Lies Become the Narrative

Andrew Klavan, the other day, was talking about what happens when you face continual lies. He started with an example of a young woman he encountered many years ago who kept lying. After long hours of continual lies, he faced a sort of warped sense of reality:

Andrew Klavan, Episode 1028
screenshot from here

I found that I was living inside her lies. So, it’s not exactly that I was starting to believe her; it’s that I was starting to react as if what she said was true, because I was debating with her what disease she had when she had no disease.

And the reason for that is, I’m not insane. It takes an insane person to think that every single thing he’s being told is a lie. Right? To think that you’re living in the matrix, or a simulation, you know, is the kind of thing a crazy person believes. And yet, right now we are effectively living in a simulation—created by this massive telecommunications media empire that the left has assembled; the woke businesses that have taken on being part of the oligarchy the government wants to form; and the government officials were being backed up by the media.

So we’re kind of living in this matrix. And you have to be insane to think that that’s true—and yet it is true.

I spend a certain amount of energy trying to understand people who believe things I know to be lies. I don’t think I’m better at discerning outright lies in normal life situations than the next person. Maybe I’m less skilled. As a truth teller, I tend to go into a situation with the assumption someone is telling me the truth face-to-face. When that isn’t true, it kind of twists my gut, and I have to puzzle it out, maybe re-prove what I know to be true.

I’ve been fascinated for a couple of years by people who “read body language,” for lack of a better way of saying that. There’s this website, and this group on YouTube for example. They aren’t exactly lie detectors, but they can tell better than most of us what someone’s body is telling about what that person is thinking or feeling. These places teach their skills; next time I’m ready to put in about enough time to learn a new language, I may have to dive in, instead of just observe and marvel at what they do.

But Andrew Klavan’s explanation struck me. People aren’t exactly crazy for believing the crazy things they believe; they’re acting like a sane person acts when they have been repeatedly lied to by someone in authority.

One example he showed was a clip of a congresswoman in California, commenting about her nine-year-old daughter, whose thought about climate change was, “The earth is on fire, and we’re all going to die soon.” Why does the nine-year-old believe the earth is on fire when, other than the occasional brush fire or forest fire (which, granted, do significant damage in California every year or two), the earth is not on fire? Why does she assume the entire population of the earth, all of us, are going to die soon? For a nine-year-old, I’m assuming “soon” means maybe before she gets to enjoy adulthood. Let’s say twelve years—since that has been a repeated time frame of impending doom since the 1960s. This girl wasn’t even alive to hear Al Gore predict it various times—all over 12 years ago. But she may have heard AOC or Greta Thunberg—another young girl who only believes it because she has been told to believe it. Most likely she had her mother and teachers lie to her.

Is that nine-year-old girl crazy? No. Klavan says,

In order for her nine-year-old to say, “All the adults around me are lying and making stuff up,” that would be nuts. That would actually be a mentally disturbed child. But this is a sane child, so she believes all the lies she’s being told.

But here’s what happens, Klavan says, every time we have to address a lie:

Fighting back against these lies makes the lie the narrative…. If you have to defend the fact that police shootings aren’t a problem, police shootings become the narrative.

Klavan showed a Fox News clip of a professor, Eric Kaufman, who had done a university-funded survey in which they had asked people, “Which is the more likely cause of death for young black men in America? Is it car accident? Or is it to be shot by police?” The actual verifiable statistics show that death by car accident is 10-fold more likely. But he mentioned these groups of people who believe death by police bullet is more likely:

·         80% of African-American Biden voters.

·         70% of whites who believe Republicans are racist.

Klavan follow up with:

The lies become the narrative. And the narrative distorts the way you look at things. And then the way you look at things distorts your politics.

I took occasion to read the Democrat platform once, a few years ago. I expected—and of course found—multiple things where I simply didn’t agree, because, as we know, government interference tends to bring about unintended consequences that are likely to be the exact opposite of the stated objective. But what surprised me was how many policies were based on verifiable lies: about climate change being the biggest existential problem, about racism being a systemic problem with no evidence of improvement, about abortion being about a woman’s bodily autonomy and not about the additional living human being they cheer about snuffing out, about tribal victimization—such as skin color, sex, LGBTQ status—being the determining factor in who should control others.

In fact,

·       Women do not make $.70 for every $1.00 a man makes—once you take into account multiple variables, not least of which is women’s choices.

·       A minimum wage is not expected to be a living wage; it is entry level, to give experience—a contractual agreement made illegal by a minimum wage law, thus eliminating work for those who can’t yet bring in that high minimum of value to the employer.

·       Blacks do not need to live in fear of murder by police. Even the handful of annual cases where blacks suffer death by police show causes other than racism—even when the officer is at fault. Note that the Derek Chauvin case did not even bring evidence of racism to the courtroom—because the prosecution had no such evidence—even though that was the supposed basis for months of rioting in Minneapolis and around the country.

·       Blacks do not suffer systemic racism from everyone else in society; they suffer much less than during Democrat-caused Jim Crow laws; they suffer far, far less than under Democrat slave owners. Only racists care about race anymore; the rest of us care about character.

·       Black Lives Matter is an international Marxist organization, bent on the overthrow of self-governing people and any pillars of civilization those people have built—in particular the intact mother-father family, the destruction of which has caused more damage to black communities than any other.

·       America was not founded on slavery; it was founded on “all men are created equal,” and then began the task of living up to that ideal after millennia of slavery, including a few hundred years of whites enslaving blacks.

·       Climates change. No amount of draconian de-industrialization will change that in any measurable way. But a single volcanic eruption could wipe out a half century’s worth of lowered carbon emissions. (Note: If you read scriptures, dire world-ending events are much more likely to result from rebellion against God than from driving a gasoline fueled vehicle. But if you really have faith in lowered CO2, then, be my guest and show your faith by going back to horse-drawn transportation.)

·       Abortion isn’t healthcare, and it isn’t about a woman’s choices concerning her own body; it is killing living, human offspring.

·       Men and women are biologically different.

·       Married mother and father give children a better chance to grow up safe, protected, educated, and nurtured than any other institution or program could possibly do.

·       Criminals do not obey gun laws. And self-defense is a God-given right. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens prevent crimes.

The list could go on. You get the idea. Let’s add a couple we’ve learned this past year:

·       Virus spread isn’t prevented by wearing a cloth mask, wearing a mask outside, wearing a mask while also social distancing, wearing a mask when you have immunity from having the virus or getting vaccinated. And viruses don’t magically stop spreading once you’re eating or “protesting.”

