Dr. Vinay Prasad: You're Right Not To Trust Public Health

The outspoken critic of the CDC and FDA explains what went wrong—and what went right—with COVID policy.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Dr. Vinay Prasad: You're Right Not To Trust Public Health

Today's guest is Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.

The author of two books on how bad medical policy persists long after it has been recognized as ineffective or even deadly (Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People With Cancer and Ending Medical Reversal: Improving Outcomes, Saving Lives), Prasad has become a lightning rod during the COVID pandemic because he is outspoken both in his support for vaccines and his criticism of the way they're being implemented. We need to think about risks and benefits for individuals, he insists, and not force a one-size-fits-all solution on a country of 330 million people.

He's also outspoken in his criticism of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, Anthony Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, and other aspects and figures of the public health system. "Trust is justified based on how an organization or system performs," he writes. "And the truth is, the entire public health apparatus, failed."

My Reason colleague Zach Weissmueller and I talked with Prasad about all that and much more—including the unwillingness of authorities to admit when they are wrong, the lack of evidence for mask mandates, under what circumstances vaccine mandates are actually legit, and why he is so disappointed with the inability of liberal progressives (his tribe, he admits!) to acknowledge government failure with regards to COVID policy.

Today's sponsors:

• Better Help. When you're at your best, you can do great things. But sometimes life gets you bogged down, and you may feel overwhelmed or like you're not showing up in the way that you want to. Working with a therapist can help you get closer to the best version of you. Because when you feel empowered, you're more prepared to take on everything life throws at you. If you're thinking of giving therapy a try, Better Help is a great option. It's convenient, flexible, affordable, and entirely online. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist, and switch therapists anytime for no additional charge. If you want to live a more empowered life, therapy can get you there. Visit BetterHelp.com/TRI today to get 10 percent off your first month.
• The Reason Speakeasy. This is a live, monthly, unscripted conversation with outspoken defenders of free thinking and heterodoxy. The next one takes place in New York City on Monday, April 3, with Nick Gillespie interviewing University of San Diego philosopher Matt Zwolinski and Heterodox Academy President John Tomasi about their new book The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism. Doors open at 6 p.m. Eastern. Tickets are $10 and include beer, wine, soft drinks, and appetizers. For more details and to buy tickets, go here now. For an archive of past events, go here.
• The Reason Livestream. Every Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern, Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller talk live and in-depth with newsmakers, rhetorical bomb-throwers, elected officials, writers, thinkers, and activists who are changing how we think and live. Tune in live at Reason's YouTube channel and ask questions, or check out the archive.

Comments

[DorcasWilliams]

I’m paid $185 per hour to complete the task using an Apple laptop. I absolutely didn’t think it was conceivable, but my dependable buddy convinced me to give this straightforward an03 chance a go after she made $26,547 in just 4 weeks working on it. Visit the following page to find out additional
.
.
instructions————>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com

[IsobelHolmes]

I without a doubt have made $18,000 inside a calendar month through operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task accomplishing ewes this I’m equipped to reap haa thousands of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line……. https://Www.topoffer1.com

[Dillinger]

>>"And the truth is, the entire public health apparatus, failed."

the vindication is only so enjoyable.

[Rob Misek]

That and a buck and a half will get you a cup of coffee.

In God we trust. All others bring evidence of correctly applied logic and science as proof.

Criminalize lying.

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2]

"And the truth is, the entire public health apparatus, failed."

Yeah, but the CDC didn't waste over $5 trillion in taxpayer money like Fatass Donnie and Sleepy Joe did.

[JesseAz]

Youre adding government to your list?

Defend Biden, Democrats, and large Government Institutions at all cost.

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2]

No, idiot.

I ignored the CDC and Fauci from day One. I also don’t care about the War on Trannie Dancing (other than to ridicule it).

I also ignore the Gun Wars since the 2nd Amendment is settled law. Saves me a lot of reactionary self-flagellation.

[JesseAz]

I'm sure you can provide evidence in a single thread of you being against Fauci.

I mean here you are defending the CDC. So let's start there with calling out your gaslighting. CDC was the primary drivers of the lockdowns and hysteria used to justify such.

So please, rationalize that defense.

[linam]

I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ..

See this article for more information————————>>>GOOGLE AT WORK

[JesseAz]

You'll never get your wanted WaPo job with articles like these.

The Washington Post
@washingtonpost
·
Follow
Conservative and libertarian forces have defanged much of the nation’s public health system through legislation and litigation as the world staggers into the fourth year of covid.

[NoVaNick]

I wouldn’t wipe my ass with the ass newspaper. The only thing worse are the asses who read it and consider it a reliable news source.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1633546220508422155?t=Almd6Qj-5Q6mW7yuwgGq5w&s=19

Yes, they are framing transition as a magical cure-all for every adolescent pain

[Pic]

[mad.casual]

WTHF?!

Other Ways Gender Disphoria May Present
...
- Feelings of uncertainty/decreased gender dysphoria

I don't know how clear you could make it that these people are deliberately trying to make other people stupid.

[JimboJr]

He apparently missed the: "Listen to the experts despite how wrong they are" article.

[Zeb]

It's harder to fool actual experts like Prasad with nonsense like that.

[Nardz]

"like Prasad" is doing ALL the work in that sentence

[Ajsloss]

"I don't think science would suggest that that would be the case. In fact, everyone was saying that this was going to be a long, a year-long, a multi-year-long problem."

Ummm, no. "Everyone" was saying "two weeks to slow the spread."

[Don't look at me!]

Joe “Wear a mask for 100 days” Biden

[Don't look at me!]

Joe “ I will shut down the virus “ Biden

[Quo Usque Tandem]

And "manage the hell of of this."

