The title of today’s episode is a mouthful, isn’t it? I am calling it The Uncertainty of Knowledge and The Pride of Man.
But let me begin with a story which galvanized this whole episode:
I got yelled at a couple of days ago for disavowing covid. I didn’t bring up the subject. I wasn’t there to argue with anyone at this group activity that I was at. But the acquaintances that I get together with regularly for this activity knew that I had been sick for a couple of weeks – and I knew they knew that I had been sick for a couple of weeks. I knew that it was likely I would be asked if I’d “had covid” when I was sick.
And I knew that I could just say “no” and maybe be done with it. Though people do tend to go on about it.
However, I decided that I wanted to take a stand. Even if it was just little old me, and no one looks to me as their preferred source of information, I think that truth matters and that I as an individual should speak up for it. And that too many times truth is skirted around for the sake of some semblance of peace.
I have well thought out reasons for my position. “What is my position?” you ask?
I think covid is a political construct. And I think that if you are willing to listen I can make a good case for that.
And I also think that I can help you understand why going through this whole process of talking about this is important for teaching your own children how to think.
So let’s get back to my encounter. Let me reiterate that I in no way initiated the subject. I was asked how I was feeling and if I had had covid. It was time to test my resolve on this. And I replied that “covid is a political construct.“
To me, the most obvious response to this would be, “Oh, why do you think that?” Or, if they really don’t want any conversation, possibly, “I disagree.” or “You are definitely the odd man out.”
What I didn’t expect was an angry expostulation of, “Well, tell that to my daughter! She was very sick!”
Followed by a withering, “I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.”
I didn’t have any idea that this person’s daughter had been sick and it really is neither here nor there, because my conviction has to do with how covid is being defined and treated.
By the grace of God, I was able to calmly reply that I am a nurse with a good grasp of research, and it is my very educated and informed conclusion that covid is a political construct. As such, I have a very strong conviction to not at all be supportive of the political narrative that is being put forth about this supposed disease.
My acquaintance muttered a bit more about my unreasonableness and I quietly said to her, “Well, you did ask me.” And she seemed a little bit confused by that, because, yeah, she had brought it up.
To this person’s credit, she seemed to begrudgingly see my point, although she didn’t want to, obviously. And she took a minute to go around the other side of a structure to gather herself and came back and chatted with me a bit like nothing had ever happened.
Now, let me take a moment right here to say something else. I am not denying that people get sick. I am not denying that some illnesses seem to have a factor of contagion about them. But even in the best of times, the medical establishment itself admits that medical error is a leading cause of death.
When you realize the difficulties in doing research to establish identification and causation, those two things together are reasons for skepticism. And I think there are a lot of questions in order when everything becomes incentivized by political payments for diagnoses.
And there is definitely no reason to doubt my compassion for someone’s illness – that I’ve never heard of – if I question a broadly misused and abused diagnosis.
So, why do I doubt the diagnosis of covid? Why do I think it is a political construct?
Before I go into specifics on that, let’s address the idea of even daring to question the establishment on things like this.
It is a fact of history that to question the knowledge of those who hold political power is to risk your livelihood and your reputation. And when I say political power, I don’t just mean those ostensibly in political office. There have always been others shrouded in respectability who pull puppet strings or threaten, often extreme, retribution. And they seek positions of authority in whatever organization has the most clout with the masses. Sometimes it is religious organizations, who at best have a tenuous facade of representing God. Other times it is educational institutions, that base their superiority over others on intellectual magic.
Whatever it is, anyone who dares question whether the emperor has clothes on is usually not rewarded with thoughtful replies or “thanks for pointing out the obvious.”
The fable’s conclusion is not born out in reality. In reality, most people are still too afraid of being called stupid, too afraid of serious repercussions, and too afraid that no one will listen. They’re even too afraid they will be denied the social and financial benefits of supporting the charade.
We could say the current emperor is “dressed in covid.” For the ease of discussion, I will simply refer to the emperor in the singular, though we all know he represents many politicians and self-proclaimed medical authorities.
Why do so many people support this emperor? To more thoroughly understand, we need to peel off a bandaid that’s been on way too long. You know that kind of bandaid, righ? Not only has the adhesive integrated itself with the top layers of skin cells, but it is stuck to the now crusty wound. Instead of keeping the wound clean, it has been there so long it is collecting dirt. The wound is not only getting purulent from lack of cleaning and fresh air, but the surrounding tissue is weak by association.
When an attempt is made to remove the bandaid, it rips off the scab that was forming. Then the rest of the bandaid only comes off in little shreds, one little shred at a time. And it takes skin off in several places.
But it has to be done, or things will get worse.
I will call the bandaid “the pride of man.” I would say the pride of people, but it doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily. I could also say the pride of mankind.
