In case you missed it. I don't think any major medical institution will sign on to support these basic principles of scientific integrity. I wonder why not?
While I agree with the spirit of this, such document would be completely unnecessary if we hadn't assigned these agencies and institutions such incredible totalitarian powers to begin with. Only by abolishing such totalitarian mechanisms can we ever really secure a real and proper science. (Exactly what do I mean by this? That's a big topic, but for example see: https://reasonandliberty.com/articles/obamacare)
I think what we really need is a return to First Principles. The central principles are reason and natural rights, which is the concept that founded America and led to its greatness. When people are free to exercise their reason and natural rights, then we see a diversity of institution and a selection for better and better institutions, not top-down authoritarian totalitarian institutions that kill off all competition.
The root cause of the current chaos is indeed statism, or the superstition that free markets do not value human life and governments do – hence government intervention can moralize free markets in healthcare.
The opposite is true. Big Pharma makes huge illegitimate (fake) profits not because it is too free but because it is paid with extorted money controlled by State monopolies.
If State and healthcare were separated, the healthcare insurance industry would organize healthcare instead of government public health institutions. The pharmaceutical industry would be downstream from it.
Unlike government public healthcare institutions, health insurances lose money when people get sick or invalid or die. Their financial interest is that people outlive their death insurance policy and never get sick. So they would not ignore cheap and effective medicines or recklessly promote untested medicine.
Furthermore insurance companies do not impose anything, the most they can do is reduce or increase you premiums – and you can always switch for the competition.
The Malone code is great and I wish it as much posterity are the Hippocratic oath or the Nüremberg code - both broken in the current chaos. But people in power do not respect principles.
The natural rights tradition indeed leads one to a free market, but the latter is just a corollary. Furthermore, without reason (the firm respect for logic, evidence, and hearing all sides) there is no real "rule of law". Reason and natural rights are the key.
Malone generally agrees with both reason and natural rights, as far as I can make out, but I think these two things need to be made very firm and clear if we're going to really fix our problems. The problem with these institutions isn't merely that they aren't following the "Malone Doctrine" but that the very origin of their power stands in contradiction to the very core of ethics: reason and natural rights.
But the natural rights tradition is all about using reason to establish rights based on human nature, which seems to me to be your own approach, or did I miss smth?
After Frédéric Bastiat (www.bastiat.org) I reach the conclusion of economic harmony, ie no coercion can improve social utility. "There is no need to impose harmony of what is harmonic to begin with".
I cannot imagine a more rational discourse than Bastiat's.
From what I've seen I would say that you belong to the same tradition: Salamanca, Smith, Bastiat, the Austrians, Rothbard and now Hans Hermann Hoppe.
I don't argue in terms of "human nature" per se but in terms of the nature of a rational argument, I argue that if you're following reason then you also must embrace natural rights (properly defined). Of course there's a lot of overlap here.
Bastiat is fantastic but doesn't have metaethical arguments as far as I know. In order to defend natural rights in our era you need metaethical arguments. The problem with mere economics is that we need to justify what constitutes legitimate property, and economics per se can't do that, only ethics and political philosophy can.
Broadly yes I belong to that tradition. But I think the nuts and bolts of the arguments matter a lot, if you have gotten something fundamental wrong (or missing) with your argument then we need to fix it before we can expect any success in convincing society to embrace our suggestions. A severely critical approach is necessary, trying to pursue a "big tent" is doomed.
Bastiat did not exactly restrict his point to economics in the modern sense. He addressed the "problème social" - though not minimizing moral questions.
You may say that his approach was systematic debunking of socialist superstitions, mostly against property. In my view it should suffice since
- those superstitions are explicitly the ground of each and every statist scheme to this day
- one just needs to understand a couple examples to open their eyes and not be duped anymore
Bastiat does conclude to “economic harmony” which is a much better formulation than Smith’s invisible hand or the libertarian’s the non-aggression principle. That is quite abstract.
Maybe your approach is more akin to that of Hans Hoppe. I particularly like his insistence on tacit principles, for example science presupposes non-agression, or arguing one’s rights presupposes the existence of universal norms. Ayn Rand was good at that too.
I have great respect for that. However the socialist usually pretend that there exist practical impediments to these lofty (they say) ideas and try to drag you into endless historicism and pseudo-scientific empiricism. So Bastiat’s way is a must.
Bastiat is one of my favorites but isn't sufficient for addressing those who for example attack natural rights as "nonsense on stilts." At the very root is the so-called "is-ought" problem.
