Randoctor

Arnold Kling’s main concern is how people decide what to believe. He identifies two major errors: over-censoring dissenting views from the elite consensus and under-censoring conspiracy theories. The solution isn’t clear, but Kling acknowledges that tribalism plays a key role in obstructing truth-seeking. "People aren’t trying to change minds," he said. "They’re trying to close the minds of their own tribe." I pointed out how platforms like TikTok reflect this manipulation. "In China, TikTok promotes education," I said. "But here, it pushes harmful content." Kling saw this as part of a broader strategy to weaken society, not just election interference. "It’s a long-term play," he remarked. Our discussion turned to institutions like the media and academia, which, Kling argues, are meant to serve as marketplaces of ideas but have become compromised. "There’s a freezing out of conservative views," he noted. "Progressive ideas dominate, even when they should, in a fair contest, disappear." When the topic shifted to Obama’s economic response to the financial crisis, I expressed skepticism about his strategy. "Obama just printed more money," I said. Kling explained that financial institutions exploit regulations for profit while socializing losses, pointing to the financial crisis as a prime example. "Regulation often invites corruption," he noted. Education reform was another focal point. "The four-year college model is outdated," Kling said. He envisioned a new system where mentors replace traditional degrees, allowing for independent learning with occasional in-person gatherings. "The relationships built are more important than the degree itself." We also explored how K-12 education, designed around consensus-building, stifles boys’ competitive nature. I argued that the system is too feminized. "Boys are wired for competition, but they’re turned into zombies," I said. Kling agreed, adding that boys are often labeled disruptive and medicated. As we moved back to politics, I noted that Democrats are more focused on consensus, while Republicans are more individualistic. "The Democrats want to bring everyone together," I said. "Republicans emphasize competition." Kling saw this division as part of a broader ideological split between consensus-driven governance and competitive markets. On foreign policy, Kling divided people into idealists, who see conflicts like the Ukraine war as moral crusades, and realists, who focus on national interests. Both groups have reasons to support the war, but those advocating for less involvement often hold little influence. As we concluded, Kling returned to the idea that institutions need to rebuild trust. Whether in education, media, or government, they must regain their role as fair arbiters of truth. Libertarian perspectives, focused on liberty versus coercion, often go unheard in these debates. "The system perpetuates itself, even when it’s no longer working," Kling said.

1. Technocracy and Centralized Control Aaron Day outlines technocracy as a system where elites, often backed by powerful organizations, choose scientists and engineers to make societal decisions, essentially nullifying individual autonomy. He notes that the World Economic Forum (WEF) and United Nations (UN) are leading the charge for this form of governance. "Technocracy is basically a form of government where elites pick scientists and engineers to make decisions for people. It’s essentially the end of free will." Day traces the origins of this technocratic agenda back to the 1930s and links it to the current push for the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. He further explains that at the core of technocracy lies a goal to replace the "price-based economy" with an "energy credit-based system," a process already in motion. 2. Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) Day argues that CBDCs will be the primary tool of control in this new system. These digital currencies are not just future possibilities—they are already being implemented in various forms. "We already have a central bank digital currency... our money supply is already 92% digital." By tying money to carbon credits and social behaviors, technocrats can track, censor, and program the economy down to individual purchases: "Once they can program and control your money, they have complete control over your behavior." Day emphasizes that this will allow for granular control, such as determining "what foods you can buy," in an effort to regulate behavior under the guise of environmentalism and social goals. 3. WHO, Club of Rome, and Trilateral Commission’s Role in Technocracy Day highlights several key organizations that push technocratic control globally, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the Club of Rome, and the Trilateral Commission. These organizations are, in his view, the backbone of the technocratic agenda. The Club of Rome, for instance, has long propagated the concept of scarcity to justify strict control over resources. "The Club of Rome has been putting out material about we're all going to die... this whole narrative around carbon and alarmism tracks back to the Club of Rome." The Trilateral Commission, founded in the 1970s, pushes globalization and technocracy from the top down. "All but one member of Jimmy Carter’s cabinet was a member of the Trilateral Commission." Day warns that these organizations, alongside the WHO, UN, and WEF, have created a framework where global policies can be imposed without democratic consent. "They use matching taxpayer funds to push the agenda of multinational corporations." 