Dolls sounds more like a 6 to 10 year old than a 12 year old.

In the video game age, yes. But this was thirteen-and-a-half centuries ago. Plus, she was rich and spoiled. Dolls at 12 is hardly implausible.

Mohammed was born without, or with little, foreskin, which is why most Mohammedans circumcise today. (The Obamas’ Luo seem to be an exception.) He was thus physiologically an outlier. Perhaps Aisha was, too. A well-fed girl will reach puberty before her scrawny desert counterpart.

Mohamad frottaged Aisha as soon as she moved into his tent with her dolls. She wrote about it so did mohammed. Dolls sounds more like a 6 to 10 year old than a 12 year old. Her father was the most important sheik in the area. She came from an important family and behaved like members of important families do. Mohammed probably gave her the clap which sterilizes women

European civilization did not begin with the Greeks 2,500 years ago. 2, 500 years ago was just 550 years before the reign of Julius Ceasear and the birth of Jesus. The Romans had already conquered Gaulle and invaded England. Stone henge was already centuries old. The gualles in what is now France were already renowned for their finely woven woolen cloth and dyes especially blue. And fine wines which the romans imported.

European civilization was well on its way about 7,000 years ago.

After all, free sex is Allah’s gift to conquerors and Mohammad married Aisha when she was 6.

She was probably older than that. He waited three years to consummate the marriage, probably at menarche, to begin a family descended from both him and Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, a critical political and military ally.

Mohammed’s first wife was much older than he, and clearly a similar step up. To Mo, the purpose of sex was to secure power, not the other way ’round.

Aisha turned out to be barren. But she grew to be her husband’s most fanatical supporter, greatly inspiring his followers after his death.

The purpose of religion is not preserving one’s race; it’s saving the soul.

Judaism does both.

Also, soul inhabits the body. You must preserve the bodies as the vessels of the souls.

White souls in white bodies.

The purpose of religion is not preserving one’s race; it’s saving the soul. You can preserve the race through stringent immigration measures and chucking out the sexual revolution, through awesome state force. The idea of insincerely latching onto the transcendent for purely temporal aims is crude and nuts. A hundred years from now, whether white people are flourishing or hunted, their ultimate concern will still be the eternal fate of their soul – as for blacks, browns, and yellows.
Christianity does not support the great replacement. All the sewage of liberalism exists because Westerners gradually turned away from God beginning in the fifteenth century. Christians managed to get through nearly two millennia without pondering whether Frankenpope and Priss-Freud’s blunt interpretation of Christian charity was what their faith was all about. Any intelligent person can see that no one except oligarchs benefits in the long run from mass immigration, including the immigrants themselves; no sincere and thoughtful altruist would think otherwise.
Communists have infiltrated the church because that’s exactly what the devil would do to the one true faith, as even a non-believer ought to admit.

The canard of priests being pedophiles is a lie

While most priests weren’t pedos, the deep state bureaucracy and ritualism rendered the Catholic Church vulnerable to conspiracy, intrigue, and politicization. The rise of Protestantism was the first great revolution in post-Rome Europe, spiritually and politically. Of course, most Protestant churches also soon became state churches, and many of them got crazy, and today, Protestantism has no value whatsoever, but then the Catholic Church has a satanist as its grand master. Catholic Church was bound to be taken over by cabals and factions because of its very bureaucratic and politicized nature. Lavender Lobby is huge.

It is also a interracist church and great replacement church.

What white people need isn’t Christianity but something like their own Judaism.
Christianity universalized Jewish spiritual ideas, but it would have done better to universalize Jewish particularism, i.e. make every group form their own covenant with the Great Being.

European slavery gradually died out; deeply ingrained institutions don’t just die overnight (with the exception of Aztec human sacrifice, courtesy of Our Lady). Pope Paul III banned slavery in the Americas but the papal edict was ignored.

The soul of Christianity is anti-slavery, but Christianity also prioritizes the afterlife, the spiritual realm. Therefore, it preaches meekness and acceptance of the rottenness of the world. Don’t try to save the world that isn’t savable. Just accept your lot in the world and try to save your soul, the only thing that can be saved. Then, your soul will enter Heaven.
While this wasn’t meant to lend aid to the rich and powerful, it was used by the rich and powerful to control the masses. Don’t revolt, just accept your lot. For most of its history, the church served the rich and powerful and urged meekness, not revolution, among the masses. In Latin America, the church was controlled by whites and it urged upon the brown masses to be meek and accept their lot. Then, Liberation Theology came along that called for people to unite and revolt, but it was leftist use of religion than truly religious.

While many Christians opposed slavery, the true guiding spirit was the Enlightenment that took a very active role in trying to change and improve society. No more stuff about meekness and favoring heaven over earth. The point of the Enlightenment was to use progress, reason, and science to improve the world. And then capitalism made slavery less and less tenable as an economic model. While slavery can be profitable, it can also be burdensome to the masters. When a capitalist no longer needs his workers, he can just lay them off or fire them. In contrast, a master is responsible for his slaves, and he needs to find a buyer. To be sure, he could just make them go free, but as he bought them(than just hiring them), that would be a big loss.

What we came to appreciate as modern progress mostly came with the Enlightenment and secularism that replaced the old aristocratic-religious order.

Risible. Misses the Polish Vietnamese entirely,

European slavery gradually died out; deeply ingrained institutions don’t just die overnight (with the exception of Aztec human sacrifice, courtesy of Our Lady). Pope Paul III banned slavery in the Americas but the papal edict was ignored.

The canard of priests being pedophiles is a lie of the Jew media, fueled by post-‘60’s prejudice against celibacy as being creepy and unnatural. Teachers abuse at a higher rate than clergy, and Catholic priests are no more likely to abuse than other clergy. The abuse coverup scandal was the result of the homosexual and communist infiltration of the Church.
I defer to the authority of the Church and her (traditional) priests to interpret Scripture, because from my experience their interpretation has been quite reasonable and balanced.
I’m glad you at least recognize that Christianity is not for the weak and cowardly. Our Lord submitted to torture and death in atonement for your sins and mine. Don’t make light of it; He will not make light of your blasphemy at your judgment.
The Church was watered with the blood of martyrs before encompassing the earth. This world is a cruel and painful place; despising it, shunning its allurements, and storing our treasures in heaven seems to me a far wiser and more rational course than placing our faith and happiness in the worthless pleasures of the flesh. Embracing suffering, privation, and martyrdom is a far sturdier and manlier creed than the effete, sybaritic selfishness of the modern West.
None of the Christians I know slobber over BLM, the Jews, or globo-homo. Quite the contrary. The liberal Christians you’re referring to are marginal even among leftists, the overwhelming majority of whom are atheists, agnostics, or at best very vague theists. The mainstream churches caved to liberalism like all other powerful institutions, and have been culturally irrelevant for some time. It’s the conservative Christians who are actually producing large families and defying left-wing tyranny.
I’m not convinced that no Christian society has truly put Christ’s teachings into practice, unless you abide by a rigidly superficial interpretation of them. Christianity does not command poverty or celibacy, it merely recognizes that these are objectively the conditions most likely to lead to sanctification. I see nothing wrong with celibacy; it’s non-reproductive sex that corrupts the soul as well as society.
Pagan culture deserved to be exterminated, but the Church did a remarkable job at preserving its positive aspects. Today, we can enjoy the art of Homer and Wagner – really, what more paganism do we need?
I’m not sure what your point is about barbarous behavior by medieval Christians. They were wrong to bait bears – and this negates Christ’s sacrifice how?
Look, you can give yourself to Christ, or you can embrace a world in which the strong torture and massacre the weak. If you’re an Ãœbermensch, the world can be a delightful place – until you’re up against greater might than yours.
It’s the undeniable reality of unfathomable evil and boundless pain that led me to Christ. He’s all the truly wretched and powerless possess.

Do you know anything about traditional Latin mass Catholics, or are you choosing to ignore them because they don’t suit your animus?

A bunch of pedophiles and lunatics who did great harm to the genetic pool of Europe. Catholic church sucked in lots of smart men and made them celibate.
Also, Protestantism happened cuz the Roman Church was utterly decrepit and corrupt. Catholicism seems to say some official institution has the last word on God. Oh really? Who gave the corrupt pedophiles of the church such authority? When did Jesus say, “let all big questions be decided by pedophiles living in luxury and splendor?” Catholicism led to devil pope Francis. It is a shit religion.

Also, if Christianity is so sound, how could it be so easily corrupted by the Jews? Look all around Europe. It didn’t happen to a few churches but almost all of them. Look at the state of Ireland. Catholicism is crap.

Christ was not being literal when he said to turn the other cheek. He meant that we mustn’t lose our humanity when confronted with evil, not that we should submit to evil.

He meant it literally because He practiced it and whupped real bad and killed. Same with the Disciples who came to a bad end. They didn’t take up the sword but died in saintly manner. Jesus really meant for people to turn the other cheek. Christianity says it’s okay because even if you lose in this world physically, you can win eternally in the spiritual world. And loving your enemy is part of spiritual healing.
Now, turn the other cheek isn’t an act of cowardice. It takes great courage to not raise your fist and fight back, to stick to spiritual principle even when every bone in your body says, ‘fight back and smash his face in’. Turn-the-other-cheek isn’t submission but a defiance of another kind. Not by fighting back but by remaining true to one’s principles. But the fact is this is unrealistic and no Christian order that has survived ever practiced it, not even a little.

