I cannot be there as I have a 5 month ld Newfoundland puppy, and she is not yet ready to travel in this heat, though she has already been to 10 states, and will be attending a medical conference in October.
I salute the accurate language used in this post. "Health care" is what people do for themselves, like refraining from smoking, exercising, eating healthy food, brushing teeth. Medical care is what physicians do when something goes wrong.
Also, the USA is a Constitutional Republic. It is not a democracy. Many lawyers misuse that term for the USA. I guess it takes a physician to school them in the proper way to describe the government created by the Founders. Thank you, Dr McCullough.
BINGO prior to 1910 in USA, +90% of all MED was homeopathy self-diagnosed and 80% of the time the 'drugs' was granny marijuana&opium poppy's that grew in her garden, those two plants were 90% of all medicine;
Only post 1920's did big-oil become big-pharma & big-med and create todays "OIL based med" and MD racket criminal med biz;
Go real Jethro Klaus 'back to eden' the book that was used by millions of USA people prior to 1920's for home health care;
The USA is a penal-colony and the inmates are just suckers who don't even know they're in a prison.
THERE IS WONDER WORKING POWER IN THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OUR SAVIOR JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS REPENT AND UNITE REMEMBER HE IS RISEN PRAY AND PREP. ANOTHER THING ALL NEGATIVE NAY SAYERS STATING THAT OUR USA IS DOOMED AND WONT MAKE A COMEBACK HAVE satan Sitting On THEIR SHOULDER WHISPRING IN THEIR EARS LYING,,, BECAUSE GOD IS OMNIPOTENT OVER EVERYTHING UNITE WITH GOD IF YOU WANT TO SEE A RIGHTEOUS TRUE CHANGE 🙏 🇺🇸 💪 🎯
While people are free to hold varying religious/spiritual beliefs, this country is not a theocracy and as such religion cannot be the raison d'etre for health care for the public at large. What is significant is the right for all people to control their own body and that of their young children. The medical industry has over the years imposed itself in a totalitarian fashion on the freedom to chose ones health protocols. It has gained such control over the courts that children forced drugged regardless of the health facts in that child's life. This legal power has been used most egregiously in divorce cases where one parent seeks control over the other and uses children as their weapon of attack. But to use religion as the basis for national policy and law is absolutely unethical and undemocratic as it imposes one person's religion onto others. Freedom of religion is also to have Freedom from religion otherwise you become the very totalitarian dictator that you oppose and accuse others of being.
Rule by Science...Scientism. Cautions from sixty years ago, drawing in lessons of substituting pseudoscience for medical science, as was done under Buck v. Bell eugenics law "three generations of imbeciles is enough." The biggest, most fundamental and yet under-addressed problem of the pandemic was how pseudoscience, Behavioral Science, has been allowed to drive the medical science, the practice of medicine since 2020. It's been akin to psychologist Dr. Sigmund Freud performing open heart surgery while cardiologists like Dr. Peter McCullough observe the procedure from the viewing balcony above.
The Behaviorists have hidden themselves inside the ambiguity of the word, "science." Claims of masks being "supported by the best science" and other pandemic claims were allowed to be said without being met with the rejoinder, "What *type* of science?" Epidemiology draws heavily on the behavioral sciences, to change a population's behaviors believed to control the spread of infections. As an advisory science, not a primary science. Because it is a pseudoscience, meant to inform public policymakers, not direct them. As this paper about the worst atrocities ever committed by the medical profession describes happened a century ago when the same pseudoscience directed public policymaking:
"These thirty-two [social scientists] may state their purpose modestly, but Feuer and Fromm want to reorganize society; Myrdal may disclaim any policy role for his science[pseudoscience] as science, but Harold Lasswell has in mind the establishment of what one of his critics has called a "psychoanalytocracy"--that is, rule by psychoanalysts.
If men are certain that they know the cure for the ills of society, they are likely to become impatient with traditional legal principles and procedures which have always been thought important precisely because of the great difficulty in knowing what is good for man, and what is good for man here and now." (p207)
...
"The case, which culminated in Justice Holmes' famous epigram, "three generations of imbeciles are enough," was a feigned suit, initiated at the request of the eugenicists in order to win constitutional blessing for their program. This they accomplished, even though their so-called science was wholly unfounded." (p207)
...