[Quo Usque Tandem]

“Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins and others orchestrated a cover-up. There are emails between [former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis] Collins and Dr. Fauci in which Dr. Collins says this wouldn’t be good for China, this wouldn’t be good for science – meaning that it wouldn’t be good for the business of science, for the money that changes hands,” Paul said.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rand-paul-accuses-fauci-engaging-cover-up-covid-origins-house-gop-embarks-probe

[Credit to JesseAz for posting this on previous thread; thanks]

[JesseAz]

WHO is trying to push even bigger "Public Health"

https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/07/whos-pandemic-treaty-is-a-gift-to-china-and-a-globalist-nightmare-for-everyone-else/

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Just the sort of thing I would expect Biden to sign without knowing what it is, and then take a "victory lap" for engaging the US in the world wide cooperative effort to battle pandemics while addressing equity.

[linam]

I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ..

See this article for more information————————>>>GOOGLE AT WORK

[Overt]

The public health system has been captured by incompetents, much like the rest of government.

And their enablers (many of whom regularly comment here) spent years repeating a very simple process of screaming "Obey The Science! (TM)" followed by discarding any science that was inconvenient to their preferred political goals. They were laughably wrong over and over:

- Two weeks to flatten the curve
- Months to stop the spread
- Masks will stop the spread
- One jab will stop the spread
- Two jabs will stop the spread
- Jabs and masks for everyone!

To date, I have not seen a single apology from folks like Chemjeff, Mike, or JFear for the fact that they parroted these scientific untruths regularly. At best you will get some "uh, well the science has changed" excuse, despite the fact that they know for a fact that the science was always there- they just cherrypicked their own version of it. And while many of the usual suspects here have become mum, you still see countless people in public and online discourse trying to insist that masks or jabs work to stop the spread.

But this is why I spent much of 2020 avoiding arguments about science, and instead focusing on morals. Shrill pretenders to scientific authority will always exist, ready to tell you that the sky is green and night is day, if it will allow them to reach their political goals. And surprise, they will always find support from a government that is inherently political.

The next time you get false prophets like Mike or JFear arrogantly declaring that you don't know The Science! (TM), don't take the bait. Render down to moral and ethical discussion. They will (again) be found wrong on the science, given enough time. And even in those rare cases where the science stays on their side, it doesn't change the moral questions at hand. In fact, too often the science is merely a distraction- an attempt to scare us into making morally evil decisions, like forcing children to stick needles in their arms to (falsely) protect other people from acts of nature.

[SQRLSY One]

Well, to be fair, there IS a "flip side" to be told... Like Texas Gov. Abbott FORBIDDING employers to REQUIRE immunizations! Where does that leave us as consumers who would LIKE to take ourselves or our loved ones (with compromised immune systems) to health care establishments that actually BELIEVE in the medical care technologies that they are dispensing?

https://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-radio-hosts-anti-maskers-death-covid-19-2021-9
At least 7 conservative radio hosts and anti-mask advocates have died from COVID-19 after bashing the vaccines
Intergalactic or Cosmic-Karmic ironic coincidence, maybe? Or candidates for Darwin Awards?

BTW, I am STILL waiting for “the science” concerning sneeze guards at the salad bars, to be settled! Meanwhile, “R” party governors are getting ready for FORBIDDING sneeze guards at the salad bars!!!

Who volunteers to eat what MAY be mucus from strangers, on their salads, in double-blind, MASSIVELY statistically significant studies, to settle this, for once and for all? Because I just KNOW, oh so VERY well, that once the “science” is settled, there will be NO tribalistic ideologues who will dispute these findings! We are ALL data-driven now!

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Like Texas Gov. Abbott FORBIDDING employers to REQUIRE immunizations!

You're kidding, right? That's the "flip side" of a movement that was red in tooth and claw in regards to your freedom?

[SQRLSY One]

In MY Libertopia, employers make these kinds of decisions! Then I can shop where I feel safest (or take my immune-compromised wife, where she feels safest).

In YOUR Libertopia, Government Almighty decides these issues? Businesses are just extensions of Government Almighty, perhaps?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

In MY libertopia, the government isn't allowed to pressure corporations to outsource their authoritarianism by directing the results of production towards national goals, while saying "it's just a business decision". And yes, my company required a vaccination because the Federal Government demanded it do so. These 'bright lines' of separation you believe exist in YOUR non-existent libertopia aren't so bright, or perhaps the revelations of Twitter which *checks previous comments* caused the Reason writers to change direction after *checks previous comments* new information became available is something that never happened.

[Overt]

^ Basically this.

SQRLSY knows this which is why he will jump to calling people names.

[Zeb]

Unfortunately we don't live in your libertopia, but in a place where the federal government was trying to force all large employers to mandate the vaccines. The alternative to the Texas law wasn't complete freedom of association.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I’ve been meaning to post this for a while, but I haven’t yet because it’s going to be a controversial topic on a libertarian forum, but I’ll do it now:

One of the best critiques of libertarianism I heard from someone sympathetic to libertarianism is that… at its core, libertarianism is a preventative measure. Once that preventative measure fails, the system is thrown out of balance and then sometimes unlibertarian things* are required to maximize liberty and freedom.

*this is where things get tricky. To be sure, it’s a long-form discussion worth having that should have interesting input from both left-leaning and right-leaning libertarians. But when libertarianism becomes a suicide pact in the face of a tilted or out-of-balance system that’s already been put into place, I don’t think it’s particularly helpful, especially when the goal is not “libertarianism” but liberty itself.

What people like DeSantis and Abbot were doing (barring corporations from mandating things that were anti-freedom) that was not a “libertarian” act, but it was, in my opinion, and act in service of maximizing liberty.

The answer was… to repeal the mandates– but we had an ugly system where the lines between government officialdom and “private actors” have become so blurred that I simply don’t see it as a libertarian “freedom of association issue” when my trillion dollar mega corporation forces me into a personal medical procedure 24 hours after the Biden Administration publicly asks them very nicely to do so for, you know, business reasons.

[Mike Laursen]

"What people like DeSantis and Abbot were doing (barring corporations from mandating things that were anti-freedom) that was not a “libertarian” act, but it was, in my opinion, and act in service of maximizing liberty."

I disagree. By over-correcting the problem in an authoritarian manner, DeSantis and Abbot were also encroaching on liberty.