4. Tokenization and Asset Control Expanding beyond money, Day warns about the tokenization of assets, which is another tool of technocracy. "They’re going to tokenize all of our assets... and put them on the same platform with CBDCs." He explains that even non-monetary assets like homes, cars, and personal property will be tokenized, allowing centralized control and surveillance of individual assets. This is part of a broader push to control behavior and restrict what individuals can buy, sell, or trade based on their compliance with social and environmental goals. 5. Surveillance and Social Credit Systems Day fears that CBDCs will ultimately tie into a global social credit system, similar to what already exists in China. He explains that "the ultimate goal is to tie your digital money to a social credit score," allowing governments and corporations to monitor and regulate individual behavior. This system is already being tested, as seen with initiatives like the Doconomy MasterCard, which tracks carbon emissions and can cut off transactions once a carbon limit is exceeded. "MasterCard has put together relationships with over 150 different companies... they’re already tracking the impact of your financial transactions on carbon." 6. The Role of Politicians and Corporations Day is critical of both political parties and their complicity in advancing technocratic agendas. "Republicans and Democrats don’t control anything—it's all about who controls the money." He emphasizes that politicians are mere figureheads, enacting policies designed by powerful organizations like the Trilateral Commission and the Club of Rome. "None of these politicians write their own bills; they’re written by lobbyists, bankers, and other elites." Day insists that no political solution will prevent technocracy from taking over, arguing that the only way to resist is through alternative systems of exchange, such as cryptocurrencies and precious metals. "We either fight and defeat the technocracy, or we submit to it. There is no coexistence with technocracy."

A Global War on Food? The conversation with Tracy Thurman touches on the astonishing idea of a "war on food." Thurman acknowledges that most would find it strange to think there’s such a war, but it’s undeniable when we see global trends, particularly in Europe. “Most of us would never have dreamed ten years ago that there would be a push to demonize our farmers,” she observes. Thurman points to the Netherlands and Germany, where farmers are protesting in masses against oppressive policies. She states, “Farmers all over the world are being persecuted, prosecuted, and shut down.” The One Health Agenda A key framework driving this shift is the One Health agenda, which Thurman discusses critically. She emphasizes how One Health positions decisions about human health as not just based on human needs but also on environmental and animal health. “The decisions...are being based on what is good for not just you, but what your doctor...thinks is good for the planet,” Thurman argues. This troubling shift, according to her, redefines personal health under the umbrella of environmental activism, where animal protein, for example, becomes demonized. Carbon-Reduction Agendas Thurman sees initiatives like C40 Cities as part of a broader technocratic push to transform human diets. The plan includes strict limitations on carbon emissions, where citizens may only be allowed three new items of clothing annually and “your intake of red meat would be limited to thirty calories per day.” Such policies, Thurman warns, will lead to a diet of “plant-based foods only,” driven by controlling institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation. Technocracy and Control Thurman aligns this food war with broader control mechanisms tied to technocracy. She remarks, “I think we have a class of technocratically-minded, power-hungry individuals,” who, like the Rockefellers, work generationally to exert control. Dr. Bock remarks during the discussion that “in order to get good technology, you actually need ideas to bubble up from people with liberty.” But he notes that technocratic elites stifle creativity by turning society into a controlled “work camp.” Fake Foods and Processed Proteins Thurman highlights the insidious development of fake foods, heavily processed substitutes promoted as solutions to the carbon problem. From plastic-based proteins to lab-grown “meat,” she notes how these foods are often contaminated with antibiotics and produced in unnatural conditions. “It is grown from what are essentially cancerous eternal cell lines,” she explains. The processed nature of these foods poses significant health risks, as Thurman highlights how projects funded by DARPA include creating edible proteins from waste materials. The Call for Local Farming Finally, Thurman advocates for a return to decentralized, independent farming. “Find a local farmer, get to know them, and buy your food from them,” she advises. She believes that localizing food production is the only real solution to this growing war on natural food.

