The Political Weaponization of Medicine
The medical community is a fraternity of political activists above all else, incapable of objective scientific inquiry or the neutral practice of medicine
The Political Weaponization of Medicine Part I: Introduction
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)
*************************************************
I. Introduction
The Weaponization of Medicine Part I: 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:
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”.)
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. This does not mean however that the medical community ought to be the vanguard waging the crusade, meticulously examining every last obscure corner of society to find new instances of debatable racial discrimination. It is more important to maintain a “wall of separation” between medicine and politics than whatever marginal gain. (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.
II. Activists First, Doctors Second
The Weaponization of Medicine, Part II: Activists First, Doctors Second
The Medical Community Comes Out of the Closet as Political Partisans
The Actions and Statements of the Medical Community reveal a hotbed of activism. It’s almost as though med schools are activist indoctrination camps rather than schools to impart medical knowledge.
The official positions taken by mainstream medical institutions and the manner in which they conduct themselves leave no doubt as to the activist nature of the mainstream medical community.
1. 2022 Annual Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates
The American Medical Association (the ‘AMA’ in JAMA) recently held their annual meeting where they decide on what their ‘platform’ will contain (it is very similar to the GOP/Dem political conventions in that way). Delegates from around the country had the opportunity to suggest and vote on all sorts of resolutions. They did not disappoint.
In a nutshell: the AMA convention is indistinguishable from the Democratic Party Convention judging by the content.
The AMA delegates passed a series of openly political resolutions declaring radical Democrat agenda items to be critical for people's health, in the latest brazen deliberate polarization of medicine.
Let’s take a look at some of the specific resolutions entertained at the AMA convention to get a sense of just how rabid the political activism is inside the AMA:
(Note: the numbering scheme resets a few times for different categories of resolutions.)
RESOLUTION 002 – OPPOSITION TO DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF HAITIAN ASYLUM SEEKERS
Recommendation: Adopt
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association oppose discrimination against Haitian asylum seekers which denies them the same opportunity to attain asylum status as individuals from other nations.
Immigration is a hot issue that evokes strong emotions. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to severely restrict or even shut down immigration that are strongly held by tens of millions of people, it’s not some black/white issue, economically or morally. Don’t be fooled by the faux humanitarianism that this may superficially look like.
RESOLUTION 003 – GENDER EQUITY AND FEMALE PHYSICIAN WORK PATTERNS DURING THE PANDEMIC
Recommendation: Adopt
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association advocate for research on physician-specific data analyzing changes in work patterns and employment outcomes among female physicians during the pandemic including, but not limited to, understanding potential gaps in equity, indications for terminations and/or furloughs, gender differences in those who had unpaid additional work hours, and issues related to intersectionality (Directive to Take Action); and be it further.
They came out in favor of the politically controversial so-called gender-wage gap (which is factually mythical when disaggregating to control for confounding factors like education or marital status).
“Equity” is a term of art used specifically to mean NOT equality of treatment, but ‘equality’ of outcome in the Marxist sense. It is a blatantly racist and bigoted concept that is straightforwardly evil. We will discuss Health Equity in depth later.
RESOLUTION 007 – EQUAL ACCESS TO ADOPTION FOR THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY
Recommendation: Adopt
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association advocate for equal access to adoption services for LGBTQ individuals who meet federal criteria for adoption regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation (Directive to Take Action); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA encourage allocation of government funding to licensed child welfare agencies that offer adoption services to all individuals or couples including those with LGBTQ identity.
The resolution was accompanied by this gem:
“Testimony was heard in unanimous support of this resolution.”
Unanimity on a controversial issue implies that the group is a cult and thus incapable of thinking or reasoning logically about the various arguments surrounding the issue.
And the fanatical extremism here is also alarming - forget political activism, they are openly advocating that the government defund all religious adoption agencies - which would cripple the foster care system. In other words, it is preferable to cruelly deprive children of loving foster parents and a stable home in order to promote “LGBT+_)* rights”. This is twisted and demonic.
Also alarming is that there no discussion of children’s rights. It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense and honesty that men and women do not have the same emotional relationship with their children, there are differences, and children need both. At a minimum, it would be a relatively uncontroversial stance that there at least exists a compelling argument that a child has a right to a mother and a father.
In the end, the steering committee voted to recommend adoption of open religious bigotry over the adoption of children, and did so unanimously.
Definitely wildly partisan.
RESOLUTION 028 – PRESERVING ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
Recommendation: Adopt
AKA Abortion on Demand.
This one is too long to reproduce the full text of, so we’re just going to go with a screenshot:
It’s nice to know that abortion is a “core value” of the AMA (2nd line from bottom), which places them in a distinct minority of society who do not regard abortion as a “core value”, most of whom are also pro-life at an earlier stage than the “core values” of the AMA allow.
And here the testimony was “passionate, ” indicating just how hysterical the AMA is regarding abortion:
“Testimony was heard in strong and passionate support of Resolution 028”
50-year culture war issues are unequivocally not the province of empirical medicine.
RESOLUTION 004 – ENCOURAGING LGBTQ+ REPRESENTATION IN MEDICINE
Recommendation: Adopt (probably unnecessary for this one)
This is advocacy for (continuing the) social transformation of society. The majority of the country for instance believes that there are only two genders - male and female - and that they are immutable5. Furthermore, the major religions of the world all hold that ‘unorthodox’ sexual practices are forbidden and morally wrong. That is the hard reality, however you think or feel about these issues.
The AMA however is content to dismiss the views of 1.5 Billion Muslims, and hundreds of millions of Christians (not all Christians still adhere to the Christian orthodoxy on sexuality), as well as the overwhelming majority of humanity alive today. To quote Justice Scalia, “no social transformation without representation”. The AMA is not whatsoever representative of the citizenry or humanity generally.
RESOLUTION 006 – COMBATING NATURAL HAIR AND CULTURAL HEADWEAR DISCRIMINATION IN MEDICINE AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALISM
Recommendation: Adopt
I’m actually unclear how to judge this one being unfamiliar with the issue. It is mildly entertaining though.
RESOLUTION 008 – STUDENT-CENTERED APPROACHES FOR REFORMING SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY POLICIES
Recommendation: Adopt
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association support evidence-based frameworks in K-12 schools that focus on school-wide prevention and intervention strategies for student misbehavior (New HOD Policy) and be it further etc.
The AMA wants to fundamentally change how school discipline works. After the same basic attitude has resulted in the collapse of discipline at schools across the country. Realize that “evidence based” means in the sense that Remdesivir✔/ Ivermectin❌ is “evidence based”.
RESOLUTION 010 – IMPROVING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF SEX WORKERS
Recommendation: Adopt (easiest one to pass, every man on the committee was obviously going to vote for this one)
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association recognize the adverse health outcomes of criminalizing consensual sex work (New HOD Policy); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA: 1) support legislation that decriminalizes individuals who offer sex in return for money or goods; 2) oppose legislation that decriminalizes sex buying and brothel keeping; and 3) support the expungement of criminal records of those previously convicted of sex work, including trafficking survivors (New HOD Policy); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA support research on the long-term health, including mental health, impacts of decriminalization of the sex trade. (New HOD Policy)
Liberal Land: supporting prostitution = empowering women.
The AMA wants to medicalize prostitution to prevent society criminalizing prostitution - as a health issue, it can be declared ‘unhealthy’ to foreclose this career option from aspiring women (or non-gender-specific clumps of cells). Criminalization of prostitution (or any other form of social sanction) is not a medical judgement to make, but a societal determination to be resolved in the political arena, as it implicates a wide and diverse set of factors and moral values. Most people don’t share the AMA’s promiscuous ethos.
RESOLUTION 011 – EVALUATING SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLES FOR RACIAL AND ETHNIC BIAS
Recommendation: Adopt
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association support major journal publishers issuing guidelines for interpreting previous research which define race and ethnicity by outdated means (New HOD Policy); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA support major journal publishers implementing a screening method for future research submission concerning the incorrect use of race and ethnicity. (New HOD Policy)
This one is too complicated to explain here, but suffice it to say that this could be very damaging to diagnosing & treating patients, and keeping high quality data.
RESOLUTION 012 – EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF IATROGENIC INFERTILITY TO INCLUDE GENDER AFFIRMING INTERVENTIONS
Recommendation: Adopt
(Iatrogenic = caused by a medical intervention.)
Here’s an idea: if you want to remain fertile, don’t remove your reproductive organs. Why should society foot the bill because you feel like mutilating your anatomy? This is like saying that someone who chops off his arm because he ‘feels’ like he is a one-armed person is entitled to disability.
RESOLUTION 013 – RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL ANTI-LYNCHING LEGISLATION AS PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVE
Recommendation: Adopt
Lynching has been illegal for over a century before the ceremonial virtue-signaling law passed Congress adding a new crime to the already numerous crimes committed if you actually would lynch someone.
The notion that “anti-lynching” is *Public Health* is fully insane. Is the AMA gonna come out against wars next because of “public health”?? (By this standard, the war in Ukraine has crushed the public health of Ukrainians, and of humanity around the world too considering the famines already starting to be unleashed as a consequence of taking a massive chunk of global food production and distribution offline indefinitely.)
Also, gotta love the new category of ‘victim’ that the med community has invented: “phenotypic appearance”.
RESOLUTION 016 – ADDRESSING AND BANNING UNJUST AND INVASIVE MEDICAL PROCEDURES AMONG MIGRANT WOMEN AT THE BORDER
Recommendation: Adopt
I was unaware that migrant women were being sterilized by the US government at the border (🤔🤔). (Well if they are vaccinating the women, then maybe, but it’s highly unlikely that this was what the AMA had in mind.)