[Overt]

But then, Mike wanted everyone to be vaccinated, and so he never had a problem with the federal government forcing people to be vaccinated. Thus we have an example of Mike (one of the people who repeatedly, loudly, incorrectly shamed people for failing to follow his inaccurate science) not caring unless it was his ox being gored.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Yes, they “encroached on liberty” the same way I might “encroach on my neighbor’s liberty and property rights” if my house comes under attack from a gang of violent thugs and I feel the necessity to retreat into my neighbors yard and take refuge… without his prior affirmed consent.

wife: Honey, let’s grab the kids and run into the Johnson’s yard.

*hand over my heart*

Me: I simply cannot, for that would encroach on the inviolable property rights of our neighbor’s sacred borders and violate the NAP!

*wife sighs*

Wife: Well can you maybe send them a text or call them?

Me: I left my phone upstairs

[Mike Laursen]

Doesn’t seem like an apt analogy. Nothing about the situation was forcing DeSantis’ or Abbott’s overreach in correcting Federal encroachments on liberty.

In you analogy, there was no compelling reason for DeSantis or Abbott to go into the neighbor’s yard.

[JesseAz]

Youre literally defending fascist government as a liberty.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

No, Abbot and DeSantis were the mayors of the town I live in that passed an unlibertarian law saying that it’s not trespassing to run into your neighbors yard if the Biden administration sends goons to try to kill me.

[JesseAz]

We get it. You hate individual authority being granted when government authority hidden behind corporations is effected.

[Overt]

My argument against libertarian perfection is similar. Namely, that free markets allow bad actors the ability to acquire enough implements of coercion that they can ultimately destroy the market.

A totally free market tends towards bell curve distributions of any given product. Some people get lots of widgets. Some people get lots of Sprockets. It is just natural that there will not be an equal distribution of anything, because people have different starting premises and demands. I generally don't have a moral objection to disparate outcomes like this as long as they were reached without coercion. (This largely separates me from leftists who think any inequality of distribution is evidence of moral wrong.)

But the problem arises when the "product" being distributed is the means to coerce people- guns, goons, etc. Now, many of our rich elites stay rich and elite because of moats and barriers they get into place with the help of government. But I assume that in a libertopia, ultra-rich will still exist, and it takes an extremely moral bajillionaire to perform this calculous without deciding to use their wealth to accumulate enough Power to capture the market.

Many people think this is a problem in space colonies where the mechanism of applying force may be as simple as "turning off your air". Google "Hydraulic Government" for more. That is largely the point I think you were making, so maybe this was a long way of saying "Totes Agree".

That said, the day of this systemic collapse is not a remote possibility, given the non-libertarian trajectory of our world. Indeed, our existence right now is an example of what has happened throughout history- strongmen or strong-groups have acquired enough forces of coercion to capture the market. But it is noteworthy that not all bell curves are the same. Some are flatter than others. A world where 10% of the people owns 80% of guns is different from a world where the 10% owns 50% of the guns. And this explains why dictators and kings flourish in countries with restrictive gun laws, while armed populations tend to get far more "concessions" from their rulers.

The Bitcoin consensus algorithm is actually a very interesting (but not complete) simulation of anarchy in practice. Consider that there is no "Authority" that can say a Bitcoin Block is accurate or not. Every node participates in the consensus network by its own free will, and is free at any time to reject a block. A block is generally accepted when a majority of nodes accept the new block and move on, and if you reject a valid block that is accepted by the majority, your node will soon be cast out.

Theoretically, if a bad actor accumulated 50% + 1 validators, they could take over the network. So the math is solvable here: How many Gigawatts of power do you need to consume in order to capture half the processing power of the network, and therefore take all of the bitcoins for yourself? The problem is that this is an arms race where others can counter your move, unless it is a very small network. And even if you could succeed, the network would fragment as "good actors" left the network, and all your Bitcoin would only be available to trade between your small cabal.

There is a lot of game theory that could be explored further, but it boils down to this: in a world where everyone has the capacity to resist a takeover (as a validator node, or an armed citizen), the ability to capture it with disparate resources gets higher and higher. And eventually, you cannot capture the network, only destroy it, and all the wealth you intended to capture in the first place.

So there are balancing mechanisms to remove the feedback of disproportionate distribution. The networks- whether crypto, or free markets for guns- are resilient, but not infallible.

[SQRLSY One]

Why can't "people like DeSantis and Abbot" find a BETTER route, which says, "No new mandates in OUR state, without a fight in the courts, and at the ballot boxes!" (I hate to think about armed revolts.) "No new mandates ONE WAY OR THE OTHER on employers!" This IS an option, you know! There are NO laws of physics against it! And then I could STOP worrying about taking my immune-system-compromised wife to "medical" clinics that are FORBIDDEN from mandating that their employees wear masks, get vaccinated, etc.! (This is personally for real for me, despite the likes of mind-reading JesseBahnFuhrer LYING about it.) Who are MANDATED to keep on employing health hazards as employees! What about the choices of employers AND their customers?

[Overt]

Here we see that SQRLSY incorrectly believes that a masked or vaccinated person will not pass a virus on to his immune compromised wife.

For the record, the recent Five Star Blue Ribbon Cochrane Review found that his immune-compromised wife is under equal risk from COVID whether she goes to a hospital that requires masks or goes to a hospital that doesn't.

But that doesn't stop him from trying to use this fact as an ace card. His science is wrong, but he is using it to try and pre-empt an actual moral discussion. And he will never apologize for being wrong, and trying to shame people- just as he tries to steal the base here.

Don't get me wrong: I believe SQRLSY should be free to be wrong- as he is in this case. And in a libertarian world, SQRLSY might find a business where they mandate that their employees eat organic, wear masks, worship Gaia and implement all sorts of other placebos to make him feel more comfortable. That would make me happy.