Christianity rescued Europe from the barbarism of slavery, gladiatorial matches, sex trafficking, and overall wanton cruelty.

Slavery and then serfdom lasted a long time under Christianity. Also, Christian kings and queens enjoyed blood sport like bear-baiting. Catholic Spain has bullfighting to the modern era. Crazed Christians once hunted down cats as witches’ helpers. Christians often used torture on heretics and enemies. Christians destroyed so much of pagan culture indigenous to Europe. Before UK finally ended the slave trade, Christian Europe greatly profited from massive expansion of slave trade. Also, Catholic Brazil wanted to preserve the slave trade and was forced to end only by the Brits.

I’m no fan of Muslims, but the notion that Christians were much better is a total joke.

Christianity does not permit polygamy, rape, prostitution, or fornication.

Yeah, the religion of ‘turn the other cheek’. History of Christianity is one big hypocrisy. If you follow Christianity to the letter, you just be defenseless and love thy enemy even as he beats you. And you have to forgo wealth and ambition. Well, the Christian world got rich and powerful with greed, conquest, exploitation, and mass violence.
Sure, you can say such wasn’t REAL Christianity, but it’s rather like saying all communist systems were not REAL communism. All we have are historical examples, and Christians were no better than Muslims. And even today, Christianity is on the side of rape and plunder, except against whites. Christians worship George Floyd and cave to globo-homo. They welcome the Great Replacement and cheer on Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. So, what good is Christianity when its practice is NEVER aligned with its anti-materialist pacifism?

Christianity lost its soul early on when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. It went from an anti-imperialist faith to a defender of imperialism and Roman Might, and Christians had no problem with massive use of violence to destroy remnants of paganism, the indigenous cultures of Europe.

An interesting point about THE SILENCE, Scorsese film of Endo novel, is it shows Christianity regains its original meaning ONLY WHEN Christians are powerless and have faith alone. That’s how the faith grew, and its meaning was lost when it joined forces with political and military power to invade and destroy, which is most of Christian history.

Correct as follow:
“because they don’t suit your animus� should be
“because their existence doesn’t suit your animus�

You know very well that the mainstream churches are compromised by Enlightenment values and modernist theology. Do you know anything about traditional Latin mass Catholics, or are you choosing to ignore them because they don’t suit your animus?
Christ was not being literal when he said to turn the other cheek. He meant that we mustn’t lose our humanity when confronted with evil, not that we should submit to evil. The church teaches spiritual equality, not open borders. Christianity rescued Europe from the barbarism of slavery, gladiatorial matches, sex trafficking, and overall wanton cruelty. Homosexuals were rightly persecuted when we were a Christian civilization. Muslims were kept out. It was pious Catholics who drove out the Moors. It was freethinking sodomites in Florence who put Europe on the path to feminism and jungle fever. Indeed, the transhumanist, sex-obsessed, radically individualistic West of today is far more similar to pagan Rome than to the glories of medieval Christendom.
You’re far too intelligent not to know this.

Don’t be disingenuous. Christianity does not permit polygamy, rape, prostitution, or fornication. The conquistadores spreading their seed were acting against the faith.

Please don’t let them , these traitors ruin our wonderful Christian culture . Keep your Faith.

Christianity is over. And it wasn’t natural to the West. It lasted for so long through persecution of heresy and blasphemy. Modern Era has shown Christianity is a cuck-faith in a field of freedom and open competition. We need a new vision that can withstand and win in a world of freedom.

Take away social and cultural repression, and Christianity LOSES. It now caves even to Zionists and butt-bang boys.

Islam is a rape cult and always has been.

The vast race-mixing in South America happened under Christians. Christianity is also a rape cult.

They are one of the most racist people on earth and they take in almost no immigrants and if they do they treat them like dogs and certainly would never marry any of them.

Cancer begins at the top. Elites spread cancerous ideas, and in a submissive and conformist society like Japan, things can change overnight. Remember Japanese vowed to fight to the last man, woman, and child against Americans, but after the defeat, most Japanese toed the New Line pushed by the comprador Japanese elites: America is Japan’s best buddies forever. Suddenly, Japan became the #1 whore to the US.

Japanese elites have no ideas and imitate the West. So, they are promoting globo-homo, jungle fever, and diversity, and it’s only a matter of time before Japanese masses, who are no less hooked to globalist media, esp in internet age.

Also, Japanese aren’t breeding, and big business and small business are pushing for mass immigration, and it will happen. Japan will fade.

Japan cannot survive without race-ism, that goes for every society. Race-ism is great.

Remember only several decades ago, UK and France were overwhelmingly native white, but the change of values and ideas led to vast demographic changes. It began with the elites pushing a new line.
The elites of Japan are pushing the same line, and the cancer will grow. Initially, cancer seems trivial but it never stops growing. And the cancer of globalism has certain taken root in Japan and East Asian pussies.

More rambling nonsense saying nothing as usual. Lets take one topic only: Japan. They are one of the most racist people on earth and they take in almost no immigrants and if they do they treat them like dogs and certainly would never marry any of them. But yet we buy all of their products? You can ditto that for South Korea and many Asian Countries. Why is it that some guy in the news or film or working at a corporation of a government agency can be fired for the smallest slip of the tongue but entire nations get away with extremist racist actions? That has always fascinated me. And could you imagine a black immigrant in any of those Countries…and lets throw in Israel too….and could you imagine a Jap marrying one of them or letting their daughter date one? But we are supposed to do just that. What a racket we put up with. What lies we live with.

Islam is a rape cult and always has been. Muhammad ordered the torture and beheading of the leader of the Jewish Banu Nadir tribe, then took his gold and his wife. (A far cry from Jesus or Buddha, that fellow.) For centuries, Moors and Turks conducted human trafficking raids on Europe until the French put a stop to it with their Algerian expedition in 1830. Name one other religion that so blatantly celebrates evil.
Granted, there are decent Muslims who restrict the faith to Eid, almsgiving, and the like. The Tatars and Bashkir of Russia on the whole are thoroughly moderate and more Russian than Mohammedan in mentality. But just as moderate drinkers must exist alongside raging alcoholics, domestic abusers, and fatal DUI cases, so do moderate Muslims bring along jihadis and white slavers. And just as we’d all be better off if no one drank, so the world would be a more agreeable place if the Meccans had silenced raving Mo’, Ali, Bilal, and the gang the same way he and his followers have silenced millions of infidels.

I realize my comment strayed from the focus of your article, which was more about whether culture could be authentically transferred to an alien race, rather than how much a culturally cohesive nation could survive racial/ethnic diversity. I don’t think culture (apart from religion) can migrate across races without being fundamentally transformed, but on a related note, I’m struck by how so many languages remained intact after crossing the ethnic barrier. How was it the subjugated Anatolians were able to absorb the Turkish tongue, which has a fiercely complex grammar, without the help of media or formal schooling?

Yes, I was shocked to hear she’d been taken by a woman I figured it was just some brutal Muslim gang rape. After all, free sex is Allah’s gift to conquerors and Mohammad married Aisha when she was 6.

Good article overall, but the question of the relative importance of race and culture is poorly framed. Even hard racists implicitly realize that culture is more essential, either by maintaining that culture cannot survive racial contamination, or by elevating race to the level of culture. These arguments are founded on the principle that a healthy culture is an absolute good; racial unity is but an indispensable means towards that end.
The real controversy is how much racial or ethnic variation a culture can withstand before it sinks into decadence and subjugation. I’m a soft, pragmatic racist. A limited amount of heterogeneity is usually unavoidable and inoffensive, but beyond some point, it leads inexorably to violence, decay, and extinction. I contrast my view with that of the hard, idealistic racists, who make a gross idol of race in itself with notions like “white destiny� or “white genius.�
Russia, Iran, and China can all handle an appreciable amount of diversity thanks to limited or nonexistent immigration, a core ethnic group with solid numerical and economic dominance, and a confident, world-class culture untroubled by wokeness. Interethnic tensions do exist, with nefarious Western entities lurking about waiting for the right moment to light the fuse, but hopefully by binding together these three great civilization-states can soldier on while the West is aflame.
On a related note, American Hispanics are one ethnic group for whom race is of dubious relevance. My Mexican heritage is evident in my mestizo features, but due to my English name and accented Spanish, Hispanics – about a third of whom are paler than I – rarely accept me as one of their own.

America was 58% white in 2020.

The elections in 2024, 2028, 2032, and onwards will be competitive. Even if Biden manages to rush in 10 million migrants through the southern border (the new policy this week of turning back Venezuelans shows he doesn’t want to do this because of consequences in 2024) and give them citizenship, America will probably be above 40% white in 2050. Lots of Hispanics vote for Republicans. The election in 2048 could be competitive.

:Because whites no longer own their own Map of Time, they have no deeper or broader sense of self. They only care about the self or individuality:
Who is writing this garbage ??? Psychologist?? Reading too much Freud ?
Please ,have a break.
Jews want to be called Jews but as Christ says ‘I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.â€� Rev.2v9
Greed, murder and occult cannot be called culture. It is part of human carnal nature, and in some people became a lifestyle. So we have them in every country working against us ,as apostle Paul writes
“And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:� Gal.2v4
Please don’t let them , these traitors ruin our wonderful Christian culture . Keep your Faith.

I agree with you that usually, you CAN’T change a culture unless there’s some race-mixing or imperialism involved (or manic-depressive-suicidal tendencies I also add).

