Sunday, March 3, 2024

Avoiding Pathogens Benefits Babies

My mom was right after all: We really should do everything we can to keep babies from getting sick.  

When I was close to the due date of my first child, my mom warned me not to pass around the baby to people or let lots of people into the house no matter how much they beg to see the baby. Everyone's going to want to see the baby, but the baby shouldn't be in contact with anyone who could be sick. And you can't always tell if someone's sick.  

Then suddenly, for just the past four years or so, the general populace seemed (seems?) to think that children should get as many infections as possible when they're young - and many think they also shouldn't get the inert version of infections offered by vaccines. Funny that. 

But now the old ways - the pre-2020 ways - have even further evidence. 

Nate Bear wrote: 

"A very problematic study for immunity debt grifters. Babies born during lockdown had healthier microbiomes because they WEREN'T exposed to pathogens, meaning they required fewer antibiotics (17% compared to 80% for normal times babies) and subsequently developed fewer allergies. The study analysed stool samples from 351 babies born in Ireland during lockdown and compared them with samples from non-lockdown babies. Important to note that the researchers also attributed the healthier microbiomes to 'increased duration of breastfeeding.' Lockdowns boosted opportunities for the mother-baby contact that this system so often deprives to new mothers."

I've written about the bizarre immunity debt rationalizing before, accumulating studies and my posts in this doc. But what would possibly cause medical professionals to question something they learned in school, that has been found to be the case over and over and has not had any significant breakthrough study to the contrary - nothing that hasn't been withdrawn for shoddy research that is??

Consider this completely fictional scenario: Imagine that you have some position of power and influence, and you've got all sorts of data available to you about all the worldwide issues, and tons of advisors at your fingertips, and things look pretty bleak. I'm not talking about typical front-line healthcare workers, but the bosses of their bosses. Then you're approached by colleagues who say something diabolical like this: 

"Climate change will cause imminent food shortages. The world will only be able to feed a fraction of the population when more droughts and floods and fires ravage crops within the next decade. You can be in the fraction that survives iff you join us to convince most people to take greater risks with their health. We've got this man-made virus that can disable most of the population so that they can't fight back if we get authoritarian. The disease moves just slowly enough to be normalized to the public, and the disability doesn't start for months after infection, so people don't even link the two. And then if we also support regimes elsewhere as they let children starve to death, hey, maybe that can be normalized too! So, all you have to do to be in with us is to convince people not to ever wear masks, even in hospital wards where everyone wore masks for decades, and not to isolate more than a day even if they're visibly ill and definitely contagious."  

Okay, maybe they didn't plan it so intentionally or nefariously; maybe they're just taking advantage of the situation as it unfolds. But, would you join the "in" crowd of survivors if you could?? 

Eric Topol explains how badly the CDC got it wrong:

"The new CDC Covid 'no isolation' guideline promotes people shedding virus to infect others. Most people will still be infectious, as assessed from rapid antigen tests (and the new recommendation ignores the use of rapid tests)." 

And Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding questioned how some medical professionals switched teams:

"Strangely funny and odd. When Ashish and I used to be on the same side of protecting people from Covid and criticizing the CDC, he strongly praised me for 'holding the CDC accountable.' But now if one advocates to protect people--they are just a 'random anonymous dude'? Truly odd."

It might be a very teeny tiny group writing the script but with enough authority that many many health professionals parrot their words despite how little sense they make and despite all the research to the contrary. Those would be people who might not have access to the backstory, and won't ever be in the "in" crowd, but they serve their masters regardless. Arijit Chakravarty explains the phenomenon of experts-in-error:

"The situation is the same for covid now as it was for tobacco then. There is a flood of information pouring out literally every week about how much harm the 'unlimited covid' strategy is doing to individuals, public health and the economy. This is where the always-wrong 'expert opinion' comes in. There are people out there willing to say anything (for money/clout); it's these people that the media specifically seek out. They almost always take positions that are unsupported by the data. This is not a bug - it's a feature. . . . The people who are willing to play this game are not part of a giant conspiracy. They're just rats in a Skinner Box: they know that if they push the lever clearly labeled 'bullshit' they will be rewarded for it." 

I can't help reasoning it in reverse that why they might be rewarded has to be because it's benefitting somebody somewhere. Rising Covid illnesses don't seem to be helping the economy or lining pockets as much as might have been imagined, so I'm going down the path of just basic survival from the deaths and disability of many over the next few years. 

It's just a thought.

And then we can't blame the general public for not being sure what to believe or for not having the time or inclination to read Nature studies, so they to lean to the message they prefer - the one they want to be true, from these healthcare workers who tell them not to worry about it at all. And now they can make more money for their families by going to work even when they feel like shit, and sending their kids to school coughing and sneezing and dragging themselves through the day, provided they don't feel worse than yesterday!! And it helps employers who can demand that you come back to work or else! But going to work sick only really helps in the very short term.

I previously wrote a bit about Billionaires in Bunkers and the toxic McKinsey's hand in it all - the guys who turbocharge fossil fuels, tobacco and opioids. If it's not the case that the people at the top, Chomsky's elites, somehow benefit from the masses falling ill, then their ignorance of the data around Long Covid and around shortening the isolation period, means they're all complete imbeciles. It's still a toss up! 

Plague Poems:

All of us were told
that we must be willing
to make sacrifices
as it turns out
some of us are the sacrifice
others are willing to make.

No comments: