In this article, we will delve into the thoughts and perspectives of Sanjeev Sabhlok, a former civil servant and economist, regarding the concept of public health and the government’s response to the pandemic. Sabhlok questions the necessity of various public health measures, challenges the effectiveness of masks and vaccines and emphasizes the importance of individualism, liberty, and critical thinking. Let’s explore his views on economics and liberty, and how they relate to the broken state of public health.
Table of contents
- Sanjeev Sabhlok’s Background and Criticism of Government Response
- The Ineffectiveness of Masks and the Role of Engineers in Public Health
- Questioning Vaccines and Occupational Licensing of Doctors
- Flaws in Epidemiological Models and Border Closures
- Natural Selection, Herd Immunity, and Influence of Big Pharma
- Problems with Occupational Licensing of Doctors and FDA
- Failures of Parliamentary System and Importance of Competition
- Criticizing Public Health and Ethical Implications
- Malpractice in Medical Practices and Influence of Public Institutions
- Flaws in Public Health Instruction and Long-Term Ramifications
- Embracing Individualism, Liberty, and Critical Thinking
- Conclusion
- FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)
- Related Articles:
Sanjeev Sabhlok’s Background and Criticism of Government Response
Sanjeev Sabhlok’s experience as a civil servant in India and an economist in Australia has shaped his perspective on public health. He resigned from both positions due to his commitment to fighting corruption and his belief in doing things right. Sabhlok criticizes the government’s response to the pandemic, highlighting the lack of transparency and evidence-based decision-making. Despite surviving financially, he faced challenges in finding work as nobody was willing to hire him.
The Ineffectiveness of Masks and the Role of Engineers in Public Health
Sabhlok questions the effectiveness of masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19. He references a video where an individual wearing a mask could still see smoke exiting around the edges, suggesting their limited efficacy. Additionally, he argues that much of the work typically attributed to doctors in public health can be accomplished by engineers. He believes that quarantine is necessary for controlling infectious diseases but should be viewed as a police function rather than a healthcare matter.
Questioning Vaccines and Occupational Licensing of Doctors
Sanjeev Sabhlok dives into the public health concept, scrutinizing the use of vaccines and the occupational licensing of doctors. He argues that vaccines are not solely a public health function and that not everyone needs to be vaccinated, even if eradication is possible. Sabhlok is currently working on a comprehensive piece of research to demonstrate that many current public health measures, including water and sanitation initiatives, are unnecessary. He also criticizes the ethics justification used in public health and advocates for objective criteria like cost-benefit analysis.
Flaws in Epidemiological Models and Border Closures
Sabhlok sheds light on the flaws in epidemiological models and questions the logic behind border closures as a means to prevent the spread of viruses. He references Donald Henderson’s research on smallpox, highlighting that symptomatic individuals do not typically travel. The example of the Faroe Islands, which dealt with COVID-19 without resorting to lockdowns or closing schools due to their small
population and proximity, further supports his argument. Sabhlok acknowledges that complete border closures could effectively contain a virus but emphasizes the trade-offs involved.
Natural Selection, Herd Immunity, and Influence of Big Pharma
In this section, Sabhlok discusses the concept of natural selection and herd immunity, drawing an analogy to prey trying to outrun predators. He argues against sacrificing the younger generation to protect the elderly during the pandemic. The speaker also highlights the issue of regulatory capture and the influence of big pharmaceutical companies on public health policies. Sabhlok suggests that the profitability of vaccines raises doubts about the authenticity of public health measures. Furthermore, he asserts that lockdowns and border closures are impractical and impossible to implement effectively.
Problems with Occupational Licensing of Doctors and FDA
Sanjeev Sabhlok criticizes the practice of occupational licensing for doctors and questions the role of the FDA. Economists have historically opposed occupational licensing, considering it a breach of principles established since the time of Adam Smith. However, the majority of doctors benefit from this licensing, turning it into a rent-seeking proposition and a dangerous concept. Sabhlok refers to Milton Friedman’s extensive study of the FDA, labeling it as a “big racket.” He believes that clean water and other public goods can be efficiently provided by the private sector, not necessarily relying on government involvement.