This exploration of Reilly’s thoughts provides a glimpse into his critical, often contrarian, views on contemporary social and political issues: debunking misguided (often race-hustling) narratives that distort public perception. Challenging Dominant Narratives Reilly is known for questioning widely accepted historical and social narratives. His upcoming book, Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me, critiques the idea that the U.S. is a predatory society. “What we actually see is a phenomenon where the American center-left is in charge of the discourse... presenting themselves as oppressed by MAGA,” he says. Reilly believes these narratives are often misleading, perpetuated by those in power rather than truth​. The Hate Crime Hoax Reilly is equally critical of the media's portrayal of hate crimes. He cites the Jussie Smollett case, where a fabricated story of racist violence dominated headlines. “None of it happened. And Smollett was kind of the emblematic case... none of it actually occurred,” Reilly explains. He sees this as part of a broader pattern of false narratives designed to portray the U.S. as deeply racist​. Supply and Demand of Racism Reilly argues that the demand for racism exceeds the supply in modern America. He notes, “There is... a much greater demand for racism than there is a supply,” referring to the creation of false narratives to support organizations like BLM. He points out that modern racism is often exaggerated to sustain institutions and movements built around it​. Manipulating Data for Emotional Appeal Reilly criticizes the manipulation of statistics in public discourse. Bock mentions breast cancer rates: “They play with their data... breast cancer mortality has gone down vastly,” he observes. Prof. Reilly compares this to the inflated reports of hate crimes, both serving to fuel emotional and financial appeals​. Defining Victimhood Reilly sees victimhood as a lucrative identity, often exploited for financial gain. “When people say “equity”, what they want is the “equity” in your house,” he asserts. He ties this concept to the growing trend of identifying as various marginalized groups, even extending to the bizarre subculture of “Otherkin,” where individuals identify as non-human​. The Consequences of False Ideas According to Reilly, many bad ideas originate from flawed assumptions. He warns, “Once you reject the initial starting premise of, for example, truth can be objectively knowable... it’s very hard to say certain standards should exist.” He believes this leads to absurdities, such as debates over biological sex or the legitimacy of trans athletes competing against women​.

In this revealing conversation, Andrew Bridgen, former Member of Parliament, shares his first-hand account of the alarming discrepancies surrounding his electoral defeat, where his vote share mysteriously plummeted from 63% to 3%. Bridgen dissects the deeper implications of this loss—unacknowledged by the mainstream media—and links it to a broader pattern of selective scrutiny, government overreach, and corporate interests undermining democracy. From vaccine controversies to two-tier law enforcement and the erosion of civil liberties, Bridgen paints a stark picture of modern governance. His observations speak to a growing global phenomenon, where those in power operate with impunity, and critical events are met with an unsettling silence. 1. The Mysterious Election Results Bridgen reflected on his shocking election loss, where his vote count plummeted from 63% to 3%. He highlighted several irregularities, including the en-masse resignation of election officials and unexplained delays in ballot counts. Despite widespread local support, Bridgen found the results inexplicable and suspicious. "It doesn't make sense. I know what winning feels like; I've done it four times. Wherever I go, people tell me they voted for me." He noted how the mainstream media’s silence on his defeat only deepened his suspicions. "If I had really been humiliated at the polls, the media would have celebrated it. But there was nothing." 2. The Vaccine Debate and Government Overreach Bridgen critiqued the government's handling of COVID-19, especially the push for mRNA vaccines. He described the vaccine rollout as a disaster, driven more by corporatist interests than public health. "The biggest crime in humanity ever has been committed, and it’s ongoing with the so-called vaccines. They are neither safe nor effective." Bridgen also expressed concerns over the erosion of democratic principles, as governments worldwide seemed to be in lockstep with pharmaceutical companies and supranational organizations like the WHO. "Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer are both owned by the World Economic Forum. They don’t serve the people." 3. Selective Scrutiny and Media Silence Bridgen lamented the lack of accountability in government scandals, drawing comparisons to other high-profile cases, including Jeffrey Epstein. "Everywhere you go, there are cameras—except when Epstein ‘decides’ to kill himself." This selective scrutiny extended to the government’s handling of vaccine injuries and excess deaths. Bridgen argued that the lack of transparency was intentional and that political elites were using crises to further their own agendas. "The only pandemic we’ve had is a pandemic of fear, and it’s got to stop." 4. Immigration and Two-Tier Law Enforcement Bridgen also touched on immigration issues in the UK, noting how the government’s policies were fueling social tensions while failing to address the concerns of the working class. "One in twenty-seven people in the UK have been here for less than two years. And we’ve got a housing shortage. No one dares to do anything about it." He described the unequal application of law enforcement, where certain communities seemed to be policed more leniently. "I saw Muslim men armed with machetes in Birmingham, and the police asked them to leave their weapons in the mosque and go home. It’s two-tier law enforcement."