·       Treatments have been available for over a year now to reduce and relieve symptoms: hydroxychloroquine along with zinc and zithromycin; ivermectin; increased amounts of Vitamin D and probably Vitamin C and other immune system boosters—all of which you weren’t allowed to say on social media, and many doctors were prevented from sharing.

·       Science does not say schools should close, or businesses should be forced to shutter, or churches should be disallowed—even outside in parking lots. And we now have reliable evidence that some scientists are just as capable of lying as other humans. We also have evidence that scientists have no business forming public policy.

·       Our God-given rights should never be infringed. Any time they are, that is tyranny—even during an “emergency.” If all it took was an emergency to take away our God-given rights, governments would simply declare perpetual emergencies.     

Who is doing all this lying? People we were raised to believe we could believe: elected officials, their appointees, academia. “NBC lies to them. The New York Times, the Washington Post, Coca-Cola, Delta, Disney.”

And why are they lying? Klavan speculates that it’s to cover up for their failed policies. He’s likely right about that:

You know what it’s like, it’s like a cigarette maker telling us the crisis we have in this country is not enough cough drops. You know, “Oh, you’re coughing up blood? Dammit, you know, it’s the cough drop companies. We have got to do something about the cough drop companies. Have a cigarette, and I’ll get right on it.” That’s what this is like. An entire power structure, we’re surrounded by an entire power structure whose policy failures, and whose incredible debt, and whose moral failures have made it necessary for them to distract us from their increasing power and wealth by turning us against one another. We are living inside their lies.

One question that ought to come up is, how do I know they’re lying and I’m not just wrong? Evidence is one thing. And once evidence of lying comes up a time or two from a particular source, you start looking skeptically at everything that source says. Sometimes it’s worth digging up the actual facts—when you can find reliable sources. (Fact checkers can be liars too, and most are.) Sometimes the liars ought to just be disregarded.

Except that you have to fight them, because they’re trying to brainwash our children, and they’re trying to take away our ability to get and share actual facts, and they’re trying to do damage to our ability to make a living and buy and sell and associate—the things people do in a thriving civilization. So we have to fight the lies, and not just ignore them.

image found here

But, if combatting the lies puts us in the position of making their lies the narrative, the real question is, how do you combat the lies—and the narrative they engender?

Klavan suggests living in truth. Embody the truth. He doesn’t mean just shouting truth louder. He doesn’t even mean run for school board or attend school board meetings—although you should do that too. It comes down to treating others truthfully—being who you really are. Be kind. Be wise. Be generous. Be caring. So that the lies they tell about you don’t ring true to anyone who knows you personally.

I’ll add, if you feel the need to point to your black friends to show you’re not racist, you’re doing it wrong. Your denials won’t prove who you are; rather, it validates the accusation. But the way you actually treat people, all the time, just might prove who you are.

And also speak the truth. After all, the people you’re speaking truth to aren’t demented; they’re deceived. And for many of them, at some point they will question that matrix they’re in; then they’ll step out of the lies and into truth—where we welcome them.

Constant Vigilance

One of the purposes for our representative government is so that we can go on with our lives without having to study out each and every issue—and have it decided on by whatever the media persuades the majority to believe. But going on with our lives—leaving the elected officials unmonitored—is too dangerous today. Constant vigilance is required of us.

floor of the Texas Senate
from a tour in 2018

Today’s post is Texas legislation information. But it may be of instructive interest to others. Here are just a few issues I’ve been paying attention to this session.

Just to remind, the Texas Legislature meets mid-January through May every other year. We’re approaching 3 ½ months in. A rule of thumb is, if a bill can’t get voted out of committee in its originating chamber by the end of April, it’s dead. There’s not enough time to get through the remaining steps before the end of the session. So there’s a lot that really needs to happen immediately.

 

School Choice

I’ve been working, along with many others, to pass a bill in the Texas Legislature on school choice. The bill is titled the Family Educational Relief Act. I wrote about it here, and did a shorter op-ed published here.

This bill takes no money away from public schooling; in fact, it adds funding sources. But it is a way for low-income families to escape failing schools.

Opponents will do practically anything to keep kids in failing schools. One tactic, last Thursday, was to put the following amendment in the budget bill (the budget is pretty much the only requirement of the legislature during the session):

Prohibition on Use of Appropriated Money for School Choice Programs. Money appropriated by this Act may not be used to pay for or support a school voucher, education savings account, or tax credit scholarship program or a similar program through which a child may use state money for nonpublic primary or secondary education.

The amendment (slightly longer) was pre-introduced by Republican Rep. VanDeaver, then removed on a point of order, but replaced by this one by Democrat Rep. Herrero.

Beside the basic fact that I disagree with the intent, there are some major problems. This is a policy issue; putting it in the budget does a skirt around the committee process and prevents public discussion. For that reason it is likely to be stripped back out during reconciliation with the Senate. (The bill, SB 1,  originated in the Senate, got loaded up with amendments in the House, and then has to go back to the Senate, where changes will be made until there is agreement on what should be in the budget bill.)

When you talk with opponents of our school choice bill, they say they could never take money away from public schooling—which shows you they have not read the bill.

The vote was 115 in favor of the amendment; 29 opposed (5 not voting, including the speaker during the vote). All of the Democrats voted for the amendment, of course. The problem is, of the 83 Republicans, only 29 voted against it. Two were absent, so that means 52 Republicans voted to keep children in failing schools without a way out under any circumstances.

The Texas Constitution (Article VII, Sec. 1) requires that students be educated:

A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.

The Republican Party platform has some 340 planks, including unequivocal support of school choice, but the platform starts with 10 constant principles—which Republican officeholders are required to agree with. Principle 7 is We believe in:

Having an educated population, with parents having the freedom of choice for the education of their children.

In addition, at the Texas GOP Convention, the delegates voted on 8 top legislative priorities, and one of these is school choice:

School Choice for All: Empower parents and guardians to choose from public, private, charter, or homeschool options for their children’s education using tax credits or exemptions without government restraint or intrusion.

In speaking against the amendment, Rep. Toth presented the polling data: all over Texas, among every demographic and party, no less than 70% approve of school choice.

In Florida, a voting bloc of black mothers who wanted school choice made the deciding difference in electing Gov. DeSantis.

Someone wryly said to me, “If only we could get a Republican majority next session—Oh, wait!”

We’ve had a Republican majority in the House and Senate, plus the governor, since 2002. And yet we can’t seem to get the will of the people done.

