The Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced this guide to ethical public health policymaking in 2007. It is considered a gold-standard presentation of bioethics used by public policymakers internationally to help guide their decisions. Its guidance is still relevant and useful today, explaining much of what public health officials have relied upon to determine public policies. That doesn't necessarily make it a good guide.
I find Chapter 7, Water Fluoridation beginning on page 121 (153) useful in the context of the precautionary principle you put forth. It all is useful to read to gain full context, and beginning on page 135 (167) is a section on Consent that gets to the principles that inform public policymakers on the ethics of coercive public health actions that remove the consent of the public, no way to opt-out.
Throughout the entire guide and even in the section on Fluoridation it gives voice to individual free choice. That it rarely honors in its final subject guidance. With water fluoridation it shares that even after over 60 years (in 2007, now over 75 years) of fluoridating water there's little compelling evidence that it is effective. It acknowledges that in lab studies some results have been promising, but clear scientific results have never been produced that show it works as claimed in a community setting. It also acknowledges that opponents of fluoridating water have produced lab studies showing harmful effects, including increased cancer, from fluoridated water, but they've been disputed by proponents of fluoridation and so there's no clear scientific results that shows it is unquestionably harmful. Earlier in the guide it makes the case that no ethical public policy should be made so coercive it removes consent unless it is proven to be safe and effective.
With regards to fluoridation it says that because there's no clear, compelling evidence on either side that nation's ought not make it public policy for ethical reasons. *But* it goes on to offer that if local communities wish to do so they may. Then shifting the burden of proof onto opponents of fluoridation that shows clear, unquestionable scientific evidence it is unsafe. Violating the very ethics of the guide it purports to adhere to.
Apply this same reasoning to pandemic mitigation public policy, including mandatory mask mandates, policies that remove individual consent for a proclaimed collective public health concern. Know that water fluoridation has over 75 years of practice now in many communities, with no compelling evidence it is effective at preventing cavities (caries). But based on mere assertions of efficacy local communities fluoridate water. And because opponents aren't able to produce scientific evidence of harm that satisfies the proponents of fluoridation it is deemed ethical public policy at the local community level. With this model as a guide, local communities could continue with mask mandates for 75 years without any compelling evidence, dismissing all evidence of harms presented by opponents. And consider themselves ethical. Even "Good Stewards" of their citizens.
This bioethics guide proclaims its product represents the ideal of "Good Stewardship" that balances the competing interests of individual choice and freedom with the collective's public health and safety required sacrifices. In fact, it gives mere lip service to individual choice and freedom as it minimizes the value of it, while giving broad deference to presumptions of necessary collective sacrifices with little scrutiny. But because it gives any kind of voice to the individual it pats itself on the back for balancing the competing interests. It's mental masturbation for the creators of it, with multiple exclamations of King Solomon-like wisdom. And it's significant to note that the head of Bioethics at the National Institute of Health is Christine Grady, wife of Anthony Fauci. Mic drop.
Depressing to know how they justify their policies. But knowing thy enemy is a prerequisite to defeating them. Armed with this knowledge we are more capable of defeating them. Which is how this post can become hopeful. Our strategies to address this rationale become more effective by accounting for this.
Under the "follow the money" wisdom of understanding agendas and biases, found on p.iii (5) in the report above by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics is funded by:
Wellcome Trust (offshoot of GlaxoWellcome, Big Pharma), trusted partner of the World Economic Forum (Klaus Schwab's Great Reset):
Which informs us of some of their involvement in the pandemic response, including the behavioral science-based nonpharmaceutial interventions, that masks, lockdowns, quarantine, test and trace, nudges to vaccinations, are all the product of. This report is of the high-altitude variety, not granular detail, but informative. It's lengthy to read, but using the "Find" feature on your browser to type in, "behaviour" and "vaccine/vaccination" will take you right to the areas those topics are mentioned in it, a quick tip to finding specific information you're researching in long documents.
It's also interesting to note that the the Chair of the Working Party that authored this report is Lord John Krebs, a powerful member of the UK House of Lords, whose input on medical science issues is highly esteemed and influential in setting public policy.
"Research Interests: I am interested in the relationship between science and policy."
In 2012, Krebs offered this insight to his thinking, his values and beliefs as to what good policy is and how to apply soft behavioral science "nudges" with hard, tough penalties found in government enforcement:
Sometimes a nudge from the government is just not enough
"Although governments are reluctant to be more interventionist, a recent Mori survey of 18,600 people in 24 countries showed surprisingly high levels of support for regulations and other strong measures to tackle the major problems facing society.
