Brownstone Journal

Brownstone Institute
  • 0.0 (0)
  • COMENTARIOS DE NOTICIAS

Daily readings from Brownstone Institute authors, contributors, and researchers on public health, philosophy, science, and economics.

  1. HACE 13 H

    When War Teaches Medicine

    By Joseph Varon at Brownstone dot org. War is the most unrestrained expression of humanity's destructive capacity, a setting where order disintegrates, moral boundaries are tested, and life is reduced to its most vulnerable state. Medicine, by contrast, stands as a deliberate act of resistance against that collapse, a disciplined and unwavering commitment to preserve life even when surrounded by death. Despite these opposing identities, war and medicine have remained deeply intertwined across history, not by design, but by inevitability. Again and again, the battlefield has served as medicine's most unforgiving classroom, stripping away theory and exposing only what truly works under pressure. In that environment, progress is not driven by curiosity or careful planning but by urgency, necessity, and the relentless demand to save lives hanging by a thread. It is in these moments of chaos and human suffering that medicine evolves most rapidly, forced forward not because it is prepared, but because failure is measured in lives lost and there is no option but to improve. From the fields of Waterloo to the trenches of World War I, and from the mechanized devastation of World War II to the asymmetric conflicts of the modern era, war has shaped the trajectory of medical progress in both extraordinary and deeply troubling ways. Notably, some of the most significant advances in medicine have arisen during periods marked by profound human failure. However, war not only drives medical advancement but also exposes how easily medicine can lose its ethical direction. This narrative examines both the lessons gained and the critical principles that must be preserved. The Good: Innovation Forged in Crisis Modern medicine owes much of its development to wartime innovation. The concept of organized trauma care, now standard in emergency departments worldwide, originated amid the chaos of conflict. During the Napoleonic Wars, Dominique Jean Larrey, surgeon to Napoleon Bonaparte, introduced the revolutionary principle that wounded soldiers should be treated according to the severity of their injuries rather than their rank or status.¹ This concept, now universally recognized as triage, represented a radical departure from the hierarchical norms of the time. It was not only a logistical innovation; it was a moral one. Larrey's approach emphasized the intrinsic value of human life over social or military position, laying the foundation for modern emergency medicine.² Larrey's contributions extended beyond triage. His early implementation of rapid evacuation systems, known as "flying ambulances," and his observations on environmental exposure and resuscitative physiology anticipated concepts that would only be fully recognized centuries later.³ Subsequent analyses, including recent scholarship, have demonstrated how Larrey's insights align with principles now seen in therapeutic hypothermia and prehospital care systems.⁴ The 19th and early 20th centuries saw further transformation. During World War I, physicians faced injuries that had no precedent: massive blast trauma, chemical burns, and overwhelming infection in an era before antibiotics. The scale of suffering forced rapid advances in surgical technique, wound management, and infection control.⁵ The development of blood transfusion systems during this period, particularly the introduction of blood typing and storage, represented a turning point in the management of hemorrhagic shock.⁶ For the first time, physicians could meaningfully intervene in one of the leading causes of battlefield death. World War II accelerated this progress dramatically. The widespread use of penicillin, the refinement of surgical debridement techniques, and the development of forward surgical units significantly improved survival rates.⁷ The concept of rapid evacuation—getting the wounded away from the battlefield and into definitive care as quickly as possible became a central principle of military medicine. By the ...

