Brownstone Journal

Brownstone Institute

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

  1. 3h ago

    Retraction of SIDS Paper Based on VAERS Analysis Five Years after Publication References

    By Jessica Rose at Brownstone dot org. Few individuals can relate as personally as I do to the experience of having peer-reviewed research retracted after it revealed potential safety signals in the VAERS database. Neil Miller recently had his peer-reviewed published work "removed" from the journal Toxicology Reports. It has been published for 5 years: since June 2021. Five years! What's that now? The smell of a Pubpeer rat? Could be. The title of the paper is Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature, and you can find the abstract on PubMed. The reason for the "removal" was that there were claimed "serious methodological flaws" according to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. What were these methodological flaws, you ask? Well according to the excuse written on the journal's site where the paper was once readable, these "flaws" revolved around the inability to "infer correlation" – NOT CAUSATION – between vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Hold the horses, now. This is not a viable reason to claim a methodological flaw. I'm going to do what has been done to me for years – just for using VAERS to demonstrate safety signal emergence – by quoting the VAERS website to call BS on this claim. Two points stick out: 1. VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event 2. The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event. Fair enough. Both of these points (one written in bold!) indicate an inability to use VAERS data alone to prove causality. We know that already. This is why we use the PRR, Bayesian analyses and/or the Bradford Hill Criteria for causality as follow-up to verify not only safety signals, but causal relationships between a particular vaccine and a particular adverse event. And if FDA employee Ana Szarfman hadn't been brushed aside like dandruff, we would have also had a Regression-Adjusted GPS Algorithm in our hands that incidentally, revealed much more in terms of adverse events as safety signals than the PRR alone. If you read the removal reason carefully, you'll have noticed that they removed Neil's paper on the basis that he cannot use VAERS data to draw a correlation between a safety signal (for SIDS) and vaccines. This does not align with what HHS dictate that you cannot use VAERS for. Correlations are very easy to demonstrate using very simple statistics like regression analyses, and can certainly be demonstrated with VAERS data. A strong correlation (whether from simple linear regression, Pearson's r, or more advanced models) can show that two variables move together. It's true that it says nothing about whether one actually causes the other, whether a third variable is driving both, or whether the relationship is spurious, but, this is not the point. Once a correlation is demonstrated, it is necessary to follow up to prove or disprove causation using the above-mentioned techniques as per proper pharmacovigilance. So I would claim that the reasons for the removal were not valid. It bears repeating that my own paper with Kevin McKernan and David Speicher published in Autoimmunity is also on the investigation cutting block for unjustified reasons – likely because of the same perpetrators. I'm lookin' at you, Pubpeer. N.B. Aaron Siri has written a great summary regarding unjustified targeting of published papers for retraction as well, that includes Neil's paper and ours. The claim in the case of Neil's paper is that his answers to their investigational questions were not good enough for them to keep it published. His answers were likely more than satisfactory, but my point herein is that it doesn't matter. The decision was likely already made ahead of time. Why else would a paper published for 5 years go to the cutting block so suddenly? And unfortunately, even though our answers (me, Kevin, and David's) to th...

  2. 1d ago

    Childhood Vaccine Schedules Across Countries Comparing Childhood Vaccination Schedules to Peer Countries Separate MMR Shots: Japan Got a "Yes"…Will Trump Get a "No?" Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines HHS Delays Needed Vaccines Studies for Over a

