Some Principles of Human Design for a Post-COVID World

This essay contributes a biologist’s perspective to identifying humanity’s fundamental needs in our necessary transition to a new world order.


When Linnaeus named us Homo sapiens, he recognized that we are a type of animal. The conversation beyond the pandemic may run from this core fact, but it cannot hide. Birds fly, turtles crawl, and insects breed prodigiously. Each has a fundamental nature that facilitates certain behaviors and impedes others.

If we are to find our way to a new order that better meets our own deep needs, and also the planet’s, we need to grasp what is fundamental to our biological nature. To get from here to a better place unavoidably requires that we speculate—project beyond what is known. But we should try to launch from solid ground. So here are points offered from a professional biologist as beacons to steer by.

Consider our basic biochemistry. The enzymatic machinery that replicates our DNA, reads our genes into proteins, and governs our cellular energy metabolism was inherited from microbes and their descendant, “eukaryotic” cells, which are larger, better structured, and better energized. These fundamental aspects of our animal nature were optimized—perfected to the point of un-improvability—by half a billion years ago.

Of course, with changing conditions, evolution added new genes and modified others. But the core of our stunningly intricate intracellular machinery has long been “settled law.” We study cellular processes in “model” organisms, such as the nematode worm and the fruit fly, because our cellular processes are deeply similar, having been inherited from the same common ancestor.

So what? Well, much of our biomedical enterprise—physicians, medical schools, hospitals, federal and private biomedical research institutes, plus Big Pharma—focuses on trying to understand this molecular machinery in order to control it. Newly discovered genes, proteins, and “signaling” molecules are often reported as potentially “druggable” targets for control of some disorder or condition. This vast enterprise, engaging many of our best and brightest scientists, has achieved innumerable, immense successes. This was my career for half a century.

But now we should reflect that 70 years of basic and clinical research directed at cellular machinery has not solved the major causes of death in today’s modern society. These include hypertension, obesity, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, suicide, and addictions to drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Moreover, these causes are coupled: obesity contributes to hypertension and type 2 diabetes; smoking contributes to heart disease; and so on.

Together these causes are four-fold greater than the next important cause of death, cancer. But, if we move to the “addictions” column and include the 50% of all primary liver cancers that are caused by alcoholism and the 90% of lung cancers that are caused by smoking, then the sum exceeds the remaining cancers by nearly five-fold.

Molecular treatment has been ineffective for these leading causes of death because they arise from chronic stress and despair—caused by societal dysfunctions. Failures of human interaction trigger cascades of diverse pathologies that ultimately filter down to disrupt the cellular machinery. But since there’s nothing wrong with the cellular machinery, except as it is abused, efforts to “fix” it with a panoply of drugs are doomed.

Give one drug, and both brain and body compensate. Add a second one, and they compensate further. Eventually, some control may be achieved; however, each drug has multiple (“side”) effects—mostly predictable. Those require additional drugs, and the result is a basically sick person stabilized precariously by “polypharmacy.” Such medically unstable individuals are the most vulnerable to COVID-19. Meanwhile, this direction for the bio-medical enterprise grows ever more expensive: US health care now consumes nearly 20% of the GDP, whereas in 1960 it was 5%.

What needs to change?

After COVID, such wasteful misdirection of bio-medical R&D will be unaffordable. Ditto for Big Pharma’s commercial products derived from this enterprise.  Furthermore, stress and despair will be rising and will remain high for perhaps decades. The consequent mortalities will also rise and persist until we manage to relieve ourselves from chronic strain.

Here is bio-medicine’s perfect storm: rising deaths from societal dysfunctions that cannot be cured by polypharmacy will overwhelm a vast bio-medical complex based on a quasi-religious faith in druggable molecular targets and in search of profits.

The bio-medical complex will continue to expand molecular therapies for socially caused conditions. Consequently lots more people will die prematurely, having lived in poor health for years before they succumb. Furthermore, attempts to fund this “health” behemoth will create a crisis of budgetary resources on a scale formerly occupied by the “defense” behemoth.

Based on these fundamental considerations, we should steer hard toward massively reducing stress and despair by meeting the deepest needs of our species. If we were to manage this, and also resume physical exercise, then we’d transition from a chronically ill population to a healthy one and roughly 90% of the current medical costs would be unnecessary.

