Government Is Dividing Us: Clean Versus Unclean
Posted May 27, 2021
Before we get into today’s Prophecy, I want to hear from you. What topics would you like to see featured in Gilder’s Daily Prophecy while I’m filling in? Any questions or comments? Let me know by clicking here.
Soon I will return with more on the wild and crazy 10-year ride on the crypto roller coaster, along with tales of the sensible and insane people I’ve known along the way.
But there is a burning issue that needs discussion now...
I’ve called it the new feudalism, imposed in the name of virus control. The biggest practical threat is the vaccine passports, but the root of the problem is much deeper: the desire of governments to divide the population between clean and unclean.
A New Low in Public Health
People might be exhausted by this topic. The lockdowns demoralized people not only in the US, but all over the world. The mental-health crisis is real. As many as 40% of Americans reported last year to be struggling with substance abuse and mental health disorders.
The kids, when they were forced in a screen-only life, were masked up. Even now the CDC says they must cover their faces because there is no vaccine for them — never mind that their actual risk of severe outcomes is so small as to barely escape being zero.
The instant that the CDC invited the vaccinated to take off their masks, masks almost disappeared completely from public places in most parts of the US. People declared that COVID is a thing of the past. People want to forget but the collateral damage from lockdowns is still with us. The damage will still be discernible a decade from now.
I visited the dentist yesterday. They were happy to be back in business.
“Was it strange to be forced to close last year?” I asked.
They explained that they could only do emergencies, but there were not many of those. When the New York Times said we should go medieval on COVID, they weren’t kidding. In most parts of the country, dentistry nearly vanished for 60 days. Diagnosis for six cancers dropped 46%. For breast cancer in particular, diagnosis collapsed by 50% due to lack of screenings.
Visits to the emergency room fell by half. There was a collapse in diagnosis of appendicitis, heart attack, and stroke. Health care spending during a pandemic actually fell by 6%, mainly because people were locked out of their doctor's offices and hospitals.
Astonishing. Even more so has been the great excuse for all of this. Officials were merely “following the science” in the promotion of “public health.” Is there any living soul who sincerely believes that to be true anymore? The credibility of public health officials has sunk to new lows, exactly as lockdown opponents said it would.
In the last 15 months, an excess of 100,000 papers have been published on this topic. With such an astonishing flurry of papers — many coming to contradictory conclusions, as one would expect from the process of science — unscrupulous people can pick and cite what they want to justify their conclusions.
The Vaccine Push
The CDC considers it axiomatically true that there is a clear demarcation between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. We might as well replace those words with clean vs. unclean, touchable vs. untouchable. Whole social and political systems around the world have risen up to distinguish classes based on whether they are likely to be diseased or not. Modernity gradually got rid of such systems, replacing them with ideas like human rights.
All of this is essential to understand why the national press fell into a 48-hour freak out by Senator Rand Paul’s announcement that he would not be getting the vaccine. He had COVID. Therefore he has robust immunities. Why in the heck should this be controversial? Because it strikes at the heart of the new feudalism being pushed by so many powerful people today. If exposure and recovery provides lasting protection, why the outrageous push for universal vaxxing?
Last August 16, 2020, the New York Times flatly stated the truth, which was then promptly ignored on its editorial page and the rest of the media.
The paper stated: “Scientists who have been monitoring immune responses to the virus are now starting to see encouraging signs of strong, lasting immunity, even in people who developed only mild symptoms of Covid-19, a flurry of new studies suggests.”
It’s not only about antibodies; it is also by the memory work being done by B cells and T cells. Studies were showing “an encouraging echo of the body’s enduring response to other viruses.”
For his part, Senator Paul has taken to Tweeting out scientific papers that back him up. For example, he drew attention to this important study from Israel. It documents excellent immunity from vaccination — but even higher successes (in terms of severe outcomes) from those who had exposure and then recovered. “Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.”
How many such people are in the US today? The CDC still estimates 114 million, but it is likely higher. The number of vaccinated is 150 million. How much overlap between the two? How many among the people who have accepted did not actually need it but acquiesced to the astonishing pressure put on people by governments, large corporations, schools, and other public venues? I’ve yet to see an estimate.
Here is another remarkable study that has somehow slipped through the cracks. It’s quite brilliant and addresses a question I’ve had from the beginning of the vaccine push. I get that these companies claim up to 95% effectiveness, but what precisely does that mean? What we want from a vaccine is that which stops severe outcomes that would otherwise occur from exposure among the general population. Is there a way to measure that?
These researchers say yes. Instead of using Relative Risk Reduction (RRR), they calculate Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) which considers ”the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine” for the whole population.
And check out this conclusion: “ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.”
I will let you draw your own conclusions from the study, but my layman’s read on this is: Vaccines have been wildly oversold relative to normal-life immunities that come from exposure and recovery.
But, hey, they wanted lockdowns and they got them. It was history’s great experiment in treating the human population like lab rats. It worked far better than they could have imagined, or, for that matter, I would have ever expected.
Why did people go along? Will there be a backlash? If so, when? What form will it take? We need desperately to examine this in the coming days, if only to prepare ourselves for what is next for us.
I don’t believe that the new feudalism will stick — not in the US and not anywhere — because this is not how humanity wants to live. Put us in cages; we will discover a way out.