In other words I think we need the formal argument that liberty is rational and moral, otherwise we can't defuse modern sophistries.
Steve, you're other post on long-haul covid is for "paid subscribers only"? Is this by mistake? Why would multi-millionaire Steve Kirsch need to monetize his substack??
Also, its human nature we are more appreciative, more engaged and more proactive if VOLUNTARILY give our personal resources of time, money, expertise etc rather than simply being given it.
Just like socialised medicine as in the UKS NHS where you can use the service free regardless of how you live or how much you have contributed....there is no appreciation as doesnt feel real as it's deducted mostly at source....but when you have to fork out of your own pocket.....well then as stated above you'll feel more part of the team. Interested. Engaged. Active.
I suspect everyone reading this pay much more for mainstream media so why not valuable media with your interest at heart? So $5 per month....good value .... Not just for the information but the feeling....I didn't sit around when all this madness decended...I got involved.
This is very sad. A nurse was very pro-vaccine until she got her booster shot and is now having adverse effects. Perhaps our side will eventually "win" because more and more people will be "forced" to join our side.
Doesn't matter that the cost is too high. She herself said she was very pro vaccine until she was injured. Now maybe some of her friends and family see this, and they start asking questions. If they made it this far and didn't have an ounce of skepticism about the vaccines, it will take people's loved ones being injured and dying to break through the propaganda.
Public health officials and medical institutions will probably not like the Malone Doctrine because it makes sense and will makes them all accountable for the devastation they have wrought.
In case you have not done so, please contact Dr. Larry Kwak, Dr. Steven T. Rosen and Dr. Idit Shacha. They are well-respected scientist that are on your side. These are excerpts from their recent article:
RNA-based vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) could trigger any number of autoimmune diseases, which can take years to manifest. This is because the resulting combination of viral and normal self-proteins expressed by any cell, which takes up mRNA, creates a brand-new target on normal cells, which the immune system potentially recognizes as foreign and attacks.
mRNA also activates danger sensors in the primal immune system, which in turn indirectly promotes the release of pro-inflammation factors, specifically interferons, which have been associated with autoimmunity. This issue is underscored by a clinical trial of an mRNA lung cancer vaccine in 2019, in which blood tests revealed elevated indicators for autoimmunity concerns in 20% of patients.
Immune responses directly against RNA molecules themselves cause autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus. In 2014 in the early days of the technology, an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine inventor published on this potential long-term concern of mRNA vaccines.
Published animal safety studies showed traces of COVID-19 spike protein in the brain, heart, and other vital organs, and the European Medicines Agency’s assessment report acknowledged that low levels of mRNA itself were detected in most tissues. The potential consequences of vaccines crossing the natural blood-brain barrier in children’s developing brains are of the utmost concern to all future humanity.
Thanks for the link, some very courageaous doctors indeed.
The children inoculation is so irrational and shocking that we must turn to mass psychology and history to find equally horrendous mass hysteria. Hundreds of children will suffer and die for nothing. That can only be described as a human sacrifice to the State idol, so it relieves us of social measures against covid. We despise past societies that practiced human sacrifice: Our societies are worse. At least those showed respect to the victims. Whereas jab victims are denied in their suffering.
This *is* common sense. I wonder if it was written to try and shake some people with a shred of dignity/honour left in the institutions out of their slumber.
I would have included the Hippocratic Oath on there as point number one for medical bodies (I think this is aimed at every corrupt regulatory body, not just medical ones): We the undersigned demand that: In matters of public health, the principle of Primum Non Nocere shall always be at the core of our decision making. The voluntary consent of the individual must always override all other considerations.
Lovelly
While I agree with the spirit of this, such document would be completely unnecessary if we hadn't assigned these agencies and institutions such incredible totalitarian powers to begin with. Only by abolishing such totalitarian mechanisms can we ever really secure a real and proper science. (Exactly what do I mean by this? That's a big topic, but for example see: https://reasonandliberty.com/articles/obamacare)
I think what we really need is a return to First Principles. The central principles are reason and natural rights, which is the concept that founded America and led to its greatness. When people are free to exercise their reason and natural rights, then we see a diversity of institution and a selection for better and better institutions, not top-down authoritarian totalitarian institutions that kill off all competition.
https://reasonandliberty.com/rl/declaration
The root cause of the current chaos is indeed statism, or the superstition that free markets do not value human life and governments do – hence government intervention can moralize free markets in healthcare.
The opposite is true. Big Pharma makes huge illegitimate (fake) profits not because it is too free but because it is paid with extorted money controlled by State monopolies.
