Wisdom. It’s tough to achieve. We pride ourselves on our self-acclaimed status as Homo sapiens sapiens, “wise-wise Man,” but wisdom has historically been elusive. And today, it might still be out of our reach. Much of what we intend results in its opposite.
Remember Johnson’s War on Poverty and how it was supposed to eliminate poverty? Didn’t do what it was supposed to do, did it? Ditto his Vietnam policy to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. But this isn’t a criticism of the late President. It’s just a note that regardless of his good intentions, those two policies and actions might have done the opposite of what he intended. Lots of people live in relative poverty today, especially in the inner cities. Lots of them are caught in the cycle of getting paid not to succeed personally. Lots of children are still growing up in schools governed by policies based on the social values of the moment rather than on the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of our species. What do you call something that does the opposite of what it’s supposed to do? Think big examples: The French Revolution that led to public mass murders by guillotine, the Russian Revolution that led to democide by Stalin and the suppression of free thought, or the German and Cuban Revolutions that led to doctors like Mengele and Che becoming torturers. Your mind is wandering now, isn’t it? You just thought of other examples of “something that does the opposite of what it’s supposed to do.”
So, let’s swing to the CDC and organizations that back vaccinations for children and for people who have already had and survived the disease called COVID-19. Given that cytokine storms have undone so many during the pandemic, does it really make sense in the absence of firm data to vaccinate people who might already be carrying antibodies? Is there such a thing as too much immunity? Does anyone know how getting “more immune” affects, for example, the lungs and heart? Are those scanty data on incidents of myocarditis sufficient for decision-making? Now, lest you think I’m an anti-vaxxer, I should tell you that I have been vaccinated against COVID-19. So, obviously, I’m not speaking from some fear of vaccines—I even went for a flu shot last fall and will go for one this fall.
At MedPageToday, you can read an opinion piece by Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH and others on whether or not the CDC’s policy on teen COVID vaccination is prudent. * The article centers on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and its decision “to endorse a two-dose mRNA strategy for all ages.” The authors are concerned about “vaccine-induced myocarditis,” a condition that Israeli medical authorities noted in young people who had received a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Fifty-six or of 62 cases of myocarditis in young men occurred after they received the second dose. Although the ACIP was aware of the potential threat of myocarditis in children, it nevertheless issued an emergency use authorization for children ages 12-16. Now, to be fair (as they say), I should note that the Times of Israel “reported that israel’s health ministry would consider just one does in teens to balance getting most of the benefit of viral protection against mitigating much of the risk of myocarditis.” However, there’s no support among medical advisors in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands for the double vaccinations for children under 18.
As of the week preceding the article by Prasad et al., the CDC reported more data showing that “more cases [of myocarditis occurred] in young people than older people…and higher incidence after dose two than dose one.” The rate of the side effect seems to be “one in 15,000 to 20,000 for boys ages 12 to 24.” Now remember that we’re talking about intended consequences versus actual consequences, of things that do the opposite of what they’re supposed to do.
According to the authors, the ACIP used rates of COVID infection from the past rather than current rates of SARS-CoV-2 spread, that the authors say is “substantially lower…[and the ACIP] did not differentiate between healthy kids…and kids with pre-existing medical conditions….” The result is that the ACIP had adopted a one-size-fits-all policy. Now here’s where things get “Johnson-like, French Revolution-like, Russian Revolution-like, Cuban Revolution-like: “If a 15-year-old recovers from COVID-19 and has high antibody levels, and this 15-year-old then receives one dose of mRNA vaccine causing hospitalization from myocarditis, the CDC would still contemplate proceeding with dose two once the ‘heart has recovered.’” Think of this conclusion in the context that the number of cases of myocarditis has a good chance of being underreported. Add in the authors’ note that “The CDC is not factoring in natural immunity.”
Is it not true that if one takes any philosophical, psychological, or social system to its ultimate conclusion, one runs into its opposite? Today’s ubiquitous censors of free speech seem to be an example. Or take the current American rise in crime that somehow just “happened” to coincide with “Defund the Police” policies enacted in cities like Baltimore, New York, Portland, Seattle, and a few others. Someone could argue that those are localized examples of unintended consequences. But with the organization that governs an entire country’s health policies, any unintended opposite consequences can negatively affect more than lives in specific locales.
Homo sapiens sapiens? Not if one considers all those things that were supposed to do one thing but that ended causing their unintended opposites. What do you call something that does the opposite of what it’s supposed to do? Certainly, not "wise." but definitely "human."
*Prasad, Vinay, Ramin Farzaneh-Far, Wes Pegden, Venk Murthy, and Amy Beck. 29 June 2021. CDC’s All-or-Nothing Approach to Teen COVID Vaccination Is All Wrong. MedPageToday online at. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93340?xid=nl_vanayprasad_2021-06-29&eun=g1239050d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VinayPrasad_062921&utm_term=NL_Gen_Int_Vinay_AYWDRL_Large_ActiveAccessed June 29, 2021.