But “religion related to race and ethnicity”? There are some cases but I see them as exceptions: Shinto to Japan, Judaism to jews, voodoo to Haiti etc.

Islam = Arab Imperialism? There are ~200 mil Arabs and 1.6-1.8 bn Muslims. Except the first three centuries of islam (till 1000 AD) power in muslim world belonged to turks and persians.

“Slavs = Orthodox”. And Egyptians copts, ortodox arabs, greeks romanians, georgians, and countless others who are not slavic? Conversely polish, czechs, slovaks who are slavic peoples but not ortodox?

In case of “Northern Europeans = Protestants” and “Southern Europeans = Catholics” it is apparently true but in reality not. When religion become related to ethnicity or race and an instrument to mainly worldly matters it degenerate quickly. In fact this is demonstrated by west Europe (northern or southern, and oversees alike)which are not religious but agnostic. Religion by definition cannot be other than universal it’s message being for all peoples not for some.

The only exception is judaism but this is a very particular case.

Excellent article of how not to put the problem!

First there are serious problems with terms put it aberant: “religion” “culture” “civilization” etc. are used intermixed and in wrong contexts. Religion is not culture and not even part of the culture.
Culture is not civilization and conversely civilization is not religion. They influence each other but are completely autonomous.

Secondly Jung-Freud (although I suppose well-intended) doesn’t understand what culture is. The “jazz-blues soul, & rap” of US blacks is not culture. They are some musical genres in part generated by the inner black approach to world (in this case art). But this approach is so fundamentally mixed with white culture that is only a bastardized black approach.

This is a good perspective of what means loosing one culture: blacks lost their own language (the base of culture by the way), adopted an anglo-saxon corrupted culture not understanding it and being no ued to them except to survive in alien land. I invite the author to see what mankurt means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankurt) for a better understanding what it really means to forget your memory (and culture because this is the sense here).
In reality the US blacks are not even racially blacks. Probable more than one third of black patrilineal ancestry is white. In maternal ancestry probably one tenth or more is original indian ancestry.

That goes to a conclusion: losing one language and culture give place to losing one’s self and DERACIALIZATION. Please keep in mind that if Europeans (or any people on ths world) adopt culture alien to them (or only language) this will conduct to losing their one center (hope that isn’t lost already!) and biological bastardization or completely destruction.

More simple acculturation is the step before assimilation.

Anti-Populism is the future. Liz Truss’s government just happened a bit too early. When the Chinese finish the colonization of America, white conservative families will not be consulted in government affairs, and thank their masters or be humiliated and destroyed.

Priss-Freud tends to write too much and say too little.
It’s kinda frustrating, despite some good insights.

The case of that Lola girl in France is weird, and some says it was a sorcery ritual murder (google “zouhri children”). But most of all she’s a victim of the ongoing white genocide.

About the topic: Race and culture are connected. Usually, you CAN’T change a culture unless there’s some race-mixing or imperialism involved.

Religions, like culture, are also related to race or ethnicity.

Islam = Arab Imperialism.
Christianity = European (former) Imperialism.

(While Christianity purportedly comes from the Middle East, in fact it became the European religion per excellence. And the New Testament was written in Greek (European language) at a time the region was under the control of the Roman Empire (Europe)

It goes even further:

Slavs = Orthodox.
Northern Europeans = Protestants.
Southern Europeans = Catholics.

Etc. But I digress.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I disagree with your supposition that the left’s goal is to give voice to stupidity. I believe it is more sinister than that. While the person giving a peanut to the elephant may argue it is an act of benevolence, others may notice the nicely tended garden the elephant traipsed through to get to the peanut.

If you’d like some background:
https://citylimits.org/2019/11/04/opinion-city-has-gone-from-allowing-poor-doors-to-permitting-poor-buildings/

Thanks for providing support for my point. Most helpful!

Why do you assume that atrocious antisocial behavior is racially biased in some way?

Why do you assume it is not?

Also, when will you provide us all with a defense of looting using The Ancients? Been really looking forward to that for months.

To some extent, the bond vigilantes have been sidelined by the Fed. The Fed is now just monetizing gov’t debt by increases in their balance sheet. They can keep this up without bond yields going up for quite some time till the rest of the world decides that the dollar is toilet paper and there’s a mass exit from the dollar in trade.

The reserve currency status is the only thing keeping the dollar afloat and even that has been steadily deteriorating for quite some time. There’s a tipping point somewhere. I don’t know where it is and neither does anyone else. We’ll find out where it was after the fact and by that time no law, no Fed maneuvers, no IMF or World Bank intervention will save the dollar. The only out they might have is a digital dollar that forces all USians into continuing to use it. If they manage to introduce it before a dollar collapse, they can buy some time, but the rest of the worlds investors will dump the dollar as too risky. Prices in the US could rise dramatically as asset prices fall like a rock. That then becomes the new crisis and a wash, rinse repeat cycle starts again, but of a much shorter duration. All these machinations are ultimately pissing into the wind.

I had a good old hunt about on the recorded livestreams at the time, and saw what Mr Neck-Tattoo and his hit squad did, and his previous harassment of a noisy yet genial truck-parade. Gangstalking a pair of guys at night, with the ubiquitous skateboarders (the Kenosha Kid is the only man I’ve ever seen take these wheely bastards seriously and give them ‘what they fucking deserve’. They even hunt harmless Portland Andy).
Even his hapless daughter was in cahoots. Jumping out from behind a pillar and blasting some almost random “enemy” when tipped the wink is not hi-IQ. Even with the usual fake “medics” converging to deliver the coup-de-grace/remove evidence.

tl;dr they’re incorrigible druggy fuckwits. They only live due to massive ‘official’ indulgence and corruption. Funded by “Persons Unknown”.

Unskilled? The original post is gone, but there’s an excerpt here:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/09/analysis-of-assassination.html

“It was a planned, premeditated sectarian assassination carried out by a death squad of six active participants.”

If they were actually mentally defective, I wouldn’t worry. Stupid thugs do stupid things and get shot and captured easily. These guys are quite a bit smarter, and better organized. Disparage them as you have at your peril.

People with the intelligence and organization to do what AntiFA does could contribute to a society that didn’t decide to bestow all the meaning and meaningful work on the “meritocrats.”

“Antifa� does strike me as something that is exclusively for young whites. Maybe its like environmentalism or animal welfare or open air rock festivals, just another way for young white people to escape diversity.

Or just another way to conform to the prevailing zeitgeist. Just another way to get lots of followers and lots of likes on social media. It has certainly been seen as a low-cost way to virtue-signal. Whites do love to virtue-signal.

And if you have nothing else in your life it gives you a sense of belonging. There are a lot of young white people who don’t have any sense of belonging.

I think the alt-right also gave a lot of lost souls a sense of belonging. Maybe that’s true of the MAGA cult as well.

Maybe young white people are particularly lacking in any sense of belonging or any sense of purpose.

Antifa street captains are generally over 30. Some are over 40.

But what’s the average age of the foot soldiers?

The older antifa leaders probably have other options already lined up for when the crackdown on antifa comes. The younger followers will be left to swing in the breeze and they’re too dumb to figure that out.

“Antifa� does strike me as something that is exclusively for young whites.

What age do you consider to be “young”? Is a 48 year old man “young” ?

Yeah, Oregon and Washington are there own thing. There won’t be 2020-style massive BLM-Antifa violence in America’s big cities in ’21.

“Antifa” does strike me as something that is exclusively for young whites. Maybe its like environmentalism or animal welfare or open air rock festivals, just another way for young white people to escape diversity.

Maybe it’s just that young people really are dumb.

Antifa street captains are generally over 30. Some are over 40.

Antifa Michael Forest Reinoehl was 48 when he committed an assassination in Portland last year.

Next G7’s in Cornwall, next to St Ives, and they’ll all be there in June, presumably without their seven wives, sacks, cats etc.
Carbis Bay Estate, big (for there) private beach, completely immured from the plebs by the railway line on the easily patrolled clifftop above, apart from a couple of bridges. Right down in the toe of the peninsula, with its own railway station (plebs this way, overlords please graciously accept this car ride on the other side of the track).

Apart from holding it in Scilly, or St Helena, it couldn’t be more inaccessible or defensible. Yet still has rapid links by chopper, rail, road and even private jet from e.g. RAF Portreath to international transit hubs, in case something goes awry, with serious military backup.
And is about as far south as you can go in England, pleasant maritime climate, not some stormlashed Scottish island hell.
G7 lair for 2021
Why are they acting as though they were afraid of us?

Did someone point out that BLM is the Establishment?

Nope. BLM has been used by the Establishment. Being used as a tool by the Establishment is very different from being part of the Establishment. It’s the same with antifa.

Now that their usefulness is over the Establishment is going to throw them under the bus.

BLM and antifa will be increasingly viewed by the Establishment the same way they view the dissident right and the MAGA brigade – as dissenters to be crushed.

Antifa/BLM are directly tied to the DNC/ADL/FBI.

and even more directly to the ‘Democratic Socialists of America’, who have been caught out a few times both high and low in the pyramid of the riot organisers (NB! not getting their hands dirty; that’s what the Bum’s Army of Antifa are for) with direct links to the local elected officials.

The right needs to be smart about this

The only people on the Right who have ever been smart are the Economic Right. They now control the world. Unfortunately they’re both smart and evil.

The social/cultural Right has never shown any signs of being smart about anything.