Failures of Parliamentary System and Importance of Competition
Sabhlok discusses the failures of the parliamentary system in countries like the UK and Australia, where centralized power without constitutional checks and balances can lead to a tyranny of the majority. He advocates for a federal system like that of the United States, where competition between states and ideas prevents corruption and draconian measures. The speaker opposes the concept of a one-world government, which tends to stem from socialist concepts and stifles the competition of ideas necessary for progress. Sabhlok suggests that public health should be curtailed, as it encroaches on personal decisions, promotes social justice, and incorporates unrelated issues like climate change.
Criticizing Public Health and Ethical Implications
In this section, Sanjeev Sabhlok expresses his criticism of public health and invites readers to share their thoughts on the matter. He has conducted extensive research and continues to contribute new material to this field. The speaker and his counterpart, Dr. Randall S. Bock, discuss how public health measures can sometimes lead to harm, citing historical examples like the Nazis’ public health measures targeting Jews. They raise concerns about the moral and ethical implications of certain public health practices, particularly those involving castration and neutering in children, which can result in the removal of children from parents who disagree with such measures.
Malpractice in Medical Practices and Influence of Public Institutions
Sanjeev Sabhlok criticizes medical practices that involve drastic surgeries to “cure” gender dysphoria, arguing that fetishizing the body is malpractice. He questions the increasing number of children identifying as LGBT, suggesting that public institutions like schools may influence such trends. The speaker challenges the necessity of public health programs, except for quarantine measures for highly infectious diseases like Ebola. Instead, he advocates for private institutions that directly represent the people, rather than relying on a government body that can be influenced by self-interested parties.
Flaws in Public Health Instruction and Long-Term Ramifications
Sanjeev Sabhlok and Dr. Randall S. Bock discuss the flaws in public health instruction within schools and the potential negative impact on the quality of life. They highlight the constant bombardment of changing opinions about what foods are good or bad for individuals. They argue that factors like being married and active in the community have more significant determinants of longevity. The speakers emphasize that
people need pleasure and rewards to understand themselves, and making individuals miserable, such as during COVID-19 lockdowns, can lead to deaths of desperation like alcoholism and drug overdoses. They raise concerns about the long-term ramifications of lockdowns on children, who missed out on play and learning opportunities.
Embracing Individualism, Liberty, and Critical Thinking
In this concluding section, Sanjeev Sabhlok, an economist and liberal philosopher, advocates for individualism, liberty, and critical thinking. He believes that public health has become the greatest enemy of public health itself, as officials impose their views and deny individuals their agency and freedom to make mistakes. Sabhlok shares his experience of resigning from a role where he was asked to wear a mask outdoors, emphasizing the importance of voluntary action. He urges people to stand up against bullying, remain curious, and demand proof while questioning things that do not work for them.
Conclusion
Sanjeev Sabhlok’s perspective challenges traditional public health concepts and criticizes the government’s response to the pandemic. He questions the necessity of public health measures, such as vaccines and occupational licensing, and highlights the flaws in epidemiological models and border closures. Sabhlok emphasizes individualism, liberty, and critical thinking, urging people to stand up against bullying and remain curious. While his views may be controversial, they contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding public health policies and the role of government in addressing public health issues.
FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)
Yes, Sanjeev Sabhlok is a qualified economist with experience as a civil servant and economist in India and Australia. He has worked in various roles and has a background in economics.
Sanjeev Sabhlok expresses skepticism towards public health measures during the pandemic. He believes that many of these measures are unnecessary and questions the need for vaccines and occupational licensing. Sabhlok emphasizes the importance of individualism, liberty, critical thinking, and evidence-based decision making.
Sanjeev Sabhlok acknowledges that complete border closures could effectively contain a virus. However, he highlights the trade-offs involved and argues that such closures are impractical and impossible to implement effectively in the long term.
Sanjeev Sabhlok raises concerns about the subjective nature of ethics in public health and suggests using objective criteria like cost-benefit analysis instead. He also discusses the moral and ethical implications of certain public health practices, such as castration and neutering in children.
Sanjeev Sabhlok advocates for private institutions that directly represent the people instead of relying solely on government-run public health programs. He believes that public goods, such as clean water, can be efficiently provided by the private sector.