How to Lose at Backgammon

In the game of battling disease, does learning the rules actually make our "experts" worse players?

B/W Natural Immunity in the Inquisitor’s Cell

Conclusion to The Natural Immunity Illusion Illusion.

A: How to Lose at Backgammon

"if you’re going to have a worldwide pandemic, you’re far better off with one that’s so much like something you’ve already poured R&D investments into!”¹

In every game, there’s the rules and there’s the mechanics. You can hand the rulebook for baseball to the mighty Isaac Newton, and he could draw a thousand geometric demonstrations of how the game is played, but he won’t figure out putting his best hitter fourth in the lineup until he plays for himself.

Backgammon has only one operative mechanic, which is that all the non-obvious moves can either be a bet on the next two dice-rolls or a hedge. To bet, is to move your chips in a way that will pay off only if one or both of the next two rolls yield one of a small set of specific results, which is always unlikely. To hedge is to move your chips in a way that will pay off unless the next two rolls yield some specific, unlikely result. If both players always hedge when not at a disadvantage, they will win equal amounts of games; if one player hedges and the other takes bets when not at a disadvantage, the hedger will win more games. This is why I always lose at backgammon. What’s the fun in hedging all the time?!²

Having come to the end of this series, we’ve once again reached Mind-Read the Choices Made By Our Shadowy Expert Overlords Story-Time. And it seems that for this story, wherein we seek to write a plausible explanation for the suppression of post-infection natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2, a game of backgammon is the apt setting for our tale: One which ends when the final move is yet to be played, but it’s already clear the experts have lost. But that’s jumping ahead. The climax of the story will be when the experts realize they can’t escape their mistake. But that, too, is jumping ahead. The end of the first act is the key part: It’s where the experts place their bet, succumbing to the temptation of the thrill of chance. The experts, in other words, thought that it would be fun to base their predictions and advice on the bet that this virus would evade immunity - precisely because it was never the most likely outcome. Yes, that will be our script: With their loudly-broadcast skepticism regarding natural immunity, and their prophesies of antigenic-shift doom - into which was and still is bound so much of the media fatalism which renders allowing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to just, for God’s sake, play out unthinkable - our experts have been gambling with the lives of their fellow citizens, purely for the thrill of it.³

Whether this construction overstates the importance of the bet against post-infection natural immunity to the widespread compliance to our Non-Medical Intervention Dystopia might be subjective. But if the bet was not critical, it was at least elemental. If we consider the Dystopia in which we still half-live as being designed based on what is expected during “pandemics,” then it was designed based on a cloud of expectations about (human behavior and) viruses. And the widespread fear of what horrors SARS-CoV-2 would wreak upon the world was sold to the world using the cloud of expectations about viruses.⁴ It’s not like we were told that SARS-CoV-2 rides through the sky on birds’ backs and creeps in through chimneys to replace four year-old girls with changelings, after all.⁵ We live in an era of science and enlightenment. Our modern superstitions are far more sophisticated.

We were told, instead, that it spreads from person to person. We were told it can make us sick, or kill us. We were told there’s no pre-existing immunity to it. We were told there’s no way to treat it. We were told, finally, that the recovered might all along plausibly be getting sick or spreading the virus again.⁶ But let us note strenuously that the first four are ossified, traditional assumptions - our experts did not “bet” that SARS-CoV-2 would any day now start turning great-grandmas into sexy, glowing triathletes, or that rubbing Led Zeppelin vinyls over the bellies of the sick would clear up their humors. So why does only this one element in the cloud constitute a bet that this virus would do something inconsistent with the category-of-assumptions used to define the other four hedges?

The simplest theory is the malevolent one: The experts wanted to promote a fatalism over natural immunity (and later therapeutics), to rule out moving on without the vaccines. The Covid vaccines, in this narrative, are and always have been an end in of themselves. Our “benign” theory of intention is far more convoluted, and not at all rising in plausibility in light of the sudden spasms of vaccine quasi-mandates throughout the West, which seem to have appeared in reaction to the failure to scare us into “voluntary” compliance - but for the sake of open-mindedness, we must have something besides global conspiracy to work with. This mess, therefore, will have to do.

We can pause here to rule out as implausible the most fully charitable theory, that the experts’ risk-assessment paradigm was to default to caution: Choose the hedge when it might reduce harm, choose the bet when it might reduce harm. But this does not change the fact that it’s still the losing bet, which means it was the fun bet to make. Further, the consequence of that lost bet, once the game was called, would be the destruction of public faith in the experts’ judgement. From an anti-expert perspective, well - so much the better! Let humanity go back to living with fate, not fear, as the author of our destinies. But from the expert perspective, it makes little sense. Even if aberrant outcomes always place a tax on expert relevance (by diminishing public trust), the overall perpetuation of that relevance hinges on making predictions that are right more often than the non-expert prevailing predictions. The long-term calculus thus never favors betting on the (seemingly) unlikely outcome. You achieve parity at expert-ing just like you achieve it at backgammon. Always hedge.

Additionally, this isn’t even such a “charitable” theory if we fully think it through. Placing this bet created what man in his endless capacity to think any institution can ever be made uncorrupt calls a “moral hazard” from the start, regardless of the “higher cause” for which the bet might have been placed. Real-life results that contradicted the bet would, if acknowledged by the experts, lead as we have said to the destruction of their credibility. Was it thus ever very likely that they would acknowledge, or even not suppress acknowledgment, of such results? And of course, what has happened? So-called “science journalism,” directed by expert contacts that are directed by the high-cardinals of the Church of Science, has indirectly but actively suppressed acknowledgment of the failure of the bet - represented by the reinfection (is rare) studies - by continuing to promote the fiction that the game has not yet been called. Yes, that SARS-CoV-2 might be achieving immune escape right now, is as always possible, but is not now nor has been at any point reasonable to consider likely.⁷ Yet science journalism has portrayed the prevailing conditions as otherwise this entire time - even now, as the Covid vaccine efficacy sham falls apart around their heads.⁸ If the experts, going into the bet, believed of themselves that they would not succumb to the temptation to subject billions of people to prolonged terror and immiseration merely to protect their lofty celebrity status, they must surely know now that the opposite is in fact true.

More importantly in terms of plausibility, the “might reduce harm” binary does not support hedging on treatments. Why bet that reinfection would be rampant, but not that existing drugs could improve outcomes?

Whereas, the “fun” binary completely explains hedging on treatments. The gambler, to achieve his high, must after all first at least imagine it is possible that the bet will pay off. And while the “health sciences” have been under assault by myriad orthodoxy-challenging observed exceptions to the basic settled rules of the early to mid 20th Century, the health sciences experts, as gatekeepers of the orthodoxies of their fields, have in response merely turned their power to bless given exceptions as plausible challenges to old orthodoxies into the currency which they dole out to wield influence over their client-vassals in the world of research. The would-be Scientific Reformation - the overturning of the theories of the early 20th that have stifled scientific advancement - thus merely ends up coopted as a tool to control thought, and ensure that progress toward understanding, rather than merely describing, our natural world (if it is even possible) continues to proceed at a Medieval pace. That all immunity (including immune disfunction) turns out to be a spectrum if you look hard enough at it, does not mark one as a naturalist crack-pot.⁹ That viral infections can be treated with Vitamin D and Zinc, does - even as the practice has been broadly embraced by actual physicians (and one imagines probably, for personal use, the experts). Betting on treatments for a virus could not have reduced harm, in their conception of the rules of the game, and would make outsiders look smart if it we acknowledged it might be true.

In imagining the immune-escape bet as plausible and the treatment bet as implausible, the experts fell into the trap of confusing their own arbitrary thought-doctrines for reality, and made the wrong bet. They confused their unimaginative, simplistic rule-book for the actual rules of the game of human biology, which to this day remain largely unknown. Yet in the societies of the past, when it seemed like a disease was rendering someone in hazard of death, people tried medicine for it! And if it looked like the medicine worked, they kept using it. They did not issue standards of care instructing doctors to torture patients with computerized medieval breathing machines. They did not issue public health proclamations threatening other doctors who did use it and believed it was working. They did not publish Fact Checks against the medicine, as if the medicine was taboo in their bibles! They did not go on TV to blame advocates of the medicine for “politicizing the emergency!” They used the God Damn medicine!

