Brownstone Journal

Brownstone Institute

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

  1. 14h ago

    The Army ROTC Taught Me to Never Call Independence Day 'The 4th of July' Stating a Date Versus an Occasion A True Celebration of America

    By David Gortler, Pharm. D at Brownstone dot org. Most Americans think nothing of referring to our nation's birthday as "the Fourth of July." But I learned the hard way not to do that in my Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) days in college. I'll never forget one of the times Sgt. Thayer, a regular Army soldier, decided to randomly quiz our ROTC squad on military regulation and history while we were in formation, following an early-morning inspection. One of the questions was: "What American holiday do we celebrate in July?" "The Fourth of July, Sergeant." Sgt. Thayer's response? "GET ON THE GROUND! COUNT THEM OUT!" Then he called on another cadet. Same question, same answer, more pushups. This pattern repeated several times until one of the putatively better-educated members of the squad, whose family had an extended and extensive military past, finally answered: "Independence Day." I suppose I'd never really given it due consideration until then. I learned plenty from being a cadet, but the appropriate labeling of this historically significant event is one lesson I think all Americans should also commit to as we prepare to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Founding Fathers' declaration of Colonial independence from Great Britain. America was founded on a set of beliefs and convictions—what Thomas Jefferson described as self-evident truths (actually, Jefferson originally wrote "sacred and undeniable" which was revised to the more secular "self-evident") that were proclaimed in the 1776 Declaration of Independence and then protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The Declaration established the first modern country founded on principles of individual freedoms. It also led to the selection of America's government leaders by the people, rather than through an inherited bloodline of kings and nobles. Can you imagine what your life would have been like if Great Britain ruled over us? Why is the American holiday reduced to its calendar date by seemingly everyone? Can you recall the last time anyone wished you a Happy Independence Day versus a curt "Happy Fourth?" That kind of labeling debases the magnitude of what the day represents. And the problem seems to get worse with every passing year. Nobody refers to Christmas Day as "the 25th of December." Nobody greets you on New Year's Day with "Happy January first." Calling it "Independence Day" honors the foundational designation and the values of liberty and freedom that the holiday represents. Calling the holiday "Independence Day" connects the event directly to its historical significance. It's become necessary because a shocking number of young people are clueless about what the "4th of July" is supposed to represent—let alone the importance of the Committee of Five or the location of Valley Forge. They do not know who the Founding Fathers were or what they accomplished. According to the above-linked video, most Americans can't even spell "independence." Public schools and teachers' unions have failed to educate American students on the fundamentals of civics. Leftist universities tend to focus their lenses on far-left Colonial/ anti-Founder indoctrination to students on America's failures rather than its successes. And putting John Trumbull's famous painting of the Declaration of Independence signing on the back of the two-dollar bill apparently wasn't enough. Perhaps a verbal grassroots renaissance using the proper convention will at least audibly point American citizens in the right direction. Independence Day is unlike the adjacently occurring Memorial Day, which was intended as a somber day meant to valorize those who died in wars to protect our liberties. Many Americans unfortunately see Memorial Day as nothing more than a long weekend for vacations, barbecues, and other leisurely indulgences. Even outspoken "progressive" Democratic members of Congress endlessly lecturing Americans about our Constitution and fairness pathetically fail to compreh...

