Where in the Bible does it say that kombucha helps, you halfwit?

Recently, on social networks, every educated person could enjoy his intellectual superiority over a halfwitted faith-healer (at the same time a certified and still practicing doctor with 32 years of experience in the USA) Gunta Vīlere, who in a Youtube interview with Līga Krapāne pointed out, among other things, that various probiotics, including tea fungus kombucha, help against Covid.

Oh, what arose from that! What anger! A crowd of supposedly educated people (almost all of them with higher education diplomas in their pockets) demanded burning Vīlere at the stake (the cancellation of her medical license) and competed in witticisms on how to show more contempt for the doctor and thus appear smarter in their own eyes. Even the notorious "debunkers" of news that the government doesn't like, Re:Check (what else can you call an institution that, instead of checking the truth of every statement and announcement that is important to the citizens and made by the government and its subordinate institutions, is engaged in "debunking" various fringe conspiracy theories) rushed to "debunk" this "lying" statement.

All the shaming, debunking and ridiculing of Vīlere was based on one basic argument - where is it written? Where is the "science-based" evidence? At this point, however, the first question to be answered is "what is science?" There is a field interview on the Internet with a well-known ecologist, Allan Savory, born in 1935 in Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia), who has spent his life on the savannah studying and observing animals in the wild. Here is how this scientist with a capital S answers the question: what is science? I recommend everyone to watch this interview.

"People are coming out of the university with a master's degree or a PhD and you take them into the field and they literally don't believe anything unless it is a peer-reviewed paper! That's the only thing they accept. And you say them, "Let's observe, let's think, let's discuss." They don't do it. It's just, "Is it in a peer-reviewed paper, or not?" That's their view of science! I think it's pathetic!

Gone into universities as bright young people - they come out of them brain dead, not even knowing what science means. They think it means peer-reviewed papers etc. No, that's academia! And if a paper is peer-reviewed, it means everybody thought the same, therefore they approved it. An unintended consequence is that when new knowledge emerges, new scientific insights, they can never ever be peer-reviewed. So, we're blocking all new advances in science, that are big advances. If you look at the breakthroughs in science, almost always they don't come from the center of that profession - they come from the fringe. The finest candle makers in the world couldn't even think of electric lights. They don't come from within, they often come from the outside the bricks. We're going to kill ourselves because of stupidity."

So it doesn't matter how it really is. What matters is what is written in authoritative publications. Which line in Aristotle or Plato (Lancet publication) supports your view? I recall that the main argument in the inquisition court against Galileo Galilei's statement that the Earth revolved around the Sun was: where in the Bible does it say that? To be precise, that it says something completely different. Let us quote the final verdict of the second trial in 1633 (Galileo's first trial was in 1615): "...although in the said book you strive by various devices to produce the impression that you leave it [that the Earth revolves around the Sun] undecided, and in express terms as probably: which, however, is a most grievous error, as an opinion can in no wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture..."

In other words, no medical thing can be possible if it does not conform to the Lancet model of the medical universe.

Let us look at the fabrications of another well-known charlatan and misinformer with a medical degree in Latvia - Pēteris Apinis. While he has not been silenced yet (soon the Bordāns/Judins amendments to Section 183.1 of the LSSR Criminal Code "For spreading false fabrications with the aim of undermining the existing order" will be adopted, and then it will be easier to neutralize all of them). Here is the quote:

"There is already a lot of research in the world on the correlation of the severity of the course of Covid-19 with a healthy microbiome (the collection of microorganisms that inhabit our body). And the conclusion is that a good, rich and healthy microbiome may be the reason why people can easily get over Covid-19 without symptoms. More and more doctors around the world are prescribing prebiotics and probiotics to their patients as a preventive measure against Covid-19 (which is why I follow with great interest the recommendations of colleagues to use tea mushroom, sour-milk products, sauerkraut etc. for Covid-19 prophylaxis). A healthy diet rich in prebiotics and probiotics is not a miracle cure, nor is a vaccine that directly protects against Covid-19, but a healthy microbiome indirectly protects the body."

Hahaha. What nonsense! Sauerkraut will protect your body! The old man's completely lost it! He's gone totally crazy! Even Re:Check doesn't debunk this. It's too obviously halfwitted.

But let us now imagine for a moment that sauerkraut does indeed develop a microbiome in the human body that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not like. Let us just imagine. If the herpes virus does not like the tea mushroom, why shouldn't the causative agent of Covid not like, say, sauerkraut? I would like to stress that I am not talking about sauerkraut in particular, nor about Covid, nor even about Apinis. I am speaking only in general terms, in metaphors.

Let us imagine for a moment that sauerkraut helps. But how does this effective remedy get into the medical guidelines? Only after publication in the Lancet. But how to get inside this medical bible? Large, long-term, expensive studies must be carried out with an experimental group, a control group, then repeated again to remove any doubt and avoid any suspicion that regular use of sauerkraut could cause adverse reactions. All right, such studies can be carried out for the benefit of mankind. But who will pay for them? Not Pfizer or any of the other pharmaceutical giants. Why would they need such discoveries? Then perhaps the Dimdiņi farm, as the leading Latvian producer of sauerkraut, will finance this research? In all likelihood, such a discovery would have no chance of seeing the light of day, because it would have been swallowed up by the crowd of educated mockers before anyone even dared to mention the research.

So that there is no misunderstanding, I repeat that I am not talking about sauerkraut and I am not for one moment claiming that sauerkraut, tea mushroom or some deworming remedy helps against Covid. I am talking about new developments in science and about the prejudices that are holding this back. However, since we have mentioned Ivermectin, which people so love to mock, we should not forget that the famous Viagra was also originally intended as a means of regulating the heartbeat.

Returning directly to the Apinis article, I thought the most valuable part of it was another insight that captures the quintessence of the crowd's understanding of vaccination: "I understand the vaccine as a particular segment of RNA in a microliposome, whereas Daniels Pavļuts understands it as a jab in the shoulder."

And that's the whole high and mighty "science".