Orwellian Doublespeak has officially arrived on our shores

In Orwellian Doublespeak truth is a casualty. Doublespeak, a term attributed to George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984, is where government disinformation is masked by accusing truth tellers of the exact same thing government is doing, and reinforced with censorship. Censorship is the mechanism by which only one single point of view is allowed by government, which has the power to control media, and in the most extreme cases even jail and execute dissident citizens. (Do a search on Stalin's "road of bones" for just one example in history of this sort of genocide).

How do governments arrive at such a crossroads? There is more than one path, but it boils down to power falling into the hands of an extreme minority of a population. This can occur by fascist revolution, where fascism is defined as where economic and military power becomes the predominant focus of government, and individual liberty is quashed in various ways by government.

Ironically the shift from free democracy to fascism is also sometimes the result of increasing prosperity, where wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands over time. Concentration of wealth, concentration of power being essentially the same thing, becomes the primary locus of power. These situations, where the shift to fascist control is gradual, are a slippery slope.

And these shifts, being gradual, are not recognized for what they are by a significant portion of the population who want nothing more than "good old days" to continue indefinitely. And who can blame us for wanting that? But these shifts, once started, are unfortunately difficult to reverse. In the early stages it's the "pretty lie" that we have a material and emotional investment in believing.

In either case, fascist revolution or gradual increasing power in the hands of an oligarchy, the rise of a despotic genocidal leadership is a high likelihood. The rise to power in Germany of Hitler is the example we are the most familiar with, but there are hundreds of examples through history. It can almost be said that despotic genocidal leadership is not aberrational.

It must also be noted that in the gradual shift to fascism those with the most power may be mostly hidden from public view. It has been suggested that some of this group believed Trump, however distasteful his personality, could be controlled, which would have exerted control over a very large and fractious part of US population (those the most damaged by massive wealth disparity).

If that is true, it would also be likely these powerful people underestimated (or simply did not understand) the extent of Trump's personality disorder. Most of us have no training in this, but it was no accident that hundreds of medical professionals published material clearly stating that Trump's personality problem does not end with distaste...rather, that he is clinically insane.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/22/is-trump-mentally-ill-or-is-america-psychiatrists-weigh-in/

So let's at least hope these powerful "supporters" of trump have been mostly disabused of any previous ignorance on this potentially disastrous problem. It's bad enough to be on the slippery slope, let's at least not grease the slide.

Mind you I'm not suggesting there is such a thing as "absolute and irrefutable truth" that we mere mortals can be in possession of. I'm suggesting the opposite, that "freedom of opinion", and the freedom to debate opinion, is the bedrock foundation of free democratic societies. Debate, between scientists and other thought leaders from philosophers to statesmen (and women), is the fabric upon which individual liberty and freedom of speech are supported and held.

From my point of view, with my avid interest in the causes of health, I've followed the progression of opinion among scientists from the early stages of the pandemic. And again from my point of view, there has been massive and very successful censorship of public debate between scientists who specialize in public health, virology, and epidemiology; from the pure researchers to the "boots on the ground" clinicians (many of whom wear both hats).

Why is it my opinion censorship of public debate has been so very successful? Because I rarely speak with anyone who has not been completely taken in by the official government line on this matter. And I know for a fact none of the thousands of experts with different views have been invited to speak on mass media outlets. And when some of these voices have "leaked out" there are massive efforts in the public media to discredit these scientists and clinician/scientists. I know this because they have managed to be heard via the global internet, which thankfully cannot be completely controlled by governments as yet.

Below is but one of thousands of examples of this sort of "breakthrough" in differences in point of view in the ongoing debate over public health via the global internet.

Dr. Sam: The Myth of "Safe and Effective"

https://youtu.be/b2_rSQjqGj8

Link to the paper mentioned in the video:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24088149/

The Misapprehension of the Nature of Nature Pt 2 - Nature is Cosmic

In the previous post on the misapprehension of nature, in point 7 the question was raised "is the misapprehension of the nature of nature just another example of "the sun revolves around the earth"?

But wait. Isn't nature biological? Organic? (As opposed to inorganic.) And limited to Earth? (As far as we know.) How can a rock, which is "dead", be part of nature?

Can a rock roll? Isn't everything moving? The clouds sure, but a mountain? A geological wave in continuous motion? Not to us, it is beyond our own range of apprehension. It's moving continuously but we can't see it. We have technological instruments that extend our biologically installed range of apprehension. Can we measure the continuous movement of mountains? Nope. We can measure pre-quake and pre-volcanic tremors (seismologically), but cannot measure the continuous movement of the geological wave that is a mountain. But even if we could measure it, is remains beyond our range of apprehension, which is a function of the biological limits of any given species.

The idea that somehow everything can eventually fit into our technological range of apprehension is the innate narcissistic hubris that limits our capacity for progress. We want to think technological capacities are limitless. Freud said something to the effect: the biologically instinctual fear of death is at the root of all neurosis.

So then our unshaken faith that every problem can be conquered by technological progress is a collective neurosis? What if there is a collective delusion and denial that technology creates as many problems as it solves?

Inorganic minerals are nature too. We have minerals in our bodies (vitamins and minerals). Without them we would not exist. An exact level of minerality is one of the many preconditions for the phenomena of biology. Since we are unaware of any other biological planet in the known universe we may assume all of the many preconditions for the phenomena of profuse biology are exact.

Many exact preconditions occurring simultaneously on a planet. Quite obviously the odds of that occurrence are de minimis. 

So can we say then that literally everything that exists everywhere in the cosmos, known and unknown, is nature? And profuse biology is a subset of nature?