    12 min

  2. HACE 1 DÍA

    Medicalization of Our Spiritual Life

    By Elisabeth Bennink at Brownstone dot org. Recently, like millions of others around the world, I listened to a conversation on The Joe Rogan Experience between Joe Rogan and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., aired on February 27, 2026 (1). In the discussion, HHS Secretary Kennedy spoke at length about promoting healthy nutrition and tackling health insurance fraud. While nutrition is undoubtedly an important subject, my attention was drawn instead to another topic—one that lies close to my heart: the use of psychedelics in medical and therapeutic settings, and what I perceive as the implicit threat this poses to our freedom. About halfway through the conversation, the discussion turns to the promise of psychedelics—particularly in treating veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, but also in addressing severe opioid addiction and depression (2). Both Joe Rogan and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. express optimism, describing psychedelics as powerful tools that could help individuals lead happier and more productive lives. Kennedy states that these substances have the potential "to rewire your brain," referring to the well-documented neuroplasticity observed in the days following psychedelic use, which may underlie their capacity to catalyse behavioural change. Rogan then poses a rhetorical question: "Who could possibly be against this?" Both men agree that such treatments should be offered within a clinical setting, with Kennedy emphasizing the need for further trials and the development of rigorous therapeutic guidelines before broader access is granted—an effort, as he frames it, to avoid a "Wild West" scenario. And while I share their enthusiasm for psychedelics, I, both as a physician and an ayahuasqueira, see a profound threat to our (religious) freedom when authority over these substances is placed exclusively in the hands of what might be called the "church of medicine." The medical-therapeutic framework is founded on a materialist, reductionist view of what it means to be human, one that leaves no room for spirituality and fails to take seriously the subjective experience of those who engage with these substances. Just as physical nourishment forms the foundation of bodily health, human cultures across time have recognized that certain plants can facilitate contact with the spiritual world—serving, in a sense, as a kind of spiritual nourishment. And yet, more than what we eat, it is our spiritual life that shapes who we truly are. To draw psychedelics further into the medical domain—to medicalize them—while the spiritual use of ancient plant medicines in the West remains criminalized (3), risks undermining religious freedom (4). My firm impression is that the broader implications of the current Western approach to psychedelics are often overlooked—even by those who consider themselves advocates of medical freedom. With the medical-therapeutic establishment at the helm, a vital dimension of human experience is once again at risk of being medicalized (5). The growing push for clinical trials, conducted in partnership with the pharmaceutical industry and commercial investors, is shaping a model in which patients—under strict supervision, in controlled clinical environments, and under the care of medical or psychiatric professionals—are permitted to consume psychedelics. Within this framework, access becomes mediated by institutional authority. At the same time, many of the physicians and scientists leading what is often described as the "third psychedelic wave" are thrilled about the emergence of a significant new market (6). Interest from the pharmaceutical sector, alongside investment from Silicon Valley, reflects growing attention to the commercial potential of combining psychedelics with therapeutic models (7). A glance at the trade shows and conferences where "cutting-edge" psychedelic science is presented suggests that this field is widely regarded (to put it lightly) as a space of substantial economic opportunity or a new mar...

    37 min

  3. HACE 2 DÍAS

    Don't Use Antidepressants During Pregnancy or for Children

    By Peter C. Gøtzsche at Brownstone dot org. As a young doctor, I joked about a general warning that can still be seen in Danish package inserts for drugs: "Caution is advised during pregnancy." What does that mean? If you take a pill, it is too late to be cautious, and if you don't take it, you don't need to be cautious because you will be totally safe. My joke was that caution meant placing the pill between the legs instead of swallowing it, which would also make it more difficult to become pregnant. The authorities passed the buck. If your child is malformed, they can say that they did warn you. Official statements that antidepressants are safe to take during pregnancy should be distrusted. No drug is safe. If drugs were safe, they would not be the leading cause of death, ahead of cardiovascular diseases and cancer. In this article, I shall explain why it is wrong to recommend or take antidepressants during pregnancy. The Role of Serotonin in the Body SSRIs stands for Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, which is a misnomer. They are not selective at all. They have multiple effects throughout the body and are not directed against any chemical abnormality. People do not become depressed because they have too little serotonin in the body but mainly because they live depressing lives. Serotonin plays a very important role for many processes in the body, also in many primitive organisms. It is usually a very bad idea to change the blood level of a chemical that has proved so useful during evolution. Foetal development is a delicate process that can easily go wrong, which is why we tell pregnant women to avoid alcohol. A priori, we would expect any substance that affects serotonin levels to be harmful because serotonin is essential for foetal development. This is basic biology, but we live in a world dominated by financial interests, which is why many pregnant women take antidepressants during pregnancy. How a Drug Company Fooled the Drug Regulators The first SSRI approved for use in children was fluoxetine from Eli Lilly. It should never have been approved. When psychiatrist David Healy and I reviewed the confidential internal study reports for the two trials that led to approval of fluoxetine for children with depression, we found that fluoxetine is unsafe and ineffective. In the first trial, the investigators had omitted two suicide attempts on fluoxetine in their published paper, and many of the 48 children on the drug experienced restlessness and had nightmares, which increase the risk of suicide and violence. In the other trial, one child was severely harmed for every 10 children treated with fluoxetine. Fluoxetine increased the QTc interval on the ECG (P = 0.02), which increases the risk of sudden death, increased serum cholesterol, and was an effective growth inhibitor, reducing the increases in height and weight over just 19 weeks by 1.0 cm and 1.1 kg, respectively (P = 0.008 for both). The public does not have access to animal experiments with drugs because the drug companies know it would be bad for business if people saw the data. When I got access to Merck's animal studies for their HPV vaccine Gardasil in a US lawsuit where I was an expert witness, I saw that the data supported what the patients had reported: Gardasil can cause serious neurological harms and the vaccine adjuvant is also harmful. However, drug regulators all over the world have declared that both the adjuvant and Gardasil are safe. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) had serious concerns about approving fluoxetine for use in children, which is clear in an 86-page document about animal studies from August 2005 that is nowhere to be found on the Internet: "Prozac Paediatric Indication. Arbitration Procedure No: EMEA/H/A-6(12)/671. Lilly Response to Questions from EMEA in Document EMEA/CHMP/175191/05". I have uploaded this document in the public interest. It illustrates the extent to which drug companies are willing to bend the truth for an econo...