There is a strong tendency of each generation to think they have things pretty much figured out. They fail to heed that it had been so for recorded history, for each generation. Mankind is easily puffed up by apparent knowledge and loathe to admit they may be building a house of cards.
Well, that’s not completely accurate. Some people have no qualms about whatever information gains them power, prestige, or money. They will simply discount alternative views because they undermind established authority.
Other people get sucked along for the prideful reason of wanting to believe that mankind is on the cusp of overcoming death or conquering the universe. Both perspectives appeal to the age-old desire to be god-like, to get enough knowledge to humanly overcome the decay and disorder that is so evident.
People want hope, but they want it on their own terms. They want to be their own saviors. This is one reason people are so susceptible to idea of breakthroughs or claims of experts.
It is too inconvenient to contemplate how little we humans truly understand the world around us. It is too embarrassing to recognize that with each new bit of discovery comes a new depth of complexity and unknowns.
I feel I must insert another disclaimer here. I am not saying that we never learn anything. Plus, there is some archaeological evidence that “we” may have forgotten a vast amount. But we, both as individuals and as cooperative groups, have harnessed ideas and observations in some wonderful ways.
However, understanding the data that show that the earth is round and orbits around the sun is light years away from understanding what the powers are that keep the earth in this posistion or being able to do anything to change what is happening.
Similarly, we can watch and observe and get an idea of where hurricanes look like they’re forming, but we can’t stop them. We can’t even harness the energy that is part of that phenomena.
When you get down to the cellular level, it’s become widely known that there is no such thing as a “simple cell.” The more they, that biologists look into the apparatus and the things that are going on inside the cell, the more they see how complex it is!
My own journey of learning was influenced by my initial degree that I was studying for in college, which was biochemistry, and then I ended up graduating from the University of California in Los Angeles with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing. And I don’t claim that makes me smarter than anyone. I am convinced that so-called higher institutions of learning are not necessary for learning. Although in the absence of apprenticeship, they are what we have for now for hands on lab or clinical experience. But that just gives you and idea of my background.
Let’s start with diagnosis. Diagnosing is a lot less precise or reliable than most people think. It is complicated by many things, not the least of which is standard protocol and liability that influences doctors to do things certain ways. And even the most well meaning doctors tend to follow diagnosis trails that lead to what they expect.
When you add monetary incentives and governmental coercion to the mix, diagnoses are going to be skewed even more.
I don’t know if I hear these kinds of stories more than other people because I’m a nurse and I’m open to hearing these, but I hear SO many stories about people who have been misdiagnosed or ignored about their concerns. And I have some of my own stories myself.
For instance, there was a time when I was having some unidentified pain in my head. And I had been to the dentist and had x-rays. Finally, I went to the neurologist and he couldn’t find anything in his testing of various things. So you know what his suggestion was? He said, “Well, let’s drill some holes in your skull.”
I said, “Will that help?”
He say, “Oh, I don’t know. Maybe. Maybe not. But we could try it.”
Fortunately, I didn’t let him so that and a few weeks later a very cracked tooth became apparent and that took care of the problem.
But even when a diagnosis can be made pretty clearly about what is malfunctioning, that is not the same as being able to say what caused it. Nobody really knows why my tooth cracked.
The ideas about what causes various malfunctions are as numerous as the stars and shifting as the sand. Cholesterol and heart disease is an example of this.
This doesn’t even count what are often called syndromes, which are basically symptom clusters with ever changing boundaries. And confusing by mixing multiple variations because of lack of better nomenclature.
Or symptoms are strongly correlated with a sacred medical practice, such as hormonal birth control and cancer. So nobody wants to address that.
Then there is even assuming that any foundation of research is trustworthy. It is notoriously difficult to isolate variables when doing research, particularly when people are the subjects. It is also pretty well established that only the exciting results get codified. You could have 99 studies that show no correlation between cholesterol and heart disease, but one study that shows something will get published and cited. And then people will start making diagnoses and health decisions based on that.
And then there is the sad fact that people do lie about results on a fairly regular basis, both to get recognition or funding. Or degrees or tenure.
And they tend to helpfully discard data points that aren’t conforming to their idea of what the research data should look like.
And if we are going to talk about research and data, and then we were talking about lab tests with diagnosing, I have to tell you about one of the jobs I had when I was in college.
I worked for a very well known company, a large company, that made what is called control vials that are put in the lab equipment, so that when the hospitals or labs ran blood samples of patients, they could compare their result to that of the standardized vial that the company sold.
How did they get the numbers for these control vials that were run with each of these sets? Well, the control vials were used by these same hospitals and I collected all the data and averaged it all out. And then we compiled a pamphlet, a brochure, that went with the test standardized vials that was sent to the hospitals so that then showed them what their test results should be like. This all makes the idea of exact lab test results a lot more fuzzy. And I have personally been aware of many times when results that were slightly one way or the other caused people to panic because that’s how it’s represented to them. But in the long run, nothing is wrong with them.