But our experts, so suffused in their heads with their imaginary rules for the game of biology that they can’t even acknowledge the mechanics of the game when they’re 43 points underwater, did not. And, having made the wrong choice between hedging and betting once again, once again succumbed to the moral hazard presented by the absence of any higher authority to act as umpire and call their strikes, and pushed “science journalism” to suppress the upsetting of their strategy - no matter how many of their fellow citizens’ lives it might cost.

But let us bear in mind, as we draw our story to a close, that this Banality of Evil II: Even Banaler-er account of events is only what we are contemplating as the most plausible benign theory of intention. It is merely the explanation for why experts shunned and suppressed treatments that could have prevented who-knows-how-many thousands of severe outcomes and would have made vaccines unnecessary; as well as continued to imply that mass reinfection would strike from the heavens at any moment - could be going on as we speak, we just don’t know! - when the truth was, and still is, that natural immunity is robust; it is merely the explanation for these things that assumes they aren’t trying to kill us all.

B: Natural Immunity in the Inquisitor’s Cell

Hast Thou the right to reveal to us one of the mysteries of that world from which Thou hast come?

Whatever the reason, as soon as Natural Immunity appeared on Earth to work miracles in the midst of our immiseration, the experts locked her away.

Now she sits in some dark cell within the town cathedral, being harangued for having threatened the raw despotic power of the high-cardinals in the Church of Science. Are they, as in our construction above, merely embarrassed buffoons who through incompetence or the gambler’s hubris have trapped themselves in a web of their own lies; or are they like the Inquisitor in Ivan’s poem, ranting against her naivety for believing that man is capable of tolerating true freedom - for not understanding that man wants to have the stones of disease turned to bread, and flock behind the imposter-God of vaccination? Who can say?

But whether the imposter is as we speak taking its final place atop the shrine, banishing Natural Immunity for all time in one last final push to trap humanity into the antibody dependent enhancement treadmill, thereafter to rewrite the science books to state that there never even was such a thing as Natural Immunity - and what parent would dare tell her vaxxed-to-the-nines child otherwise, at the risk of being informed upon in school and losing next quarter’s Antibody Replenishment Privileges? - whether these are the stakes of the conversation in the cell, that modern man wants the imposter is undeniable. Biological freedom - and with it, the meaningless tragedies of death, childhood illness, aging, infirmity, blindness, the fundamental unfairness of sex, the inevitable and perpetual patricide of our bringing new immune challenges to our elders which their systems can no longer keep up with; all the things which in their seeming injustice are all but impossible to accept in the absence of belief in God; all the things which fundamentally are human existence itself, and our primary portal of contact with the cosmic divine - all can just be traded in for a Codex Gigas of talismans for the protection of our humoral purity.

The dystopian nightmares of Ivan Illich and the scholars of “biopolitics” have become mere matter of fact. The State sees its polity as a giant, amorphous, geographically-encompassed biomass. The blessings and tragedies of life have been sterilized into statistical abstractions; we live not as if life is whatever it will be for the billion souls who live it but as if the flourishing or diminishing of “humanity” can somehow be quantified and realized by a death count, while meanwhile our children wilt and wither right before our eyes! But soon joy, too, will be just one more form of impurity in the secret tables at the Ministry of Health, a column in a spreadsheet labeled “Categories of Disease of the Public.”

But will it work? Or is it already falling apart? The outdated Nürnberger Kodex has already been tossed out the window, and the water of universal state vaccination mandates is being openly tested and instantly affirmed as constitutional in New York, Paris, and California - when meanwhile the entire narrative of the Covid vaccines being vaccines at all is unraveling at such a pace that no degree of news or social media censorship in the world can hope to keep up. In Israel the dreaded, invincible curve is only 20 days behind where it was last year, and anyone with eyes can see that, barring the immediate rollout of triple-dose “boosters,” it will go on to top off exactly wherever nature decides it should - and who knows if the public will even accept triple-dosing, or how immediate, widespread, and visible the counteraction of those doses will be if they do. Thus all through the West mandates for masks and vaccines will continue to spread over regions where citizens will not accept them, metastasizing into constitutional tumors of illegitimacy until (“until”) the West is transformed into a patchwork of totalitarian emergency police-states, hawked and praised for their glories by expert-compliant media propaganda, but without any police to back the regime up. And who would they recruit? What young man would step up to serve this farcical regime? Our overlords do not claim to speak for the nation, or for blood, or for God. They claim only to speak for their own brilliant powers of perception, as meanwhile the smoke machines choke with sparks and the spotlights fall to the stage and the harried puppets of science journalism bellow out stutteringly, “Pay no attention to that VAERS behind the curtain!”