Michaéla Schippers,"Is Society Caught Up in a Death Spiral? In "Is Society Caught Up in a Death Spiral? Modeling Societal Demise and Its Reversal," Dr. Michaéla Schippers, alongside John P. A. Ioannidis and Matthias W. J. Luijks, delivers a piercing analysis of our current societal trajectory, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper isn't just theoretical; it's a stark diagnosis of what the authors identify as a perilous downward spiral gripping our world. The heart of their argument is the "Death Spiral Effect," a model that illustrates how societies can spiral into decline when crises like the pandemic are met with poorly managed responses. Dr. Schippers highlights how the initial reactions—lockdowns, school closures, and broad restrictions—did more harm than good. "Hunger has doubled since 2020," she states, pointing to the dire consequences of these measures. The "Death Spiral Effect" shows how panic-driven decisions lead to a series of escalating negative outcomes, such as increasing inequality, loss of freedoms, and a deepening mistrust in institutions. Dr. Schippers vividly describes this process: "We are running around like ants," she says, underscoring the chaotic and uncontrolled nature of this societal decline. A key factor in this spiral is the phenomenon of groupthink, where societal pressures enforce conformity and suppress dissent. "Pressure to conform has become the norm," Dr. Schippers warns, emphasizing how this stifling environment has led to a myopic focus on specific outcomes, often at the expense of long-term consequences. Despite the grim situation, Dr. Schippers and her co-authors offer a way forward. They advocate for "turnaround leadership"—leaders who are committed to reassessing and altering the course of society based on a broader understanding of the situation. "We need leaders who are not in it for themselves," Dr. Schippers insists, calling for selfless leadership as a key to reversing the downward spiral. The paper challenges readers to recognize the signs of societal collapse and to act before it becomes irreversible. Dr. Schippers urges a collective effort to "break the downward spiral" and to restore trust, reduce inequalities, and build a society where people can thrive. She believes that through open-mindedness, genuine leadership, and a collective commitment to change, it is possible to reverse the current trajectory and create a more resilient and prosperous society.

In the twilight of Britain's once-great empire, as the streets of Leeds, Sheffield, Croydon, Stoke, Birmingham, London grow restless --Daniel Jupp (author of "The Great Treason" and "The Gates of Hell") is more than just a critic; he is a prophet of a looming darkness, warning of a future where the West's deep-seated self-hatred and betrayal of its own people lead inevitably to its downfall. "The West had a psychological crisis following both world wars," he observes, "no longer believed in itself." This crisis of confidence, he argues, has been ruthlessly exploited by external adversaries and internal traitors alike, creating a scenario in which the leaders of Western nations now actively work against the very citizens they are supposed to protect. Jupp’s critique of contemporary Britain is as relentless as it is necessary. "We are now all midgets," he declares with biting precision, "and the biggest midgets are the people that lead us." In a country where democracy has become a mere shadow of its former self, and where the ruling class is more obsessed with superficial virtue-signaling than with safeguarding the welfare of its own citizens, his words strike a chord of undeniable truth. The grand liberal experiment that once defined the West has, in his view, been hijacked by those who loathe the very foundations upon which it was built. He paints a stark picture of a society where the natural patriotism that once united its people has been systematically dismantled by the traumatic aftermath of two world wars and the subsequent rise of internationalism. "Nationalism defeated Nazism," he reminds us—a fact that has been conveniently erased from the public consciousness by Marxist historians who have rewritten the narrative of the 20th century. In their revisionist hands, patriotism has been contorted into a grotesque caricature, equated with the very fascism it once fought so valiantly to destroy. Jupp's warnings are as stark as they are unsettling: "What little they did when they were in office was clearly things that weren't going to solve any of the problems." The Conservative Party, once a stalwart defender of British values, has become indistinguishable from its opposition, with both parties marching in lockstep toward the same globalist agenda. In this bleak and unyielding landscape, Jupp stands out as one of the few voices willing to speak the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be for those who hear it. Through his unflinching analysis, Jupp forces us to confront the uncomfortable truths of our time: the betrayal of the working class, the erosion of national identity, and the rise of a new form of tyranny that masquerades as progressive governance. "The basic fact is that no culture in history has had the levels of mass immigration that Western nations now are told is normal," he warns. As the cultural and social fabric of Britain begins to tear at the seams, Jupp’s voice serves as a steadfast beacon, urging us to recognize the gravity of the situation and to act before it is too late. In a world increasingly dominated by globalist elites who disdain the very notion of national sovereignty, Jupp’s insights are a clarion call to those who still believe in the principles of freedom and self-determination. His analysis of Britain’s current predicament is not just an indictment of the present leadership, but a rallying cry for all who value the liberties that were hard-won by previous generations. As the storm clouds gather on the horizon, Daniel Jupp’s voice remains a crucial guide for navigating the turbulent waters ahead. His message is clear: only by confronting these harsh truths can we hope to preserve what remains of our freedoms and avoid the descent into an era of tyranny and despair.

