Dr. Aseem Malhotra Criticizes the mRNA COVID Shot

Dr. Aseem Malhotra speaking at the recent Reform UK conference:

Called for a moratorium on COVID mRNA vaccines citing a reanalysis of Pfizer/Moderna trials showing a 2-4 times higher risk of serious harm than hospitalization prevention.

- The World Health Organization that is being captured. That is being captured by Bill Gates, who is largest funder now Bill Gates, who made half a billion dollars in investments in the COVID vaccines.

- Audiences gasped when Dr. Malhotra claimed that COVID vaccines were a significant factor in cancer cases among members of the royal family.

- Calls out Pfizer of pushing COVID-19 vaccine mandates for profit, despite knowing by summer 2021 that the vaccines did not stop infection or transmission, while funding organizations to support these mandates and earning $100 billion.

Continue ReadingDr. Aseem Malhotra Criticizes the mRNA COVID Shot

Capitalizing on Race

I'll start with this post by Mike Benz:

If one really wanted to diminish the importance of "race," one would not capitalize only one "race" but not others. But this is a minor skirmish. As I've written before, the very concept of "race" is a grift; the usage of the concept of "race" has never enhanced human flourishing. It only pits us against one another. It's time for all of us to wake up and abolish the use of "race." We can talk about each other perfectly well without use of the term "race," which, at best, serves as a proxy for other things.

Sheena Mason argues that "race" is not biologically real—she points to evidence showing extensive human migration and mixing, where traits like skin color do not reliably correlate with ancestry (e.g., two dark-skinned South Africans can be more genetically divergent than one is from a light-skinned Swede).

She argues that "race" serves to perpetuate racism, a hierarchical system that disguises itself as innate differences. She critiques both "anti-racist resistance" (which centers race in analysis, as seen in thinkers like Ibram X. Kendi) and "color-blindness" (which ignores race but still treats it as real) for inadvertently reinforcing racial categories.

For Mason, undoing racism requires dismantling the belief in race altogether. A central tool in her approach is the "racelessness translator," which "translates" race-based language into non-racial terms to reveal underlying issues (e.g., reframing "racial disparities in policy effects" as class-based inequities).

There is no such thing as "race," even though racism can still be found. There are people who will nevertheless assure us that "race" is a meaningful term and who discriminate against those of a particular "race." They should be prosecuted under civil rights laws. It's time for the rest of us to move on.

For more, see my previous post, "Race is like Astrology."

Continue ReadingCapitalizing on Race

People Tend to Value Pets More than They Value People

I've often assumed that many people have pets instead of riskier potentially unmanageable children.  And sometimes I've assumed that many people cherish pets more than they cherish people.  If a dog and a person fell overboard and you could only save one, who are you going to save?

Now we have this study: "Pet owners often see dogs as soulmates and value them more than human lives."

Abstract:

Dogs have ascended to core family members in American households. Across three studies, we show that modern dogs now occupy roles historically reserved for close human relationships and often receive greater moral concern than people. Approximately three out of four dog owners view their dogs as primary sources of emotional support and companionship, and this “soulmate” bond is associated with a tendency to prefer and prioritize dogs over people. Childless dog owners are especially likely to view their dog as a soulmate, and national and county-level analyses further reveal that declining birth rates are strongly associated with increased pet-related spending. This suggests that dogs may fulfill caregiving roles once reserved for children and close kin. To assess the implications of this shift, we presented dog owners with moral dilemmas pitting the welfare of dogs against humans. Owners who viewed their dogs as soulmates were more likely to feed, fund, and save the life of a dog over a person. More than half of dog owners chose to save their dog over a human stranger, one in five chose to save an unfamiliar puppy over a person, and one in four chose to give money to a puppy in need over a child in need. The moral elevation of dogs may reflect—and potentially contribute to—declines in human social connection.

Is there a downside to this pet worship?

This same study points out:

While dogs may seem easier than human relationships, favoring them could come at the cost of human connection. Research suggests that social connection can be zero-sum; forming deep bonds with some often results in less concern for others. Reflecting this phenomenon, owners strongly bonded to their pets often socialize less, opting instead to stay home with their pets.

Increased attachment to dogs may also have ethical consequences. Animals, especially dogs, are frequently cast as helpless victims and receive greater concern than vulnerable humans. Many report feeling more distress for dogs than for adult people, and dog owners in particular often prioritize their pet over a human stranger in life-or-death scenarios.

Continue ReadingPeople Tend to Value Pets More than They Value People