Government should be required to release the data - the studies and findings that support any policy they foist upon us. CDC and NIH made policy in contradiction of data and then hid the studies that would have shown this. If you look at "what the CDC says you should do" you will find no links to studies or data or facts substantiating the claims.
Even then, we'd be dealing with "gamed" data. There's already a reproducibility crisis in academia.
I think the only way out of this is if people stop rubber-stamping "their" team and put real fear into politicians for their jobs. Congress's approval rating is 15%, but incumbency rate is close to 90%. That tells us something.
They've tried releasing "gamed" data before, but when they release it, our guys do a great job of taking it apart. That's why they release "no" data now. It's a simple step the Congress can take to require publishing the data with any policy. Now, the REAL challenge is the "law enforcement" and "national security" community - those guys have taken to classifying everything and releasing nothing for "classification" purposes (circular reasoning), which they just use to hide their own political motivations. Biden would never sign anything requiring transparency like this, of course. We need someone else - an outsider - to accomplish this.
I think what would be a better idea is for government to stay out of it completely. The Constitution provides the federal government no authority in the realm of healthcare - why are they involved? Why are our tax dollars being used to fund agencies that shouldn't exist, and that through their existence do little other than make themselves rich at the cost of the population? Do you think the FDA actually cares about anyone's health? They basically banned phenylpropanolamine (PPA), a mild stimulant used very effectively as a decongestant because *one* study (and I read the *survey-based* study - it showed nothing to the effect of the conclusion) claimed that use of PPA *could* lead to a heightened risk of hemorrhagic stroke in women (what the study failed to note was that virtually every person who suffered a side-effect from PPA had actually taken a diet pill containing other stimulants, so variables were not completely accounted for - it was *not* a well-designed study). That said, if I recall, the increased risk was along the lines of 15%. Now, look at the laundry list of potential adverse effects of *ANY* pharmaceutical advertised on TV (most of which include *death*). Tell me the FDA actually cared that PPA had some small risk of increasing the possibility of hemorrhagic stroke. But when government gets involved where it doesn't belong, and hired bureaucrats (not elected representatives) are given *power* to make rules and regulations, such is the result.
The CDC is no different. In 2020, they published a study saying there was no evidence masks had any impact on the transmission of influenza, then in 2021, they published an article stating that the reason the 2020/2021 flu season was so sparse as to not be measured was likely because of mitigations such as mask use.
The only way out of this is getting government out of where it doesn't belong.
This is one of those "choose your battles" things. Indeed, neither the FDA nor the CDC are authorized by the Constitution, but they've been around for so long and their existence is so popular that I think we're better off pushing to reform them than abolish them. Beyond that, abolition would need a concurrent emergence of private-sector alternatives for the FDA at least, such as we have with independent entities like Underwriters Laboratories, and a shift in the public toward looking for those stamps of approval rather than blindly assuming that, if it's sold and approved by the FDA, no further vetting is needed.
The CDC lied about masks early on, to keep the public from buying out all the N95s and above they wanted for health care personnel. It was a stupid and ham-fisted thing to do, that began the current wave of distrust. This is the epitome of "managing" rather than "serving" the public.
Except the CDC didn't lie about masks early on- they lied about the latter flu numbers. Their earlier statement echoed that of a longer study by the world health organization that reached the same conclusion - masks do not stop (and were never intended to) the spread of a respiratory virus. I'd be happy to share links to the actual studies.
From what I gather, many of the decision makers believed in the efficacy, and lied to preserve supply. The nuts-and-bolts truth often doesn't make it to the top of the food chain, as you likely know.
It's fair to say there WAS a role for science in government, but the Left figured out how to capture that and turn it into another weapon to use against us. Well, it wasn't hard - get "your people" installed in government oversight and steer funding to promote "science" that supports your agenda. So it was a nice thing until it became a weapon....
According to the Constitution, the only role the federal government should have in "science" is granting limited-time copyrights/patents to protect intellectual property. There is no other constitutional role for "science" in the federal government.
Great question. Honestly, I'd love to see a president elected who would just dismantle the vast majority of the (unconstitutional) bureaucracy and let the cards fall where they may. If people are unwilling to put in the time and effort to see to their own best interest, well... That's part of living with liberty. Sounds harsh, but I see no easy or gradual path to undoing this. I think the bandaid just needs to be ripped off.
Of course, in line with a quote you included in your next piece, I think the vast majority of federal (and state) law needs to be rescinded as well. But people will argue that results in chaos and "anarchy."