There is a saying in psychology "the unconscious knows everything". Is that merely a metaphor meaning the unconscious knows everything it needs to know for individuals to heal and be well? Or literally "everything"? Isn't everything (omnipresence) a definition of god?

Well if the unconscious does literally know everything we don't "know" that it knows. We would all be omniscient (and then omnipotent). But we are not, nature needs limits and boundaries to exist. Structure is only possible as a result of "stress interface". We think of stress as only a bad thing, but nothing would exist without it. Stress then is an example of an exact precondition, not to little, not too much.

Is the function of technology ultimately to reduce stress levels in humans? It's an interesting question. To go from couch potato to fit and healthy we must reintroduce physical stress levels. "Optimal" health then is produced by another exact precondition of stress levels. Interestingly correct levels of physical stress reduce emotional stress levels.

The belief that technology is the solution to everything is a pendulum swung too far in one direction. It seems uncorrectable because we cannot conceive of technology as anything other than the solution to everything. No worries, nature will correct that overshoot even if we can't.

We are the product of nature, not it's creator, which is the fundamental misapprehension.

But perhaps "the unconscious" is not a "bounded" phenomena. If mountains are not a bounded phenomena (in continuous movement), why would the unconscious be? The entire range of the unconscious, then, is beyond the range of human apprehension. And that limit gives our minds "structure", hence functionality.

Meanwhile we "know" everything is everything. But in this "post god" scientific world let's remember the value of the structures of nature, and let's remember that the bounded structures nature takes allows functionality, and that the random disruption of those natural structures is potentially self-destructive, to the individual biology, and to Earths biological structure. 

Let's remember that we ourselves are wholly the product of nature.

Adolescence of a Boy

A tune that reminds me of my adolescence, Sam Fender's "17 Going Under".

https://youtu.be/KzQ6g1j_pdI

The Misapprehension of the Nature of Nature - Pt 1

(Or: Going Against the Human Tendency Toward Hubristic Anthropomorphism.)

Which misapprehension of the nature of nature should we begin with? How about this one: "Man is The Crown of Creation".

Who says? Dog certainly does (Dog adores us). What about insect? Oh, wait, we are beyond "the range of apprehension" of insect. (The parable of the blind men and the elephant.) Do insects "know" we exist? What about the ant bumping into your toe? Food? (Ouch). Insect knows "toe" exists, surely. But what of humans does it know? Do ants living in the walls of an urban high rise know they are living in the midst of human civilization? Is our hive too big for insect to see?

So let's propose a principle: exponential differences in biological complexity allow the more complex to know of the existence of the less complex, but not the other way round. So what is the implication?

If man is not the crown of creation we very probably wouldn't know it. What are the odds we are not the crown of creation? Reasonably good?

1) every species directly apprehends only a very (very) tiny slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, the one relevant to finding food, trying not to be food, and procreational activity. Everything else is "beyond the range of apprehension".

2) what are the exact odds we who-mans just happen to be at the very tippy top of all life on earth? I guess that would be, what, one in a zillion? (1 to the number of all other species on the planet, however many that is.)

3) we, like every other species, need some level of "narcissistic hubris" just to survive. Every species is the crown of creation.

4) this supposed exponentially more complex creature would also potentially be exponentially larger than other forms of mammalian life (all of which we easily see and recognize), and existing in a different "dimension" of time.

5) does the huge (narcissistic) resistance among us humans to an idea this ridiculously preposterous support the likelihood of it's truth? (As opposed to the other way around.)

6) is this potential misapprehension of the nature of nature just another example of "the sun revolves around the earth"? Would the human who proves it be arrested and placed under house arrest?

7) and finally, "aliens" are always depicted in two ways, 1) more intelligent than humans, but 2) not so much that we can't even know they are there. This is anthropomorphic projection, and unlikely to be reality, as is every other example of anthropomorphic projection, of which there are zillions.

Tesla's Thoughts on Progress and War

Interesting! Some of Nikola Tesla's thoughts published on a PBS site:

https://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art11.html

Tesla: "Movement implies a body which is being moved and a force which propels it against resistance."

How recently is it that we began to understand the amazingly rare phenomena of biology is only made possible through a confluence of innumerable exact conditions occurring simultaneously? What are the odds? Apparently, thru the lens of current astronomy anyway, pretty damn small. It seems for example we did not appreciate the significance of the exact gravity of earth being a critical element in "the cause of biology" until we began shooting biological life forms into space. In the context of the 200,000 years or so since big brain humans appeared, this understanding is pretty damn recent. What other things about biology do we not yet understand?

I'm not seeing on this PBS page that Tesla imagined bio-tech. Have we arrived at the point of sufficient knowledge to begin re-engineering biology (including ours) without the law of unintended consequences creating opposite and equal reactions? How likely is it we will be able to re-engineer "drive instinct" to the point we stop overconsuming that which sustains us?

Let's say we genetically modify our species to reduce aggression: ever wonder how many genocides have been committed in human history? According to one theory discussed in the fascinating book "Sapiens: A brief History of Humankind", there were 6 to 8 other species of humans when BigBrain arrived...what happened to them? BigBrain won the competition for resources war? I'm currently reading "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee", the history of the genocide of indigenous North Americans, and I've come to realize that genocide is not an aberration in human history, it is far too common for that to be true. And current brain science is confirming Freud's message to humanity: instinct not reason drives behavior.