Which brings us to the idea of treatment protocol and medical error.
Besides the questionable environment of the hospital, there are pressures for the doctors to use methods that make more money. Or to run more tests because the hospital makes more money. And if you run enough tests, you can find something to diagnose.
I can hear some of you asking, “Don’t you trust anyone?” And the short answer is “no,” because on one has near as much the same at stake as the patient.
Part of this is to be expected. Medical personnel cannot maintain the intense level that would be required to care that deeply constantly for every patient, like they would care for themselves or a family member.
But part of it is because it is humanly impossible to completely put yourself in someone else’s situation. Even if you can offer information and perspective, only one person has the highest stakes at risk, which is their own irreplaceable health and well being.
So let’s talk a little bit more about data collection in terms of collecting data across large groups.
If the idividusl diagnoses are so slippery, then you know that trying to collect specifics about diagnoses across populations and countries is going to be challenging at best. Between the subjective description of symptoms by patients, the subjective evaluation of symptoms by medical staff, the biased reporting of hospitals and governments, the different criteria used by different groups, the changing understanding of what certain test results mean, it is a wonder that anyone claims they can decipher the data.
There is no objectivity in medical analysis. Saying that something falls under the concept of “science” does not automatically imbue all participants with special powers of objectivity.
The only halfway certain statistic is death – and I say halfway because once the IRS told my husband that I was dead and he said, “Do you want to talk to her?”. Plus, we all know that dead people vote.
But regarding death, even with a concerted effort to construct covid into existence the powers that be couldn’t make the death rates rise. Until they started giving people injections, but we’re not going to pursue that right now.
Right now we are using the example of creating the idea of covid to both illustrate the uncertainty of man’s knowledge and the pride of man in misunderstanding and abusing supposed knowledge. Even if some nefarious person was trying to create a pathogen to cull the population – and I wouldn’t put it past them – it is humanly impossible to standardize how the data is collected across the globe to make said data be uniformly meaningful.
And when you take into account the hysteria of mob behavior and the power of suggestion, you have a data monster that can’t be tamed.
If you have an awareness of certain conditions becoming popular, you understand how the magnification of this phenomena by the mere hint of a pandemic creates sickness where nothing of significance existed. People can and do worry themselves into physical symptoms. Or medical personnel do diagnose things in a certain way and misapply treatment and then claim that certain symptoms are ocurring when sometimes they’re not.
So from this amorphous mass of misinformation, we are supposed to believe that the government’s officials can mysteriously make well-informed medical decisions. For everyone. And they are certain of knowledge that doesn’t even exist. They are proud of their ability to rule the world.
And too many people are also proud of what they think can be known. And their pride leads them to destruction.
I learned a long time ago that consensus, or at least the acquiescence of consensus, does not equal truth. Might doesn’t equal right. And science is not nearly the path to perfection that it is touted to be.
It gives us glimpses. It helps us to know how to do some things. But it largely exposes how limited we are.
We can use electricity to create light, but we still don’t even know what light is. We can set and cast broken bones, but we can’t make them heal. We can plant the seeds, but we don’t know what makes them grow. It seems the more we explore, the more we find doors to knowledge that we didn’t existed or realize that previous explanations fall short.
Mankind’s knowledge of how this world functions in uncertain. Too often we create paradigms out of our own imaginations, but continue to cling to them when they crumble under the force of reality. Then, ironically, people get angry with persons who point out the crumbling.
The only reason for that response is pride. Like somehow reality can be kept at bay to make everyone feel better about themselves.
But truth is not a political construct. And I submit to you that we, mankind, could harness more ideas if people weren’t pridefully stuck on their philosophies of human grandeur. If people were more humble about what they think they’ve learned and more open to the idea that they haven’t learned it quite right and there might be caveats that make a big difference in how they should apply what they have learned.
So, yes. I think covid is a political construct. I think that some people got sick with something, that symptoms have been redefined and recategorized by political entities, with a lot of coercion on medical communities. We ended up with our generation’s version of blood-letting.
The emperor, as tyrannical as he is, is NAKED. And there is nothing compassionate about ignoring a friend’s putrid wound under an old bandaid. And in the metaphor of the decade, apparently, we really need to air this all out.
The book belowis uncompromising and impartial about evaluating how research is done and accepted, until it gets to the last chapter and ignores all the points just made to say, “but of course everyone should trust research that says to get vaccines.”
I got the next book for my husband for Christmas this year. He is impatient with most informational books as he thinks they should be edited to about one quarter the word count and could easily make the same points. He has been reading this book intently and quoting to everyone.
The Untold Story Behind DNA Similarity by Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, who earned a PhD in genetics from Clemson University and served on the genetics and biochemistry faculty there.