    20 min

  4. HACE 3 DÍAS

    The Story of the Victorian-Era Anti-Mandate Movement

    By Jeffrey A. Tucker at Brownstone dot org. The epithet "anti-vaxxer" is common in our time for anyone who resists mandates or resents the enormous legal privileges, protections, patents, and subsidies the industry receives today. It also pertains to those who attempt to bring attention to vaccine injury and death, a sensitive and even suppressed subject for an industry that relies on a utilitarian measure to demonstrate its social value. The label does not always or often make sense. The dominant theme of the movement now – and this has always been true – is to reject intervention and instead regard this industry as any other in a free marketplace (hamburgers, bottled water, washing machines, etc.), neither subsidized, nor mandated, nor protected from liability from imposed harms. If that goal were achieved, the "anti-vaxx" movement would shrink dramatically. The trouble is that no matter how deep we look into the history of vaccination in Western countries, and the US in particular, we find that vaccination has never been treated as a normal market good to accept or reject based on consumer preference. Indeed, if this pharmaceutical product were as obviously glorious as advertised, it should be able to elicit sufficient economic demand to sustain itself profitably and competitively like any other product. It's simple: let this industry be subjected to the cold winds of a ruthless free market and see what happens. From the outset, however, the vaccine industry has enjoyed some form of privilege under the law. I've detailed some of this history here. This naturally gives rise to suspicions that something isn't quite right. Perhaps these products are neither safe nor effective, else why would the population need such heavy-handed nudging? Injury from shots further fuels the fervor to at least make them voluntary and stop the subsidies and liability protections. What's more, mandates have historically not led to higher vaccination rates but only more population resistance and lower rates. An excellent example is the Leicester Anti-Vaccination League of the 1870s and 1880s England. This was one of the more effective anti-vaccine mandate movements in Western history. It rose up in response to the Vaccination Act of 1867 as passed by Parliament in compliance with intense industry lobbying and the familiar graft (nothing has changed). This Act made vaccination mandatory for all children up to the age of 14. It paid vaccinators 1 and 3 shillings per successful vaccination (same as now). It required birth registrars to issue a notice of vaccination within seven days of a child's birth registration (same). Non-compliance led to criminal conviction and a fine of up to 20 shillings (millions were professionally displaced only recently with the Covid shot). The Act imposed repeated penalties until the child was vaccinated (same: doctors lost licenses). Failure to pay could result in imprisonment (some went to jail this time). It also banned variolation (the older method of exposure triggering an immune response) with imprisonment up to one month. A question I keep asking myself about this period: if vaccination is so much and obviously superior to variolation, why was such hoopla and subsidies necessary for one to replace the other, all the way up to criminal penalties for using the older method? I do not have the answer, except to say this is another way in which this industry defies market dynamics in which innovations always organically replace inferior tech. In short, the Vaccination Act of 1867 was an egregious law, passed in the face of growing population resistance that developed in the half-century since the famed Edward Jenner first brought the attention to the new method to replace variolation. While effectiveness of the cross immunity from cowpox to smallpox was never in question, injury from vaccination (via cuts in the arm, sniffed through the nose, and only later injected) had been a theme from the 1790s. The Leicester An...

    8 min

  5. HACE 4 DÍAS

    What Would Robert Louis Stevenson Say about Ozempic?