What are the implications of that? Marx came before Freud. If Marx had been after Freud we may never have had the economic theory of communism. Altruism is not universally endemic in biology (including ours), and it can't be forced. However we could conceivably genetically modify a significant percent of the human population to reduce aggression. Is that time upon us? Is it now an imperative? Due to globally interconnected communications tech we have, for the first time in history, the specter of a global revolution, and the natives appear to have become particularly restless of late...because of what? Something as "insignificant" as the biggest wealth disparity in modern history? Mandatory jabs anyone? Oh...but we couldn't let that thing called "the population" know this was on the schedule...imagine the backlash. If humans are driven by biological instinct the implication is we may not be as smart as we think we are. But that doesn't mean we are completely stupid either. Genetic modification? Good luck with that one.

Tesla: "Hitherto all devices that could be used for defense could also be utilized to serve for aggression. This nullified the value of the improvement for purposes of peace. But I was fortunate enough to evolve a new idea and to perfect means which can be used chiefly for defense. If it is adopted, it will revolutionize the relations between nations. It will make any country, large or small, impregnable against armies, airplanes, and other means for attack. My invention requires a large plant, but once it is established it will be possible to destroy anything, men or machines, approaching within a radius of 200 miles. It will, so to speak, provide a wall of power offering an insuperable obstacle against any effective aggression. If no country can be attacked successfully, there can be no purpose in war. My discovery ends the menace of airplanes or submarines, but it ensures the supremacy of the battleship, because battleships may be provided with some of the required equipment. There might still be war at sea, but no warship could successfully attack the shore line, as the coastal equipment will be superior to the armament of any battleship.

Um...bio-weapons? Cyber war?

Oligarchs are concerned, and for good reason. If the parabolic growth curve has reached the point of effective neutral gravity (it takes resistance to growth for growth to occur), global chaos may ensue. So yeah, let's do eugenics, good plan.

Tesla: "I underestimated man's combative instinct, which will take more than a century to breed out."

Humm. Tesla underestimated man's combative instinct. Are there other instances of scientific genius underestimating man's combative instinct? In fact it might be said Einstein made the same mistake. We can read his letter to Freud asking his opinion on the prospect war could be stopped:

https://en.unesco.org/courier/may-1985/why-war-letter-albert-einstein-sigmund-freud

And Freud's response:

https://en.unesco.org/courier/marzo-1993/why-war-letter-freud-einstein

Tesla: "Mechanistic conception is not antagonistic to an ethical conception of life".

Couldn't agree more, perhaps not however in the way Tesla apparently meant it. Freud also proposes the death instinct. How do we conceive of such a thing? Apoptosis on a "whole organism" level?

Tesla: "I myself eschew all stimulants. I also practically abstain from meat. I am convinced that within a century coffee, tea, and tobacco will be no longer in vogue...the abolition of stimulants will not come about forcibly. It will simply no longer be fashionable to poison the system with harmful ingredients...Macfadden has shown how it is possible to provide palatable food based upon natural products, the food which is served today in his penny restaurants will be the basis of epicurean meals in the smartest banquet halls of the twenty-first century."

Ha! Tesla foresaw the millennial generation:)  Back in his day that POV was called "natural hygiene". These days it's called SOS free WFPB. Could universal adoption "save us from ourselves"? Perhaps, if we also replaced monoculture with permaculture and the abolition of the universal use of the "cides" in the soil and on the crops. Buuut chemical companies (including BigP) run the world. I wonder if Tesla made "The Marx Mistake" (ascribing to us greater altruism than biology allows for). If so, perhaps the basic mistake made by Tesla was an underappreciation of the role biological "instinct" plays. Yes, even in humans.

In fact I think we could say this is the biggest mistake we humans make. It's the basic form hubris takes that forces biological instinct to continue running the show. It's what allows us to continue to place growth and progress above all else (in particular technological progress, an exponential parabola running parallel to that of human population).

It's interesting Tesla should talk about religion so much, since science and technology has become the new god.

We don't need a new god, the old one (the laws and constraints of nature) is still just fine.

The Clinical Efficacy of Vitamin D and Zinc in the Prevention and Treatment of Covid Infection

Dr. John Campbell in the UK has been beating the drum for a cheap over the counter protocol for the prevention and treatment for Covid infection. Here he speaks with a clinician MD with experience treating a patient population of thousands about the efficacy and dosage for vitamin D3, Zinc, and vitamin K2.

Please enjoy this important discussion between these two expert medical professionals sharing information we all should be aware of:

https://youtu.be/w9h-XQm2qEY

Here are my notes as to dosages, please double check for typos and view this information for yourself:

Zinc 25 mg /day, going to 50 mg 2x a day for 1 week at first onset of symptoms

Vitamin D3 5,000-10,000 IU /day

Vitamin K2 200 mg / day 

In addition for those interested in a deeper dive into research documentation of the efficacy of vitamin D3, here is Dr. Campbell analyzing and discussing one such study:

https://youtu.be/V5g9AVqRsjo

The most rational approach to handling the pandemic was not done.

The best interview of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya I am aware of.

Dr. Bhattacharya is  a highly respected PhD epidemiologist at Stanford, who also happens to be a PhD economist. The more relevant question in the beginning stages of the pandemic was how do we minimize the total damage to public health?

BTW, in case anyone is wondering I'm a registered Democrat who leans apolitical. The polarized politicization of the handling of the pandemic is disturbing, and the degree of censorship in mainstream media of information such as this is to the best of my knowledge a first in this country's history, and that may be even more disturbing.

https://youtu.be/zG7XZ2JXZqY

Why aren't adverse reactions reported?

 

Is the world ready to see this yet?

Efficacy of Ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19:

https://odysee.com/@FrontlineCovid19CriticalCareAlliance:c/Dr.-Pierre-Kory-FLCCC-Alliance-testifies-to-senate-committee-about-I-MASK-incl.-the-following-QA-part-490351508:3

Good Doctors being Persecuted #2

In blog #1 on this topic Why Are the Best Doctors being Persecuted? I used "best doctors" in the title.

