In Orphania: Pt. 2

What accidental - and intentional - adult-dosing of children reveals about the "Pandemic Era" parent.

Continued from Part 1.

"I understand the mandate, I tried to comply with it, and my children now have been given a double dose and I don't know the long-term side effects," Denise said.1

The VAERS events listed in Pt. 1 unanimously report a lack of severe side-effects among children accidentally injected with adult doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine.

In a pair of entries describing adult-dosing in New Jersey on November 3rd - to two “nut-allergic” kids, 9 and 11 years old - the “Mom,” after being informed that her children were accidentally subjected to three times the amount of an experimental mRNA transfection as intended, is ventriloquized as describing both children as “afebrile, active and playful.”2 Of course, this heartwarming and authentic maternal sentiment could not have been expressed any later than November 5, the day the events were submitted - two days after the injections. So it is with the other 57 reports for accidental adult-dosing since November 2: They were submitted too early to capture reactions to extended exposure to the spike protein.3

Another snapshot - one day more recent than the latest data at openvaers - reveals that 14 children in Antioch, California were accidentally mis-dosed on November 13.4 The news story describing this incident portrays the Sutter Health clinic in Antioch as merely using the “wrong dilution” on the product for children; but the story URL mentions administration of the adult product, and the story’s reference to a 20 μg mRNA dose implies, per the math in Pt. 1, that two or so purple-capped, “adult” vials were injected into children at .2mL per dose before the error was caught.

But here, still, the snapshot cannot reveal medium-term effects, as the news story was posted only three days after the mistake. Alerted parents only mention that their children “fell down” later in the day, or experienced stomach aches. They report surprise that there weren’t better procedures in place to safeguard the children they rushed to have an experimental toxin injected into.

"We would have assumed that there was more in place to prevent this from happening, but obviously at this place there wasn't," Shawn […] said. […] [“I]t is unacceptable and negligent, completely negligent on their part," Denise said.5

But accidental injection of the “adult-sized” dose into American children did not begin with the FDA’s corrupt, repulsive blessing of the “lesser” experiment. One apparently prominent early vector for adult-dosing was flu vaccination. Rumors and anecdotes have claimed for weeks that clinicians delivering flu vaccines have either absent-mindedly or indifferently injected the Covid vaccines into recipients instead, including children.6 These rumors now appear substantiated by a handful of earlier VAERS reports, and one entry among these offers a second-hand view of the possible medium-term effects of high mRNA payloads injected into children: Heart issues, including tachycardia (an anecdotally common symptom among older recipients), emerging in 4 and 5 year-old siblings a week after injection with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in place of requested flu vaccines.7

But on the other hand, in “a week” - or a year, or several years - “adult-dosed” children might not be any worse off than those who receive the correct payload; as in, adverse events might be just as common in both.

Only time will tell. Pre-pubescent children are metabolically distinct from teenagers - with greater resting consumption of “energy,” but less “energy” devoted to growth, to over-simplify - as well as physiologically distinct. These differences could make younger children more resistant to harms from the mRNA transfection, implying that higher dosage might make a big difference after all; or it could make them more sensitive to harms, implying that higher dosage is potentially not as meaningful: Meaning, there is no “safe” dose. Or, either thing could imply the opposite, depending on the biomechanics at work. (This ambivalence admittedly reflects a failure of imagination on my part; the idea of mRNA scripts encoding billions of spike proteins in the tissues of a five year old just brings up a “dose not compute” message in my brain.)

Pending the arrival of an observable association between dosage and harms, there is not much to say about the healthcare sector’s inept risking of those marginal harms - about their adult dosing of children - other than that it is one facet of a broader farce and ethical aberration, one participated in by American adults at large.

Which brings us, at last, to the real villains of Orphania.

The parents.