If State and healthcare were separated, the healthcare insurance industry would organize healthcare instead of government public health institutions. The pharmaceutical industry would be downstream from it.
Unlike government public healthcare institutions, health insurances lose money when people get sick or invalid or die. Their financial interest is that people outlive their death insurance policy and never get sick. So they would not ignore cheap and effective medicines or recklessly promote untested medicine.
Furthermore insurance companies do not impose anything, the most they can do is reduce or increase you premiums – and you can always switch for the competition.
The Malone code is great and I wish it as much posterity are the Hippocratic oath or the Nüremberg code - both broken in the current chaos. But people in power do not respect principles.
The natural rights tradition indeed leads one to a free market, but the latter is just a corollary. Furthermore, without reason (the firm respect for logic, evidence, and hearing all sides) there is no real "rule of law". Reason and natural rights are the key.
Malone generally agrees with both reason and natural rights, as far as I can make out, but I think these two things need to be made very firm and clear if we're going to really fix our problems. The problem with these institutions isn't merely that they aren't following the "Malone Doctrine" but that the very origin of their power stands in contradiction to the very core of ethics: reason and natural rights.
But the natural rights tradition is all about using reason to establish rights based on human nature, which seems to me to be your own approach, or did I miss smth?
After Frédéric Bastiat (www.bastiat.org) I reach the conclusion of economic harmony, ie no coercion can improve social utility. "There is no need to impose harmony of what is harmonic to begin with".
I cannot imagine a more rational discourse than Bastiat's.
From what I've seen I would say that you belong to the same tradition: Salamanca, Smith, Bastiat, the Austrians, Rothbard and now Hans Hermann Hoppe.
I don't argue in terms of "human nature" per se but in terms of the nature of a rational argument, I argue that if you're following reason then you also must embrace natural rights (properly defined). Of course there's a lot of overlap here.
Bastiat is fantastic but doesn't have metaethical arguments as far as I know. In order to defend natural rights in our era you need metaethical arguments. The problem with mere economics is that we need to justify what constitutes legitimate property, and economics per se can't do that, only ethics and political philosophy can.
Broadly yes I belong to that tradition. But I think the nuts and bolts of the arguments matter a lot, if you have gotten something fundamental wrong (or missing) with your argument then we need to fix it before we can expect any success in convincing society to embrace our suggestions. A severely critical approach is necessary, trying to pursue a "big tent" is doomed.
I'm not sure what you mean by metaethical.
Bastiat did not exactly restrict his point to economics in the modern sense. He addressed the "problème social" - though not minimizing moral questions.
You may say that his approach was systematic debunking of socialist superstitions, mostly against property. In my view it should suffice since
- those superstitions are explicitly the ground of each and every statist scheme to this day
- one just needs to understand a couple examples to open their eyes and not be duped anymore
Bastiat does conclude to “economic harmony” which is a much better formulation than Smith’s invisible hand or the libertarian’s the non-aggression principle. That is quite abstract.
Maybe your approach is more akin to that of Hans Hoppe. I particularly like his insistence on tacit principles, for example science presupposes non-agression, or arguing one’s rights presupposes the existence of universal norms. Ayn Rand was good at that too.
I have great respect for that. However the socialist usually pretend that there exist practical impediments to these lofty (they say) ideas and try to drag you into endless historicism and pseudo-scientific empiricism. So Bastiat’s way is a must.
-
Bastiat is one of my favorites but isn't sufficient for addressing those who for example attack natural rights as "nonsense on stilts." At the very root is the so-called "is-ought" problem.
In other words I think we need the formal argument that liberty is rational and moral, otherwise we can't defuse modern sophistries.
Hoppe's arguments are flawed, see: https://reasonandliberty.com/articles/argumentation_ethics
Steve, you're other post on long-haul covid is for "paid subscribers only"? Is this by mistake? Why would multi-millionaire Steve Kirsch need to monetize his substack??
He uses funds to further the cause.
Also, its human nature we are more appreciative, more engaged and more proactive if VOLUNTARILY give our personal resources of time, money, expertise etc rather than simply being given it.
Just like socialised medicine as in the UKS NHS where you can use the service free regardless of how you live or how much you have contributed....there is no appreciation as doesnt feel real as it's deducted mostly at source....but when you have to fork out of your own pocket.....well then as stated above you'll feel more part of the team. Interested. Engaged. Active.
I suspect everyone reading this pay much more for mainstream media so why not valuable media with your interest at heart? So $5 per month....good value .... Not just for the information but the feeling....I didn't sit around when all this madness decended...I got involved.