"Perhaps the day will come when, as Judge Miller said in the Parmelee case, "social scientists can advise not only courts, but the people generally; just as physicians ... do today," but Buck v. Bell illustrates the hazards potentially involved and as well the failure of the courts to scrutinize a program cast in the language of science. This was science polluted by a vicious brand of politics, but when science asserts itself in the law, there is always the danger, and the strong possibility, that it will become irresponsible." (p208)
...
"Beutel says that when "law as a matter of regular practice enters the field of thought control, as is already the case in some totalitarian states, then the findings of the psychologists as to the working of the mind in reaching subjective choices will be of great use to the jurists." While suggestive, to say nothing more, this statement does not tell us all we want to know about this aspect of experimental jurisprudence [Behavioral Science law]; fortunately it is not all Beutel tells us:
- "Looking far into the future, it may be predicted that the methods of legally directed thought control may eventually take over the direction and control of what some now call human values and that this power may be turned to scientific [pseudoscientific] purposes. If this is to be accomplished, it should be along the lines of Experimental Jurisprudence [Behavioral Science law]. When this is done, there will no longer be any basis for the belief that social science is impossible because it contains no elements of control such as those found in physical sciences. The means of social control by law are now developing and increasing all about us. Mankind may soon be required to make the choice whether these powers are to be exercised for greed, lust and caprice of individuals or are to be used in the scientific [pseudoscientific] advancement of the race."
Beutel is not altogether clear as to what he means by the "scientific advancement of the race," and the laws appropriate to this advancement; but he does have a test, of sorts, of good laws:
- "The laws to be enacted or recommended should be those which lead to the greatest sum total of satisfaction of needs, demands and desires, in that order of rank. Thus a more complicated person is certain to have greater wants than a simple individual, and his combined interests as a whole will therefore weigh heavier in the scientific [pseudoscientific] scale than those of a less complicated (less intelligent, if you will) individual." (p209)
...
"But supposing the "less complicated" people object to this dispensation?:
- "If... sufficient public interest is to be developed in adopting new scientific methods [Behavioral Science], it will be necessary for this small [at most "six percent of the entire population"] nucleus from which come the able scientists [pseudoscientists] to convince the great majority to agree to types of governmental and legal devices which the overwhelming mass of people cannot even understand. Under the circumstances, the development of popular pressure for adoption of scientific [pseudoscientific] discoveries into the legal and governmental field sufficient to overcome the inertia of those in control of the machinery is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."
That the scientists should be restrained by the need to get the consent of the ("less complicated") governed is reassuring, but perhaps only temporarily, since we know that this restraint does not derive from any principle to be found in the book. The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," but Beutel dismisses its "theories" as mere "fictions," even more "advanced in the realm of fiction" than the notion of the "divine right of kings." Never lacking in boldness, he goes right on to state his lack of interest in any of these "theories":
- "The experimental jurist [Behavioral Science] as such has little interest in the general theories advanced to explain the purposes of government as a whole or to justify certain lines of policy. As a scientist [pseudoscientist] he must recognize that these expressions are largely fictional." (p210)
...
"CONCLUSION
Beutel's book is an almost perfect illustration of the sort of misuse of science that Lee Loevinger must have had in mind when he said that "science has contributed little, if anything, to the solution of social or legal problems," partly because it has been asked "the wrong questions, and set ...the wrong tasks," and specifically because science has been expected "to distill social policies from a test tube or a retort, much as Aladdin summoned a genie by rubbing a magic lamp.""
Loevinger makes no such claim for his "jurimetrics," which he nevertheless describes as "the most promising avenue of legal progress in the contemporary world." Rather than to replace the "cloistered philosophers" and the "fictions" of the Declaration of Independence, science's most "promising and immediate contribution ... is in automatic information retrieval."" (p211)
...
"On the contrary, a grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence., This requires at a minimum the recognition that there will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved-at least, not by a government of free men." (p212)
...
"As Leo Strauss has said:
- "What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent."
