If these rules are strenuously enforced, millions of videos, interviews, television shows, lectures, press conferences, and scientific presentations will disappear. Maybe tens of millions actually. And all in the name of protecting “science” against its corruption, as if YouTube should be the determinant of what constitutes good science.
Brownstone Institute Policy articles feature opinion and analysis of global policy in news, economics, public health, public dialog, and social life. Policy articles are machine-translated into multiple languages.
My life will be much easier getting the jab in Germany but my heart keeps saying that I should not take it from my ethical and moral standpoint. Perhaps, I will have no choice left in the near future if the governments introduce the general vaccine mandate for COVID. However, I think the western governments should donate these vaccines and support more to the poorer nations instead of vaccinating the children and mandating the vaccines for those who dot not need them.
What follows is the current totality of the body of evidence (available comparative studies and high-level pieces of evidence, reporting, and discussion) on COVID-19 lockdowns, masks, school closures, and mask mandates. There is no conclusive evidence supporting claims that any of these restrictive measures worked to reduce viral transmission or deaths. Lockdowns were ineffective, school closures were ineffective, mask mandates were ineffective, and masks themselves were and are ineffective and harmful.
A careful reading of Jacobson shows that it is not just an automatic consideration allowing the government to do what it wants when a pandemic emergency has been officially declared. Covid-19 vaccine mandates do not satisfy any of the required criteria in Jacobson, let alone all of them.
Shannon Robinson is a lead Plantiff who challenged the state of Missouri over what she sees as illegal and unconstitutional covid-19 policies mandated by the Department of Health and Senior Services. In this interview, she talks about her motivations and the process, and the widespread sufferings experienced by her and millions of others.
On November 6, 2020, the Journal of the American Medical Association sponsored an important debate between Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya and Harvard’s Marc Lisitch over the policy response to the pandemic. They have very different points of view, with Jay favoring “focussed protection” and traditional public health measures, while Marc is on the side of the novel “non-pharmaceutical intervention” side, e.g. lockdowns.
The war on absinthe – this won’t surprise you – created the opposite of its intended effect. It raised the status of the drink and created a completely unwarranted hysteria in both directions: overconsumption followed by bans followed by speakeasy indulgence. Can you think of anything else, perhaps, that has fit that general model? Marijuana perhaps? Liquor in general? Tobacco? Politically incorrect speech?
With natural exposure immunity and early outpatient treatment and when combined with no reports of increased lethality, the WHO’s reaction of generating panic toward “Omicron” is causing needless fear and panic. So too with the Biden administration’s newly imposed travel restrictions, which will achieve nothing and will once again disrupt trade and violate human rights.