Another day in our strange times: the CDC has finally found a kind word to say about natural immunity. You have to dig for it but it is there: “By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.”
It’s not even slightly surprising or should not be, since the effectiveness of natural immunity has been documented since the Peloponnesian War. On Covid alone, there are nearly 150 studies documenting the power of natural immunity, most of which came before the interview with Anthony Fauci on Sept 13, 2021. At that interview he was asked about natural immunity. He said this: “I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that. That’s something that we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response.”
Classic Fauci: what he meant to convey is that The Science doesn’t know enough to say. And most people for two years would seem to agree, either because they didn’t pay attention in 9th-grade biology class, or because our adoration of shots has swamped our common sense, or because there’s no profit in it, or because of some other reason that is not yet explained,
Regardless, it does seem as if something went wrong in 2020 as lockdowns began. Suddenly most public health agencies in the world stopped speaking of the subject of natural immunity. Vaccine passports have typically ruled out natural immunity or severely deprecated it. The WHO changed its definition of herd immunity to exclude natural exposure. Millions have lost their jobs for not getting vaccinated but have strong natural immunity.
How strange it all is! Here you have one of the most established, proven, documented, experienced, studied, known, and defended scientific truths about cell biology. One day (was it generations ago?) most people understood it. Then another day, it seemed almost as if vast numbers of people forgot or never knew at all. Otherwise, how could the WHO/CDC/NIH been able to get away with its strange denialism on this topic?
Perhaps, I’ve wondered, the case of natural immunity against Covid is an example of what Murray Rothbard called “lost knowledge.” He meant by that phrase a discovered and known truth that suddenly goes missing for no apparent reason and then has to be rediscovered at a later time and even in a different generation. It’s a phenomenon that made him enormously curious because it raises doubts about what he called the Whig Theory of History.
His wonderful History of Economic Thought opens with a blast against this Victorian-era idea that life is always getting better and better, no matter what. Apply it to the world of ideas, and the impression is that our current ideas are always better than ideas of the past. The trajectory of science is never forgetful; it’s only cumulative. It rules out the possibility that there is lost knowledge in history, peculiar incidences when humanity knew something for sure and then that knowledge mysteriously went away and we had to discover it again.
The idea of acquired immunity is consistent with how all societies have come to manage diseases. Protect the vulnerable while groups at no or low risk acquire the immunities. It is especially important to understand this if you want to preserve freedom rather than pointlessly impose a police state out of fear and ignorance.
It’s extremely odd that we woke up one day in the 21st century when such knowledge seemed almost to evaporate. When statistician and immunologist Knut Wittkowski went public with the basics of viruses in the Spring of 2020, he created shock and scandal. YouTube even deleted his videos! Seven months later, the Great Barrington Declaration made plain and once-obvious points about herd immunity via exposure and you would swear the world of the 11th century had discovered heretics.
All of this was strange to me and also to my mother. I visited with her and asked her how she came to know about the immune system is trained. She told me it’s because her mother taught this to her, and hers before her. It was a major public-health priority after World War II in the United States to school each generation in this counterintuitive truth. It was taught in the schools: do not fear what we have evolved to fight but rather strengthen what nature has given you to deal with disease..
Why was naturally acquired immunity a taboo topic in the 21st century? Perhaps this is a case of Rothbardian-style lost knowledge, similar to how humanity once understood scurvy and then didn’t and then had to come to understand it again. Somehow in the 21st century, we find ourselves in the awkward position of having to relearn the basics of immunology that everyone from 1920 to 2000 or so seemed to understand before that knowledge somehow came to be marginalized and buried.
Yes, this is hugely embarrassing. The science never left the textbooks. It’s right there for anyone to discover. What seems to have gone missing is popular understanding, replaced with a premodern run-and-hide theory of disease avoidance. It’s so bad that even the imposition of police states around the country, including brutal shutdowns and house arrest, did not inspire anywhere near the level of public resistance that I would have expected. To this day, we are still masking, stigmatizing the sick, and using unworkable and preposterous tactics to pretend to track, trace, and isolate all with the wild ambition permanently to stamp out the damn bug.