Thus the state, by having declared itself all-powerful while relying up unto this point only on a perpetual illusion of power fabricated by coastal media elites, has simultaneously declared itself impotent. And if the citizens of the West now living behind this Iron Curtain of media hyperreality can somehow manage to wrest back the state for themselves, things may only get worse or better for the common man and for the project of liberalism, but no amount of special waivers in the world will protect our high-cardinals and our politicians from the ten thousand doctors’ trials that loom in their future.

But how could it have fallen apart so easily?

The people believe in authority. They’ve grown tired of waiting for miracle and mystery. Science is their religion. No greater explanation exists for them.¹⁰

Such did The Smoking Man, presciently reenacting the ranting of Ivan’s Inquisitor, rant to Jeremiah Smith. As above, we can affirm that he is not wrong that the modern secular West wants the Church of Science to “appease their conscience” - but can it actually be done? Or, in attempting to summon into nature’s creation this new Scientific God - if that is what our public health Inquisitors are doing - have they been undone, of all things, by nature’s own endless complexity?

If this is the case, it is because our scientific high-cardinals once again confused their simplistic rule-book for the actual rules of human biology and human behavior. And they have done so because they must do so, because they have not yet corrected the Original Sin of the modern sciences. This charge refers to that great fall within the garden of science, in the beginning of the 20th Century, when, at last, those final desperate attempts to translate something mystical and godlike into the human understanding of the world - parapsychology, luminiferous aether, etc. - were expelled, and all the schools of science ossified into their new respective materialist theological orthodoxies.

It was too much, after all. Within a few short decades under the torturing of the Scientific Method, the chemicals had yielded to us so many incredible secrets - but the stars and the cells still laughed in our face on the breaking wheel - no matter how many times we tore them in two! And in this laughter was the single greatest threat to the incomes of our biologists and our astrophysicists - in this laugher was the voice of God, or at least something so like Him that all our vaunted departments of cosmology and medicine would have to admit that they have no theory to explain human existence that is even one bit more plausible than those contained in books that were written in deserts by men who didn’t even know the world was round. And who on Earth would fund their studies if they admitted that? Thus certain theories were clutched onto - General Relativity, Germ Theory - and thus, Science retreated into secretive impenetrable realms of hyper-math and high statistics, where the Natural Philosophers could not disturb their lofty consultations with their formulas, and thus, man entered a New Dark Age. An age of “understanding.”

For the schools of health and medicine a hundred years ago had at last perceived that the human body would in all likelihood never be understood, only at best described - but in refusing to accept mere description they redefined “understanding” as description. The observable mechanics of the game of biology became abstracted one by one into an array of narrativized rules - a simulacrum of the real rules, which could not be known - and unlike in the chemical sciences where any proposed rule could be tested by isolation, the fact that the game of biology only plays out in connection meant that none of these rules could ever be tested. And since they were untestable, “research” became defined as merely refining the untestable rules with sub-rules, which then were refined by more sub-rules which then were refined by more sub-rules. None of this was any better than what Natural Philosophy had offered - in fact it was worse. Now that all Science was the province of grand impenetrable theological simulacrums more complicated than any single mind could comprehend, none of the fields of biology could even talk to each other any more. Medical progress was impossible; so of course - the lack of progress itself being a secondary threat to the departments of medicine - medical happenstance had to be defined - which is to say, described - as progress. Who alive today doesn’t picture the time before polio vaccines as some kind perpetual hell-scape of mechanized medieval breathing machines and aristocrats migrating back and forth from hot springs like crippled geese? And who knows, maybe the polio vaccine was a good outcome, even if as a choice - an experimental drug with no possibly knowable long term effects given to all of the worlds’ children at once - it was sheer fraudulent reckless insanity? But it doesn’t matter. There was nowhere for this to end except in a billion dead ends of false cures unleashed onto the public over and over by the mere chance of their harms having evaded the arbitrary selection-pressures of the weak and useless statistical detection methods meant to protect us from Science. Today every drug is the product of a gain-of-function research program: The function gained is to hide harms wherever we do not or cannot look.¹¹

