We are now almost a month into the Coronavirus experience.

• What have we learned?
• What do we know?
• What do we suspect?
• Where are we headed?
• New data is constantly coming into view. What is good information, what is MIS-information?
• And more importantly, how are we orienting ourselves, our minds?
  
• What part do we play in all this?

All these questions are important to answer for ourselves. Right now, as always, we have a choice about how we feel about this situation, and what we are going to do about it. It seems appropriate to do some exploration.

…..

 Currently, the most popular narrative about the Coronavirus goes something like this: 

A dangerous virus is sweeping the globe, and our main priority is to prevent people from being exposed to it. People who are exposed are frequently asymptomatic, but if they do get sick, especially if they have pre-existing health conditions and/or are elderly, they often will need to be admitted into intensive care, where they stand a good chance of dying. Our best chance is to “flatten the curve” – slow the rate of transmission so that at least the hospitals are not overwhelmed, and this tactic will have to remain in place until a vaccine is produced that will make us all immune.

Does that sound about right?

Now that we have this narrative out in front of us, we can start asking questions about it.

The Most Important Question: 

Is it true?

And: 

Are there any better – more accurate, or more helpful – narratives that we can come up with?

Let’s begin.

…..

1) A dangerous virus is sweeping the globe.

This seems self-evident.

However, there are serious questions about the timeline of this. Many Americans suspect, but cannot prove, that they have already been exposed to and been sickened by Covid-19 as early as November or December. These people experienced a fever and a stubborn cough that wouldn’t go away, but many tested negative for flu. Without an antibody test, there is no way to know.

• How many of these people died?
• Is it possible that they had a less virulent form of Covid-19?
• Has the virus mutated since then?
• Would exposure to one strain provide immunity to another?

These are all valid questions that deserve exploration, as they could have an effect on our current actions.

2) Our main priority is to prevent people from being exposed to it.

First off, is this even possible? Unless one is prepared to completely quarantine a population, the answer is no. Eventually everyone will be exposed. 

Secondly, should this be our main priority? If we are all going to be inevitably exposed, then why exactly are we focusing our efforts to NOT get exposed? Because … 

3) Our best chance is to “flatten the curve” – slow the rate of transmission so that at least the hospitals are not overwhelmed.

Which makes sense, if we feel that the above narrative represents the entirety of our options. But does it?

4) People who are exposed are frequently asymptomatic, but if they do get sick, especially if they have pre-existing health conditions and/or are elderly, they often will need to be admitted into intensive care, where they stand a good chance of dying.

What is missing here?

What is missing in the entire popular narrative pertaining to this virus and our response to it?

What is missing is any sort of discussion of how to ameliorate the sickness, how to help a person, pre-existing health conditions or not, to get through the sickness, how to keep people from NEEDING to go to a hospital and get put on a ventilator.

We are so used to natural healthcare methods, preventative healthcare methods – diet, herbs and supplements, lifestyle, the mind/body connection, etc… – existing on the margins of the medical treatment paradigm. They are considered complimentary and optional. The MEAT of medical treatment is the invasive procedures, the prescription pharmaceuticals, the statistical analysis.

Is this in any way appropriate right now?

Is it appropriate to be staring down a deadly pandemic without the weapons that would make it decidedly less deadly?

Would you bring a knife to a gunfight?

At what point should the “complementary” and “optional” methods become primary and mandatory?

And who decided they weren’t primary in the first place?

As Ayurvedic practitioners, one of the primary tools in our toolbox is to strengthen the body’s immunity. This is because the human body has evolved for millions of years to be able to co-exist with countless micro-organisms. If the immune system was not effective, the human race would have gone extinct a long time ago. We are not sure at what point humans lost faith in their God-given immune systems, and transferred that faith to human-contrived immunity.

5) This tactic will have to remain in place until a vaccine is produced that will make us all immune.

We have written and posted at length about the issues with vaccines. Needless to say, any person pooh-poohing the existence of these issues is not living in reality. Besides the obvious toxicity concerns, it is important to understand the difference between vaccine-produced immunity and ACTUAL immunity. Vaccine-produced immunity is always inferior to actual immunity, which can be conferred either genetically, or by a healthy immune response to a pathogen.

So the question is:

Why is the popular narrative being directed toward an inferior and temporary form of immunity?