George Webb doesn’t mince words when he discusses the significance of recent events: "You can't compare this to the Kennedy assassination or even Reagan," he asserts. What’s unfolding now rivals the gravitas of Caesar’s assassination, with the very fabric of democratic governance hanging in the balance. Despite the presence of thirty thousand attendees, armed with 30-megapixel cameras, we are left piecing together grainy images and fragmented timelines, as if the truth itself is deliberately obscured. "If you want to see the dark hand, you have to wait for these events," Webb continues. He sees these assassination attempts as a "live study, a live autopsy" of how the deep state operates. The FBI had long known about Crooks, a sniper who frequented shooting ranges, preparing for something far more sinister than a hunting trip. "We had 700 messages over that four or five-year period," Webb recounts, messages that detailed bomb-making, detonators, and potential targets, including former President Trump. Yet, despite the evidence, a veil of negligence—willful, according to Webb—clouds the investigation. "What part of, 'Hey, I should collect a group of people around the Pittsburgh area that are a threat to Trump' do you not understand?" Webb asks, incredulous at the lack of action. "The last thing I would do is leave anything uncovered," he continues, highlighting the glaring absence of precaution in a situation where the stakes couldn't be higher. The most damning evidence of this negligence comes from the Special Agent in Charge, Rojek, who revealed that Crooks had been on the roof from 6:05 to 6:11 PM, precisely when Trump took the stage. Yet, "they all say they went to a vending machine," Webb notes, incredulous. "That’s the one time you don’t want to go to the vending machine." As the story unfolds, Webb paints a picture of a security apparatus not just asleep at the wheel, but perhaps complicit in its dereliction. "This isn't one person leaving their post; this is six people simultaneously leaving," he points out, drawing a chilling parallel to John Wilkes Booth and the lone guard who left Lincoln vulnerable. The involvement of Maxwell Yearick and his possible accomplice Kennan Hooper raises even more questions. "Yearick has been on the FBI's watch list, but he’s nowhere to be found since the Trump assassination," Webb notes, suggesting that the dark hand behind these events may extend further than anyone has yet acknowledged. In the end, the real question isn't just about who pulled the trigger, but who allowed it to happen. "Any one person could have stopped the whole assassination," Webb concludes, laying bare the unsettling truth that sometimes, the most dangerous conspiracies are the ones hiding in plain sight. Webb’s work as a citizen journalist underscores the critical role independent voices play in uncovering the truth. In an age where mainstream narratives often obscure rather than illuminate, it’s the tireless efforts of individuals like Webb who bring hidden details to light. This mirrors my own experience with the Zika virus, where I spent nearly a year researching the phenomenon. Like Webb, I found that what the public was told didn’t quite match the reality. In my book Overturning Zika, I expose how fear was engineered to serve larger agendas. Who uncovers the truth these days? Often, it’s those who refuse to accept the official story, who dig deeper, and who, like Webb, are willing to challenge the status quo.