    7 min
  2. 1d ago

    Malflusiva and the Wheeking Guinea Pigs

    By Alan Cassels at Brownstone dot org. I had a very good laugh a while back. A few actually. So many, they are worth sharing. T'was in May of this year when the storied New England Journal of Medicine published a study about a new and novel influenza vaccine, designed to conquer the seasonal flu. Lucky for us, this new bit of medical innovation was made from the same sort of whizbang mRNA technology that went into the Covid vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna. Yippee. Clearly this new jab is designed for those who didn't get the joke last time when a big corporation came looking for us carrying a syringe full of what-the-heck-is-that? But I digress. Even the premise of this vaccine study is like the setup to a stand-up routine, where you know that stuff is going to get weird fast. Soon you find some in the audience are busting a gut as others are looking befuddled and scratching their heads over which the joke flew. For starters, the biggest warning sign of any study is its size. A big study almost always means a small effect. Yup. In this case, to show some sort of effect they had to cadge together a group of over 40,000 people over 50, randomly injecting them with the trivalent mRNA-1010 or a "different licensed standard-dose flu shot" and following them for about 6 months. We're all in the dark about what "mRNA 1010" is but rest assured that this "investigational messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccine encodes hemagglutinin glycoproteins from World Health Organization-recommended influenza strains." That should make everyone start feeling all warm and fuzzy, thanking their lucky stars that the WHO is all over this. Speaking of which, the backstory of the annual flu campaign, often led by the big infectious disease brains in Geneva, is typically marked by hefty amounts of flu-mongering and vaccine salesmanship. There's science and there's marketing but when we're talking the good old flu, the twain shall never meet. For the most concise breakdown of the study, we can turn to the good folks at ICAN (the Informed Consent Action Network) who sent a letter to FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) and cut to the chase: Moderna's new mRNA flu vaccine, mFlusiva was a joke, especially if you take "the science" behind it seriously. Of the 40,000 people in this trial, those who got "Mal-flusiva" (do I get bonus points for coining the first nickname for this mRNA miracle?) reduced their absolute influenza risk by 0.8%. That's right, it might help 8 people out of 1,000. Meanwhile 6.4% of recipients (64 out of 1,000) suffered severe reactions (pain, fatigue, weakness, headaches), at rates which were five times the rate of the standard flu shot. But did it prevent deaths from the flu? No, fool. It caused them. In the "Phase 3 Immunogenicity trial" of the new vaccine, five patients died (versus one in the standard shot group). Hard to put lipstick on that one. What about cardiac risks? Ah, you have a good memory, grasshopper. Events such as fatal cardiac arrest and congestive cardiac failure—similar to what was documented in the Covid mRNA vaccine technology– was also a feature here. What about cancer? Also, good catch. As to that issue, ICAN blithely noted the "growing body of peer-reviewed scientific literature that identifies potential biologically plausible oncogenic or tumor-promoting mechanisms and purported preliminary population-level cancer signals." A little verbose, but ICAN's suggestion is sound. Let me translate its substance: "Wouldn't it be better to find out if these vaccines cause cancer before injecting them into everyone, instead of after?" Oh Prudence, you're such a stickler. Doing so would kill this new vaccine in its tracks so the committee, predictably, shot Prudence in the foot. Clearly these "peripheral" issues identified by ICAN can be dealt with after it gets on the market and used by everyone. Funny indeed. Here's the penultimate laugh: we tend to push flu vaccines on the ...

    6 min
  3. 2d ago

    A.J. Cronin on Medical Ethics

    By Russ Gonnering at Brownstone dot org. When I was a first-year medical student, I happened across The Citadel, a novel published in 1937 by A.J. Cronin, himself a physician. The following is from the review on Amazon: The Citadel follows the life of Andrew Manson, a young and idealistic Scottish doctor, as he navigates the challenges of practicing medicine across interwar Wales and England. Based on Cronin's own experiences as a physician, The Citadel boldly confronts traditional medical ethics and has been noted as one of the inspirations for the formation of the National Health Service. The Citadel has been adapted into several successful film, radio, and television productions around the world, including the Oscar-nominated 1938 film starring Ralph Donat, Rosalind Russell, Ralph Richardson, and Rex Harrison. From the Wikipedia entry: Cronin once stated in an interview, 'I have written in The Citadel all I feel about the medical profession, its injustices, its hide-bound unscientific stubbornness, its humbug …The horrors and inequities detailed in the story I have personally witnessed. This is not an attack against individuals, but against a system.' Reading this novel had a profound impact on me, and that impact has lasted up until today, more than 50 years later. Medical school always had its own set of peculiar struggles, as does everything. Certainly, Basic Training in the military is an eye-opener. What makes medical school unique is the profound contrast of the reality with the ideal. Like many students, perhaps most, I entered medicine with a deep sense of the magnitude of what I was doing. It had a "spiritual" element, almost as though I was entering a religious order and now would be taking on the mantle of responsibility that was more than just a job. I had read the Oath of Hippocrates and could sense the heavy responsibility that had been felt by the ancients and the duty that this road would take. It would serve no purpose to recount those years in detail. Suffice it to say that, like those of Andrew Manson, the protagonist in The Citadel, my experiences were intense. They ranged from the utter heights to the deepest depths. The mettle of my character was refined and amalgamated in ways difficult to fully understand, even now. I graduated having many of the same feelings described by Cronin in the interview referenced above. I was conscious of my own mortality. I understood what it was like to make mistakes, but over all of it I had a firm desire to really make a difference in a system that was filled with obstacles. The worst aspects of medical education have improved significantly since the time I spent there. The 40-bed wards are gone. Attending physicians take a more active role in the care of patients. Medical students and resident physicians no longer spend an exhausting 80 hours or more a week in patient care. There are multiple safety measures in place for patients and those caring for them. Up until Covid, I thought that we had made real progress in things. But those are the externals. Has the internal moral compass really changed? Yes, it has in many individuals, but what about collectively in our profession? Consider those who told their patients, "I would sooner watch you die than give you hydroxychloroquine." Has their moral compass changed? What about the medical leaders who allowed patients to die without allowing them to try ivermectin, despite the pleas of their family? Did their moral compass change? Or those who treated the unvaccinated as lepers? What about the medical ethicists who advocated denying care to those unvacinated? How about the late-night comic on this YouTube clip who advocated a similar policy? Or those in the audience of that comic who thought this was outrageously hysterical? True, he was not a healthcare professional, but the problems we see run very deep in our society as evidenced by the audience response. Now it is known that the premise upon which those people based ...