There is another matter pertaining to this narrative that should be looked at:

6) “… they often will need to be admitted into intensive care, where they stand a good chance of dying.”

Do you wonder about this?

Why, if the majority is not experiencing difficulty from this virus, are some experiencing MAJOR difficulties and why, when they go to the hospitals, are many of them dying?

Is it possible that they are not being treated correctly at the hospitals?

We have read and seen first-hand accounts of patients declining rapidly once being put on ventilators. Is it possible that the ventilators are part of the problem? From an Ayurvedic perspective, the way to treat one of the main complications of this disease is to EXPECTORATE; that is, to thin and expel the mucous. This can be achieved through the use of a number of therapies and herbs. The use of a ventilator can be contraindicated when expectoration is the goal.

Why is this not being publicly addressed?

At what point is a medical protocol considered to be ineffective?

The common response is that, because we are not doctors, we do not have the right to ask these sorts of questions.

Does that sound right to you?

…..

Anyway, let’s take in the fact that, right now, our entire planet is being turned upside down, not necessarily because it needs to be, but because we have adopted a possibly defective narrative.

Is there another narrative we can adopt that might be more helpful?

How about we take a stab at creating another narrative.

How about this:

A dangerous virus is sweeping the globe. The majority of the people exposed to this virus are asymptomatic or mildly ill, but those with pre-existing health conditions and/or the elderly are at particular risk. Therefore, ALL of us should take immediate steps to bolster our immunity through proven, simple and easily accessed methods – daily sunlight, exercise, eating fresh fruits and vegetables, taking herbal supplements, positive emotions, etc… 

Those who consider themselves especially at risk would be well-served to double-down on these methods, focus on tending to their livers and sinuses, and in addition, quarantine themselves for up to one month so that ALL of the less vulnerable have been exposed, and the bulk of the danger has passed.

Rather than relying on outdated and ineffective protocols, medical doctors will treat the patients in front of them with skill, ingenuity, and real time data-sharing from physicians around the globe with an eye for efficacy, not orthodoxy.

This is also a time for extended families and local communities to coalesce and serve each other with support, food, remedies, etc.., providing a strong counterbalance to the forces of isolation and centralization that are exposing themselves as being harmful and ineffective. 

How does that narrative sound? Can we find any glaring flaws in it? 

• One obvious improvement is that there would be no global shut-down, and therefore no economic collapse as we are seeing now.
• Would there be less severe illness? That is impossible to know.
  Certainly, the narrative would have to be adopted in its complete form – eschewing isolation without also practicing immune boosting wouldn’t end well. 
• Something that stands out is that the onus shifts to the individual to keep oneself healthy, rather than to the collective.

Yet this narrative also encourages groups of people to take matters into their own hands, to assume responsibility, rather than to isolate and depend on the “savior”, whether that is the hospital, the protocol, or the government.

…..

In any case, there will be no widespread adoption of this particular narrative any time soon. And yet, this is the narrative that our family and collective are currently living by, and by which you can too.

In our extended family, there are a number of us who would be considered “at-risk”, myself included, and we are living with discrimination, Ayurvedic health practices, and no fear. Part of that is the strong suspicion that we have already been exposed, although there will be no way to confirm that until an accurate antibody test is available.

…..

What are the downsides to this approach, besides being out of step with those around us?

Here you might point out that, good for us, we are bolstering our own immunity and taking responsibility for our own health, but by not earnestly isolating ourselves, we are potentially vectors of exposure and a danger to others who to do not share our approach.

And that is a good point.

Who is responsible for whom?
Who decides what takes precedence?

There is no easy answer. We like to make decisions concerning ourselves, but how do we make decisions concerning the whole of society?

At this point in the conversation, I would like to speak for myself. There are many aspects of our current society that I was not asked about.

I was not asked if I wanted to live in a society ruled by predatory capitalism, and so I have done my best not to participate in that.

I was not asked whether I wanted to live in a society that regards Nature as an enemy, and so I have done my best not to do that.

I was not asked whether I wanted a global body of bureaucrats and scientists to dictate how I should live, and so I have done my best to disregard them. 

I do all of this not because I am selfish, but rather, because I see those things as being harmful to the Earth and its inhabitants. I see those systems, mindsets and entities as serving something other than the best interests of myself and my fellow humans.

