There’s a vacillating post at Areo, titled The Promotion of Ivermectin: A Free Speech Edge Case, arguing that some modified limited hangout version of free speech should at least be considered when public health is the question.
On the facts, and given the performance of the ivermectin prohibitionists, it’s as near the free speech edge as Omaha is near an ocean.
The article’s case depends on a critique of the paucity of ‘gold standard’ Randomized Controlled Trials conducted on ivermectin. This is the only acceptable methodology for the CDC, FDA, and Dr. Fauci. The essential question is posed as “What if some people resist vaccination because they become persuaded ivermectin is an alternative?” Before we examine the precursors to the social media ban on discussing ivermectin at the behest of the gold standard exclusivists, let’s note that they have refused an opportunity to conduct a human challenge trail.
The boots-on-the-ground clinical evidence for Ivermectin is significant. There are very well respected practicing clinical physicians recommending it in their treatment protocols. The broad empirical data from Peru and India strongly suggest calling let’s-try-ivermectin proponents conspiracists is irrational. Nonetheless, that is our situation with government approved protocols and in Big Tach political interference.
Our “public health” apparatchiks might have a more acceptable case for prohibiting experimental use of a safe drug such as ivermectin in the midst of a pandemic if anyone still trusted them. If they hadn’t started out telling us CCP virus wasn’t a problem for the US; fumbled the specification, preparation, approval, and distribution of test kits; lied about masks, mandated masks, and then lied about lying about masks; insisted the virus couldn’t possibly have escaped from a lab with a sketchy safety history, that researched bat viruses, was at the epicenter of the outbreak, erased records, refused to cooperate with investigations. And to which they had supplied funds for gain of function research.
Meanwhile, they usurped power. For example, where is it written that the CDC has authority to order payment of rents suspended? Why wouldn’t we laugh out loud at practicing bureaucrats claiming they are very embodiment science?
If all this bullshit hadn’t been combined with a lofty display of their superiority, vaccination resistance would be much less a problem.
As if that performance is not enough to make reasonable people nervous, combine it with a Twitter/Facebook/Amazon political conspiracy to prevent us from talking about anything those same bureaucrats told us was ‘settled science,’ and what do you expect will happen?
People will take ivermectin doses manufactured for horses, because their doctors are prohibited from giving them appropriate safe doses. It’s less risky than following the ‘science.’
2 thoughts on “The “Public Health” version of the 1st Amendment”
Public health is defined as the science of protecting safety and improving the health of communities through education, policy-making research for disease, and injury prevention. it helps prolong the lives of people with the help of preventive measures which keep the body healthy fit to live longer.
Sorry for the delay in approving this, it was stuck in a spam filter and I didn’t notice.
Your definition seems reasonable, as far as it goes. I think consideration for the health of the public includes more than disease – and “injury prevention” includes more than is implied.
People injured economically (that includes subsequent psychological damage, and increased use of drugs); injured by lack of “elective” health care (say preventive cancer screening delays); and children losing important learning opportunities should be considered. Doing otherwise is harmful, about which Hippocrates had a comment.
Many of our public health officials have been focused solely on the CCP virus, ignoring other consequences of their actions. By squandering trust, by “noble lies”, by politically besmirching the reputation of other scientists (see Great Barrington Declaration) they caused great damage to public health as an institution.
This was, and remains, an authoritarian violation of the terms of your definition. I cannot tell if we agree on that.