Based on feedback I received from a trusted friend I realized the inference could be taken to mean "absolute best doctors", when what I meant was "doctors that are curing covid patients quickly and effectively".

So I stand corrected! There are plenty of good doctors that have significant reservations about mandatory vaccines who choose to remain publicly silent on the issue, and refrain from coming to the attention of state licensing boards, just as there are good doctors (a statistically smaller group) who are both publicly and privately in favor of mandatory vaccines.

Anyway...the letter at the link below will clearly elucidate why so many doctors have significant reservations about mandatory vaccines. This letter is to the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine by Dr. Meryl Nass, a practicing physician in Maine, who asked the board to define what it means by “misinformation” and “disinformation,” and to clarify what statutory authority the board has to discipline physicians.

I've never seen any of these enumerated factual reasons reported by conventional media, and I think many will be surprised to be informed of them. Read the letter with an open mind and see what you think:

After Licensing Board Threatens Disciplinary Action, Maine Physician Asks Board to Define COVID ‘Misinformation’

Is snacking on apples good or bad?

A friend posed this question, this is my answer:

First let's assume you are not insulin resistant, achieved easily by consuming a low fat nutritionally dense diet.

As an aside, paleos assert they are not insulin resistant, but this is incorrect, they simply have stopped eating carbs to any degree, and remain insulin resistant, which is subsequently triggered by the consumption of carbs.

The paleo argument that carbs should not be consumed at levels that provide significant energy (calories) is pretty silly. Consider:

The body can only run on glucose and/or fat. The biologically preferred fuel is glucose, which we know because the body automatically switches to burning glucose if/when it becomes available again.

And: when athletes "bonk" (run out of glucose) they don't squeeze a tube of fat into their mouth, they squeeze a tube of glucose into it (or better, eat some whole fruit).

And: the brain, which incidentally uses a lot of calories, runs exclusively on glucose. "While the brain represents just 2% of a person's total body weight, it accounts for 20% of the body's energy use". 

https://tinyurl.com/4atvekrp

And: people who are running on fat energy (ketosis) will automatically convert proteins and fat to glucose for brain function, a process called neoglucogenesis.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Neoglucogenesis

So, assuming you are not insulin resistant, yes snacking on apples is great. Snacking on fruit (any kind of "eating" actually, from snacking to whole meals) is very beneficial for many reasons. Here's a few of them:

1) fruit is possibly the best combination of energy (calories) and nutrient density (vitamins and minerals) of any food "type".

2) fruit is the easiest to digest of any food type, and since digestion requires a lot of calories, fruit is an energy efficient fuel.

3) the best way to get essential nutrients is in the consumption of whole foods, and fruits are very high in vitamins (and vegetables are very high in minerals...it's called "fruits and vegetables" for a reason).

4) fruits are, in my opinion, by far the most delicious uncooked whole food (we have a "sweet tooth" for a reason).

5) fruit (and vegetable) consumption creates the healthiest microbiome and the strongest immune function...which is more resistant to viruses!

My own preference is to eat within a 6 hour "window" everyday, and have a fruit based meal first and a vegetable based meal about 2 hours later. I find 6 hours plenty of time for two meals and to cover my daily fuel requirements.

The Success of Very High Vaccination Rates? The Curious Case of Gibraltar

mRNA tech is proving to be the best vaccine tech ever...right? Well, maybe not. What we are seeing over and over is the most highly vaccinated populations are seeing huge increases in infections. 

The silver lining is that mortality is not following suit on a 1 to 1 basis, reducing overall suffering in families and communities considerably, and that is something to be grateful for.

Dr. John Campbell out of the UK again. Here he looks at the curious case of Gibraltar, followed by a look at Europe, experiencing a surge in cases and somewhat higher mortality as well.

He also raises a question for mRNA capacity for prolonged immunity via memory T cells, and the bad news here is it seems to be less effective than more conventional vaccine tech. These kind of questions are not resolved in competing press releases, or even in competing trials conducted by manufacturers, but one of Dr. Campbell's many good qualities is his apparent immunity to PR  :)

In terms of the Omicrom variant we are still waiting to see if it belongs to the class of variants that appear toward the end of a pandemic where infectiousness is higher but mortality lower. That of course would be better than higher rates of both, so let's hope that is the case.

We still don't know what to make of the Omicron "50 mutations" part of the story. Last night I saw that Sinovac, the Chinese vaccine, was derived from a whole virus, a conventional approach to vaccine design, and is potentially effective against 20 mutations. Humm. Well here we have to wonder if conventional tried and tested tech will be more effective against Omicrom.

https://youtu.be/z1eQw7x6D1E

Why are the best doctors being persecuted?

By best I mean the doctors that are actually curing covid patients quickly and effectively using off label drugs in the context of "cocktails" consisting of drugs and nutrients.

"Off label" drugs are those that are FDA approved for one condition that are discovered to also work in other conditions. And MD clinicians commonly use whatever treatment is most effective, including off label drugs. Off label drugs are used widely...until now, in the case of one drug in particular.

In the pandemic the off label drug that has been found to work most effectively is also out of patent, and costs a tiny fraction of newer drugs protected by patents. As far as I can tell the only reason this drug has been reviled by the medical establishment is the threat posed to profits by the (potential) wide spread adoption of it.

This smear campaign has only occurred in countries that are under the thumb of Big Pharma. But this drug has also been distributed by government health agencies --to entire populations-- in Japan and India, which resulted in a radical collapse in cases in those populations. It has also been widely used in many other countries as the treatment of choice for Covid-19.