Today's academic landscape has shifted dramatically. David Barnhizer, Professor of Law Emeritus at Cleveland State University with law degrees from Ohio State and Harvard, highlights the deliberate transformation of colleges into conformity machines. Barnhizer, a veteran of the university system, began his career in legal services, representing low-income clients and teaching the "Economics of Poverty." He has held various teaching and consulting positions, both in the U.S. and internationally, including work with governments and NGOs on environmental and legal issues. Once bastions of critical thinking, universities now churn out students indoctrinated with political agendas. Critical legal studies, once about intellectual growth, evolved into critical race theory, spreading through academia like a "war of attrition." This infiltration of ideology into education has led to what Barnhizer calls the "capture of the university system." He asserts, "What we now refer to as the Woke/Critical Race Theory activist movement...were not simply seeking to expand the nature and content of the university curriculum...Their intent was and is to destabilize, transform, and supplant what is taught." In his book *Conformity Colleges*, Barnhizer explains how Wokeism and Critical Race Theory have not simply expanded university curricula but are designed to destabilize education, prioritizing political agendas over intellectual discourse. "The activists of the Woke/Critical Race Theory Movement are not an honest intellectual movement," Barnhizer states. Under the guise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), universities have become platforms for "Division, Enmity, and Intimidation," suppressing free speech and dissent. "Nothing of significance can be done to stop what is going on unless the DEI administrative bureaucracy that now controls universities is dismantled or substantially weakened," he warns. "Shut up is never an answer" rings true in this era of cancel culture, yet dissenting voices are routinely silenced. The traditional ideals of education—critical thinking, open discourse, and intellectual rigor—have been replaced by political indoctrination. Barnhizer notes that hiring practices in academia now favor political leanings over merit. "The revolutionaries of race, gender, and other radical interests metamorphosed...and revealed themselves as ideological dictators," he observes. Those brought in to teach are often chosen for their adherence to specific ideologies, rather than their academic qualifications. Barnhizer also underscores the issue of universities' long-term strategy to control not only higher education but also K-12 systems. Teachers and administrators trained in these conformity colleges perpetuate the cycle, ensuring that future generations are shaped by the same narrow ideologies. "They seek to create a culture that elevates their interests while aggressively repressing anything they see as an obstacle to power," he explains. The infiltration is deep, and the stakes are high. The shift is clear. As you’ve said, "They pretend to educate, and students pretend to learn," a sentiment reflecting the transactional nature of today's education. College degrees have become credentials, stripped of real intellectual value. Barnhizer argues that the only way to address this decay is to break the system and reform it. Many private institutions are already crumbling, as fewer students see the value in a politically charged, overpriced education. Stopping the funding, as some states are doing, defunding DEI programs, and encouraging alternative education paths may provide a solution. "The power to use the university as an overarching medium that offers a strong sense of legitimacy to even flawed and overstated arguments is why the institution is a target of an ideological Left," Barnhizer notes. Institutions must get back to a business model that reflects real value, or parallel systems will emerge that bypass the academic industrial complex entirely.

In my recent conversation with Dr. Anna Nolin, Newton’s Superintendent of Schools, it was clear that she is thorough, thoughtful, and genuinely invested in the success of the district. She stepped into a challenging role, taking over at a time when public confidence in our schools had been shaken by the pandemic and enrollment had dropped by 14%. Despite these obstacles, Dr. Nolin has remained committed to improving Newton's schools, even as she navigates a complex landscape shaped by union contracts, financial inertia, and community expectations. Dr. Nolin’s leadership is a refreshing contrast to the typical bureaucratic responses we often see in public institutions. She’s forthright in addressing the realities of the district’s situation and doesn’t shy away from tough questions. The pandemic left Newton’s schools closed near-endlessly, and many families moved their children to other schools—especially local Catholic ones, which stayed open without significant health consequences. This exodus hasn’t led to a reduction in the school budget, though. It remains stubbornly untouched, even as fewer students are enrolled, a point of contention for many who believe that resources are being mismanaged. Dr. Nolin faces additional challenges in reforming a system that doesn’t easily bend. The powerful teachers' union holds a strong grip on the district, making it difficult to introduce sweeping changes. Charter schools, which could offer a competitive and innovative alternative, aren’t within her jurisdiction—they are