    By David Gortler, Pharm. D at Brownstone dot org. There is a wide disparity across the globe when it comes to childhood vaccination policies. American kids receive up to 75 vaccines; twice as many as kids in other countries. That is why if Dr. Heidi Overton is confirmed as the next director of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), one of her top priorities should be helping to drive President Trump's mandate to study the safety and comparative outcomes current vaccine schedule to that of other countries. High on her list of priorities will surely be the two executive orders President Trump signed this year to promote the health of American children, especially since there doesn't appear to be any movement on either. He issued Executive Order 14407 on May 29, 2026, directing the federal government to realign US childhood vaccine recommendations with best practices from peer nations. Section 3 of the order directs HHS, through the Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines, to present plans within 90 days to assess timing and sequencing, as well as "improve vaccine safety monitoring, transparency, and research." Next, on August 10, the president signed Executive Order 14420 to reduce immunization recommendations from 17–18 diseases down to 11, spacing out shots across more doctor visits, and splitting the combined MMR vaccine into three separate injections. The president is fulfilling his commitment to vaccination study and reform, but it doesn't appear that anyone is listening. Ninety days have passed and the task force, chaired by NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, just recently resurrected in August 2025 after 27 years dormant, still hasn't shared the names of anyone (other than the always present HHS heads) who have been appointed to take charge of designing the study, along with statistical plans, according to a rudimentary internet search. To date, there has not been any publicly proposed draft study design, outline, list of experts needed, proposed safety endpoints, request for public comment, or even a single primary or secondary safety or efficacy study objective shared. The Task Force does not owe Congress a report until 2027. The inaction on this priority is concerning because the president has good reason to scrutinize the current vaccine schedule. A cursory review of international vaccine standards reveals that no two countries are quite the same when it comes to the number of vaccines or recommendations versus mandates. For example, by age 18, a child in the United States will receive roughly 30 to 75 total vaccine doses depending on the state. All 50 states mandate a robust set of childhood vaccines. On top of CDC requirements, some states follow American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines and recommend even more. Various peer countries have a mixture of mandated or recommended schedules when it comes to their childhood schedules. For example, Denmark recommends 30 to 38 vaccines. Bulgaria recommends 56 to 61. France and Italy mandate most of their vaccines in kids. Norway, Sweden, and Spain mandate none. Here is a breakdown of the various countries I looked up: United Kingdom: 19 injections, 44 different vaccines by age 14 Australia (NSW): As many as 26 total vaccines by the age of 10, with recommendations varying for aboriginal versus the European populations. China: Up to age 7, there are 26-29 total vaccines, depending on if the live versus inactivated strains are used. There are no vaccine mandates in China, and there are "no punishments associated with noncompliance." Yes, you read that correctly. After Chinese citizens contended that the mandate violated the principles of "informed consent and voluntariness" the government withdrew its Covid mandates after just one day. And Chinese children aren't mandated to take any other vaccines either. Despite the fact that China is a one-party authoritarian government run by the ruling Chinese Communist Party, Chinese citizens face less pressure to obey vaccine mandates. Y...

  3. 2d ago

    We Cannot Trust the CDC Estimates of Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Confounding by the Background Risk of Infection Immortal Time Bias The Healthy Vaccinee Bias Higher Effectiveness in the Elderly? The Outcome of Hospitalized Flu Patients Epilogue

    By Eyal Shahar at Brownstone dot org. Each year the CDC publishes an estimate of the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in the previous flu season. Recently, the NIH director criticized the test-negative design from which the estimates are derived. He was right. The basic premise of the design is a two-edged sword: on the one hand, restricting the sample to people who sought medical care might reduce confounding by healthcare-seeking behavior; on the other hand, that restriction might add another type of bias — colliding bias — which is not as widely appreciated. The net bias remains unknown. This, however, is not the only shortcoming of test-negative case-control studies of the flu vaccine. In this post, I will expose the shaky results of a large study of the flu vaccine in 2022–2023, when the vaccine was well-matched to the dominant strain. The study was based on the VISION Vaccine Effectiveness Network, one of several networks that collaborate with the CDC. Below are the published results. The risk of infection always varies during the flu season. It was high in October through December 2022 and low in January through March 2023 (Figure). Given a changing risk of infection, a valid comparison of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated requires similar distributions of the two populations over time. This is not the case because vaccination is associated with calendar time (rollout). [The authors show the vaccination status at the time of seeking care, but most people got vaccinated by the end of December, and the percentage of vaccinated people stabilized in January at about 45% of the encounters.] As shown below (Table), the share of the vaccinated population in October through December (47%), a period of high background risk, was lower than the comparable share in the unvaccinated population (61%). Of course, the complementary shares in January through March, a period of low risk, were reversed: 53% versus 39%. In technical terms, vaccinated people accumulated more exposure time when the background risk of infection was low (53%), and unvaccinated people accumulated more exposure time when the background risk was high (61%). Moreover, since the authors excluded events that happened within two weeks of vaccination, those who were vaccinated in the second half of December 2022 contributed events only in January 2023, a time of lower risk. I will return to this analytical decision in the next section. It is simple to grasp the bias (left table below) if we consider an extreme example where no one was injected in the first period and everyone was injected a saline solution at the beginning of the second period (right table). If we compare the rate of infection in the "vaccinated" to the rate in the "unvaccinated," the saline injection would appear effective… This bias was explained in the context of the Covid vaccines during the pandemic and was demonstrated in a study from Ontario, Canada. As far as I know, it was not appreciated in the context of the flu vaccine, where the rollout typically follows the rising wave and is completed around the winter peak. Confounding by time trends in the background risk can be avoided in a cohort design with matching an unvaccinated person to a vaccinated person on the vaccination date (and terminating the observation when the former is vaccinated, if they are). As I mentioned above, the authors excluded some events. They write: "Events among patients with documented vaccination The exclusion of early events in the vaccinated is a well-known source of bias, leading to an inverse association with vaccination and adding a bias component to an estimated effect. Both the name — immortal time bias — and the mechanism are too technical to explain here. Recently, I showed how immortal time bias operated in a study of a Covid vaccine in Qatar. ...