The behavioural sciences have an important role to play, but our understanding of how to persuade people to change their behaviour is still rudimentary. In the mean time, tough problems will need tough action from government."
Which belies the Nuffield Council's work product as the authoritarian, anti-individual freedom and liberty guide that it is. "Good Stewardship" a euphemism for authoritarian, totalitarian governance. Along with his uber-focus on climate change, linking The Best Science (TM) (aka behavioral science, the science of the efficacy of propaganda to nudge) of the pandemic to the destruction of society under the "carbon reduction" policies of Big Green that's forcing the food shortages and energy shortages, and the "era of abundance" being declared "over" by leaders in western liberal democracies the world over. By following the money even more insights and clarity is found.
A fascinating presentation he made that reveals the mindset of our self-proclaimed elites, our "Good Stewards." In it he dismisses all contrary beliefs and understandings of the major issues that public policy attempts to tackle as "post truth," "anti-science" and "evidence deniers." Declaring his side's monopoly on truth and those who challenge it as dangerous, uncaring, murderous Neanderthals. This is who mankind, freedom and liberty is up against. This is who declares themselves to be the white knights protecting freedom and liberty, protecting truth from the fascist rabble. Liars projection:
Lord John Krebs - "Climate Change and Post-Truth Politics"
University of California Santa Barbara Bren School, March 14, 2017
Isn't it nice how they can pick and choose which objections to "settled science" are ridiculous or offensive and which are sagacious?
Prior to 2020 it was "settled science" that masks were useless, with a vast body of research asserting it. All of a sudden this ridiculous rhetorical trick that a "novel coronavirus" somehow behaved physically differently than anything else in the universe previously had was sufficient to sweep away "settled science," and in less than 3 years, the new narrative had become "settled science" instead, protected from attack.
There's no logic present in any of it. It's all Orwellian bullshit arising from religious fanaticism motivating people to contort their internal reasoning to fit.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced this guide to ethical public health policymaking in 2007. It is considered a gold-standard presentation of bioethics used by public policymakers internationally to help guide their decisions. Its guidance is still relevant and useful today, explaining much of what public health officials have relied upon to determine public policies. That doesn't necessarily make it a good guide.
https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf
I find Chapter 7, Water Fluoridation beginning on page 121 (153) useful in the context of the precautionary principle you put forth. It all is useful to read to gain full context, and beginning on page 135 (167) is a section on Consent that gets to the principles that inform public policymakers on the ethics of coercive public health actions that remove the consent of the public, no way to opt-out.
Throughout the entire guide and even in the section on Fluoridation it gives voice to individual free choice. That it rarely honors in its final subject guidance. With water fluoridation it shares that even after over 60 years (in 2007, now over 75 years) of fluoridating water there's little compelling evidence that it is effective. It acknowledges that in lab studies some results have been promising, but clear scientific results have never been produced that show it works as claimed in a community setting. It also acknowledges that opponents of fluoridating water have produced lab studies showing harmful effects, including increased cancer, from fluoridated water, but they've been disputed by proponents of fluoridation and so there's no clear scientific results that shows it is unquestionably harmful. Earlier in the guide it makes the case that no ethical public policy should be made so coercive it removes consent unless it is proven to be safe and effective.
With regards to fluoridation it says that because there's no clear, compelling evidence on either side that nation's ought not make it public policy for ethical reasons. *But* it goes on to offer that if local communities wish to do so they may. Then shifting the burden of proof onto opponents of fluoridation that shows clear, unquestionable scientific evidence it is unsafe. Violating the very ethics of the guide it purports to adhere to.
Apply this same reasoning to pandemic mitigation public policy, including mandatory mask mandates, policies that remove individual consent for a proclaimed collective public health concern. Know that water fluoridation has over 75 years of practice now in many communities, with no compelling evidence it is effective at preventing cavities (caries). But based on mere assertions of efficacy local communities fluoridate water. And because opponents aren't able to produce scientific evidence of harm that satisfies the proponents of fluoridation it is deemed ethical public policy at the local community level. With this model as a guide, local communities could continue with mask mandates for 75 years without any compelling evidence, dismissing all evidence of harms presented by opponents. And consider themselves ethical. Even "Good Stewards" of their citizens.