RESOLUTION 022 – ORGAN TRANSPLANT EQUITY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Recommendation: Adopt
This is a good illustration how for something they care about, institutional norms or prior medical standards are no obstacle.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES REPORT 21 – OPPOSITION TO REQUIREMENTS FOR GENDER-BASED TREATMENTS FOR ATHLETES
Recommendation: Referred
1. That our American Medical Association (AMA) oppose mandatory medical treatment or surgery for athletes with Differences of Sex Development (DSD) to be allowed to compete in alignment with their identity; (New HOD Policy)
2. That our AMA oppose use of specific hormonal guidelines to determine gender 19 classification for athletic competitions. (New HOD Policy)
This would be radically out of step with mainstream society.
Furthermore, it is instructive to realize that they are openly embracing ideas that most of society regards as factually deluded and ethically unfair.
RESOLUTION 005 – SUPPORTING THE STUDY OF REPARATIONS AS A MEANS TO REDUCE RACIAL INEQUALITIES
Recommendation: Referred
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association study potential mechanisms of national economic reparations that could improve inequities associated with institutionalized, systematic racism and report back to the House of Delegates (Directive to Take Action); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA study the potential adoption of a policy of reparations by the AMA to support the African American community currently interfacing with, practicing within, and entering the medical field and report back to the House of Delegates (Directive to Take Action); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA support federal legislation that facilitates the study of reparations. (New HOD Policy)
To appreciate just how politically radical this is, even the Democrat Party platform rejected openly endorsing reparations (for now at least).
RESOLUTION 020 – COUNCIL ON ETHICAL AND JUDICIAL AFFAIRS GUIDELINES FOR TREATING UNVACCINATED INDIVIDUALS
Recommendation: Not be adopted
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association and the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs issue new ethical guidelines for medical professionals for care of individuals who have not been vaccinated for COVID-19. (Directive to Take Action)
You have to wonder just what exactly they had in mind here. The current guidance of the AMA on this issue already allows for a soft apartheid6:
This opinion is as factually specious as it is morally fallacious7. By the standard explicated in the AMA’s current standard, physicians can refuse to treat a patient with *any* contagious disease, even the Flu under the “right” circumstances.
Yet it was not quite radical enough for the AMA Weathermen8.
Last but certainly not least we have this proposal that did not end up as a formally proposed resolution (there’s always next year though):
Med Students Call for Comprehensive Sex Ed in Schools at the AMA Meeting
“Making families responsible for sex education isn't working, say advocates of proposed policy”
The Medical Student Section (MSS) sought to remove language from current AMA policy stating that the "primary responsibility for family life education is in the home," and pressed for a draft policy calling on "schools at all education levels to implement comprehensive, developmentally appropriate sexuality education programs.""
This is not only partisan, it is perverted. Understand that underneath the flowery language and sincere-sounding arguments, what they are in practice promoting is that little kids learn about the “birds and bees” from teachers. Teachers who will also explain how birds can actually become bees and vice versa. Or worse.
Regardless of the merits, doctors have no business proselytizing against parents and parental rights/control over their children’s education and values.
This isn’t merely limited to an abstract platform either. The medical students today will be the pediatricians in the years to come. Is it really such a far-fetched concern that your local pediatrician might have a ‘talk’ with your kid while you’re not looking or in the waiting room? What about a school nurse? (Oh wait, that’s already happening.)
At least this one didn’t make it to a vote, which cannot be said for the rest of this list.
To sum up the AMA convention, when it comes to organ transplants, discriminating against people with disabilities is unacceptable despite its being objectively justifiable since they have lower survival odds, but they have no problem discriminating against unvaccinated people despite there being no clearly demonstrable medical basis for such a requirement9.10
I think that all reasonable people can agree, the annual convention of perhaps the leading medical practitioner organization in the country should not resemble Bernie Sanders’ campaign platform.
2. Political Activism in The Lancet
The Spectator published the following piece on July 1, 2020:
The article starts off with the following stunning admission:
Doctors have always been political. Medical school is often a cradle of social activism, driven by a syllabus underlining health inequalities and the cultural aspects of disease.
This bears repeating:
“Medical school is often a cradle of social activism”
The aphorism ‘truer words have rarely been spoken’ comes to mind seeing this sentence.
The article explains further:
A different challenge posed, however, is when ideology begins to influence medical policy, corrupting medical decisions. This can be particularly problematic in the field of medical publishing.
Better still, the Spectator piece highlights a number of egregious examples of woebegone Lancet forays into politics:
President Trump (Described by the Spectator piece as “his pre-inauguration manifesto”)
A hundred days: what is to show for it? (Critiquing Trump administration)
The US election 2020 (an open call to vote out Trump)
Unexplored by the Spectator article is the Lancet’s rich history of political activism, such as the following papers:
In 2004, The Lancet published a commentary piece, “Health and social justice”, that sought to essentially reframe health as ‘an appropriate focal variable for assessing social justice’.
In 2006, The Lancet published “Politics and health inequalities”, which ‘reminded’ us that “medicine is politics and social medicine is politics writ large,” and that “medicine and politics cannot and should not be kept apart.”
The article further observed “But political activism does not fit easily with respectable academic research careers. How can the supposed objectivity of science come to terms with the contrasting political implications of our explanations of health inequalities?”
In other words, doctors must become social & political activists.
In 2007, The Lancet published “Global health governance and the World Bank”. Were this one a few rare instances of Lancet broaching the political world, then they could be forgiven for this piece on the grounds that almost everyone seeks to maximize their financial resources and funding, so it could be understood as largely apolitical in nature.
In 2012, The Lancet happily published a
commentary‘study’ on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a piece titled “Role of political factors in wellbeing and quality of life during long-term constraints and conflict: an initial study”.This was followed up by the publication of “An open letter for the people of Gaza” in 2014, proclaiming with unabashed grandiosity “on the basis of our ethics and practice, we are denouncing what we witness in the aggression of Gaza by Israel”.
As if the Lancet has ethics.
In 2015, The Lancet published “Chronic diseases—the social justice issue of our time”, whose central thesis is aptly communicated by its title.
Also in 2015, The Lancet published a treatise on Latin American political history called “Political roots of the struggle for health justice in Latin America”, the content of which would not seem out-of-place in a course on Marxist thought.
The Lancet’s appalling venture activism was finally called out in 2014 by NGO Monitor in a report, “The Lancet: A History of Exploiting Medicine for Political Warfare Against Israel”. They discovered that - among many improprieties - one of the authors on the Open Letter was affiliated with a US-designated terror organization.
The Lancet also has a ‘Group for Racial Equality’ which we shall examine a bit later.
Although just one journal, The Lancet is representative of the ideological disposition and activist bent of the broader medical community, besides for wielding sizeable influence upon the medical community in its own right from which these values would trickle down to infect the whole of its body politic.
3. Medical Schools: ‘The cradle of social activism’
The medical schools are the real bastion of looniness where the cray-cray reigns supreme. I am not sure how else to convey as potent a sense of sheer derangement but with churlish and inane language.
Let’s see what the world’s prestigious bastions of medical knowledge have to offer:
Commitment to being “Anti-Racist”
The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) - which speaks for medical schools - ran the following article on May 25, 2021:
Select quotes from the article:
If a doctor is NOT and activist, that’s the real problem:
The ‘experts’ say. Of course.
And this is practically straight out of the Nazi handbook:
Understand what this means. The foundation for medical ethics is the principle that medicine treats every patient as an individual person, with the sole objective of helping the patient. Adding a ‘lens’ is a fancy way of saying that patients should not be viewed only as the individual person being treated, but also as a manifestation of the political and social environment, so that treatment decisions take into account not only the welfare of the patient but also the broader impact on social phenomena like “inequity” or “systemic racism”.
The article refers readers to a grand doctrinal treatise, the “Racism in Medicine Report”, or as it refers to itself at the top of every page, “Creating Leadership & Education to Address Racism”.
Especially useful for us here are Appendices D & E (screenshots in footnotes11,12).
Appendix D, entitled “External Review Of Aspirational Institutions And Programs,” is basically a compilation of the programs or efforts of a few medical schools to address systemic racism (page 34 of the PDF).
Appendix E is a Glossary of Terms (or concepts) used by CRT. I really suggest you read through it to appreciate just how deranged the medical world has become.
Finally, there is a sidebar in this reprehensible call for indoctrination that directs the reader to the following resource for “teaching anti-racism”:
This attitude is absolutely manifest in medical schools:
Here are a couple of examples to illustrate how medical schools have integrated this odious ethos into their identity and curricula:
Almost every medical schools has some form of the following on their home page. This is from the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, which proudly features this menu on their homepage:
Many medical schools also have some form of manifesto that lays out their guiding imperatives in organizing “anti-racist” indoctrination into their curricula and programs. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai features the following disquisition detailing how they intend to ‘transform’ medical education:
Just to be clear:
Like all American institutions, medicine has been shaped by a legacy of racial injustice. Racism permeates clinical practice and biomedical research, public health policy, and academic advancement. Its influence on medical education is even more profound. It is through medical education that racism and bias in medicine are perpetuated across generations.
They’re flat-out claiming that medical education is one of the premier perpetuators of racism today. Maybe we should shut them down then?
Hillsdale needs to open a medical school ASAP.
Decolonizing Medicine
How does one implement “Anti-Racism” into action at med school? By decolonizing the curriculum.
Medicine is (still) a ‘colonialized’ ‘territory’ of Euro-centric Cis-ness, or so it would seem judging by the mountain of medical literature raising awareness of this alleged travesty.
Science Open published a clarion call, ‘Decolonising the Medical Curriculum‘: Humanising medicine through epistemic pluralism, cultural safety and critical consciousness.
The BMJ proffered an editorial entitled “Diversifying and decolonising the medical curriculum”.
The Annals of Global Health asked “How Do We Decolonize Global Health in Medical Education?”
And of course, we needed a paper to weave in the popular but radical racist concept of ‘white fragility’, “Decolonising medical education and exploring White fragility”.
