Modern medicine grew out of older medicine by changing the focus from the individual’s wellbeing to the treatment of each particular type of disease that might affect any person. We are entering a new era of post-modern medicine that treats certain ideas like diseases. Any ideas that conflict with modern medicine must be diseased ideas. It is the job of post-modern medicine to isolate, quarantine, and eventually excise those contrary ideas.
In this blog site, I frequently discussion my own fantasy government that I called a dedomenocracy. One key feature of this government is that instead of asking the population to democratically choose policy, it asks the population to demographically define how to measure the greater good. When some future crisis occurs, what does the population prioritizes and what is the population willing to sacrifice. In such a government, I can not imagine that we would agree to sacrifice our younger people (and especially not our young women) for the benefit elderly people (and especially not old men). We do not live in a dedomenocracy.
We are told with remarkable unison across all governments, as if instructed by a solitary God, that we need to be protected from nature, and against or own nature. The current tablets come in the form of mandatory schedule of vaccines and mandatory social-credit passports. Those governments are presenting these tablets to the people and are observing a similar incongruity Moses faced. They are rapidly approaching the moment that will forever define their character. Will they smash their tablets like Moses did his?
A dedomenocracy fears nothing while a democracy fears everything. In this context, everything refers to the collective library of scientific knowledge. Nothing refers to the empty space that may harbor plans that we will can only learn by paying close attention to the present, allowing observations to contradict theories we accepted in the past.
A government by data could consider the observations of iatrogenic complications and deaths. The public’s fear of a virus could grant this government permission to impose some new authoritarian policy that would do something, but that something would exploit the opportunity to improve the future prospects based on all observations of the current world. Such a government would be free to decide to tackle the problem of iatrogenesis instead of the problem of the virus. Fixing the overextension of medicine may ultimately benefit more people than overreacting to a virus that is not as threatening as the population perceived.
The failure of the modern democratic governments is that none of these fundamental perspectives of the population were debated democratically. The irony is that the democratic government of elected officials presiding over unelected bureaucrats imposed these answers on the population. Instead of assessing the population’s sentiments on these questions, the democratic government cajoled the population into following the science, and to listen to the doctors. The science may be correct, and the doctors may be wise, but they might be answering the wrong questions.
The vaccine as a population placebo has to have a similar reaction on a population. The population-placebo vaccine has to have adverse effects normally associated with vaccines. There needs to be people who will suffer from reactions, and even some some people die from the vaccine. This would prove to the public that this is real, and if it is real, it might be effective. The placebo effect is on the entire population in order calm it back to something closer to normal.
The data exposes a flaw in our medical systems being unrealistically pessimistic about health risks, and about natural immunity capabilities. Our medical systems are overreacting out of a systemic hysteria of the entire discipline that increasingly believes that each day is the first day of the end of the world. In the particular disciplines of virology and epidemiology, the data raises serious doubts about whether these sciences are correct and mature enough to drive public policy. The evidence of this years experience points to these disciplines not being deserving of belonging to science.
The real risk of the current universal imposition of restrictions and mandates for a medical issue is that will draw widespread attention to the current state of the medical practice itself. People will learn more about the downsides and the misdirected priorities of benefiting the elderly at the expense of the younger generations. At some point, they may decide that this is not a system they want to continue to support. The bubble will burst.
The insurance against possible non-contagious conditions may not deliver what was promised if a contagious event occurs, and the medicine for contagious diseases do not promise a very impressive recovery rate. With COVID19, we learned that our health care premiums do not guarantee access to health care when we need it.