    10 min
  4. 4d ago

    Accountability for the Vaccine-Injured: A Senator Steps Up

    By Christopher Dreisbach at Brownstone dot org. Five years is a significant milestone in any chronic illness. People can endure extraordinary physical pain, financial hardship, and emotional suffering if they that believe recovery is just around the corner. Hope often carries them through. But after five years, hope itself begins to erode. Savings have been exhausted. Careers have been interrupted or lost. Retirement plans have disappeared. Marriages have been strained by the relentless burden of chronic illness and caregiving. Medical appointments that once promised answers begin to feel repetitive and futile. Gradually, the realization sets in that life may never return to what it once was. Temporary hardship becomes permanent reality. When physical suffering is compounded by financial ruin, social isolation, and the loss of future expectations, despair can become overwhelming. For thousands of Americans permanently harmed during the Covid-19 vaccine rollout, that five-year milestone is arriving now. Over the past several months, a disturbing number of Covid-19 vaccine-injured individuals have either taken their own lives or survived suicide attempts. As a board member of React19, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting those injured by the Covid-19 vaccines, I have come to know many of these stories personally. These are not statistics. They are husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters who believed that if they persevered long enough, help would eventually arrive. For many, it never did. What made their suffering especially devastating was not only the physical injury itself, but years spent feeling invisible. Many lost careers, homes, and financial security. Others depleted retirement savings or accumulated overwhelming medical debt. Almost all experienced some combination of disbelief, dismissal, and isolation. After years of being told their injuries were unlikely, unrelated, or simply impossible, many began to question whether anyone in authority would ever acknowledge what had happened. Against that backdrop, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' recent interim report, Failure to Warn: How Federal Health Agencies Downplayed and Hid Myocarditis and Other Adverse Events Associated with the Covid-19 Vaccines, represents an important turning point. Drawing on internal government records and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the report concludes that federal health officials delayed acknowledging vaccine safety signals, withheld important information from the public, failed to respond fully to Congressional oversight, and repeatedly placed concerns about preserving public confidence above full transparency. For the vaccine-injured community, that public acknowledgment matters. For the first time, many who were dismissed for years can point to official government findings confirming that safety concerns existed, were recognized internally, and were not fully communicated to the public. Yet transparency alone is not enough. A report that documents misconduct but produces no consequences may satisfy historians, but it offers little comfort to those whose lives were permanently altered by the conduct it describes. Facts matter. Investigations matter. But they matter most when they lead to accountability. Fortunately, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), the chairman of the Subcommittee, has made clear that this report is not the end of his work—it is the beginning. Throughout the pandemic and the years that followed, Senator Johnson has courageously pressed federal agencies for answers, demanded documents, convened hearings, and, perhaps most importantly, gave Covid-19 vaccine-injured Americans an opportunity to tell their stories publicly. His message has remained remarkably consistent: transparency is essential, but transparency must ultimately be followed by accountability. That accountability cannot stop with institutions. Too often, government failures are blamed on agencies, dep...