Our species’ deepest needs

Our fundamental need is for intermittent, brief satisfactions. We inherited this requirement from our earliest bilateral ancestor, a marine worm. The worm found food, mates, comfort, and safety directed by a brain that continuously prioritized these quotidian hungers and learned when and where to find them.

One brain circuit drove seeking, and when a need was unexpectedly met, another circuit triggered a reward signal that delivered a pulse of satisfaction that allowed a pause in seeking. The worm’s circuit for reward learning was so efficient that, one-half billion years later, all brains, including the nematode, the fruit fly, and our own, still rely on it.

The reward signal is a pulse of the neurochemical dopamine, and, so long as we received a few surprises over a day that provided a few dopamine pulses, we were fine. But modern life grew highly predictable, thereby reducing surprises about where and when to find food or comfort. So the daily dopamine pulses, which we need more acutely than vitamins, diminished—and we grew uneasy and restless.

This dis-ease we treat with various molecules, including alcohol, nicotine, and every drug of abuse, because they all trigger the reward circuit to release dopamine in large surges.

The drugs temporarily relieve our discomfort, but soon the brain compensates and demands a higher dose. Here is another perfect storm: our core circuits for physiological regulation and learning rely on intermittent small pulses of dopamine, but now these circuits encounter great surges of dopamine caused by a special sort: polypharmacy. Now our persistent cravings for these surges are served by Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol, and Big Narco.

The design of our brain reward circuit, like that of our cellular metabolic circuits, was perfected in the worm. Computational scientists recognize the worm’s reward rule as mathematically optimal—so it, too, has also been “settled law” for half a billion years.

Yet, the bio-medical enterprise studies the reward circuit intensively—a whole division of NIH (NIDA) funds and coordinates the search for molecular solutions to our existential problems. They seek an opioid molecule to treat your “physical” pain but not get you high. They seek molecules to reduce your cravings for alcohol, tobacco, opioids, and food.

There’s not the slightest chance that this will work. No drug will free us from the necessity to meet our species’ deepest cognitive and emotional needs.

At the origin of our species, about 200,000 years ago, the size and prolonged development of our brain were “settled law.” The package included:

  1. A profound drive to wander—reflected in our rapid migrations across the globe.
  2. An immense capacity for social learning—that allowed us to manufacture stone tools and use them to build boats that crossed the Pacific Ocean 40,000 years ago from the Indonesian archipelago to Australia.
  3. Tremendous neural diversity that gifts each brain with circuits supporting a unique bundle of behavioral traits. These innate “talents,” when practiced, imbue each person with a unique skill set. A community where all brains are different immensely amplifies what can be invented, executed, and transmitted compared to a community where all brains are the same.
  4. Prolonged development of circuits over decades as the brain acquires knowledge and revises its programs. The frontal and temporal tracts—key pathways for cognitive and emotional processing—do not mature finally until our late 40s. Consistent with this, foragers greatly improve their skills and productivity between ages 20-45, and well past 60 they still contribute to a three-generation family.

In short, evolution imbued our species with the capacity for lives of adventure and invention. It gave individual humans the capacity for diverse practical skills, plus the social skills needed to share them communally. Finally, evolution gave us the capacity to grow our skills over decades. Our species core need is to fulfill these capacities.

Yet, beginning 250 years ago—a mere 0.1% of our species’ existence—the industrial system began to erase for most of humanity the chance to fulfill these deep needs of our life cycle. We evolved to explore the planet, but now multitudes punch a ticket or scan a bar code. “Jobs” learned in minutes or days present neither challenge nor surprise. This profound mismatch between our abilities and our opportunities to exercise them causes chronic stress and despair.

Challenges that engage our deep intelligence across the life span must not be reserved just for a wealthy minority. We must all exercise these capacities or suffer the mortal consequences of stress and despair—whose annual death rate will likely exceed that of COVID-19 by tenfold—and for which there will be no vaccine.

We must reorganize so that all of us can live closer to who we deeply are. This would immensely reduce the need for Big Pharma and Big Narco. Post-COVID, we’re going to need those resources elsewhere.

A program

These considerations suggest a definite program. First, we must restructure “work.” Challenge and sociality must trump “efficiency.” Second, we must reduce inequality. Monkeys, upon seeing another better rewarded for the same effort, refuse to work. The monkeys’ labor strike suggests that our own sense of fairness was already present 20 million years ago in our last shared ancestor.