Here is the vote count on that amendment:

My representative, Hull, voted against the amendment (so, on the side of school choice), as did local representatives Swanson, Oliverson, and Murphy. Schofield, who is usually very reliable, was absent, so at least he wasn’t a wrong vote. Rep. Harless voted in favor of the amendment. I have been thinking he’s more conservative than his wife was, who held the seat before him and was frequently unreliable, what we call “squishy.” Maybe he isn't better. His constituents ought to call him and ask what he was thinking.

Where does the opposition come from? Teachers’ unions. Teachers unions are not about better education for students. They are not even about better pay or conditions for teachers. They are about power for teacher’s unions. And they’ve been accruing that power for a long time. They control the message—in the media, among teachers. Politicians are afraid of them. We need to let the politicians know we are the voices they should be listening to.

Call to Action

We believe we have enough support among Republicans in the State Senate. So here’s an immediate call to action for anyone in Texas:

Call the following and ask for an immediate public hearing for the Family Educational Relief Program, SB 1968, as well as a vote in committee followed by a floor vote so it can be sent to the House:

·         Governor Greg Abbott: 512-463-1782, email https://gov.texas.gov/contact.

·         Lt. Governor Dan Patrick: 512-463-0001, and email ltgov@senate.texas.gov,  info@danpatrick.org or here.

·         Senate Education Committee Chair Larry Taylor, phone: 512-463-0111, and email here.     

 

Constitutional Carry (permitless carry)

screenshot from here

Another legislative priority worth discussing is Constitutional Carry. I think when people use that term, they’re talking about the US Constitutional 2^nd Amendment right to self defense “shall not be infringed,” which means people ought to have the right to carry a firearm without government interference. Texas—while very pro-gun—has allowed concealed carry only with a license. A concealed weapon would be a handgun, so handguns were handled differently from hunting rifles or shotguns.

What this bill is really about is permitless carry. That is, as long as you’re following all the rules a concealed carry permitholder would abide by, you can carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

There are multiple bills trying to accomplish this. As always in the messy legislative process, some get enough attention to move, and others don’t. Thursday, April 15, the House held a hearing on two of these: HB 1927 and HB 1911. HB 1911 was left pending in committee (no vote was taken), but HB 1927 passed out of committee and passed on the House floor, so it was sent to on to the Senate.

The problem is, HB 1927 is not a good bill. I heard from my son shortly afterward it passed the House. He’s a prosecutor and has been working on a case for quite some time now of a gang leader who was charged with illegally carrying a firearm. It is possible to have a permit and still be illegal—because violent gang members are not legally allowed to carry, for obvious reasons. This bill removes the ability to charge violent gang members with illegally carrying a firearm; it facilitates their use of firearms as they carry and deal their drugs through the Texas corridor.

Political Sphere had contacted his representative before the bill’s hearing, but got no response. So I contacted my state senator’s office to see if there was something they could do by way of an amendment during the Senate hearing on the bill. I had met with my senator’s district director in early February. She’s new with the senator this session. She has a background in police work and told me to contact her on issues related to criminal justice. She and the senator had already noticed that problem with the bill. She asked for contact info for my son, and he reports they had a good, long conversation.

Meanwhile, there’s a huge pressure campaign to get HB 1927  passed in the Senate. Any resistance is dealt with as being outright anti-2^nd-Amendment.

Stuff is happening. HB 1927 was referred to the Constitutional Issues special committee, with a public hearing on April 29. Meanwhile, a new bill, SB 2224, was given special permission to be filed (way past the deadline for filing, which was March 12). It has been referred to Administration, which isn’t a normal committee. I believe it is intended to replace HB 1927. It was long, and time was short, but Political Sphere plowed through it, and he’s very pleased. Here’s what he wrote to his state senator:

As a big proponent of Constitutional Carry, I have been following the various bills that have been presented. Unfortunately, the House, in HB 1927 has passed what seems to be an impossibly broken attempt at Constitutional Carry. It is rife with contradictory sections and a completely unworkable framework. As a lawyer who will have to deal with these if it passes, I cannot support this version of Constitutional Carry.

While HB 1911 dealt with many of these issues, I was much more impressed with SB 2224. I was worried that such a rushed bill would have some major problems, but, while there were still a few things missing from my ultimate wish list, I did not find any major problems.

I want to express my utmost support for SB 2224. Please do what you can to see this version of SB 2224 passed by the Senate. Please do not pass HB 1927. As much as I want Constitutional Carry, I want it to have a framework that will hold up through court. That means it would be best to have SB 2224 pass, but would, unfortunately, be better to go without Constitutional Carry than to pass HB 1927. Thank you for your consideration.

Go ahead and use what he says as a pattern, and contact your state senator.

If SB 2224 passes, I think it will then have to go through the House, from scratch, since it’s not just an amended existing bill. People think this is game playing to keep “constitutional carry” from passing. But it isn’t. It is an attempt to keep a self-contradictory and badly written bill from becoming law and affecting criminal justice in ways the public would not intend.

Call to Action

·         Contact your state senator and ask him to support SB 2224, to replace SB 1927. Find contact info here. 

·         Submit testimony for Thursday’s hearing on SB 1927 to oppose it, so that you can support real Constitutional Carry in SB 2224.

o   To testify in person, follow these instructions.

o   To submit written testimony, use this form.      

Electric Grid

image from here

After the disastrous freeze we had in February, there was a flurry of legislation attempting to prevent future power failures. Some of these are:

·         HB 14: Creating the Texas Electricity Supply Chain Security and Mapping Committee, which will be activated to improve coordination and flow of energy during power disasters.

·         HB 1520: Authorizing the Railroad Commission to obtain securitization bonds during power disasters to protect consumers from being saddled with high electric bills.

·         HB 1572: Closing a regulatory loophole to ensure that facilities purchasing temporary emergency generators are not subject to power generation facility regulations.

·         HB 3648: Directing the Railroad Commission to designate "critical natural gas facilities" during disasters, exempting them from load-shedding requirements and ensuring a consistent flow of natural gas.        

These all look to be good and useful bills. All of them passed the House on April 20, and were moved along to the Senate but have not yet been assigned to committee. But they’re at a good stage so far for the session.

I asked a friend, Fred Reitman, who is usually up on electric grid issues, what news he had for me. While he approves of the bills above, he is looking at what he refers to as “pre-February grid issues.”