    By Ann Bauer at Brownstone dot org. I have loved many addicts in my life. I have been exasperated, impoverished, and terrified by them. But also amused, warmed, enraptured, elevated…That's the thing about addicts. They contain multitudes, all drama and extremes. They're charismatic until they're repugnant, joyful until they're suicidal. Everything is in vivid, dangerous color. It's part of the ride and the reason they exert such a pull on cautious, ascetic people like me. Some of my addicts are gone. My closest friend and "Damn Good Food" co-author, Mitch Omer, died at 61. Others have found God and turned their lives around (they're now exciting and dramatic people of faith). I love people who are addicted to alcohol, drugs, gambling, and food. Many surf between the four. Recently, another category of people formed: the ones injecting themselves with GLP-1s, mostly to lose weight but also to control other impulses. It's clearly great for the handful whose life and health were being destroyed by obesity. But for the others? I'm dubious. Ozempic and its cousins (Mounjaro, Wegovy, Zepbound, et al.) modify the pleasure centers of the brain, making everything people crave—food, sex, smoking, alcohol, shopping, gambling, cocaine—less appealing. It doesn't address the underlying problems of addiction, such as depression or dishonesty. It just eliminates the part of the person that enjoys and revels, the colorful, joyous side. It's a version of the drug in Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, that the doctor ginned up to divide himself, creating a respectable man bound by reserve and a separate murderous, pleasure-seeking monster. From Dr. Jekyll's own account: Hence it came about that I concealed my pleasures; and that when I reached years of reflection, and began to look round me and take stock of my progress and position in the world, I stood already committed to a profound duplicity of life. Many a man would have even blazoned such irregularities as I was guilty of; but from the high views that I had set before me, I regarded and hid them with an almost morbid sense of shame. It was thus rather the exacting nature of my aspirations than any particular degradation in my faults, that made me what I was and, with even a deeper trench than in the majority of men, severed in me those provinces of good and ill which divide and compound man's dual nature. In this case, I was driven to reflect deeply and inveterately on that hard law of life, which lies at the root of religion and is one of the most plentiful springs of distress. Though so profound a double-dealer, I was in no sense a hypocrite; both sides of me were in dead earnest; I was no more myself when I laid aside restraint and plunged in shame, than when I laboured, in the eye of day, at the furtherance of knowledge or the relief of sorrow and suffering. And it chanced that the direction of my scientific studies, which led wholly toward the mystic and the transcendental, re-acted and shed a strong light on this consciousness of the perennial war among my members. With every day, and from both sides of my intelligence, the moral and the intellectual, I thus drew steadily nearer to that truth, by whose partial discovery I have been doomed to such a dreadful shipwreck: that man is not truly one, but truly two. Of course, the doctor's desire to split off his hedonistic self will have devastating consequences. The lesson of Jekyll and Hyde is that decoupling morality from desire is unnatural. It disrupts the natural order. My question for RLS, were he still with us to answer: Do GLP-1s pose similarly catastrophic risks? I think they may. One reason is my Uncle Joe. Joe was a quiet, careful religious man. He and his wife, Darla, had desperately wanted children but it just never happened. They raised boxer dogs that they treated like babies. Joe worked as a photographer in North Minneapolis in this little tufted studio from the 1930s that smelled like ros...