[November 9] No adverse event. This was an administration error. Mother brought in child for vaccine. She listed DOB having the patient listed at 13 years old. After adult vaccine (12+ years/Purple Cap) vaccine was administered, mom realized the DOB was incorrect on the COVID card. She had accidentally given us the DOB of her other child. When we updated the DOB in the pharmacy system, we then realized the child was 8 years old and should have received the Pediatric COVID vaccination.8

Children in Orphania do not become orphans: They are born as such. No physical or social covenant is possible between parents and children in Orphania, because the parents of Orphania have already revoked their own covenant with biology and society. They have voided awareness of their own existence as a biological being, one capable of health and incapable of avoiding death. They have consigned management of their physical bodies to inept and indifferent apothecaries. That the mothers of Orphania engaged in birth at all - rather than allowing the apothecaries to excise the child from their bodies - represents only a brief dream of actual physical life interrupting a materialist coma of “complaints” and ingested remedies. And even this dream - this bold encounter with the cosmic, with the death of ego, and regression to raw physical life - is typically managed with the maximum amount of medical intervention possible; closely observed and scored for statistical prognosis, watched over like a lab experiment, drugs and scalpels and ICUs ready to deploy at the slightest offense, or at none at all. Depending on the hospital to which the mother arrives for delivery, the odds of being coerced into “surgical birth” despite vertex presentation can be 56% or higher for the first child, and 99% after a previous C-section.9

The mother who engages in this brief dream of life, and the father accompanying her voyage, may have done so out of social inertia, or an instinctual, wordless awareness of their mortality - an accidental sacrifice of ego, a gesture for embodied legacy. But the same materialist trance which infiltrates and co-opts the dream soon re-erases whatever bond the dream established between the parents and their biology and society. The parents forget the inevitability of death, and thus become incapable of sacrificing life for their kin. The parents forget their roles of “mother” or “father,” as it has no meaning to anyone else in their neighborhood. Even the retail employee who helps put the newly-purchased walker in the car will never be seen again. The Amazon contractor, dropping off this week’s box of diapers, drives a different van than the driver who dropped off last week’s - the face is already forgotten. It’s no wonder mothers “check out” - for all but the most conscientiously selfless and durable in focus, only constant community pressure can compel the two decades or so of ego-sacrifice that parenthood, especially motherhood, inflicts. They, as much as the childless,10 feel the constant pull, the allure of an adulthood that is in fact arrested childhood, and cannot resist.

But it may seem odd that to prevent orphanhood, parents must be willing to die. Or that to avoid letting “society” raise their children, parents must be ingrained in society. So be it: All societies are creatures of contradiction. Formed to foster survival, they are quickly oriented toward the passage of values onto the next generation - yet frequently excellent at obliterating or perverting the primary bond that makes such passage possible - parenthood - and then at exploiting the resulting legal or spiritual orphans as a physical or political resource. The evils that part Douglas from his mother as an infant slave and Nero from his mother as a man-child Emperor could not be more distinct; nor more similar. There is a kind of fate at play. Societies orphan and eat their progeny. And since societies are stronger than tribes - and industrial societies even more-so - it’s entirely likely that being an orphan, in the grand sum of human experience, is not the exception but the rule.

Orphania merely seeks to make the entire process more orderly.

In Needle Points, Norman Doidge’s grandiosely disappointing attempt to “explain” Covid vaccine “hesitancy” to an imagined rational audience (the Believers in the Experts), published last month in Tablet, the author begins by invoking the “Behavioral Immune System.”11

This phrase refers to the tiresome trope in evolutionary biology that imagines humans instinctually avoid disease by feeling repulsion at the visibly ill.12 Somehow, Doidge asserts, the hesitant have associated vaccines with disease, triggering their instincts and leaving them adrift in senseless fear.

In an admittedly interesting twist, however, Doidge then proposes that the Believers have fallen into the same trap, inadvertently having cross-wired the unvaccinated into this fictive psychological interface: They can’t tolerate sharing space (society) with the unvaccinated, because their biological programming forbids risking exposure to carriers of illness.

This of course is total bunk.