    6 min
  5. 4d ago

    The US Should Exit the UN The UN's Original Mission

    By Wendy McElroy at Brownstone dot org. The future of the United Nations (UN) is in play, largely because of its refusal to censure Iran—a member nation. In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reprimanded the UN: "If you're telling me that the international community and hundreds of countries cannot rally behind that, then I don't know what the utility of the UN system is." Severing all ties to the UN could require an act of Congress, but the US is moving in this direction. On February 4, 2025, Executive Order 14199 directed the US to withdraw from 31 UN organisations. A great deal hinges on how highly Rubio still prizes America's permanent seat on the UN Security Council which comes with a veto. The UN is often viewed as an ineffectual bureaucracy that occasionally does some good. It is nothing so benevolent. Its origins may have been well-meaning, but the current UN has become what it claims to oppose. The US should leave the UN altogether and immediately, especially since its unjust policies are likely to get worse…and soon. The UN Charter (1945) opens, WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women… The Preamble of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states, Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Article 2 of the Declaration provides, Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex… 'All human beings are equal' is the basis of Western justice, whether the equality is under nature, God, or law. Instead of pursuing equality, however, the UN is now a woke and corrupt actor that creates inequality and division. The UN's financial malfeasance, the sexual abuse by field personnel, its demonization of the West…are well documented in the 104-page report From Watchdogs to Ideologues: How Politicized UN Rapporteurs Are Subverting Human Rights by the Geneva-based NGO UN Watch. The UN's demonstrated commitment is to social justice or a wokeness rooted in equity, not equality. Equity seeks the redistribution of wealth and power to those who are considered oppressed from those who are considered oppressors. Equity is the opposite of equality under the law. Consider its treatment of men who clearly are not viewed as equal to women, as the UN's mission claims. An obvious example is the prominent presence of the UN Women commission that claims to be "the global champion for gender equality." The commission identifies its goal as ensuring "every woman and girl lives up to her full potential." No mention of men or boys. No comparable UN Men agency, although males are included peripherally by recognizing a need to train them to oppose patriarchy. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) explains, UNFPA works with men and boys around the world to advance gender equality and end violence. These programmes are encouraging men and boys to abandon harmful stereotypes, embrace respectful, healthy relationships, and support the human rights of all people, everywhere. Men face many of the same global problems as women, however, including poverty, lack of education, violence, disease and harmful stereotypes. Men also face unique problems, including male-only conscription, paternity fraud, false rape accusations, and longer sentences for the same crimes. Nevertheless, compared to the UN's emphasis on women, men are virtually ignored. And deliberately so. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is considered by many to be the international bill of rights for women. Again, no comparable agency exists for men. The FAQ of one CEDAW branch speaks of substantive justice for women. Substantive justice judges fairness by results rath...

    8 min
  6. 5d ago

    The NIH Emails Building the Machinery Covid Emerges A Potential Land Mine The Birth of "Germ Games" Fauci's Reply From "Germ Games" to Global Agenda

