The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part I: Introduction

Why it's objectively wrong for medical practitioners to be political activists

The Political Weaponization of the Medicine Full Article

The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part II: Activists First, Doctors Second

The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part III: Medicalizing Gun Control

The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part IV: Medicalizing Racism

The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part V: Medicalizing Climate Change

The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part VI: Unmitigated Academic Insanity

---

"We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States and anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do”

- Dr. Peter Marks, Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA (FDA Vaccine Chief)

(Source: US has a "very serious" problem with Covid-19 vaccine uptake, CNN)

*************************************************

Introduction

We have reached a juncture in the course of human events where the medical establishments across the civilized world no longer possess institutional credibility as healthcare practitioners¹, a first in human history (as far as I am aware).

From the onset of the pandemic, many of the “trusted” medical “experts” have proven to be not only inept, not only corrupt, but maniacally evil sociopaths who have through their actions and policies caused the needless deaths of tens of millions around the world, and the unimaginable suffering of hundreds of millions if not billions more.

Where did the rot begin though? It is implausible that the entire medical world could have cavalierly discarded their rich tradition of Hippocratic virtue, intellectual honesty and scientific rigour heavily internalized over millennia with such shocking totality and rapidity.

This article aims to expose the true colors of the medical community as a fraternity of rabid political activists above all else - which as we shall see is an objectively and factually accurate characterization of the medical community such as it exists today.

*************************************

Quick summary of the moral, philosophical and political imperative for the medical community to be strictly nonpartisan

The medical community - everyone involved in the administration of healthcare - is one of the fundamental institutions of society. Healthcare affects us all, both on an individual level and vis-à-vis social policymaking at various levels or institutions in society.

Individually, almost everyone will need healthcare at some point in their life, and everyone relies upon some source of medical knowledge to make health related decisions.

As a society, we rely upon social and political institutions to organize healthcare professionals to maximize the efficient discovery and dissemination of medical knowledge, and to correct or remove inaccurate or false information. Society further relies on a combination of cultural norms and enforceable legal standards to keep unethical medical adventures to a minimum. The medical profession naturally plays a key role in maintaining a functional societal homeostasis where medical practice can flourish².

These responsibilities can only be fulfilled if the medical community remains an institution shared by the entirety of the body politic. If the medical community becomes a partisan institution - or is even perceived as a partisan institution - it can no longer carry out its designated functions in society.

Therefore, like any other societal institution that cannot function unless it remains above the fray of the contemporary partisan politics and controversial issues, the medical community must studiously avoid anything that suggests even the mildest appearance of engaging in anything connected to partisan social dynamics.

Conversely, if the medical community fails to maintain its non-partisan character or image, it is bereft of the trust and legitimacy granted by the whole of the society, and cannot carry out any of its functions. Additionally, the weaponization of the medical community can provoke or exacerbate a violent Balkanization of the social fabric and institutions.

Unfortunately, the medical community today has completely shed even the pretense of political neutrality.

Going forward we will provide documentation of the political weaponization of the medical establishment and address some of the implications of this sad but true reality.

Defining “Partisan” or “Political”

It is important to define what constitutes “partisan” or “political” in the context of healthcare.

To be clear, the entanglement of political or social agendas with the core medical responsibilities of medicine has been ongoing for a while already. What has changed is that the sublimation of medicine to political considerations has become far more open and brazen over the course of the pandemic.

Regardless, the basic definition or standard to adjudicate whether something is partisan or political is simply this³:

Anything that either is partisan or political in nature or creates the appearance of a partisan character or political objectives.

It is important to remember that just because a given issue is something that some people feel is a moral imperative to take a certain position on does not denude it of its political character so long as it remains a matter of social controversy.

Put differently, when you publicly stake out a position that there is a clear moral imperative for one side of a societal issue - especially one that is significant or impactful - by definition you are casting tens if not hundreds of millions of people as immoral and holding an illegitimate position. It is precisely this sort of partisan political controversy that the bedrock societal institutions must steer clear of if they are to maintain their legitimacy and viability.

We will return to flesh this out further after illustrating the nature and character of the politicization of the medical mainstream.

Just because something is morally right or just does not mean you’re the one who should take care of it

I do want to make one point at the outset though: There are two distinct problem with medical institutions - especially the foundational pillars of the medical mainstream - taking on social or political causes:

1. Even if a cause is just, they are the wrong people to be the activists. Getting heavily involved in divisive political issues compromises their ability to do carry out their core mandates to the provision of healthcare or Public Health policy, irrespective of whether what they’re advocating for is just. One further but critical point to highlight is that getting involved in political controversies, especially to agencies or institutions that are responsible for formulating and implementing public policy, is a clear conflict of interest as the medical “science” and their activism will not always be on the same page.

