If this debate seems familiar, this should, because the arguments on natural immunity against vaccine have helped to give the form to be discussed to find out if the publication of public health was too cautious about Covid also. As we get out of what Siddhartha Mukherjee recently called The “privatized pandemic” of America, the country feels its path to a new anti -establishment balance – and the anointing of a new class of health leaders distinguished by their vocal skepticism and their distrust.
In the aftermath of the pandemic, we have talked a lot about the loss of public confidence in science, but about the collapse of confidence in the government, in particular Among the youngcould be even more worrying. (The pandemic has really made a number of us on us.) A result is that many more Americans now seem to believe that they should be in charge not only of the choices concerning their own health but also of the entire health information ecosystem which also informs these choices. Many consider well-being as something that you can shape by yourself at the gymnasium or perhaps buy at the supermarket, in the aisle of supplement-as long as you have done your own research (at least listened to a good podcast) and has brought your own list.
What is on this list is not necessarily important, as long as it takes place against the grain of establishment. Mehmet Oz is about to be confirmed as the chief of the centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, for example, but only 21% Health recommendations he offered in his television program have been judged by a group of researchers to even have “credible” evidence to support them. Kennedy said that “there is no safe and effective vaccine” (he then said that the quote was “poorly used”) And responded to the Texas measles epidemic not by urging everyone to be vaccinated, but by shipping vitamin A. He also praised steroids and cod liver oil – which do no part of the routine treatment protocols, and neither produced persuasive research suggesting that they should not be integrated into these protocols.
The Maha movement is gather under the banner of the reform, and it raises undeniably important questions about the reasons why the richest country in the world is so healthy than its peers. But what he really announces a new era of libertarianism in public health, that is to say a fairly explicit war on all the things that do the health of health in the first place. At least, he marks the direction of change: far from solid responsibilities and towards something more suspicious and more solipsist, by which individuals write the biomedical capital accumulated during several decades without feeling real need to reconstruct the well.
Many Maha priorities are worth it, at least in theory: chronic illness, obesity, diet and environmental exercise of various forms (ineffective pharmaceuticals but forming habits also). But by substituting the individual behavior, the diet and the model of your body-is a time of the theory of the germ, the propagation of aerosols and what is often called the social determinants of health, the new team of leadership of the country of the country commits this American cardinal error: see individuals as a perfectly autonomous and inviolable consideration, and to define all individual control outside contradictory or a violation of bodily autonomy.