Tag Archives: Public Health

The death throes of the ‘Public Health expert’, by Jordan Schachtel

After the Covid fiasco, the public health profession is in disrepute. From Jordan Schachtel at dossier.substack.com:

A fraudulent profession has been exposed to the world.

The very concept of Public Health, once a rather innocuous term, is facing an extinction level event, and Americans should be incredibly thankful for this development

Sometimes, when a people are faced with a grand crisis, a bold new idea or group of individuals moves humanity forward in ways once thought of as improbable, if not impossible.

But the elevation of the supposed masters of Public Health has achieved the opposite effect. It is now a term that half of America reacts to with some combination of revulsion and mockery, and rightfully so.

Prior to the pandemic, America’s Public Health “experts” were rarely heard or seen. In the past, these forces would arise from obscurity to tell us the world is coming to an end, only to be routinely dismissed, forcing them to crawl back underneath the surface. With COVID Mania, that all changed. And now that we’ve seen what this profession is truly about, many long for the days when the insignificance of the Public Health man is restored to his proper place in society.

Continue reading→

Why are the current Covid-19 mass vaccinations to be considered a public health experiment, by Geert Vanden Bossche

Read this one carefully because the implications are quite disturbing. From Geert Vanden Bossche at geertvandenbossche.org:

Why are the current Covid-19 mass vaccinations to be considered a public health experiment of international concern?

First, there is no precedent to the use of non-replicating viral vaccines in mass vaccination campaigns conducted during a pandemic, or even epidemic, of a highly mutable virus. The challenge of such an undertaking becomes even more difficult as more infectious antigenic variants had already been circulating by the time the first mass vaccination campaigns were initiated (i.e., Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants). Their spread was featured by distinct temporal and geographic patterns, the underlying mechanism of which was not understood. Prior to the start of this universal vaccination program no single publication existed that came even close to suggesting that mass vaccinations using vaccines that permit transmission could be successful in extinguishing a pandemic of a highly mutable virus. No such publication exists to this day, and the idea becomes even more preposterous when considering several infectious variants had already expanded in prevalence by the time the vaccines were rolled out. There is ample evidence from similarly highly mutable RNA viruses like Influenza virus and Enterovirus that expansion in prevalence of antigenic variants is driven by selective immune pressure on viral infectiousness exerted by antibodies, and that antigenic variation diminishes or even abolishes the protective neutralization capacity of Influenza virus or Enterovirus vaccines directed at a specific antigenic lineage (1, 2). Consequently, nonreplicating monovalent enteroviral vaccines, for example, are only used at scale in vaccination campaigns of vulnerable target groups (e.g., children) deployed to fight recurrent epidemics of life-threatening enterovirus infection (e.g., EV-A71) in the Asia Pacific region (3). Interestingly, the US FDA did not approve these vaccines due to ‘concerns about the effectiveness against different pandemic strains, safety, and quality control of vaccine production’ (3).

Mass vaccination programs previously conducted to combat viral epidemics/pandemics (e.g., smallpox, polio, measles, yellow fever) have nothing in common with the ongoing mass vaccination campaigns today as those viruses are very different in terms of their pathogenesis, transmissibility, route of infection, potential reservoirs, predominant effector mechanisms involved in antiviral immunity, susceptibility of population segments, as well as with regard to the vaccines used (all prior vaccination campaigns involved live-attenuated virus).

Continue reading→

Why “Public Health” is the Health of the State, by Thomas DiLorenzo

Mass pandemic scares are even better than wars for keeping the populace in line. From Thomas DiLorenzo at lewrockwell.com:

One of the most remarkable articles written about the growth of government during the twentieth-century is “War is the Health of the State” by Randolph Bourne.  Published in 1918, Bourne’s essay explained how it is human nature to mostly ignore the state because the state during peacetime has “almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions.”  War, however, is the all-purpose tool of the state to stir up the public’s emotions in a way that motivates it to hand over to the state virtually unlimited powers, abandoning all constitutional constraints – and to subsequently relinquish most of their supposedly cherished freedoms.

But the state has other tricks up its sleeves in its never-ending quest for totalitarian control of society.  And do not delude yourself:  All states aspire to become totalitarian by nature – it’s only a matter of time.

Wars are very expensive; they generate antiwar movements, fierce political opposition, and sometimes assassinations.  And they can go very, very badly.  As both Napoleon and Hitler learned when they foolishly invaded Russia.

Other kinds of less risky (to the state) “emergencies” will often suffice as totalitarianism’s propaganda/brainwashing strategies.  As the world has learned in the past year, a “public health emergency” (or the perception of a fabricated and phony one) can do the job just fine without the messiness and expenses of war.  The reasons for this can be understood by reading the following passages from Randolph Bourne’s famous essay where I have substituted the words “pandemic” or “public health” (in brackets) for the word “war”:

“The republican state has almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions . . . .  The moment a [pandemic] is declared, however, the mass of the people . . . with the exception of a few malcontents, proceed to allow themselves to be regimented, coerced, deranged in all the environments of their lives . . . .  The citizen throws off his contempt and indifference to government, identifies himself with its purposes . . . and the state once more walks . . .”

Continue reading→

Medical Marxism, by Becky Akers

Who knew that so many “public health” officials want to be dictators for life? From Becky Akers at lewrockwell.com:

If we have learned nothing else from COVID19, we finally understand the outrageous authority that “Public Health’s” quacks wield.

Though these bureaucrats now hog the limelight while destroying our country and liberty, they formerly scurried on the fringes of government. There they spewed advice (“Quit smoking: it causes cancer!” “Seat belts save lives, so buckle up!”) that we were free to reject until they could persuade legislatures to codify their opinions as law. That itch to control, to force everyone to heed them, should have warned us of “Public Health’s” threat.

Most Americans are subject to three or four “Public Health” bureaus: a “Department of Public Health” often infests cities and counties, and one curses each state as well as the Feds.  The latter’s Department of Health and Human Services harbors such agencies as the CDC, the FDA, the Indian Health Service, and the Surgeon General as well as “an elite group of over 6,000 uniformed officers who are public health professionals.” Just what criminals want in a cop: temperature-guns.

At whatever level of government they lurk, each outpost of  “Public Health” boasts an atomic bomb’s power: they can and will raze everything in their path, as they’ve proved since March. Collaborating with politicians, they crushed life as we knew it. They bankrupted companies and kicked employees off payrolls with the ruthless abandon of Mr. Potter; the list of institutions and businesses they thereby destroyed is too lengthy and notorious to recite here. As if such crimes weren’t enough, they ordered us to imperil ourselves with masks and “anti-social distancing.” No wonder rates of suicide and addiction have skyrocketed.

Continue reading→

 

Public Health Is Another Term For Marxism, by Allan Stevo

Public health is completely collectivized and many of its practitioners are more interested in politics than medicine. From Allan Stevo at lewrockwell.com:

“Data-driven” is a buzzword even in public health. Public health is the Marxist step-brother of the individualist field of medicine and generally unconcerned with an honest reading of available data. This moment in time makes that abundantly apparent.

Public health offers collectivist plans to address health, which is an individual concept. The medical field is becoming increasingly affected by the same. However, at its core, the medical field is not collectivist. Doctors focus on the individual patient. This can be traced back to the 2,400-year-old Hippocratic Oath and other texts on medical ethics. The public health profession can trace its roots back to the late-1800s in England as ideologies intending to push a supposed collective will on others grew in popularity with some intellectuals.

As such, every single pronouncement from anyone in public health should be given the same skepticism that you would offer a pronouncement from Karl Marx himself.

Continue reading→