The Believers are not acting out some primal aversion to a virus. It is more the opposite - the virus is merely a placeholder for transgression; the psychological representation of an intuitively perceived substance societies label Sin. Accompanying this perception is the perception of an “Entity,” and of that Entity’s ability to define the Other by defining Sin. But this is all a different sort of primal instinct than the one imagined by evolutionary psychology: It stems not from evolution, but from the creation of language. And it deals fundamentally not with reality and health, but with metaphor and power.

Believers signal their perception of the Entity almost any time they speak about the virus: It would have “gone away” by now if only “those idiots” had worn their masks; had stayed in their homes; had gotten their spike transfection shots; the CDC proved that even the asymptomatic can make me sick; the vaccines are safe and effective; the vaccine only protects me if others take it; the unvaccinated are going to cause the virus to mutate and defeat the vaccine.

This is not about averting the ill to keep from catching what they have, even past the point of true danger - if it were so, riding in a passenger jet would have been psychologically impossible long before 2021. This is about pleasing a literal god - the Entity - so that it will cease to punish the kingdom. Germaphobia is not new; the Believers are, at best, new germaphobes, but if so they are germaphobes of a less rigorous ilk. They scrub their hands, wear their masks, and take their experimental injections to please the Entity - but only for so long as the priests who speak for the Entity announce that it is necessary to do so.

This, again, because they do not fear a reality, but the metaphor of a reality. The virus - like a god, or like the Entity - is the metaphor; the reality is the loss of “personhood” in the eyes of Leviathan. In pre-language social orders, “personhood” is determined by violent contest; in the human world of language, “personhood” is determined by labels, but the labels still correspond to raw violence. To not be a “person” is to be subject to arbitrary exclusion from society - elimination, either by displacement or murder. To some there might be a distinction; to most there is not. To be forgotten is to die; they know, because they, themselves, have forgotten an “other” or two in their time. The Believers intuit this; not by instinct alone, but by the observation, from childhood, of the human sublimation of social status into language, and the power possessed by those who can detect and declare who the group will agree to otherize. This is why the Believers do not care, in the end, whether the Covid vaccines actually prevent spread of the virus; what they imagine the vaccines “prevent” is social ostracism leading to violent annihilation.13 What they “believe” is that, authentically or not, the experts of Science™ speak for Leviathan. They aren’t wrong.

If any of this seems hyperbolic, let us revisit the testimony of “Denise,” whose two children were accidentally adult-dosed in Antioch, a mere two weeks after the emergency authorization (emphasis added):

"I understand the mandate, I tried to comply with it, and my children now have been given a double dose and I don't know the long-term side effects."

In reply to which it must be asked: What mandate?

Denise did not offer up her children to the Entity because of a “mandate;” there yet is no mandate with which to “try to comply.” She did so out of her intuition that in the eyes of the Entity, her children were still in Sin - and by extension so was she. No personal belief exemption was possible; Denise believed in the injection.

She did so because in Orphania, the first crime - the capital offense - is to be a biological parent, willing to die for one’s children.

Again, we could note the peculiarity of an atomized and godless society being so vulnerable to new, arbitrarily-declared definitions of “person” (a manifestation of social consensus), or to the wholesale fabrication of a literal “god” to punish those who defy social mores - or, in the penultimate act, to biological baptism as a covenant between children and the Entity. There is a contradiction here, but again the contradiction is inherent to the social order. The vulnerability, therefor, comes from the absence of a more localized embodiment of that contradiction; one which resides in the community, and allows for organic negotiation between the individual and the Entity - i.e., religion.

Without that institution, the individual is vulnerable to the modern, university- and media-scripted (or scripting) state. “Sin,” when not defined by ancient holy texts, can be re-authored by “scientific” proclamations, even ones explicitly acknowledged as manipulative in design. “Person,” when not defined by birth or ritual exception, can be switched on and off via QR scanner. The only things that stand between the state - which has unfettered access to authorship of the Entity and to the violence that the Entity can unleash - and the individual, are biological parenthood and the parent’s awareness of (inevitable) death.