Legal scholars, and even practicing lawyers, know these exceedingly important things; they therefore have more to teach to the new scientists [Behavioral Scientists] than the new scientists [Behavioral Scientists] have to teach them." (p212)
Unfortunately, Walter Berns' assessment that the law has more to teach the "new scientists than the new scientists have to teach them" is no longer true. Supreme Court justices and countless many lower court judges now rely upon Behavioral Science in their rulings. As Chief Justice John Roberts did in his Obamacare (ACA) ruling:
Justice Sotomayer and others connected to Cass Sunstein, author of "Nudge" rely on Behavioral Science in their rulings. Sunstein is even busy today teaching future lawyers and Supreme Court justices how to radically integrate Behavioral Sciences into their interpretations of the US Constitution itself. Olympic-level linguistic gymnastics to make The Science of Totalitarianism appear to be Constitutional:
We cannot have medical freedom if medical science is subordinate to behavioral science. As has been experienced since 2020. And getting worse, when you see the push for genital mutilations of mentally unwelll children, medical organizations complicit with "gender-affirming care" butchery. Social Science. Behavioral Science. Pseudoscience. Just like the eugenics pseudoscience of Buck v. Bell "three generations of imbeciles is enough" sterilizations; "gender-affirming care" IS the sterilization of "imbeciles."
When "The Science of Totalitarianism" is dictating the practice of medicine the pillar of free nations has been removed and we are no longer free. At the True Liberty Conference in Phoenix it's my hope that this subject I raise is discussed, addressed, ideas on how to reclaim medical science from the behavioral scientists are offered up for debate. If Team Reality wants freedom to be restored, medical freedom to become a pillar of our once-free nation again we must say the name of the pseudoscience of the pandemic (Behavioral Science) that has masqueraded as medical science. Or forever be dictated to by "the small nucleus, six percent" of "more complicated" people with "greater wants than a simple individual" obtaining the power to control "the less intelligent."
BULLSHIT, u wouldn't know 'freedom' if it bit you in the ass
90% of all country's on earth have no prescriptions, you walk into a corner pharmacy anywhere on earth and ask for a packet of IVER or HCQ lay down $1 USD and walk out with a 10-pack of six 10mg pills;
No doctor, all pharmacy's are staffed with people who know what you need if your too stupid to now know what pill you need;
Only in the 'west' do you have oil-based medicine the AMA, and the prescription based gate-keeper medical system.
Most common pills on earth sold over the counter are anti-biotics, these days all made in India;
Now you talking about freedom? When you only know the slave based med system
The political elite of the USA, see you citizens as much less than pets, they see the citizens as vermin;
People in general have pets and love them, the owners & their hired managers (politicians) have nothing but disdain for the USA public;
...
So your first step other than bitching is to hang the owners&politicians on the nearest tree and start living;
So now post COVID & during COVID, but especially given that pensions are gone, and soon Social-Security to end and medi-care, the old fucks are starting to 'panic'
I'm very concerned that the states that were "good", are now not concerned?
Many people are moving to states that are scene to respect freedom more, but is that perhaps a mistake? Even the "best" states disappointed me during the "worst" times of the pandemic.
I am in Florida but a NYer for 70 years....i do not trust Florida or DeSantis at all. The laws that people or the people who want the right to control their medical choices think we have I am under the impression that we actually don’t....I had read and I could be outdated at this point that there is no actual law allowing for choice in terms of vaccination. I believe that bill expired on June 1 and has not been made into a law.....so if a new governor like a Dem takes over we can be forced to be vaccinated....meanwhile DeSantis is in CA campaigning and hardly every here....he is hardly here in general...and that is because he without a referendum changed the law that no official in office could run for another office while being in that Floridian office....i am sure the majority of people don’t even know he did that....i don’t think there is one safe state....plus i believe after 4 cases the CDC called an emergency of malaria .... Bill Gates let out mosquitos carrying malaria into Florida and Texas....the Governor has not said a word to my knowledge and i do get some local email newspapers.....
I'm in Minnesota and I'm "house hunting" in South Dakota. But as I dig into details South Dakota doesn't sound quite as good as it did when all this insanity started. There really doesn't seem to be a "safe" place in the entire world. We've got a fight on our hands to try and restore Freedom. I'm not convinced we will "win" but I'm going to continue doing my part (and publishing my articles).