    10 min

  6. HACE 5 DÍAS

    The Lost Art of Medicine: What Maimonides Knew That We Forgot

    By Joseph Varon at Brownstone dot org. Contemporary medicine is not failing for lack of knowledge. It is failing under the weight of its own complexity. The present era is defined by unprecedented access to data, advanced technologies, an ever-expanding network of subspecialties, and a dense architecture of protocols and performance metrics. Nearly every aspect of patient care can now be measured, quantified, and standardized. Interventions that were unimaginable only decades ago are now routine. Yet despite these advances, a fundamental element has been eroded. This erosion is philosophical. Medicine has accumulated extraordinary capability, but it has lost clarity of purpose. Increasingly, it functions as a system optimized for processes rather than a profession oriented toward patients. The distinction is subtle but consequential. Without a clear understanding of its purpose, medicine risks becoming an efficient mechanism that delivers care without understanding the individual it serves. In the 12th century, Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon [1135–1204], known as the Rambam), one of history's most influential physician-philosophers and a court physician in Egypt, practiced medicine in an era devoid of modern diagnostics, randomized trials, or institutional oversight. Trained within the intellectual traditions of Andalusian and Islamic medicine, and deeply influenced by Greek philosophy, he integrated empirical observation with rigorous reasoning and ethical responsibility. Although he lacked contemporary tools, he possessed something far more important: clarity. In Regimen of Health, he asserted that the physician's foremost responsibility is to preserve health rather than simply treat disease¹. This principle stands in sharp contrast to the modern system, which frequently prioritizes intervention over prevention. The Physician As Intellectual Practitioner Rather Than Technician Maimonides regarded medicine as an intellectual discipline rooted in observation, reasoning, and adaptation. His clinical writings consistently emphasize individualized care guided by physician judgment, rather than strict adherence to generalized rules². In his model, the physician was not merely a technician following predefined steps, but a thinker adept at navigating uncertainty. Modern medicine increasingly emphasizes compliance. Clinical guidelines and protocols, though valuable, have expanded to the extent that they often define practice rather than merely inform it. Evidence-based medicine, initially conceived as the integration of clinical expertise with the best available evidence, is now frequently implemented as strict guideline adherence³. When adherence is used as the primary metric of quality, deviation is perceived as risk. However, no patient precisely matches the populations studied in clinical trials. Maimonides recognized this implicitly, treating individuals rather than statistical abstractions. This distinction is not merely philosophical; it has practical consequences at the bedside. A physician trained to follow protocols may deliver technically correct care, yet fail to recognize when a patient falls outside expected patterns. In contrast, a physician trained to think can identify nuance, adapt in real time, and challenge assumptions when necessary. Maimonides' model required intellectual engagement with every patient encounter. Modern systems, in their effort to standardize care, risk reducing that engagement. The result is not necessarily incorrect medicine, but it is often incomplete medicine. Prevention As the Core Principle of Medical Care Maimonides positioned prevention as the central tenet of medicine. His recommendations regarding diet, exercise, sleep, and emotional balance reflect a systematic understanding of health maintenance as the physician's principal responsibility¹. In his framework, disease frequently resulted from an imbalance. Modern medicine recognizes the significance of prevention but, structural...

    13 min

  7. HACE 6 DÍAS

    Not Your Grandfather's Stagflation

    By David Stockman at Brownstone dot org. It was pretty obvious even before February 28th that the US economy was grinding to a halt, even as inflation was already working up a head of steam. But then came war. We are going to get a globe-shaking economic conflagration erupting from the void that was the Persian Gulf commodity fountain. That includes between 20% and 50% of all the basic commodities that drive global GDP, including crude oil, LPGs, LNG, ammonia, urea, sulfur, helium, and sundry more. Accordingly, the global share of crucial industrial commodities that now stand in harm's way. This includes both those directly transiting the Strait of Hormuz and also the share of supply from the wider Middle Eastern region that is also exposed to the current Iranian War disruptions but is delivered by pipeline, train, or alternative waterways like the Red Sea/Suez Canal route. This ballooning dislocation of daily global commodity flows will have a double whammy effect: It will both cause production and output to fall immediately in response to soaring input costs or limited availability—even as it encourages the central banks to "help" by printing more inflationary money. This all adds up to a bout of classic stagflation, but it is not going to be merely the mildly painful type that unfolded during the 1970s. After all, despite a 120% rise in the price level during the decade, it wasn't a total wipeout when measured from the vantage point of real median family income. As it happened, the 1970s stagflation came on the heels of what had been an actual Golden Age by the standards of history between 1954 and 1969. During that period, real median family incomes rose from $39,700 to $66,870 or by a robust 3.53% per annum. Of course, that uphill march of Main Street prosperity slowed sharply during the inflationary 1970s, but the blue line in the chart below did at least keep drifting higher. So between 1969 and 1980, real median family incomes grew by a not very impressive 0.61% per annum, but the direction of travel was still higher. But here's the thing. The US economy of the 1970s was able to cope with the pressures of high inflation, oil, and other commodity shocks and the stop-and-go disruptions of a Federal Reserve that had been newly released from the disciplinary effects of the Bretton Woods gold standard. In large part that was because the aggregate level of debt on the US economy was relatively modest. Total public and private debt in 1970 stood at $1.5 trillion, representing just 147% of GDP, as shown in the graph below. Moreover, the latter was the long-time national leverage ratio (total debt divided by national income) through historic times of thick and thin, going all the way back to 1870. Moreover, even after the large government deficits of the 1970s and a surge of inflation-driven private borrowing during the decade, total US debt stood at $4.6 trillion by 1980. That was just 162% of GDP. In a word, the US economy during this decade of stagflation was battered by unprecedented peacetime inflation, but it was not yet smothered by crushing debt. As shown by the graph, the soaring national leverage ratio did not really leap skyward until after the mid-1980s, when Alan Greenspan took the helm at the Fed and launched the US (and the world) into a four-decade spree of money-printing and what amounts to Keynesian central banking. As a consequence, total public and private debt is in a wholly different zip code today. Debt outstanding now totals nearly $108 trillion and weighs in at 343% of national income (GDP). That is to say, as we head into the next stagflationary era, the US economy will be carrying two turns of extra debt relative to income than was the case in 1970. That does make a difference. The national leverage ratio during the 1970s averaged about 153% of GDP, meaning that had it been maintained since then total debt outstanding would now be $48 trillion. As it is, however, the actual leverage ratio currentl...