In countries where Big Pharma has political control health takes a backseat to profit, and doctors of conscience are persecuted.

https://youtu.be/KVwm-KJvGzk

The Efficacy of Anti-Virials vs SARs-CoV-19 in Japan

Dr. John Campbell of Great Britain looks at the science around the current pandemic dispassionately and with as little bias as any I have seen. Thankfully his neutral and expert tracking of the pandemic and science around it has been allowed without apparent censorship.

In this presentation Campbell looks at Japan which recently experienced a massive spike in cases, and as a result allowed MDs to prescribe Ivermectin freely without restriction. So what happened? A complete and rapid collapse in cases to NIL.

https://youtu.be/E1GF0H9V_1g

I only have one comment. I have been quite surprised by how effectively many of us have been blindsided by a completely biased narrative around the science of this pandemic, and pandemics in general. How is it so many have been completely taken in by narratives originating in certain governing bodies for public health and medicine?

It wouldn't be quite so upsetting if it didn't boil down to the fact hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and deaths would have been prevented by early treatment with the HUMAN version of Ivermectin, which won the Nobel prize in medicine (for use in humans), and has been given for decades to (literally) billions of humans worldwide, with a resultant safety record that is as good as it gets for pharmaceutical drugs.

And has been off patent for quite some time, and sells for a few dollars per dose.

This is a low point for developed world countries, especially the US, who have been captured by institutional structures whose perspectives on health and health safety are grossly distorted by profit biases.

It's never been more clear as it is in the way this pandemic was, and continues to be, mismanaged.

Why are some people highly resistant to contracting symptomatic Covid-19?

In a word it is high levels of natural immunity. Here's an excellent presentation based on recent studies as to what that is:

https://youtu.be/y7IoMFOaduU

there is something “mysterious” going on in Africa that is puzzling scientists

 Humm. Well I'm not going to say anything that might bring the wrath of the lockdown police upon me. But I will share what I've seen by reading what "non-conflicted" epidemiologists and research oriented clinicians have been saying from the beginning of the pandemic.

1) Well before "Maxine's" roll out most people who tested antibody positive had either experienced no symptoms, or mild symptoms.

2) The average global likelihood of dying was on the order of 0.01 percent.

3) Those with high available energy (younger people and fit older people) were the least likely to experience symptoms when "exposed".

4) Those with low available energy (older people and unfit younger people) were most likely to experience symptoms when "exposed".

5) Nature's own immunity, which occurs in those with high available energy (i.e. immune function), tends to last for decades and is resistant to variants.

And now we find ourselves in a situation where the continent (Africa) with the lowest "Maxine ratio" (6%), also has the lowest incidence of symptomatic infection, and countries (Germany) among those with highest "Maxine ratio" (70.5%) currently have the highest infection ratios so far.

Humm. Well folks, please obey the rules and DO NOT READ BETWEN THE LINES. And if you find what's written between the lines too obvious not to see, please do not talk about it "right out loud". The lockdown police will definitely not like that.

there is something “mysterious” going on in Africa that is puzzling scientists:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-heavily-unvaccinated-africa-has-so-far-avoided-a-covid-disaster-health-officials-are-optimistic-and-wary-01637309085?mod=mw_more_headlines

Germany has administered at least 117,286,226 doses of "Maxine" so far. Assuming every person needs 2 doses, that’s enough to have vaccinated about 70.5% of the country’s population.

https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/germany/

I cannot know how long the above links will be active. Get 'em while their hot.

The Unconscious Conflation of Progress and Evolution

 I am a registered democrat, but I'm really neither democrat or republican, I am apolitical. I don't view the world through the lens of politics, I view the world through the lens of nature, and the unique phenomenon of biology that has occurred on only one planet that we know of, Earth. I find it useful to stop and think about that from time to time - what a stunning thing to think about how amazingly rare the phenomenon of biology is in the known universe.

Added to that are other amazing phenomena of principle interest: humans, evolution, and technology. It is thought biology first emerged on Earth more than 3.7 billion years ago. But early humans, to the best of our knowledge, first appeared on earth "only" about 4 million years ago. And then anatomically modern humans appeared about 100,000 years ago.

That means if a human infant from 100,000 years ago could somehow be raised in a family today we would not be able to tell the difference between that person and one born today.

Those who study evolution think significant evolutionary anatomical changes take approximately 100,000 years to occur. Let's contrast that with another amazing phenomenon, technology.

Humans developed early tools about 2 million years ago, and remembering anatomically modern humans appeared about 100,000 years ago, agriculture began to develop about 8,000 years ago, and early civilizations about 5000 years ago.

The Industrial revolution began only about 200 years ago.

The first successful oil well was drilled in 1859, 162 years ago. This was terribly significant because it gave humans "infinite" energy for the first time, in other words the energy "return" was significantly greater than what was spent in extraction and conversion to usable fuel. This is the acceleration point for a lot of things, but primarily a human population explosion, the development of technologies, and the destruction of the biosphere.

Can humans, a biological entity, adapt evolutionarily (biologically) to non-biological (technological) conditions? Will we begin being born without knees because reasonably good artificial knees exist? Born with smaller brains because chips can be inserted into the cortex? OK I'm stretching it to make the point that biology is very likely only capable of adapting to biological conditions. But we don't "know" that yet, which might take another 100,000 years.

Science and technology prove over and over again to be a double edged sword. The first thing to do if we are to survive as a species is to accept that and figure out how to manage it, something we have a lousy record of doing to this point. Freud explains the instinct vs reason problem pretty well, or at least he is given credit for explaining it first, and that was about 100 years ago.