As a relic of the 20th. century, I remember the days when the notion "good wholesome food never hurt anybody". Some were overweight and lived long lives smoking and drinking.
Medicine practised was primitive in present day conception, but surgery was developted and competent.
Too much science and trust in medical care has created a monster.
I am an old retired medico looking back how it was.
The ONLY way to achieve medical freedom is to remove the government 100% from ALL medical matters. That means abolishing the FDA, DEA, CDC, and every other alphabet, unconstitutional agency that prevents freedom (while protecting bigPharma and the western medical cartel). It means abolishing ALL government-imposed/controlled professional licensure restrictions/requirements. It means getting government OUT of the so-called "medical insurance" business (really just pre-paid medical care, not truly insurance), abolishing the Federal Reserve so that the government and the foreign bankster community can no longer control the money supply to favor friends, and control the investment and banking of money by alternative care providers who challenge the current medical cartel. Until GOVERNMENT is removed 100% from everything medically-related, there can be NO FREEDOM. To suggest otherwise is to be ignorant of just WHO destroyed medical freedom in the first place, and on whose behalf.
Thank you for standing for freedom. I will always remember what you, John Leake, and Dr. McCullough have done for this all important battle.
Leake does not stand for freedom. He supports the invasion of Ukraine.
I cannot be there as I have a 5 month ld Newfoundland puppy, and she is not yet ready to travel in this heat, though she has already been to 10 states, and will be attending a medical conference in October.
I salute the accurate language used in this post. "Health care" is what people do for themselves, like refraining from smoking, exercising, eating healthy food, brushing teeth. Medical care is what physicians do when something goes wrong.
Also, the USA is a Constitutional Republic. It is not a democracy. Many lawyers misuse that term for the USA. I guess it takes a physician to school them in the proper way to describe the government created by the Founders. Thank you, Dr McCullough.
BINGO prior to 1910 in USA, +90% of all MED was homeopathy self-diagnosed and 80% of the time the 'drugs' was granny marijuana&opium poppy's that grew in her garden, those two plants were 90% of all medicine;
Only post 1920's did big-oil become big-pharma & big-med and create todays "OIL based med" and MD racket criminal med biz;
Go real Jethro Klaus 'back to eden' the book that was used by millions of USA people prior to 1920's for home health care;
The USA is a penal-colony and the inmates are just suckers who don't even know they're in a prison.
THERE IS WONDER WORKING POWER IN THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OUR SAVIOR JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS REPENT AND UNITE REMEMBER HE IS RISEN PRAY AND PREP. ANOTHER THING ALL NEGATIVE NAY SAYERS STATING THAT OUR USA IS DOOMED AND WONT MAKE A COMEBACK HAVE satan Sitting On THEIR SHOULDER WHISPRING IN THEIR EARS LYING,,, BECAUSE GOD IS OMNIPOTENT OVER EVERYTHING UNITE WITH GOD IF YOU WANT TO SEE A RIGHTEOUS TRUE CHANGE 🙏 🇺🇸 💪 🎯
While people are free to hold varying religious/spiritual beliefs, this country is not a theocracy and as such religion cannot be the raison d'etre for health care for the public at large. What is significant is the right for all people to control their own body and that of their young children. The medical industry has over the years imposed itself in a totalitarian fashion on the freedom to chose ones health protocols. It has gained such control over the courts that children forced drugged regardless of the health facts in that child's life. This legal power has been used most egregiously in divorce cases where one parent seeks control over the other and uses children as their weapon of attack. But to use religion as the basis for national policy and law is absolutely unethical and undemocratic as it imposes one person's religion onto others. Freedom of religion is also to have Freedom from religion otherwise you become the very totalitarian dictator that you oppose and accuse others of being.
Thank you Dr. McCullough for all that you do....how do we get to watch this series?
They should stream it live here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZd4SKVEGkURvngKpcMvO_w
Thank you so much!!!!!
No, nothing a democrat does benefits America SO IF YOUR STLL A DEMONICRAT YOU ARE A COMMUNIST
Will Dr. McCullough’s speeches at the True Liberty Conference be available online?