  4. 3d ago

    Cries for Help Buried in V-Safe Data

    By React19 at Brownstone dot org. React19 reviewed free-text entries submitted to the CDC's V-safe vaccine safety monitoring program to document reports in which participants asked for help, described suicidal thoughts, reported that they were dying or nearly died, or reported a death, and to document what participants said about the response they received. CDC V-safe free-text survey responses were produced under FOIA request 24-01322 and published by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) at icandecide.org/v-safe-data. The CDC released the data in twelve interim and final tranches. This audit uses ICAN's updated files, which add the survey type, response ID, and response date to each entry. All twelve tranches: the 1st through 12th, were released from December 14, 2020 to December 31, 2022. These contain 7,554,929 responses from 3,489,888 unique participants. Each entry was searched for words and phrases indicating a plea for help or contact, suicidal thoughts, dying, or death. Death, suicidal, and dying entries were reviewed individually; cries for help were filtered by rule. Because V-safe check-ins are tied to vaccine doses, entries were treated as post-vaccination reports unless the writer named another cause. Entries attributing illness to Covid-19 infection were excluded. All entries from each identified participant are grouped under their V-safe user ID, in date order, across tranches. Conclusion: 3,329 participants met the criteria and submitted 14,430 related entries. About 1 in every 1,048 participants in the tranches wrote a plea for help, or reported a death. Many wrote in repeatedly. Several reported that promised callbacks never came, and some asked directly whether anyone was reading their reports. V-safe was built to hear from people after vaccination, and these participants used it for that purpose. In their own words, 3,329 people reported serious harm, suicidal thoughts, near-death events, or the death of someone they loved. Many kept writing for weeks or months. Their entries describe promised callbacks that never came, pleas for help with no reply, and repeated questions about whether anyone was reading at all. This audit cannot determine what the CDC did with these reports. It can document what participants experienced: a system that asked them to report and, as they describe it, did not respond. There are limitations. Entries are self-reported; this audit does not assess whether the vaccine caused any reported event. Counts are a floor: participants who described serious events without using the search terms are not included. The CDC's redactions appear as (b)(6). Names, phone numbers, and email addresses the CDC left unredacted have been replaced with [name], [phone], and [email]. How to read this report. Each block is one participant: the header shows the V-safe user ID and number of entries. Entries in bold with a red date matched the search; the rest are the same participant's other entries. The companion spreadsheet lists the CDC response ID and tranche for every entry. The Top Cries for Help list follows on the next page, then the 30 notable cases and the full audit entries. React19 exists so that people injured after vaccination are heard, believed, and cared for. These entries show why that work matters. They also show where the public health system's own tools fell short of it. Typeset book for downloading and distributing widely. No copyright restrictions.