We’ve been working on the electric grid since long before the freeze. Multiple legislative sessions. The concern is a solar flare (natural) or EMP strike (terrorism or war attack), which could take down the electric grid. (Read here—better yet read this book.) Fortifying it is a relatively inexpensive solution to prevent utter long-term disaster, and could be passed along to consumers fairly painlessly, without undue burden on electricity providers.

So, on that kind of electric grid issue, here’s Fred’s update:

The most important bill is Sen. [Bob] Hall's SB 1606, and [Rep. Matt] Shaheen's companion bill HB 3792. Those are getting nowhere.

SB 1606 has 23 authors, five of whom are on the Business and Commerce Committee. The problem, once again, is Committee Chair Hancock. The committee needs to vote. Hancock is holding that up. And over on the House side similarly Shaheen's bill was assigned to committee a month ago but no hearing yet scheduled. Go figure.

The Senate Business & Commerce Committee Chair is Sen. Kelly Hancock. In his bio he claims all kinds of conservative bona fides. While this ought to be a bi-partisan issue, it’s a wonder yet again why these elected officials aren’t listening to the people.

Call to Action

·         Call and ask for the SB 1606 to be voted on in committee and sent on for a floor vote:

o    Senate Business & Commerce Committee Chair Kelly Hancock, 512-463-0109, email 

·         Call the Business & Commerce Committee members and request that they vote to pass SB 1606 and move it to a floor vote.

o   Committee members listed here. Find their names, and then go to their member page for contact info.

That’s a good day’s work you’ve just been assigned. Do what you can. Get better at it. And then learn to do more. Because, for those of us who love freedom, free market, and civilization, the odds of getting and/or keeping those things are against us—even in a Republican/conservative-led state like Texas.

Government Is Force—Not a Benevolent Provider, Not Deity

Last week on his podcast, Jordan Peterson had a long conversation with Senator Mike Lee. Senator Lee is a soft-spoken, generally nice guy, with a spine built on principles, and a very good working knowledge of what the US Constitution says and means. Dr. Peterson is a thoughtful, principled man, who likes to get down to the very bottom of what something means. And he happens to be Canadian, which means that many of the ways of thinking that come natural to Americans actually have to be explained to him.

Senator Mike Lee
screenshot from here

While he’s been living in the same world, nearby, and hears much of the same news, he hasn’t had the same historical upbringing in school. And actually that’s helpful here in getting the information out in the conversation—because a large part of young adults today lack the same things, but also lack Peterson’s willingness to come to fully understand.

So what we have is a very good elementary education in the Constitution and the proper role of government—but for adults. It’s something akin to my very purpose here at the Spherical Model. It’s a bit like reading Bastiat’s The Law or Ezra Taft Benson’s “The Proper Role of Government” by way of casual conversation.

So today I’m just going to share portions of their conversation (and encourage you to enjoy it in full as well).

A few minutes into the discussion, they were talking about the nature of government—as force, rather than a “benevolent provider of goods.” I think that difference in how a person looks at government is key to much of our disagreements. I believe Senator Lee is right, that government is force, pure and simple.

Quote from Mike Lee

Senator Lee says,

It is, however, important to remember that that’s ultimately what government is, is force.

The way government does things, the way it does anything, everywhere, at least in our country, is that it collects taxes from the people. We have a number of different kinds of taxes in this country, as they do in many countries. But ultimately that’s how government operates. And, while we call that a voluntary system, and in many ways it is, or is supposed to be, ultimately we pay those—citizens pay those, because they know that if they don’t pay them, force will be brought to bear. People will come, and there will be penalties attached to it if they don’t pay them.

That’s why it’s so important to remember that government is force. It uses force to do things that we need it to do. And, as you say, it would be chaos, it would also be terribly inefficient, it would result in all kinds of problems, if every one of us had to be our own sheriff, our own department of defense, our own army, and our own navy. That would be problematic.

Just the same, having delegated those things to a government, we have to remember what government is, why we have it, and utilize government for that which only government can do—and not attribute to it benevolence and omniscience and an omnipotence that most people reserve for deity, if they believe in God.

Lee speaks of the proper role of government again later, referring to protecting life, liberty, and property. This is in response to a question from Dr. Peterson about the Senator’s trust in government. Lee has mentioned—and shown—that he carries a copy of the Constitution around with him; he reads it and refers to it frequently. (I do that too. Instead of in a suit coat pocket, I carry it in my wallet in my purse.) As an aside, there’s a lovely segment where Lee talks about his growing up, and talking about deep things, including religion and the Constitution around the dinner table. His father, Rex E. Lee, was

a lawyer and a professor of law, later served as dean of Brigham Young University’s law school, and as president of Brigham Young University. For a few years when I was a child, he was Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general… During his 61 years on this planet he devoted much of his career to the Constitution.

Carrying the Constitution is not because, as Dr. Peterson supposes, because he reveres and admires government so thoroughly, but just the opposite:

I’d take exception to one thing you said, where you suggested that I trust government as evidenced by the fact that I carry around the Constitution and I seek to follow it. I’d turn that precisely on its head. In other words, the Constitution reminds us that we don’t trust government as an institution; we trust people, but not the government.

The Constitution is our key to making sure that we unlock unlimited human potential, by recognizing the inherent dignity and infinite worth of every human being, and that we show that respect by saying that, when we use force on you—as we do whenever government acts—we will do so respectfully, and in a way that’s measured, restrained, exercised at the appropriate level, and is geared specifically toward protecting life, liberty, and property. If it’s not those things, we won’t do it.

We need to have trust and confidence in human beings, because they’re God’s creations, and because we’re all created equal.

When we put trust in government itself, we’re putting trust in force.

Already you’re seeing religious overtones in this discussion. These come up frequently throughout. You can’t revere the Constitution without that. Early on Lee spells out the connection, that our rights come from God, whether you believe in God or not:

I don’t believe that the Constitution requires, in order for it to work, for anyone to cling to any particular religious belief, or for that matter to any religious belief at all. In fact, by its own terms, it carves those things out and makes clear that government can’t mess with those. But government also may not establish those things. It’s important to have that boundary….

It helps to understand these things, if—as was the case in America at the time of America’s founding, and as I believe is still the case with most Americans—when we understand that we are subject to an all-knowing, benevolent, and all-powerful creator to whom we will stand accountable at the end of this life; and when we understand that our rights and our existence come from Him, and are a result of a bestowal of His blessings, rather than that of any government—I think that helps inform the proper role of government and the proper relationship between the people and its government.