Unsurprisingly, psychiatry is (allegedly) having a uniquely difficult time with such a direct macroaggressive challenge, reported in “Decolonising the medical curriculum: psychiatry faces particular challenges”.
Have those medical schools taken up the mantle? Yes they have:
Harvard: Harvard Chan Student Committee for the Decolonization of Public Health
Oxford: Decolonisation Lecture Series
Exeter: Decolonizing Medicine, an Introduction
University of Bristol: Decolonising the curriculum
University College London: Decolonising the Medical Curriculum
UCL has a great Intro to their decolonization enterprise where they helpfully define what is meant by ‘decolonizing’:
This sounds like fanatical Marxist bellicism run amok:
“‘decolonising the curriculum’ refers to the aim to overturn power imbalances rooted in historic and institutional biases along axes of race, ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, sexual orientation and disability that are reflected in medical curricula”
Anyone sensing a pattern here?
This is but a drop in the bucket. The ideological radicalization and Balkanization of medical schools against societal norms is not limited to CRT, rather it carries through to pretty much every other political issue in society.
Clearly, our medical schools have become partisan indoctrination mills.
Hillsdale needs to establish a medical school ASAP.
Decolonization Postscript:
While editing this article, I found the following tweet from the AMA promoted in my twitter feed:
On the bright side, even on far-left Twitter, decolonizing medical curricula could barely get a measly 8 RT/11 Likes despite being promoted.
Medicalizing Issues
The go-to tactic for the medical profession to weaponize medicine for political gain is to medicalize a political issue - it reframes the debate as good vs evil or violation of basic human rights, which confuses people and either erodes the clarity and conviction of the opposition, or for the ones who don’t back down in the face of “medical expert opinion” it makes it easier to frame them as wild-eyed crazies or Qanon devils.
III. Medicalizing Gun Control
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part III: Medicalizing Gun Control
Few issues demonstrate the medical community’s instinct to dive into partisan issues like gun control.
To be clear, the specter of partisan politicking by what are supposed to be politically neutral institutions is a blatant violation of their non-partisan character which at minimum destroys public confidence in their impartiality and their ability to objectively analyze scientific information or issue health guidance.
Gun control is uniquely predisposed to being (deceptively) portrayed as a medical matter, because getting shot causes physical injury, and because of psychological trauma is often a side effect of exposure to gun violence.
Nevertheless, gun control has nothing to do with medicine, and medical professionals have no more knowledge or expertise than anyone else (and probably are more ignorant than most) to make such policies. Doctors are not trained to calculate the benefit of social policies, the need for pressures and incentives to keep government officials in check, the moral basis of individual rights, among a myriad assortment of other relevant factors.
And what about the lives and property saved or severe bodily injury prevented by firearms used in self-defense? This is a pretty elementary consideration, yet it is practically never discussed. The research here would probably shock you (and would definitely shock the doc) - the (realistic) low end is somewhere in the ballpark of 760,000 “Defensive Gun Use” (DGU) events annually13.14 (A DGU is an incident where someone uses a gun to ward off a potential threat, which most of the time merely involves displaying it, not firing it.) The seminal 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS) actually estimated 2.2-2.5 million annual DGU’s (!!).
Another consideration is that the CDC, like all federal agencies, perennially complains that it lacks the adequate funding to fulfill its myriad mandates, especially pandemic preparedness. So you’d think that the CDC might be triaging money to its core missions instead of dallying about in excess issues that have no relevance to communicable pathogens - like gun control.
Senator Tom Coburn famously released a report in 2007 on the pathetic state of affairs at the CDC, entitled “CDC OFF CENTER” (it’s rather entertaining):
It is very simple really: You go to the doctor if you are shot. You don’t go to the doctor to advise you on which gun policy to vote for.
If there is an appropriate application of a “wall of separation” between social institutions, it is between healthcare and politics.
The CDC’s Gun Control Misfire of 1993
All the way back in 1993, the CDC chose to publish a study entitled “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home”:
The CDC’s mission is to “control” or “prevent” “communicable diseases”. They have no mandate (before 2018 anyway) to evaluate issues without a pathogenic basis such as gun violence15. Nevertheless, the CDC thought it would be a good idea to add gun violence to their constantly expanding portfolio of biological menaces (real or imagined) to declare war on, culminating in the above-mentioned study.
Fortunately, back then there still existed a basic sensitivity in society that gun control was not the sort of “disease” imagined by the Public Health Service Act of 1943 that organized the progenitor agency that ultimately became the CDC, or any of the subsequent Acts of Congress that revised or added to its portfolio. The ensuing public pushback resulted in the Dickey Amendment attached to the 1996 omnibus spending bill (omnibus… same old Congress16), which stated (page 245):
The medical community did not take kindly to this Congressional rebuke for overstepping their bounds. Nor were they shy about expressing their frustrations year after year:
There are few things as “non-partisan” as *condemning* the position of an organization that represents the approximate views of half the country on a hot-button issue.
“Condemns”
This is extremely aggressive and overwrought language. Do you really think that such people can be remotely objective when it comes to public policy? Or that they don’t have significant ulterior objectives that they might be aiming to achieve if a public health emergency gave rise to an opportunity to do so?
Ultimately, the Dickey amendment was functionally neutered in 2018 in a different Omnibus package.
Of real concern though is that it is unclear to what extent the CDC actually complied with the amendment, or if they complied at all. It is is no trifling matter when the CDC ignores a direct Congressional statute. And this isn’t just an issue of acting partisan, it’s blatantly illegal and suggests that the medical agencies see themselves as an elite aristocracy above the law.
Which makes the following study - conducted in 2015 - a bit… worrisome (emphasis mine):
The Data Dilemma: How Delaware is Responding to the CDC's Recommendations on Gun Violence
This was while the CDC was statutorily instructed to be out of the business of researching gun violence.
Here’s how the study describes the CDC’s involvement:
So the CDC:
Conducted a study on gun violence. Not just any old study, but a “groundbreaking” study.
Issued recommendations to combat gun violence, including the “creation of a predictive analytical [surveillance] tool that would help social service providers determine who is most likely […] to engage in gun violence”;
that was ultimately rejected in part because of “ethical concerns”
This one study is probably worth its own substack to properly flesh out. It is more than a little disturbing that the CDC recommended a revolutionary and transformational “analytical tool” portrayed like something straight out of a dystopian horror set in a 1984-esque future. That the state of Delaware rejected the CDC’s recommendation on the grounds of its being ethically questionable (that’s putting it rather mildly) underscores the magnitude of the CDC’s actions here.
Whatever the utility or ethical considerations, the CDC has no business being involved in crafting controversial social policies, let alone something this consequential and ethically dubious.
Not just the CDC
The CDC was hardly the only crusading gun control zealot in the medical community.
In 2017, JAMA Oncology - yes, you read that right, *ONCOLOGY* - published a paper Death by Gun Violence - A Public Health Crisis. Whatever tenuous connection might exist between a general mandate to advance Public Health and gun violence, it is surely absent from the discipline of oncology. I suppose that it is possible that considering this was a group effort by 11 JAMA publication editors and the Chief, it could be they simply picked Oncology out of a hat:
This academician murderers row is as impressive as it is perverse. The fact that the editors of 11 separate JAMA publications along with the JAMA Editor in Chief coauthored what is clearly intended as a seminal “call to arms” against gun violence demonstrates that the medical community is of one mind that gun control must be implemented. And not only is one of the most prominent and prestigious journals going all-in for gun control, they are insinuating that there is no legitimate basis to oppose it. They apparently were unconcerned with the prospect of alienating the majority of the country’s citizens who do not share the “enlightened” views of medical academia that the 2nd Amendment is anachronistic and outdated.
The trauma surgeons got in on the action as well, such as this study by 8 members from the Section of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago17:
The Ethics and Politics of Gun Violence Research
Abstract
Gun violence is an epidemic that affects hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. Despite gun violence being disproportionately more lethal than other leading causes of trauma, there is a dearth of research being carried out on its root causes and prevention strategies. For the past 20 years, lobbying and politics have interfered with the forward progress of gun violence research. Physicians have a history of producing actionable public-health change and have an ethical obligation to fight for the research that will benefit their patients.
This is revealing about their mindset. It isn’t the job of Chicago Med to adjudicate among the various options for demilitarizing the war-torn streets of the Windy City, even if they are more dangerous than Afghani villages. Trauma surgeons do not possess the necessary expertise and background moreso than other residents of the city, the state, or the country.
This is exactly the sort of blatant politicization that medicine cannot afford to dabble in without losing its nonpartisan neutrality and societal legitimacy. A normal person would readily acknowledge that this at minimum looks like the docs are getting all partisan about guns.
This study takes the cake though: Gun Violence: A Biopsychosocial Disease. A team of MD’s and PhD’s from three states came together - in their own words - to “frame” gun violence as a “disease” in order to “place it firmly within medical and public health practice”:
Points for honesty at least - researchers are often cagey in how they write so that their underlying political objectives are not so evident.
Needless to say, the specter of medical “experts” wresting a hotly contested issue from the public sphere into their personal fiefdom (probably because it is partisan and ideological) does not inspire confidence in their political impartiality.
This indefensible partisanship comes across to many people as egregious gerrymandering of their own academic discipline to encompass nakedly political or social controversies. Their deficient judgement and poor behavior demonstrates that the medical community is first and foremost a political fraternity. If the medical community truly cared about upholding the integrity and viability of the healthcare institutions, they would never abuse their image and reputation in this way. Their willingness to do so shows that politics is a higher priority to them than administering healthcare or individual patients’ well-being. More specifically, (radical) leftist politics.
The truth is that this entire article can really be boiled down to one observation - that the CDC’s Wikipedia page has a dedicated section about “gun violence”:
Something that would completely stump an alien observing humanity for the first time.
Considering how underprepared the CDC was to face covid and the unbridled catastrophe that followed in the CDC’s behavior throughout covid, perhaps the CDC should return to its core mandates disease prevention and control - assuming that the CDC is still able to do those anymore.