  5. 4d ago

    Why Observational Studies Lie to You The Kale-Eating, 6 AM Jogger Effect, and the Placebo Effect The Hormone Replacement Disaster: A Cautionary Tale Statins in Healthy People: The Mirage Continues The Bottom Line: Demand the Coin Flip

    By Alan Cassels at Brownstone dot org. If you've spent five minutes paying attention to medical news, you've undoubtedly seen the headlines: "People who take statins have 30% fewer heart attacks!" or "Breast cancer screening makes women live longer!" or "Menopausal Hormone therapy lowers Alzheimer's risk." These all sound wonderful, don't they? Just swallow a daily pill, or submit to regular screening, and you'll join the ranks of the immortal. Were only life so simple. Yet before you rush off to demand a prescription, let me introduce you to one of the sneakiest, most persistent mirages from the world of medical research, which we call the "Healthy User Bias." Readers of Brownstone were recently introduced to this concept related to the Covid vaccines in an article entitled "A Hall of Mirrors of the Healthy Vaccinee Effect," which demonstrated that those who were vaccinated were not the same as those who weren't. Very frail people and those close to death were less likely to get vaccinated, which is understandable, and so those who didn't get the jab died at a higher rate than those that did. Simple, right? Understanding this single concept may not, overnight, elevate your medical BS detector from "gullible consumer" to "battle-tested skeptic," but to be fair, it might help. What is the Healthy User Bias? It's embarrassingly simple. In observational studies—where researchers merely watch what people do in the real world rather than running an experiment—the people who voluntarily take preventive drugs or pop daily supplements are fundamentally different from those who don't. No surprise there, right? On average, "healthy users" are wealthier, better educated, and more health-obsessed. They are seriously more obedient when it comes to vaccines (including the Covid vaccine). These sorts of people want to do the best they can within their powers, which includes things that involve some friction: they eat organic kale, jog at dawn, wear seatbelts, don't smoke, and visit their doctors regularly. They love tests of all kinds. A 2006 meta-analysis quantified the healthy user effect (which they called the healthy adherer effect) across 21 studies. What they found is mind-blowing in its implications. It found that those who religiously took their prescribed pills (which we call 'good adherence'), even if it was a placebo, showed a 44% reduction in mortality (which was identical to adherence to proven beneficial therapy). All this shows is that the obedient, healthy people are more likely to do what most physicians want: they take their medication as ordered by their doctors. When researchers observe people over ten years and notice they have fewer heart attacks and fewer strokes the light goes on. Hey, they might live longer! This is where pharmaceutical cheerleaders jump up and down, declaring: "Look! It was our pill!" No. Sorry, it most likely wasn't the pill. It was the person who took the pill. It was the fact that the patient was already doing 27 zillion other things to stay healthy. Maybe they had a gene that said: don't do stuff to excess that are known to be bad for you (ie: smoking, drinking, committing violent crimes, extreme sports, being grossly overweight, being a couch potato, etc) The pill was just along for the ride. Observational research routinely mistakes a healthy lifestyle for pharmaceutical magic. By now you're saying, Okay Mr. Alansmartypants, gimme some examples. This is a complex, decades long story but likely the biggest medical reversal in modern history: Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) prescribed for women who lived long enough to savour the nasty symptoms of menopause. For decades, observational studies swore that HRT was a fountain-of-youth elixir for menopausal women, claiming a 50% reduction in heart attacks. The recommendations to get every woman of a 'certain age' on hormones were ubiquitous. Doctors prescribed it to millions of women around the world, convinced they were doing God's work in prot...