There’s a section toward the end (around an hour and 14 minutes in), when Senator Lee talks about his concerns with the erosion of civil society. Religion is part of that:

I tend to believe that the erosion of civil society is concerning, meaning the voluntary associations that free people form when they’re allowed to be free, and that they form in the absence of any government telling them that they must, or that they may, or that may not. They just do it. And by that I mean churches, mosques, synagogues, fraternal orders, charitable foundations, universities, neighborhood watch associations—all of those things that operate as an organized entity outside the force of government. Those are things that have really helped us.

Those voluntary associations were noted by Alexis de Tocqueville when he visited nearly two centuries ago, and the United States were just beginning to thrive and be an example to the world. Lee adds,

I’ve often said that the twin pillars of human thriving—thriving of the human condition, whether in American society or anywhere else—they tend to be built upon robust institutions of civil society and free markets. If you have those two things, human beings can thrive. They won’t always choose to do so. Sometimes they will make choices that will put them on a path of self-destruction. But, if you’ve got those things in place and people make the right choices, human beings will thrive. You’ll lift people out of poverty.

Quote from Mike Lee

I worry that, as we’ve put more trust in government, we’ve allowed the muscle of civil society, and the muscle memory of free markets to atrophy. And so, it’s not just what we’ve created through a bloated government that is the problem; it’s also what we lose, what we give up in the process. People become less connected, the more brooding the government’s presence is in their lives.

Rather than two pillars, I look at the three spheres: political (freedom), economic (prosperity), and social (civilization). I think we’re not in disagreement; these three work together. We need limited government to allow for free markets, and we need a righteous people—people who can govern themselves.

But if you don’t have people who govern themselves, which civilization requires, and freedom to make exchanges in the marketplace, then you have savagery and poverty, or as he says, misery and chaos. Then force steps in, and steps on people.

At one point (around 23 minutes in) Lee says this about the relationship between people, their religion, and government:

I think once you unpack what government is and how it’s used, and you understand human beings and their relationship to each other and to their government, it becomes easier to see how this can work, and how it must work.

In other words, for me at least, my belief in my relationship with God is the most important thing in this world to me. It’s right there with my relationship with my wife and my children. It’s something without which I cannot imagine my existence.

And it is for that reason—and not in spite of it—that I don’t want government touching it.

His love of his religion is how I feel about mine; we both happen to share a religion: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But this discussion doesn’t touch on his specific beliefs. I’d love for him to have a discussion about that with Jordan Peterson someday.

Back to the discussion of religion. He continues:

In other words, there is an increasing inclination in society today, including among many Americans, that if something is really important, then it must be something that the government does, promotes, funds, or is otherwise officially involved in.

And I think this is a helpful example to all of us of the reasons why it ought to stay out. It is because it is important that it must not touch it. It’s not an appropriate place for the use of force.

There’s that theme again—that government is force. There are places in our lives in which we human beings ought not to be coerced. Lee adds,

There’s a good reason why people have for many, many centuries sought sanctuary in places of worship. People instinctively recognize that force—the use of physically coercive force—is not something we want to take place inside of a church or a synagogue or another place of worship.

And so too with many aspects of our lives that are important—because they are important, you don’t necessarily want government in charge of it.

Back to that later religious discussion. He mentions that what we may be seeing is idolatry—not that dissimilar from Old Testament idolatry:

I worry that, in many cases, we have traded faith either in an all-knowing, loving, all-powerful God who will judge us at the end of this life—or even, if not that, faith in a set of principles by which we guide our lives—has in many places been replaced and supplanted by an almost religious faith geared toward government. This is, in a sense, the new idolatry, the idolatry of our time.

Whenever I study the Old Testament, I’m struck by how much they focus, almost obsessively, on idolatry, and I thought, well, that’s weird; we don’t really see a whole lot of that here. In a sense we do. When we worship mortal institutions—mortal institutions with immense military power, aircraft carriers, government offices, $4 trillion in annual outlays—that’s an almost religious amount of faith toward something that is not God, and that doesn’t bring us closer together.

There’s a pretty good discussion on the separation of powers, which Dr. Peterson admits is confusing to an outsider. It does seem natural to us, but it isn’t typical around the world, and certainly not historically. Mike Lee explains it this way:

A minute ago we talked about the federalism, the vertical separation of powers, leaving a fairly stable pyramid-like structure: a few powers at the top, most powers at the base close to the people. Most people know their state legislators, their city council members. They interact with them at the grocery store. They might recognize them at their child’s baseball game. Fewer people know their federal legislators; that’s part of the reason why we have fewer in power and trust at the top.

There’s also a horizontal protection in the Constitution, one that says, once you’re inside the federal government, dealing with something that’s a federal issue—you know, war powers, regulating trade or international commerce, and so forth—we’re going to have three distinct branches. We’ve further subdivided the king or the Caesar—the king or the queen, the monarch there—into three distinct parts. We’ve got one branch of government, the legislative branch—Congress, where I work—that makes the laws. This was designed as the most dangerous branch. That’s why it’s made the most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals, because we have the power to prescribe the rules by which the rest of government operates. That’s the legislative branch.

The executive branch, headed by the president in our system, has the power to execute, implement, and enforce the laws passed by Congress.

Then you’ve got the judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court, that has the power to interpret the laws and disputes about the laws, where they come into conflict between two or more parties properly before the jurisdiction of the courts.

When each of those branches stays in its lane, the legislative power remains the most dangerous branch, but it is made less dangerous by the fact that it’s the most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals.

So, insofar as we follow those guidelines—the vertical protection of federalism, and the horizontal protection of separation of powers, this document really has helped us. And it’s helped us prosper. It’s led more people out of poverty than any government program ever could or ever will, because it unlocks unlimited human potential by restraining government.

That’s the good that’s designed into our government through the Constitution. The bad and ugly is that Congress has ceded that power, mainly to the executive branch. Lee illustrates this with stacks of paper:

ML: I keep two stacks of documents behind my desk. One document is a few inches tall. It’s usually either a few hundred, sometimes a few thousand pages long, and it consists of the laws passed by Congress in the previous year. The other stack is, in some years, 13-14 feet tall. I keep it in three separate bookcases in my office. It’s sometimes as much as 100,000 pages long. And it’s last year’s federal register. The federal register is the annual cumulative index of federal regulations, as they’re released initially for notice and comment, and then later as they become effective.

Jordan Peterson
screenshot from here

JP: Well, so that’s a very interesting metric too. So that’s a ratio of paper necessary to document regulatory change?