**********************************
There are many, many more medical studies about gun control/violence. We have mentioned just a few to illustrate the broader trend in the medical community.
For anyone wondering what an appropriate intersection of healthcare and gun violence looks like, here’s an instructive example: Epidemiology of orthopaedic fractures due to firearms. Unlike gun policy, understanding the pathology of the damage sustained when a bullet rips through human anatomy is within the proper domain of medicine.
IV. Medicalizing Racism
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part IV: Medicalizing Racism
Refer to the earlier section on medical school curricula.
Racism Inside the CDC
(Yes, the CDC is blatantly racist, as we shall see.)
I am picking on the CDC because the CDC is representative of the medical community, is enormously influential on the academic world, publishes an enormous amount of material on their website that is easy to find and access, and is a particularly egregious violation of the officially non-partisan status of medicine.
Nestled within the CDC bureaucracy is a department called the “Office of Minority Health and Health Equity” (OMHHE). (We’ll get to what “Health Equity” means to signify later18.)
The OMHHE describes itself as follows:
There’s a lot to say about this (and the rest of the material on the webpage), but one thing is uniquely noteworthy is the boxed paragraph. The unmistakable but disturbing implication is that “eliminating health disparities” is as important a priority as anything else, and possibly the highest priority. This corrosive mindset has been born out in CDC’s own actions, as we shall see.
Let’s see what the OMHHE has been up to.
The OMHHE published a series of ‘CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Reports’:
From the inaugural 2011 report:
The data presented throughout the report provide a compelling argument for action. Some articles identify promising programs and interventions that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing the burden of disease or risk factors for a specific health problem. The report recommends addressing health disparities with dual intervention strategies related to health and social programs, and more broadly, access to economic, educational, employment, and housing opportunities.
This is thinly veiled political activism for very specific political agenda items that are controversial to say the least19.
Racism as a Public Health Issue
Racism is a political issue. Racism is not a medical issue.
But that’s not gonna stop the CDC, which has the following section on its website:
Impact of Racism on our Nation’s Health
To be fair, the CDC does have quite a bit of “personal experience” with institutional racism - the Tuskegee Experiment (officially “referred to” by the CDC as the “USPHS Syphilis Study at Tuskegee” - how sanitary) was a CDC atrocity, and a fairly recent one too.
Returning to the CDC’s webpage, they don’t waste any space getting to their thesis:
Racism, both structural and interpersonal, are fundamental causes of health inequities, health disparities and disease. The impact of these inequities on the health of Americans is severe, far-reaching, and unacceptable.
“Medicalizing” racism is incompatible with “politically neutral” medicine or “science”.
Medicalizing racism = the weaponization of medical institutions to enforce a particular political ideology, value system, and worldview on the rest of society.
There is a wealth of alarming, disturbing, and/or preposterous material parked within the CDC’s “Health Equity” section of their website for anyone curious to see for themselves.
Suffice it to say that it is hard indeed to distinguish the CDC from a typical political activist organization.
The CDC has a whole section dedicated to “Health Equity”, which we shall explore below.
Institutional Racism in the Medical Community
The following is a true story:
From the article:
The Journal of the American Medical Association’s editor-in-chief apologized on Thursday for a tweet and podcast from the publication that questioned the existence of systemic racism in health care.
Yup, he *questioned* the existence of systemic racism in healthcare. Oh, the HORROR.
The article continues:
“The language of the tweet, as well as portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in medicine and society as JAMA has done for many years. I take responsibility for these lapses and sincerely apologize for both the lapses and the harm caused by both the tweet and some aspects of the podcast,” Howard Bauchner, the journal’s editor, said in a statement.
If you think that this is over the top, consider what the CEO of the AMA had to say:
The CEO of the American Medical Association, James Madara, also issued a statement on Thursday to say he was “deeply disturbed” and “angered” by the podcast.
“The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal and we are deeply disturbed — and angered — by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast,” Madara said. “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”
There are those pesky House of Delegates again.
It is worthwhile to consider what Mr. Madara is saying here: Since the AMA officially has a policy stating that “racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal”, to so much as *question* the premise is beyond the pale.
Or in other words, the views of most of the country are too gouche to be countenanced in the halls of medicine.
The implications of this aggressive and far-reaching censorship and ideological zealotry are chilling.
In the end, Bauchner’s groveling apology was deemed insufficient to atone for his grievous infraction:
Oh, and the other doctor on that fateful podcast got canned as well:
And whaddya know? The Astroturf protest worked:
So let’s get this straight: The JAMA Editor-in-Chief articulated his personal opinion that doctors are not inherently racist mongrels and that there was not entrenched systemic racism in healthcare (a position in line with the vast majority of America). This was considered such an unforgivable heresy and threat - however unclear it is to most rational thinking people who exactly is facing such mortal peril - that JAMA not only fired someone with a remarkably distinguished career and sterling credentials, but they went and hired an open activist to replace him as the *Editor-in-Chief*. That’s right, a naked political zealot now runs the show over at JAMA.
This is completely insane. All because a couple off doctors had the temerity to state the obvious, that doctors by and large are not racist20.
The AMA in their Journal of Ethics (🤣🤣🤣🤣) have a study titled “Everyone Is Harmed When Clinicians Aren't Prepared”, where they inform us:
How anyone can rationally think that the medical community is not fatally compromised by their political activist dalliances is beyond me.
The Medical Literature’s Obsession with Race
There are literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of papers in the medical literature applying the core tenets of ‘Critical Race Theory’ to every nook and cranny of the medical universe.
I compiled about 30 studies with the abstracts here for those who want to see for themselves the full glory of the aforementioned cytokine storm of cray-cray:
I put the list without the abstracts in this footnote21.
These papers (along with the hundreds and hundreds of other similar studies) give the distinct impression that the medical community are SJW’s first and foremost, the dispensation of medical care and public health being a distant second.
JAMA’s new Editor-In-Chief
It is worthwhile exploring the academic history of the new head honchoette of JAMA, Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS. (I think it’s about time ‘SJW’ was a credential, what are they waiting for already?) The scholar that Stat news glowingly referred to earlier as a “Black health-equity advocate”.
Following tradition, she wrote a piece introducing herself, and to lay out her vision for JAMA going forward:
The Urgency of Now and the Responsibility to Do More—My Commitment for JAMA and the JAMA Network
Here’s the abstract (unfortunately, the full text version is behind their paywall, and I’m not paying; various emphases mine):
Science, medicine, and public health are at extraordinary crossroads, crystalized by the pandemic. The contemporary investment in research has yielded unprecedented discoveries at an exceptional rate, establishing innovative tools and approaches that promise further insights to spur future progress. Faced with a novel virus devastating the planet, the scientific community moved with unparalleled speed to design effective diagnostic tests, vaccines, and therapeutics only to have their widespread adoption thwarted, in part, by confusion, poor communication, mistrust, *politicization*, and organized disinformation. The pandemic demonstrated local and global interconnectedness,
but also laid bare how entrenched social and structural inequities translate to catastrophic inequities in health.
The pandemic illustrated the way in which accessible high-quality medical care, functioning public health systems, and sensible policies must operate together to improve health—and often do not. Science, medicine, and public health have had brilliant triumphs, but have also been notably mired by inaction, lack of innovation, and failure to embrace much-needed transformative approaches. The urgency of now makes clear the compelling need to build on the successes forged by this crisis and engage in critical self-reflection to learn from shortfalls if the challenges of the ongoing pandemic and myriad health issues beyond COVID-19 are to be addressed.
I’m willing to bet that her fleshed-out explanation in the full article is far more disturbing.
(A search on the JAMA network of papers she is a credited author for reveals a skewed focus on racial social justice topics especially over the past few years.)
No serious healthcare professionals who understood their primary duty to society is to be dispassionate and neutral on all partisan matters would so much as contemplate inveighing upon the most divisive and emotionally fraught issues roiling society, let alone dispense with the pretense of objectivity altogether.
Health Equity
This topic merits its own section, as we shall soon appreciate.
But first we must understand: what exactly is ‘health equity’?
To remind everyone, “equity” is a political term of art that specifically refers to the UNequal treatment of people based on politically favored characteristics like race or gender in order to bring about equality in outcomes between all groups in society. It is an explicitly Marxist concept.
“Health Equity” is the application of equity to health, which is every bit as radical as it sounds22, and every bit as abhorrent in practice as one might fear.
For instance, the Wikipedia entry for ‘Health Equity’ informs us that “Inequity implies some kinds of social injustice.”
In the study Defining equity in health, we are similarly enlightened (in all caps too, although to be fair it is a section title) that “EQUITY MEANS SOCIAL JUSTICE”.
The study very explicitly makes clear what they mean:
EQUITY IS NOT THE SAME AS EQUALITY
The concept of equity is inherently normative—that is, value based; while equality is not necessarily so. Often, the term health inequalities is used as a synonym for health inequities, perhaps because inequity can have an accusatory, judgmental, or morally charged tone. However, it is important to recognise that, strictly speaking, these terms are not synonymous. The concept of health equity focuses attention on the distribution of resources and other processes that drive a particular kind of health inequality—that is, a systematic inequality in health (or in its social determinants) between more and less advantaged social groups, in other words, a health inequality that is unjust or unfair.
In other words, “Health Equity” means discrimination in practice - i.e. arbitrarily depriving some people of medical treatment or care - to eliminate gaps in health outcomes deemed unfair by radical partisan activists.
Literally:
This demented discrimination was indeed implemented:
Nestled deep within the article deceptively titled “With a record 9,813 new COVID-19 cases, Utah is limiting eligibility for monoclonal antibody treatments” is the statement, “[A] “risk calculator” that scores patients according to their risk of serious illness from COVID-19, with points given for age, sex, being part of a high-risk racial or ethnic group23, and certain medical conditions”.