Remember Johnson’s War on Poverty and how it was supposed to eliminate poverty? Didn’t do what it was supposed to do, did it? Ditto his Vietnam policy to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. But this isn’t a criticism of the late President. It’s just a note that regardless of his good intentions, those two policies and actions might have done the opposite of what he intended. Lots of people live in relative poverty today, especially in the inner cities. Lots of them are caught in the cycle of getting paid not to succeed personally. Lots of children are still growing up in schools governed by policies based on the social values of the moment rather than on the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of our species. What do you call something that does the opposite of what it’s supposed to do? Think big examples: The French Revolution that led to public mass murders by guillotine, the Russian Revolution that led to democide by Stalin and the suppression of free thought, or the German and Cuban Revolutions that led to doctors like Mengele and Che becoming torturers. Your mind is wandering now, isn’t it? You just thought of other examples of “something that does the opposite of what it’s supposed to do.”
So, let’s swing to the CDC and organizations that back vaccinations for children and for people who have already had and survived the disease called COVID-19. Given that cytokine storms have undone so many during the pandemic, does it really make sense in the absence of firm data to vaccinate people who might already be carrying antibodies? Is there such a thing as too much immunity? Does anyone know how getting “more immune” affects, for example, the lungs and heart? Are those scanty data on incidents of myocarditis sufficient for decision-making? Now, lest you think I’m an anti-vaxxer, I should tell you that I have been vaccinated against COVID-19. So, obviously, I’m not speaking from some fear of vaccines—I even went for a flu shot last fall and will go for one this fall.
At MedPageToday, you can read an opinion piece by Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH and others on whether or not the CDC’s policy on teen COVID vaccination is prudent. * The article centers on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and its decision “to endorse a two-dose mRNA strategy for all ages.” The authors are concerned about “vaccine-induced myocarditis,” a condition that Israeli medical authorities noted in young people who had received a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Fifty-six or of 62 cases of myocarditis in young men occurred after they received the second dose. Although the ACIP was aware of the potential threat of myocarditis in children, it nevertheless issued an emergency use authorization for children ages 12-16. Now, to be fair (as they say), I should note that the Times of Israel “reported that israel’s health ministry would consider just one does in teens to balance getting most of the benefit of viral protection against mitigating much of the risk of myocarditis.” However, there’s no support among medical advisors in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands for the double vaccinations for children under 18.
As of the week preceding the article by Prasad et al., the CDC reported more data showing that “more cases [of myocarditis occurred] in young people than older people…and higher incidence after dose two than dose one.” The rate of the side effect seems to be “one in 15,000 to 20,000 for boys ages 12 to 24.” Now remember that we’re talking about intended consequences versus actual consequences, of things that do the opposite of what they’re supposed to do.
According to the authors, the ACIP used rates of COVID infection from the past rather than current rates of SARS-CoV-2 spread, that the authors say is “substantially lower…[and the ACIP] did not differentiate between healthy kids…and kids with pre-existing medical conditions….” The result is that the ACIP had adopted a one-size-fits-all policy. Now here’s where things get “Johnson-like, French Revolution-like, Russian Revolution-like, Cuban Revolution-like: “If a 15-year-old recovers from COVID-19 and has high antibody levels, and this 15-year-old then receives one dose of mRNA vaccine causing hospitalization from myocarditis, the CDC would still contemplate proceeding with dose two once the ‘heart has recovered.’” Think of this conclusion in the context that the number of cases of myocarditis has a good chance of being underreported. Add in the authors’ note that “The CDC is not factoring in natural immunity.”
Is it not true that if one takes any philosophical, psychological, or social system to its ultimate conclusion, one runs into its opposite? Today’s ubiquitous censors of free speech seem to be an example. Or take the current American rise in crime that somehow just “happened” to coincide with “Defund the Police” policies enacted in cities like Baltimore, New York, Portland, Seattle, and a few others. Someone could argue that those are localized examples of unintended consequences. But with the organization that governs an entire country’s health policies, any unintended opposite consequences can negatively affect more than lives in specific locales.
Homo sapiens sapiens? Not if one considers all those things that were supposed to do one thing but that ended causing their unintended opposites. What do you call something that does the opposite of what it’s supposed to do? Certainly, not "wise." but definitely "human."
*Prasad, Vinay, Ramin Farzaneh-Far, Wes Pegden, Venk Murthy, and Amy Beck. 29 June 2021. CDC’s All-or-Nothing Approach to Teen COVID Vaccination Is All Wrong. MedPageToday online at. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93340?xid=nl_vanayprasad_2021-06-29&eun=g1239050d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VinayPrasad_062921&utm_term=NL_Gen_Int_Vinay_AYWDRL_Large_ActiveAccessed June 29, 2021.
RSS Feed