Third, we must restructure education. Instead of cramming kids into classrooms to “teach” one curriculum, we must help each child explore natural talents and develop programs to optimize individual growth. Guide education by a conclusion from neuroscience: what we practice, we become.


Editor’s Note: A version of this piece originally appeared in a discussion for the Great Transition Initiative.


Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.


Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.


  1. Peter

    This was a great blog that made a very deep scientific connection between the evolution of our species and the unmet needs and distorted practices of modern society.

    HOWEVER, You end this blog with the following recommendations:

    ” First, we must restructure “work.” Challenge and sociality must trump “efficiency.” Second, we must reduce inequality…”
    “Third, we must restructure education. Instead of cramming kids into classrooms to “teach” one curriculum, we must help each child explore natural talents and develop programs to optimize individual growth. Guide education by a conclusion from neuroscience: what we practice, we become.”

    Unfortunately, there is absolutely NO MENTION of the “elephant in the room.” We live in a profit based capitalist/imperialist structured world, where a tiny minority controls the wealth and overall political reigns of society.

    NONE of the necessary changes you propose can actually take place UNLESS AND UNTIL, there are major systemic changes in the social and political structures across the entire planet.

    We are social beings that REQUIRE cooperative and equal social structures to guide and restructure the world (creating conditions for endless challenges and stimulation) on a continuous basis. This CANNOT happen without a transition to a SOCIALIST WORLD on a transitional path to a completely classless society and world. There is simply no other alternative that will save this planet.

    Without these types of worldwide changes and goals, this planet, and its many species, is unfortunately doomed to either climate destruction, and/or an inevitable world war between competing imperialist countries.

    It is so frustrating to read and hear brilliant minds discuss the existential plight of the human condition and then NEVER acknowledge the enormous “elephant in the room.”


    Report comment

  2. Dr. Sterling returns!

    And though his criticism of our current orientation is incisive, and his recommendations for change fair minded, I am troubled by the introductory sentence indicating that what we are walking into is a “new world order.”

    And I am even more troubled by his reliance on evolutionary psychology as his theoretical basis. It is a false construct.

    While what he says and recommends may be true enough for the human animal, we humans are far more than mere animals! And NO theory based on the idea that we are just animals will open our eyes wide enough to find a positive direction forward.

    If our bodies need regular bursts of dopamine to live well, I am sure the New World Order Technocracy can figure out a way to provide that … to those who survive its vagaries.

    What of freedom? What of higher purpose? What of God or Creator or The Infinite? Are not these, too, real needs? YES! Of animals? Of course not. But that is not what we are; never were, never will be. We are beings, and that has been amply demonstrated, though not amply reported on. And we will seek the future of beings, not of animals. I really hope we do not have to sacrifice another planet to get this right. But if we do, so be it. There will be, perhaps, other chances to get it right. I don’t see the point of waiting, though. The basics of a way forward are clear enough. They are to me, anyway.

    Report comment

  3. Ok, well done. You’ve convinced me to read your book.

    While I agree with Richard above that the current economic system – capitalism – thrives on all of the conditions that make us ill and miserable, I also think it’s probably too late to change the trajectory for humans (indeed, all of earth’s species) as we have long since passed the 3.5C change in global temperature that predicts runaway climate change. I think there is merit to Paul Beckwith’s suggestion to mourn the end of the species rather than fight an outcome that almost seems completely inevitable at this point. Some models suggest a blue ocean event could occur as early as 2024.

    At the most base level, though, that systems change are or would be required to return humans to optimal functioning, I think you’re spot on. Interesting essay and I look forward to reading your books.

    Report comment

  4. Yes, i.e., we’re getting into scary stuff here. Galloping totalitarianism. Despite some disagreements on other matters I hear you. I don’t see a rosy future, at least not in the short term, unless someone comes up with a new approach to unite people around shared goals.

    The very idea of a “pre-covid” and “post-covid” world is buying into a hyper-Orwellian agenda taking place at a higher level than individual politicians or administrations. Covid should not be the reference point for history. Wherever it came from (more on that next) it’s a virus, with about the same mortality rate as the flu, but let’s not get into that please. NO ONE wants it. Those most susceptible to catastrophic consequences need to be protected, educated in how to protect themselves and assisted in doing so. Anyone who minimizes this is making a mistake.

