|
by Dr. Robert Malone
June 05, 2022
from
GlobalResearch Website
Intersection of
Utilitarianism, Geopolitics,
Public Health and
Hubris.
"Far Worse than We Knew"...
There are so very many factors that have contributed to the clear
and compelling reality that the public health response to the global
SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has been one of the,
greatest failures in public
policy in modern history...
But chief among those has been the grossly
overestimated modeling projections of likely disease and death due
to the virus.
Those well versed in the world of computer software coding are
intimately familiar with the problem of "Garbage in - Garbage out"
(GIGO), which is short slang for the real world issue that,
the
utility of any coded data set analysis is a function of the quality
of the underlying data being analyzed and the assumptions engineered
into the computer code.
In retrospect, it is abundantly clear that the underlying data and
assumptions which were used to develop the modeling which formed the
basis for global public health policy decisions concerning the
management of the outbreak were seriously flawed...
These flawed
analyses, which were promoted via a wide range of government policy
analysis and media channels, almost universally wildly
over-estimated the risks of the virus.
At the core of both the national and globally-coordinated public
health policy
COVID-19 response decisions lies a philosophical
belief system known as Utilitarianism.
This is also the core
philosophy often employed by Globalist organizations such as the
World Economic Forum (WEF), and can be found intertwined with another
logical framework known as Malthusianism.
We are most familiar with
the philosophy of Utilitarianism in the phrase,
"the greatest good
for the greatest number".
Quoting from the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Utilitarianism is one
of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics
in the history of philosophy.
Though not fully articulated until the
19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned
throughout the history of ethical theory.
Though there are
many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally
held to be the view that,
the morally right action is the action that
produces the most good...
There are many ways to spell out this
general claim.
One thing to note is that the theory is a form of
consequentialism:
the right action is understood entirely in terms
of consequences produced.
What distinguishes
utilitarianism from
egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences.
On the
utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good, that is,
consider the good of others as well as one's own good.
The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the
good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value.
They also held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring
about,
'the greatest amount of good for the greatest number'.
Utilitarianism is
also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality.
Everyone's
happiness counts the same.
When one maximizes the good, it is the
good impartially considered.
My good counts for no more
than anyone else's good.
Further, the reason I have to promote the
overall good is the same reason anyone else has to so promote the
good.
It is not peculiar to me.
All of these
features of this approach to moral evaluation and/or moral
decision-making have proven to be somewhat controversial and
subsequent controversies have led to changes in the Classical
version of the theory.
Malthusianism is the
idea that,
population growth is potentially exponential while the
growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which
eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a
population die off.
The theory is most clearly described in a 1798
treatise titled "An Essay on the Principle of Population",
by English political economist Thomas Robert Malthus.
This is the
philosophy underlying the often noted positions of
Bill Gates and
the World Economic Forum (WEF) which call for,
a drastic
reduction in
global human population, often referred to as the depopulation
agenda...
This illogic is examined in a succinct analysis published in
Scientific American by Michael Shermer entitled "Why
Malthus is Still Wrong - Why Malthus makes for bad science policy".
As Mr. Schermer
nicely summarizes,
"The power of
population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce
subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or
other visit the human race," Malthus gloomily predicted.
His
scenario influenced policy makers to embrace social Darwinism and
eugenics,
resulting in draconian measures to restrict particular populations'
family size, including forced sterilizations.
In his book The
Evolution of Everything (Harper, 2015), evolutionary biologist
and journalist Matt Ridley sums up the policy succinctly:
"Better to
be cruel to be kind."
The belief that,
"those in power knew best what
was good for the vulnerable and weak",
...led directly to legal actions
based on questionable Malthusian science.
For example, the
English
Poor Law implemented by Queen Elizabeth I in 1601 to provide food to
the poor was severely curtailed by the Poor Law Amendment Act of
1834, based on Malthusian reasoning that helping the poor only
encourages them to have more children and thereby exacerbate
poverty.
The British government had a similar Malthusian attitude
during the Irish potato famine of the 1840s, Ridley notes, reasoning
that famine, in the words of Assistant Secretary to the Treasury
Charles Trevelyan, was an,
"effective mechanism for reducing surplus
population."
A few decades later
Francis Galton advocated marriage
between the fittest individuals ("What nature does blindly, slowly,
and ruthlessly man may do providently, quickly and kindly"),
followed by a number of prominent socialists such as,
Sidney and
Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Havelock Ellis and H. G. Wells,
...who openly championed eugenics as a tool of
social engineering.
This is the
philosophical basis of the depopulation agenda and policies which
Mr. Gates and his Oligarch colleagues at the World Economic Forum
seek to impose on all of us, for our own good, of course...
It is Malthusianistic theories which underly the idea that the only way to
prevent catastrophic 'global warming' is by restricting carbon dioxide
release into the atmosphere.
This is a philosophy which completely
disregards the amazing innovative, adaptive problem solving
capabilities of the human mind...
As taught in most
Universities, "Public Health" (as in the Masters of Public Health
degree programs) is also largely based on these two 18th and 19th
century philosophical theories (utilitarianism and
malthusianism).
As opposed to the disciplines of
Medicine and clinical research, which are grounded in the principles
of the
Hippocratic oath and
beneficence as applied to the individual patient.