Instinct and technology combined may be driving us over the proverbial cliff, but we don't want to get rid of either of them. As a species we need to do better. But how? Instinct continues to override reason, with no real sign of change.

I'm 70 years old. One of my two wonderful grandmothers used to say "I went from covered wagons to a man on the moon". (Yes, we are Okies:)

I am bringing all of this up to make a specific point - we unconsciously conflate evolution with progress. They are not the same thing, one is biological, the other technological.

I also view the world through the lens of technology, my two primary career paths have been in the technological "arts" of photography and audio. Photography, the recording of vision, uses the lens, the artificial eye, and audio, the recording of hearing, uses the microphone, the artificial ear. Lenses and microphones are "artificial organs" because these are not the biological creations of nature and evolution.

We modern humans conflate evolution and progress in myriad ways, with, in many cases, catastrophic consequences. We can actually have a hard time thinking of the two as completely separate phenomena. If we want to "do better" we will have to stop doing that. So what are the obstacles?

The primary one is we want to think they are the same thing. I frequently hear smart people say "humans have evolved rapidly" when they mean technology has progressed rapidly.

Why do we want to think they are the same thing? Because we want to think nothing is beyond our control. We modern technological humans are the hubristic species.

On one level hubristic narcissism is a manifestation of life force energy. On another level it's the inability to see limits where they are appropriate.

Take GMOs for example. Cross species procreation is not possible. Who wants to see a cross of a human and a lamb? Can you imagine? Nature can't, and we should leave it at that. Is it even possible that nature is somehow smarter than us? Genetic modification enables the potential for instant evolution, skipping over the constraints of nature and biology by 10's of thousands of years.

We think we can do anything because we are technocrats, meanwhile we destroy our biological home with industrial technologies. The one planet we are aware of that is lush with the gorgeousness that is biology.

It boils down to this: we as a species are, um, less than intelligent in ways we don't want to take responsibility for. We need no further proof of this than the destruction we wreak on the planet with technology. But we think more and better technology will be the answer. Is that more of the same hubris? I believe it is.

We have a god complex, and have lost "the fear of god" (which is simply nature). We have replaced the love of nature with the love of technology, and in the process have made science the new religion.

Don't get me wrong, I love technology as much as the next human. I love moving through space faster than my biology will take me...bicycles, motorcycles, cars, helicopters, airplanes. Technology can be exhilarating.

But I was very lucky to have spent a few months in primeval wilderness when I was 30. That was exhilarating also, but in a very different and profoundly quiet way, and it forever changed the way I see "where we are". In cities and towns we are barely aware that we exist within (and ultimately at the mercy of) "The Great Biosphere". Are we missing an important part of our "education" when we don't spend significant time on the primeval planet?

I am fond of saying science is the best marketing tool of our time. Why? Because "science" is almost infinitely pliable, but billed as irrefutable, which many of us "buy" because it is the new religion. How is it even possible that science is pliable? Oh, in so many ways. Here's one: a "model under test" conceived from the outset to produce a desired conclusion. Desired by who? Those who stand to profit from said conclusion.

There are those who get into the forensic weeds on this "little problem" (among others) with science. If you'd like a quick purview of this have a look at a previous post The Huge Problem of Fraudulent Medical Research.

The Misapprehension of the Nature of Nature - Pt 3 - The Cause of Health Is Not Technologically Determined

On the topic of the unconscious conflation of progress with evolution, and why that matters, you may want to refer to another post here:

The Unconscious Conflation of Progress and Evolution

I'm going to use the terms "the cause of health" in this post quite a lot. The first time I heard it was in a 6 part lecture series on the cause of health given by Dr. Doug Graham, a Chiropractor, athlete and athletic trainer, a raw food vegan, a water-only fasting expert who's fasted thousands of people from athletes who wish to achieve better performance to people with various health issues. Graham is best known perhaps for his book "The 80/10/10 Diet", which has been translated into several languages.

Looking back it seems odd to me now that I don't recall hearing the term the cause of health prior to that 6 part lecture series in 2012. It seems odd to me now because in the intervening years since I have come to see how a seemingly small shift in perspective can have a profound impact on how one manages their own health.

One of the more obvious ways we humans can be confused by the conflation of evolution and biology with progress and technology can be seen in the difference of two opposing concepts: allopathic medicine deliberately or unconsciously conflates "the cause of disease" with "the cause of health", but these two perspectives are not even remotely the same thing.

By the time you're sick enough to need a doctor you've already lost your health, but did the loss of health have to occur to begin with? This is the critical question modern medicine has ignored and obscured completely.

The cause of health occurs by giving your body the inputs it needs for optimal biological function, while the ingress of toxins to the body is simultaneously blocked.

These two conditions together make the likelihood of needing the help of a doctor exponentially lower.

The message isn't "don't go to doctors". Of course go to doctors when needed. But by understanding more completely the cause of health we can become greatly more informed users of modern medicine. For example, as someone who understands and practices the cause of health, you may already know how to "fix" certain issues that come up by changing certain patterns. That process may be enhanced by starting with an accurate medical diagnosis of the problem, or it may already be so obvious that a medical diagnosis is not needed.

But also keep in mind that accurate diagnosis may not be on the medical agenda. I hear people say all the time "I can't do that because I have (name the disease)". Or, "I can't eat greens because I'm taking statins". Meanwhile said "disease" is caused solely by toxic inputs to the body that can be completely avoided.

Take type 2 diabetes for example. Common as nails these day, and completely the result of toxic diet, which is typically greatly mitigated or completely reversed by changing certain "patterns".

I find the term "the cause of health diet" to be much more functional because "good diet" allows so much wiggle room bad habits are easily rationalized to the point "good diet" becomes a functionally useless term.