ML: Yes. It is prescribing affirmative legal obligations.

JP: So that is the index of the relative power of the two institutions, so to speak?

ML: Yes, in a sense. Now, it’s not a precise measure, because some of that is not an apples-to-apples comparison. But a lot of it really consists of lawmaking. These are new affirmative legal obligations imposed as a generally applicable rule on the American people, enforceable by the overpowering force that is the federal government.

The difference between those two stacks is that this small stack, one that’s only a few hundred to a few thousand pages long, made by elected lawmakers. The one that’s 13-14 feet tall, 100,000 pages long in some years, made entirely by unelected unaccountable bureaucrats. That’s scary.

Senator Lee ends this segment with a definition of liberty and of tyranny that I find useful. So we’ll end with this:

In any country where there is a societal tendency to trust the people and be skeptical of government, we call that liberty. In a society where people are encouraged to trust the government and be skeptical of the people, we call that tyranny.

Quote from Mike Lee

 

So Many Reasons—or That Explains It, Part II

Christian Elliot, who wrote the "18 Reasons"
image from here

A couple of days after my last post, “That Explains It,” I read a piece that has been going around, called “18 Reasons I Won't Be Getting a Covid Vaccine,” by Christian Elliot, a health and life coach. It’s a blog post of his perspective and personal reasons, so I feel a kinship there.

A couple of days later my most-frightened-of-Covid friend posted a link to a rebuttal called “18 reasons I SHOULD be getting a Covid vaccine,” by Katelyn Jetelina, which she wrote to dispel Elliot’s fearmongering and harmful misinformation. I clicked on her bio, and she has a Masters in Public Health and PhD in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. So we’ll keep that in mind as we go through the information, noting that she derides Elliot as “not an epidemiologist, not a healthcare provider, not public health specialist, not an immunologist, and not anything that qualifies him to speak accurately on this topic.”

However, what he is writing on is his personal reasons—which apparently we’re not allowed to have if we don’t have a PhD in epidemiology? Let me note that her qualifications DO NOT qualify her to know my reasons better than I know them about this or any other topic.

My plan, here, is to list his reasons and her rebuttals, and decide which one I’m persuaded by. It will be even longer than my usual (not as long as Elliot’s original, though). So it will be my only post this week.

Before I do the exercise, I don’t know whether I’ll tend toward different sides on different reasons. But I’ll note that Elliot provides a great many links to sources he used. Jetelina uses occasional government sources and many links to her other blog posts (not that I object to that; I do it). I’m just saying Elliot wasn’t setting himself up as the authority; he was showing you what sources persuaded him, which you’re free to check out for yourself.

And now we’ll proceed.

#1: VACCINE MAKERS ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY

Katelyn Jetelina
image from here

Jetelina responds “This is true.” But there are systems in place in cases where something does happen, like HHS’s Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) or the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), although that doesn’t apply to the Covid vaccine, which has FDA emergency authorization. She provides a link for more info. The link is a Newsweek article referencing an Associated Press report, stating essentially the above.

The point here goes to Elliot.

#2: THE CHECKERED PAST OF THE VACCINE COMPANIES

This is a provocative way of wording it. But Elliot gives long lists of the lawsuits in question, with links, so you don’t have to take his word for it.

Jetelina says, “I guess this is true. But most companies have a checkered past?” Do they really? And that should inspire our trust? She points out that’s why we have a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for every study, of the FDA scientists, and the CDC scientists—because government regulation works so well you won’t even have a need for lawsuits. Oh, wait…

The point here goes to Elliot.

#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES

Jetelina says, “What? There is no ugly history.” It’s all bright and shiny and heroic and not rushed. Proof here. (It’s her blog of January 17, 2021.)

But she doesn’t actually respond to the historical failures Elliot cites:

·       A 1960s attempt at making a Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine for infants, which ended up making vaccinated infants much sicker than the unvaccinated. Here’s the reference. 

·       In 2004 attempted vaccine produced hepatitis in ferrets

·       In 2005 mice and civets became sick and more susceptible to coronaviruses after being vaccinated

·       In 2012 the ferrets became sick and died. And in this study mice and ferrets developed lung disease.

·       In 2016 this study also produce lung disease in mice.

·       A pattern was, when children or animals were exposed to a wild version of the virus, an unexplained phenomenon called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) also known as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED) occurred where the immune system produced a "cytokine storm" (i.e. overwhelmingly attacked the body), and the children/animals died.

Elliot says,

In other words, never before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology that is mRNA "vaccines" been safely brought to market.

I agree with Jetelina that there was a lot done prior to 2020. I also agree with Elliot that there were a lot of past failures, and we don’t actually know yet whether the current Covid vaccines are going to follow in that pattern or be a miraculous breakthrough.

Elliot wins this point as well.

#4: THE "DATA GAPS" SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE VACCINE MAKERS

As Elliot explains, “among the many ‘Data Gaps’ they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of Vaccine Enhanced Disease.”

Jetelina doesn’t argue that point but challenges some particular data gaps Elliot lists. She admits there are gaps for under 18 and for pregnant and lactating mothers. But she challenges the other categories: age 55+, those with auto-immune conditions (not a gap, she says, but not enough examples, so consult your own physician, who won’t have more data either, but at least presumably knows you), immunocompromised (ditto: not a gap, but not enough examples), transmission of covid, preventing mortality from covid, duration of protection from covid.

Elliot links to FDA reports for Pfizer (see page 46) and for Moderna (see page 48) from December. Jetelina links to her previous blog from February, which reported hopeful “leaked” reports that she hadn’t actually seen. 

Are there data gaps? Yes.

Elliot gets this point.

#5: NO ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA FROM THE TRIALS

Elliot refers to a January BMJ (British Medical Journal) article by associate editor Peter Doshi, in which Doshi questioned using “suspected COVID-19 cases” in a study, without follow-up on why they remain only suspected but were included in the data. By the way, Doshi follows up in February with additional clarification—on his question, but not additional data, which still hasn’t been provided.  

Jetelina links to “raw data” in the form of a report from J&J, Moderna, and Pfizer to the FDA—which, it turns out are her blogs about the reports, not the reports themselves. But there’s data in there. (Elliot linked again to those same two reports from the previous question.) She does not respond to the question Elliot refers to, brought up by Peter Doshi.

Elliot gets another point.

