International public health is a mess. Once seen generally as a public good, the focus of the World Health Organization (WHO) now more closely resembles a scheme for extracting private profit from the public purse. Wealthy corporations drive a ‘public-private partnership’ agenda, the foundations of the rich determine global priorities, and a propagandized public are ever more removed from decision-making regarding their own well-being.
Lockdowns were neither prudent nor essential. It’s not as if government officials considered the collateral damage to be inflicted on the economy, society, and health by the lockdowns and then rationally concluded that the benefits of locking down outweighed these costs.
Lockdowns Were Anything but “Prudent and Essential” Read More
Liberalism unleashes human flourishing and creativity better than any other path in history. But any theory built around the sovereignty of the individual inevitably bumps up against human weakness and human frailty as well.
Moral emergencies are the times when our principles are most vulnerable to negotiation and even complete collapse.
The past two decades have witnessed the increasing divergence of two schools of thought within global public health. The Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent pandemic preparedness and response (PPR) agenda have brought these to a level of vitriol, dividing the public health community. Health is a basic human need, and fear of ill health is a powerful tool for changing human behavior. Ensuring the integrity of public health policy is therefore critical for a well-functioning society.
A Reevaluation of the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Agenda Read More
A plague, a pestilence, a pandemic seemed more promising. Past naturally occurring pandemics had reduced human populations much more successfully than wars. The Black Death of 1346-53 may have reduced the world population by as much as 25 percent, a much more encouraging number than the measly 3 percent from World War II. As an added economic bonus, the Black Death served as a very effective concentrator of wealth for the survivors, as it caused minimal collateral property loss.
This period of our lives has shattered the hopes and dreams of millions and billions of people, and practically buried the ideal of freedom as an anachronism in a new age of corporatist totalitarianism. The neo-Hegelians in our midst condescend to us and say that this is just how things are and there is nothing to be done about it. This is not true.
In one of the more bizarre moments at the Covid Inquiry so far, Professor Neil Ferguson, the architect of Britain’s lockdown, today denied ever calling for the first national stay-at-home order – in the latest instance of lockdown backpedalling.
Professor Lockdown Denies Ever Calling for Lockdown Read More
If we use our ability to measure without any additional context, we can continue to add alerts until normal life is impossible. What would happen if there were official alerts for temperatures 0.001 degrees higher or lower than the normal range, wind speeds in excess of 15 mph, the UV index being too strong, cloud cover too low, or the chance of rain too high? Should we cancel events? Stay home? Stay safe?
Australia’s new Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 seeks to impose a wide-ranging set of new obligations, very loosely defined, that will constitute offences if not complied with. The obligations fall on digital services providers, who must either comply with a yet-to-be-registered code, or comply with a code that ACMA will determine.
Will You Be Convicted of Spreading Misinformation? Read More
Until we have meaningful reconciliation, amnesty will merely cement the incumbents’ hold on academic, media, and narrative power, all but ensuring we repeat the failures of pandemic public health policy. Thus, for those of us who anticipated the harms to kids, we can further anticipate the harms of granting mercy to those whose trembling, intolerant hands still hold the cannons.
Offit distinguishes between broad and nuanced messaging. Nuanced messaging is telling people who should have the medication and who should not. Broad messaging is telling people everyone should have the medication, whether they need it or not. But in the end, all he is really doing is to distinguish between telling the truth and lying.
