There is no such thing as a public health expert
Autocrats in lab coats and ivory towers.
Since the beginning of COVID Mania, we’ve been told to “listen to the public health experts.” Governments and the corporate media has identified this category to us as individuals (Dr. Fauci, Rachel Levine, Tedros Adhanom, Bill Gates) and groups (CDC, WHO, Gates Foundation, Imperial College, etc) that are supposedly the best resources out there for dealing with pandemics and disease spread. Want to know about how to deal with COVID-19? Follow orders from the omniscient public health experts, we’re told.
Well, we’re now over a year into this thing, the free world is in shambles, and virtually everything recommended by these supposed world-class experts has resulted in complete chaos and devastation.
The “public health experts” told us that lockdowns were the key to our salvation. When that didn’t work, they did the same thing with masks, curfews, physical distancing, and the like. They had it all figured out, until they didn’t, and destroyed tens of millions of lives in their attempts to resolve a virus problem. So how could these highly-touted “experts” get everything so catastrophically wrong?
And what exactly is a public health expert anyway?
There are plenty of examples of individual health experts in society.
A dentist can help a patient understand the best practices for oral health. A fitness professional can help a client achieve optimal metabolic health. A nutritionist can tell you what to eat in order to stay healthy. A physical therapist can optimize your recovery from an injury. A orthopedist can evaluate bone health. These are but a handful of dozens of examples of individual health specialists.
Now what can a “public health expert” do for you exactly, and how do you define it?
Well, that’s when you encounter some roadblocks. If you Google “public health expert definition,” you’ll get 40 different answers from 40 different academic and government public health departments. Answers range from “professionals in the field struggle to define public health precisely” to “the science and art of preventing disease.”
That’s because public health isn’t a real science. Take it from me, as someone who studied another fake form of science (political science) in undergrad. Just as the “common good” is not good for everyone, Public Health suffers from the same innate failures as a health concept. What is good for Joe may not be good for Jane. What is best for Catherine may not be best for Carlos. An attempt to optimize and perfect “public health” will inevitably result in chaos, as we’ve seen play out over the course of the last year.
You can thank the “public health experts” for normalizing healthy quarantines, outdoor masking, 6 feet social distancing, nightly curfews, societal lockdowns and plenty of other baseless mystical population control measures that were enforced (and failed to succeed in combating a virus) in the name of science.
Individual health is to public health as liberty is to totalitarianism. The moment you depart from treating individuals, and attempt to collectivize a population, you’re not so much an expert as you are an authoritarian control freak disguised as an expert.
Fauci is not a public health expert, he’s a power drunk immunologist. Bill Gates is not a public health expert, he’s a maniacal technocrat. The CDC and WHO do not possess public health expertise, they are bloated bureaucracies offering historically poor recommendations for dealing with disease spread and other societal issues.
No one person or group can claim the mantle of public health, and no one person or group can claim to know what is best for the collective, just as no one leader should make devastating decisions for the “greater good” of society. Self-proclaimed public health experts are really nothing more than aspiring autocrats who happen to populate governments and academic departments. Given the lack of actual expertise or competition in those fields, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that these same individuals also happen to have atrocious track records when it comes to preventing and treating disease spread.
Many future stories will remain exclusive to paid subscribers. By subscribing to The Dossier for just $5 a month or $50 a year, you will have immediate access to my best work. You can subscribe by clicking the button below:
"Individual health is to public health as liberty is to totalitarianism. The moment you depart from treating individuals and attempting to collectivize a population, you’re not so much an expert as you are an authoritarian control freak disguised as an expert."
THIS IS AWESOME! This is the smartest statement you have ever written. This says it all, it covers so MUCH that is wrong with our current "health" system, the whole thing, not just this scamdemic but especially the scamdemic.
Yeah, exactly. I've been poking around in the literature a bit and looking at this. Public health or global public health. It's a euphemism for the kind of profiteering technocratic solutionism whose outcome is certain to be tyranny and never real health, as you say. Usually comes wrapped in flashy talk about public-private partnerships, philanthrocapitalism and enlightened self-interest. Vomit-worthy, all of it.
There is some sort of academic output on this stuff and it seems to be pretty new. Was it built up purposefully, strategically? One of the worst, the absolute worst and most poisonous exemplars, is Devi Sridhar. Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh, Clinton Foundation acolyte and all-round health ignoramus. She has become highly influential in the UK but appears to have no grasp of anything scientific or medical whatsoever.
She and a few others seem to have been made responsible for the shaping of the debate, setting the terms of the discourse at the academic level. Trying to give the shitshow a sheen of credibility. The whole thing stinks and good folk like you are starting to drag them into the light. Thanks, very much appreciated. It's probably time for a rigorous investigation into how this came to be.