    Having said that, the Spanish flu killed WAY more people and we don’t view history in terms of “pre-Spanish flu” and “post-Spanish flu.” So at the very least I think much of this is social engineering gone wild, with various interests jumping into a mode of “never let a good crisis go to waste.” There are all sorts of agendas in play here, not all of them necessarily interlocking, but it’s been obvious to many people from the start that there’s something fishy going on.

    Also, why is it suddenly “conspiracy theory” to wonder how and why all this could come about the way it has? Why aren’t we supposed to care? I notice how we are discouraged from questioning the official story behind the genesis of covid 19 in Wuhan, site of biowarfare research, and how most are not even aware that “The Fauci” was (and possibly still is) involved in financing joint American-Chinese “frankenstein” projects such as — you guessed it — genetically engineering bat viruses to be transmissible to humans. I kid you not.

    This also has much to do with capitalism, but so-called leftists are garbling the issues. To me it seems reasonable, using the Occam’s Razor approach, to at least tentatively conclude that covid, whatever its purpose, is a joint U.S./China project. But those who are onto this generally get diverted by the myth that the Chinese govt. is “communist” and view this all in Cold War terms. But today the U.S. and China are the world’s top two CAPITALIST states (Russia ranks third or possibly lower). They compete for prizes, but their paramount interest is holding together the international multicorporate empire, at least until one of the two remaining fish starts to eat the other. (Looking at it from this vantage point in history my money would be on the Chinese fish, barring some sort of correction.)

    It is a result of capitalism that we live on a toxic planet polluted by corporate waste and eat a toxic diet promoted by the same system that floods us with drugs and chemicals to suppress the symptoms of the many diseases which result. As a result many people’s immune systems no longer function and they are oblivious to the information their bodies are desperately trying to communicate till it’s too late. And now we’re supposed to entrust with our lives the same AMA and corporate medical establishments who got us here in the first place?

    Surprised MIA is all of the sudden providing this opening for covid related discussions. Because of the divisive potential I hope to move on to more pressing things, but the above pretty much sums up my attitude on all things covid.

    Report comment


      Just to be clear, there was never any kind of ban on the SUBJECT of COVID. The last conversation was shut down because of the tone of the participants, and the escalating personalization and attacking nature of the comments. Facts and experiences on any subject are always welcome to be discussed, as long as it is within the Posting Guidelines.

      Report comment

    • Oldhead

      You have made some statements about Covid 19, regarding its overall lethality and dangers, that do not match with current credible scientific summations. You are repeating similar type statements that you made in MIA comments last summer, when you predicted that Covid 19 would most likely disappear in the fall.The reality has become quite the opposite, where there is now a massive increase in Covid 19 infections and related deaths. Oldhead, are you able to be self critical about these past statements, and reconsider your depth of understanding regarding the important science related to this pandemic.

      You have also made serious allegations regarding Dr. Fauci and the origins of Covid 19 that have NO verifiable truth to them. Yes, Fauci worked with some Chinese scientists on various types of pandemic PREVENTION efforts, but there is NO credible evidence that this virus is man made, or somehow part of some nefarious form of biological warfare by the Chinese.

      If we hope to be taken serious in our anti-psychiatry activism and writings, we cannot allow ourselves to be accused of irresponsible journalism by repeating unproven theories that quite often have the word “conspiracy” attached to them.This kind of volatile speculation (not based in scientific fact) only serves to undercut a person’s role as an anti-psychiatry activist, or any other type of political activist.

      You said: “… it’s { Covid 19} a virus, with about the same mortality rate as the flu…”
      This is a false statement that dangerously understates the overall risks related to Covid 19 and the necessity for people to practice safe measures. Read the Lancet study linked below for more a more accurate account of Covid 19’s lethality.

      You said: “The very idea of a “pre-covid” and “post-covid” world is buying into a hyper-Orwellian agenda taking place at a higher level than individual politicians or administrations. Covid should not be the reference point for history.”

      The Covid 19 pandemic is ONLY, AT BEST, HALF WAY THROUGH ITS DAMAGING HISTORICAL COURSE OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EFFECTS ON THE PLANET. This pandemic will have even more damaging and extreme polarizing type effects on the underdeveloped world (and under classes in 1st world countries) as it continues its spread across the planet.

      You said: ” “The Fauci” was (and possibly still is) involved in financing joint American-Chinese “frankenstein” projects such as — you guessed it — genetically engineering bat viruses to be transmissible to humans. I kid you not.”