But in this world, his insecurities had a cost. If people like him had not CONSTANTLY insisted things that weren't true- things like "masks and vaccination prevent infection"- then there wouldn't be these anti-mandates from Abbot. But he won't acknowledge his role there. He won't acknowledge that when Biden and California and other states were pushing mandates, he was ABSOLUTELY SILENT if not dismissive and mocking of those protesting on the side of liberty. No, he only got angry when it is his phobia that is tickled.

[SQRLSY One]

"Don’t get me wrong: I believe SQRLSY should be free to be wrong- as he is in this case. And in a libertarian world, SQRLSY might find a business where they mandate that their employees eat organic, wear masks, worship Gaia and implement all sorts of other placebos to make him feel more comfortable. That would make me happy."

Now will you acknowledge that Abbott and MANY anti-vaxxers are TOTALLY willing to GET IN MY WAY (and in the way of my supposedly "irrational" beliefs)? If my freedom would make you happy, WHY do you bless the desires of those who CLEARLY want to stand in the way of my freedoms?

[Overt]

Again I note that you have not apologized for passing off bad science in an attempt to steal an emotional base. This is especially rich considering how judgmental you are of random schools in Florida

“TOTALLY willing to GET IN MY WAY (and in the way of my supposedly “irrational” beliefs)”

To be clear, they are not getting in your way of contracting, unless you are an employer. You still have the freedom to chose a business where the employees voluntarily vaccinate, mask or flagilate themselves daily.

For example, the government prohibits a business from mandating your religion. Nevertheless, the government does not prohibit you from starting a business that is catholic, and all the people who work for you voluntarily becoming catholic. And if religion was as important to me as it is to you, I would have the freedom to choose your business instead of others.

So, yes, it is true that we do not live in a world where you can choose a company that forces catholicism, or vaccination, or skin color. It is lamentable, but among the many, many, many violations of our liberty served to us by government, this one is far down on the list. Further even than the world that Biden was trying to foist on us with vaccine mandates.

[Zeb]

I've been thinking more in that direction as well in recent years. If you want to be a pure libertarian, that's fine with me too. But if so, there isn't much point in concerning yourself with politics because everyone is always wrong and will never listen to you.

[SQRLSY One]

Yes, this! Messy compromises MUST be made, in order to make any REAL progress! Fanatics piss me off... Libertarian fanatics ass well ass conservaturd fanatics! Conservaturd fanatics hold sway in these comments, though, so please forgive me for concentrating on THEM!

[SQRLSY One]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/centner-academy-vaccine-rules-leila-centner-david-centner
Florida School Run by Idiots Says Vaccinated Students Must Stay Home for 30 Days After Each Shot
This is the same school where a teacher told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.

(End subtitles and excerpts).

See? We are ALL data-driven by now! My data says the OTHER (evil) tribe believes in vaccines, so MY tribe must BAN and SHUN the BAD tribe (and their cooties) as much as possible!
The unvaccinated are now CLEAN and the vaccinated are UNCLEAN! Civic-minded BAD! Afraid of micro-chips in vaccines GOOD! Black is white, and good is evil!

[Overt]

What is funny is that you think this is at all responsive to my point.

I said not to get roped into arguments about the Science. The fact that you present people who argue the Science in a way you disagree with doesn't change my point.

I also said that many people were on these boards trying to shame others for not hewing to "The Science" which as also turned out to be incorrect. Mike, Chemjeff and JFear were all among those who insisted that it was immoral to avoid vaccination or masking BECAUSE the science said these acts would prevent vaccination.They should apologize because they were wrong.*

If a person was on these boards saying it is immoral to vaccinate because it would cause injury to another person, then- depending on the science they use, including the justifications in your highly cherrypicked example- they would also be wrong, and should apologize.

So your screed is nothing more than a distraction from my point that people you tend to empathize and side with acted inappropriately, and foolishly.

* - I do not recall whether or not you also endorsed this sort of incorrect science- largely because I cannot understand half of what you right, and lose patience midway through the other half. But if you were also on these boards shaming people because they wouldn't mask or vaccinate, you also should apologize.

[SQRLSY One]

Overt, would you be able to say that the management of that private school in Florida were ethically-morally-spiritually WRONG as all git-out, as well as having NO science or data-driven analysis for their extreme mandates or "suggestions"? (Note that I am NOT saying that Government Almighty should "correct" this private school).

What I AM saying is this: If you want random DATA-DRIVEN readers to respect your writings, you would CLEARLY acknowledge that SOME extreme tribalist anti-vaxxers are WAAAAY "beyond the pale" of rational discourse!

[Overt]

"Overt, would you be able to say that the management of that private school in Florida were ethically-morally-spiritually WRONG "

Let's see...
Ethically - Since I do not know their ethical premises, I cannot judge whether they were wrong or not.
Moral- Actually, if their science were correct, then absolutely their moral calculous is consistent with the same calculous that would say forced vaccination is still immoral.
Spiritually- Spirituality is not germane.

As for the science, my whole point is that one ought not use science to preempt moral discussions. And this article has not changed my argument at all. It is noteworthy that the school's Anti-Vaxxer screed is scientifically dubious in its conclusions (without saying actual scientific untruths) while being morally consistent:
https://centneracademy.com/our-vaccine-policy

Paraphrased: We think there are medical risks associated with vaccination, but everyone should have their choice.

Nothing on that site talks about a mandated 30 day waiting period, so I can't speak to that.

"What I AM saying is this: If you want random DATA-DRIVEN readers to respect your writings, you would CLEARLY acknowledge that SOME extreme tribalist anti-vaxxers are WAAAAY “beyond the pale” of rational discourse!"

If your first instinct was to find the politically biased hearsay of Vanity Faire lambasting some anti-vaxxers in Florida as a counterpoint, you are not DATA-DRIVEN. It is the definition of cherrypicking.

The article above talks about how the Public Health system used inaccurate data to infringe on our liberties. And I was pointing out that this was supported and aided by people here at reason who not only repeated such false science as a justification, but that those same people continue that behavior without a moment of contrition.

The fact that some rando in BFE says inaccurate facts does not make me right, wrong, consistent or hypocritical. Any more than I am a hypocrite for condemning a specific police beating without taking time to condemn every beating that has ever taken place in recent memory. Just like the existence of random beatings in Florida doesn't make the bad behavior of a specific cop better or worse.