This bioethics guide proclaims its product represents the ideal of "Good Stewardship" that balances the competing interests of individual choice and freedom with the collective's public health and safety required sacrifices. In fact, it gives mere lip service to individual choice and freedom as it minimizes the value of it, while giving broad deference to presumptions of necessary collective sacrifices with little scrutiny. But because it gives any kind of voice to the individual it pats itself on the back for balancing the competing interests. It's mental masturbation for the creators of it, with multiple exclamations of King Solomon-like wisdom. And it's significant to note that the head of Bioethics at the National Institute of Health is Christine Grady, wife of Anthony Fauci. Mic drop.
https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/05/18/fauci-wife-authors-paper-supporting-vaccine-pressure-campaigns/
Great — and depressing — post.
Depressing to know how they justify their policies. But knowing thy enemy is a prerequisite to defeating them. Armed with this knowledge we are more capable of defeating them. Which is how this post can become hopeful. Our strategies to address this rationale become more effective by accounting for this.
Powerful comment!
Under the "follow the money" wisdom of understanding agendas and biases, found on p.iii (5) in the report above by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics is funded by:
Wellcome Trust (offshoot of GlaxoWellcome, Big Pharma), trusted partner of the World Economic Forum (Klaus Schwab's Great Reset):
https://www.weforum.org/organizations/the-wellcome-trust
And the UK's Medical Research Council:
https://www.ukri.org/councils/mrc/
Which informs us of some of their involvement in the pandemic response, including the behavioral science-based nonpharmaceutial interventions, that masks, lockdowns, quarantine, test and trace, nudges to vaccinations, are all the product of. This report is of the high-altitude variety, not granular detail, but informative. It's lengthy to read, but using the "Find" feature on your browser to type in, "behaviour" and "vaccine/vaccination" will take you right to the areas those topics are mentioned in it, a quick tip to finding specific information you're researching in long documents.
https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/091221-MRC-Covid19ResponseInterimReport.pdf
It's also interesting to note that the the Chair of the Working Party that authored this report is Lord John Krebs, a powerful member of the UK House of Lords, whose input on medical science issues is highly esteemed and influential in setting public policy.
https://www.biology.ox.ac.uk/people/professor-lord-john-krebs-frs
"Research Interests: I am interested in the relationship between science and policy."
In 2012, Krebs offered this insight to his thinking, his values and beliefs as to what good policy is and how to apply soft behavioral science "nudges" with hard, tough penalties found in government enforcement:
Sometimes a nudge from the government is just not enough
The Guardian, September 6, 2012
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/06/nudge-government
"Although governments are reluctant to be more interventionist, a recent Mori survey of 18,600 people in 24 countries showed surprisingly high levels of support for regulations and other strong measures to tackle the major problems facing society.
The behavioural sciences have an important role to play, but our understanding of how to persuade people to change their behaviour is still rudimentary. In the mean time, tough problems will need tough action from government."
Which belies the Nuffield Council's work product as the authoritarian, anti-individual freedom and liberty guide that it is. "Good Stewardship" a euphemism for authoritarian, totalitarian governance. Along with his uber-focus on climate change, linking The Best Science (TM) (aka behavioral science, the science of the efficacy of propaganda to nudge) of the pandemic to the destruction of society under the "carbon reduction" policies of Big Green that's forcing the food shortages and energy shortages, and the "era of abundance" being declared "over" by leaders in western liberal democracies the world over. By following the money even more insights and clarity is found.
A fascinating presentation he made that reveals the mindset of our self-proclaimed elites, our "Good Stewards." In it he dismisses all contrary beliefs and understandings of the major issues that public policy attempts to tackle as "post truth," "anti-science" and "evidence deniers." Declaring his side's monopoly on truth and those who challenge it as dangerous, uncaring, murderous Neanderthals. This is who mankind, freedom and liberty is up against. This is who declares themselves to be the white knights protecting freedom and liberty, protecting truth from the fascist rabble. Liars projection:
Lord John Krebs - "Climate Change and Post-Truth Politics"
University of California Santa Barbara Bren School, March 14, 2017
https://youtu.be/6LuksBme_NY in 2017
Isn't it nice how they can pick and choose which objections to "settled science" are ridiculous or offensive and which are sagacious?
Prior to 2020 it was "settled science" that masks were useless, with a vast body of research asserting it. All of a sudden this ridiculous rhetorical trick that a "novel coronavirus" somehow behaved physically differently than anything else in the universe previously had was sufficient to sweep away "settled science," and in less than 3 years, the new narrative had become "settled science" instead, protected from attack.
There's no logic present in any of it. It's all Orwellian bullshit arising from religious fanaticism motivating people to contort their internal reasoning to fit.
Indeed. But there’s a way to make sense of these things never nevertheless… https://youtu.be/9L7l8tyNcXw
This was a good refresher.