    10 min

  8. 3 ABR

    What the IHRP Report Means for America, WHO, and the Future of Global Health

    By David Bell at Brownstone dot org. The Covid-19 pandemic exposed deep failures in global health governance. That much is now widely acknowledged, even by institutions that initially resisted self-examination. For example, the recent Lancet Commission on Covid-19 substituted advocacy for analysis, evaded institutional accountability, and ultimately clarified little about why global pandemic governance failed. What remains unsettled—and largely undiscussed in public—is what those failures imply for the future of international health cooperation, and especially for the role of the World Health Organization. The International Health Reform Project (IHRP) was convened to confront that question directly. The IHRP is an independent international group, though its work is closely linked to Brownstone through the participation of three of its Fellows who wrote this article, two of whom served as co-chairs. Its work is unusually detailed, wide-ranging, and blunt. It does not argue that the pandemic was inevitable, nor that failure was merely the product of bad luck or limited information. Instead, it documents how institutional incentives, governance structures, and political pressures shaped decisions in ways that repeatedly undermined transparency, proportionality, and scientific rigor. The Panel's findings matter well beyond debates about the past. They arrive at a moment when the United States has withdrawn from the WHO, when the Organization is seeking expanded authority through amended International Health Regulations and a new pandemic agreement, and when governments around the world are quietly reassessing whether the current model of global health governance is fit for purpose. The question now is not simply whether the WHO failed, but what should follow from that failure—especially for the United States and its allies. I. What the IHRP Found: Failure Was Structural, Not Accidental The IHRP report reaches a clear conclusion: the problems revealed during Covid-19 were not isolated mistakes, but the predictable outcome of institutional design choices made over decades. Several findings are central. First, the WHO failed in its core pandemic function. The Organization was created to detect, assess, and coordinate responses to transnational infectious disease threats. Yet during the early stages of Covid-19 it was slow to challenge incomplete or misleading information, reluctant to escalate warnings in the face of political pressure, and inconsistent in its guidance once the emergency was declared. These failures had real consequences, shaping national responses during the narrow window when early action mattered most. Second, politicization was not an aberration but a recurring constraint. The Panel documents how deference to powerful member states, especially where transparency was most critical, distorted risk communication and delayed independent investigation. This was not simply a failure of leadership, but a consequence of governance rules that place political consensus above timely error correction. Third, the Organization entered the pandemic already institutionally overstretched. Over time, the WHO's mandate expanded far beyond communicable disease control into a wide array of social, behavioral, and environmental domains, often with limited connection to pandemic preparedness. The result was an organization attempting to function simultaneously as a technical agency, a development actor, a norm-setting body, and a political convenor—without the clarity or discipline required for crisis response. Fourth, post-pandemic reforms did not address these underlying weaknesses. Instead of a rigorous institutional autopsy, the response to failure was to seek expanded authority: broader emergency powers, new compliance expectations for states, and additional permanent structures. The Panel is explicit that expanding scope without correcting governance failures risks entrenching the very dynamics that contributed to poor perfor...

    22 min
Ver todo (50)

Acerca de

Daily readings from Brownstone Institute authors, contributors, and researchers on public health, philosophy, science, and economics.

Información

  • Creador
    Brownstone Institute
  • Años de actividad
    2022 - 2026
  • Episodios
    50
  • Clasificación
    Apto
  • Mostrar sitio web
    Brownstone Journal

También te podría interesar