Examples of
beneficence in clinical research and medical practice include,
And here is where
we get to the crux of the issue:
Medical hubris and the
public health...
First a brief definition, so we are all on
the same page:
Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/;
from Ancient Greek ὕβρις (húbris) 'pride, insolence, outrage'), or
less frequently hybris (/ˈhaɪbrɪs/), describes,
a personality
quality of extreme or excessive pride or dangerous overconfidence,
often in combination with (or synonymous with) arrogance...
Apparently unaware
of the irony, the WEF recognizes (in a very limited way) the problem
of "How
hubris put our health at risk".
The core thesis of
modern public health is that a utilitarian approach can be used to
generate a sort of spreadsheet of maximal public health benefit.
To
take an extreme example to illustrate the point, here is a sort of
parable:
A man walks into
his doctor's office for a health checkup.
After completion of the
exam, he asks,
"Doc, how am I doing?"
His utilitarian MD-MPH turns
and says,
"you are in perfect health. Your heart is perfect, your
liver is perfect, and your kidneys are perfect.
And I have four
other patients that will die in the next week if they do not get
transplants requiring a donated heart, liver or kidney.
So I will be
prepping you for surgery in one hour."
Four lives saved
for one sacrificed...
I think that we can all agree that, while this
scenario may meet a utilitarian standard, it fails to meet the
fundamentals of Judeo-Christian belief systems regarding the
Hippocratic oath and principle of
beneficence.
But if reports are correct, in the very
utilitarian, marxist reality which is modern China under the CCP,
organ harvesting is a fact of life.
And I believe that the
utilitarian bias of
the WHO and US HHS, combined with the hubris of
a belief system that assumes that the likes of
Anthony Fauci and
other bureaucrats have sufficient comprehension of the enormous
complexity of the interactions of an emergent viral variant with a
global human population has lead us to a very similar endpoint.
To a considerable
extent, this has been driven and justified by the hubris of public
health modelers who believe that,
they have sufficient knowledge to
be able to identify all of the important interacting variables in
this interaction of virus with human host population,
...to be able to
reduce this complexity to a set of equations or a spreadsheet, and
with this tool in hand, to be able to calculate the utilitarian,
"greatest good for the greatest number".
And of those arrogant
academic modelers whose hubris has lead to massive suffering and
avoidable loss of life, chief among them is
Neil Ferguson,
the physicist (!!) at
Imperial College
London who created the main epidemiology model behind the
lockdowns.
Quoting from
Phillip Magness' article "The
Failure of Imperial College Modeling is Far Worse than We Knew":
Ferguson predicted
catastrophic death tolls back on March 16, 2020 unless governments
around the world adopted his preferred suite of nonpharmaceutical
interventions (NPIs) to ward off the pandemic.
Most countries followed his advice,
particularly after the United Kingdom and United States governments
explicitly invoked his report as a justification for lockdowns.
Ferguson's team at
Imperial [funded by the
Gates Foundation] would soon
claim credit for saving millions of lives through these policies
- a figure they arrived at
through a ludicrously unscientific exercise where they purported
to validate their model by using its own hypothetical projections as
a counterfactual of what would happen without lockdowns.
But the
June hearing in Parliament drew attention to another real-world test
of the Imperial team's modeling, this one based on actual evidence.
As Europe descended
into the first round of its now year-long experiment with
shelter-in-place restrictions, Sweden famously shirked the strategy
recommended by Ferguson.
In doing so, they also created the
conditions of a natural experiment to see how their coronavirus
numbers performed against the epidemiology models.
Although Ferguson
originally limited his scope to the US and UK, a team of researchers
at Uppsala University in Sweden
borrowed his model and adapted it to their country with
similarly catastrophic projections.
If Sweden did not lock down by
mid-April, the Uppsala team projected, the country would soon
experience 96,000 coronavirus deaths.
I was
one of the first people to call attention to the Uppsala
adaptation of Ferguson's model back on April 30, 2020. Even at that
early date, the model showed clear signs of faltering.
Although
Sweden was hit hard by the virus, its death toll stood at only a few
thousand at a point where the adaptation from Ferguson's model
already expected tens of thousands.
At the one year mark, Sweden had
a little over 13,000 fatalities from Covid-19 - a serious toll, but
smaller on a per-capita basis than many European lockdown states and
a far cry from the 96,000 deaths projected by the Uppsala
adaptation.
The implication for
Ferguson's work remains clear:
the primary model used to justify
lockdowns failed its first real-world test...
As we look back at
the long list of public health lies and tragedies that have occurred
since January 2020, I have been trying to think through what
systemic changes should be implemented to,
help prevent such
catastrophically poor decision making
in the future...
I
suggest that at the top of the list we include jettisoning both the
philosophical dependence of public health decision making (as taught
in MPH programs) on utilitarian philosophy, and instead substitute a
Judeo-Christian values-based public health decision making process.
We have let the MPH utilitarians interject themselves in place of
the traditional role of the Physician, and have had to live through
the consequences.
And we need to stop
letting arrogant physicist modelers generate garbage out from their
inadequate models that is then hyped by
the press and employed by
public health bureaucrats to justify globally deployed "solutions"
which caused,
enormous suffering, avoidable
death, and economic
devastation...!
|