This being the case then, I am not sure why I would be expected to disregard all that, and instead accept the narrative and guidance provided by those systems, mindsets and entities. It would not make sense. But everyone obviously needs to make their own decision.

If your decision differs from mine, would you judge me? Would you be good and correct, and I be bad and incorrect?

 ….. 

These are the kinds of questions we should all ponder. Personal agency doesn’t end with what color clothes we put on, or what brand of car we drive, or what we decide to eat for lunch, or whether we identify as Democrat or Republican. People on this planet are not divided into TEAMS. It is our human right, whether we are able to express it or not, to be able to make all kinds of decisions about how we want to live.

Someone can judge another for being a danger to the paradigm that they inhabit, but it is a two-way street. Who is a danger to whom?

By now, most of us have been exposed to the concerns about whether the response to this virus:

1) Was pre-planned to advance agendas other than protecting the health of the people; and

2) Is worse than the virus itself. By worse is meant that the economic damage, (possibly permanent) loss of civil liberties and loss of previously taken-for-granted human rights will outstrip the actual human toll of the virus itself. 

Wherever your answer falls, it is important to recognize that these questions need to be asked. And it is also important to examine the connection between your answer, and what you believe in.

• How do you feel about various authorities?
• Who do you trust, and why?
• Where is your line between acting according your own observations, experiences and discrimination, and doing what you are told?

 …..

We arrive back at the questions:

How do we feel about this Coronavirus situation, and what are we going to do about it?

I wrote an article about this, and it contains some good guidelines. A few weeks ago, most people were looking forward to getting through this until things went back to normal. Right now, however, there is serious concern that this IS the new normal.

How do you feel about that?
Is that the only option we have?
If it isn’t, what are you going to do about it?

Most of us go through life reacting to what is thrown at us. For many of us, the extent of our societal agency begins and ends in the voting booth. But throughout history, we have seen that groups of people have created societal change. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. have shown this very clearly. How do we feel about what is going on? What are we going to do about it? Our agency begins with what narrative we choose.

Where it ends is up to us.

We are now almost a month into the Coronavirus experience.

• What have we learned?
• What do we know?
• What do we suspect?
• Where are we headed?
• New data is constantly coming into view. What is good information, what is MIS-information?
• And more importantly, how are we orienting ourselves, our minds?
  
• What part do we play in all this?

All these questions are important to answer for ourselves. Right now, as always, we have a choice about how we feel about this situation, and what we are going to do about it. It seems appropriate to do some exploration.

…..

 Currently, the most popular narrative about the Coronavirus goes something like this: 

A dangerous virus is sweeping the globe, and our main priority is to prevent people from being exposed to it. People who are exposed are frequently asymptomatic, but if they do get sick, especially if they have pre-existing health conditions and/or are elderly, they often will need to be admitted into intensive care, where they stand a good chance of dying. Our best chance is to “flatten the curve” – slow the rate of transmission so that at least the hospitals are not overwhelmed, and this tactic will have to remain in place until a vaccine is produced that will make us all immune.

Does that sound about right?

Now that we have this narrative out in front of us, we can start asking questions about it.

The Most Important Question: 

Is it true?

And: 

Are there any better – more accurate, or more helpful – narratives that we can come up with?

Let’s begin.

…..

1) A dangerous virus is sweeping the globe.

This seems self-evident.

However, there are serious questions about the timeline of this. Many Americans suspect, but cannot prove, that they have already been exposed to and been sickened by Covid-19 as early as November or December. These people experienced a fever and a stubborn cough that wouldn’t go away, but many tested negative for flu. Without an antibody test, there is no way to know.

• How many of these people died?
• Is it possible that they had a less virulent form of Covid-19?
• Has the virus mutated since then?
• Would exposure to one strain provide immunity to another?

These are all valid questions that deserve exploration, as they could have an effect on our current actions.

2) Our main priority is to prevent people from being exposed to it.

First off, is this even possible? Unless one is prepared to completely quarantine a population, the answer is no. Eventually everyone will be exposed. 

Secondly, should this be our main priority? If we are all going to be inevitably exposed, then why exactly are we focusing our efforts to NOT get exposed? Because … 

3) Our best chance is to “flatten the curve” – slow the rate of transmission so that at least the hospitals are not overwhelmed.

