Alert and Oriented

Free speech and forced jabs

Michel AccadSeptember 24, 2022October 3, 2022Articles, PhilosophyLeave a comment

Our friend Jay Bhattacharya (ep. 175) is at the center of a major lawsuit claiming that the Biden administration has used the censoring power of big tech companies to get around the first amendment protection of free speech.

Documents released as part of the discovery process and through prior FOIA requests seem to confirm beyond any doubt a direct collusion between the feds and tech giants to muffle, silence, or deplatform critics of lockdowns, mask policies, and vaccine mandates (such as Bhattacharya, co-plaintiff Martin Kulldorff, journalist Alex Berenson, and others). The plaintiffs stand a good chance of winning, and a win would be a huge victory against public health tyranny.Continue reading “Free speech and forced jabs”

The empiricist has no clothes

Michel AccadMarch 5, 2022March 5, 2022Medical science, PhilosophyLeave a comment

In the Spring of 2021, an Israeli doctor voiced a concern about cases of myocarditis that he was witnessing among young men who had received the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine.

There was no apparent reason to doubt his testimony, and that should have been sufficient to alert physicians around the world to be on the lookout for similar occurrences. If confirmed in the experience of others, the Israeli doctor’s concern could be taken into prudent consideration for medical practice and public health worldwide.

But we live in the age of empiricism and “science-based” recommendations. In this age, the clinical judgment of physicians is not a fact until it has a number attached to it. Also, questions of right and wrong and of what to do can only be decided when “data” have been collected.

So a conflict of numerical facts was quickly entered into.Continue reading “The empiricist has no clothes”

Is myocarditis real?

Michel AccadNovember 15, 2021November 21, 2021Healthcare policy, Medical science, Philosophy3 Comments

I highly recommend listening to our latest podcast with Dr. Vinay Prasad, an extremely intelligent, articulate, and courageous physician who has been absolutely phenomenal speaking out against the “unscientific” public health policies of the last 20 months. Vinay is an astoundingly prolific writer—publishing in academic journals and in the lay press—and now has an excellent YouTube channel that I turn to daily to get his analysis of the latest scientific and health policy news.

During our conversation with Vinay, and reflecting on some outlandish positions taken by the CDC on the incidence of COVID-induced myocarditis, Anish startled me by mentioning Michel Foucault and his notion of “regimes of truth,” the idea that the dominant political forces essentially set the framework under which a society comes to an understanding of things. “If knowledge is not power, but power is knowledge, then scientific objectivity may be a myth. What do you think about that!?” Anish challenged Vinay.Continue reading “Is myocarditis real?”

Realism for Joe Rogan

Michel AccadNovember 12, 2021November 15, 2021PhilosophyLeave a comment

Joe Rogan is notoriously difficulty to pigeonhole. He is pro-gun rights, anti-cancel culture, and voted for Libertarian candidates in 2012 and 2016, but he also holds progressive positions on many issues, supported Bernie Sanders in 2020, and is not necessarily opposed to big government programs.

I suspect that much of his appeal indeed comes from seeming “pragmatic” rather than ideological. But after listening to him on a recent excellent episode with guest Michael Shellenberger, it occurred to me that Rogan’s leanings may also be those of a philosophical realist

I’ve said and I repeat it…it’s a mantra, it’s part of my philosophy: You can’t be married to ideas. Ideas are just a thing that you examine. If you get married to an idea and you support it even though, like…like a corrupt district attorney would do…like you thought a guy was guilty and even though you had evidence that would exonerate him you keep prosecuting him…We all have ideas that we bounce around that are incorrect, and the only way you find out about that is if you’re confronted with better evidence…

(It seems fair to assume that he uses the word “evidence” here as a stand-in for reality, i.e., for things that are independent of how we think or feel about them.)Continue reading “Realism for Joe Rogan”

A lethal license to deceive

Michel AccadOctober 15, 2021October 16, 2021Ethics, Medical practice2 Comments

Every trouble in medicine begins when physicians serve the State rather than patients.

Below is my closing statement for the recent debate on brain death in which I participated. It starts with a reference to the fact that a declaration of brain death often requires that the examination be performed by 2 or more physicians.Continue reading “A lethal license to deceive”

The evil absurdity of “brain death”

Michel AccadOctober 9, 2021October 11, 2021Ethics, Medical practice, Medical science1 Comment

I was invited to participate in a debate on “brain death” at the annual meeting of the Catholic Medical Association in Orlando this past week. The question was: “Are neurological criteria for the determination of death acceptable in Catholic health care?”

On my side was my friend Pete Colosi, and we argued the negative (i.e., that brain death is not true death, and harvesting organs from people who have been declared brain dead is homicide).

This topic is very dear to me. I have published 2 scholarly papers on brain death, refuting some of the more salient philosophical arguments that have been advanced to push the idea that brain death is true biological death. The most accessible of the 2 can be found here.

Below is my opening statement for the debate. I didn’t know if the audience would be familiar with the topic, so I tried to give a simple overview. I am adding a couple of footnotes here to expound on some key points.

Continue reading “The evil absurdity of “brain death””

Are the unvaccinated a threat to others?

Michel AccadSeptember 12, 2021October 4, 2021Ethics, Healthcare policy26 Comments

A disputed question argued in the Scholastic style.

