These easily-produced antigen and PCR tests for coronavirus mean that, if such tests were made available to the public, one could also easily be tested for adenovirus and rhinovirus, two other viruses that cause the common cold. If the authorities did that, and if the majority of the population were unfamiliar with these viruses, the fear-mongers could make it appear as if these viruses also posed a constant threat of disease in human populations. I know you’re thinking “common cold,” but these viruses are a lot more serious than you think.
Adenovirus, as well as rhinovirus, may cause pneumonia that can result in hospitalization, even death or disability. They are associated with many other diseases. Common cold viruses are a particular threat to certain populations. Your kid might have a cold caused by an adenovirus or a rhinovirus (kids have several colds a year), visit his elderly grandmother, or his uncle whose immune system has been weakened by the chemotherapy used to treat his stage IV pancreatic cancer, transmit the virus to either of them, seeding the development of pneumonia, which could lead to their demise.
On March 29, 2020, in a blog entry When a Virus Goes Viral, I write, “Like influenza viruses and rhinoviruses, coronaviruses are associated with potentially severe respiratory infections.” I continue: “Like rhinoviruses, coronaviruses are a family of viruses. There are many more types and they are widespread in many animal species. They are usually associated with mild to moderate upper-respiratory tract illnesses, i.e., the common cold. However, like rhinoviruses, coronaviruses are also a lower respiratory tract pathogen.”
How many of you visited your grandparents with colds? How many parents spent Thanksgiving or Christmas with their parents and brought along their sick children confident it wasn’t COVID because of a negative antigen or PCR test? A lot of you. Admit it. It’s just a cold, right? Are there grandparents who died of pneumonia where the pathogen came from their children or grandchildren? Certainly. Have you ever stopped to wonder whether you were the one who gave your grandparents the virus that led to their death? Most of you haven’t, I’m guessing. Why not? Because you weren’t made to be afraid of the common cold. You are familiar with its constant presence in your life. “It’s just a cold, right?”
With adenovirus and rhinovirus, you aren’t rushing out to Walgreens to try to find an antigen test or to CVS to get a PCR test because the CDC and the NIH and the establishment media haven’t scared the daylights out of you to push products by pharmaceutical companies. Among those potential products could be adenovirus and rhinovirus vaccines, not just antigen and PCR tests. Did you think about that? Did you know that the Johnson & Johnson jab is in fact a viral vector platform based on an attenuated adenovirus? For my European readers, did you know that AstraZena uses an attenuated cold virus common in chimpanzees known as ChAdOx1?
So why didn’t the corporate state organize the panic they are using as cover to implement dystopian-level surveillance and control apparatuses around those other cold viruses that? Too many people know that the rhinovirus is a cause of the common cold and would immediately ask why the panic. Moreover, Fauci and crowd weren’t (to my knowledge) modifying adenoviruses and rhinoviruses in Chinese labs to produce strains with greater virulence. Since most people had never heard of coronavirus, it was the ideal virus for their purposes. Ignorance makes it easier to manufacture a fear campaign. It’s why I work so hard to enlighten you.
I wrote on March 29, 2020, “I am not denying that coronavirus is a burden. Influenza and rhinoviruses are also burdens. All of these pathogens kill people every year. Nobody wants anybody to die. So we need to deal with these burdens. What I am arguing is that shuttering an economy on account of coronavirus is novel will have serious consequences for jobs and livelihoods, not to mention emotional and psychological needs and human liberty, and, moreover, that wanting to get back to a normal life as soon as possible is not remotely the same as saying we want to kill old people. The societal reaction is following a pretty standard sociological explanation, except on steroids. It is proceeding on the basis of a novel definition of the situation more than a novel virus. The panic is viral.” Nothing that has occurred in the meantime has changed my assessment of our situation.
* * *
From the Los Angeles Times: “In August, [Dr. Aaron] Kheriaty sued the University of California Board of Regents and Michael V. Drake, the system’s president, alleging he should be exempt from the university’s vaccine mandate because he has a ‘natural immunity’ to COVID-19 after being exposed to the virus.” Why is natural immunity in scare quotes? A writer or an editor at the LA Times did that. That’s no accident. The answer is to suggest that there is little or no natural immunity associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, a suggestion that not only flies in the fact of the evidence, but in the face of everything we know about immunity. There are many things for which I am not scheduled to be vaccinated because I have natural immunity by virtue of having acquired the disease. As I explain in my previous blog entry, COVID-19 is one of them.
On December 17, the University of California system removed Dr. Aaron Kheriaty from his position as a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the medical school and director of the medical ethics program at UCI Health. “Two years ago I never could have imagined that the University would dismiss me and other doctors, nurses, faculty, staff, and students for this arbitrary and capricious reason,” he wrote on his blog. “Once I challenged one of their policies I immediately became a ‘threat to the health and safety of the community.’” This is the University of California Irvine’s medical school we’re talking about. Again, Dr. Kheriaty is an expert in medical ethics. See his essay in The Wall Street Journal “University Vaccine Mandates Violate Medical Ethics.” The subtitle was “College students aren’t guinea pigs.” I think we might see the actual source of the university’s inflexibility on this issue.
To protect the university, the LA Times resorts to dishonest reporting, misrepresenting the science by asserting that research that shows that coronavirus immunity wanes over time. This can be said of all immunity. The extent to which charity might pull from claim some meaning, the research consistently shows that natural immunity is far superior to vaccination in every regard—more robust, more durable, and expressing cross-immunity to different variants. Exposure to the virus rather than just the spike protein provides to the system access to the full genomic profile. Moreover, at this point, as if this needs to be said anymore, the vaccine is worthless as a mechanism for producing immunity. Fully vaccinated and boosted people in large numbers are contracting and spreading the virus.
Irvine’s policy makes no sense from an objective standpoint. It not only expresses an ignorance of basic scientific understanding; by denying what it entirely expected and that which we know to be true, it represents an exercise in anti-science thinking. It is quite obviously irrational, a characteristic of authoritarian consciousness. It is, for the same reason, also anti-humanist—it sacrifices individual liberty for narrow corporate interests. Why is this happening? It’s not about the vaccine. It can’t be. University administrators are not stupid people. Adolf Eichmann’s spirit moves in them. This is about something else, something far darker, and it should deeply concern you.