[SQRLSY One]

Readers, NOTE that Overt can NOT bring himself to "overtly" criticize this private school, beyond "It is noteworthy that the school’s Anti-Vaxxer screed is scientifically dubious in its conclusions ..." This is VERY weak tea! This is like saying that the theory of gravity is "debatable"! Well yes, it IS debatable, but HONEST and open-minded people do NOT waste time debating it! Take this into account when reading Overt comments...

[Overt]

"Overt can NOT bring himself to “overtly” criticize this private school,"

I did overtly criticize them. It wasn't covert. It wasn't subtle. I said their scientific conclusions were dubious. They are. You seem to have a problem distinguishing criticism from mocking and hyperbole from fact.

Overt: We should be talking about morals, not science.

SQRLSY: I demand that you mock the scientific conclusions of these people I found after a long google search!

[SQRLSY One]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/centner-academy-vaccine-rules-leila-centner-david-centner Florida School Run by Idiots Says Vaccinated Students Must Stay Home for 30 Days After Each Shot This is the same school where a teacher told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.

(End subtitles and excerpts).

Who needs to mock their “scientific conclusions” when they already mock themselves SOOOO badly?

(But thanks for the Google search. I did save your "hit" here.)

[Overt]

"Who needs to mock their “scientific conclusions” "

Um according to you, *I* need to mock them. Aren't you the one who was criticizing me for failing to mock their scientific views?

Again, my entire argument is that the science is immaterial if your actions are moral. And you come in and prove the point for me.

I wonder if you really have bothered to step back and look at the scenario you have presented me. Is this unwitting, or are you really this morally confused?

Centner: We believe the science says vaccines are dangerous, but families ought to decide what works for them.
Pretty much every school in the nation in 2020: We believe science says masking is beneficial, so we are going to force kids to wear masks.

Both wrong on science. One respected individual/family autonomy.

[SQRLSY One]

Brandybuck had a good summary a while ago. I changed it a bit, added to it, below, as I recall…
Biden… Bike helmets will be mandated!
Abbott… Bike helmets will be strictly prohibited for all!
Biden… Seat belts will be mandated!
Abbott… Seat belts will be strictly prohibited for all!
Biden… Sneeze guards at salad bars will be mandated!
Abbott… Sneeze guards at salad bars will be strictly prohibited for all! (‘Cause the science is still being debated).
Stupid tribalistic “R” v/s “D” morons that many of us are, we promptly pick a side! Hey… Can I as an INDIVIDUAL please choose? Including which businesses, which follow which hiring and firing policies, I shall frequent?
But NOOOOO… The tribalistic ones keep on cheering on the perpetual growth of Government Almighty, which dangles the carrots of lust for tribalistic power in front of our stupid donkey noses, so that we’ll pull their carts to Statist Heaven some more!

[Don't look at me!]

You are such a mess.

[SQRLSY One]

Individual freedoms and freely chosen non-tribalism are messy, yes. The opposites of these, especially when combined, are FAR messier! At the far end of that we have literal "kinetic" WAR, which is the WAAAAY biggest mess!

[Zeb]

That makes no sense. No one was trying to ban vaccines. Only mandates. Which were being pushed heavily by the federal government. It is far from ideal, but I like states protecting their people from federal overreach. States forbidding companies from making their employees take experimental drugs is less bad than feds mandating that companies force their employees to take experimental drugs.

[mad.casual]

Worth noting the iteration of the disingenuous BOAF SIDEZ! as well. The people objecting to corporate policies against vaccinations weren’t objecting to (e.g.) hepatitis vaccines for people who work with blood or “mandatory” anti-retroviral therapy for exposure remediation, they were opposed to policies requiring “vaccines” for everyone from lone night-shift workers and long-haul truckers and the legions of people who'd already contracted the disease and nominally didn't need need vaccinated. Even to the point that people weren't being offered the option to test.

Acts that essentially invert the presumption of innocence, discriminate against people who couldn't get the vaccine and would otherwise be considered nominally disabled, and the establishment of a religious rite of passage as condition of employment.

[Overt]

"Biden… Bike helmets will be mandated!
Abbott… Bike helmets will be strictly prohibited for all!"

This is ludicrously wrong. And you know that, right? If the scenario above were applied to vaccinations, then no one in the state of Texas would have vaccinations (i.e. Bike Helmets). But we know for a fact that many in Texas DO have vaccinations, so your analogy is incorrect.

The appropriate analogy is:

Biden: All must wear Bike Helmets
Abbot: No one may require that you wear a Bike Helmet.

[SQRLSY One]

Well yes, this was hyperbole originally by BrandyBuck. The REAL Abbott case would read a bit longer:

Abbott: You as a consumer will NOT be allowed to chose (for your protection) to frequent a business where you know that all of the employees have been certified, by mandate of the employer, to have been vaccinated. This is because I, Abbott, in My Far-Seeing Wisdom, have FORBIDDEN such employer mandates!"

There are SOOO many "TL;DR" readers around here who will NOT read a longer or detailed explanation... They summarize TOO LONG articles as "Orange Man Bad" for us, you know... So I could see another reason why BrandyBuck shortened it up for us!

[Overt]

“There are SOOO many “TL;DR” readers around here who will NOT read a longer or detailed explanation”

No, you intentionally created an analogy that implied people would be disallowed from vaccination.

We live in a world of mandates. All sorts of mandates. The question is which world is least bad.

Biden’s world is one where millions are forced to undergo medical procedures without their consent.

Abbot’s world is where employers are prohibited from mandating something.

Note, that in Abbot’s world, there is NO PROHIBITION against you contracting with a health care provider where everyone voluntarily vaccinates and masks. If there is really a market for such a business, they are free to form and you are free to use them.

Do I wish we lived in a world free of such meddling? Yes. But of the two, Abbot’s is the least harmful, and you can theoretically still access the class of service you desire.