Unfortunately we simply are not taught the cause of health, and so it follows we also do not know that there is a specific "thing" called the cause of health diet.

Let's change that.

We fall in love with technology because in many ways it leverages biological potential. Modern medicine gives us life saving drugs and surgeries, but it also enables the notion this is all that's needed to be optimally healthy. Or that prescription drugs gets us the rest of the way there. So we take them to manage health problems caused by diets we have been taught to think of as "good". The demonstrable truth is if these diets were good we wouldn't have come down with conditions of poor health to begin with.

Yes, diet is that powerful. It is one of the more powerful influences on how your own life turns out. And the good news is you have control of what you put into your own body.

There is more to this than a lean athletic body into your 80's and beyond. There is also mental clarity and even healthy emotional functioning. The cause of health diet has been found to be more effective than antidepressant medications for most conditions. Consistent physical activity has also been found to be more effective than antidepressant medications. Together "the cause of health lifestyle" would be at least 2x more effective than psychiatric medications alone.

Resistance to contagious diseases is also exponentially greater when health is optimal, which is caused in large part by the cause of health diet and lifestyle.

So what are the conditions of the cause of health? In approximate descending order of priority they are:

1) clean air (we can only survive minutes without air)

2) clean water (we can only survive a few days without water)

3) sleep (we can only remain sane and functional on a daily basis by getting adequate sleep)

4) enjoyable physical activity to enable strength and balance (without which we become increasingly miserable)

5) constructive and loving social contact and interaction (we can only remain sane and functional on an ongoing basis in the enjoyment of constructive social interaction)

6) clean food (assuming availability of unlimited clean water, we can only survive a few months without food)

In practice clean food is higher on this approximate ordering of biological priority because what we think of as food is more conceptually distorted in these post industrial times. In other words, toxic substances we think of as food are the "dirtiest" input to the body for most of us.

Whole food minimally processed is "cleanest".

In conclusion: pharmaceuticals are not the cause of health, only biologically nutritious inputs are the cause of health, and pharmaceuticals are not nutritious. There is also a reasonable case to be made (backed by numerous studies) that "nutraceuticals" (supplements) are also not nutritious in the way whole foods are nutritious.

This is not to say there is no role for pharmaceuticals, which is self-evident, as they can be life saving, as can surgery. But neither are they the cause of health, because the cause of health is biological.

And that is because life is biological. We can intervene in biology technologically, but we cannot cause biology technologically. It is a pre-existent phenomenon due to causes that are complex and not well understood.

Institutionalized Racism, Health Disparities, and The Next Big Vegan Film

Title of the film: "They're Trying to Kill Us". Does that sound a little extreme? Check out this interview with the producers of the film and see what you think.

https://youtu.be/phebcgc1iEg

And here's the trailer:

https://vimeo.com/396022702?embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&owner=16593775

Young people are waking up...and that's exciting.

More science part 2 - Dr John Campbell looks at New Pfizer drug and Ivermectin

Book end to the previous post "Dr John Campbell reviews the flood of antivirals hitting the market". In this presentation he drills into the most effective of them in the review of several studies.

I loved the way Dr Campbell wrapped this one up.

https://youtu.be/ufy2AweXRkc

wanna be younger?

Who doesn't want that? And no I'm not saying FEEL younger. I'm saying actually (physiologically) BE younger. Of course you'll feel younger too. "Biological age" is how old you really are, chronological age only refers to your birthday, and has little to nothing to do with how you actually FEEL.

So I have a video for you:)  I've been watching this guy for awhile and he knows his stuff. He's paleo, but we won't hold that against him just because we're vegan:) A case can be made that health oriented vegans and Paleos have more in common than not: a completely whole foods diet (NO JUNK FOOD), and an active lifestyle. We are basically on the same team, so why not lower the volume on which is "optimal" and talk more about all the many factors in common for regaining and maintaining optimal health.

Just think about how much more powerful our voice would be if we joined forces against our common enemies in achieving and maintaining optimal health, namely the junk foods and junk pharmaceuticals that play in back to back ads on meanstream television these days.

The title of this video is "Autophagy: Fasting vs Exercise | New Book Makes the Case for Fitness", and it's quite interesting:

https://youtu.be/T6XNdl-jKKA

Dr John Campbell reviews the flood of antivirals hitting the market

Antivirals hitting the market is a good thing and Campbell is as competent a reviewer that is also speaking publicly that I'm personally aware of. Effective anti-virials have the potential of stopping the pandemic (what remains of it) cold in it's tracks.

There does remain some unanswered questions however as to why a widespread antiviral rollout didn't happen nearer to the outset of the pandemic. It's not as if pharmacology scientists and research oriented clinicians with experience from previous pandemics weren't already aware of the potential of antivirals. What the effective antivirals do when used in early stages of symptomatic infection is prevent the majority of hospitalizations and deaths. When not sick enough for hospitalization one rides it out at home, with relative ease.

And there's one antiviral in particular which has been shown in hundreds of clinical trials from around the world to be very effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths, but was demonized by BigP (who controls the narrative) apparently because it is off patent, very cheap, and widely available. These studies are independent (not paid for by for profit sponsors) and all over the internet, but you wouldn't know it, a sign of how effective the censorship campaign has been.

Studies of studies show where any kind of benefit (monetary or professional) accrues to the sponsors and/or authors, studies are not to be trusted. The problem of course is sponsors have motive and means, and in normal cases no one else is interested. But a pandemic is different, the world is interested. And in the case of this pandemic clinical results from physicians using best judgement for treatment with antivirals were so good that hundreds of independent studies were mounted.

