Sketching out for a novel virus

 https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/08/25/covid-what-have-we-learned/#comment-175601 

Malcolm has already stated on this blog that he believes it probably exists - but exactly what 'it' is might be more fruitful than whether there is a novel 'it'.

The world at large has in any case invested in the novel virus as blitzed - by reaction to it as real. There is a case that if no media attention had been give in such a novel way via the Wuhan back stories, and Italian breakdown of service - along with as I say the extreme reactions of how to 'treat' other human beings, nothing really would have shown up - except perhaps in medical journals of strange new immune dysfunctional symptoms in an extremely small group of mostly end of life patients.

But 'it' is given one name - shock-headlined globally as nothing ever before in the history of  our kind. But is also given an extremely vague 'clinical' set of conditions that includes NO disease through to dying under a bus (that was not entirely in jest) - but clinically in general, sharing the same symptoms as colds and flu - which are not specifically virally tested for the flu stats that are themselves inflated from a range of post respiratory disease complications. And being called 'novel' serves both the narrative for making up any possible story of  deadly contagion against a defenceless population, and the ability to mutate or shift the goalposts at will.

It has been defined genetically by means that are extremely specialised and arcane. Fragments of otherwise unidentified biological matter taken from a very few at Wuhan, were 'identified' and reconstituted using computer modelling - to determine what the full virus must be.

RT-PCR tests are then used to seek for any trace of supposedly unique fragments to this 'signature' - but which may be anything - and which may be in such trace quantity as to not indicate a viral load of any disease condition - including infection - and which as I understand are only required to match by 80% or so with the 'original' definition.

I also understand there are patents that limit and control access and use of the 'virus' and that the researching of coronavirus under 'gain of function' - which is a cover term for biological agents as weapons, ostensibly developed so as to have defences against their use by enemies.

That field of research also links to the injection of coronavirus or other fragments of foreign proteins that can generate cross reactive immune dysfunction. It is also understood that where flu vaccinations suppress a particular strain of influenza - more respiratory infections occur with other vectors of association - including coronavirus strains - which until Sars-1 were considered under 'colds'.

The Medical system is presumed to operate as self-correcting science on behalf of the human good. This belief is nonetheless deeply cherished by those who have invested their faith in it, and   masked in by those who profit by compliance. The global directives of a centrally operating dictate are linked to global incentives and disincentives within a network of fronted expressions of  private self interest set over - and at expense of the whole.

Regardless any pretence to 'the science' - the situation is one of regulatory capture along with the mindshare of a fearfully ungrounded or dissociated population - who are effectively in a state of shock in various patterns of strategic coping that mask over  rather than be overwhelmed.

The novel virus told us through novel means that it was coming again - and everything is being stretched out in delay until the conditions for a 'second wave' allow it to be rolled out.

Nothing I wrote in this sketch really addressed or acknowledged our resilience and immunity to toxic exposures and stresses - given the fundamental conditions that support and sustain life that are within and part of our being alive. There are deep lessons that may be learned from such fundamental errors, but the intent of the error is the usurping and replacement of biology by technological interventions at cellular level. But this is not other than an expression of 'thinking' given priority over a Life itself - rather than serving the expression and embodiment of life as shared being. Biology seen through the mind of war against life is pathological because the mind or 'thinking' through which we 'see' is pathological. But when we are reacting from such 'thinking' we cannot see it or question it - because it operates our self and world - with all the emotional intensity of our investment.

Hence - no matter what we currently think you believe, pausing from reaction allows the possibility for noticing what our reactive mind actually does believe. NOW we are in a position to bring curiosity or enquiry as to whether it is in fact true, or worthy of acting from as true.

After the fact of reaction, we have already consented to a choice we were unaware of making - and thus unable to recognise our own results as a basis from which to make better choices. Mistaken identity is not a sin. Persisting in a masking self illusion at cost of true recognition in the heart is ‘sin’ for it betrays everything - not least our self - and compound conviction in a negatively defined sense of self and life that operates a negative or blocking agenda as the only escape from a life that damns it - or would if disclosed.

But if truth is unconflicted in itself, then truth accepted, frees from conflict, and the mind of conflicting fears has it backwards. A true basis from which to live is not complicated - but the blocks to allowing this, are.