I spent a few hours researching this, once I identified that there was an auto-brewery syndrome risk here, and despite having minimal medical research skills, I found this risk; why is it that so many otherwise smart people seem to be unable to do this? I can understand the people who are pushing the product won't want to, since it'll cost them a great deal of money; I can even understand why the regulators are asleep at the wheel (given where their money comes from), but I cannot for the life of me figure out why so many otherwise intelligent people seem unable to realize that in order to say something like this, or an mRNA vaccine, is safe, the effects on future generations need to be considered.

Does anyone have any ideas as to why biotech seems to turn off so many people's ability to perform critical thinking?

*https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/defying-cavity-lantern-bioworks-faq

[ari_ormstunga]

At the risk of over-simplifying what is probably a complex issue, I'd guess it's probably due to the myth of Progress. Many people believe things have to get better and better, and whatever is new and innovative is superior.

It may also be the influence of the Man, Conqueror of Nature narrative. Science just has to overcome all of the limitations and inconveniences of life, and there are seldom any downsides its advocates care to acknowledge (until it's too late, of course).

When deeply held narratives like that are challenged by events like those we've discussed here, advocates for them often double down. Those advocates basically run everything in the Western world. Insane stupidities ensue.

Finally, well, the vast majority of humans are of average intelligence or less, but most of us are convinced we are smarter than we actually are. Insane stupidities ensue.

[(Anonymous)]

It'll be an interesting thing to watch. The Slate Star Codex guy and his wife just had a baby. The wife works for the company selling the bacteria, and has used it herself. He's actually written a geekily cute ode to the new baby, but it includes the explicit hope that the bacteria will colonize the baby. If it turns out to be a problem... will he say anything about it in public at the risk of bad publicity for the wife's company?

[(Anonymous)]

Would he even make the connection? It might take months or years for it to show up, the symptoms would be baffling, it might take years to get a diagnosis, just weird health issues. Not to mention these are twins born after what sounds like an unusually hard pregnancy (even by twin pregnancies standards). The bacteria his wife got to avoid tooth decay is likely not going to be one of the first things he thinks about if they end up seriously ill....

[(Anonymous)]

Except, this doesn't apply to some of the cases I've seen. Yes, it absolutely applies to some; but much like how a lot of us were baffled by how many of the people who in 2019 refused on principle to ever use modern medicine were among those shrieking in 2021 about forcing people to take experimental injections, there are people who seem to be unable to think clearly about this topic, and only this topic.

And, well, I fully expect insane stupidities; most people are not that bright, and/or don't have the time and resources needed to do the research to find out things like this are risky. It's just, a lot of very bright people who are normally reasonably sane, even where issues of Progress come up, seem unable to think this through. This is what's baffling to me.

(Or weirder, some people are perfectly able to see potential issues with biotech, but seem unable to see issues with possible effects on future generations...

[slinky_weasel]

How do you get a mentat (as in, from Dune) to make a bad decision? Give them false input data.

If someone gets all their news from the MSM, well....

[(Anonymous)]

And some people are super bright in one area and not so bright in another. I won't be figuring out how to rescue the sinking submarine anytime soon.

The ability to be high-performing in multiple scenarios, running multiple high-function performances is just beyond most of us. I don't have a laboratory and if I did I sure wouldn't know what to do with the test tubes except make pretty colours. Oh look this silvery-black just slithered up my nose. Oh dear. I'm sure it's nothing.

I think also a healthy (even scathing) cynicism about authority and 'them' is very helpful when eliminating false steps and catastrophic mistakes in judgement. And people who want to sum things up in a pretty postcard picture aren't gonna take that route.

[(Anonymous)]

Kind of reminds me of when a posh school with playing fields along a creek put down astroturf—for the environment you see, because it’s made of recycled plastic, and then it’ll require less fertilizers and pesticides, etc. A few years later, uproar in the media because microplastic waste from the fields were turning up in the creek. Seriously, who was surprised by this? Everyone, it seems. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Technology will save us all! Until it doesn’t. Pray for the children, is all I can say.

[(Anonymous)]

Here is my guess as to why some people don't think critically. Many years ago I sold a property and had money to invest in the stock market. I looked for mutual funds that had good results. The best return I could find was a mutual fund that specialised in buying only medical / pharma shares.