The Antifa are interesting. It’s clear they’re mostly white. The current society and system offers them nothing. They were useful in creating chaos and so not suppressed by local authorities to undermine the issue of law and order. But the system still offers them nothing that would make them give up the struggle.

I can’t think of any functional or even coherent system or society that could offer the Tweaker Legions of Antifa any place that wasn’t simply a continuation of their self-determined role of unskilled, unemployable, frequently diseased and/or mentally defective parasites and street thugs, seemingly paid off in hard drugs as well as cash from .. somewhere.

Maybe Beijing Biden will form an anti-nationalist Cheka division out of them, give them all leather coats, black cars and a licence to kill at their own pleasure (which they already presume to have).

And those local authorities are plainly compromised by “external actors”, having no regard for the mere law-abiding tax-cattle of their fiefdoms, or even the United States itself.

Surely “antifa� are just nihilists who believe in nothing, but just want to destroy. In fact, they are less than nihilists. The sort of people who are “antifa� are the sort of people who would attend a concert by GG Allin (look him up on youtube). Only young whites will behave this way.

Maybe it’s just that young people really are dumb. They believe in foolish unrealistic nonsense because they’re young. Too many hormones and too little life experience. Young people have always been prone to believe that they’re the only ones that know how to save the world, and they’ve always been prone to hysterical beliefs that the world needs saving. Young people are driven by pure emotion.

The worst possible thing you can do for young people is allow them access to social media because social media will exacerbate all the inherent weaknesses of youth – the desperate need to be accepted by a peer group, the desperate need to be virtuous and the hysterical response to anyone who questions their emotionally driven silliness.

So maybe social media is the worst thing that has ever happened to society.

… commodity prices are rising…

A little, but not as much as you think or imply, AE. Clearly, you are not in this game. Nice try, though.

Seems like a guy trying to out-shock Johnny Rotten. Teens love being shocked, thus horror movies. Wasn’t one of those Wu-Tang characters supposed to be the horror guy. They certainly had a pervert character.

Didn’t get a chance to read all the comments.

Did someone point out that BLM is the Establishment? Just as White People Bad training is the Establishment.

Those ‘conspiracists’ in the ‘80s talking about Hegelianism as an Establishment tactic may well have been right.

Make your enemies FIGHT EACH OTHER.

That’s a GREAT idea.� Make a list of contributors to the DNC, ADL, SPLC, AIPAC etc. especially the billionaires and the boards and execs of “woke” corporations.� Doxx them and post their info in Antifa and BLM fora.� Watch the fireworks.

If you’d like some background:
https://citylimits.org/2019/11/04/opinion-city-has-gone-from-allowing-poor-doors-to-permitting-poor-buildings/

You can learn about the 20% in there.

Why do you assume that atrocious antisocial behavior is racially biased in some way?

Agree that 90% of the population have no idea what’s coming. A significant share of the population – though for different reasons – do not view our government and institutions as legitimate, the release of tons of prisoners because of Covid plus new weak on crime municipal governments means criminal activity of all kinds will increase along with homicides as people have more freedom of movement, and a lot of the jobs wiped out by the lockdowns will be very slow to return to the extent that do at all.

The right needs to be smart about this – there are a lot of working/middle class people that were clearly receptive to the populist politics of Trump, and many of them who voted for Biden are going to find themselves very disenchanted in the years to come, so there is a huge political opportunity. Target cutting ‘woke’ programming, support spending that helps families, promise to reverse Biden policies that kill blue collar jobs, and don’t get in the way of the donkeys attempts to raise tax rates on corporations, capital gains, and high income households.

Surely “antifa” are just nihilists who believe in nothing, but just want to destroy. In fact, they are less than nihilists. The sort of people who are “antifa” are the sort of people who would attend a concert by GG Allin (look him up on youtube). Only young whites will behave this way. One doesn’t see quite the same thing with other races. No accommodation with these nutters is possible. What drives them is something psychological, perhaps their realisation that they are not the cleverest or the prettiest or the most accomplished makes them angry and destructive to all that is good and beautiful.

That said, I think the right is in a position now where it needs to start considering defense of antifa. I know this sounds crazy, but their riots can and should be dealt with under existing laws and with existing resources. The right should oppose the creation of new laws, agencies, or norms designed to deal with antifa.

I think that’s a good point. As I said in another comment it’s sometimes worth thinking about tactical alliances with lesser enemies (even hated lesser enemies) against the greater enemy.

At the moment the neoliberal establishment is the greater enemy. They intend to crush all dissent, including dissent from the Left. And any dissent-crushing measures used against antifa and BLM will be used against dissenters from the Right.

At this stage anyone who dissents from neoliberalism has to be considered a potential tactical ally.

Just as feminists who dissent from the current attempts to impose the trans agenda have to be considered as potential tactical allies.

Great comment.You are on it,though we know it goes deeper.
We need to delve further into reason, or the
reasons for this reality. It could be a survival mechanism
that is on par with freedom,and even necessary for the
betterment of the planet.It’s a brake on the expertise of our
experts, maybe a good thing?
Right thinking is a very,very slow process.Mis takes happen
and the “stakes” are so very,very hi how ya do’ing…

Yes. Their paymasters will order them to lay low. Only if there is economic collapse will we hear further from these goons.

I think it’s a mistake to talk about MAGA and antifa as right and left manifestations of people who are just economically and socially disaffected and don’t like the current regime. MAGA people hate the regime but not the country, but antifa’s antipathy to society goes much, much deeper. They are raging against not just the regime, but the state, the civilization it represents, and even cross-cultural norms and human nature. Likewise, MAGA demands can be met with policy choices and are basically political disagreements, but BLM demands require fundamentally changing society and are basically racial animus.

That said, I think the right is in a position now where it needs to start considering defense of antifa. I know this sounds crazy, but their riots can and should be dealt with under existing laws and with existing resources. The right should oppose the creation of new laws, agencies, or norms designed to deal with antifa.

Dem mayors will lower the boom on a few of these Antifa types, and the rest will decide to save their antics for NATO and G-7 (or whatever it is) meetings. They’ll have to be gentler with BLM, but they can likely be bought off without too much trouble. It’s economic decline that will cause Harris (Biden will probably be gone before things really begin to bite) serious problems.

Yeah, it’s pretty bad, and on top of it all Netflix raised their subscription fee.

If that doesn’t trigger civil war nothing will.

I really don’t see that this is anything that these ctrl-left useful idiots in the streets have any problem with. They WANT destruction of this country

I think you may be making the same mistake the Democrats made in 2016. They assumed that there was no validity at all to the concerns of the Trumpsters and that they were just Nazis and white supremacists who wanted to bring back slavery.

You’re assuming that there is no validity at all to the concerns that are motivating the “far left” and that they can all be dismissed as dirty stinkin’ commies who hate America. Most of the antifa and BLM crowd are stupid (and they were being ruthlessly used by the bankers and billionaires but the anger driving them is just as real as the anger driving the MAGA crowd.

The problem is that both the antifa and MAGA crowds were not smart enough to figure out that they were being used. They were being played. Maybe both groups are starting to figure that out now.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t support the antifa lot but the economic and social injustices that have motivated both the antifa and MAGA crowds are real. Both those groups were justified in being angry, but both sides lacked the political sophistication to direct their anger at those who were actually screwing them.

There’s a difference between hating your country and hating what is being done to your country by the elites. There’s a difference between hating your country and hating the current regime.

If Biden decides to reopen the economy and Garland RICOs an antifa here and there – doesn’t that help Biden’s approval ratings. 2022 will be less bad if they do those things.

Not only are they still there, they’ve gotten worse. The labor force participation rate is down, student debt is up, wealth inequality is growing, racial tensions are rising, tens of millions of people are on borrowed time as an avalanche of eviction notices is tenuously held back by stopgap federal legislation the congressional paymasters don’t like, commodity prices are rising, record trade deficits continue growing, caravans of migrants from Latin America are heading north, states and municipalities are hopelessly insolven

More, more, more, more, more. The worser the better.

Mr. Dolan, you underestimate the STUPIDITY of Marxists.
The “True Believers” REALLY BELIEVE THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR EQUALITY.
They REALLY BELIEVE THE RICH WILL BE BROUGHT LOW.

They must be UTILIZED before they wise up.
They have to EAT THE RICH, before they are shot.
The Right is so useless when it plays the game rigged against them.

A real player has to give up chess, and play DIRTY.
Make your OWN RULES.
Make your enemies FIGHT EACH OTHER.

It’s so easy peasy.
The Billionaires may subsidize Antifa, but that matters not.
They are buying the ropes needed to hang them!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

WTF?

Is this a joke?

Biden/Harris don’t back BLM and Antifa? Harris GAVE THEM MONEY TO BAIL THEM OUT OF JAIL SO THEY COULD CONTINUE BURNING AND LOOTING AND KILLING PEOPLE.

Nadler (and the rest of the DNC scum) claimed that “Antifa is a myth.”

Bill Clinton pardoned Susan Rosenberg, the known terrorist that runs BLM.

Antifa/BLM are directly tied to the DNC/ADL/FBI.

I could go on and on.

WTF are you talking about? Everybody KNOWS that BLM/Antifa are foot soldiers for organized jewry and the establishment left.