But it was that most fundamental error of Science’s Original Sin - defining “understanding” as description - that would always leave the experts perpetually incapable of seeing their own limitations. With that substitution, it was made forever impossible not to confuse their simulacrum of the rules of nature for her true, unknowable rules. And within that confusion, it is the expert who is rendered more blind to the world than anyone. For now the very mechanics of the game of nature - what nature actually does - when it confuses him, are dismissed as “the error,” instead of his false rules.¹² It was this blindness that enabled the experts to believe, or at least hope, that Natural Immunity would not appear to offer freedom to their terrorized flock. When, even in the ages when plagues were believed to be spread by miasma or our physicians wore beak-masks on their faces, if they observed that most people didn’t get sick with something twice, they accepted that most people who recovered from it were immune! There was no need to doubt what was observable and describable, because in the era where anything inexplicable could be chalked up to the will of God, “observation” and “description” were not considered acts of scientific fallacy.

This, again, may not be any worse than the behavior of Natural Philosophers, in the days of late religiosity when science was conducted within a series of elite clubs. But at least the false doctrines of the Natural Philosophers were not drilled into the heads of their fellow citizens all through childhood as the cosmological explanation for creation.¹³ No society, stranded in human existence without access to divine meaning, ever asked the Natural Philosophers to make Science into their new God.

But it won’t work. Because how can Science become man’s God, when it leaves no space for the unexplainable?

Meanwhile, for Natural Immunity, who sits silently in her cell as the high-cardinals harangue her for her heresy, let us pray.

I meant to end it like this. When the Inquisitor ceased speaking he waited some time for his Prisoner to answer him. His silence weighed down upon him. He saw that the Prisoner had listened to him all the time soulfully and quietly, looking him straight in the eyes and, apparently, not wishing to reply. The old man longed for Him to say something, however bitter and terrible. But He suddenly approached the old man in silence and softly kissed him on his bloodless aged lips. That was all His answer. The old man shuddered. His lips moved. He went to the door, opened it, and said to Him: “Go, and come no more ... come not at all, never, never!” And he let Him out into the dark alleys of the town. The Prisoner went away.¹⁴

I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi.

I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.¹⁵

1. Lowe, D. “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement and the Coronavirus Vaccines.” (2021 February 12.) Science Translational Medicine.

2. There isn’t any. And even being rescued by a risky bet, after the luck of the dice has placed you at an early disadvantage, ceases to be gratifying when one realizes that after enough games with the same opponent using the same strategy, this, too, becomes merely a normalized correction on the rate of games decided by early disadvantage - merely yet one more statistical lever toward equivalence. Humans do not play backgammon. It plays them.

3. As in both the actual living of those lives - not this wretched squandering of our childhoods and our brief stays on Earth huddled in drywall cages and muzzled by cloth talismans - and bare survival and reproduction, which are directly risked by everyone who, because they have been convinced that their natural immunity cannot be trusted to function normally, views the novel medical intervention experiment of the Covid vaccines as the only available “exit” from the threat of SARS-CoV-2.

4. Bearing in mind that there is a pressure on the cloud of “expectations” about viruses to counteract expectations about human behavior, since the former can be authored and edited to influence the latter. This pressure might be used to rationalize the decision to risk credibility by betting against post-infection immunity - “our implausible claims were made for the sake of scaring people (to protect them)” - but leaves the fact of the losing-ness of the bet, and the resultant destruction of their credibility, untouched. Thus, such reasoning is either a product of incompetence or, as we have constructed it here, post-hoc rationalization of a bet made for fun. The subsequent portion of the benign theory of intention applies to either the incompetent or the bet-making starting point, anyway.

