Tag: biology

Slyme?

HershbloggerLeave a comment

Long Before Suspicions Arose About A Lab Leak, Government Scientists Were Fiddling With Bugs to Make Them More Deadly

I do not know if the current strain of Lyme disease was a result of gain-of-function research by the United States, but many documented incidents mentioned above are easy to check. I believe the circumstantial evidence is accurately described.

Henry David Thoreau springs to mind: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

Also, when you have substantial concrete evidence of similar, ongoing behaviors.

I have no problem believing the US government might have created a more virulent Lyme disease. At least one of the same players mentioned, Ecohealth, profited from CCP virus gain-of-function research and coverup.

Lyme’s increased virulence may not have been “bioweapons research”… in the same sense (semantic obfuscation) Dr. Fauci employs to deny Ecohealth used NIH money to finance Wuhan Lab conducted coronavirus GoF studies: It depends on the meaning of “is,” you see. To quote an ex-president and frequent flyer on the Lolita Express.

Lyme was definitely bioweapons research adjacent – to pluck a phrase from the CRT & Trans activist vocabulary.

Oh, BTW, while there is no human vaccine for Lyme, there is one for dogs. Make of that what you will.

Fairest of them all?

HershbloggerLeave a comment

Don’t Deny Girls the Evolutionary Wisdom of Fairy-Tales

Cinderella, for example, revolves around the perniciousness of what researchers call “female intrasexual competition”—the often-underhanded ways women compete with each other. While men evolved to be openly competitive, jockeying for position verbally or physically, female competition tends to be covert—indirect and sneaky—and often involves sabotaging another woman into being less appealing to men…

Psychologist Joyce Benenson, who researches sex differences, traces women’s evolved tendency to opt for indirectness—in both competition and communication—to a need to avoid physical altercation, either with men or other women. This strategy would have allowed ancestral women to protect their more fragile female reproductive machinery and to fulfill their roles as the primary caretaker for any children they might have.

This piece is well worth reading in full. The quote above struck me, since I’ve been writing lately about the UBC study saying millennial males place lower value on competitiveness and independence (for two things) than openness and empathy. Presumably, there is a cultural influence at work, and I suspect it is tied into the Feminist push to raise all children to see the world with female eyes.

But competitiveness and independence, and openness and empathy are not the exclusive property of one sex. That competitiveness is considered a ‘male’ trait is true for only the male competitiveness style (open). Female competitiveness is just as intense. It just takes a different, and one could argue, less healthy form.

I could hear Jordan Peterson’s voice in the discussion of the evolutionary biology involved in creating the Cinderella/Snow White archetypes. I was also reminded of his discussion of highly-competent women, in high-pressure professions, he’s helped with assertiveness training. Understanding why one might need assertiveness training would be beneficial, and flatly denying evolutionary lessons in favor of a political agenda would not.