  6. 5d ago

    Our Town Is Every Town

    By Lucio Saverio Eastman at Brownstone dot org. In-group or out-group. Clean or unclean. With us or against us. The post-pandemic world seems dominated by themes of a society corrupted by political hatreds, born of hostile emotions constantly on the hunt for targets. Remember the masked and the unmasked, the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, the essential workers and the nonessential? This wasn't just a national issue. It burrowed deep into our personal lives and into our own hometowns. I moved from Utah to the small New England town of Peterborough, NH 20 years ago to begin a new life, a new job, and to discover new ideas and perspectives. It was a return to "home" in a way. My ancestry settled near here (Temple, Alstead, Amherst, Effingham) after my 8th great-grandfather sailed across the Atlantic Ocean on the ship Confidence and landed at the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1638. I chose Peterborough for its abundance of art, music, friendship, activities, and a real sense of being welcomed by neighbors and locals. Even the local politics seemed fairly tame. Granted, there were always a few hotheaded barflies, but their curmudgeonly personas were easy to ignore and chalk up to loneliness or general grumpiness. There are many wonderful people here who I call friends and consider very neighborly to this day. When Covid hit in March of 2020, my perspective was yanked completely out of focus. The ugliness that surfaced when power and fear combined revealed how thin the veneer of neighborliness had always been. This was a hard contrast to the ice storm of December 2008 that wiped out power for weeks. In that scenario, people stepped up and really made a difference by helping those in actual need. But with Covid, everything was very different. Dark and full of nervous suspicion. It's ironic that the town that inspired Grover's Corners, the setting of Thornton Wilder's Our Town and America's shorthand for small-town decency, set about casting out its own. Some people became the missionaries of compliance, then guardians of virtue, then something far worse…true believers in the righteousness of exclusion. It seems so odd for me to say now, but for nearly 15 years I really thought Peterborough was, as its motto (much sighed over by local English teachers) states, "a good town to live in." Skip forward 6 years and it seems that the same suspicious Covid-era paranoia permeates a class of individuals in town who constantly test in-group loyalty and out-group hatred. I can't help but recognize the vein of tribalism or purity politics running through the community. There's a pathos, a highly emotional connection to "my truth" within the collective that has a deep psychological drive toward this behavior. It's the same pathos that drove the Covid response. It's not just a Peterborough problem either. Drive an hour southwest to Greenfield, MA and you'll find Last Ditch, a small lesbian bar that has been requiring KN-95 masks "or better" since it opened. As reported in the Boston Globe, the bar is drowning in debt and the owner made masks optional one night per week. For that, her own community accused her of eugenics and "a mass disabling event." One commenter even hoped the bar would get firebombed. The collective does not care that she is one of them. It never did. That's the point. Barbara Oakley and her co-editors collected research on this pattern in Pathological Altruism. In chapter 16, "Genocide: From Pathological Altruism to Pathological Obedience," Augustine Brannigan shows how easily people enter what Stanley Milgram called an agentic state. They follow the orders of authority or of their in-group loyally. The scale is obviously different here; the mechanism isn't. Such obedience, Brannigan writes, "…suggests not a failure of socialization (the usual control approach) but that they are/were oversocialized. Pathological obedience appears to be based on the development of a mentality that reflects long-term patterns of affiliation th...

  7. 6d ago

    The Treatment Was Worse Than the Disease Medicine's Graveyard of Good Ideas When More Treatment Meant Better Treatment When the Monitor Improved and the Patient Died A Lesson from the Intensive Care Unit When Common Sense Was Wrong When Established Medi

    By Joseph Varon at Brownstone dot org. On December 12, 1799, George Washington returned to Mount Vernon after several hours on horseback in snow, hail, and freezing rain. The next day he developed a sore throat and hoarseness, and in the early morning of December 14 he awoke struggling to breathe and swallow. Doctors were called, and what happened next is now one of the most talked-about medical cases in American history. Washington did not lack medical care. In fact, he received a lot of attention from three skilled physicians, who used the treatments they thought best for someone as sick as he was, such as repeated bloodletting and other methods meant to reduce inflammation and restore balance. Late that night, Washington died. Even now, more than 200 years later, we are not sure exactly what disease killed Washington. Some experts have suggested acute bacterial epiglottitis, severe pharyngitis, peritonsillar infection, or other causes of upper-airway blockage [1]. What is clear is that Washington lost a large amount of blood, by most estimates about 80 ounces, through repeated bloodletting while he was already very sick. His doctors did not mean to harm him. They thought removing blood would control the inflammation, but it made him worse. Their actions followed a long-standing medical tradition, supported by accepted theories, experience, and the authority of many generations of doctors. It is easy to look back at this story and feel superior because of our modern knowledge. Today, we understand things like oxygen delivery, blood volume, shock, infections, airway care, IV fluids, antibiotics, and advanced life support. Washington's doctors did not have this knowledge. But calling them primitive misses the real point. They were trained doctors using the best knowledge they had to try to save their patient. The real question is not why doctors in 1799 believed bloodletting would help. Instead, we should ask which treatments we use today with the same confidence that future doctors might find hard to believe. Medicine has always operated between what we know and what we do not. Patients get sick now, but clear scientific answers can take years or even decades to find. Doctors have to watch, guess, treat, and adjust as they go. This process has led to some of our greatest achievements. Anesthesia made surgery possible. Antibiotics turned deadly infections into treatable ones. Insulin changed the outlook for type 1 diabetes. Intensive care, organ transplants, dialysis, cancer treatments, and heart procedures now save people who would not have survived in the past. Admitting mistakes in medicine does not mean ignoring the real progress made. But history also shows many treatments once thought to be good medicine that are now known to be harmful. Bloodletting is the most famous example because it now seems clearly wrong. For centuries, it fit into the accepted theory that illness came from an imbalance of bodily fluids, so removing blood was supposed to help. Some patients got better after bloodletting simply because many illnesses get better on their own, and these cases made the practice seem effective. When patients died, doctors often blamed the severity of the illness, not the treatment. Without proper studies, doctors' experiences kept confirming what they already believed. Mercury provides another sobering example. Mercury compounds were used for centuries to treat syphilis and other diseases despite their substantial toxicity. Records show that mercury was used in many ways, including ointments, pills, injections, and even fumes [2]. Patients often suffered from too much saliva, mouth sores, lost teeth, nerve damage, and other serious problems. Still, some of these side effects were seen as proof that the treatment was working. The use of mercury lasted so long not because doctors were unintelligent, but because accepted theories, tradition, authority, and stories from practice all supported it. When a practice is new,...