Consider Social Security as an example. You and I both know it shouldn't exist, but it is so woven into the current fabric of the nation that fixing it rather than abolishing it is really the only choice. Same with public education.
Liberty is evolutionary. Its erosion has been going on for a century - we're not going to unravel all those erosions in a year or one election cycle.
I am PTSD on shots for sure now. I did not get the jab because I do not get flu vaccines of any kind. Get away from me with that needle or I will go ballistic on you. Someone suggested I might get cytokine storms because the last couple flu shots I got made me very sick. I am very untrusting now after all this data to anything new they are pushing.
Peter, like you, I'm not an epidemiologist or a doctor, though I do have a biology background (was my first major in college, though I did not complete my degree, and I worked at the college's cancer research center doing research - and I had further experiences in the medical field). I saw through all the BS pretty quickly. That said, the fact is, it doesn't matter what the CDC, FDA, HHS, NIAID, or any of them say - none of them should exist. As a Constitutional libertarian, you know as well as I that the Constitution does *not* grant the federal government any authority whatsoever in the realm of healthcare. They may believe the "general welfare" clause grants them that power, but you and I both know it doesn't. Perhaps government would have more credibility if, aside from stopping the lying, they would restrict themselves to the powers (limited as they are) granted by the Constitution, and as you stated, "serve" rather than trying to "manage."
Yah, but how do you unravel them? If they never existed, we'd have seen the organic emergence of entities that would put their stamps of approval on consumer products. Many such exist now, but eliminating the agencies needs to be concurrent with private sector replacements and a public shift.
Any more drastic approach will backfire as voters rush to demand even more government control over what we buy.
Voters need to learn (and adopt) the independent mindset of our forebears (not to mention, the constitution). People have been duped (blame politicians, schools, parents, whomever) into believing the federal government is the end-all-be-all of American existence ama have traded their dangerous liberty for safe slavery.
Government should be required to release the data - the studies and findings that support any policy they foist upon us. CDC and NIH made policy in contradiction of data and then hid the studies that would have shown this. If you look at "what the CDC says you should do" you will find no links to studies or data or facts substantiating the claims.
Even then, we'd be dealing with "gamed" data. There's already a reproducibility crisis in academia.
I think the only way out of this is if people stop rubber-stamping "their" team and put real fear into politicians for their jobs. Congress's approval rating is 15%, but incumbency rate is close to 90%. That tells us something.
They've tried releasing "gamed" data before, but when they release it, our guys do a great job of taking it apart. That's why they release "no" data now. It's a simple step the Congress can take to require publishing the data with any policy. Now, the REAL challenge is the "law enforcement" and "national security" community - those guys have taken to classifying everything and releasing nothing for "classification" purposes (circular reasoning), which they just use to hide their own political motivations. Biden would never sign anything requiring transparency like this, of course. We need someone else - an outsider - to accomplish this.
I think what would be a better idea is for government to stay out of it completely. The Constitution provides the federal government no authority in the realm of healthcare - why are they involved? Why are our tax dollars being used to fund agencies that shouldn't exist, and that through their existence do little other than make themselves rich at the cost of the population? Do you think the FDA actually cares about anyone's health? They basically banned phenylpropanolamine (PPA), a mild stimulant used very effectively as a decongestant because *one* study (and I read the *survey-based* study - it showed nothing to the effect of the conclusion) claimed that use of PPA *could* lead to a heightened risk of hemorrhagic stroke in women (what the study failed to note was that virtually every person who suffered a side-effect from PPA had actually taken a diet pill containing other stimulants, so variables were not completely accounted for - it was *not* a well-designed study). That said, if I recall, the increased risk was along the lines of 15%. Now, look at the laundry list of potential adverse effects of *ANY* pharmaceutical advertised on TV (most of which include *death*). Tell me the FDA actually cared that PPA had some small risk of increasing the possibility of hemorrhagic stroke. But when government gets involved where it doesn't belong, and hired bureaucrats (not elected representatives) are given *power* to make rules and regulations, such is the result.
The CDC is no different. In 2020, they published a study saying there was no evidence masks had any impact on the transmission of influenza, then in 2021, they published an article stating that the reason the 2020/2021 flu season was so sparse as to not be measured was likely because of mitigations such as mask use.
The only way out of this is getting government out of where it doesn't belong.