In Minnesota, they use the “Ethical Framework for Allocation of Monoclonal Antibodies during the COVID-19 Pandemic”, which includes the following (Page 8):
Even Texas was not spared (#2 (!!) on the list):
We could go on and on here, but this should suffice to convey the demented ethical landscape of the medical community.
CDC & Health Equity
Unsurprisingly, the CDC has a heavily populated section on their website dedicated to health equity:
Don’t you love the propaganda picture of diverse smiling children? Subtle but powerful framing to get you to associate soft medical apartheid with happy good pleasantness.
The CDC is inviting us to “follow the links below”, so let’s.
We’ll explore one of them here (but I strongly encourage you to check out the rest yourself), “Health Equity in Cancer:”
This takes us to the following landing page:
We’ll analyze perhaps the most egregious of these: “How racism leads to cancer health disparities.” The CDC is openly declaring that racism is basically causing cancer. Oh, and “Racism is a serious threat to the public’s health.”
??!!!??!??!??!?!?!?!!?!?!?!
This gets MUCH worse. Clicking on that gets us to the following page. I encourage you to read through the entire CDC synopsis, however difficult and offensive it may be:
This is straight up catechistic CRT dogma. The same ideologically offensive brainwashing that parents across the country are demanding get thrown out of classrooms. To properly explain the content and implications of this to refute the numerous objections that some would raise requires its own article, but the wildly partisan character of this should be self-evident to any honest person.
The CDC maintains a radically different perspective, that systemic racism - a politically divisive fringe position claiming American society is irredeemably invested with and perpetuates racism - is a precipitating cause for cancer.
At the bottom of the page (not in the above screenshot) is the following:
More Information
These lead to further rabbit holes of endless inflammatory Marxist race-baiting rhetoric, that unfortunately I can’t cover because this article never end.
So we’ll conclude with the following “commentary” direct from Rochelle Walensky MD, MPH, Director, CDC, and Administrator, ATSDR:
It took her a mere 10 weeks to declare that “racism is a *serious* public health threat.”
It is worth emphasizing the sheer chutzpah of openly proclaiming the medicalization of racism.
A bit further on, she proudly announces that:
Take them at their word. EVERYTHING at the CDC has been infested with this partisan and offensive CRT claptrap.
And finally, she crows about the CDC’s achievement to successfully permeate every single nook and cranny and all those dark bureaucratic recesses nobody even knows exist:
“weave health equity into *EVERY* program at CDC”
Does “every” include those relating to covid??? This sure seems to be an open admission by the CDC that the CDC’s pandemic policies and guidance have had other objectives besides for just the “objective science.” (Judging by the content of their policy recommendations and guidance, one may wonder if Public Health was ever an objective at all.)
Again, I encourage you to go see the rest for yourself.
I don’t think there is anything I can add on top of this to better underscore the shocking weaponization of the CDC into on behalf of the CRT Mafia - which is an objectively accurate and factual characterization of the CDC derived from their own materials.
Except for one final outrageous act of sickening evil that is:
In a sickening irony, the CDC’s own prioritization scheme would lead to *more* deaths among minorities as well24, because black seniors were at far more risk than young healthy black healthcare or other so-called “critical” workers were, a point actually admitted to in the ACIP meeting.
In other words, achieving “equity” - reducing disparity of outcomes between blacks and whites - was worth a few thousand black lives as well.
The CDC folded under the withering public scrutiny that followed:
While the panel’s discussions were never formally offered as recommendations, public health experts who supported such a policy made their motivations publicly known.
“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early in the vaccination process,” Dr. Beth Bell, a CDC advisory committee panelist and professor of global health at the University of Washington, told The Washington Post.
“Older populations are whiter,” Dr. Harald Schmidt, professor of health policy and ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, told The New York Times. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”
This is the demented face of “Health Equity.”
Lancet ‘Group for Racial Equality’
Special mention is due to The Lancet, which has gone above and beyond to create an Orwellian “Equity, diversity, and inclusion Collection” run by The Lancet’s equally ominous Group for Racial Equality. This is every bit as ghastly as it sounds. Here are a few of the 540 titles included in this special collection:
Will global health survive its decolonisation? (To be fair, Gates and his foundations should absolutely quit ‘health colonialization’ in Africa and Asia.)
Undoing supremacy in global health will require more than decolonisation
Racial microaggressions within respiratory and critical care medicine (I thought that killing the patient was a macro-aggression 🤔🤔🤔)
Ethnic and racial inequity and inequality in health and science: a call for action
The Lancet also has a “Racial Equality Advisory Board” to advise the Group for Racial Equality, which it describes as “an external international advisory board of leading multidisciplinary scholars and advocates for racial and ethnic equity”.
In other words, a collection of activists pushing some of the most controversial and polarizing ideological positions today.
NEJM Racism Collection
Not willing to be left behind, the NEJM has a section called “Race and Medicine,” which they describe as:
The Race and Medicine collection reflects NEJM’s commitment to understanding and combating racism as a public health and human rights crisis. Our commitment to antiracism includes efforts to educate the medical community about systemic racism, to support physicians and aspiring physicians who are Black, Indigenous, and people of color, and ultimately to improve the care and lives of patients who are Black, Indigenous, and people of color.
“Our commitment to antiracism”
Notice the expansive definition for what is included under “race and medicine:”
Yup, fossil-fuel pollution and climate change is a race issue. Which it absolutely is according to the modern tenets of intersectional theory:
George Floyd
We cannot avoid mentioning the aftermath of Floyd’s death, as it is a critical illustration of just how low medical science has stooped kneeling before the political golden calf of systemic racism.
What is relevant for us is not the incident itself, but the subsequent abrupt change in the pandemic “science”, and the statements issued by a variety of medical institutions & organizations, which anyone can find endless examples of by means of a quick Google search (fortunately for us, Google is proud of “antiracist” nurses).
This does not in any way diminish the grotesqueness or horror of his death, nor inveigh upon the associated moral quagmire25.
Overnight, pandemic guidance was changed from regarding 10-person outdoor funerals as unacceptably risky to hundreds of thousands tightly packed like sardines screaming at the top of their lungs being perfectly safe.
Well, almost perfectly safe. Fauci initially warned that “George Floyd protests provide ‘perfect recipe’ for new coronavirus surges. Well, for a brief while anyway, as the signature Fauci flip-flop did not take long to manifest, when Fauci under questioning from Rep Jim Jordan26 espoused an updated position that was both unclear and contradictory that seemed to boil down to the following two premises:
“Crowding together particularly when you’re not wearing a mask contributes to the spread of the virus.”
“I'm not in a position to determine what the government can do in a forceful way.” [re limiting Floyd protests]
Fauci’s inane and disingenuous responses also directly illustrate political considerations superseding what should have been a straightforward “yes, protests are liable to spread covid”27.
V. Medicalizing Climate Change
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part V: Medicalizing Climate Change
The Federal government has numerous agencies that are specifically tasked to compile climate and analyze climate data or deal with climate change and its effects, such as the EPA or NOAA. These agencies are amply funded (meaning excessively overfunded like all federal agencies are), so there is no need for medical agencies to extend their turf to encompass climate science or regulations28.
Unsurprisingly, the CDC has a section dedicated to “Climate and Health29”, which includes the following pages dedicated to climate change among others (pictures are linked)30:
The CDC on these same pages refers to a series of resources, such as the following31:
Climate Models and the Use of Climate Projections: A Brief Overview for Health Departments
Summary
When assessing and preparing for the human health effects of climate change, public health practitioners will likely need to access climatological information. Projected climate data, such as future temperature and precipitation, can be used to assess vulnerability and project disease burden. However, state and local health departments often do not have the capacity to utilize climate data or climate projections. This document provides a definition for climate outlooks and climate models and describes particular outlooks and models that may be useful in anticipating the human health effects of climate change. It also includes a topic overview and some suggested initial methods for state and local health departments. This guidance is in accordance with Step 1 of CDC’s Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) framework.
Preparing for the Regional Health Impacts of Climate Change in the United States
Executive Summary
Each region of the United States experiences climate change and its impacts on health differently, due to the regions’ location-specific climate exposures and unique societal and demographic characteristics. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Climate and Health Program supports states, counties, cities, tribes, and territories to assess how climate change will affect their community, identify vulnerable populations, and implement adaptation and preparedness strategies to reduce the health effects of climate change. This document describes the various health impacts climate change will have on different regions of the United States as outlined in the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), actions taken by the CDC Climate and Health Program’s health department partners to prepare for and respond to climate change in their communities, and relevant tools and resources.
And of course, where would we be without combining climate change & fighting racism:
Not Just the CDC:
The Lancet - arguably the world’s preeminent medical journal - empaneled a “Commission on Health and Climate Change” in 2015.
From The Lancet’s own report, Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health:
“The 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change has been formed to map out the impacts of climate change, and the necessary policy responses, in order to ensure the highest attainable standards of health for populations worldwide. This Commission is multidisciplinary and international in nature, with strong collaboration between academic centres in Europe and China.”
Yup, China.
Does this mean that a climate catastrophe is on the horizon? Is China going to “accidentally release” some novel atmospheric seeding tech platform that cools the world by a few degrees (which would be catastrophic for most living things including humans)?
The Lancet maintains a nice, scary-sounding feature called “The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change”:
“Countdown”
Sounds eerily reminiscent of the panic porn fearmongering they would help unleash a few years later when covid rolled out of the ‘Wuhan wet markets’.
To cap it all off, the Spectator piece mentioned earlier had the following to say about The Lancet’s climate change activism:
Perhaps the Lancet’s most bizarre endeavour under Horton’s watch has been publishing a piece sympathetic to the fanatical climate change group, Extinction Rebellion. It is difficult to comprehend how promoting such an overtly political cause in a reputed scientific journal can ever be justified. However, far from an isolated occurrence, it may be viewed as the culmination of gradual steps to exploit the Lancet’s medical prestige and mould it into an influential voice for promoting a certain type of political ideology.