Resistance to the neocon dominance of the Republican party because of its ineffectiveness in dealing with the left had been building for a number of years, starting with the Buchanan primary runs and the Ron Paul run in 2008. This resistance made a breakthrough with the Tea Party movement and the Republican gains in Congress in 2010. Trumpism was a synthesis of all these prior attempts. It failed because of his attempts to pander to Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and blacks. His pardoning of rapper Lil Wayne and corrupt former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick instead of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden as his final action in office symbolizes this.

Now we have former CIA director John Brennan saying in an interview that intelligence agencies need to go after “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians…”. From now on the opposition will be fighting a rearguard action. They will be helped because it is likely the chickens will come home to roost in the Biden administration and there will be a dollar crisis. The Democrats won’t be able to handle this and it will expose their ineptitude.

A lot of new developments have to hold 20% of apartments for low-income people.

Citation / evidence required.

The major difference is that atrocious antisocial behavior isn’t tolerated.

Antifa and alt right are two sides of the same coin… Nationalism and socialism. Angry disaffected young white people.

HMMM

Young white people of all types are screwed. How convienent that the elite keep them fighting each other instead of focusing on the real “problems”.

Yeah, it’s pretty bad, and on top of it all Netflix raised their subscription fee.

“every high end Manhattan apartment house had some Section 8 apartments”

A lot of new developments have to hold 20% of apartments for low-income people. The major difference is that atrocious antisocial behavior isn’t tolerated. Imagine getting the right to rent in a space with a pool you have access to in Manhattan, and paying 1/5th the going rate.

The Establishment has outmaneuvered the populist right and the disaffected left over the last several years, but it has not ameliorated any of their problems. It has only made them worse. They think taking away Donald Trump will settle things, as though he is the cause rather than the symptom of the anger and frustration. That isn’t the case, and it will be obvious soon.

The Antifa are interesting. It’s clear they’re mostly white. The current society and system offers them nothing. They were useful in creating chaos and so not suppressed by local authorities to undermine the issue of law and order. But the system still offers them nothing that would make them give up the struggle. It’s not surprising that they continued it.

Now theEstablishement has made it clear to a larger group of whites that it intends to offer them nothing, indeed intends to take away even more from them. Call them Right Antifa.

As the oligarchy skims more and more for the top, the numbers of people cut out of any meaningful piece of the overall picture is going to get really large.

The “True Believers” want their “Utopia” NOW.
They won’t get it, either way.
Usually, these “useful idiots” are shot after the revolution is completed.

The Marxist Revolution has not come to an end.
The “useful idiots” are simply getting restless.
They want to EAT THE RICH.

This could be interesting, after all.
If they really want to EAT THE RICH and attack them.
I’ll bring the gravy…

“As the powers that be aim explicitly at the heart of heritage America, the populist right increasingly feels like it has nothing to lose by refusing to play by the rules.”

Well it helps to at least go through the motions.

When I see stories like this:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/atilis-gym-ian-smith-co-owner-new-jersey-legal-defense-fund

I am reminded of the movie Cool Hand Luke.

The power may be corrupt and unfair, but it sure is real. Those 50,000 troops and police officers at the inauguration, 100 for every Congress critter at the inauguration, were real and so were the 50,000 guns.

I have a friend who owns a beautiful gym. He collects all the government aid checks that are available, and he nominally complies with the rules. He perseveres amid difficult conditions.

He doesn’t were a mask, and reports that he has a medical condition, which he cannot disclose, that prevents him from doing so. This is a valid reason to give and so they must accept it.

The point?

Open rebellion when things aren’t yet desperate isn’t likely to end well.

Why don’t “Antifa” just do what thousands of ex-college students have done to screw over Sallie Mae? Move to Europe and disappear.

They think taking away Donald Trump will settle things, as though he is the cause rather than the symptom of the anger and frustration.

The middle class took the high road with the TEA party. Formal “petition for redress of grievances” just as the Constitution says, including a barely reported rally on the National Mall. That rally left the Mall cleaner than they found it, probably the only time it’s ever happened. What was the result? IMO the GOPe totally co-opted the TEA party and neutered it.

Skip a few years, and the middle class took the elected route with Donald Trump. This so offended the mandarins of the upper class and upper middle class that we see a total campaign of lies and deceit, outright crimes committed right on camera and so forth. The outrage among the UMC glitterati over the mostly peaceful entrance into the Capitol is in stark contrast to the massive indifference to billions of dollars in damage by Antifa / OBLM.

Try this with a friendly UMC professional: “We asked nicely with the TEA party. We asked not so nicely with Trump. What do you think comes after this?”. Most won’t get it, a few will.

Unfortunately the response from the mandarins appears to be something like “We’ll suppress that harder and faster!” which is not a real good plan.

The mandarins live in splendid isolation, almost entirely unaffected by their own policies. Not a new thing in history, and it often has turned out badly for all concerned. If Section 8 housing could be plopped into gated communities, if every high end Manhattan apartment house had some Section 8 apartments, just for a start, if the UMC mandarins had to drink from the same dirty cup as everyone else, maybe they would dial back on the pressure.

That’s why I laugh at the feminists outraged over Biden’s Title IX trans Exec Order – because for once it’s gonna bite UMC’s harder than the middle class. Oh, little Brittney didn’t get on the girl’s lacrosse team because pre-transition “Susie” plays so much better, and now Brittney’s scholarship is vaporized? That’s a such a shame.

Firstly, A.E., I almost always agree on your take on the financial SHTF to come, as you, of all the article/column writers on this site, seem to understand this the best. (OK, you’re tied with Ron Paul, but he has this unrealistic optimism at the bottom of each column.) I am glad to see your occasional posts without the graphs, as I just don’t trust the data as much as you do, or seem to.

Specifically about your take on the antifa Commies and BLM thugs here:

The labor force participation rate is down, student debt is up, wealth inequality is growing, racial tensions are rising, tens of millions of people are on borrowed time as an avalanche of eviction notices is tenuously held back by stopgap federal legislation the congressional paymasters don’t like, commodity prices are rising, record trade deficits continue growing, caravans of migrants from Latin America are heading north, states and municipalities are hopelessly insolvent without federal government bailouts that will be entirely financed by Federal Reserve money creation –

I really don’t see that this is anything that these ctrl-left useful idiots in the streets have any problem with. They WANT destruction of this country, and, no, they don’t expect to pay back student loans or move out of their apartments, if this will just hurry up for them.

I can see why they are pissed at Zhou Bai Dien, as he is acting a little bit too organized and law-abiding. I think they will be happier once the Superspreader takes the reins, or at least they think they will be. She will give them more of what they want or mouth off in that direction.

Yes, the right has lots less to lose now. They are being shut out of the political system very swiftly.

BTW, I can’t believe Ann Coulter, usually a pretty politically courageous pundit, IMO, decided to go with the flow on this ridiculous new domestic terrorism/insurrection crap. I have directly called her a liar in the post “Et tu, Ann?!”. What say you, Charles Pewitt? I expect a round of tweets about this.

Yeah, I think covid has damaged our economy far more than is apparent. Assuming the vaccines do get us through the pandemic in a few months we might find there isn’t a lot left to reopen. Those not in the top 10 or 20 percent of income earners are not going to have the money to go back to restaurants or take cruises even if they can safely do so.

The spending spree in DC may not be possible if it causes bond vigilantes to reappear and push interest rates higher. Our balance of payments is going to deteriorate a lot because of Biden’s war on the US oil industry. Production was already declining because of low prices and as US production declines the oil price will go up. $3 dollar a gallon gasoline may be just around the corner. People are going to notice that. Any rapid rise in the minimum wage is going to accelerate the push to automate low skill work just when people are going to need those jobs again.

Then there is the enormous overhang of unpaid rent and mortgages. Its not going to disappear even if the covid virus does. We’ve built a potemkin economy resting on a foundation of unpayable debt. It won’t take much to bring it all down.

They think taking away Donald Trump will settle things, as though he is the cause rather than the symptom of the anger and frustration.

This is the essence of the problem. Simplistic perceptions of reality prevail within most manifestations of radicalism, whether from the left or the right. One of the many mythologies that radicalism buys into is the belief that zombie-mind-control qualities are inherent in all oppositional leadership. Radicals believe that once the source of the hypno-ray beams is gone, the brain implants can be removed. Mass mind control has considerable basis in reality, but it’s far more complicated than those who exist in a perpetual emotional state (i.e., radicals, who are themselves more susceptible to mind control than most) can understand.

This brings up many thoughts about our current situation for me, but the one that’s hovering closest at the moment is my perception that – in the spirit of blind equality and inclusiveness – an unstated (and possibly subconscious) goal of the far left is to give a legitimate voice to stupidity. Because people with IQ’s of under 90 need to have their ideas represented in government, too.

I’ll do you the final courtesy of addressing this, only because you are clueless about it:

First, the reason I focus on how iatrogenic is defined (which I assume governs how statistics are collected) is that from a potential patient’s point of view what I want to know is the TOTAL risk to me for a given treatment (not whether the person who gave me my HAI was staff or another patient, or any other attempts at shuffling adverse outcomes during treatment out of the iatrogenic category).

“Iatrogenic� is not used much, because it’s not strictly a medical term with sharp boundaries and is given to misuse by people with axes to grind like you. That Wiki link has claims that mental anguish from provider statements should be counted as iatrogenic. That alone should tell you how fuzzy and, yes, nebulous “iatrogenic� is. It’s a “social science� term. To the extent that it’s used at hospitals, the definition means negative/unintended/undesired outcome resulting from a particular therapy, not everything bad that happened while hospitalized (also “hospitalized� technically means in-patient, so simply stepping onto a hospital for treatment or office visit wouldn’t be included and so doesn’t even suit your expansive definitional needs).