   (It is also worth pointing out that there is no shortage of political activists that the medical community needs to also get involved. The one advantage that they bring to the table is that they can weaponize an issue by claiming that “medical science” clearly compels their society to follow their ideological prerogatives, in other words, medicalizing the issue. This is precisely the problem with medical activism, and this is also an unequivocal complete disqualification for the medical community to be involved in public health altogether, as they are wildly biased an untruthful, and opportunistically seek to “never let a crisis go to waste”.)

2. Their causes - or more specifically, what they think are necessary or ideal solutions to longstanding societal problems - are often not morally or factually grounded in reality. Controversial political issues are almost always far more complicated and nuanced then portrayed. Medical personnel (especially the SJW-types) are typically clueless about major social or political issues, and rarely if ever demonstrate even basic comprehension of the opposing views or the reality on the ground.

For instance, obviously racism such as it exists is a societal evil, but there must nevertheless be a “wall of separation” between medicine and politics. (Unless of course your goal is to tear down all the societal institutions… what is Critical Race Theory??)

Military: The paradigm of what the medical community should look like

The military had a strong tradition of never tainting itself with politics. Ever. Soldiers never got publicly embroiled in the social controversies of the day. The military never, ever would dare impeach their reputation by anything that could be perceived as partisan.

To give one easy illustration, military personnel are probably the most qualified group in society by virtue of knowledge & experience to weigh in on gun policy, yet we never hear from military personnel their views on the issue. (And we know where they would overwhelmingly fall out as well, let’s just say not on the side of gun control. At all.)

(Unfortunately, the military has been conquered by the woke brigade over the past few years, and is now indistinguishable from every other woke-ified societal institution and academic discipline⁴.)

The medical community should act like the military and practice medicine without politics, something that they have not only abjectly failed to even care about doing but are rabidly opposed to in principle.

---

The Political Weaponization of the Medicine Full Article

The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part II: Activists First, Doctors Second

The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part III: Medicalizing Gun Control

The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part IV: Medicalizing Racism

The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part V: Medicalizing Climate Change

The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part VI: Unmitigated Academic Insanity

1. I wrote a piece about this a while back:

17 reasons why it is irrational to trust the medical community regarding the covid vaccines

2. Obviously, the reality such as it is bears little to no resemblance with this rosy picture. The point of this is to establish the principles undergirding how the medical profession is structured and organized in society. Their comprehensive failure to uphold their proper role is precisely the issue I am trying to highlight.

3. In theory there are two ways to define this conceptually:

1. Anything that either is partisan or political in nature or creates the appearance of a partisan character or political objectives.

2. Anything that either is *unnecessarily or illegitimately* partisan or political in nature or creates the appearance of a partisan character or political objectives.

In other words, in a vacuum there is a gray area where the intersection of a political issue with healthcare means that the genuine medical prerogatives cannot be dissociated from the embedded political context.

However, for our purposes I believe that this distinction is irrelevant due to the panoptic reach of the political corruption of the medical establishment and mainstream. The differentiation of a class or category of “permissible” or “unavoidable” politicized actions or literature is a concession to the hard reality that it is impossible to completely avoid any overlap between medicine and politics simply because politics encompasses healthcare-related issues. Critically, such a distinction is only meaningful assuming that the medical community is otherwise diligent to meticulously avoid unnecessary political entanglements, thereby preserving its neutral character and appearance, something that is emphatically not the case here.

4. For the record the supposed “Hard Sciences” do not afford protection against the corruption of science by the woke mob or racial essentialists. Here a a few brief examples to illustrate:

• Engineering: Special session: Race and the idea of privilege in the engineering classroom

  Bonus: The Journal of Engineering Education published an editorial titled Racism is the manifestation of White supremacy and antiracism is the answer

• Math: Math Equity Toolkit

  If a teacher tries to stand up for objective academic standards for math, they are risking their job. (Math in particular for some reason seems to be overly targeted as “racist”.)

• Physics: Discussions Intensify on Systemic Racism in Physics

  Curtesy of the American Institute of Physics

  Bonus Insanity: Observing whiteness in introductory physics: A case study

• Chemistry: Anti-Racism Focus in Chemistry

  Curtesy of the American Chemical Society (chartered way back in 1876!)

  Bonus from Nature: The missing colours of chemistry

“Ingrained prejudices and a lack of action addressing discrimination are some of the main reasons why academic chemistry is overwhelmingly white. Data and discussions on racial inequalities are often greeted with scepticism and cynicism within the community, yet they are necessary to fight racism — and anti-Black racism in particular.”

There is no legitimate reason for science education to “focus” on divisive political issues, much less taking sides, which is not only politically partisan but also blatantly discriminatory.