New Abnormal

1. COVID-19 Response Revealed an Emerging Biomedical Security State

The unholy alliance of (1) public health, (2) digital technologies of surveillance and control, and (3) the police powers of the state—what I call the Biomedical Security State—has arrived.

A new paradigm. The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the rapid emergence of a new form of governance: the Biomedical Security State. This system integrates public health concerns with state power, leveraging advanced digital technologies for surveillance and control over populations. It prioritizes theoretical future biological risks over known present human goods.

Beyond public health. This emerging state reframes various societal issues—social, environmental, economic—as public health crises, justifying the invocation of emergency powers. This leads to a cycle of declared emergencies, each requiring extra-legislative or extra-judicial executive actions and systematic control over citizens, often overriding individual rights and privacy in the name of collective health.

Accelerated by crisis. While developing for decades, this paradigm was massively accelerated by the pandemic. It relies on a "worst case" logic derived from hypothetical scenarios to justify extreme measures like lockdowns and mandates, demanding adherence from citizens as a legal obligation for health, rather than a right.

2. Historical Roots of Biomedical Control Lie in Eugenics and Totalitarianism

The first people gassed by the Nazis were not Jews in concentration camps (that came later) but disabled patients in psychiatric hospitals, killed without their consent under the Third Reich’s T4 Euthanasia Program beginning in 1939.

Eugenics origins. The idea of state control over population health has dark historical roots, notably in the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. Originating in the US and Britain, eugenics aimed at "self-direction of human evolution" through controlling reproduction, leading to forced sterilizations of those deemed "unfit" based on pseudoscience and discriminatory criteria.

Shift in medical ethics. A fateful shift occurred when physicians' loyalty moved from the individual patient to the "social organism" (the people as a whole). This utilitarian ethos, prevalent in German medicine before and during the Nazi era, allowed individuals deemed "cancers" on society (like the disabled) to be eliminated for the perceived health of the whole, culminating in atrocities like the T4 Euthanasia Program.

Lessons from Nuremberg. The Nuremberg trials after WWII exposed the horrific medical experiments conducted without consent, leading to the Nuremberg Code and the principle of free and informed consent as foundational to medical ethics. However, the pandemic saw a disturbing abandonment of this principle, echoing the utilitarian justifications used by Nazi doctors who argued their actions were for the "greater good" or scientific progress.

3. The State of Emergency Became a Tool for Expanding Power

A society which exists in a constant state of emergency cannot be free.

Normalization of exception. The "state of exception," intended for rare crises, has become increasingly normalized globally, often continuing for years or decades. During the pandemic, declared states of emergency served as the legal mechanism to justify authoritarian measures like lockdowns, school closures, and mandates that would otherwise be rejected.

Undefined thresholds. Crucially, the criteria for declaring or ending a public health emergency were deliberately left undefined. This allowed executives and unelected officials to arrogate or delegate extraordinary powers without clear checks and balances, perpetuating the emergency state long after initial justifications waned, as seen with the renewal of the US federal emergency based on cumulative death counts.

Leveraging crises. As Rahm Emanuel noted, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." The pandemic provided an opportunity for governments and elites to implement measures previously impossible, accelerating the acceptance of invasive surveillance and control infrastructures under the pretext of public safety, moving from one declared crisis to the next.

4. Digital Surveillance and Control Are Central to the New Paradigm

In our technocratic society, the new digital surveillance and control mechanisms will be no less oppressive for being virtual rather than physical.

Ubiquitous monitoring. The Biomedical Security State relies heavily on digital technologies to monitor and control populations, treating citizens as potential disease vectors. This includes:

• Contact-tracing apps
• Surveillance drones
• Facial recognition technology
• Data mining of private health and location information

Erosion of privacy. Examples like Israel's Shin Bet tracking phones, Canada's Public Health Agency analyzing mobile data, and the CDC tracking millions of phones demonstrate how pandemic measures normalized intrusive surveillance, often without consent or clear legal basis, and with intentions to extend such monitoring beyond COVID-19.