My healthcare system, for example, tracks HAIs and corresponding CAIs where infections are concerned. You know exactly what the boundaries are – whether the infection in question was acquired at the hospital or not – in-patient, out-patient, janitorial staff, doesn’t matter. (By the way, by nature, HAIs are higher in certain infections than CAIs – because hospitals are where sick people infected with unusual pathogens congregate.)

It also tracks negative/unintended/undesired outcomes associated with specific procedures and medications – usually there are incident reports generated if there was any such outcome, however minor, even if the patient was okay overall and was satisfied. Incident reports are also generated even if nothing went wrong, but someone didn’t follow proper procedures.

Your “total risk,â€� claim is nonsense – you are just making that up to justify your made-up definition. You can get the flu outside or inside. That’s not what patients care about – they want to know the risks associated with the specific procedures they will undergo. They are not interested in factoring in the risk of something that has nothing to do with the procedure. Nobody asks, “But what if the janitor infects me with measles when I come to get my hip replaced?â€� They do ask about chances of infection during surgery (hence the preventive antibiotics for most surgical cases) and of course any side effects, risks of complications, recovery issues, etc.

Patients who feel that hanging out where sick people gather might be unsafe, because of a pandemic or unusually high incidences of HAIs or whatnot usually just cancel or delay cases or divert to day surgery centers (no in-patients) if possible.

any other attempts at shuffling adverse outcomes during treatment out of the iatrogenic category

You ought to stop projecting your own sense of bad faith to others. These aren’t the good old days of the 1950’s paternalistic medicine. Everyone in medicine is terrified of being sued and documents all the steps taken to cover his butt. There is no need to “shuffle� adverse outcomes to hide anything, because it’s pretty impossible. Patients often don’t care who, if any, is responsible. When there is a bad outcome, even if the risk of it was well-advised ahead, chances are high that the patient gets the lottery mentality and sues anyone and everyone involved (though eventually the list of targets is whittled down to those with deep pockets and juicy liability insurance). If anything was “shuffled� or hidden, it would only delight the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

First, notice Twinkie’s complete failure to engage in that comment with the core of our disagreement.

Pathetic. Now you are playing to an imagined crowd? I seriously doubt anyone else is reading this.

But if they were, they can plainly see that you engage in lots of ad hominem and passive-aggressive straw men in a desperate attempt to stalemate the conversation and portray your interlocutor as unreasonable. Because it’s abundantly clear you are way in over your head on this topic – you know nothing about it except what you hastily looked up on the internet.

Examples of your bad faith arguments abound:

You throw back words I use like a petulant child (“nebulous,� “muddy the waters,� “hypocrite,� etc.). What are you, five years old? After I used “nebulous� once, you must have repeated it a dozen times and hurled it back at me.

Then you move goal posts and change your arguments, going from claiming that all HAIs should be deemed iatrogenic to something more reasonable-sounding after I showed the absurdity of the former, as well as claiming that “being at a hospital is a medical activity� to “no, I meant hospitalized patients only, so staff don’t count,� etc.

Then whining that I don’t answer your “coreâ€� point (which I answered repeatedly, using examples) all the while ignoring numerous questions from me – the following single comment of mine alone has several questions from me that go unanswered and unaddressed by you:

https://www.unz.com/anepigone/mourning-in-america/#comment-4111838

Then implying that I’m too emotional about the subject. I’m not emotional – I told you to go pound sand, because I am flabbergasted that you are presumptuous enough to tell me how my friend’s death should be categorized when you don’t know the circumstances, what procedures he underwent, what the incident reports say, what steps were taken by the hospital to code his case, etc. When someone has this level of shameless Chutzpah, telling him to go pound sand is an appropriate response.

All this Drang und Sturm, because you just couldn’t stand to be corrected by me that your understanding of what is meant by iatrogenic at hospitals was wrong. Then, all these internet debate “techniques� to not lose the argument.

bring expertise

You mean like how I am on the board of a healthcare system, started and ran a medical device company with my wife previously, and am married to the said wife who now runs a hospital, so my knowledge on this topic is not just from the internet?

I gave you the benefit of my expertise. But I guess it’s only expertise to you when I agree with you and when it doesn’t jive with your internet lookup to justify your priors, it’s just me trying to win by engaging in “nebulous,� “evasive,� “ad hominem.�

Grow up.

It’s clear to me that further discussion with you on this topic of definitions is not fruitful, to say the least, because I will simply end up repeating myself yet again. So, go take up the argument with physicians and hospital administrators. Go tell them they are wrong and that you know best.

First, notice Twinkie’s complete failure to engage in that comment with the core of our disagreement. The categorization of the cases I labeled 4-7. When people start ignoring the actual issues and focusing on things like we see below a valuable clue to their faith in their own argument has been provided. People who are familiar with my comments might recognize this as a more polite form of “ad hominems: the best way ever to say to someone arguing with you: ‘you win.’”

Now I understand. Sorry for not recognizing that you were taking this personally as well.

Don’t be presumptuous and practice internet psychology. You are veering into being an asshole now.

I’ll leave it up to others to judge the correctness of my statement for themselves. It certainly provides a good explanation for the protesting too much. Any other suggestions? And let’s repeat the statement I quoted right before I wrote that.

But you go ahead and tell me how you think my friend’s death should be categorized. I’ll just tell you to go pound sand.

That reads as a very personal response to me. If anyone other than Twinkie disagrees with that assessment, please explain.

Did you suddenly lose your reading comprehension and turn into an idiot? Read it again. Here:

My dead friend didn’t get COVID from any of the staff at the hospital (I know that for a fact). Chances are extremely low that he got it from any surface or contaminated objects.

Here is a hint – I wrote about two separate possible sources of infection. Here is another hint. When a patient with COVID dies, you better believe the hospital does contact-tracing and tests all the staff who dealt with him.

Yes, and tests never return false results and people are never asymptomatic. The point is (you are better at logic than this, what is wrong?) if you are willing to allow an “extremely low” chance of ANYTHING else then you are indicating uncertainty about your assessment.

Look, I said you were probably right. I only objected to “know for a fact” (and I am nitpicking, refer to our earlier conversation for why I would do that). From what you have and haven’t said I am guessing someone non-staff (other patient or visitor) who tested positive (after the fact) was in close proximity to your friend. Depending on the exact circumstances that would be strong evidence.

When did you go from a reasonable, intelligent commenter whom I cited as one of the reasons I visit this blog to an obstinately argumentative asshole who just wants to “win� the internet?

Right around the time you went from being one of the best commenters here who tends to bring expertise to clarifying matters and grace and humor to discussions of controversial topics to the evasive ad hominem spewing version I see now. That latter description of me might or might not be accurate (it certainly has more truth than I like), but it would be interesting to take a survey of Unz Review readers and see how many think it applies equally well or better to you (I don’t FWIW, but I read the comments of people who argue with you, nobody likes losing ; ).

Perhaps a better description of both of us is obstinate, argumentative, often confident in our opinions, and don’t like to lose?

In an encounter like this it is worthwhile for both parties to take a moment to think about what happened and how it ties in with both of the people involved.

You know what? Don’t even bother, man. You win the internet.

Interesting to juxtapose that with:

I am still here whether you look at me or not. 😉

Now that we have gotten the non-substantive part of that out of the way (note that I covered the entire comment) let’s talk about the actual issue at hand a bit.

First, the reason I focus on how iatrogenic is defined (which I assume governs how statistics are collected) is that from a potential patient’s point of view what I want to know is the TOTAL risk to me for a given treatment (not whether the person who gave me my HAI was staff or another patient, or any other attempts at shuffling adverse outcomes during treatment out of the iatrogenic category).

Second, I am concerned about this because in the US adverse outcomes from treatment appear to be both substantial and undercounted. Here is a 2016 article from a Johns Hopkins professor indicating the scope of the problem.
Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US
https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139.full

Perhaps the author should take that up with physicians and hospital administrators.

I don’t care for that article’s focus on “error” though. And I find it disappointingly vague concerning category boundaries.

I still have been unable to find a definition of iatrogenic which clarifies the classification of my cases 4-7 (anyone?). But while looking I did find this excellent discussion of nosocomial infections. Though focused on the ICU the discussion is more general.
Nosocomial Infection in the Intensive Care Unit
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7170205/

It’s clear to me that further discussion with you on this topic of definitions is not fruitful, to say the least, because I will simply end up repeating myself yet again. So, go take up the argument with physicians and hospital administrators. Go tell them they are wrong and that you know best.

Now I understand. Sorry for not recognizing that you were taking this personally as well.

Don’t be presumptuous and practice internet psychology. You are veering into being an asshole now.

And you know that how? “Extremely low� is not the same as zero

Did you suddenly lose your reading comprehension and turn into an idiot? Read it again. Here:

My dead friend didn’t get COVID from any of the staff at the hospital (I know that for a fact). Chances are extremely low that he got it from any surface or contaminated objects.

Here is a hint – I wrote about two separate possible sources of infection. Here is another hint. When a patient with COVID dies, you better believe the hospital does contact-tracing and tests all the staff who dealt with him.

When did you go from a reasonable, intelligent commenter whom I cited as one of the reasons I visit this blog to an obstinately argumentative asshole who just wants to “win” the internet?

You know what? Don’t even bother, man. You win the internet.