5. It obviously does.

6. I have left out the Lucy-football of the might-as-well-be-fictional herd immunity “expectation,” for simplicity.

We might also note, again, the peculiar exceptions where either radical epistemic caution was briefly applied to other elements of the cloud of assumptions besides immunity, only to be reversed later - who knows, maybe it spreads on surfaces? - and briefly not, only to be reversed later - who knows, maybe cloth masks can stop it? These bizarre elements of the cloud of assumptions will ever remain hard-to-reconcile into either a benign or malevolent theory of intention, except in that “public health” is a Balkanized papistry, and no given health sciences orthodoxy is completely hegemonic at any given time. Even the high-cardinals of the Church of Science are allowed a grain of freedom to embrace their inner crack-pot.

We could include in the list of prominent reversals - indeed, it is chief in this list - the initial chorus of expert reassurance under the (measured, rational) presupposition that public panic would be more harmful than the virus itself, which was of course completely reversed as soon as international travel had successfully seeded the premier “public health crisis” in Northern Italy - as if several hospitals are not always a chaotic and stressful scene where demand exceeds resources somewhere in the developed world at any given moment - setting the first in an endless series of stages for the media Theatre of the Pandemic to play out within. This reversal, however, makes sense under theories of intention both “benign” (reputation-protecting-hedging “incorrectly,” and dealing with the media’s disproportionately alarmist narrative) and malevolent (expending reputation knowingly, to provide the media sufficient fodder for their disproportionately alarmist narrative).

This initial default to measured rationalism, it must be mentioned, was carried out despite the “prescient” alarm-raising of a few credentialed false-Cassandras, who decried the experts for being asleep at the wheel and warned, in so many words, that this Covid-19 thing was going to be the Big One. My media diet has occasionally led me to encounter with these early no-lockdown critics - many became lockdown critics since, but haven’t ceased using the disingenuous, media-constructed “validation” of their dire predictions to burnish their reputations with the spray-on bronze of hyperreality (others are capable of contextualizing their early warnings as having been overly cautious or not borne-out). “You were one of the people telling me early on that we need to be serious about this” is the royal title which now announces them when they are brought into the talk-media spotlight to tell us (correctly) that we are taking it too seriously. They are invested in the narrative of the Pandemic™, even while trying to help dismantle it.

7. And even when that day comes, the corresponding clinical outcomes for reinfected are unknowable now anyway, so there's no point worrying about it except under the Lucy-football herd immunity paradigm.

8. This despite the “reports” from the future offered by “virologist Sabra Klein” on May 28, in an interview for the Johns Hopkins School Of Public Health “Expert Insights” program:

How long does immunity last from being infected? From vaccination?

Immunity from natural infection starts to decline after 6 to 8 months. We know that fully vaccinated people still have good immunity after a year [!]—and probably longer.

I guess even time-traveling experts can’t seem to get this call right!

9. Here, in fact, science journalism has all but waged a two-decade propaganda campaign of “nuance” on the traditional immunity binary - elevating antigenic drift to the status of a Borg defense flaw that instantly masters any human weapon upon the first encounter, driving up the ratings for the human spaceship’s yearly season-finale showdown with the flu - how will Spaceship Immunity and crew cheat death this time?! - in order to drum up doses for flu “vaccines” that are a crap-shoot at best, responsible all along for much of the severe and immune-dysfunctional outcomes to SARS-CoV-2 at worst.

In fact, who knows, the modern expert fad for fatalism about immune escape might be so sincerely-believed-in that my entire portrayal of the decision to designate immune escape as a bet at all perhaps falls apart, and the backgammon analogy with it! Oh, well. It made for an easy cover image. And surely some measure of derision must still be assigned to this peculiarity of epistemic caution. Consider, after all, how it contrasts with the various insistences that the Covid vaccines must be safe despite any medium-term testing.

For immune escape, the paradigm is: “Well, don’t you see, immune escape is a spectrum - in fact, in a certain light, it happens all the time! - so of course our immune systems must be defenseless against SARS-CoV-2!”

For the theoretical dangers of the Covid vaccines, the paradigm is: “Oh, antibody dependent enhancement? Only a lay person out of their depth would fall into the trap of thinking that could occur. Don’t you see, IgE cross-wiring is a spectrum - in fact, in a certain light, it happens all the time! - so of course it is impossible!”