I tried to buy into this fund but learned only licensed doctors were permitted to purchase this particular investment. Oh well, I said, and invested elsewhere. Now I wonder if that should even be legal.

Should the doctor who shouts - safe and effective - about certain drugs be allowed to invest and benefit from the sale of those drugs? Should other investors be excluded?

Will a doctor prescribe a generic drug if he holds shares in the patented one? I know that when I owned shares in Exxon, I would drive the extra blocks to buy their gas, but maybe that's just me.

Self interest often crowds out noble intentions, I find.

Stella

[(Anonymous)]

In answer to your question, "Does anyone have any ideas as to why biotech seems to turn off so many people's ability to perform critical thinking?"

It is because so many people have fallen under a spell. I mean that literally-- not that the spell-casters would think of themselves as magicians; they are modern marketers, and university and other institutional scientists and bureaucrats who want funding, policymakers who want to achieve certain goals, and so on. What works for them: to make people think of "biotech" as ultra high-status: sophisticated, very modern, altogether very caring & good!

Want to see some bodaciously powerful spells? Just open any glossy magazine. Just watch TV ads.

(So far, I'm only repeating my understanding of what our host, JMG, and Ioane Couliano, have said about cacomagic.)

Take away the ads, it gets more difficult to cast such spells, however, never fear, there are other ways to cast other blandishments, and powerful enticements. To take but one example: The Argyle, one of the most exclusive social clubs in Texas, was organized precisely around raising funds for biotech. See and be seen at the Argyle, baby!(Google and ye shall find it.)

Now, whether you're, let's say, a starry-eyed kid in some random highschool in flyover country, or a long-standing deep-pockets member of the Argyle, or anything in between, after you've invested your time and money, your reputation, and above all, your sense of yourself as a person who occupies a certain rung on the status totem pole-- sophisticated, very modern, altogether very caring & good!-- why would you want to question the connotations of this mesmerizingly yummy wonderfulness known as "biotech"? It would be more than a little painful, I would think.

[(Anonymous)]

biomed, biotech, eye of newt, boil!

[methylethyl]

Eye of newt, dilute dilute, OK!

[(Anonymous)]

A lot of interesting points you raise.

Yes it seems one could enter a 'whirligig' and the exit/entrance points sort of 'heal over' behind you and after whirling round and round how do you get out.

How would it even dawn on you.

[(Anonymous)]

To be able to see things clearly requires (1) being able to recognize own's own biases that impede seeing clearly and (2) being willing and able to set them aside.

It's sort of like losing weight. It requires (1) being willing to recognize what you're doing that's causing you to remain overweight and (2) being willing and able to stop doing that.

Easier said than done.

[(Anonymous)]

Easier Said Than Done. Great old early rock n' roll song. Yeah, seeing and enabling actions at the same time. Not so easy. Too easy to cut corners. Giant corners.

[(Anonymous)]

OP here. The Argyle was established to support biomedical research, not biotech per se. Everything I said in my comment applies to both terms.

[(Anonymous)]

The path of progress leads to humans manipulating their genome and or merging with machine. It’s a trope of cyberpunk novels as well as part of the doctrine of power and might. See Warhammer 40K

Basically an atheist/materialistic parallel to Christianity ascension to heaven and leaving the meat behind. Except we go to the stars with our machines integrated and ubiquitous

[(Anonymous)]

Also see: Daleks in Doctor Who.

[(Anonymous)]

Probably because of hierarchy. Most people are so anxious not to rock the boat they won't go there. I've spent my entire life in a state of accepting that I have to do life but not necessarily agreeing with it. Most of my peers absolutely agreed with it and I suspect are not capable of changing their stripes now. Their critical thought only applies to socially acceptable areas, at their core they haven't deviated from the group.

[(Anonymous)]

I wonder what the opposite of mutatis mutandis is? Change everything unnecessarily?

Corporations and a Ponzi Money Supply

[(Anonymous)]

Two spawn of hell ideas, breeding like cockroaches. Biotech isn't the only arena contaminated by the melt-down in common sense; EVERYTHING is contaminated.

But Biotech plays with things which are extraordinarily microscopic, exceptionally not-yet-understood and hard to predict, unimaginably complex compared to pretty much any other realm of science, and absolutely central to all life. So biotech should be completely off limits to Fascism (the melding together of the corporation with the government, as defined by Mussolini himself).

And, of course, "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It" -Upton Sinclair