Objection 1. The unvaccinated are indeed a threat to others because the pandemic will only be overcome through herd immunity, and herd immunity can only be achieved safely and promptly through widespread vaccination. The unvaccinated are thus postponing the time until herd immunity is achieved and therefore are responsible for the heavy morbidity and mortality caused by this avoidable delay.

Objection 2. Asymptomatic infections with SARS-CoV-2 are known to occur and an unvaccinated person can transmit the virus to innocent bystanders. Therefore the unvaccinated are a threat to others.

Objection 3. The unvaccinated have an irrational fear of vaccines that is not supported by science. They have conspiratorial attitudes that are spreading through campaigns of disinformation, undermining public health institutions, and damaging social cohesion. Therefore the unvaccinated are a threat to others.

Objection 4. By minimizing the danger of the virus, the unvaccinated also dismiss the value of non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) such as social distancing and masking. Their overall reckless behavior further contributes to the spread of the virus and to much morbidity and mortality. Therefore the unvaccinated are a threat to others.

Objection 5. The unvaccinated are much more likely to be hospitalized with COVID and to suffer severe complications that are costly to society than the vaccinated. Therefore the unvaccinated are a threat to others and should bear the cost of their healthcare if they persist in their refusal to be vaccinated.

————————–

Sed Contra, as it is said, “The healthy have no need of a physician, but the sick do.” Therefore, being healthy, the unvaccinated have no need to be vaccinated and cannot be a threat for failing to do something they have no need to do.Continue reading “Are the unvaccinated a threat to others?”

The pandemic war analogy: turning natural disaster into violent civil conflict

Michel AccadSeptember 11, 2021September 27, 2021Ethics, Healthcare policy2 Comments

The main reason we are seemingly so accepting of lockdowns and vaccine mandates is that we have been conditioned to view a pandemic or an epidemic as a war being waged on our society.

In wartime we naturally expect civil liberties to be suspended. Likewise, the reasoning goes, during a pandemic we need to act in a unified way under some central command to fight this viral existential threat. Individual rights and freedoms must be curtailed for the sake of the greater good.

But that’s a false analogy. A pandemic is not a war. It’s a natural disaster. (Granted, SARS-CoV-2 may not be so “natural” but still, the virus is not an “enemy” waging a war on us.) Continue reading “The pandemic war analogy: turning natural disaster into violent civil conflict”

Letter to a patient seeking a medical exemption to the COVID vaccine

Michel AccadSeptember 9, 2021October 4, 2021Ethics, Healthcare policy, Medical practice12 Comments

[As this goes to press the Biden administration is proposing a sweeping vaccine mandate that may affect an estimated 100 million Americans, making the following considerations all the more relevant]

Dear_________,

I received your message detailing your concerns about receiving a COVID vaccine and requesting a medical exemption. I understand that your employer is now mandating a vaccine unless you can obtain such an exemption (or perhaps a religious one). I find your concerns perfectly legitimate but, unfortunately, they do not justify a medical exemption.

As you’ve noted yourself, there is no evidence that a history of prior myocarditis or prior atrial fibrillation increases the risk of getting myocarditis from the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. And even if there was such evidence, then the J&J vaccine would be the alternative immunization to address that particular concern.

I also understand that your worries go beyond the possibility of having another bout of myocarditis (however small the chance may be). You have serious misgivings about these vaccines because you’ve lost confidence in the medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, or the public health authorities (or perhaps all three).

Who can blame you? Can anyone deny that self-interest is all too often a prime motivator in healthcare—even in public health—and all too often at the expense of patients or the public? Abuses of confidence by doctors and hospitals, greediness in the pharmaceutical industry, and ideological or political pressure in the public health sector are all plainly evident and warrant at least some degree of skepticism. Your distrust is not paranoid, it is actually rational.Continue reading “Letter to a patient seeking a medical exemption to the COVID vaccine”

The Subjective Theory of Bitcoin

Michel AccadJuly 10, 2021October 4, 2021EconomicsLeave a comment

In a recent article on the Mises Institute’s Power and Market blog, Kyle Ward appealed to the subjective theory of value to castigate Peter Schiff for his notorious skepticism of Bitcoin:

Schiff is quick to point out that gold has uses outside of being money. It is used in electronics, dentistry, and jewelry, to name a few…This leads Schiff to claim that bitcoin is unlike gold in that it has no fundamental (or objective) value. His mistake is obvious: there is no such thing as objective value, whether we’re talking about gold or bitcoin. Value is subjective and determined internally by individuals…Yes, gold can be used to build electronics, but that only has value because consumers subjectively value electronics. (emphasis in the original)

I believe Ward errs in how he relates the subjective theory of value to Bitcoin, but his error stems both from an ambiguity in phrases like “objective value” and from an ambivalence in how the founding fathers of Austrian economics themselves considered the relationship between the human agent and the good being valued.

In this article I will argue that the “orthodox” Austrian school position regarding the emergence of sound money from commodities—first proposed by Carl Menger, subsequently developed by Ludwig von Mises, and presumably adopted by Peter Schiff—is the correct one. But I will appeal to a Scholastic notion of the good to defend that view. That notion of the good is also critical to secure the foundation of a sound economic science.Continue reading “The Subjective Theory of Bitcoin”