handled at the state level, leaving her with limited options. However, she is clearly working hard within the confines of what is possible. She’s been actively restructuring leadership teams, fostering better community engagement, and addressing issues like mental health support and curriculum improvements. The recent teacher strike, which was illegal, has only compounded the district’s challenges. Despite this, Dr. Nolin has stayed focused on finding solutions, even if the broader system resists change. The school committee, our only direct democratic influence over the schools, moves slowly and is hamstrung by contracts that lock much of the budget into place. For all of this, I remain optimistic about Dr. Nolin’s leadership. She is the right person to be leading Newton’s schools at this time. Her honesty and transparency are exactly what the district needs, and while she can’t change everything on her own, she is making progress where she can. The road ahead is long, and it will take community involvement and support to drive the deeper changes needed. Dr. Nolin can’t do it all by herself, but with the right backing, she has the potential to guide our schools toward a better future. (Perhaps on our next discussion, we will address: Programs aimed at advanced students have slowly eroded, while the district continues to pour resources into inclusivity and special education without balancing the needs of its highest achievers. )

David Bell, MD, PhD, offered a striking critique of the modern public health landscape. As a seasoned physician and infectious disease expert with over 25 years of experience working in low-income countries, Bell provided a unique perspective on the shift toward vaccine-centered public health initiatives. His central argument is that diseases like TB, malaria, and HIV, which are responsible for a staggering death toll in the Third World, are being sidelined because they don’t have the glamour of a vaccine. "We’ve allowed the (vaccine-) business model to become the driving force of international public health," Bell remarked. He notes that instead of focusing on systemic improvements like sanitation, nutrition, and living conditions, global health agencies and pharmaceutical companies have become obsessed with developing and selling vaccines for diseases, regardless of the actual public health need. "The large pharmaceutical companies and their investors have seen opportunities, particularly in vaccines," he continues, pointing out that selling vaccines to millions of people—most of whom aren’t at risk—has become an incredibly profitable model. One of Bell’s key criticisms is the way public health resources are being diverted to diseases like Mpox (formerly monkeypox), while far deadlier diseases continue to ravage poorer countries. TB kills hundreds of thousands annually, while malaria claims thousands of lives each month. Yet, the world is more focused on producing millions of doses of Mpox vaccines for a disease with a relatively low fatality rate. "Monkeypox has been around for 25-30 years, but it’s almost certainly thousands of years old," Bell notes, adding that its reservoir is in rodents, not monkeys, and it spreads primarily through close physical contact. Despite this, Mpox was declared a public health emergency of international concern, leading to a rush for vaccines that Bell sees as unnecessary. "Follow the money," he advises, emphasizing that this has less to do with public health and more to do with financial incentives. "Vaccines are a medication. They have benefits and risks, just like anything else." Bell’s perspective stems from his years on the frontlines, where malaria, HIV, and TB have decimated populations. Unlike these chronic diseases, which require long-term strategies, vaccines offer a quick fix—and an even quicker profit. He questions why global health organizations and media outlets blow relatively small issues like Mpox into global crises while ignoring the ongoing disasters of diseases that claim far more lives. In his view, the WHO has become complicit in this shift, largely due to its funding model. Bell explains that the organization's reliance on earmarked donations from countries with large pharmaceutical interests has shifted its focus. "The WHO is 80% funded by private donations, many from pharmaceutical companies," Bell says. This, he believes, explains why there’s a disproportionate emphasis on diseases that can be "solved" with vaccines, while more fundamental health issues like nutrition go unaddressed. "If they could make the same noise about basic nutrition support as they do about vaccines, we’d be in a much better place," Bell argues. He sums up the current state of public health with a sharp observation: "Things aren’t getting worse in terms of disease. It’s just getting easier to make money out of it." This encapsulates Bell’s frustration with the industry’s direction. He isn’t against vaccines; rather, he is against the way they have come to dominate public health discourse at the expense of more pressing, long-term solutions. As long as the focus remains on vaccine development, genuine public health emergencies—like those found in impoverished nations—will continue to be ignored. Follow the money has become the guiding principle, and until that changes, malaria, TB, and HIV will remain in the shadows, killing millions while the spotlight shines on diseases that fit the vaccine narrative. #Vaccines #Mpox #PublicHealth #WHO #TB #Malaria #PharmaceuticalProfits #InfectiousDiseases #GlobalHealth #Monkeypox