Dr Rancourt, arguing against the proposition, responds to Tim Anderson’s first response from 17 Oct:
Tim spins a narrative about COVID-19, which is primarily intended to validate the state practice of medicine in select socialist jurisdictions (“China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria”), while invalidating the state practice of medicine in select neo-liberal jurisdictions (“UK, USA, Sweden, Brazil”).
Tim is focused on political doctrine, and thus unable or unwilling to address my criticisms of his partisan views about COVID-19. I reiterate my criticisms below.
Likewise, it appears that Tim (who is in Australia) is significantly mistaken in terms of what actually occurred in Syria, according to a report by on-site investigative journalist Eva Bartlett. Are Tim’s interpretations of the actual events for other countries also mistaken?
Tim and I share disdain for the mass crimes of empire, and admiration for Cuba, which brilliantly practices diplomacy by humanistic medicine, but I cannot accept Tim’s baseless arguments about COVID-19.
State medicine has a potential to be harmful, in both socialist and neo-liberal systems, not least via its paternalistic religion-like mesmerizing of the population. Medicine most everywhere has been modelled into a state religion, which creates an unhealthy dependence, and a debilitating perception of one’s own body and place in the world.Great VIRAL Debate: Round 2: Dr Rancourt’s Second Response