[SQRLSY One]

"Note, that in Abbot’s world, there is NO PROHIBITION against you contracting with a health care provider where everyone voluntarily vaccinates and masks. If there is really a market for such a business, they are free to form and you are free to use them."

In Abbott's world, such a business will IMMEDIATELY be crashed by some tribalistic glory-seeking asshole (backed up by a scum-sucking lawyer or 3 or 20) DEMANDING to be hired, WITHOUT being vaccinated!!! And Abbott and His Hired Government Almighty GOONS will be there to BACK THE ASSHOLE UP!!!

[Overt]

So it really seems that you are not interested in liberty, but in using whatever leverage is possible to get people to conform to your worldview. But in my mind, your desire to have PURE people tend to you is no more or less important than an asshole's desire to work at a company.

Let us note that if all you care about is having your wife tended by vaccinated/masked people, then you can still get it in Abbot's Texas. You could find a business where 100% of the people voluntarily vaccinate and mask. You could go to a business where unmasked/vaccinated people work positions without customer contact. You could go to a business that offers "covidphobic" days or shifts where all the employees you meet with are masked and vaccinated.

All these are possible for you, so your liberty- while somewhat infringed- is not anywhere near the infringement that Biden was trying to create and that you want.

[SQRLSY One]

"Let us note that if all you care about is having your wife tended by vaccinated/masked people, then you can still get it in Abbot’s Texas."

By and large true, as far as I can tell. Certainly true of the masks! But ONLY because the power-hunger and anti-medical-science ways of Abbott and assorted ant-vaxxers were THWARTED!

(I am hoping and praying that my wife and I will still be able to find salad bars with sneeze guards, after her immune system recovers, and we can once again go out together in public. Maybe Abbott can see fit to NOT mandate tearing the sneeze guards down!)

[Overt]

"By and large true, as far as I can tell. Certainly true of the masks! But ONLY because the power-hunger and anti-medical-science ways of Abbott and assorted ant-vaxxers were THWARTED!"

You are now dodging.

Abbot's law would not have prohibited a health provider where everyone voluntarily wears masks and vaccinates.
Abbot's law would not have prohibited a health provider that isolates un-vaxxed and unmasked people from people who (unscientifically) believe it is more healthy.
Abbot's law would not have prohibited a health provider that offers times or days where only voluntarily vaccinated/masked people are on shift.

If it was SO IMPORTANT that your wife get treated by people with masks and vaccines, then that option was NEVER prohibited to you. Do you agree?

[SQRLSY One]

"If it was SO IMPORTANT that your wife get treated by people with masks and vaccines, then that option was NEVER prohibited to you. Do you agree?"

I agree as far as I can tell. This was (is) DESPITE the strong efforts of Abbott and assorted anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers! (Also note that SOME slaves were able to escape slavery!)

[Overt]

"This was (is) DESPITE the strong efforts of Abbott and assorted anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers!"

Oh look, you have now gotten very vague. Which "strong efforts"? Because to my knowledge NO law ever banned people from voluntarily masking or vaccinating. None. And so no "strong effort" from Abbott and "anti-vaxxers" ever threatened to prohibit businesses from offering you a "fully masked" and "fully vaccinated" healthcare experience. They were free to do so without mandates.

And let's be clear here: you continue to snidely mock "Anti-Maskers" and "Anti-Vaxxers" for declining to follow your religious viewpoints. The science and 2 years of constant spread clearly demonstrate that masking and vaccinations did not protect us from transmitting covid. It did not stop the spread.

So you are angry that Abbott banned mandating RELIGIOUS RITUALS.

So let's revisit your analogies above. This one is even better:

Biden: All Employers must require all women to wear hijabs
Abbott: Employers may not require women to wear hijabs
SQRLSY: Well, maybe people can still wear Hijabs if they want, but this is made difficult by the STRONG EFFORTS of infidels and harlots!!!!

[SQRLSY One]

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-issues-executive-order-prohibiting-vaccine-mandates-by-any-entity-adds-issue-to-special-session-agenda

Governor Abbott Issues Executive Order Prohibiting Vaccine Mandates By Any Entity, Adds Issue To Special Session Agenda

If Governor Abbott had had it HIS way, and a Texas employer had fired an anti-vaxxer (who, of course, refused the vaccine), would Governor Abbott have, or would Governor Abbott have NOT, blessed the use of Texas courts (and the Texas cops right behind them) to PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH said employer? Can you PLEASE live in, and argue on the basis of, a thing called the "real world"?

[Overt]

Now wait. Just a minute ago, we were in agreement.

We have all agreed that Abbott's efforts would not have prohibited a health provider where everyone voluntarily wears masks and vaccinates. They would not have prohibited a health provider that isolates un-vaxxed and unmasked people from people who (unscientifically) believe it is more healthy. They would not have prohibited a health provider that offers times or days where only voluntarily vaccinated/masked people are on shift.

But now you are using EXACTLY those prohibitions again as evidence.

And this is exactly the point I was making above. People like you come into the comments screaming "FOR SHAME!" while repeatedly spouting shit that ISN'T TRUE- that you even agreed wasn't true-, and never admitting that you were wrong.

[SQRLSY One]

Agree, ha! THIS (below) is what I said, and you KNOW that this is how it would work, what with there ALWAYS being glory-hounding tribalists itching for a fight, AND greedy lawyers! Your Abbott-created pro-freedom paradise won't last very long at ALL!

In Abbott’s world, such a business will IMMEDIATELY be crashed by some tribalistic glory-seeking asshole (backed up by a scum-sucking lawyer or 3 or 20) DEMANDING to be hired, WITHOUT being vaccinated!!! And Abbott and His Hired Government Almighty GOONS will be there to BACK THE ASSHOLE UP!!!

[Overt]

" what with there ALWAYS being glory-hounding tribalists itching for a fight, AND greedy lawyers! "

This has exposed how manipulative you have tried to be with this argument, which is example x1000 of exactly what my original post was about. Let's recap:

1) You tried to appeal to emotion and science when you complained:
"I could STOP worrying about taking my immune-system-compromised wife to “medical” clinics that are FORBIDDEN from mandating that their employees wear masks, get vaccinated, etc.! (This is personally for real for me..."