But in Orphania there are no parents, only disinterested administrators of wards of the state - foster parents. Their biological “ownership” of their children is medically revoked by mandatory injection. Their willingness to die - which, if carried out, would make real again the orphan / not-orphan distinction in society - is numbed into non-existence by promises of medical “immortality,” of a cure for each and every of their bad health choices, and “protection” from the suffering that is a natural part of life. Spirituality, physical actualization, embodied social engagement - all of these are easily excised and medicalized out of human existence.

Thus are all totalitarian regimes, by necessity, manifestations of Orphania; state ownership of children is the only possibility. In a consumerist Orphania, the state cannot take ownership of children until community, religion, and parenthood have been eroded from within. Secularization, science, and public education only go so far on their own. War and poverty make orphans aplenty, but are destabilizing of the state. The final elimination of parents in a consumerist Orphania depends, ultimately, on the “protection” of medicine. No better ceremony exists to reify this protection than vaccination.

The religious baptism, much like the baptism of medical protection, ceremonially signs a covenant between the individual and the Entity. Even if the end-point of that metaphor is the same - society - the authorship of the metaphor remains in the community to which the child belongs, and out of the hands of the state.14 More important still, the religious baptism makes no reference to material protection, but to a contract that takes effect after death. The parents who give their child to the religious baptism - to circumcision, as a hot-button example - allow themselves to be reminded that their child will die; and thus that they themselves will die; and thus that “protecting” either themselves or their child from natural death is neither possible nor their primary role in society. Their role is to raise future parents like themselves; ones who will also be willing to die for the Entity. Again, a contradiction: Embrace of the Entity (mediated by a cosmic, eternal creator) is necessary, to make protection from the Entity (mediated by arbitrary, material fictions) possible.

In the baptism of medical protection, when the child is formally christened as an orphan - born again, in the rewiring of the biomolecular machinery of the God-given immune system - all of this ceremonial logic is torn inside-out. Everything pro-parenthood becomes anti-parenthood. The parent has their un-awareness of the inevitability of death not ceremonially upended, but reinforced. The child, meanwhile, must bear for the rest of childhood the burden of the awareness of the possibility of death: Thus, there is no innocence in Orphania. No one can be un-aware nor accepting of natural death. No one can be aware nor realizing of natural life - including the transition from childhood into adulthood, itself a socially mediated ritual of “death;” a metamorphosis that leaves a former life of innocence behind.

In Orphania, medicine has a “protection” for that, too. Children - the wards of the state - can be purged of their sex by magic chemicals and surgeries. They can be physiologically insulated from their natural adult form, rendering future parenthood impossible. Why should medicine wait, after all, until the dream of life of pregnancy is already underway before neutering it with drugs and scalpels? Why, it would be irresponsible to do so.

The contradictions that make a society run are not easily sustainable. At best, they can be weathered and renewed, in a cycle of hypocrisy, rebellion, tragedy, and wisdom. In the extremis of contradiction, the core institutions of society risk collapse. The slave economy into which Douglas was born was razed by the North within his lifetime; the empire ruled over by Nero descended into civil war immediately upon his own murder. Yet both social orders in fact survived, in their own way, with all the same contradictions and “sicknesses” as before - and did so for decades, for centuries.

In aligning with the media and educational elites’ definition of the Covid vaccine as medical baptism, states across the West have invited their near-immediate collapse. If these injections create a holocaust among children, they have guaranteed it. Yet there will still be work to be done. The true enemy of children in Orphania isn’t the state, nor the media, nor the experts, nor the medicine that woos us away from natural life with its “protection,” though all these things must be overturned and upended as fits the case.

The true enemy is the adults who chose fear of death over faith in their own biological fate; who chose “safety” over natural life. The true enemy is ourselves.

2

See reports 1846223 and 1846265, openvears.com. It may, of course, be two different “Moms.”