#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING

This is obvious, since the product has only been on the market for a few months. That kind of data can only come in time. Jetelina agrees, but says there’s reason not to worry. She links to—yet another of her blogs, in which she says the lack of previous FDA approval is “NOT because the past mRNA vaccines have been deemed unsafe. It’s because past mRNA vaccines haven’t been very effective.” The trouble has been getting them into the cells. Later in the piece, she says the reason mRNA is not dangerous like DNA-containing vaccines (none approved for humans) is because they don’t get into the nucleus of the cell. So did they solve that getting-into-the-cell-to-be-effective problem or not? Not clear.

She does include a link to this University of Cambridge policy briefing, pre-dating COVID-19, which is informative about mRNA vaccines and what they are. I think, though, she may have skipped over the part about “Important Challenges,” which includes “Unintended effects: the mRNA strand in the vaccine may elicit an unintended immune reaction.”

Elliot gets this point too.

#7: NO INFORMED CONSENT

Elliot views the vaccinations now ongoing, in which we don’t have actual FDA approval but we have EUA (emergency use approval), as a trial. He and others who have not taken the vaccine are the de facto control group.

Jetelina says that, if you’re in a trial, you absolutely do read a 15-page explanation, so you are informed fully of your risk, which you sign before taking the trial medicine. I agree that is what should happen in a trial.

So I suggest asking anyone who has gotten this vaccine: Did you read and sign a 15-page document explaining the risks and giving your permission to be used as a trial subject?

If they did, then there is no way a person should be pressured into becoming part of a trial. If they didn’t, then Elliot is right; they are part of a trial without informed consent.

Either way, Elliot gets this point.

#8: UNDER-REPORTING OF ADVERSE REACTIONS AND DEATH

Elliot cites a Harvard study commissioned by the US government, reporting that fewer than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to the National Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS).”  And VAERS reports over 2,200 deaths from the current COVID-19 vaccines, as well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.

It’s hard to say whether COVID-19 vaccine reactions are underreported. But if they are, he says, “you can do the math, but that equates to somewhere around 110,000 to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a ridiculous number of adverse reactions.” My layperson guess is, that extrapolation is rather high, at least so far. But the reported 2,200 isn’t so low that it's inconsequential either.

Jetelina claims there’s never been a more transparent vaccine reporting than for this one. She “proves” it with several of her own blogs.

Meanwhile, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (I believe that’s the single shot one, which is similar to the Astra-Zeneca vaccine suspended elsewhere) was “paused” in the US, because of six cases of blood clots, including one death. I speculate that a vaccine with that much investment doesn’t get pulled for a tiny problem, or “an overabundance of caution,” as the press release stated.

Elliot wins another point.

#9: THE VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION OR INFECTION and #10: PEOPLE ARE CATCHING COVID AFTER BEING FULLY VACCINATED

I’m taking these two together, because they’re related.

These vaccines were not designed to completely stop transmission or infection. Elliot says, “The primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms.” He refers to the FDA reports linked earlier (here and here).

Jetelina says, yes, they do stop transmission and infection. She links to a February 20 blog post she had referred to before. And a table she made.

Mostly I think we don’t know yet what happens when a vaccinated person is exposed to the virus—because most vaccinated people have not yet been exposed.

However, there are reports of vaccinated people getting the virus. Here’s his list:

·         It's happening in Washington State

·         It's happening in New York

·         It's happening in Michigan

·         It's happening in Hawaii

·         It's happening in several other states too.

·         It happened to 80% of 35 nuns who got the vaccine in Kentucky. Two of them died by the way.

Also, maybe you recall this story from Britain, telling people not to hug their vaccinated kids. So which side is fearmongering, again?

Jetelina says vaccinated people getting/spreading the virus only happens when you haven’t had both shots, or when you get exposed too soon (within a couple of weeks) of getting your shots, when immunity hasn’t had a chance to build up yet.

So how do you explain those FDA reports about long-term immunity not even being the goal? Or the requirement to keep wearing a mask and remain uncertain about whether you can get it or spread it? She doesn’t respond to that.

While we’ll eventually get more data, both points go to Elliot.

#11: THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID

The question here is, why take a risky vaccine for an illness that has a 99.74% survival rate? I’m not sure what the comparative numbers are, but there are vaccines now for measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox.

The odd thing here has been a lockdown of the population for a disease so unlikely to cause death. And while Elliot doesn’t bring it up here, around 70% of deaths would have been prevented if the known treatments had been allowed to be used. (See my posts here and here.)

Elliot says it this way:

Why would I take a risk on a product, that doesn't stop infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that has a .26% chance of killing me—actually in my age range it has about a .1% chance of killing me (and .01% chance of killing my kids), but let's not split hairs here.

Jetelina halfway admits this is true—but not for some populations (80+ and those with multiple co-morbidities). I’ll note that my octogenarian and nonagenarian friends who have had COVID-19 all recovered, so that’s my anecdotal experience. She points out, though, that death isn’t the only bad outcome.

She started her piece by claiming Elliot had been dangerously fearmongering. But here she says, “There isn’t one body system that COVID19 hasn’t left a mark.” (I think she means “on which it hasn’t left a mark.”) This is actually what my most fearful friends fear. It’s an effective argument. But it doesn’t overcome the knowledge that we’ve had effective treatments for over a year that, if given early on, would have prevented damage to all those other body parts.

I’m persuaded by Elliot again on this point.

#12: THE BLOATED COVID DEATH NUMBERS

I have found the reporting of COVID-19 on death certificates confusing from the outset. Elliot references a WHO classification document, with chart. I still don’t find it clear.

COVID-19 flowchart for coding death certificates
image from here

Jetelina says this just isn’t true, and we should have more faith in our medical experts. She links to a blog post she wrote in March on excess deaths. 

Are there more COVID-19 caused deaths than reported? Or fewer than reported? I don’t know. However, I know one person whose mother died from cancer—totally unrelated to COVID-19; she did not have COVID-19 and had not been exposed to it. He was livid to learn that they listed COVID-19 as the cause of death on her death certificate. Also, I have a good friend whose mother (in her 80s) was near death for two months with heart issues. My friend and her mother both came down with COVID-19 the same week. Her mother died. Actually of heart failure. Probably sooner than she would have because of COVID-19.

It took a long time for me to know anyone who actually had COVID-19. I’ve known many now. I have not personally known anyone who died of COVID-19. So my anecdotal experience is that over-reporting is more common than actually dying of COVID-19. Clearly not a scientific study, but it affects my belief.

I give the point to Elliot.