It should be streamed live here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZd4SKVEGkURvngKpcMvO_w
Rule by Science...Scientism. Cautions from sixty years ago, drawing in lessons of substituting pseudoscience for medical science, as was done under Buck v. Bell eugenics law "three generations of imbeciles is enough." The biggest, most fundamental and yet under-addressed problem of the pandemic was how pseudoscience, Behavioral Science, has been allowed to drive the medical science, the practice of medicine since 2020. It's been akin to psychologist Dr. Sigmund Freud performing open heart surgery while cardiologists like Dr. Peter McCullough observe the procedure from the viewing balcony above.
The Behaviorists have hidden themselves inside the ambiguity of the word, "science." Claims of masks being "supported by the best science" and other pandemic claims were allowed to be said without being met with the rejoinder, "What *type* of science?" Epidemiology draws heavily on the behavioral sciences, to change a population's behaviors believed to control the spread of infections. As an advisory science, not a primary science. Because it is a pseudoscience, meant to inform public policymakers, not direct them. As this paper about the worst atrocities ever committed by the medical profession describes happened a century ago when the same pseudoscience directed public policymaking:
Law and Behavioral Science, Walter Berns
Duke University School of Law, Winter, 1963
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=lcp
"These thirty-two [social scientists] may state their purpose modestly, but Feuer and Fromm want to reorganize society; Myrdal may disclaim any policy role for his science[pseudoscience] as science, but Harold Lasswell has in mind the establishment of what one of his critics has called a "psychoanalytocracy"--that is, rule by psychoanalysts.
If men are certain that they know the cure for the ills of society, they are likely to become impatient with traditional legal principles and procedures which have always been thought important precisely because of the great difficulty in knowing what is good for man, and what is good for man here and now." (p207)
...
"The case, which culminated in Justice Holmes' famous epigram, "three generations of imbeciles are enough," was a feigned suit, initiated at the request of the eugenicists in order to win constitutional blessing for their program. This they accomplished, even though their so-called science was wholly unfounded." (p207)
...
"Perhaps the day will come when, as Judge Miller said in the Parmelee case, "social scientists can advise not only courts, but the people generally; just as physicians ... do today," but Buck v. Bell illustrates the hazards potentially involved and as well the failure of the courts to scrutinize a program cast in the language of science. This was science polluted by a vicious brand of politics, but when science asserts itself in the law, there is always the danger, and the strong possibility, that it will become irresponsible." (p208)
...
"Beutel says that when "law as a matter of regular practice enters the field of thought control, as is already the case in some totalitarian states, then the findings of the psychologists as to the working of the mind in reaching subjective choices will be of great use to the jurists." While suggestive, to say nothing more, this statement does not tell us all we want to know about this aspect of experimental jurisprudence [Behavioral Science law]; fortunately it is not all Beutel tells us:
- "Looking far into the future, it may be predicted that the methods of legally directed thought control may eventually take over the direction and control of what some now call human values and that this power may be turned to scientific [pseudoscientific] purposes. If this is to be accomplished, it should be along the lines of Experimental Jurisprudence [Behavioral Science law]. When this is done, there will no longer be any basis for the belief that social science is impossible because it contains no elements of control such as those found in physical sciences. The means of social control by law are now developing and increasing all about us. Mankind may soon be required to make the choice whether these powers are to be exercised for greed, lust and caprice of individuals or are to be used in the scientific [pseudoscientific] advancement of the race."
Beutel is not altogether clear as to what he means by the "scientific advancement of the race," and the laws appropriate to this advancement; but he does have a test, of sorts, of good laws:
- "The laws to be enacted or recommended should be those which lead to the greatest sum total of satisfaction of needs, demands and desires, in that order of rank. Thus a more complicated person is certain to have greater wants than a simple individual, and his combined interests as a whole will therefore weigh heavier in the scientific [pseudoscientific] scale than those of a less complicated (less intelligent, if you will) individual." (p209)
...
"But supposing the "less complicated" people object to this dispensation?:
- "If... sufficient public interest is to be developed in adopting new scientific methods [Behavioral Science], it will be necessary for this small [at most "six percent of the entire population"] nucleus from which come the able scientists [pseudoscientists] to convince the great majority to agree to types of governmental and legal devices which the overwhelming mass of people cannot even understand. Under the circumstances, the development of popular pressure for adoption of scientific [pseudoscientific] discoveries into the legal and governmental field sufficient to overcome the inertia of those in control of the machinery is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."