Read that last sentence a few times to appreciate what is being admitted here - that political ideologues conscripted the Lancet to appropriate its prestige and cachet to push a (radical) political agenda.
The Lancet’s article in question here is so radical that it is worth reproducing part of it:
Other medical journals have been similarly zealous on the climate front. The BMJ for instance has published a slew of climate change papers, letters, and editorials.
The last one here in particular is rather stunning. It’s bad enough for doctors to wade into the political maelstrom of climate science, but to “take the lead”??
Not to be outdone, JAMA recently published a paper “UN Reports New Insights on Link Between Climate Change and Human Health”, where they breathlessly report that (emphasis mine):
The effects of climate change are no longer only future fears. They already threaten the environment as well as the physical—and mental—health of humans, according to new insights from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of the United Nations.
JAMA even put out “an open call for papers” on the subject of climate change and health:
Were there not enough submissions to JAMA that they need to solicit papers on new subjects?
Regardless, it is evident that the medical community are evangelist crusaders on behalf of climate change.
The medical community has waded in on practically every other prominent political issue, but due to the mind-numbing length of this article as it is, we’re going to leave them off.
VI. Unmitigated Academic Insanity
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part VI: Unmitigated Academic Insanity
There are two papers that I want to highlight to illustrate a crucial point, which is that a limitless intellectual and moral derangement has taken root in academia that goes well beyond conventional political activism in the academic world generally. Even calling this irrational doesn’t quite capture the full measure of insanity, as we are about to see.
The inmates are clearly in full control of the academic asylum:
1. Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368
This one is probably the looniest study I have ever seen, which is definitely saying something.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
YOU ARE ENTERING THE TWILIGHT ZONE
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
This gobbledygook is indecipherable even to seasoned academics, who are unlikely to make it past the second sentence, where they encounter phrases like “the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers”, or “epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge”.
And just what the heck is "feminist glaciology” pray tell? Is there “feminist chemistry”? What about “feminist math32”?
And then there is “gendered science”. Is gendered science different from “feminist glaciology”? Good question.
Then we get what appears to be the mission statement of this incoherent academic albatross:
“Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.”
At least this paragraph can be said to be avant-garde, transformative even. Until now, we had the Turing Test to determine if a machine could imitate a human well enough that a human would not be able to tell if he was conversing with a machine or person. This unique scholarship is unambiguous proof that the converse is true as well: a human can imitate an algorithm. These distinguished academicians have synthesized a work of art that is indistinguishable from a product of the SCIgen program that can conjure up an academic paper by cobbling together random scholastic-sounding sentences33.34
Moving past the abstract, we find the following:
This is would seem to be straightforward and uncontroversial. After all, from a scientific perspective, ice is ice, nothing more.
Alas this is not what follows:
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Next comes this little tidbit:
Nüsser and Baghel (2014) also reject the ‘ice is just ice’ assertion. Glaciers, they argue, ‘have increasingly become contested and controversial objects of knowledge, susceptible to cultural framings as both dangerous and endangered landscapes’ (Nüsser and Baghel, 2014: 138).
Reject the “ice is just ice” assertion. Really now. This is even more intellectually deranged than the growing number of genders expanding faster than the physical universe.
Oh, and for the record, what they mean by “susceptible to cultural framings” is that we need to incorporate indigenous people’s mythologies about glaciers into scientific knowledge, something to which they later refer to by way of “folk glaciologies”.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
More inverse-Turing test material this is.
And finally, we have…
*Folklore Is Science*
That’s right, we need to integrate *folklore* into science, such as mythical “ice-gods”.
This would make Orwell proud.
2. On Having Whiteness
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34039063/
This study abomination written by one Donald Moss - a white guy, by the way - is the most intellectually and morally deranged paper I have ever seen. Ever.
This deplorable filth was actually published in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. Guess we at least know that JAPA is a load of psychobabble.
Instead of the twilight zone, we are heading off to Racist Reich-stan:
Ask yourself: just how rotten does the culture in academia have to be for an actual journal to publish the rabid deranged rantings of an unhinged lunatic? (Just imagine if someone tried to publish this sort of vile screed about “Jewishness” or “Blackness”...)
Let’s see a few more ‘treasures’ from Donald Moss:
This is the stuff of genocidal regimes, which is not an exaggeration. Dehumanization and portraying a group as a mortal peril to society are recognized as key steps toward the eventual perpetration of genocidal extermination. The Nazis are famous for getting this down to a science.
Unlike covid, the babies are not safe from this ‘disease’:
And of course, it’s basically incurable:
You have to wonder just what nutty culture has infested academia that someone could write this vile screed in the first place.
Donald Moss is a repulsive Nazi wannabe and a demented evil sociopath35.
You have to wonder how many other Donald Mosses are entombed within the halls of the Ivory Towers of academia.
Conclusion
What I have marshalled here is but a drop in the ocean of academic activism and political partisanship. The culture rot visible in the abovementioned sources has poisoned every level of every discipline of medicine and replaced the ancient medical ethos with an ideological perversion of healthcare that has no place in a civilized society. One need look no farther than the subjects having to do with sexuality or lifestyle, where radical activists have succeeded in suppressing and censoring all scientific research in order to maintain the numerous fictions necessary to propping up their tangled and conflicting mess of incoherent and contradictory conceptual frameworks (something brilliantly demonstrated by Matt Walsh’s recent documentary “What is a Woman”).
The primary takeaway I hoped to impart is that the totality of the observations presented here make it irrefutably clear that the medical community is an insular ideological fraternity populated by a bunch of partisan political activists who believe they have a moral and ethical imperative to wield medicine as a political weapon so their ideological views prevail upon the rest of society, and that they are willing to sublimate the formerly foundational ethos of medicine to achieve this.
The Political Weaponization of Medicine Part I: Introduction
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
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.
In theory there are two ways to define this conceptually:
Anything that either is partisan or political in nature or creates the appearance of a partisan character or political objectives.
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.
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.
Most Americans Side With J.K. Rowling: Only Two Genders
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 75% of American Adults agree that there are only two genders, male and female. That total includes 63% who Strongly Agree. Eighteen percent (18%) disagree. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Their ‘opinion’ actually starts off the way you would expect anyone adhering to the Hippocratic Oath to respond:
It is important to realize that very rarely will an organization like the AMA simply come out and bluntly say something morally ‘controversial’ like “it’s ok to discriminate against unvaccinated patients”. What they do is release a statement or opinion that pays lip service to the principle they wish to violate, but articulate the details in such a way that their target audience gets the message that it is ok to “push the envelope” so-to-speak.
Thus when the AMA gives guidance suggesting various scenarios where discriminatory treatment of an unvaccinated patient is ok, they do this understanding full well how their guidance is going to be interpreted and implemented by doctors across the country (in practice this means that a % of doctors will be the revolutionary cutting edge, setting a new tone that will gradually trickle down to the rest of the medical profession). They also grasp that acknowledging the legitimacy of the premise that there is a basis to discriminate against the unvaccinated can create momentum and/or shift the culture to create an atmosphere where the unvaccinated are regarded as unworthy of standard human rights and treatment.
The Devil truly is in the details.
Case in point: their official conclusion still pays lip service to the principle of providing care regardless of patient’s personal characteristics:
“A patient’s vaccination status in and of itself is not sufficient reason, ethically, to turn that individual away.”
Recall that September 15 2021 is after the CDC admitted that the vaccines don’t prevent transmission - to quote the fateful line that was heard ‘round the world uttered by Walensky, “But what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission”:
CNN characteristically played down what Walensky said in their title:
MSN got the title right, but for dated the article more than 4 months after the fact:
If the rebarbative demeanor shown towards the unvaccinated by the medical community is anything to go by, the mindset of the AMA delegates is downright frightening. Consider that the AMA membership as illustrated by these resolutions is to the left of the Democrat voters, who themselves are so radicalized that roughly half of them agree that unvaccinated parents should lose custody of their children and unvaccinated people in general ought to be prohibited from leaving their homes except in the event of an emergency.
Regardless of the AMA’s opinion, there is no shortage of doctors who are willing to deny treatment to unvaccinated patients:
There is a wealth of literature attesting to the immunological insufficiency of the vaccines in patients both awaiting and post transplantation, even absent the safety concerns. Here are a few examples (a couple of them do touch on safety):
Clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients
The Immunology of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccines in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Low immunogenicity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among liver transplant recipients
("To our knowledge, no studies or reports so far have demonstrated convincing protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated organ-transplant recipients")
Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in liver transplanted patients: The debate is open!
("The safety of these vaccines has not been established in immunocompromised patients")
Immunogenicity of COVID-19 Tozinameran Vaccination in Patients on Chronic Dialysis
("These data raise immunologic concerns about using Ab response as a sole metric of protective immunity following vaccination for SARS-CoV-2")
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
The lead researcher wrote a defense against scurrilous attacks leveled by dishonest researchers in Politico that was actually itself published by Politico Magazine, in addition to a 1998 paper defending his initial estimate of 2.5 million DGU’s annually in the 1995 paper reporting the 1993 NSDS results.
I can’t get into a whole discussion here about the various conflicting surveys. Perhaps a subject for a different article.
If you define “pathogenic basis” as anything under the sun that can identify a physiological factor as a precipitating cause, there is literally nothing that would NOT fall under the CDC’s mandate. Even climate change (allegedly) causes physiological conditions - e.g. Climate Change, Fossil-Fuel Pollution, and Children’s Health (NEJM).
Inflation has hit Congressional legislation as well: Back then, omnibus spending bills clocked in a mere trifling 750 pages as opposed to now where they typically exceed a few thousand pages.