You appeal to emotion & science when you (unscientifically) imply that your wife's life depends on her only being treated by masked and vaccinated care-givers. This is not true, as recent science has shown. But you continue to parrot this point in an attempt to shut down debate.

2) We both agreed that Abbott's law would not have prevented a provider where all the employees voluntarily mask/vax. It would not have prevented an employer that isolates unvaxxed/unmasked people from your wife on request. It would not have prohibited employers who establish appointment windows where only masked/vaxxed employees are on shift.

We both agreed that your (unscientific, and emotional) demands for your wife could have been fulfilled in Abbott's dystopic authoritarian regime.

3) And that is when you give away the game:
"If Governor Abbott had had it HIS way, and a Texas employer had fired an anti-vaxxer (who, of course, refused the vaccine)..."
Here we see that your (unscientific and emotional) appeals to the health of your wife were nothing but a smokescreen. It was complete bullshit.

What SQRLSY wants is to punish the unbelievers. He wants employers free to persecute the people he considers infidels- who refuse to take holy communion and wear the holy talisman so that he can (unscientifically and emotionally) feel safer about his wife. Again- we both agreed that in Abbott's Texas, nothing prevented him from finding an employer who provided exactly the service he wanted. All Abbott did was prevent those employers from punishing employees that SQRLSY doesn't like.

Again, for the record, I believe that an employer should have wide latitude in who they hire and fire. And that means they can fire a woman for declining to wear a burkha or a man for refusing to mask. And in that world, an employer would have to suffer the consequences of being seen as an exclusionary, bigotted asshole.

But in this real world, states regularly prevent that type of religious, unscientific bigotry. You cannot fire black people because you think blacks are less capable. You cannot fire muslims because you think they might secretly all be terrorists. And in Abbott's Texas, you cannot fire a non-vaxxer because you (unscientifically) think they are unclean.

SQRLSY has tried to dress up his bigotry as a health imperative, and tried to ram it home with appeals to (inaccurate) science and emotion. As I noted above, this is the pattern these people take. Scream, "The Science! (tm) you Denier! Think of the children! Think of my Wife!" and when the science shows them wrong, they never admit their error and keep on keeping on, accusing others of the evil they secretly harbor.

[SQRLSY One]

Abbott, Overt, and the anti-vaxxers want to PROTECT the job-holding RIGHTS of health care workers like THIS!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wisconsin-hospital-employee-fired-after-intentionally-destroying-500-doses-covid-n1252605

Wisconsin hospital employee fired, arrested after ‘intentionally’ destroying 500 doses of Covid vaccine

... and like this...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/us/woman-coughed-on-produce-trnd/index.html

A grocery store threw out $35,000 in food that a woman intentionally coughed on, sparking coronavirus fears, police said

[SQRLSY One]

It's actually quite simple: Real (small-government) libertarians believe in "hire and fire at will", for any reason, so long as the employer makes no false (and then violated) promises, which is fraud. FAKE libertarians like Overt want to add yet MORE categories of "specially protected employees". And of course, authoritarians like Abbott will throw red meat to eager troglodytes, whenever Abbott smells more votes and more power!!

[DesigNate]

Brandy’s analogy was wrong and stupid then and it’s wrong and stupid when you repost it.

Fuck off, slaver.

[SQRLSY One]

Well yes, this was hyperbole originally by BrandyBuck. The REAL Abbott case would read a bit longer:

Abbott: You as a consumer will NOT be allowed to chose (for your protection) to frequent a business where you know that all of the employees have been certified, by mandate of the employer, to have been vaccinated. This is because I, Abbott, in My Far-Seeing Wisdom, have FORBIDDEN such employer mandates!”

There are SOOO many “TL;DR” readers around here who will NOT read a longer or detailed explanation… They summarize TOO LONG articles as “Orange Man Bad” for us, you know… So I could see another reason why BrandyBuck shortened it up for us!

[sarcasmic]

When are you going to demand apologies from the liars who continually misrepresent what people in the comments say?

Oh yeah. Never. Nevereverevereverever. If it supports the narrative then it's true. Even if it's a lie.

[JesseAz]

Like when you lied yesterday about what Tucker said when claiming others who watched the video were the real liars?

[sarcasmic]

There's one. They know who they are. They are attracted to my posts like moths to a flame, demanding explanations for things that were never said nor done. Yet do you on your high horse ever call them out? Never. Not once. And you never will.

[Overt]

Look, Sarc is here to turn my thread into a shitting match between him and Jesse. What. a. Shock.

For the record, if people shamed others for failing to follow debunked science, they should also apologize. So Jesse, if you told Sarc he was an evil bastard destroying civilization by [eating meat | eating non-organic | worshipping a sky god | failing to worship a sky god | insert other pseudoscience here], then shame on you.

But this article is not about you, Sarc. It is not about general liars who say mean things on boards. It is an article about how the government used cherrypicked and incorrect medical information to justify infringing the liberties of hundreds of millions of people. And the people who supported the government on these boards by parroting that incorrect science should answer for that. The fact that other people are mean to you is not relevant to that point.

Now, you might say that one cannot remark on a specific fault without condemning all faults, but I find that to be unworkable in practice. YMMV.

[sarcasmic]

It is an article about how the government used cherrypicked and incorrect medical information to justify infringing the liberties of hundreds of millions of people.

Then why are you demanding apologies from people on the board, dimmy? People who are continually lied about by asshats you have never once called out?

To date, I have not seen a single apology from folks like Chemjeff, Mike, or JFear for the fact that they parroted these scientific untruths regularly.

Oh yeah. Principals, not principles.

[JesseAz]

Because they were wrong and refuse to admit it. They, as well as you, even now claim they are conspiracy theorist for being right.

[Overt]

"Then why are you demanding apologies from people on the board, dimmy?"