      These are misleading statements (again, not based in verifiable evidence) that not only maligns Fauci’s reputation, but also feeds into a lot of wild type speculation that ends up being anti-science. You have provided no sources for these theories, and project them as accepted fact.

      If you are repeating the far out views of Dr. Peter Breggin (who has unfortunately totally lost his political and scientific compass), then you must also be overlooking his “herd immunity” approach (also Trump’s unspoken approach) for Covid 19, and his rabid promotion of the drug, hydroxycloroquine. Both of these approaches to Covid 19 have proven (on a world scale) to be a disastrous path to follow when dealing with this particular pandemic.

      BTW, I am not without criticisms of Dr. Fauci, who I think overall “enabled” the oppressive leadership of Trump for a much too long of a period. He would have had a much more powerful effect, on promoting science and the truth about Covid, if he had resigned early on, and held his own separate press conferences refuting the criminal approach of the Trump/Pence regime.

      You said: ” Because of the divisive potential I hope to move on to more pressing things, but the above pretty much sums up my attitude on all things covid.”

      Oldhead, it is not a responsible approach (while in the middle of a deadly pandemic) to just toss out a few major pieces of potential disinformation on Covid 19, and then say you want “…move on to more pressing things.”

      These are “life and death” type issues – do you really expect (or want) people to just ignore them and “move on.”

      Covid 19, and ALL the political and scientific debates surrounding the pandemic, is a major “bellwether” for future evaluations of where to place our trust in scientific spokespeople, and other potential political leaders trying to transform the world into a more humane place to live.


      Report comment

      • I’m not arguing with you. This has been my consistent position and I’m sticking to it till shown evidence to the contrary. If anyone is interested in documentation they can ask. But winning an argument about something neither of us can definitively prove or disprove is less important to me than maintaining anti-psychiatry solidarity among survivors at MIA, who have a range of strongly held views on the lockdowns and this rush to get people vaccinated.

        Most of the self-proclaimed “left” has abandoned the working class and small business people in favor of alliances with neoliberal corporate totalitarianism. We are entering an age of unprecedented censorship, repression and Newspeak. Those who see this see it, those who don’t are either in denial or complicit.

        Report comment

        • As we approach nearly a half million casualties from Covid 19, I am simply amazed at the levels of denial and avoidance of reality related to this pandemic.

          It is NOT hyperbolic to say that with proper attention to genuine KNOWABLE science and appropriate leadership, at least half of these deaths were preventable in the U.S.

          The Covid 19 pandemic is a major scientific and political challenge facing humanity in REAL TIME. This is a test of one’s (individuals and institutions) ability to apply genuine science when there is such enormous stakes at hand for all of humanity.

          Since when do we shrink away from our important moral imperatives because it might somehow create some disagreements within our ranks. Let’s not bow before such a crude form of pragmatism – there is no progress without struggle.


          Report comment

          • Richard,

            While I agree in principle with your position on Covid and it’s harms, including the extraordinary number of dead, I don’t entirely disagree with Oldhead’s assertion that it is reasonable to question the origins of this pandemic and to whom it is serving. I also agree with him that we are flogging a dead horse and this is distracting and draining energy from more important AP struggles. Survivor solidarity even when we disagree, which is frequent and on a number of topics, is and will remain our priority. And so I am going to personally ask the both of you publicly to bury this hatchet and move on.

            Report comment

          • KS

            As you know, I have deep respect for your past writings on Covid 19. I also agree that it is reasonable to question all the assertions from those in power regarding this pandemic, BUT we must be very careful and responsible how we go about it.

            Covid 19 has taken its deadly toll on many victims of psychiatric oppression, as those past blogs about its rapid spread and lack of protection in many psychiatric facilities (prisons). This will still be the case as we go forward.

            Given the fact that this pandemic will most likely be around (in some form or another) for quite some time in the future, we all will be confronting many ongoing scientific and related political questions in real time. This will be a challenge we cannot avoid.

            Given the level of polarization in today’s society (with a strong pre-civil war type tenor to it), every political movement (including the struggle against psychiatric oppression) will be confronted with difficult questions regarding science and competing narratives in the dissemination of news.

            The proliferation of theories in social media (and elsewhere) that have the word “conspiracy” attached to them, are incredibly disruptive and corrosive to ALL political movements for change.

            We must find a way, RIGHT NOW, to start sorting this out (even at the risk of initially losing some people) or it will come back to haunt us in ways that will seriously hold back and/or destroy righteous political movements. This is why I stressed the dangers of resorting to “pragmatism” in my previous comment.