All right. We finally get concrete.

Now, let’s return to my comment 61. Notice the definition I cited for iatrogenic. Also notice the sentence immediately following it. Which is the crux of our disagreement.

The definition I see for iatrogenic is “relating to illness caused by medical examination or treatment.� I fail to see how hospital-acquired infections fall outside of that.

Wikipedia (FWIW) specifically says error is not the criteria to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis#Medical_error_and_negligence
and specifically includes hospital-acquired infections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis#Epidemiology

If you know a different definition for iatrogenic can you please give a source–hopefully with a taxonomy and some examples?

Notice how that definition is essentially the same as all of the definitions you cited? Right?

That was a response to your comment 54 which contains this.

It is, and is dealt differently, than a mistake-induced condition.

So don’t throw any “changed my definition” stones. Unless you want to look like a hypocrite. To be clear, are you disavowing that mistake-induced statement in comment 54? Because that is a big part of what set me off.

Now let’s compare my comment 61 definition to your recent distillation.

The common thread here is that an iatrogenic illness (or infection or disease) is one that is CAUSED by medical treatment (diagnosis, procedures, and/or medications).

Seems pretty similar except for putting “caused” in all caps, which I think does capture our disagreement well. I think it would be accurate to say most of my requests for more detail have been attempts to get you to draw that “caused” line clearly (and my harping on “nebulous” has been mocking you for failing to make that clarification while calling assigning all HAIs as iatrogienic nebulous –it is actually the opposite, as I said earlier).

I think this excerpt from your comment covers things reasonably well (notice the resemblance to my 1-7 decomposition in comment 73 except for categorization disagreements. Wouldn’t it have been easier to discuss this then?)

HAIs that are from non-medical causes (and in fact not even related to the medical staff) – and simply being at the hospital isn’t enough – are not iatrogenic. If your kid goes to a pediatrician to get vaccinations and gets the flu from another kid at the pediatrician – despite the pediatrician following the prevailing standard of care of keeping the two apart – that flu IS “hospital-acquired,� but IS NOT iatrogenic. If you stomp on a thumbtack at a hospital and infect your foot while “under treatment� for another illness, it’s unfortunate, and perhaps the hospital ought to be responsible to some extent, but the foot infection IS NOT an iatrogenic illness, because it did not originate from that treatment.

Let’s reproduce the most relevant part of comment 73 here.

4. Infection acquired from indeterminate passage through the hospital. This one is hard. It is too easy to use it as a waste bucket for the more serious cases below. My inclination would be to call this iatrogenic because of that (and the sharp inside/outside the hospital itself boundary), but to assign responsibility only if the numbers are excessive.
5. Infection acquired through non-touch hospital action. This includes things like the infectious patient in the adjacent bed (was that patient completely non-symptomatic? e.g. no fever?) or in the therapy room. I would call this iatrogenic, but again responsibility is fairly loose as long as neither excessive cases or negligence in a particular case are present. For example, in the middle of a pandemic did the hospital check the status of each patient with reasonable care?
6. Infection acquired through relatively casual touch. For example, doctor/nurse fails to wash hands between patients. I think this is iatrogenic and responsibility applies.
7. Infection acquired through invasive therapeutic touch. This includes things like catheters, IVs, and surgery. Hopefully even Twinkie agrees this case is iatrogenic and responsibility applies? But note that this violates the sharp separation between infectious and iatrogenic I mentioned above.

It is hard to distinguish (know the true cause) between 4-7 (whereas 1-3 are easily distinguished from those). This is why I think the definition of iatrogenic should be strict and inclusive for nosocomial infections. We can then evaluate how often this occurs (e.g. is it excessive relative to other facilities?) and work on both finer identification and reducing the number of occurrences. What really matters is that we minimize the number of infections, not the exact causes.

If I interpret your statement correctly (feel free to explicitly respond to individual categories, that was the point of my writing them up) then you would draw your line between case 5 and case 6 (which is where I drew my line for strict responsibility, if you are unable to separate iatrogenic origin from strict responsibility that would help me better understand your position). And add similar cases for physical injury (I was focusing on infections since we are primarily talking about HAIs).

Now I think we are finally to the meat of our disagreement.

I argued for including 4. as iatrogenic because it is hard to distinguish between 4-7 with any certainty. That same argument applies to 5, but I think it better to focus on another argument (remember I consider 4 debatable, note “inclination”).

The argument I would make for including case 5 as iatrogenic is that in that case the patient is under treatment in a hospital controlled environment (a patient might be expected to see and avoid a thumbtack, but infections can’t be seen and patients don’t have much control over where they go at a larger scale).

Looking at your definitions of iatrogenic, I don’t see a single one which specifically excludes either case 4 or 5. Perhaps you could offer one that does? Given that the definitions you gave all seem in line with the definition I gave in comment 61. (alternatively, a clear definition of “while under treatment” would also serve)

Hopefully it is clear how much less objective including all HAIs as iatrogenic is than trying to pick and choose and assign HAIs to the different categories. My definition is perhaps overly inclusive (as I said above), but it is clearly much less nebulous than the line you are drawing (in terms of assigning cases, since it is hard to be sure of causes). Hence my focus on that word. (instead of me focusing on it, you could retract your labeling of my definition as that, if you choose).

One thing that would help here is a breakdown of how many HAIs are categorized as iatrogenic using your definition. I suspect the vast majority are not (do you have data for that? the data I see, like Wikipedia, just includes them all contra your definition). With probably varying degrees of justification. I suspect a detailed inspection of the data would make clear my fear of non-definitive cases being lumped into category 4 (or maybe 5) and declared non-iatrogenic is justified.

Back to you.

My dead friend didn’t get COVID from any of the staff at the hospital (I know that for a fact).

And you know that how? “Extremely low” is not the same as zero. And even if your chain of reasoning gives you high confidence I don’t think you can equate that with “know that for a fact.” You were justified in calling me out for substituting “universal” for “widely used”, but it seems to me you are also going to unjustified extremes here. Also note this in connection with your statement ‘I would never use a word such as “universalâ€�’. Would you also never use a word such as “never”? ; )

FWIW, another patient does seem like the way to bet (and categorize). The remaining question is whether that patient was symptomatic enough that the hospital should have noticed (and as you alluded to, that standard would vary depending on how prevalent infectious disease was locally at the moment). And I doubt whether anyone will ever know.

But you go ahead and tell me how you think my friend’s death should be categorized. I’ll just tell you to go pound sand.

Now I understand. Sorry for not recognizing that you were taking this personally as well. I should have realized that. I focused on your board function as driving your responses. (the latter reason made me extra harsh, the former reason is more cause for giving slack IMHO)

Sorry for my side of all the acrimony. I also should have realized it is extremely difficult to have any kind of dispassionate discussion when both parties are taking the conclusions personally.

Reviewing our comments, I think it was the non-responsiveness of your final paragraph in comment 65 which really got me going, but my comment 68 response was definitely over the top.

Please stop misrepresenting my points. It is tiresome and only serves as evidence for you not being able to answer my actual points. When “stating my points� you might consider using quotes.

If you don’t want to sound like a hypocrite, try not to hold other people to standards that you fail to uphold. To wit:

These are not my definitions – they are widely used definitions in the medical world.

Please supply a reference supporting that as a universal definition in the medical world.

I didn’t write that the definitions I used were “universal,” merely that they were widely used in the medical world. I was careful for a reason – because iatrogenic is one of those words whose meaning some people (in and out of the medical world) will try to make fuzzy to fit their own agenda (so as to include such things as “mental anguish” from “provider’s statements,” etc.). So you are never going to get 100% of the people to agree to a common definition (hence I would never use a word such as “universal”). Nonetheless, there is a majority agreement as to what words such as “iatrogenic” means. I wrote earlier more than once that “Again, and simply put, iatrogenesis is error and/or unintended outcome in therapy.”

You want references? Try some medical dictionaries:

Iatrogenic:

Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition
resulting from the activity of a health care provider or institution; said of any adverse condition in a patient resulting from treatment by a physician, nurse, or allied health professional.

Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary
Denoting response to medical or surgical treatment, usually denotes unfavorable responses.

The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright
Induced unintentionally in a patient by a physician. Used especially of an infection or other complication of treatment.

McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine
Referring to a physical or mental condition caused by a physician or health care provider–eg, iatrogenic disease, due to exposure to pathogens, toxins or injurious treatment or procedures

Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing
Denoting response to medical or surgical treatment, as induced by the treatment itself; usually used for unfavorable responses or infections.

Collins Dictionary of Medicine
Pertaining to disease or disorder caused by doctors. The disorders may be unforeseeable and accidental, may be the result of unpredictable or unusual reactions, may be an inescapable consequence of necessary treatment, or may be due to medical incompetence or carelessness. Iatros is the Greek word for a doctor. [Boldfaces mine.]

The common thread here is that an iatrogenic illness (or infection or disease) is one that is CAUSED by medical treatment (diagnosis, procedures, and/or medications).

We already have another word – “hospital-acquired infection” (HAI) – that is infection acquired at a hospital or medical care facility regardless of responsibility. The two intersect, but are not the same things.

The key point is (though not explicit, it is implicit in that list) being under treatment. That excludes both employee and visitor nosocomal infections from “iatrogenic� (I should have been clearer about that, I have been focusing on patients).