That the scientists should be restrained by the need to get the consent of the ("less complicated") governed is reassuring, but perhaps only temporarily, since we know that this restraint does not derive from any principle to be found in the book. The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," but Beutel dismisses its "theories" as mere "fictions," even more "advanced in the realm of fiction" than the notion of the "divine right of kings." Never lacking in boldness, he goes right on to state his lack of interest in any of these "theories":
- "The experimental jurist [Behavioral Science] as such has little interest in the general theories advanced to explain the purposes of government as a whole or to justify certain lines of policy. As a scientist [pseudoscientist] he must recognize that these expressions are largely fictional." (p210)
...
"CONCLUSION
Beutel's book is an almost perfect illustration of the sort of misuse of science that Lee Loevinger must have had in mind when he said that "science has contributed little, if anything, to the solution of social or legal problems," partly because it has been asked "the wrong questions, and set ...the wrong tasks," and specifically because science has been expected "to distill social policies from a test tube or a retort, much as Aladdin summoned a genie by rubbing a magic lamp.""
Loevinger makes no such claim for his "jurimetrics," which he nevertheless describes as "the most promising avenue of legal progress in the contemporary world." Rather than to replace the "cloistered philosophers" and the "fictions" of the Declaration of Independence, science's most "promising and immediate contribution ... is in automatic information retrieval."" (p211)
...
"On the contrary, a grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence., This requires at a minimum the recognition that there will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved-at least, not by a government of free men." (p212)
...
"As Leo Strauss has said:
- "What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent."
Legal scholars, and even practicing lawyers, know these exceedingly important things; they therefore have more to teach to the new scientists [Behavioral Scientists] than the new scientists [Behavioral Scientists] have to teach them." (p212)
[End Paper]
(con't comment below)
Behavioral Science is "The Science of Totalitarianism":
https://web.archive.org/web/20210519003131/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit-totalitarian-use-fear-control-behaviour-covid/
Unfortunately, Walter Berns' assessment that the law has more to teach the "new scientists than the new scientists have to teach them" is no longer true. Supreme Court justices and countless many lower court judges now rely upon Behavioral Science in their rulings. As Chief Justice John Roberts did in his Obamacare (ACA) ruling:
https://www.healthaffairs.org/about
Justice Sotomayer and others connected to Cass Sunstein, author of "Nudge" rely on Behavioral Science in their rulings. Sunstein is even busy today teaching future lawyers and Supreme Court justices how to radically integrate Behavioral Sciences into their interpretations of the US Constitution itself. Olympic-level linguistic gymnastics to make The Science of Totalitarianism appear to be Constitutional:
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/cass-r-sunstein/how-to-interpret-the-constitution/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4405238
Orwellian "Freedom is Slavery" level linguistic deceit.
More cautions from long ago about "following the science", natural and social-behavioral, to govern:
Science in the Totalitarian State
Foreign Affairs, January, 1941
https://web.archive.org/web/20181125112623/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1941-01-01/science-totalitarian-state
We cannot have medical freedom if medical science is subordinate to behavioral science. As has been experienced since 2020. And getting worse, when you see the push for genital mutilations of mentally unwelll children, medical organizations complicit with "gender-affirming care" butchery. Social Science. Behavioral Science. Pseudoscience. Just like the eugenics pseudoscience of Buck v. Bell "three generations of imbeciles is enough" sterilizations; "gender-affirming care" IS the sterilization of "imbeciles."
When "The Science of Totalitarianism" is dictating the practice of medicine the pillar of free nations has been removed and we are no longer free. At the True Liberty Conference in Phoenix it's my hope that this subject I raise is discussed, addressed, ideas on how to reclaim medical science from the behavioral scientists are offered up for debate. If Team Reality wants freedom to be restored, medical freedom to become a pillar of our once-free nation again we must say the name of the pseudoscience of the pandemic (Behavioral Science) that has masqueraded as medical science. Or forever be dictated to by "the small nucleus, six percent" of "more complicated" people with "greater wants than a simple individual" obtaining the power to control "the less intelligent."
