adaptation.md 4.5 KB
Adaptation
There is some misunderstanding as to why some might reject a particular therapy. It is assumed that the individual denies the utility that could be derived, or that the effect of the therapy is a net negative to one's vitality. This is not necessarily the case, however, as it could be assumed to be the following circumstances:
- Therapy elicits adaptation which produces measurable increasing in immunologically mediating / active resource.
- The side effects are nul or comparable -> measured as symptoms or toxic load on metabolism.
- The literature and consensus agree that the adaptation falls within a range which is understood to be significant and beneficial.
-> In spite of what seems like 100% benefit, the missing element is an agreed specification describing the optimal desired adaptation, as well as a proposed methodology to assess the degree of success for achieving that outcome. -> a set of possible side effects as well as a proposed range of verifiability for each.
Understanding of many phemonena seem to suggest a universal principle about physics and reality; our systems adapt to stimuli and the nuance of these adaptations does not have a limit of resolution, but a limit as to how well they can be perceived.
When we talk about a proposed methodology of assessing the degree of success, and the agreed specification to describe the optimal desired outcome, a mandated solution is focused entirely on one concern, with a temporal period for which to mitigate that concern. In some cases, that mandated period becomes separate from whether the pathogen is currently affecting society such as to cause an epidemic of infection.
With SARS-CoV2, for example, we began with a period where we were anticipating a means of anulling its ability to transmit and infect in the population, and all of the dialogue, public health messaging, public relations from pharmaceutical companies and news in general was predicated on the assumption that this was the goal.
This has obviously changed, as it is now well known that infection cannot be stopped, and the dialogue has changed to become more ambiguous in the sense that some of it clearly claims that the desired effect is to temporarily reduce the potential for severe disease, whereas other claims, particularly ones made by public health officials and government representatives in general, imply that the treatment stops infection.
The ambiguity does not help to consolidate the issue of whether or not established goals and targeted outcomes are something that can be agreed upon, as it seems that the goal can be implied to be something which is itself not possible.
Citizens deserve to be able to set goals for themselves that are possible.
Further to this, we can't expect that all targeted goals and mitigated concerns are to be encapsulated without making room to consider the range of effects and period of effect brought on by the administration of a pharmaceutical product or medical treatment. That is, even in the case of a theoretical product which entirely stops infection and transmission, a human being should be able to consider what effect this treatment has on other circumstances that they may possibly find themselves in in the future.
For example, if one is to repeatedly use an mRNA vaccine which has been shown to modify interferon type 1 response, and to use this vaccine in to produce circulatory IgG antibodies against the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 specification sometimes referred to as WUHAN-HU-1, then a prospective vaccinee may wish to consider what the effect of this treatments will be on future infections from unknown pathogens, particularly ones which are novel, more transmissible than SARS-CoV-2, and more virulant than SARS-CoV-2.
That is to say, if one is to explicitly perform an action which potentially has a detrimental effect on a future circumstance, one must weigh the pros and cons of the risks they are currently seeking to consolidate, against benefits which must be proven to be viable and are to be considered applicable to a temporal period, as well as against the detriments that are possible over a longer range of time. This is not just limited to neurodegeneration, auto-immunity disorders, or dangerous acute reactions to a treatment, but even simply to the different ways in which future infections both to known and unknown pathogens can be affected. One could consider, for example, that the speed at which one yields a T-Lymphocyte response against a pathogen might be hindered, delayed, reduced and otherwise changed in a way which the vaccinee might find to be worthy of attention.