Is this hubris anywhere more aptly represented than by the helpful Fact Check™ by Derek Lowe (already cited in Footnote 1) appearing in late February? Lowe, a four-decade pharmaceutical industry insider and medical expert, first dismisses the concerns that the novel and artificial antigen-script mRNA and vector “vaccines” could, indeed seemingly likely must, induce antibody dependent enhancement via IgE sensitization by invoking the meaningless logical construction above. Why, exactly, is this logical construction meaningless? Because it infers simplicity from complexity. We humans think too much in narratives; it’s why we find it so hard to think “scientifically.”

Upon discovering the “cause” of ADE, we assign that cause with the power of defining whether the thing it causes is real or not, at that point substituting rationalization for operating by naked observation. Here we are already trapped into a simulacrum of narrative that is bound to be upset by later, more thorough observation. And sure enough, upon discovering that the “cause” can be observed even in the absence of an ADE outcome, we then grant ourselves writ to decide via any arbitrarily-selected secondary narrativized “cause” we like whether a novel vaccine design will cause ADE, voiding the lessons of previous naked observations that many, if not most, novel vaccines, and nearly all previous attempted coronavirus vaccines, do (!). Now not only are we trapped in a simulacrum of narrative, but we’ve divorced the narrative from the original observation that constructed it - even though the observation still prevails! Thus we have gone from being able to predict to being able to “understand,” where “understand” isn’t understanding at all, merely description. (The exact same thing prevails with syncytin-1 toxicity: The “plebeian” speculation that the vaccines could induce sensitivity to syncytin-1 is “disproven” by the nuance that the proposed causative mechanism implicates natural immune reactions to any virus that produces syncytia, including SARS-CoV-2 itself, and reproductive outcomes seem unaffected by such natural immunity responses so far. Therefor, why even check for it (!)?)

Back to the article by Lowe, having issued himself writ to decide via arbitrary narrativistic reasoning, in the absence of any actual testing or observation (there was not even enough time for such observation in the trials before the EUA) whether the novel Covid vaccines will cause ADE - whether they fall into the not-ADE or the ADE side of the IgE sensitization spectrum - he defines the narritivized, arbitrarily-constructed secondary “cause” of his simulacrum of reality thusly (this is almost too good):

(No -

No, really - this is just -

It’s just -

As a picture of the sloppiness, superstition, and comic hubris of the modern “scientific community,” this is almost too good):

if you’re going to have a worldwide pandemic, you’re far better off with one that’s so much like something you’ve already poured R&D investments into! In this case, the two big take-homes were that coronavirus vaccines could indeed suffer from ADE, and that this seemed to depend on which protein you chose to base your vaccine around. Specifically, it was the vaccines that targeted the N (nucleoprotein) antigen of the coronavirus that had ADE problems, while the ones that targeted the S (Spike) protein did not. Update: this isn’t accurate. There was trouble after immunization with a nucleoprotein-directed vaccine, but ADE could also be seen with some of the Spike-directed vaccine candidates as well – see reviews here, here, and here. That experience was thoroughly taken to heart in the vaccine developments of the last year: no one, to the best of my knowledge, even bothered to target the SARS-Cov-2 N protein at all, for just this reason. If you look at the antibodies generated in people who’ve been infected by the virus, they most certainly did make N-targeting ones, along with Spike-targeting ones and antibodies directed against the various ORF proteins. But for vaccine work, everyone has stuck with the Spike.

The “two big take-homes”:

1. “coronavirus vaccines could indeed suffer from ADE”

2. Even per the chosen mechanistic design.

So in conclusion, they’re totally not going to kill the entire world, OK?!

10. Carter, C. (Writer). Goodwin, R. (Director). (1996, May 17) Talitha Cumi (Season 3, Episode 24) [TV series episode]. In The X-Files. Ten Thirteen Productions; Twentieth Century Fox Film Production.

11. The implications for this truth, in curative drugs, are not that significant. Perhaps there is a discount that should be applied to current harm/benefit analysis to account for the selection pressure of unmeasurable harms. The implications for vaccines, on the other hand, is that we are waging constant biowarfare on ourselves.

12. See footnote 9 for a relevant demonstration.

13. Oh, I misspoke. I meant “theory.” Always read the fine print!

14. Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Constance Garnet’s translation, again. No modifications this time.

15. Feynman, Richard. Caltech 1974 commencement address. (“Cargo Cult Science” speech.)