“Olympic-level linguistic gymnastics.”
Sums it up nicely.
BULLSHIT, u wouldn't know 'freedom' if it bit you in the ass
90% of all country's on earth have no prescriptions, you walk into a corner pharmacy anywhere on earth and ask for a packet of IVER or HCQ lay down $1 USD and walk out with a 10-pack of six 10mg pills;
No doctor, all pharmacy's are staffed with people who know what you need if your too stupid to now know what pill you need;
Only in the 'west' do you have oil-based medicine the AMA, and the prescription based gate-keeper medical system.
Most common pills on earth sold over the counter are anti-biotics, these days all made in India;
Now you talking about freedom? When you only know the slave based med system
.
I Am Used To Being Smarter
Than Everyone Else.
But I Never HAD To Be.
Now That We Have To Be:
HOLYFUCKINGSHIT.
I've Owned Pets Smarter Than Most Of These "People" .
Including Some Of The Smartest
Idiots We Could Have Ever Met.
.
Pet's are dependent on you to feed them;
The political elite of the USA, see you citizens as much less than pets, they see the citizens as vermin;
People in general have pets and love them, the owners & their hired managers (politicians) have nothing but disdain for the USA public;
...
So your first step other than bitching is to hang the owners&politicians on the nearest tree and start living;
So now post COVID & during COVID, but especially given that pensions are gone, and soon Social-Security to end and medi-care, the old fucks are starting to 'panic'
Should have fixed your system decades ago suckers
I'm very concerned that the states that were "good", are now not concerned?
Many people are moving to states that are scene to respect freedom more, but is that perhaps a mistake? Even the "best" states disappointed me during the "worst" times of the pandemic.
I am in Florida but a NYer for 70 years....i do not trust Florida or DeSantis at all. The laws that people or the people who want the right to control their medical choices think we have I am under the impression that we actually don’t....I had read and I could be outdated at this point that there is no actual law allowing for choice in terms of vaccination. I believe that bill expired on June 1 and has not been made into a law.....so if a new governor like a Dem takes over we can be forced to be vaccinated....meanwhile DeSantis is in CA campaigning and hardly every here....he is hardly here in general...and that is because he without a referendum changed the law that no official in office could run for another office while being in that Floridian office....i am sure the majority of people don’t even know he did that....i don’t think there is one safe state....plus i believe after 4 cases the CDC called an emergency of malaria .... Bill Gates let out mosquitos carrying malaria into Florida and Texas....the Governor has not said a word to my knowledge and i do get some local email newspapers.....
I'm in Minnesota and I'm "house hunting" in South Dakota. But as I dig into details South Dakota doesn't sound quite as good as it did when all this insanity started. There really doesn't seem to be a "safe" place in the entire world. We've got a fight on our hands to try and restore Freedom. I'm not convinced we will "win" but I'm going to continue doing my part (and publishing my articles).
Thank you 🙏🏼
moslemsota escape
Excellent! Thank you John. Peace.
Thanks!!! See you in Phoenix - Lord willing !!
Just so, I like that.
As a relic of the 20th. century, I remember the days when the notion "good wholesome food never hurt anybody". Some were overweight and lived long lives smoking and drinking.
Medicine practised was primitive in present day conception, but surgery was developted and competent.
Too much science and trust in medical care has created a monster.
I am an old retired medico looking back how it was.
The ONLY way to achieve medical freedom is to remove the government 100% from ALL medical matters. That means abolishing the FDA, DEA, CDC, and every other alphabet, unconstitutional agency that prevents freedom (while protecting bigPharma and the western medical cartel). It means abolishing ALL government-imposed/controlled professional licensure restrictions/requirements. It means getting government OUT of the so-called "medical insurance" business (really just pre-paid medical care, not truly insurance), abolishing the Federal Reserve so that the government and the foreign bankster community can no longer control the money supply to favor friends, and control the investment and banking of money by alternative care providers who challenge the current medical cartel. Until GOVERNMENT is removed 100% from everything medically-related, there can be NO FREEDOM. To suggest otherwise is to be ignorant of just WHO destroyed medical freedom in the first place, and on whose behalf.