I have demanded nothing. I would sooner demand the tide go out or the sun not rise than to expect that these people show an ounce of contrition.

If you read my post again, I think you will find that I was making a different point.

I was pointing out that their behavior is part of the cycle that empowers government overreach. Government picks bad science; leftists blast it all over the internet shaming people who disagree as "deniers" and heretics; When the science becomes "unsettled" they move onto the next outrageous junk science claim to undermine their critics. Key to step 3 is never acknowledging how wrong they had it the cycle before.

There are two ways this ends. The best case would be that they admit to being wrong rather than constantly acting like arrogant asses who have full command of The Science! (tm). But since they will not do that (hence my example of them never apologizing for 2 years of being wrong), the alternative is to focus on moral cases for policy instead of letting those arrogant asses steal a base with appeals to Science.

Get it? I'm not asking them for apologies. I am pointing out that their lack of apologies requires different tactics. And in that argument, your petty squabbles with Jesse aren't relevant.

[DesigNate]

Hahahahahaha

Overt is one of the most principled people to post here and you’re acting like he’s Red Tony.

Goddamn man.

[JesseAz]

I am calling out a specific example of him calling people liars while he lied with what Tucker said from yesterday. Here is the link.

https://reason.com/2023/03/07/studies-link-marijuana-legalization-to-all-sorts-of-positive-public-health-outcomes/?comments=true#comment-9956429

He has never provided a citation. Equating us is quite frankly dumb. I am specific in my criticisms.

[Nardz]

"Chemjeff, Mike, or JFear"

Brandybuck, sarcasmic, the former regular commenter who talked about "his hospital" all the time but turned out to be a janitor...

[mad.casual]

The public health system has been captured by incompetents, much like the rest of government.

Public health is an oxymoron created as a jobs program for incompetent morons.

[Dillinger]

totally this.

[Nardz]

Correct.

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

But this is why I spent much of 2020 avoiding arguments about science, and instead focusing on morals.

This.

Mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etc shouldn’t be decided by scientific efficacy. I give zero fucks as to the efficacy of mask mandates (in a mythical world where mask mandates had a positive effect). Effective or not, forcing mask mandates is both morally reprehensible and likely unconstitutional.

[linam]

I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ..

See this article for more information————————>>>GOOGLE AT WORK

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Your national news media at work.

NEW YORK (AP) — An author-editor's libel lawsuit over allegations that he had committed sexual assault, widely cited as a prime example of backlash against the #MeToo movement, has been settled out of court. Stephen Elliott had filed the lawsuit in 2018 against writer Moira Donegan, who had organized a list of “s—tty media men.”

A brief document filed last week by U.S. District Court in Eastern New York noted that the case had been “voluntarily dismissed,” per agreement between the attorneys for Elliott and Donegan.

“I’m glad the lawsuit is over,” Elliott, founding editor of the online publication The Rumpus and author of several works of fiction and nonfiction, told The Associated Press in an email Tuesday. “They were never able to find anyone to accuse me of anything remotely close to rape so I feel my name is cleared.”

[...]

Efforts to reach Donegan, a columnist for The Guardian who has previously written for The New Republic, among others, were not immediately successful. And her attorneys did immediately respond to requests for comment. According to Elliott, Donegan “gave me six figures and no apology, which I didn’t want anyway because what’s the point if they don’t mean it.”

These people are the worst human beings crawling out from under "journalistic" rocks.

[I, Woodchipper]

the journalism class is the enemy of the people. no question

[Mike Laursen]

A writer for a UK publication is a representative of "our national news media"?

[Christian Matuska]

Or maybe he meant the Associated Press article that was carried by US News. You know, the actual publication he linked to you faux-autistic fucking retard.

[DesigNate]

I don’t think he’s faux-autistic.

[pakom]

Earn income while simply working online. work from home whenever you want. just for maximum 5 hours a day you can make more than $600 per day online. From this I made $18,000 last month in my spare time.

Check info here==============>>> https://www.join.hiring9.com

[Eeyore]

Centralization of power is always bad and immoral.

[BettyJess]

I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….

After reading this article...............>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com

[NoVaNick]

Public health as a field started to decline in the 1970s, when it was taken over by a bunch of leftists who didn’t have the grades for medical school because they were too busy protesting . Kind of ironic that now they are the establishment.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Ditto college administrators, in the vein of "those who can, do...."

[Rancor]

Don't trust public health? Ya don't say...

Rushed, guaranteed to succeed, corruptly tested, experimental injection? ✓

That killed and maimed well-over a thousand people in the severely abbreviated trial phase? ✓

And also caused 23 spontaneous abortions and 75 serious clinical events from 270 expectant mothers during said trial? ✓

Using highly dangerous mRNA tech that in the past killed every mouse with ADE? ✓

A tech previously untested on humans, the emergency usage of which upended over a century of vaccine safety and efficacy research? ✓

For a virus far less deadly than the lockdowns themselves? ✓

Also less deadly than the flu which conveniently disappeared when COVID hit the scene? ✓

For a (cold) virus they’ve been unable to cure after over a century of trying? ✓

But somehow all of a sudden, the criminal pharmaceutical companies - notorious for rampant felonious trial fraud - figured it out in less than a year? ✓

And then went on to manufacture billions of quality assured safe and effective doses within a couple of months which were then lawfully distributed by the US military? ✓

People actually bought into this on a grand scale, and voluntarily injected this poison? ✓

The above text with embedded references is here: https://tritorch.com/doormat

[BettyJess]

I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….

After reading this article...............>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com

[Christian Matuska]

I like that we're at the point in the pandemic where Reason can post articles like this while pretending the 3 years they spent regurgitating every single malicious lie spewed by public health authorities never happened.

[TJJ2000]

And if you think the ?blessings? of Commie-Education are great….
Just count the ?blessings? of the Commie-Health program….

Sell your Individual souls to the [WE] foundation; because You don’t own You; [WE] own you! … You don’t even exist in our [WE] foundation.

And that is how Individual Liberty and Justice gets conquered.
You can't be a slave of the state when You don't even exist.