Here's a brief paper reviewing some of those studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7577703/

This really underlines that we have a huge problem in for profit development of pharmaceuticals. I'm in favor of capitalism and know the arguments for and against, but there are clearly cases where the public good is at stake where profit should take a back seat.

We desperately need to get the egregious profit out of pharmacology. How soon could that happen? Doesn't look promising really, between wall street and BigP all parties down the line are riding this gravy train, and the health of the population is diminished considerably.

The good news is on a grass roots level we are waking up and taking control of our health into our own hands. Paleos and vegans alike have realized the huge benefits of a whole foods only diet and an active life style. And we can vote with our dollars.

Here's the Campbell piece: "Highly effective new antiviral"

https://youtu.be/EMfjtgli55Y

Every MD physician should watch this (if they haven't already)

But possibly take in bite size chunks, it's 2 hours of Dr. Alan Goldhamer of True North Health Center being interviewed by Rich Roll.

If you need an introduction to Rich Roll, he went from alcoholism and heart disease to this guy:

https://tinyurl.com/5rczwy6e

And here is Dr Goldhamer:

https://youtu.be/yaWVflQolmM

Middle Eastern Food

I love middle eastern food. It's not that hard to make hummus if you have a vitamix - chick peas, lemon juice, garlic, enough water to make it creamy.

Never made baba ghanoush but found a vegan recipe, looks pretty easy. The olive oil is a garnish, could leave it out, you'd never notice.

https://cookieandkate.com/epic-baba-ganoush-recipe/

How bad could oily foods be? Here's a few things to think about. Why do many vegan docs and researchers call for SOS free foods? (No sugar, oil, or salt).

In practice it's close to impossible to eliminate all refined fats and carbs (oil and sugar) unless you NEVER go to a restaurant. Who does that? Not me. But it's GOOD to know how much is in your (hopefully better) choices.

SOS free vegans and Paleo's are achieving the same goal - elimination of insulin resistance, the condition that is at the root of diet induced diseases.

A high fat diet causes insulin resistance when high calorie carbs are eaten. Paleo can eat all the kale (greens) they want, calories on a bulk basis are very low, and nutrition to calorie ratio is very high. If you only ate kale how much would it take to get enough calories to maintain health? More than your stomach will hold.

On the other hand a WFPB diet (high in WHOLE FOOD CARBS, which are good for us) causes insulin resistance when fats are eaten (all fats are high in calories on a bulk basis). On a completely empty stomach how much oil would it take to get the calories you need in a day? 20 tablespoons of oil is 2000 calories. Here's what 500 cals looks like in the stomach

So both WFPB vegan and paleo are primarily preventing insulin resistance. You have to get into the weeds a little to explain the biomechanical reasons for insulin resistance:

https://www.forksoverknives.com/wellness/insulin-resistance-strong-predictor-disease-heres-need-know/

What is generally unappreciated is all whole foods have all three macros, fat, carbs, and proteins, in varying proportions. What is also not generally appreciated is our bodies are adapted to the conditions of 100,000 years ago, and significant evolutionary anatomical/biological changes in mammals (including humans) takes about 100,000 years. So when we eat concentrated (refined food) calories (table sugar and oil) it throws our system off. We can tolerate moderate amounts of it, but we are designed for whole foods.

What is dessert? Sugar and fat with a flavor or two added (chocolate raspberry ice cream anyone?). Fat gives density, sugar makes it addictive, flavor makes it "a thing". It's not complicated.

Humans can burn two types of fuel, carbs and fat. We are adapted to both of them. Whole food paleo and whole food vegan are both way better than SAD. Which is better? The science is kept very blurry on this question to protect big established industries that developed world economies depend on for revenue. Which is a big part of the reason so many people are sick with chronic diseases.

Pretty ironic that the health of the economy depends on the sickness of the population. We're fucked coming and going. First we are sold addictive foods that cause diseases, and then "health care" makes another few trillion a year managing (not reversing!) those conditions.

Big P will never be able to reverse those conditions! Why? OK, here, eat these toxins every day, and we'll come up with expensive chemical cocktails to take care of that. Toxins on top of toxins is NOT the cause of health!

Not that there are no benefit to drugs, if you have malaria you want quinine and antibiotics. But at least 80% of what BigP is peddling these days is bullshit. Over the hill and around the bend, so far from reality we can't even see them anymore. Modern day snake oil salesmen. Yep, BigP hates the whole food movement. And BigP is BIG.

How bad is this problem of a healthy economy depending on a sick population? Self evident really, but let's compare it to that other "evil" industry, big oil. Fossil fuels are fucking up the biosphere, but at least we need them for our advanced technological lifestyle. In 200 years we've gone from relatively primitive to highly advanced technological societies. Ever stop to think what a miracle it is that almost everyone in the developed world has a frickin car?

Here's a short digression on the very very recent and rapid development of technology from an unpublished blog on the difference between evolution and progress. These very different concepts are massively conflated in the modern world, and that leads to all kinds of stupid and destructive assumptions. I've not published it because it needs editing and trimming, and haven't gotten around to it yet. Sneak peek preview:

https://davewavehealthway.blogspot.com/2021/10/you-sir-are-one-ignoring-science.html

Anyway, if you just ignored the questions of paleo vs vegan and just stuck to whole foods (which means no oil - no sugar - no refined grains) how much of the benefit of the "purist" diets would be gained? Well there's no science on that exact question that I'm aware of, so we'll have to guess. I'd say somewhere between 50 to 75 percent. Since we're very unlikely going to eliminate concentrated energy sources (oil and sugar) entirely let's dial that back to 35 to 60 percent. Pretty damn good compared to SAD.

Can we do better? Always, right to the end.