            There is not much more I can say at this time. I am still concerned and disappointed that others here at MIA don’t share these same concerns at this time.

            KS, thanks for the feedback; I do take your words very seriously.


            Report comment

      • Richard D Lewis: With all due respect, each one of use must question the whole Covid19 scenario. Everything must be questioned, including cases, deaths, mandates, restrictions, and of course, its origin. It is imperative for us to really know the whole truth about this. Additionally, as this Covid19 thing began to evolve, I saw many resemblances on a grander scale to what each individual psychiatric survivor, including myself has endured and reported. I think it is very important and does not impede our goal as psychiatric survivors in our goal for justice and truth to both question and to also have different opinions, etc. about this pandemic or anything that does happen in government, society, healthcare, etc. Although, we have one major goal, we are not a monolith. We need to welcome discussion, disagreement, etc. If we do not, we will never achieve or goal. I am truly sorry for all those who have died and all those who have suffered. Much of the suffering is due to the ramifications of these political decisions masquerading as “public health decisions.” This is a great tragedy no matter how it came about. But, there is one more point, I would like to bring up. What about the deaths from psychiatric abuse, especially “big pharma’s input?” But, “big pharma” important as it is in the psychiatric lie is not the only ones driving the suffering, destruction and death. How many good, decent people with names and families and lives and loves and dreams, etc. have we lost to psychiatry? I imagine no pandemic, no war, no environmental catastrophe could ever measure up as to the real amount of those lost? As we mourn the loss of those who succumbed to covid, let us also mourn the loss of those to psychiatry, its lies, and abuses? Thank you.

        Report comment

        • Rebel

          I agree that here has long been a “pandemic” of violence, death, and overall oppression for the millions of victims of psychiatry over many decades.

          And I believe this will only continue until we have major systemic type changes in the world. Psychiatry, and their entire paradigm of so-called “treatment,” is just too valuable and necessary to the status quo to be allowed to be abolished, short of a genuine *Revolution* eliminating a profit based type economic and political system.

          And the current pandemic has provided much fertile ground for psychiatry and their Disease/Drug Based Medical Modal, to actually expand their control in the coming period. With increased isolation and levels of anxiety in the world, Big Pharma and psychiatry are lurking like vultures, ready to pounce on a new generation of potential victims. Benzo prescriptions are way up, as just one particular scary example of what dangers lie before us.

          And these new victims will be in addition to all those already lost to Covid in the locked psychiatric facilities where no safety was provided.

          You said: “Much of the suffering is due to the ramifications of these political decisions masquerading as “public health decisions.”

          I hope you are ready to hold accountable the past political leadership (the Trump/Pence regime) in this country who denied the pandemic and virtually took no action to mitigate deaths. Operation “Warp Speed” was just political “capital” that was quickly forgotten as soon as the election was over. This is negligent homicide on a mass scale, leading to several hundred thousand preventable deaths.

          “Public health decisions” have been a mixed bag that have taken place in the ABSENCE of any genuine science or humane compassion emanating from the highest levels of government, and/or guiding a sane approach to this medical catastrophe.

          Respectfully, Richard

          Report comment

      • Hey Richard –

        Even if you don’t look at where it came from, it is here now, and it is killing people. In the nursing home where my mother is, 30 of the 200 residents have died. Were they all COVID? Or complications with the illnesses and challenges which put them in the nursing home to begin with? How does this number compare to “normal” nursing home deaths in this facility? We don’t get these numbers.

        But Fauci? Isn’t it strange that he has conflict of interest that he is not informing the public about. He has had stock, investment, and research time invested in developing an mRNA vaccine at least 10 years prior to now. Everyone wonders how they produced this vaccine so quickly? Well, it was already in development before this COVID thing hit. And Fauci owns stock in it (as well as research and other investment in it). Is it any wonder that he wants us all to take it? That the WHOLE WORLD will be taking this vaccine which he has financial and substantial interest in?

        People stand to profit immensely from this vaccine gig, Fauci chief among them. You rail against capitalism, and yet stand by the lies that we are being told.

        And like with any drug trial, these vaccines have only been trialled for 6 week periods – we will not see the long term effects of an mRNA vaccine until much further down the line. If you think about the “safe and effective” psych drugs we’ve been inflicted with, how can we trust something as universal as this vaccine?