Which makes sense, if we feel that the above narrative represents the entirety of our options. But does it?

4) People who are exposed are frequently asymptomatic, but if they do get sick, especially if they have pre-existing health conditions and/or are elderly, they often will need to be admitted into intensive care, where they stand a good chance of dying.

What is missing here?

What is missing in the entire popular narrative pertaining to this virus and our response to it?

What is missing is any sort of discussion of how to ameliorate the sickness, how to help a person, pre-existing health conditions or not, to get through the sickness, how to keep people from NEEDING to go to a hospital and get put on a ventilator.

We are so used to natural healthcare methods, preventative healthcare methods – diet, herbs and supplements, lifestyle, the mind/body connection, etc… – existing on the margins of the medical treatment paradigm. They are considered complimentary and optional. The MEAT of medical treatment is the invasive procedures, the prescription pharmaceuticals, the statistical analysis.

Is this in any way appropriate right now?

Is it appropriate to be staring down a deadly pandemic without the weapons that would make it decidedly less deadly?

Would you bring a knife to a gunfight?

At what point should the “complementary” and “optional” methods become primary and mandatory?

And who decided they weren’t primary in the first place?

As Ayurvedic practitioners, one of the primary tools in our toolbox is to strengthen the body’s immunity. This is because the human body has evolved for millions of years to be able to co-exist with countless micro-organisms. If the immune system was not effective, the human race would have gone extinct a long time ago. We are not sure at what point humans lost faith in their God-given immune systems, and transferred that faith to human-contrived immunity.

5) This tactic will have to remain in place until a vaccine is produced that will make us all immune.

We have written and posted at length about the issues with vaccines. Needless to say, any person pooh-poohing the existence of these issues is not living in reality. Besides the obvious toxicity concerns, it is important to understand the difference between vaccine-produced immunity and ACTUAL immunity. Vaccine-produced immunity is always inferior to actual immunity, which can be conferred either genetically, or by a healthy immune response to a pathogen.

So the question is:

Why is the popular narrative being directed toward an inferior and temporary form of immunity?

There is another matter pertaining to this narrative that should be looked at:

6) “… they often will need to be admitted into intensive care, where they stand a good chance of dying.”

Do you wonder about this?

Why, if the majority is not experiencing difficulty from this virus, are some experiencing MAJOR difficulties and why, when they go to the hospitals, are many of them dying?

Is it possible that they are not being treated correctly at the hospitals?

We have read and seen first-hand accounts of patients declining rapidly once being put on ventilators. Is it possible that the ventilators are part of the problem? From an Ayurvedic perspective, the way to treat one of the main complications of this disease is to EXPECTORATE; that is, to thin and expel the mucous. This can be achieved through the use of a number of therapies and herbs. The use of a ventilator can be contraindicated when expectoration is the goal.

Why is this not being publicly addressed?

At what point is a medical protocol considered to be ineffective?

The common response is that, because we are not doctors, we do not have the right to ask these sorts of questions.

Does that sound right to you?

…..

Anyway, let’s take in the fact that, right now, our entire planet is being turned upside down, not necessarily because it needs to be, but because we have adopted a possibly defective narrative.

Is there another narrative we can adopt that might be more helpful?

How about we take a stab at creating another narrative.

How about this:

A dangerous virus is sweeping the globe. The majority of the people exposed to this virus are asymptomatic or mildly ill, but those with pre-existing health conditions and/or the elderly are at particular risk. Therefore, ALL of us should take immediate steps to bolster our immunity through proven, simple and easily accessed methods – daily sunlight, exercise, eating fresh fruits and vegetables, taking herbal supplements, positive emotions, etc… 

Those who consider themselves especially at risk would be well-served to double-down on these methods, focus on tending to their livers and sinuses, and in addition, quarantine themselves for up to one month so that ALL of the less vulnerable have been exposed, and the bulk of the danger has passed.

Rather than relying on outdated and ineffective protocols, medical doctors will treat the patients in front of them with skill, ingenuity, and real time data-sharing from physicians around the globe with an eye for efficacy, not orthodoxy.