Chicago is such a violent warzone that the Navy literally has an arrangement with hospitals in Chicago (there’s also a similar program in LA) to provide Navy surgeons with training & practice treating battlefield wounds and injuries:
Chicago hospital prepares Navy medics for trauma care
Chicago is a good training ground because of the constant gun violence in troubled neighborhoods on Chicago's South and West sides, the AP reports. Last year Stroger treated 600 gunshot victims, 260 people with stab wounds, and nearly 900 people injured in traffic accidents.
Medics learn how to treat patients shot in the chest, abdomen and pelvis--important as bullets and shrapnel sometimes find gaps in soldiers' body armor, according to the article. Although Navy medics rarely see wounds from small-caliber handguns and there are no improved explosive devices (IEDs) exploding in Chicago, officials say there are parallels between the injuries inflicted by both devices.
"Land mines and IEDs ... and high-speed car crashes can cause similar types of injuries," Faran Bokhari, M.D., the head of Stroger's trauma department who helped establish the partnership with the Navy, told the AP. "So we need to do hemorrhage control here or there."
As far as I am concerned, “Equity” is an evil Marxist concept. Equity means to signify equality of outcome regardless of any other factors, which by necessity means unequal treatment that prejudicially favors some people over others by the law and by public policy.
I am personally working from the premise that the conventional academic wisdom regarding the extent of genuine racial/gender disparities and how best to alleviate them is dead wrong and moreover is often merely an attempt to masquerade a devious political agenda behind the moral veneer of fighting racism. Debunking what superficially appear to be factually based arguments on behalf of a just cause requires its own article (series of articles really).
Ironically, JAMA had commissioned a study published in 2008 that challenged “The American Medical Association was early and persistent in countenancing this racial segregation.”
African American Physicians and Organized Medicine, 1846-1968 Origins of a Racial Divide
The AMA formally apologized for their actual racist behavior throughout the century before the Civil Rights Era in 2008 on the basis of this study, as detailed by one of the study’s authors in an essay published in the NYT:
1. Whiteness is a Parasitic Disease
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34039063/
2. The Role of Emotion in Understanding Whiteness
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33415593/
3. The effects of whiteness on the health of whites in the USA
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28716453/
4. Racism and Kidney Health: Turning Equity Into a Reality
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33639186/
5. Visions by Women in Molecular Imaging Network: Antiracism and Allyship in Action
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33754293/
6. White dominance in nursing education: A target for anti-racist efforts
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32881135/
7. Rooting Out White Supremacy and Implementing Antiracism in Nursing Education
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33574169/
8. Achieving Health Equity Through Eradicating Structural Racism in the United States: A Call to Action for Nursing Leadership
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33002309/
9. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Nursing: The Pathway to Excellence Framework Alignment
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34469389/
10. Transformative dissonant encounters: Opportunities for cultivating antiracism in White nursing students
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34350660/
11. How to Be An Antiracist Hand Surgery Educator
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33762091/
12. From Diversity and Inclusion to Antiracism in Medical Training Institutions
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33637659/
13. Academic Medicine's Journey Toward Racial Equity Must Be Grounded in History: Recommendations for Becoming an Antiracist Academic Medical Center
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34432719/
14. Approaching the COVID-19 Pandemic Response With a Health Equity Lens: A Framework for Academic Health Systems
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34705750/
15. Understanding Racism as a Historical Trauma That Remains Today: Implications for the Nursing Profession
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33574167/
16. Entrenched White Supremacy in Nursing Education Administrative Structures
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33574166/
17. A Nurse Educator's Perspective About Institutional Racism and White Supremacy in Nursing Education
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33574170/
18. Professionalism: The Wrong Tool to Solve the Right Problem?
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32134778/
19. Student-Led Efforts to Advance Anti-Racist Medical Education
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33711839/
20.The White/Black hierarchy institutionalizes White supremacy in nursing and nursing leadership in the United States
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33867099/
21. The lived experience of teaching about race in cultural nursing education
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24682320/
22. Continuing the conversation in nursing on race and racism
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23419839/
23. Pandemic racism – and the nursing response
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/artic…
24. Nursing's role in racism and African American women's health
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10409989/
25. Something Old, Something New: The Syndemic of Racism and COVID-19 and Its Implications for Medical Education
journals.stfm.org/familymedicine…
26. Improving cross-cultural care and antiracism in nursing education: a literature review
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19758731/
27. Weaving Antiracism Practice and Equity Into the Fabric of Cardiovascular Fellowship: A New Training Paradigm
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34857097/
28. Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Surgical Societies: Representation Matters
journals.lww.com/annalsofsurger…
29. The Ethical Imperative of Equity in Oncology: Lessons Learned From 2020 and a Path Forward
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34061560/
30. Navigating inequities: a roadmap out of the pandemic
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33479019/
31. Culture, Race, and Health: Implications for Racial Inequities and Population Health
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31512293/
32. Making science and doing justice: The need to reframe research on racial inequities in oral health
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33780174/
Here’s how ‘Equity’ is explained in the study:
Equity means social justice or fairness; it is an ethical concept, grounded in principles of distributive justice. Equity in health can be—and has widely been—defined as the absence of socially unjust or unfair health disparities. However, because social justice and fairness can be interpreted differently by different people in different settings, a definition is needed that can be operationalised based on measurable criteria.
For the purposes of operationalisation and measurement, equity in health can be defined as the absence of systematic disparities in health (or in the major social determinants of health) between social groups who have different levels of underlying social advantage/disadvantage—that is, different positions in a social hierarchy. Inequities in health systematically put groups of people who are already socially disadvantaged (for example, by virtue of being poor, female, and/or members of a disenfranchised racial, ethnic, or religious group) at further disadvantage with respect to their health; health is essential to wellbeing and to overcoming other effects of social disadvantage.
Health represents both physical and mental wellbeing, not just the absence of disease. Key social determinants of health include household living conditions, conditions in communities and workplaces, and health care, along with policies and programmes affecting any of these factors. Health care is a social determinant in so far as it is influenced by social policies; we use the term broadly here to refer not only to the receipt/utilisation of health services, but also to the allocation of health care resources, the financing of health care, and the quality of health care services.
Underlying social advantage or disadvantage refers to wealth, power, and/or prestige—that is, the attributes that define how people are grouped in social hierarchies. Disadvantage also can be thought of as deprivation, which can be absolute or relative; the concept of human poverty developed by the United Nations Development Program reflects severe disadvantage. Thus, more and less advantaged social groups are groups of people defined by differences that place them at different levels in a social hierarchy. Examples of more and less advantaged social groups include socioeconomic groups (typically defined by measures of income, economic assets, occupational class, and/or educational level), racial/ethnic or religious groups, or groups defined by gender, geography, age, disability, sexual orientation, and other characteristics relevant to the particular setting. This is not an exhaustive list, but social advantage is distributed along these lines virtually everywhere in the world. A health disparity must be systematically associated with social advantage, that is, the associations must be significant and frequent or persistent, not just occasional or random.
There are no independent risk factors associated with race that are not already accounted for by the medical factors in the same triaging manuals. This has been documented in medical literature, such as the NEJM study “Hospitalization and Mortality among Black Patients and White Patients with Covid-19” that reported:
CONCLUSIONS
In a large cohort in Louisiana, 76.9% of the patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and 70.6% of those who died were black, whereas blacks comprise only 31% of the Ochsner Health population. Black race was not associated with higher in-hospital mortality than white race, after adjustment for differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics on admission.
Thus the inclusion of ‘race’ lacks a coherent medical justification.
(For a basic overview, you can see:
Pursuant to their belief - which was widely believed at the time by most people - that the vaccines were indeed lifesaving.
For the record, Dr. Pierre Kory was commissioned to write an expert report on the physiological causes/chain of events leading to Floyd’s death. He determined -unequivocally - that he was killed by the policemen involved:
(This should also put to bed the asinine irruptions by the colorful assortment of fact-checking mongrels and media or medical miscreants against his credentials - there’s no way in a million years that the prosecutors chose a quack as their expert for the most prominent trial of the century.)
Fauci’s adroitly dodging and deflecting Jordan’s questions is a masterclass in political expertise, a subject for which Fauci is undisputedly a preeminent world expert. Here’s the transcript, judge for yourself:
FAUCI: Do protests increase the spread of the virus? I think I can make a general statement.
JORDAN: Half a million protesters on June 6 alone. I’m just asking, that number of people, does it increase the spread of the virus?
FAUCI: Crowding together particularly when you’re not wearing a mask contributes to the spread of the virus.
JORDAN: Should we limit the protesting?
FAUCI: I'm not sure what you mean. How do we say limit the protesting?
JORDAN: Should government limit the protesting?
FAUCI: I don't think that's relevant to--
JORDAN: You just said if it increases the spread of the virus. I'm just asking should we limit it?
FAUCI: I'm not in a position to determine what the government can do in a forceful way.
JORDAN: You make all kinds of recommendations. You make comments on dating, on baseball and everything you can imagine. You just said protests increases the spread. I’m just asking should we try to limit the protests?
FAUCI: I think I would leave that to people who have more of a position to do that. I can tell you--
JORDAN: The government’s stopping people from going to church, Dr. Fauci. Last week in the Calvary Chapel case, five liberals on the Supreme Court said it was okay for Nevada to limit church services. Justice Gorsuch said it best. He said there's no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesar's palace over Calvary Chapel. I’m just asking is there a world where the Constitution says you can favor one First Amendment liberty – protesting - over another - practicing your faith?
FAUCI: I'm not favoring anybody over anybody. I'm just making a statement that’s a broad statement that avoid crowds of any type no matter where you are, because that leads to the acquisition and transmission, and I don't judge one crowd versus another crowd. When you're in a crowd, particularly, if you’re not wearing a mask, that increases the spread.
JORDAN: It's a simple question, doctor. Should we limit the protests? Government is obviously limiting people going to church. Look, there’s been no violence that I can see at church. I haven't seen people during a church service go out and harm police officers or burn buildings, but we know for 63 days, nine weeks it’s been happening in Portland. One night in Chicago, 49 officers were injured, but no limit to protests, but you can't go to church on Sunday.