This is one of those "choose your battles" things. Indeed, neither the FDA nor the CDC are authorized by the Constitution, but they've been around for so long and their existence is so popular that I think we're better off pushing to reform them than abolish them. Beyond that, abolition would need a concurrent emergence of private-sector alternatives for the FDA at least, such as we have with independent entities like Underwriters Laboratories, and a shift in the public toward looking for those stamps of approval rather than blindly assuming that, if it's sold and approved by the FDA, no further vetting is needed.
The CDC lied about masks early on, to keep the public from buying out all the N95s and above they wanted for health care personnel. It was a stupid and ham-fisted thing to do, that began the current wave of distrust. This is the epitome of "managing" rather than "serving" the public.
Except the CDC didn't lie about masks early on- they lied about the latter flu numbers. Their earlier statement echoed that of a longer study by the world health organization that reached the same conclusion - masks do not stop (and were never intended to) the spread of a respiratory virus. I'd be happy to share links to the actual studies.
From what I gather, many of the decision makers believed in the efficacy, and lied to preserve supply. The nuts-and-bolts truth often doesn't make it to the top of the food chain, as you likely know.
It's fair to say there WAS a role for science in government, but the Left figured out how to capture that and turn it into another weapon to use against us. Well, it wasn't hard - get "your people" installed in government oversight and steer funding to promote "science" that supports your agenda. So it was a nice thing until it became a weapon....
You mean "Science!"
The current state of the sandbox is mostly a turf war - who gets to rule the roost and stomp the heads of the opposition.
According to the Constitution, the only role the federal government should have in "science" is granting limited-time copyrights/patents to protect intellectual property. There is no other constitutional role for "science" in the federal government.
Again, no disagreement. But, we have the "A to B" problem. How do you get there without chaos and backlash?
Great question. Honestly, I'd love to see a president elected who would just dismantle the vast majority of the (unconstitutional) bureaucracy and let the cards fall where they may. If people are unwilling to put in the time and effort to see to their own best interest, well... That's part of living with liberty. Sounds harsh, but I see no easy or gradual path to undoing this. I think the bandaid just needs to be ripped off.
Of course, in line with a quote you included in your next piece, I think the vast majority of federal (and state) law needs to be rescinded as well. But people will argue that results in chaos and "anarchy."
Consider Social Security as an example. You and I both know it shouldn't exist, but it is so woven into the current fabric of the nation that fixing it rather than abolishing it is really the only choice. Same with public education.
Liberty is evolutionary. Its erosion has been going on for a century - we're not going to unravel all those erosions in a year or one election cycle.
Peter, you are humble, but you must admit to being a Polymath 😁
haha, thanks, but there's a whole lot I don't know, so I'm pretty sure I fall short :)
I am PTSD on shots for sure now. I did not get the jab because I do not get flu vaccines of any kind. Get away from me with that needle or I will go ballistic on you. Someone suggested I might get cytokine storms because the last couple flu shots I got made me very sick. I am very untrusting now after all this data to anything new they are pushing.
Peter, like you, I'm not an epidemiologist or a doctor, though I do have a biology background (was my first major in college, though I did not complete my degree, and I worked at the college's cancer research center doing research - and I had further experiences in the medical field). I saw through all the BS pretty quickly. That said, the fact is, it doesn't matter what the CDC, FDA, HHS, NIAID, or any of them say - none of them should exist. As a Constitutional libertarian, you know as well as I that the Constitution does *not* grant the federal government any authority whatsoever in the realm of healthcare. They may believe the "general welfare" clause grants them that power, but you and I both know it doesn't. Perhaps government would have more credibility if, aside from stopping the lying, they would restrict themselves to the powers (limited as they are) granted by the Constitution, and as you stated, "serve" rather than trying to "manage."
Yah, but how do you unravel them? If they never existed, we'd have seen the organic emergence of entities that would put their stamps of approval on consumer products. Many such exist now, but eliminating the agencies needs to be concurrent with private sector replacements and a public shift.
Any more drastic approach will backfire as voters rush to demand even more government control over what we buy.
Voters need to learn (and adopt) the independent mindset of our forebears (not to mention, the constitution). People have been duped (blame politicians, schools, parents, whomever) into believing the federal government is the end-all-be-all of American existence ama have traded their dangerous liberty for safe slavery.
That's why I blog. Restore distrust of government, *then* start slicing.
Same here. Restore distrust, expound the Constitution and the founders ideas (most have no clue), inspire learning and appropriate action.