#13: FAUCI AND SIX OTHERS AT NIAID OWN PATENTS IN THE MODERNA VACCINE and #14: FAUCI IS ON THE HOT SEAT FOR ILLEGAL GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH

Elliot links a story and video here, and a story (containing multiple source links) about NIH’s (part of NIAID) connections to Moderna. 

And on #14 he adds a couple of links talking about “gain-of-function” research: here and here.

Jetelina doesn’t dispute the claims. She just says, essentially, so what? And, “Stop targeting this man.”

This man has been duplicitous and condescending, disregarding our lives, our freedoms, our need to make a living—as if eradicating this low-mortality and treatable disease was the only life purpose anyone should have. He’s been a bully. I’m not too concerned that people are calling him out for things that look shady.

Both points go to Elliot.

#15: THE VIRUS CONTINUES TO MUTATE

Mutating is what viruses do. Typically they do it in a way that is less likely to kill the host and more likely that they can reach additional hosts. Viruses get more contagious but less virulent. The question Elliot brings up is whether the vaccine will be effective for the mutations—the variants. Or whether new vaccines will be required continually.

Why get a risky vaccine that won’t be effective in just a few months, so you’ll have to get yet another risky vaccine? Ad infinitum?

Jetelina’s claim is that it’s the vaccines that are effective against the variants. That natural immunity is specific only to the original. Reading I’ve done is exactly opposite of what she says. She offers no links.

The point goes to Elliot.

#16: CENSORSHIP...AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

Elliot points out that robust debate was completely missing concerning:

·         Lockdowns.

·         Mask wearing.

·         Social-distancing.

·         Vaccine efficacy and safety trials.

·         How to screen for susceptibility to vaccine injury.

·         Therapeutics, (i.e., non-vaccine treatment options).

I’ll add to that the various effective treatments. If you so much as questioned these things, you were censored. That included doctors—some of whom got fired or reprimanded for bringing up these things—along with the data they had collected.

America's Frontline Doctors
screenshot from video

Elliot adds, “Ironically, Mark Zuckerberg can question vaccine safety, but I can't?” with a link to a Washington Times piece about Zuckerberg’s hypocrisy. 

Jetelina’s entire response is,

Absence of scientific debate? This guy needs to get outside of his echo chamber. There has been nothing but scientific debate during the entire pandemic. See any of my posts from the past year that describe this.

As noted above, her blog posts are opinion pieces. She puts data in them, but everything is designed to support her personal opinion. There is no debate there.

I’ve been shadow-banned and had cautions added to my very innocuous posts on social media. My personal experience aligns with Elliot’s assertion. Maybe Jetelina’s the one who needs to get out of her echo chamber.

This point definitely goes to Elliot.

#17: THE WORLD'S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST IS SOUNDING THE ALARM...

Elliot refers to a particular doctor, Geert Venden Bossche. Elliot says,

When someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has spent his entire professional career overseeing the development of vaccines, is shouting from the mountaintops that we have a major problem, I think the man should be heard.

In case you missed it, and in case you care to watch it, here is Geert Vanden Bossche, explaining:

1.     Why the covid vaccine may be putting so much pressure on the virus that we are accelerating its ability to mutate and become more deadly.

2.     Why the covid vaccines may be creating vaccine-resistant viruses (similar to anti-biotic resistant bacteria).

3.     Why, because of previous problems with Antibody Dependent Enhancement, we may be looking at a mass casualty event in the next few months/years.

Jetelina responds, in entirety:

This “leading vaccinologist” worth another misinformation post in and of itself. Maybe I will do that next.

I don’t know how to vouch for this particular vaccinologist. But I would add his concerns to those of Dr. Scott Atlas, Dr. John Birge, Dr. Ralph Keeney, Dr. Alexander Lipton, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Redfield (CDC director until recently), Dr. Simone Gold, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, Dr. Robin Armstrong, Dr. Didier Raoult, Dr. Rob Elens, Dr. Dan Erickson, Dr. Astin Massihi, Ivor Cummins, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, and probably many others. Why are their experience, their data, their questions, their conclusions all wrong, but we should trust Dr. Jetelina as the expert?

The point goes to Elliot.

#18: I ALREADY HAD COVID

Elliot had it. It was unpleasant. But he survived. His whole household did. And, as he says, and backs up by linking to the data,

Now it appears (as it always has) that I have beautiful, natural, life-long immunity...

...not something likely to wear off in a few months if I get the vaccine.

That’s how viruses have always been understood; you survive them and get immunity as your reward.

It seems much more likely that those who have had it are all now immune for life. Or at least for such a long time that the variants have turned it into an entirely different, unrecognizable-by-the-immune-system virus, which is I think why we can repeatedly get the flu and common colds. But we don’t shut down society for those.

Jetelina says,

Doesn’t matter if you already had COVID19. We don’t know how much natural protection helps and, more importantly, who or when it helps. Protection weans [sic.] especially for the milder or asymptomatic cases. Also, we have seen very recently that the antibody response is stronger for those with vaccines (when compared to “natural” infection). 

Why don’t we know whether you get immunity from having the disease? Why would this virus be different from all others? And why would protection wane (I’m pretty sure she didn’t mean “weans”) for milder or asymptomatic cases? Isn’t it true that your immune system already worked well against the virus if you only got a very mild case? Why would an antibody response be stronger for people who’ve had the vaccine than those whose immune systems already worked without it?

She doesn’t say.

I’d say Elliot won this point—the hard way.

That means the score is Elliot 18, Jeterina 0.

 

CONCLUSION

I have personal reasons for not getting the vaccine: while I risk getting a bad case, it is treatable; whatever happens to me as a result of the vaccine is not. Experience taught me the hard way not to get a flu shot either. I’ve been vaccinated for various other things, including a booster for tetanus not so long ago. But my immune system is a special case, with sensitivities to a great many things that normal people don’t worry about. I work hard to stay healthy. And I deserve the respect that I’ve earned—without being shamed for not taking this risk, without being deprived of my ability to travel, shop, or attend events. My healthcare is my private business, and not the government’s, or some corporation’s.

What I’ve learned from this comparison exercise, though, is that having a PhD in something doesn’t make you less likely to be so emotionally invested in an outcome that you fail to think things through. Sometimes it takes someone outside the specialty to ask the right questions.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t get the vaccine (or that you shouldn’t have, if you already did). I haven’t even tried to scare my kids away from taking it. Some have gotten theirs. What I am saying is, we ought to assume that a person has their reasons for the decisions they make. And maybe if you listen to them, you’ll learn something you didn’t know that you didn’t know.