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