Discover more from Rounding the Earth Newsletter
The Efficacy Illusions, Part I: The Naming Illusion
The System is More Than the Sum of the Parts
"A system is more than the sum of its parts; it is an indivisible whole. It loses its essential properties when it is taken apart. The elements of a system may themselves be systems, and every system may be part of a larger system." -Russell Ackoff
By the conclusion of this article series, I suspect that nearly every reader will have a fundamentally different understanding of the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Nearly everything we hear thrown at us with respect to the pandemic seems framed in a way to ensure a particular belief, or to get a particular response. Whatever you might believe about cloth masks, opening a window can be somewhere between hundreds to thousands of times more effective, UV light in a room could eviscerate most all virions preventing the accumulation of infection clouds, and there are many other simple solutions that don't involve inconveniencing our breathing. We were quickly told that there is no evidence that the vaccines could affect fertility almost immediately, when there were no studies on the matter that lasted more than a few weeks, much less a full gestation cycle (or childhood). It is up to us to unravel the language, the data, and the logic, in order to get a grip on exactly what is going on.
The First Magic Trick: Naming the Disease
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet." -Juliet (Shakespeare)
The etiology of disease describes the causes, which might be trauma, poor eating, bacterial infection, viral infection, or any number of other causes. Many diseases have multiple etiologies. For instance, the Mayo Clinic lists seven causes of myocarditis. For this reason, it is historically abnormal, and possibly unique, to name a disease after one particular etiology. After all, more source causes may come to light at any time. Strangely, the World Health Organization (WHO) seemed entirely unaware of such historical norms when naming COVID-19 after a coronavirus. They said,
WHO announced “COVID-19” as the name of this new disease on 11 February 2020, following guidelines previously developed with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
I tracked down this document from 2015. It is unclear why "best practices" needed to be established for the naming of diseases, aside from the obvious desire not to denigrate any group of people. I also agree with the always-practical principle of simplicity in naming...oh, what's this?
There is a lot to unpack here. First of all, novel coronavirus respiratory syndrome really kind of stands out. I'll ask for you to excuse my language on just a few occasions, but WTF?! If authorities truly wanted to grind the conspiracy theorists to a halt, they wouldn't keep dropping so many Easter eggs into the "interesting coincidence" bucket. That's...it's just mean.
Second, I've rarely seen a more ambiguous example in a document designed to set standards for anything. There is a do this and a don't do this, and then there is an example. Is that an example of a do or a don't. As I've said, it is historically common for a pathogen to be named after a disease, or for a disease to be discussed with the name of the pathogen tacked on, but not generally. For instance,
We say "influenza-associated pneumonia" when we want to discuss the influenza virus and the associated pneumonia disease state. We otherwise often discuss pneumonia without reference to influenza because it also has other causes.
We named SARS-CoV after the Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) disease state, not the other way around. And we could just as easily name that particular coronavirus something else, like maybe "clown world coronavirus" or CW-CoV, and then refer to cases of CW-CoV SARS to tie the virus and disease together.
So, were these guidelines written in 2015, with this one muddled insertion, actually what the WHO used to name COVID-19 in such an ahistorical way?
Ever since Dr. Robert Malone began to publicly speak up about the role that the spike protein plays in both COVID-19 and also the vaccines ostensibly designed to prevent it, I've referred to a lot of illnesses caused by the vaccines as Type II COVID-19. The symptoms are highly similar, and the evidence that many of them are caused by the spike protein is mounting.
But here we are, nearly 10 months into a mass vaccination program in which billions of doses have been administered, delivering spike protein to billions of people. And it is just now dawning on more and more people that vaccines might be causing the disease state, too. And that may be the result of one simple magic trick: fooling people into thinking that the disease that we were all led to believe was scary and difficult to beat could only be caused by the novel coronavirus.
As a result of this first magic trick, the several million people suffering vaccine-induced serious adverse events are not counted as COVID-19 cases, nor are deaths caused by the vaccines appropriately categorized. Any efficacy computations or risk-benefit analysis that fails to take this into account are gross statistical misrepresentations of reality.
We have several more magic tricks to examine in this Great Reveal. Stay tuned…