Hope https://covidreason.substack.com/p/5th-cir-court-plugs-up-the-vaccine
This is very sad. A nurse was very pro-vaccine until she got her booster shot and is now having adverse effects. Perhaps our side will eventually "win" because more and more people will be "forced" to join our side.
https://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2021/11/12/nurse-has-trouble-speaking-after-vaccine.aspx
Yes, the vaccine is our best salesperson. It creates a lasting reminder in people to join our side.
But the cost is too high. In good conscience, globally as a society, can we afford the real price tag of these inoculations?
I think the injured, grieving and families left behind will agree.
Doesn't matter that the cost is too high. She herself said she was very pro vaccine until she was injured. Now maybe some of her friends and family see this, and they start asking questions. If they made it this far and didn't have an ounce of skepticism about the vaccines, it will take people's loved ones being injured and dying to break through the propaganda.
I hope so
Public health officials and medical institutions will probably not like the Malone Doctrine because it makes sense and will makes them all accountable for the devastation they have wrought.
This is such common sense, yet at this point we may as well be talking about fairies and unicorns.
Or unicorn fairies.
Because they would all hang for what they have already done.
Seriously, how great is Dr. Robert Malone (and his wife also)? An absolute boss! My respect for him continues to grow.
yeah, great guy. we are good friends.
Also in case you missed them:
The Great Barrington Declaration: https://gbdeclaration.org
Global Covid Summit Physician's Declaration: https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org
Doctors for Covid Ethics: https://doctors4covidethics.org/publications/
Corona Investigative Committee: https://corona-ausschuss.de/en/
But, the thing is, we already had the Nuremburg Code.
https://www.deepcapture.com/2021/10/letter-to-physicians-have-you-checked-your-1947-nuremberg-code-today/
Please let me know if you've heard of any of these, or any similar efforts, having any real effect on policymakers.
policy makers seem to be happily ignoring all this.
Mr. Kirsch,
In case you have not done so, please contact Dr. Larry Kwak, Dr. Steven T. Rosen and Dr. Idit Shacha. They are well-respected scientist that are on your side. These are excerpts from their recent article:
RNA-based vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) could trigger any number of autoimmune diseases, which can take years to manifest. This is because the resulting combination of viral and normal self-proteins expressed by any cell, which takes up mRNA, creates a brand-new target on normal cells, which the immune system potentially recognizes as foreign and attacks.
mRNA also activates danger sensors in the primal immune system, which in turn indirectly promotes the release of pro-inflammation factors, specifically interferons, which have been associated with autoimmunity. This issue is underscored by a clinical trial of an mRNA lung cancer vaccine in 2019, in which blood tests revealed elevated indicators for autoimmunity concerns in 20% of patients.
Immune responses directly against RNA molecules themselves cause autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus. In 2014 in the early days of the technology, an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine inventor published on this potential long-term concern of mRNA vaccines.
Published animal safety studies showed traces of COVID-19 spike protein in the brain, heart, and other vital organs, and the European Medicines Agency’s assessment report acknowledged that low levels of mRNA itself were detected in most tissues. The potential consequences of vaccines crossing the natural blood-brain barrier in children’s developing brains are of the utmost concern to all future humanity.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/28/applying-brakes-on-warp-speed-covid-19-vaccination/
Thanks for the link, some very courageaous doctors indeed.
The children inoculation is so irrational and shocking that we must turn to mass psychology and history to find equally horrendous mass hysteria. Hundreds of children will suffer and die for nothing. That can only be described as a human sacrifice to the State idol, so it relieves us of social measures against covid. We despise past societies that practiced human sacrifice: Our societies are worse. At least those showed respect to the victims. Whereas jab victims are denied in their suffering.
I'm thinking this doctrine hasn't been signed onto by any medical institution because it makes too much sense.
This *is* common sense. I wonder if it was written to try and shake some people with a shred of dignity/honour left in the institutions out of their slumber.
I would have included the Hippocratic Oath on there as point number one for medical bodies (I think this is aimed at every corrupt regulatory body, not just medical ones): We the undersigned demand that: In matters of public health, the principle of Primum Non Nocere shall always be at the core of our decision making. The voluntary consent of the individual must always override all other considerations.
"The voluntary consent of the individual must always override all other considerations."
Let's nail this down tighter:
The voluntary INFORMED consent of the individual must always override all other considerations.
Thank you!
The best and most important is the last one. The right to challenge! We cannot be giving up on this right! Not in science, not in life!
It is, after all, a key principle of science itself. Assuming the scientific method is not now anti-science.