It’s like everyone gradually became ignorant on the whole topic and so they were caught off guard when politicians announced we had to get rid of human rights to fight a novel virus.
Here is Rothbard on this problem of lost knowledge and the Whig theory that such things do not happen:
The Whig theory, subscribed to by almost all historians of science, including economics, is that scientific thought progresses patiently, one year after another developing, sifting, and testing theories, so that science marches onward and upward, each year, decade or generation learning more and possessing ever more correct scientific theories.
On analogy with the Whig theory of history, coined in mid-nineteenth century England, which maintained that things are always getting (and therefore must get) better and better, the Whig historian of science, seemingly on firmer grounds than the regular Whig historian, implicitly or explicitly asserts that ‘later is always better’ in any particular scientific discipline.
The Whig historian (whether of science or of history proper) really maintains that, for any point of historical time, ‘whatever was, was right’, or at least better than ‘whatever was earlier’. The inevitable result is a complacent and infuriating Panglossian optimism. In the historiography of economic thought, the consequence is the firm if implicit position that every individual economist, or at least every school of economists, contributed their important mite to the inexorable upward march. There can, then, be no such thing as gross systemic error that deeply flawed, or even invalidated, an entire school of economic thought, much less sent the world of economics permanently astray.”
Rothbard’s entire book is an exercise in discovering lost knowledge. He was fascinated with how A.R.J. Turgot could have written with such clarity about value theory but the later writings of Adam Smith were murky on the topic. He was intrigued that the classical economists were lucid on the status of economic theory but later economists in the 20th century became so confused about it. You could observe the same about free trade: once it was understood almost universally such that everyone seemed to agree it had to be a priority to build peace and prosperity, and then, poof, that knowledge seems to have vanished in recent years.
On a personal note, I recall how passionate Murray felt about the issue of lost knowledge. He was also urging his students to find cases, document them, and explain how it happens. He always suspected that there were more cases that needed to be discovered and investigated. His writings on the history of ideas are a major effort to document as many cases as he could find.
Another intriguing feature: one might suppose that knowledge would be less likely to be lost in the information age in which we all carry in our pockets access to nearly all the world’s information. We can access it with just a few clicks. How did this not protect us against falling prey to a medieval-style theory of disease management? How did our fears and reliance of computer modeling so easily displace inherited wisdom of the past? Why did this new virus trigger brutal attacks on rights whereas nothing like this has happened in the previous century of new viruses?
George Washington’s troops scrapped off the scabs of the smallpox dead to inoculate themselves, while he personally recognized his own immunity via childhood exposure, but we cowered in our homes in fear and obedience for this virus. Even friends of mine who caught the virus early and developed immunities were treated like lepers for months later. Only once the Zoom class came to be entirely swamped with infection (the case fatality rate has been stable this entire time) did the media start to get curious about the likelihood and severity of reinfection. Now we are finally starting to talk about the subject – two years later!
I can only say this. Murray Rothbard right now would be astonished at how medical ignorance, fake science, and the lust for power all combined so suddenly to create the greatest global crisis in modern history for the cause of liberty to which he devoted his life. If anything has demonstrated that Rothbard was correct about the fallacy of the Whig theory, and the capacity of humanity suddenly to act and total ignorance of what was once widely known, it is these last two years of folly.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Natural immunity does not provide profits to any leg of the MIC, nor any additional power to any government bureaucrat.
“One day (was it generations ago?) most people understood it. Then another day, it seemed almost as if vast numbers of people forgot or never knew at all.”
Doesn’t second sentence tell all about the first sentence? Memorize-regurgitate ~~study for the test: for the teacher’s approval – pet me teacher!~~ is not new, is it? School, including school of life, is mostly filled up with parrots, mynas, & macaws – oh, my!
I Luv Co2 … always liked that handle, never minded the gas (that my plants love) … now see here what seems like some “lost knowledge” … but only if you’re a lollipoptimist … cuz deinventing the wheel ups the “economic rents” ~ teachers’ words for piracy, robbery, theft, fraud, murder, the Mordor/ing, you name it:
“Joseph Wolpe . . . Donald Klein: In the late 1950s, Wolpe was looking for alternative treatments for free-floating anxiety, a form of stress for which there is no specific cause, which today affects about 10 million Americans. He was floored by how quickly and effectively carbon dioxide worked. Between two and five inhalations of a 50/50 mixture of carbon dioxide and oxygen, Wolpe found, was enough to lower the baseline level of anxiety in his patients from 60 (debilitating) to zero. No other treatment came close. “It will be hoped that the recently awakened interest in carbon dioxide will lead to active research,” wrote Wolpe in 1987. But the same year Wolpe published his carbon dioxide call to arms, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first SSRI drug, fluoxetine, which would become better known by its trade names Prozac, Sarafem, and Adofen. A decade after Wolpe’s study was published, Donald F. Klein, a Columbia University psychiatrist, found what he thought was the mechanism that triggered panic, anxiety, and related disorders. It was a “physiologic misinterpretation by a suffocation monitor [that] misfires an evolved suffocation alarm system,” wrote Klein in his paper “False Suffocation Alarms, Spontaneous Panics, and Related Conditions.” And that false suffocation was coming from chemoreceptors that had grown to become too sensitive to fluctuations in carbon dioxide. Fear, at its core, could be as much a physical problem as a mental one. Joseph Wolpe, “Carbon Dioxide Inhalation Treatments of Neurotic Anxiety: An Overview,” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 175, no. 3 (Mar. 1987): 129–33; Donald F. Klein, “False Suffocation Alarms, Spontaneous Panics, and Related Conditions,” Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no. 4 (Apr. 1993): 206–17.”
https://www.mrjamesnestor.com/bibliography
Hmmm… what if all this fear ain’t so amygdalic after all? What if lots & lots o’ chemoreceptors are a bubble or two off plumb? And-and-and ~lol~ what if cult o’ anti-Co2 knows it?
I may have to switch from “didn’t mind” to “love,” too.
Nestor writes about the efficacy of mineral springs/baths, & how that usta’ be much more of a thing. Co2 is a part of why. Setting out down this trail have so far found this too expensive ~ except to prove out concept ~ giztraption tablet (which looks about like Third Wave Water’s mineralization packets for “the best” coffee-making water ~ which *do* dramatically improve the smooth):
https://nagayu.com/pages/beauty-skincare
Or this:
“If people read or hear enough about something, what they will remember – or think they know – will be the incantations of experts who use their spells, verbal charms and other rituals of sorcery to place the general public under a magical enchantment. In the waning days of our prosperous and materialistic twentieth century, no subject is more demonstrative of this phenomenon than that of money, and the stock market in particular.
In this book, the author refers to the recurrence of “social amnesia” throughout our financial history; that is, the willful repression of things we already knew but forget because they are extremely disturbing. But curiously, the overwhelming quantity and availability of information about our financial markets also triggers a form of social amnesia in reverse : we assume we already know about things of which we have barely a clue. This mental confusion helps to sustain our burgeoning financial services industry. Indeed, our recognized market gurus serve as high priests, offering sermons and sacraments to the faithful; while hordes of portfolio managers, stockbrokers and financial planners represent the hierarchical foot soldiers collecting alms in this cult religion.
In questioning the complacency and platitudes brought on by a deliriously long bull run, The Mind Of The Market seeks no less than to construct a philosophy of mind as applied to the financial mind and auction markets. The stock market is a microcosm for our economic and psychic strivings. The author dissects the financial mind like a laser, revealing various parts of its internal anatomy, generating full-colored, multiple-angle images and magnifications. We hear, in turn, the voice of the philosopher, financial historian, psychoanalyst, market technician, trader, investment banker, and Zen monk.
The double title of this work gives us a clue as to its meaning. Mr. Chu evokes our societal respect and fascination with money, mitigated by a repugnance of its innate corruptibility. Underlying the trenchant wisdom in this slender volume, we sense the mind of the moralist. If the reader is to learn anything from his counsel, it is to develop an increasing intellectual vigilance against the onslaught of financial mania, quackery and speculative excess. In the end, we may know more but also realize how little our knowledge matters. “Our ultimate aim in the market,” he observes, “is to free ourselves of anger, illusion and false passion.” The author exhorts each of us to become a better investor, a better person — to strive towards a more balanced, meaningful life. He has set his targets high. His aim is true.”
