As represented by our cinema and other media, Western society expects too much of masks. In the public’s mind, the still-legitimate use of masks for source control has gone off-label; masks are thought to prevent infection. From here, another problem arises: because surgical masks are thought to protect against infection in the community setting, people wearing masks for legitimate purposes (those who have a cough in a hospital, say) form part of the larger misperception and act to reinforce it. Even this proper use of surgical masks is incorporated into a larger improper use in the era of pandemic fear, especially in Asia, where such fear is high.1 The widespread misconception about the use of surgical masks — that wearing a mask protects against the transmission of virus — is a problem of the kind theorized by German sociologist Ulrich Beck.
The surgical mask communicates risk. For most, risk is perceived as the potential loss of something of value, but there is another side to risk, memorably formulated by Beck in his Risk Society.2 Beck states that risk society is “a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernisation itself.”2 For Beck, risk occurs not only in the form of threat and possible loss, but also in society’s organized management and response to these risks, which create a forwarding of present risk into the future. Furthermore, Beck writes of the “symptoms and symbols of risks” that combine in populations to create a “cosmetics of risk.” He suggests that people living in the present moment conceive of risk in terms of the physical tools used to mitigate risk while still “maintaining the source of the filth.”
You might be Scientismist if…
…you source-cite frantically to substantiate your views, even if you haven’t analyzed the data or the methods used or considered the limitations of the findings?
…you automatically believe certain sources and dismiss others without reading the original citations.
…you get your science from Facebook ads
…you believe the use of the phrase “scientific study” imparts devine validation to the conclusions.
…assume peer review is a real thing.
…don’t know the difference between a RCT, case-controlled study, cross-sectional study, cohort study, retrospective or prospective study…and don’t want to because it might call into question validity of your narrative!
…assume strong correlation is same as causation…AND don’t care if you’re wrong as long as it helps make your point!
And the #1 clue that you may be a Scientismist… When your favorite saying is, “the NIH says it, I believe and that settles it!”
Publishing a “study” does not bestow validation and data is mishandled as often as not; which is why much of the medical literature is wrong.
Hyperrational arrogance leads to scientism, which is not the same as good science.
Don’t be a scientismist!
The RFI goes on to explain the CMS vision of, “direct provider contracting (DPC), through which CMS would directly contract with Medicare providers.” Obviously this interpretation of “DPC” turns the true meaning of Direct Patient Care on its head.
These names are, in many ways, synonymous with the current free market movement, and for good reason. These men are the mavericks of healthcare. When Dr. Smith and Mr. Kempton were introduced in 2011 by a mutual friend and client, they had no way of knowing that their partnership would become what it is today and create an entire movement in the healthcare space.
Jay Kempton: When you understand how this business really works, you can see the effect of the dysfunction which I just described; but when you learn more about the cause, you can see that the patients’ actual financial concern is not even on the radar of so many entities that are part of big healthcare. Hospitals really do not understand that the gouging of pricing that they do trickles down into basically wage stagnation to employees. They say, “We’re raising our prices, but it only hurts the big insurance companies.” No, that’s never the way it works. It eventually makes it way as an increased cost to the employer. They can’t afford to just absorb the increase, so how do they offset that? By lowering or decreasing the increase of wages or they reduce the benefits, or both.
What is the greatest obstacle that this movement and the FMMA faces?
Dr. Keith Smith: The answer may be counterintuitive. I think the greatest obstacle the FMMA and this movement faces is ourselves. We are so programmed and conditioned to look to outside leaders or to the government for solutions and answers. They are ultimately responsible for all the problems that have led to our current system. The answer is looking to ourselves and having the courage to face the possibility that, in innumerable ways, we have been duped. Admitting that is a very personal and difficult experience for many people—to look in the mirror and acknowledge that they’ve been lied to. Even worse, we have believed these lies and have acted accordingly. People must acknowledge that it is a ground up movement, not one where solutions rain down on us from our rulers or our leaders. They must do their own thinking and not allow those who would like to be protected from innovation to stop us.
Jay Kempton: The obstacle that’s not so benign is how people in the healthcare business get paid. Brokers, consultants, and agents have tremendous influence over employers and patients, and the way that they see healthcare. Many people in the employee benefits business get paid when they make money off the problem. In other words, they’re making a percentage of the healthcare spend. The problem gets bigger, their income goes up.
If you could tell someone just one thing about the free market in healthcare what would it be?
Dr. Keith Smith: The one thing I would tell them is that the free market is not about sellers having their way with consumers. The free market is not about brutalizing the poor, or people who are trying to pay for their own care.
The free market is about an exchange between buyers and sellers that is mutually beneficial, where both parties emerge feeling like it was a good exchange. Any time that the media quotes some corporate healthcare exec or politician bemoaning the tough future that one of the sellers might face given some policy that might be enacted should be discounted or ignored. The focus has to be on the consumer, and on whether a consumer’s decision to buy A or B is a value to that person. The one message that I would give is to know that this movement is about servicing consumers. Period. Any concerns or desires that sellers have to be protected from the preferences of consumers must be seen as the source of the problem that we all face in health care today.
Jay Kempton: The free market and healthcare is the only true healthcare reform that has a chance of being sustainable. Anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The reliability of evidence-based medical care depends on validation of original research. Let’s start encouraging and incentivizing investigators to verify (or refute) heretofore non-reproduced studies; while simultaneously discouraging primacy signalling with impact factors such as prestige of the institution.
FDA scientists analyzed the chemical structures of the 25 most common compounds in kratom and concluded that all of the compounds share structural characteristics with controlled opioid analgesics, such as morphine derivatives. They also found that compounds in kratom bind strongly to mu-opioid receptors, comparable to opioid drugs.
“Based on the data we now have, we feel confident in calling these compounds opioids,” Dr Gottlieb said.
Attacking the Dragon in its Lair Before it Eats You:
A Discussion of meaningful philosophy, psychological health and societal Improvement – by dr. Jordan Peterson