3

Currently-reported reactions for correctly-administered “child-sized” doses are not much different: Aside from an epidemic of children being allowed to faint and strike their head mere feet away from “healthcare providers,” two days is too early for most categories of serious adverse events to manifest and be reported. The exceptions seem to be neurological or vision-related events such as vision loss, migraines, seizures, spasms, or mysterious black-outs in the 24 hours following injection (1861430, 1854864, 1861520, 1863827, 1861520, 1858355) and possible previously-sensitized allergic reactions to the spike protein around the mouth (1860805 (this describes a 4-day onset in a 9 year-old who had already recovered from the virus he was irresponsibly being pseudo-vaccinated against), 1858196). 1861598, meanwhile, suggests that cardiac harms may actually involve quite rapid onsets - but since these events possibly result in acute care after leaving the vaccination clinic, they may take longer to be submitted to VAERS.

4

(Stone, JR.)

5

(ibid.) “Their part”?

6

Why is anyone still getting flu vaccines? Humans have immune systems!

7

1835404

“Caller called because him, his wife, his 4-year-old, and his 5-year-old child all went to get the flu vaccine but were given doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine instead on 04Oct2021. Their two children were mistakenly given the COVID-19 vaccine instead of a flu shot a week ago at their local pharmacy and they are now dealing with some adverse symptoms. a rapid heartbeat out of proportion to age and level of exertion. The children have been taken to a paediatric cardiologist, and the family was told both are showing signs of heart issues, since last week, the family now says the patient had developed a fever.”

10

(Author included.)

11

See Doidge, Norman. Needle Points. (2021, October 27.) Tablet.

If this had not been such a busy month, I would have liked to critique Doidge’s essay - or rather, offer a eulogy for the formerly eloquent critic of modern science who turned out this moronic and uninformed hymn to vaccination. Doidge at least seems to perceive the illusory nature of his belief in vaccines as he writes the piece - if one presumes that structure preceded content. Setting up the second chapter as a paean to the “kernel brilliance” of vaccination, Doidge returns nearly empty-handed from his apparent first foray into researching the “miraculous” myths of the smallpox and polio vaccines, as anyone who actually looks into the topics must do (emphasis added):

“The details here are quite interesting. Beginning in the 17th and 18th centuries, there were a number of mass campaigns of inoculation with smallpox, and then vaccination with cowpox, that led to a decline in smallpox in the 19th century [no, it did not]. By 1948, some physicians in England thought the illness was sufficiently well-managed that mass vaccination of infants, which carried some risks, could wind down. And so mass vaccination was replaced by a new, more individually focused strategy: If a case was reported, public health officials isolated the person and their contacts, and the contacts were vaccinated [pointlessly; “mid-disease vaccination” is an antiquated practice that has been notably excised from the myth of how humans so cleverly discovered how to “train” the immune system, since after all we know that vaccine-induced antibodies cannot appear in time to reverse an infection that is already underway]. This was called “the surveillance-containment strategy.” It, [not vaccination] worked. After that cessation of vaccination in England, a few cases occurred there in 1973 and 1978—but both were based on laboratory accidents. According to Halvorsen, the World Health Organization came to the same conclusion and also adopted the surveillance-containment approach elsewhere.”

Following through with the structure of the essay to then discuss modern medical disasters, on the other hand, he quite easily uncovers a wealth of examples to dazzle the reader.

12

No answer is provided for why the powers of perceiving illness escape “lesser” animals, who are possessed of better tools of sensation, and yet make little apparent effort to clear the room after a sneeze. No answer, either, for why pursuing a strategy of immune ignorance (hygiene) should often prove counter-productive in real life (lead to greater downstream immune “costs”) but fully endorsed by natural selection. No answer, either, for why children do not evince this “instinct” - surely the immune systems of children matter more from a natural selection standpoint than the immune systems of 40 year-olds.

13

When of course, nothing will prevent that thing at all. See “Fully Vaccinated [Revokable],” from which a bit of the discussion of power/personhood in this essay has been recycled.

14

The community has no interest in direct “ownership” of the child; rather, the community reinforces the role of the parent in transmitting its values to the next generation. This is not a perfect system - some parents will fail in their role - but as the community’s economic resources are not limitless, it is the best system available.