        Add to it the totalitarian “vaccine passport” which is coming. Here in Australia we might be refused entry to certain venues if we cannot prove we are vaccinated. We might even need vaccine passports to cross state borders in the near future. As it is, our state borders are frequently close to people from “hot spots.” They aren’t talking about the “vaccine passports” yet, but it will effectively separate Australians into two classes: the vaccinated, and the non-vaccinated. And the former group will have the rights of a free society, while the others? We’ll see.

        It is dystopian, and the capitalist profits will be feeding the fat cats at the top, while we take the risks of injecting this vaccine into our bodies – making permanent changes to our RNA (not our DNA, we are assured) so that our bodies are more likely to reject coronaviruses.

        But that’s okay, take the vaccine, feel safe, trust the mainstream science that got us into this mess. I find it difficult to rail against psych drugs but then – out of the other side of my mouth – to praise the “science” that brought them to us, which is being used to roll out other “cures” and “solutions.”

        Report comment

  5. He also misses the idea of treating chronic diseases without drugs, but with diet and nutrients, as well as exercise and activities. For example, megadose niacin is the best treatment at the moment for abnormal cholesterol, but there are no fortunes to be made from using it therapeutically- the reason there are so many useless cholesterol drugs is that pharmaceutical companies are much more interested in turning a profit than actually treating abnormal cholesterol properly. Big-time medicine is actually just a part of this battle for the bucks.

    Report comment

    • When a “new idea” does not address corruption in the system, or even the potential for corruption, but just assumes that we need “better technology” I get suspicious. That approach fuels the fires of industry without doing anything to protect people for abuses. We are slipping into an age where the “great new technologies” of 20 or 30 or 40 years ago are now being used to enslave us. We need to address that problem first.

      Report comment

  6. I can see this discussion will probably become heated before we just get tired of it. As far as the U.S., China and Russia are concerned, I consider them “capitalist” in the most perverted sense of the word. All three now reflect capitalism gone bad or in some instances, even evil. One commentator sees “Socialism” as the answer. Actually, one time, I had a “dream” about “socialism.” In reality it was a nightmare. It was dark and gloomy. It sounds nice to have a “classless society and world” but, perhaps too nice. It could end up being a utopia turned upside down into a dystopia. I would caution “beware” of things that look too good. By the way, oldhead, is speaking truth about “covid.”
    In my humble opinion, the real problem with our society and China, Russia and others is the lack of acknowledgement of the individual. Education, government, medicine, etc. and especially psychiatry all disregard the sovereignty of the person. In my way of thinking and I do not expect everyone to agree, the sovereignty of the person is the sovereignty of God. However, I do think that no matter how religious or even our political beliefs, we need to value each person as a unique composition of Nature. I am afraid that a socialist world can not deliver this and as far as our capitalist world, now perverted, it obviously can not, will not, or is unwilling todo this. Until, each one of us is a prisoner and “covid” is only a symptom. Thank you.

    Report comment

    • Hi again. Just to get some of my terms straight, as I don’t want you to feel down the line like I’ve misled you, be it known that I also believe the immediate goal is socialism, however the term socialism is used so many ways as to be virtually meaningless in everyday discussions. Even true socialism is meant to be a temporary means to an end — the end of class rule. However many marxists and even some Maoists would disassociate themselves from my take on many things.

      Economically the U.S., China and Russia all represent different permutations of capitalism, but not deviations from its essential nature. True socialism would not obliterate the individual, but most “socialists” today don’t have a clue, and certainly don’t represent the working class. And the Hannitys of the world are out to lunch when they point to the Clintons of the world, corrupt capitalist warlords that they are, as “socialists.” This is why I try to focus on principles and not rhetoric, as the goal should be finding an answer, not winning a debate. And none of this theoretical quibbling leads to enlightenment or finding a winning strategy for defeating psychiatry, which is a goal shared by those of many political philosophies and orientations.

      Hopefully we can continue this sometime, maybe in another forum.

      Report comment

  7. What a load of balogna going on too long to have any meaning beyond the first or second scroll or so, and one takes the knife to make it fit in the sandwich.

    To begin with, we’ve always had immune systems, going around in circles, insulting them, all of them, in the process, and then making out we ever had anything to do with how it came out, when we had to finally step out of insulting circles and the immune system, this is “science!?”