Earlier you seem to indicate that all HAIs should be treated as iatrogenic. If so, that requires counting non-patients who were infected at the hospital. Otherwise, you are now also changing the definition of HAI (as you see fit – good luck with that).

What about a hospitalized patient who is infected by a neighbor who visits? Is that iatrogenic too? By commonly-used definitions, he has an HAI (the infection took place at a hospital), but did not suffer iatrogenesis (the infection was not caused by medical treatment or medication).

Please stop muddying the waters… What is interesting is that you wrote a 700 word reply (comment 71) to comment 68 without addressing those central questions… Please stop being evasive

Don’t be passive-aggressive. Nothing here is “interesting.” I am not “muddying the waters.” I am not being “evasive.” You just don’t like the answers I gave you and are being intentionally and quite uncharacteristically obtuse and mulish (are you on drugs or something? You sound like a completely different person than usual).

You want to turn this thing into “he said, she said” (or as you put earlier, “agree to disagree”). You don’t like my answers? Fine. Go to a hospital and see a doctor and ask what definition and criteria he uses.

I asked the lady who sleeps next to me who happens to be the head of a hospital, and that’s exactly what she said. So did the general counsel of the large healthcare system on whose board I serve.

If you want to rely on an obscure and peripheral article to make yourself believe that you are right, go ahead. Just don’t throw a tizzy when most hospitals and doctors don’t agree (which of course you will write off as their darn general counsels trying to “evade responsibility”).

Which HAIs you do and don’t consider iatrogenic. Without being “nebulous.�

Keep repeating the word I used back at me is petulant and childish. I already answered this multiple times. HAIs that are caused by medical treatment – diagnosis, surgical procedures, medication, etc. – are iatrogenic as are those resulting from medical malpractice, error, negligence, etc. (e.g. roughly 95% of surgical patients in the healthcare system I serve are given antibiotics preventively to reduce incidents of bacterial infections – if the staff forgets to give antibiotics and the patient acquires an infection during the surgery, yes, it is iatrogenic by omission).

HAIs that are from non-medical causes (and in fact not even related to the medical staff) – and simply being at the hospital isn’t enough – are not iatrogenic. If your kid goes to a pediatrician to get vaccinations and gets the flu from another kid at the pediatrician – despite the pediatrician following the prevailing standard of care of keeping the two apart – that flu IS “hospital-acquired,” but IS NOT iatrogenic. If you stomp on a thumbtack at a hospital and infect your foot while “under treatment” for another illness, it’s unfortunate, and perhaps the hospital ought to be responsible to some extent, but the foot infection IS NOT an iatrogenic illness, because it did not originate from that treatment.

My dead friend didn’t get COVID from any of the staff at the hospital (I know that for a fact). Chances are extremely low that he got it from any surface or contaminated objects. There is zero evidence that the staff was in any way negligent. It is highly likely that he acquired it from another patient (before the scale and extent of the pandemic was known in the U.S.). I am comfortable calling it HAI, but not iatrogenic. But you go ahead and tell me how you think my friend’s death should be categorized. I’ll just tell you to go pound sand.

These are not my definitions – they are widely used definitions in the medical world.

Please supply a reference supporting that as a universal definition in the medical world. I have provided multiple references with conflicting definitions. I have repeatedly (starting with my initial comment 61) asked you for a definition. I have yet to see a good non-nebulous definition from you. Much less a reference.

What is that widely used definition? And please provide a reference.

You used a very crucial word here, intended or not – “reasonable.�

It was intentional. For anyone else who cares (I am sure you know all about this):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Being hospitalized IS a medical activity.

Your definition of iatrogenic would include those who are present at the hospital, period, (visitors, staff, etc.), not just those who are hospitalized or are treated medically.

NO. Again, here is the first sentence of the Wikipedia article I have linked repeatedly.
Iatrogenesis is the causation of a disease, a harmful complication, or other ill effect by any medical activity, including diagnosis, intervention, error, or negligence.

The key point is (though not explicit, it is implicit in that list) being under treatment. That excludes both employee and visitor nosocomal infections from “iatrogenic” (I should have been clearer about that, I have been focusing on patients).

Please stop misrepresenting my points. It is tiresome and only serves as evidence for you not being able to answer my actual points. When “stating my points” you might consider using quotes.

HAIs. vs. CAIs is more than adequate if your intention is to identify “underperformers� in the context.

Agreed about that.

Iatrogenesis should be reserved to track negative consequences of therapy (malpractice, error, negligence, unintended/side effects, etc.).

Also agreed about that as stated. Except “negative consequences of therapy” should include HAIs for patients (i.e. under treatment) in that etc. Thus those HAIs are iatrogenic. Which has been my point all along.

That (which HAIs should be considered iatrogenic) is our primary point of disagreement. Please stop muddying the waters.

To make this more specific, from your comment 62:

Some hospital-acquired infections can be deemed as iatrogenic, e.g. the surgeon who operated on you forgot to wash his hands or the instruments were not properly disinfected, etc. But not all HAIs are iatrogenic (catching the flu from the patient sitting next to you in the waiting room).

From my comment 68:

I think assigning all HAIs as iatrogenic is actually the opposite of nebulous. It is very clear. The problem is it may be overly inclusive. But trying to fix the over-inclusiveness makes the definition more nebulous.

Am I to take it by your standard NO HAIs should be considered iatrogenic? If not, where is the threshold? And please don’t be nebulous when describing it.

What is interesting is that you wrote a 700 word reply (comment 71) to comment 68 without addressing those central questions.

Please stop being evasive and make clear:
– Which HAIs you do and don’t consider iatrogenic. Without being “nebulous.”
– What you base that on (since you keep claiming your definitions are standard). With references.

That reads to me like the distinguishing feature for nosocomial is being in/out of the hospital (non-controversial, I think) and the distinguishing feature for iatrogenic is being caused by an intervention. I think this is in line with Twinkie’s definition.

These are not my definitions – they are widely used definitions in the medical world. Keeping track of nosocomial/hospital-acquired infections (in relation to community-acquired) allows for, among other uses, knowing how well (or badly) hospitals are doing to prevent infections (and which infections, in particular) compared to the rest of the the world. Keeping track of iatrogenic infections allows for knowing the scale of negative consequences associated with therapy (medical procedures and medications). Introducing non-relevant negative health outcome events into the latter (such as people stepping on a thumbtack just because it happened to be at a hospital) muddies the waters and introduces inaccuracy into the statistics that should enable the public to understand negative consequences of medicine.

Tack in a parking lot owned by the hospital. I would not call this iatrogenic, but it does seem possible the hospital should bear some responsibility (though I am sure the general counsel will have managed to set things up to evade it) if it is something which happens excessively (e.g. not cleaning up a massive thumbtack spill).

That should be the case with any property owner – it has nothing to do with whether the said property owner is a medical facility or a donut shop. And your potshot here at hospital legal staff is exactly that – a silly potshot. We, in the United States, spend billions each year (estimated by one study at $25 billion) in “defensive practice of medicine,” because of an overly indulgent, and frankly a parasitic, tort system (especially aimed at medicine). https://www.verywellhealth.com/defensive-medicine-2615160

General counsels of healthcare systems are busy defending the latter from these legal assaults and you try to make it sound like they are some weasels looking to cheat some poor, hapless victims.

Infection acquired from indeterminate passage through the hospital. This one is hard. It is too easy to use it as a waste bucket for the more serious cases below. My inclination would be to call this iatrogenic because of that (and the sharp inside/outside the hospital itself boundary), but to assign responsibility only if the numbers are excessive.

That is why in medicine, the discussion usually centers around hospital-acquired vs. community-acquired rather than a framework (iatrogenic), which can be nebulous (e.g. “mental anguish”) and highly subjective. Who decides what is “excessive” here?

I would call this iatrogenic, but again responsibility is fairly loose as long as neither excessive cases or negligence in a particular case are present. For example, in the middle of a pandemic did the hospital check the status of each patient with reasonable care?

You used a very crucial word here, intended or not – “reasonable.” There are prevailing standards of care present at the time of treatment.

If you are a parent, you know what it’s like to visit a pediatric practice. They generally have two waiting areas – one for “sick” children and another for not sick (there for vaccination, etc.). This is to reduce the chance of the former spreading any contagious disease to the latter. But the two are not hermetically sealed. Though the physical separation makes transmission less likely, the possibility is not eliminated, because it is not practically possible to create completely isolated environments. That is the prevailing “reasonable” standard of care.

Now, if a child in the latter group catches a cold from the former group, that should be categorized as a hospital-acquired infection (which again, among other things, allows us to see how effective the current standard of care is in preventing transmission). It should not be treated as iatrogenic, because the medical intervention in question, the vaccination, which the child in question was given, did not cause the cold. Doing what you advocate – treating this as iatrogenic – would make it less accurate to understand the scale of negative consequences from medical activity.

Being hospitalized IS a medical activity.

Your definition of iatrogenic would include those who are present at the hospital, period, (visitors, staff, etc.), not just those who are hospitalized or are treated medically.

Trying to decide if it is worth responding at length to Twinkie’s comment 71.

I am still here whether you look at me or not. 😉

What can be done is set up an environment where outcomes are tracked (note this requires proper definition of terms like ‘iatrogenic’) and an attempt is made to manage the risks and identify underperformers.

HAIs. vs. CAIs is more than adequate if your intention is to identify “underperformers” in the context. Iatrogenesis should be reserved to track negative consequences of therapy (malpractice, error, negligence, unintended/side effects, etc.).