This is also a time for extended families and local communities to coalesce and serve each other with support, food, remedies, etc.., providing a strong counterbalance to the forces of isolation and centralization that are exposing themselves as being harmful and ineffective. 

How does that narrative sound? Can we find any glaring flaws in it? 

• One obvious improvement is that there would be no global shut-down, and therefore no economic collapse as we are seeing now.
• Would there be less severe illness? That is impossible to know.
  Certainly, the narrative would have to be adopted in its complete form – eschewing isolation without also practicing immune boosting wouldn’t end well. 
• Something that stands out is that the onus shifts to the individual to keep oneself healthy, rather than to the collective.

Yet this narrative also encourages groups of people to take matters into their own hands, to assume responsibility, rather than to isolate and depend on the “savior”, whether that is the hospital, the protocol, or the government.

…..

In any case, there will be no widespread adoption of this particular narrative any time soon. And yet, this is the narrative that our family and collective are currently living by, and by which you can too.

In our extended family, there are a number of us who would be considered “at-risk”, myself included, and we are living with discrimination, Ayurvedic health practices, and no fear. Part of that is the strong suspicion that we have already been exposed, although there will be no way to confirm that until an accurate antibody test is available.

…..

 What are the downsides to this approach, besides being out of step with those around us?

Here you might point out that, good for us, we are bolstering our own immunity and taking responsibility for our own health, but by not earnestly isolating ourselves, we are potentially vectors of exposure and a danger to others who to do not share our approach.

And that is a good point.

Who is responsible for whom?
Who decides what takes precedence?

There is no easy answer. We like to make decisions concerning ourselves, but how do we make decisions concerning the whole of society?

At this point in the conversation, I would like to speak for myself. There are many aspects of our current society that I was not asked about.

I was not asked if I wanted to live in a society ruled by predatory capitalism, and so I have done my best not to participate in that.

I was not asked whether I wanted to live in a society that regards Nature as an enemy, and so I have done my best not to do that.

I was not asked whether I wanted a global body of bureaucrats and scientists to dictate how I should live, and so I have done my best to disregard them. 

I do all of this not because I am selfish, but rather, because I see those things as being harmful to the Earth and its inhabitants. I see those systems, mindsets and entities as serving something other than the best interests of myself and my fellow humans.

This being the case then, I am not sure why I would be expected to disregard all that, and instead accept the narrative and guidance provided by those systems, mindsets and entities. It would not make sense. But everyone obviously needs to make their own decision.

If your decision differs from mine, would you judge me? Would you be good and correct, and I be bad and incorrect?

 ….. 

These are the kinds of questions we should all ponder. Personal agency doesn’t end with what color clothes we put on, or what brand of car we drive, or what we decide to eat for lunch, or whether we identify as Democrat or Republican. People on this planet are not divided into TEAMS. It is our human right, whether we are able to express it or not, to be able to make all kinds of decisions about how we want to live.

Someone can judge another for being a danger to the paradigm that they inhabit, but it is a two-way street. Who is a danger to whom?

By now, most of us have been exposed to the concerns about whether the response to this virus:

1) Was pre-planned to advance agendas other than protecting the health of the people; and

2) Is worse than the virus itself. By worse is meant that the economic damage, (possibly permanent) loss of civil liberties and loss of previously taken-for-granted human rights will outstrip the actual human toll of the virus itself. 

Wherever your answer falls, it is important to recognize that these questions need to be asked. And it is also important to examine the connection between your answer, and what you believe in.

• How do you feel about various authorities?
• Who do you trust, and why?
• Where is your line between acting according to your own observations, experiences and discrimination, and doing what you are told?

 …..

We arrive back at the questions:

How do we feel about this Coronavirus situation, and what are we going to do about it?

I wrote an article about this, and it contains some good guidelines. A few weeks ago, most people were looking forward to getting through this until things went back to normal. Right now, however, there is serious concern that this IS the new normal.

How do you feel about that?
Is that the only option we have?
If it isn’t, what are you going to do about it?

Most of us go through life reacting to what is thrown at us. For many of us, the extent of our societal agency begins and ends in the voting booth. But throughout history, we have seen that groups of people have created societal change. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. have shown this very clearly. How do we feel about what is going on? What are we going to do about it? Our agency begins with what narrative we choose.

Where it ends is up to us.