There is, clearly, a religious quality to our implicit appeal to a sacred core as consolation for the weakness of our bodies. But our modern soul is a secular soul; it has no actual religious content, only content given to it by the biological, psychological and social sciences. And if we have learnt one thing during this past year, it is that such sciences are not above being conduits for the agenda of governments and corporations.
While we obediently cultivate a hatred of our bodies beyond any felt before in human history, we obediently look for our real selves in an imagined identity that is conveniently manufactured by scientific concepts advertised and distributed by those with power and influence.
And the effect is intensifying, with the roll-out of these treatments they are calling ‘vaccines’, new mRNA pharmaceuticals that have never been used before and that are still in the experimental phase of their development. We should investigate these treatments, and not allow those in power to simply ‘get them in arms’. For, we are not identities trapped in contemptible bodies. Whatever we are, we are embodied.
A Twitter bio I came across recently included the designators, 21y/o, ‘sapiosexual,’ ‘panAfrican,’ and ‘VACCINATED’. It is the endgame of the management of people with democratic freedoms, when they experience themselves as liberated by cleaving to newly invented, politically infused categories of race and sex, and are so scornful of their body as to replace its native immunity with an artificial version when, at the age of 21, it is highly unlikely to be improved upon.
– Sinéad Murphy, Research Associate in Philosophy at Newcastle University
and are so scornful of their body as to replace its native immunity with an artificial version
Really? A 21yr old will probably have had multiple vaccines already. And a vaccine doesn’t replace natural immunity, it increases it.
I was not impressed by this.
Some of these ‘vaccines’ are actually gene therapies
No, it doesn’t, it produces antibodies in a way that having got a disease and survived it does. If you are naturally immune (such as having T-cell immunity to covid-19 like my partner does), a vaccination does not increase that immunity and may actually cause ADE which does the exact opposite. A vaccine may be good for some people but harmful to others. And there is NO non-political reason to vaccinate a 21 year old person against covid-19 unless they have cofactors that make them vulnerable to serious effects if infected.
It’s a pretty big stretch to call the mRNA technology “gene therapy”. It’s not entirely wrong, but it’s a bit like calling a kayak a “ship” because it’s a sea-kayak and a “ship” is an ocean going vessel.
I see PdH has already zoned in on this piece of nonsense. If a body is immune or develops immunity – there is no need to ‘increase’ that immunity. Vaccinating an immune individual is at the very least a waste of resources.
There is already some indications that the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ promote a distinct immune response, distinct from the response the immune system would produce to a COVID-19 infection.
This may go some way to explaining, the occasional reports that COVID-19 vaccines will not stop you from being ‘re-infected’ by COVID-19, because the immune response is to the vaccine not the COVID-19 virus.
Well, yes. But also, if correct and a COVID-19 vaccine does cause a distinct immune response in the body, and if COVID-19 did originate in a WuHan biological
warfareresearch lab, what’s to stop the ‘escape’ of the second of the binary virus assult, the one that targets the immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine?China isn’t using the Moderna, Pfizer et al vaccines, is it?
Is this a test? Are we supposed to read this sub Judith Butler screed and react? Forget the science – this is a variant of existing treatments, not totally novel – read the quote and tell me you are comfortable with the flowery language and bald faced assertions. Look at the opening paragraph alone.
Not comfortable at all. To believe in things that can’t be proved is faith. To disbelieve in things that have been proved is obstinance.
Speak for yourself, Sean Murphy. We’ve never had, nor ever will have, a particle of the pusillanimous, supercilious, thanatistic tendencies you cavalierly list.
May your days be merry and bright. Meantime, give your sodden tropisms a rest.
No, it doesn’t, it produces antibodies in a way that having got a disease and survived it does
PgH,
You are quite correct, and I was being lazy in my choice of words. Nevertheless, a vaccine does not replace natural immunity.
“new mRNA pharmaceuticals that have never been used before and that are still in the experimental phase of their development”
Every new medicine “has never been used before”. And these vaccines have undergone tests. And they seem to work, so far.
And nobody is forced to take a vaccine he doesn’t like.
.
+1.
There are many good reasons for disdaining much that has been done in the name of fighting the pandemic. This screed has points I’d hardly deny
and others one could discuss
but in a samizdata context they strike me as ‘what oft was thought and frequently much better expressed’.
Perry and APL have beat me to the punch on the vaccines.
As I have told a friend – if I could stop the mass vaccination of the entire population (a great RISK – not a sensible policy), I would do so. But I can not.
There is a good argument to take the risk and vaccinate certain vulnerable groups (much in the way that flu vaccines are treated each year) – but to vaccinate the ENTIRE POPULATION is asking for trouble. It may turn out O.K. (indeed absolutely fine) – but it may not.
I don’t know. Most conventional medicines are extracts or analogues of what already exists in nature. Extracts of the plant Digitalis Purpurea for example, is a well established heart medication.
Asprin was originally extracted from Willow bark. Many modern drugs use chemistry to reproduce the molecular structure of the active agents in the naturally occurring compound. Basically, a copy.
“Gene therapy” is quite different.
gene therapy
the introduction of normal genes into cells in place of missing or defective ones in order to correct genetic disorders.
Gene therapy usually refers to a permanent change to the nuclear DNA in the cell that will be found in both daughter cells after cell division.
How does the addition of mRNA alter the nuclear DNA? Given that it’s part of the usual cellular mechanism.
I agree that mRNA vaccines are new (although the research has been ongoing for 20-30 years), but as I understand it they’re not gene therapy.
Vaccination after age 21 is quite common, for instance the Hepatitis B vaccine.
I’m 29 & female & if I get Hepatitis B, that’s bad news. If I get covid-19, I’ve got a 0.007% chance of dying & 0.0256% of ending up in hospital. It’s bonkers to ask me to get vaccinated or to mess up my life over all of this. BTW, my 77 year old granny & 81 year old grandad got it & they are both fine. They’re antibody positive & yet they’re getting hassled to get this fucking jab. We’ve all gone batshit crazy.
The original article claimed that …replace its native immunity with an artificial version when, at the age of 21, it is highly unlikely to be improved upon.
Given that vaccination is regularly used to improve the immunity of people >21 years old, that’s a very odd statement.
Not odd in the slightest. Vaccinations are used to give immunity to diseases where catching it has vastly higher risks than covid-19, such as smallpox for example. Catching smallpox gives you natural immunity to smallpox in the future but also has a good chance of killing you. For most people, covid-19 has a minute chance of killing you, so frankly the more people who get infected the better as herd immunity protect the minority actually at risk.
Apologies, I’m not making myself clear.
The original article said that native immunity is highly unlikely to be improved at the age of 21, by artificial means.
This implies that vaccination will be ineffective on people older than 21 – which isn’t true.
Improving on natural immunity is indeed highly unlikely, and for Agnezka (for example) why would she even care if it did?
Agreed, the innate immune system won’t improve.
However, vaccines affect the adaptive immune system which is constantly improving, whenever it is exposed to a pathogen or a vaccine. So it still seems an odd statement, as it implies that vaccination is ineffective.
No, it implies that it is unlikely to make a significant difference in outcomes to someone not at meaningful risk in the first place. It is (at best) a bit like adding a zebra crossing and a traffic light to improve pedestrian safety on a rural road whose traffic consists of a bus twice a day & a lost tourist once a fortnight.