The initial United States government response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was marked by a frequent disconnect between government policies and the recommendations of scientific experts. A disinformation campaign from the Trump White House convinced many Americans that COVID-19 injuries and its death toll were exaggerated, leading many to ignore public health recommendations (1). Those who dismissed the severity of COVID-19 were more likely to shun face masks and ignore recommendations to socially distance from non–household members (2). Such individuals were more likely Republicans than Democrats by a wide margin (2), and under a flag of health or medical freedom, an outright defiance of masks and social distancing came to symbolize allegiance to President Trump (1). This contributed to the rampant spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, which have taken the lives of one-half million Americans (1). Misguided ideologies from populist regimes in Brazil, Mexico, Nicaragua, Philippines, and Tanzania bear varying degrees of resemblance to health freedom and contribute to the global COVID-19 death toll (3). Here, I explore the anti-science movement in America, emphasizing our unique historical connections to health and medical freedom.
I do have one bone to pick with him. He starts the story off with Thompsonism in the early 19th Century, writing that Samuel Thompson "created a system that listed six leading botanical treatments requiring no medical training to administer (5). Indeed, Thompson often mocked the existing medical establishment, and his followers were successful in repealing medical licensing laws (5)" Well yes, but the existing medical establishment was well worthy of mocking. Medical orthodoxy at the time was the humoral theory of the ancient Greeks, and orthodox treatment consisted of blood letting and violent emetics. At least Thompsonism did little, if any, harm.
However, the story changes in the late 19th Century as medicine did acquire a legitimate scientific basis. The long history since then of resistance to science based medicine on vaguely articulated grounds of "freedom" is largely associated with the right, including extremists like the John Birch Society. Hotez recites the history, but doesn't really try to explain it, and I also find it difficult to understand the impetus behind this particularly category of nonsense. No, competent adults don't have to accept any medical treatment they don't want to, but associating not believing in scientific findings with "freedom" is another matter. And not getting your children vaccinated is an assault on them and your neighbors. That isn't freedom, it's crime. And I really don't get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment