I have also read with astonishment the article Little Revolutions of Ángel Erro that have been sent to me by some friends, amazed. Based on the chronicle of the initiative, Garbiñe Larrea criticizes the words that have been spoken in the discourse Twelve medicinal plants and an endless number of knowledge in our tradition. I believe, I say, because I sincerely believe that the difference between the superficial summary I make of my speech and the conclusions that Erro draws is too great.

This is what I wrote in the chronicle (how incomodable to do): “Garbiñe Larrea shared the secrets of medicinal plants with their listeners this Thursday afternoon. With fascinating wisdom and fluidity, he has unearthed the eleven of the twelve medicinal herbs that can be found in the ‘margins of the paths’: nettles, fox tail, herb insole, chicory, pasmo, verbena... What are appropriate (or dangerous), how, how long, and at what dose. How to experiment with herbs and learn in a self-managed way to free oneself from the dependence of the pharmaceutical industry through popular knowledge. Although the herb pasmo is ‘extremely toxic’, it offers protection against infectious diseases transmitted by air with ‘minimalist’ infusion – ‘I am giving hint’–. Because the insole is ideal for ligaments and sprains, as well as to improve breathing: ‘Of the 20 syrups they offer in pharmacies, 15 have a grass template, and some just with that herb.’

Erro summarizes these words and concludes the following: “I stumbled upon the summary of the talk about medicinal herbs (how to experiment with grass and learn in a self-managed way to free myself from the dependence of the pharmaceutical industry through popular knowledge). Apparently, action has been taken mainly with regard to infusions that can cover cases such as COVID-19. I wonder if one of those small revolutions leads to magufism.”

The reader should assess whether the interpretation is reasonable or not. I think nothing, but I want to make it clear: if someone sees reasons to link “magufism” with what Garbiñe says, that is the responsibility and error of my text, and not what he says. And let us also appreciate whether it is measured to reduce and question a whole popular initiative – the Small Revolutions Camp – to a single feature, starting with a brief mention by a journalist of a conference of 30 conferences. I take this opportunity to invite Angel Erro and all the citizens to listen to the talk in its entirety. If you like, to be able to assess whether the criticism is based, but above all to enjoy the wisdom and pedagogy of Garbiñe (invitation of someone who lives away from the world of herbs).

I believe, however, that the article reflects a more serious and widespread problem: Our inability to discuss COVID-19, ways to understand and manage the health crisis, vaccines and vaccination policies. I refer to the impossibility of discussing constructively and taking into account different reasons, emotions and experiences. Binarism and the fat joke cannot be released: everything that shows a criticism becomes a magufo that denies the existence of the virus; everything that agrees with some measure taken by the institutions is an official slave of the political leaders and the multinationals. Magufism or Bayer? Is this the only option we are going to give? Really? I'm not willing. I have very few answers, more questions than I would like. But I'm clear that only in that big space between the two extremes can we find interesting individual and collective responses. Let's feed it in content and shapes.