    Maybe studying the domestication of cows, and then how all domesticated animals (including lab workers) have been incubating what kills off those that knew better beforehand in the process might bring one to a better understanding of those that did survive, despite knowing better, and being amongst most of those that haven’t or don’t survive. No one asks them, to begin with.

    Oh, and cows give out pus in their milk as well. We have pustules ourselves that collect what it’s made out should help with healing but that’s called “inflation,” along with all the means to stop it. Not Wall street and it’s whole “federal” reserve, but pustules and how much everything is already going to go up again, but the very stuff in our bodies meant to heal is called “inflation,” is called inflammation. Try listening to THOSE bubbles, and stop going on about what you have no idea isn’t going to turn out, and call it “science!”

    And if anyone cared to really study “pustules,” they might find out they have been doing what this RNA replication does to create fragments that liven up the immune system, and have been doing that for ages.

    Or is it going to continue that those that know better are dedicated to science as “trolls” with antennae!?

    Report comment

  8. This is one of the most important blogs ever published at MIA! This blog was not properly introduced; Peter Sterling is one of the most eminent neuroscientists in the world and he just called “bullshit” on psychiatry! An international leader in neuroscience just said that natural stress (especially work alienation) causes the predominance of health problems (and all “mental health” problems?).
    However, Peter Sterling expresses a typical “subjectivity” problem with understanding evolutionary theory when he states that: “Finally, evolution gave us the capacity to grow our skills over decades. Our species core need is to fulfill these capacities.” Like most neuroscientists, Peter fails to understand that evolution gave us “our species core need” of survival.

    Report comment

    • Yes, this is the same Peter Sterling that stood up against ECT (shock therapy) all those years ago!

      But evolution is a very faulty model. I no longer subscribe to it to any great degree. It only covers the body, for one thing, leaving Spirit entirely out of the equation.

      And what we have learned from Spirit seems to stand most ideas about evolution on their heads. Evolution has been very soundly brought into doubt on its own merits, as well. To me, it’s as old fashioned as a flat Earth.

      Report comment

    • Hey Steve, I totally agree with your first statement. It wasn’t until I looked him up that I realized he had developed the concept of allostatic load. He’s no ordinary neuroscientist calling bullshit on psychiatry; he’s basically the godfather of the very concept of there being social determinants of health.

      I’m also not convinced on your last statement. I don’t think evolution gave us our species core need of survival. I think evolution is rather the result of survival. Survival of the fittest being the core concept of Darwin’s theory of evolution. I think our core need, which contributes to survival of the species, is actually reproduction. The drive to reproduce is fundamental to many of the other needs he mentioned such as exploration, risk taking, and regular small rewards.

      Report comment

      • Thank you for directing me to Sterling’s theory of allostatic load; it supports my criticism of his definitive neuroscience text: The Principles of Neural Design. Consistent with your better understanding of evolutionary theory, Sterling addresses specific details of an ambiguous theory before any agreement on general principles (I consider reproduction fundamental to survival). I asked Sterling but I should’ve asked you: doesn’t my science at explain and resolve anomalies of current science theory while explaining human psychology including “mental disorders?”

        Report comment

      • Mmm. “Survival of the fittest” is kind of an economic monster which has been thrown onto evolution.

        New work is coming out that shows “survival of the cooperative” is stronger than “survival of the fittest.”

        That those who join together in solidarity and mutual support are what creates the next rung of evolution. This fits well with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, that as we develop past Survival needs (tooth and claw) and into Social (families, communities), that is where the rubber meets the road.

        Report comment

  9. Thank you Peter for this excellent article.
    “To get from here to a better place unavoidably requires that we speculate—project beyond what is known. But we should try to launch from solid ground.”

    How true.
    I think it is imperative to change our information to the young. We need to educate them about the false science that new and upcoming scientists take part in. Our kids are learning that speculation and hypothesis are facts.

    Report comment

  10. Info on this for people to discover how diabolical and unhuman it is –

    Patrick M Woo‪d‬ The Delingpod: The James Delingpole Podcast

    “…has been writing about the New World Order and the terrifying cult of Technocracy for nearly 50 years. In possibly the most important Delingpod ever, Patrick warns about the clear and present threat posed by the Great Reset. He talks about its origins, the threats it poses to our way of life and why it must be resisted NOW.”

    “James talks again to Patrick Wood (author of Technocracy Rising) about the Great Reset: why it’s happening, how dangerous is it, who are the key players, how close is it to fruitition, how scared should we be…”

    Report comment