The digital panopticon. This era sees the rise of a global digital panopticon, where constant surveillance is possible, leading to self-policing and social conformity. Crowdsourced surveillance via social media and technologies like smart glasses enhance this, creating a system where privacy is diminished and dissent can be suppressed through public shaming and exclusion.

5. Corporatism Merges State and Corporate Power for Elite Benefit

States become their executive instruments.

Upward wealth transfer. The pandemic response, particularly lockdowns, resulted in a massive upward transfer of wealth. While small businesses closed and millions fell into poverty, billionaires saw their wealth skyrocket, demonstrating that policies framed as public health measures often served financial and political interests.

Public-private partnerships. This outcome is facilitated by corporatism, the merging of corporate and state power, often euphemistically termed "public-private partnerships" or "stakeholder capitalism." Organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF) articulate and advance the agenda of global corporations and financial elites, who actively shape policies in their favor.

Influence over institutions. Corporate interests exert outsized influence through lobbying, funding of media and research, and the "revolving door" between regulatory agencies (like the FDA, CDC, NIH) and the industries they oversee. This regulatory capture ensures that corporate profit motives often trump public health and safety concerns, as seen with vaccine development, mandates, and data transparency issues.

6. Scientism, Not Science, Provides the Ideological Justification

The characteristic feature of scientism is unwarranted certainty, which leads to intellectual hubris.

Science vs. Scientism. Science is a method of inquiry characterized by warranted uncertainty, debate, and openness to revision. Scientism, however, is a philosophical ideology claiming science is the only valid form of knowledge, leading to unwarranted certainty and intellectual hubris. It functions as a religion, demanding unquestioning belief.

Monopoly on truth. Like totalitarian ideologies, scientism claims a monopoly on knowledge and rationality, dismissing dissenting views as irrational or "unscientific." This allows those in power to hide behind "The Science" or "The Experts" to justify political decisions, silencing critics through defamation and exclusion from public discourse rather than reasoned argument.

Distorted values. Scientism distorts societal values by prioritizing purely material well-being and bare biological life above all other human and spiritual goods (family, community, freedom, worship). This reductionist view treats humans as mere biological algorithms or raw material to be managed and controlled, ignoring the full spectrum of human flourishing.

7. Lockdowns and Mandates Were Ineffective and Harmful Policies

In 2021 we conducted the largest experiment on human subjects in world history. Without informed consent. That experiment failed.

Untested measures. Lockdowns, a penal concept, were unprecedented public health measures with no prior empirical evidence of efficacy against respiratory viruses. They were adopted based on flawed models and failed to prevent viral spread, only delaying it while inflicting immense economic and social costs.

Collateral damage. Lockdowns and associated policies caused severe collateral damage, including:

• Massive increases in anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation, particularly among young adults.
• Sharp rises in drug overdose and alcohol-related deaths ("The Other Pandemic").
• Increased deaths from other illnesses due to delayed medical care.
• Devastating impacts on the elderly from isolation.
• Supply chain crises and economic devastation.

Mandates ignored science. Vaccine mandates and passports, implemented coercively, ignored robust scientific evidence of natural immunity's superiority and durability compared to vaccine immunity. They introduced unnecessary risks for many, particularly the young and naturally immune, while failing to prevent infection or transmission, becoming tools for social control and discrimination rather than effective public health interventions.

8. Personal Resistance and Legal Challenges Are Possible

How could I continue to call myself a medical ethicist if I failed to do what I was convinced was morally right under pressure?

Standing on principle. The author's personal story illustrates the cost and necessity of resisting the emerging regime. As a medical ethicist, he felt compelled to challenge the University of California's vaccine mandate, arguing it violated informed consent and equal protection rights by ignoring natural immunity.

Facing consequences. His resistance led to professional retaliation, including investigatory leave, unpaid suspension, and ultimately termination from his academic position. This experience, shared by countless others who lost jobs or faced exclusion for noncompliance, highlights the coercive power of mandates and the climate of fear that discouraged dissent.

Legal avenues. Despite institutional power and regulatory capture, legal challenges offer a means of resistance. Lawsuits challenging mandates, demanding data transparency from agencies like the CDC and FDA, and contesting government collusion with social media for censorship are crucial battles fought in the courts to defend constitutional rights and hold institutions accountable.