  8. Sep 26

    The Why of Food Emancipation

    By Jeffrey A. Tucker at Brownstone dot org. [This is the foreword to Joe Salatin's magisterial work Food Emancipation, newly published] Agronomy – a word no longer in much use – was at the core of the American experience from long before its Founding period through the early Progressive Era. We once had hands-on experience with the land and were shaped by everything about farm life. It's how we fed our families, neighbors, and communities. Today, we import most food, process it into edible chunks with a forever shelf life, shop at the superstore, chow down at restaurants, click to get food delivered, and grab takeout. As incredible as it seems, many people today haven't thought at all about food production, any more than driving gives us consciousness of car factories or wearing clothes makes us aware of cotton fields and robotic looms. When asked, people just assume food as we know it comes from some factory out there somewhere and who cares anyway? A laptop-class friend recently wrote, very innocently but with an air of intellectual arrogance, "How awful it would be if we still had to know how to farm!" My mind drifted back immediately to a few farm experiences I had as a kid, and the renewal of that experience recently at Joel Salatin's Polyface farm. Thank goodness someone remembers how to farm. The reason is that an entire way of life – a way toward health, well-being, and happiness – has been stolen from us. Not neglected, not outcompeted, but literally forced out of existence. This happened not by market forces as such, not by some impersonal mind of history, but by a labyrinth of regulations, mandates, taxes, controls, subsidies, and monopoly-creating controls, all conspiring to keep the way of life of our ancestors from returning. Food Emancipation Joel Salatin Buy on Amazon How and why this happened, and what to do about it right now, is the subject of this marvelous book by the farmer-philosopher Joel Salatin. It is revealing, thrilling, and destined to become a classic. It is a powerful manifesto on the production of food, a subject about which most people remain deeply confused, with real costs to health, liberty, and prosperity. It's gripping and wise, fun and serious, detailed and passionate, scientific and packed with stories, just the right combination to cause a true disruption in understanding, policy, and practice. You can grasp the essence in the fast-paced opening chapter, but don't stop there. The rest brims with profound insights, biography, history, and granular detail that will reshape how you see agriculture, government, big business, health, and technology. A few years ago, I was among the confused in thinking there were no real food issues that needed addressing, much less solving. The Covid era, with its seemingly endless layers of duplicity and propaganda, shattered many of my assumptions. I was ready to question everything. What if our lords and masters have done to food production what they have done to medicine and public health? Study a bit and one's worst fears are thus realized. The same class of people who managed the pandemic response have been managing our food supply for many decades. Today, I'm fully aligned with Salatin's vision, and I'm proud to call him my teacher. This book will likely challenge your own preconceptions just as radically. At its heart, Salatin calls for food emancipation: dismantling over a century of heavy regulation and cartelization that has throttled small farmers and traditional wisdom. What we face is not benign oversight but a destructive alliance between Big Government and Big Agribusiness, one that suppresses competition, diminishes quality, tramples on property rights and the right to trade, and robs consumers of knowledge and choice. If Salatin's agenda prevails, we won't just save existing small farms; we could spark thousands and millions of new ones, many right in our neighborhoods or on our own land. They would feed nations in healthier, more trad...

Ratings & Reviews

4.8
out of 5
17 Ratings

About

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

You Might Also Like