The evidence accumulated very early on in the pandemic that the use of sequenced multi-drug therapeutics (SMDT) under physician guidance was beneficial and that some medications were safe and effective. We refer to repurposed therapeutics that have been regulatory approved and have been used in some instances for decades for other illnesses.
Early Outpatient Treatment for COVID-19: The Evidence Read More
If anything has demonstrated that Rothbard was correct about the fallacy of the Whig theory, and the capacity of humanity suddenly to act and total ignorance of what was once widely known, it is these last two years of folly.
Will we live with illogical fear and behaviors for years? Or will we use facts to take back the lives we value?
These seemingly scientific slogans – flatten the curve, slow the spread, socially distance, track-and-trace – mask deeply dangerous policy ideas that can ruin life for everyone, and utterly destroy health and human liberty itself. The film is right: pandemic controls are an existential threat.
The CDC director’s tweet won’t settle all the COVID19 debates, but it is an admission that our current policies have failed and must be abandoned. We cannot eradicate the virus. We have to live with it, and balance it against all the other important things: school, work, and our mental health.
Infection can be avoided for weeks or months or perhaps years, but eventually, the virus will touch all human beings who touch another person. Under these circumstances, we should differentiate between two classes of interventions.
The Covid policies we see today in Canada are the product of pretending for two years that Covid can be stopped, that no trade-offs exist when it comes to Covid, and shunning debate on even the most obvious trade-offs and alternative Covid policies. The lack of attention to the human and economic costs of Canada’s Covid response has been appalling.
What Sotomayer said about machines and humans was not rooted in ignorance as such; it was the fulfillment of the delusions of countless intellectuals the world over for most of this century. She was summarizing countless papers and presentations in the form of a casual quip, thus revealing it for the fundamental insanity that it truly is.
My highest hope is that the majority opinion here, if it goes the right way, will not be narrow and evasive, picking apart the mandate based on technicalities, but sweeping and fundamental. It should say in no uncertain terms that this mandate should never have been issued and that the court should never have to intervene in such matters in the future.
Malone isn’t a crazed conspiracy theorist: He’s a man who’s intimately familiar with the benefits and the risks of vaccines. He’s a proponent of informed consent. Perhaps before letting someone inject a vaccine into your body, you should be fully informed of the risks involved, he says. He isn’t an unreasonable man.
If an enterprise mostly created and funded by the NSF cannot utilize scientific reasoning and accept normalcy where there is no Covid, how can we trust our scientific institutions to seek to in the rest of the world, where Covid is here to stay?