“Asked to say a kind word about the unpublished book of an author I’d never met, I dutifully started to read. But when, on page five, I encountered the happy phrase, “The history of the stock market is the history of forgetting,” I put aside duty & began to read for pleasure.
Franklin Chu has written the very book to give to a highly educated friend who, having not studied finance, is nonetheless certain that there must be more to Wall Street than the images produced by CNBC. What makes the stock market go up & down? With respect to Peter Lynch, it is mainly not corporate earnings. Nor is it federal Reserve policy, or the mysterious ether called “momentum.” It is, rather, paradox, the author wisely proposes. With this single perception, Chu demonstrates his understanding of the deepest secrets of the financial marketplace. “The startlingly high volatility demonstrated by a large majority of stocks,” writes Chu, “demonstrates the uneasy struggle between reason & emotion in an auction market. The stock market is a study in paradox.”
The market does, indeed, have a mind, Chu is able to show, & it isn’t the kind that bores. How could it be? “Insight, imagination, & faith – not just economics & rationality – are the sentiments that mobilize the investor to risk his capital,” the author observes. To shift metaphors, the market is the greatest of all theatrical productions. “It shows us our capacity for both extraordinary effort & willing self-delusion,” as Chu winningly puts it. “Through the course of its history & operation, it has revealed to us the full spectrum of our human nature: the agony & ecstasy, the greed & fear, the savagery of open competition, & the sweet logic of reason. If the lessons of the market have a meaning, it is to make us wonder…”
The promise of the provocative subtitle is redeemed in the final chapter, & it is the one I commend especially. It is nothing less than a lyrical meditation on the essential decency of the market. Chu, I learn, is a professional investor, but in these pages he also shows promise as philosopher & aphorist. “The markets demand the best of each of us & reward us accordingly,” he sums up, writing from the heart. “We are free to choose the work we like, to trade with others what we own or produce, & to venture down the road of achievement as far as our abilities & ambitions will carry us.”
We know all about the winners of this bracing game: They get their pictures in Forbes. “But the losers,” Chu goes on, “do not have to remain broken & dispirited. The mind of the market, both ruthless & generous, allows those near the bottom, for themselves & their progeny, to lift themselves off their knees & to walk, out of the darkness, towards the sunlight. In the end, no matter who rises or falls in this cosmological struggle, the fluctuations of the market, the booms & busts of the business cycle, the dispensation of riches & poverty all get played out in an ethereal universe comprised of many men, but dependent on no man.”
Oh, & the author is guarded about the prospects for this greatest & lustiest of all bull markets. Here, clearly, is a sensible man as well as an eloquent one. (James Grant is the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer.)” ~~ Inside jacket & forward to The Mind of the Market: Spiritual Lessons for the active Investor, by F.J. Chu
memory holed is not the same as lost
Thanks Admin, great essay. Natural immunity is medicines’ version of the new maff that forgot that 2 + 2 = 4 because now it can be 3 or 5 or anything besides the racist #4. Thanks, New science!
Thank you for dragging in the genius Rothbard. He is vindicated yet again and highly recommended to any student of economics, history, or human nature.
And to answer your final question (How can knowledge be lost so easily in this age of connectedness?) consider Daddy Joes law of lost knowledge: Good knowledge is more at risk of being lost in this information age than ever before simply because of the dilution. Like an expensive, treasured jewel in a hoarders’ house, or a movement of symphony in a factory of noise. All the noise, noise, noise. Noise is the enemy of knowledge, wisdom and men.
It seems like the author is describing a version of Gresham’s Law, where by the same mechanism as it applies to money, bad information drives out the good. (In regards to ‘Covid’, the narrative drowned out common sense.).
I wonder if Murray Rothbard ever contemplated his ‘Whig theory’ from Gresham’s perspective.
Brought to you by Pfizer.
The thresh ‘em law named “Gresham” is, or could have been, written by legaler-turned-scribbler-author Grisham. Fraudulently conflating legal with law has much to do. Fraud is the thing that fraughts this freighter. Frauding & forgetting…. Cue The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.
It is not lost knowledge. There would not be 8 billion of us on the planet without natural immunity. The stupid is strong out there.