    By Maryanne Demasi at Brownstone dot org. A cache of internal emails obtained from within the US National Institutes of Health has exposed years of strategic planning for future pandemics involving governments, foundations, international organisations, and pharmaceutical companies. The documents, stretching back to at least 2016, show that Dr Francis Collins, Director of the NIH from 2009 to 2021, was at the centre of these efforts. In that role, he oversaw the allocation of the agency's substantial research budget, which ran into tens of billions of dollars annually. The emails reveal Collins working closely with the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, World Bank, World Economic Forum, the African Academy of Sciences, and major pharmaceutical companies to strengthen research infrastructure, regulatory readiness, and international coordination well before Covid appeared. For the public, the Covid response was presented as an unexpected crisis. Governments appeared to be making difficult decisions while navigating profound uncertainty. But these emails tell a different story. Many of the same organisations that later shaped the Covid response had already spent years building capacity, influence, and institutional power under Collins' leadership. Billions of dollars flowed through the sprawling network. Careers were built around it, reputations depended on it, and political and financial interests became invested in its success. By the time Covid arrived, much of the framework was already in place. The planning gained momentum after the 2014-16 Ebola outbreak highlighted gaps in global preparedness. Vaccines took too long to develop, trials were hard to organise, and funding was fragmented. The response, according to the emails, was to build permanent capacity in advance rather than react after the fact. One major outcome was the launch of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in 2017 at the World Economic Forum (WEF), which hosts an annual gathering of globalist elites in Davos, Switzerland. CEPI focused on vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and became a key part of pandemic planning alongside the NIH and major foundations. During Covid, CEPI became one of the major funders of vaccine development, investing hundreds of millions of dollars in multiple vaccine platforms that eventually led to vaccines from companies such as Moderna. The internal documents show there was particular focus on expanding research capacity in Africa, a region long criticised for weak regulatory oversight and less stringent enforcement of clinical trial standards. Collins chaired a 2017 WEF meeting on building a sustainable biomedical research enterprise in Sub-Saharan Africa. The call brought together senior figures from the Wellcome Trust and other partners to advance plans for major new investment, including a proposed $10 billion African science, technology and innovation fund. Collins appeared keen to ensure there was no confusion about who was in charge. After one teleconference with the WEF he wrote to his NIH colleagues: "In the last call there was a bit of confusion about who was leading (NIH or WEF). I think this time it should be me. Agree?" By 2018, senior pharmaceutical executives were discussing long-term investments in infrastructure designed to endure well beyond any single outbreak. One project focused on SMART Vaccines, a decision-support tool designed to help governments and funders systematically prioritise vaccine candidates and guide investment decisions ahead of future outbreaks. Workshops for the project brought together a who's who of global health institutions, government agencies, philanthropic foundations, vaccine manufacturers, and international organisations. The language of the initiative emphasised "consensus-building" and "public-private partnerships," to keep major organisations and stakeholders in lockstep—many of whom would later play influential roles during Covid. By 2019, the cor...

    12 min
  7. 6d ago

    FDA Leadership's "Blind Spots" Lead to a Surge in Medical Device and Drug Recalls FDA "Remote" and "Announced" Inspections Began During Covid….But Never Stopped China and India Manufacturing Quality Delayed Messaging to Patients by FDA Blind Trust on

    By David Gortler, Pharm. D at Brownstone dot org. Americans assume that when they pick up a prescription from their pharmacy, an FDA quality control professional has verified that the contents are manufactured to rigorous agency standards. Unfortunately, that assumption is becoming harder to defend. For decades, the FDA's drug oversight model has depended on in-person inspections of the manufacturing practice and independent verification of product quality. While no regulatory system is perfect, the underlying principle was straightforward: companies seeking to profit from selling medicine to the American people would be held to strict and independently assessed FDA-enforced standards. However, that principle has recently been eroded with a newly enacted FDA policy. During Covid, the FDA sharply curtailed – then mostly eliminated – routine in-person inspections as part of its five-year-plus "work at home" policy. The repercussions of that poorly thought-through initiative are still being felt by patients and consumers today. Manufacturers now know that no FDA inspector is going to knock on their doors for an unannounced in-person inspection as they once did. Today, approximately 90% of FDA overseas inspections are announced in advance through State Department travel communication requests initiated by the FDA. Beginning in January 2021, almost immediately following Biden's presidential inauguration, FDA career employees quickly and quietly proposed an agency-wide "remote" inspection system for almost everything it regulated. Both the significance and folly of that misguided FDA policy implementation cannot be overstated. What began as an emergency, temporary Covid-era "work at home" accommodation solidified into a permanent FDA policy. And the result has been a striking failure. Recalls soared and continued to do so even after the FDA ended its "work from home" policy in March 2025, illustrating that underlying remote/announced inspection methodology isn't as effective as live inspections. Even with remote testing, right before Trump was elected president in September 2024, the FDA had an inspection backlog numbering in the thousands—and that was just in the US alone. Fast-forward to 2026, and that FDA inspection backlog persists, placing Americans in perpetual danger from unsafe pharmaceuticals and medical devices. It's to the point that even the US Government Accountability Office publicly scolded the FDA in February 2026 about not effectively inspecting manufacturing plants. Today, hardly a weekday goes by at the FDA where they don't announce at least one recall. This means that the limited number of "remote" drug inspections conducted by the FDA apparently aren't being conducted effectively. Recalls may be caused by things such as: contamination issues, falsified records, manipulated testing data, and questionable manufacturing practices that should otherwise have prompted immediate, regulatorily punitive consequences above and beyond just the recall itself. A vast majority of America's pharmaceutical supply chain has moved overseas, with Chinese and Indian manufacturers now producing anywhere from 80 to 90% of active pharmaceutical ingredients. The remaining percentage tends to be brand-name drugs, narcotic, or controlled substances which China isn't allowed to manufacture by their government, having definitively learned their lesson from the Opium War of the 1800s. American consumers and patients rely heavily on overseas Indian and Chinese manufacturers, where quality control is widely known to have not only serious shortcomings, but in some cases, deliberate product manipulation, adulteration, and/or fraud. This creates obvious dangers for American patients, particularly when regulators fail to independently or proactively verify quality before products reach America's pharmacies, hospitals, and patients. Over the past couple of years, a growing drumbeat of reports has detailed increasingly worrisome findings about ...

