Herd immunity, the widespread and temporally distributed spread of microbiological updates, has been happening for ages through precisely those people who have recently been stigmatised as asymtomatic disease spreaders. It is precisely because someone is healthy and moves freely, but nevertheless spreads viruses and bacteria to a small extent continuously through encounters and contacts, that an always up-to-date mixture of the most diverse "pathogens" can spread in the first place in an environment whose infection level is very low but sufficient to trigger T-cell actions that continuously negotiate immunities. This constant biological up-to-dateness cannot be provided by any injection, even if one were to be "blessed" with hundreds of injections every month. Immunity means being able to meet each other by permanently negotiating the capacity for closeness and the need for distance. For over a year now, we have allowed all this to happen to us unilaterally by means of distancing, and we actually imagine for the most part that this will remain without consequences. Without asymptomatic encounters, there is no healthy herd immunity, although the word no longer fits today.
Our most pressing bio-logical problem is that the mother tongue of life is influenced within a very short time by various foreign languages (mRNA-injections, artificial electromagnetic fields, ...) that our bodies are not given enough time and context to understand what is going on. Therefore more and more viral intervention is on its way to fit our (mis)understand of life into what life really is. Thus more and more symptoms. Thus more and more inventions to counter those symptoms. Thus a vicious circle of our own making goes on and on. Blind and deaf we create what we want to avoid.
There is a guy from Austria whose work you need to know: Günther Witzany. His work regarding genes, life, evolution, viruses and communication can be found under:
This strikes me as a profound insight about the nature of viruses, microbiomes, and the immune system that will ultimately be proven true.
Germ theory is an extremely reductionist paradigm; as such its utility is perhaps limited to those pathogens which have not (yet) entered into some sort of equilibrium with the human supergenome. The rabies virus comes to mind; perhaps this was also true of smallpox.
Eradication is only achievable - and should only be the goal - when the interests of the virus and the human host are sufficiently divergent that stable equilibrium is unlikely or too costly. (e.g. rabies which transmits by hijacking the brain to cause victims to bite others) In most cases the goal should instead be to facilitate the establishment of equilibrium with a minimum of suffering and death (e.g. the Swedish approach to Covid-19).
"For viruses, the immune system’s “goal” is to balance host and viral survival. This is why the immune system acts like that is its goal. Antibody levels are meant to drop after a cellular immunity rest period, as a bid for reencounter and re-spread with a given viral challenge."
That is a profound insight, and also something that should be obvious if we could let go of our conception of the immune system as the body's Department of War. Viruses can easily mutate to become more dangerous, but they will not do so if natural selection favors those that are less dangerous. Thus it is in the interest of the immune system to *allow* viruses to replicate and transmit rather than to force viruses through millions of genetic bottlenecks in which only the most attack-resistant variants survive.
Evolution of supergenomes driven by cataclysm-punctuated equilibrium. I like it.
Regarding ''herd immunity'':
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/06/what-the-modellers-still-dont-understand-about-herd-immunity/
My view:
Herd immunity, the widespread and temporally distributed spread of microbiological updates, has been happening for ages through precisely those people who have recently been stigmatised as asymtomatic disease spreaders. It is precisely because someone is healthy and moves freely, but nevertheless spreads viruses and bacteria to a small extent continuously through encounters and contacts, that an always up-to-date mixture of the most diverse "pathogens" can spread in the first place in an environment whose infection level is very low but sufficient to trigger T-cell actions that continuously negotiate immunities. This constant biological up-to-dateness cannot be provided by any injection, even if one were to be "blessed" with hundreds of injections every month. Immunity means being able to meet each other by permanently negotiating the capacity for closeness and the need for distance. For over a year now, we have allowed all this to happen to us unilaterally by means of distancing, and we actually imagine for the most part that this will remain without consequences. Without asymptomatic encounters, there is no healthy herd immunity, although the word no longer fits today.
Our most pressing bio-logical problem is that the mother tongue of life is influenced within a very short time by various foreign languages (mRNA-injections, artificial electromagnetic fields, ...) that our bodies are not given enough time and context to understand what is going on. Therefore more and more viral intervention is on its way to fit our (mis)understand of life into what life really is. Thus more and more symptoms. Thus more and more inventions to counter those symptoms. Thus a vicious circle of our own making goes on and on. Blind and deaf we create what we want to avoid.
There is a guy from Austria whose work you need to know: Günther Witzany. His work regarding genes, life, evolution, viruses and communication can be found under:
http://www.biocommunication.at/modules/publications/index.php?id=1:1
Is this related to terrain theory?
This strikes me as a profound insight about the nature of viruses, microbiomes, and the immune system that will ultimately be proven true.
Germ theory is an extremely reductionist paradigm; as such its utility is perhaps limited to those pathogens which have not (yet) entered into some sort of equilibrium with the human supergenome. The rabies virus comes to mind; perhaps this was also true of smallpox.
Eradication is only achievable - and should only be the goal - when the interests of the virus and the human host are sufficiently divergent that stable equilibrium is unlikely or too costly. (e.g. rabies which transmits by hijacking the brain to cause victims to bite others) In most cases the goal should instead be to facilitate the establishment of equilibrium with a minimum of suffering and death (e.g. the Swedish approach to Covid-19).
"For viruses, the immune system’s “goal” is to balance host and viral survival. This is why the immune system acts like that is its goal. Antibody levels are meant to drop after a cellular immunity rest period, as a bid for reencounter and re-spread with a given viral challenge."
That is a profound insight, and also something that should be obvious if we could let go of our conception of the immune system as the body's Department of War. Viruses can easily mutate to become more dangerous, but they will not do so if natural selection favors those that are less dangerous. Thus it is in the interest of the immune system to *allow* viruses to replicate and transmit rather than to force viruses through millions of genetic bottlenecks in which only the most attack-resistant variants survive.
Evolution of supergenomes driven by cataclysm-punctuated equilibrium. I like it.