FAUCI: I don't know how many times I can answer that. I am not going to opine on limiting anything. I’m just going to tell you--
JORDAN: You've opined on a lot of things. This is something that directly impacts the spread of the virus and I'm asking your position on the protests.
FAUCI: I'm not going to opine on limiting anything. I'm telling you what is the danger, and you can make your own conclusion about that. You should stay away from crowds, no matter where the crowds are.
JORDAN: The government has stopped people from going to work. In fact, just in New Jersey four days ago, Ian Smith and Frank Trombetta were arrested for opening up, trying to operate their business, their gym. They were arrested. But my bet is if these two individuals who own this gym were outside just in front of their gym, and all the people who were working out in their gym were outside protesting, they’d have been just fine, but because they were in the gym working out, they got arrested. Do you think that's okay?
FAUCI: I’m not going to opine on who gets arrested and who does not. You get where I'm going? I'm telling you as a public health official I say crowds--
JORDAN: Do you see the inconsistency though, Dr. Fauci?
FAUCI: There’s no inconsistency, congressman.
JORDAN: So you're allowed to protest millions of people on one day in crowds, yelling and screaming but you try to run your business, you get arrested, and if you stood right outside that same business and protested, he wouldn't get arrested? You don’t see any inconsistency there?
FAUCI: I don't understand what you're asking me as a public health official to opine on who should get arrested or not. That's not my position.
JORDAN: You've advocated for certain businesses to be shut down. I'm just asking you to own your position on the protests. I haven't seen one -- we've heard a lot about hair salons but I haven't seen one hairstylist who between haircuts goes out and attacks police or sets something on fire, but we've seen all kinds of that stuff during protests. and we know the protests increase the spread of the virus. You said that.
FAUCI: I said crowds. I didn't say specifically. I didn't say protests do anything.
JORDAN: So the protests don't increase the spread of the virus?
FAUCI: I didn't say that. You're putting words in my mouth.
JORDAN: I just want an answer to the question. Do the protests increase the spread to the virus?
FAUCI: I don't have scientific evidence of anything. I can tell you that crowds are known, particularly when you don't have a mask to increase the acquisition and transmission. No matter what.
JORDAN: So you don't have a position on whether the protests increase the spread of the virus or don't increase the spread of the virus?
FAUCI: I am saying that crowds wherever the crowds are can give you an increased probability that there’s going to be acquisition and transmission.
JORDAN: But do you understand America's concern? Protesting, according to Democrats is just fine, but you can't go to work. You can't go to school. You can't go to church. There's limits placed on all three of those fundamental activities - First Amendment activities - but protesting is just fine.
Per their own conventional wisdom.
However, there is in theory still a place for the CDC and medical academia to get involved in climate or climate change-related issues. Natural disasters - such as those widely projected by climate models to increase in frequency in the coming decades - pose obvious health risks that the medical community is uniquely disposed to be able to quantify and advise (in part) how to best mitigate the adverse health impacts of these situations.
However, this can only work provided that:
The CDC et al does not stray beyond the specific medical dimensions of climate change.
The CDC et al does not attempt to medicalize non-medical characteristics in the course of dealing with medical concerns
Where we run into trouble is that neither of these provisions were upheld.
In other words, if it even looks like the CDC et al is seizing upon climate change as a vehicle to advance a political agenda - not healthcare - then it is not a legitimate endeavor to be involved in. There is no justification for compromising the integrity of medical institutions to meddle in areas where there is no lack of available personnel or funding to do the research work.
Again, to be clear, this is not about the scientific accuracy (or lack thereof) of the specific assertions undergirding the widely disseminated general model of runaway anthropogenic climate change. The issue here is that climate science emphatically does not fall within the CDC’s purview, and that therefore CDC involvement in Climate Change is deleterious to its institutional credibility and ability to carry out its core functions etc. as stipulated elsewhere in this article.
A few additional gems curtesy of the CDC’s “climate” “science”:
Because of course, you might get covid while the volcano is dumping tons of burning ash and soot on your head:
Apparently, it is too difficult to ask one of the other dozens of federal govt agencies, UN agencies, EU agencies, or NGO’s devoted to climate change that the CDC needs to produce their own personal in-house climate change materials?? This is reminiscent of the how the various ministries in the USSR would function - for example, even though there was a “Ministry of Bricks”, if a different ministry needed bricks to build themselves a new building, they typically would just make them themselves (to avoid the wait times and quality control issues).
And does anyone really think that random state health officials are making the sort of “preparations” that would actually be helpful? Considering that the CDC et al was caught with their pants down completely unprepared for a pandemic (this despite being aware of all the individual elements of the production of and lab work on the covid virus), are we to believe that there is any real competency in their efforts to prepare the medical world for the adverse impacts of climate change??
I suppose if math can be racist, then it follows that it can be feminist as well. Unexplained is why or how objective mathematical knowledge is racist, but whatever.
Let’s not forget the Sokal Affair (taken from Wikipedia):
In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor, specifically to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies—whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross—[would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."[2]
The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity",[3] was published in the journal's spring/summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[4][5] Three weeks after its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in the magazine Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax.[2]
The hoax caused controversy about the scholarly merit of commentary on the physical sciences by those in the humanities; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; and academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors or readers of Social Text; and whether Social Text had abided by proper scientific ethics.
SCIgen wreaked havoc for some time, extracting significant casualties from a variety of journals:
Real Nature paper: Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers
Conference proceedings removed from subscription databases after scientist reveals that they were computer-generated.
(Yes, that’s *more* than *120* papers withdrawn. That were total gibberish. Like the ramblings of Fauci or Eric Feigl-Ding or famed Eugyppius “mentally vacant covid astrologer” Eric Topol.)
So did this precipitate more careful peer review that involved at least one real person actually reading a submission before accepting it?
Nope. That would be too much work:
Springer and Université Joseph Fourier release SciDetect to discover fake scientific papers
At least they were nice enough to offer it free of charge to the entire scientific community though:
The new, open source software is publicly available for free to the scientific and publishing communities.
It is important to pry open the Overton Window to articulate with moral clarity that this sort of phenomenon is unambiguously a depraved evil.
I was a resident delegate to the AMA back in the day. It wasn't like this then, at least not much. There were still enough folks who were in private practice, who understood the world and economics in normal fashion. I don't know why this resolution sticks in my head, but it was one to support the nutrition labeling of packaged food items. Some people thought it was "going too far," lol. I was impressed at how closely the process models state legislatures or Congress, though with only one house, not two. I dropped my membership long ago, when the newly-installed President announced that being anti-gun was his signature issue. Even back when I was a delegate, over 30 years ago, their biggest internal issue was that practicing physicians didn't see any value in membership and so their membership was declining. Even then, they represented a minority of practicing physicians, and it must be a small minority now. They're simply riding on the fumes of the reputation laid down by better physicians, long ago.
The one meeting of the American Public Health Association that I attended, about 13-14 years ago, showed me that it functioned as an arm of the Democrat Party, when the Executive Director remarked at a plenary session that they had done great work helping elect Barack Obama as President, and they gave themselves a prolonged standing ovation.
I was a small group leader for a bioethics class in a conservative medical school, so I was stunned when the reaction of the students was positive to the film showing Dutch people being euthanized. One person, whose condition wasn't terminal and who may have had some depression but who could feed himself and manage most of his activities of daily living, just said he wanted to die, and so they killed him. At our post-class discussion, one student remarked about that film, "That was beautiful." Both the film and that comment literally nauseated me. The students were also pro-abortion, unable to distinguish between 'my body' and the baby's body, as proved by the baby's separate DNA.
At the first autopsy that members of my own medical school class observed, the subject, a woman in her 90s, was demonstrated to have severe coronary artery disease and breast cancer, but was understood to have died at home, with those conditions undiagnosed. One student asked the pathologist, "How could she have lived so long, if she had those diseases?" The pathologist, with his unique view of the field of medicine, replied, "Probably because she didn't go to any doctors." I'm just about there with him (and The Green Hornet) now, after the current condition of our 'health' systems were revealed during COVID. I doubt I'll ever get another vaccination (I read ''Dissolving Illusions' and had been a PI, so I knew how many of the laws/regulations Fauci's crew had skipped with the COVID ones), and I'm highly skeptical of any drug that is newer than a couple or three decades. After having been literally taught that taking vitamins only results in expensive urine, I'm taking the ones that are part of the FLCCC and similar protocols (and I read 'Ascorbate' by Hickey and Roberts). I realized the protocols contain nothing specific to COVID, so they are also my go-to if I get the flu.
Are you confident that the iceberg paper isn't one of those spoofs, submitted to make fun of the journal editor and the reviewers? 'Publish or perish' has really made finding decent scientific work nearly impossible. The COVID episode has made clear that many are willing to produce unethical work and even more are willing to blindly accept it as valid. Is critical review of published articles no longer taught in Journal Club? We used to laugh and laugh, and most were in prominent journals.
A young friend who has just graduated with his R.N. asked me some questions after the recent Supreme Court opinion on abortion that reversed Roe v. Wade, because his colleagues were claiming that it would now be illegal to evacuate the uterus of a woman with fetal demise or to save the life of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. Such nonsense, but when I read what you have written above, I wonder how whacked out the medical schools have become; might there be people who would do that just to make a point? I hope I can find a rational physician (or something, along the lines of The Green Hornet's suggestion) once my own retires (he's a bit older than I). It makes the thought of being taken to the hospital in an urgent or emergent situation almost frightening.
Superb and absolutely spot on. As a retired MD who is absolutely disgusted by the medical establishment, there is no finer example of herd mentality, group think, self-aggrandizement, patient condescension, and self-deification than today's medical class. My advice? Study herbals and natural therapies and avoid the allopathic assassins at all costs.