    13 min
  8. Jun 27

    The Empathy Weapon

    By Josh Stylman at Brownstone dot org. This morning the New York Times published an essay by an immunologist who wasn't vaccinated as a child, found science, got her shots, and now wants to help other parents see the light. It's got that signature NYT sheen, is well written and emotionally compelling. And yet, if you've been paying attention to the media machine you can see that this piece is merely emotional blackmail. It's sophisticated and speaks in the language of maternal love. The fact that it's dressed in a lab coat is the tell. The essay's argument is simple: the author's mother didn't vaccinate her out of love. The author now vaccinates her own children out of love. The only difference is information and emotional support. The moral of the story? Parents who don't vaccinate aren't bad people – they just haven't been guided to the correct conclusion yet. Anyone not asleep through the last few years may recognize the game. In 2021, New York's Governor Kathy Hochul stood before a congregation and told them the vaccinated were "the smart ones," that those who refused were "not listening to God," and that the faithful needed to go out as "apostles" and convert the unbelievers. It was cheap, crude, and disgraceful on so many layers. And then there was Bill de Blasio. In the middle of the city's vaccine push, the mayor of New York went on camera dangling a plate of burger and fries, moaning "Mmm, vaccination" like he was filming a McDonalds commercial. I've never been more ashamed to be a New Yorker than watching those two represent my hometown during that period. The Times essay is precisely the same sermon for a different congregation. Three pitches for the exact same product. De Blasio dangled fries at people who couldn't afford to say no. Hochul played to the soul. The Times aims square at the laptop class. The approach may look different but the reveal is obvious: there is only one correct answer and the institutions hold it. These are all merely tactics to get the holdouts to convert. Interestingly, the Times piece never mentions that the United States has the most aggressive childhood vaccine schedule in the developed world. It never mentions that in 1986, Congress passed a law shielding vaccine manufacturers from traditional liability – we were told that wasn't because the products were dangerous but rather because manufacturers were threatening to leave the market without protection from lawsuits. Perhaps most tellingly, it never asks the obvious common-sense question: why did Congress decide that the only way to keep vaccines flowing was to remove the legal accountability that applies to virtually every other product you put in your body? And what has that tradeoff cost in public trust? It never mentions the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which has paid out over $4 billion to families over the decades – a federal court that exists for the sole purpose of acknowledging that these injuries are real. You'd think that would make conversations about risk perfectly reasonable. Apparently not. Instead, raising the topic at all gets you labeled dangerous. It never mentions the work of researchers like Toby Rogers or organizations like Children's Health Defense who've spent years digging into the actual data on adverse events, pushing back on the accepted risk-benefit math, and demanding that manufacturers and regulators show their work. For what it's worth, agreeing with everything they publish isn't the point. These people don't exist in any mainstream conversation about vaccines. They're not debated. They're not refuted. Just absent. If I didn't know better I'd call that a guardrail, not a mere oversight. I would argue that absence is doing more to erode public trust than anything those researchers have ever published. When parents go looking for answers and find a whole world of data the New York Times pretends doesn't exist, they may conclude the Times is handling its readers, not informing them. You don't hav...

    8 min

Ratings & Reviews

4.7
out of 5
13 Ratings

About

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

You Might Also Like