9. The Transhumanist Vision Seeks to Redefine Humanity

Humans are now hackable animals.

Technological "upgrade". The Biomedical Security State aligns with the transhumanist vision, which seeks to use technology (gene editing, AI, nanotechnology) to fundamentally alter human nature, "upgrading" humans into something "better than well." Figures like Yuval Noah Harari articulate this goal, viewing humans as "biological algorithms" that can be hacked and re-engineered.

Disdain for the body. This vision often reflects a neo-Gnostic disdain for the material world and the human body, seeing them as limitations to be overcome. The dream is to transcend biological constraints, perhaps even uploading consciousness to inorganic substrates, promising liberation from suffering and death through technology.

Useless people. Transhumanism raises profound ethical questions, including the potential for creating a split into different species based on technological enhancement and the problem of what to do with those deemed "useless" or unwilling to be "upgraded." This echoes the eugenicists' view of the disabled and suggests a philosophy that risks profound dehumanization.

10. Overcoming Fear and Reclaiming Human Connection Are Essential

Whoever learns how to die has learned how not to be a slave.

Fear's paralysis. Overcoming the pervasive fear cultivated during the pandemic is the necessary first step for resistance. Fear "bewilders us," incapacitates clear thinking, prevents social solidarity, and leads to withdrawal and disengagement, making it impossible to build a more human future.

Beyond security. While security is important, it cannot be the highest good or the sole aim of the state. Human life is fragile, but we are resilient and capable of facing challenges with courage. Prioritizing bare biological life above all else, as the Biomedical Security State does, leads to a dehumanizing existence devoid of essential human goods and connections.

Reclaiming faces. Policies like mask mandates, framed as public health measures, also inflicted harms by impeding personal connection and making people "faceless." Refusing to remain faceless and actively rebuilding face-to-face relationships, friendships, and community bonds is crucial for countering the isolation and alienation fostered by the new paradigm.

11. Institutional Reforms and Local Action Offer Hope

It will take decades to rebuild public trust in these institutions.

Reforming agencies. Rebuilding trust in public health agencies (NIH, CDC, FDA) requires deep reforms to address regulatory capture, conflicts of interest, and lack of transparency. Proposals include:

• Bipartisan congressional investigation of the pandemic response.
• Senate ratification and term limits for agency directors.
• Robust firewalls against pharma funding and the revolving door.
• Public funding and independent conduct of clinical trials.
• Splitting the CDC's data collection and policy functions.

Restoring science. Science itself needs reform to counter groupthink and improve rigor. This includes:

• Open peer review for scientific publications.
• Requiring pre-registration of study methodology.
• Addressing the replication crisis.
• Decentralizing research funding (e.g., state-level NIH).
• Restoring physician autonomy in prescribing.

Legal limits on emergency. The state of emergency must be strictly limited by law, requiring legislative ratification or judicial review with clear time limits and defined thresholds. This prevents executives from unilaterally extending emergency powers and jumping from one crisis to the next, as seen with attempts to use emergency powers for issues like abortion access.

12. The Future Depends on Individual Choices and Collective Action

The future really depends on what we do now.

History is not predetermined. Contrary to deterministic ideologies, history is not set in stone but is shaped by the decisions of individuals. The rise of the Biomedical Security State is not inevitable; it is a consequence of specific choices and widespread compliance.

Rejecting the paradigm. We must clearly demonstrate that there are strict limits to what citizens will accept under the guise of public health emergencies. This requires saying a resounding "no" to ongoing states of emergency, digital IDs, central bank digital currencies, and other tools of surveillance and control designed for a technocratic future.

Building rooted communities. Resistance requires more than just saying no; it requires building a more rooted human future. This involves:

• Overcoming fear and self-censorship.
• Reclaiming historical memory and enduring values.
• Rebuilding face-to-face relationships and community bonds.
• Engaging in dignified work and contributing to the common good.
• Pursuing truth and exercising reasoned judgment, not outsourcing it to "experts."

Every individual has a part to play in resisting dehumanization and building a just, livable, and free world for future generations.

Last updated: June 12, 2025