Denial of Early Covid-19 Treatment – A Crime Against Humanity

American citizens were recently coerced into being part of the test or control groups of a medical experiment, without adequate knowledge and without their consent. Hundreds of thousands of Americans likely died from the resulting denial of timely and adequate treatment of Covid-19 and more importantly, its preventable secondary conditions.
This was an egregious violation of The Nuremberg Code on human rights. The time has come for jurisprudence and restitution to those harmed.

We as humans never, never, never possess a moral, financial, social, critical, risk, scientific, nor philosophical basis to argue that any and all treatment for a malady should be denied research or application. This is an absolute human right.

Update: As one can clearly observe here, we are winning this legal argument. Congratulations Folleagues!

“In consultation with the legal community, indications are that ‘failure to [early/timely] treat’ will now be considered ‘wanton disregard.’ As such, any perceived statutory immunity will be rendered invalid.”

~ Senator Mark B. Steffen, M.D., 31 Mar 2022

The EUA Mandate – A Pandemic of the Untreated

During my initial diagnosis with the Delta variant of Covid-19 back in August 2021, I reasonably inquired of the attending physician as to any candidate or approved therapies and treatments for the condition. In his response, the diagnosing clinician admonished me with the following well-rehearsed quip:

There is no treatment. Go home and sleep it off. You should have gotten the vaccine.

~ Diagnosing Physician at Clinic, Aug 18 2021

As it turned out, this was absolutely the worst advice I have ever received in my life, and from a medical professional no less. This apothegm is what I call a Höchste Mechanism, a fraudulent notion arrogantly passed off as official science – a notion that has become so important to protect, that ignorance is now mandated in defense of its ‘truth’. This misinformation was spun by the clinician as if it were ‘the standard of care’ (both a medical and legal definition)1 for Covid-19, when in fact this was far from the truth. What I have found in researching this ‘there are no treatments’ false claim, can be framed inside the legal provisions surrounding issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Specifically,2

(C) The Secretary may issue an [EUA] authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if …the Secretary concludes—

(3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;

~ 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 – Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies

Since the EUA cannot sustain if an ‘alternative for treating’ Covid-19 exists, then there is no alternative treatment for Covid-19, quod erat demonstrandum. This is how modern science works, circular imperative (the Höchste), or the answer you bring to the problem in the first place, before solving for it. This mandate to not allow for any treatment use, development, or research, presented an ethical quandary to public health leaders, who in the end opted to serve monetary-power advantage rather than ethics. However, it gets worse. Once this bifurcation is established, between the vaccinated and ‘no treatment (allowed)’ cohorts, one has introduced a controlled experiment or what is known under The Nuremberg Code of 1947 as ‘medical experimentation’. This is the point at which an unethical choice transitions into a full-blown crime against humanity.

  1. Covid-19 treatment research, testing, evaluation, authorization, promulgation, conditions of use, timely employment, and advisement, were not only blocked by the US FDA and medical authorities, but communications regarding effective treatment were censored by US media (just as this article is being censored by those same media now).
  2. These illegal/unconstitutional restraints to trade were enacted to protect the Covid-19 vaccine Emergency Use Authorization, which could not legally exist without them.
  3. These illegal/unconstitutional restraints to trade were further employed to establish control/test cohorts inside a mandatory experiment on the entire US population; an immoral experiment which resulted in the majority of US Covid-19 related deaths (see Exhibit 1 below).

History’s Commentary on Mandatory Experimentation

The notion that one need withhold any and all forms of putative treatment or therapy as the EUA-stipulated approach in addressing Covid-19 or its symptoms, is a principle which functions under the philosophy of a ‘controlled experiment’ (i.e. medical experimentation to confirm an approach as sound/unsound). We now know too late, that there exist a variety of viable treatments for Covid-19 and in particular, its dangerous secondary conditions.3 4 5 6 Treatment not for everyone who tests positive certainly, but rather for those experiencing heavy cytokine storm or who bear a stark risk-compounding factor (dysbiosis, metabolic disorder, age, dementia, etc.). The antithesis, refusing any and all outpatient treatment or ‘doing nothing’, as it turns out was an unsound approach to the majority of moderate to severe Covid-19 cases. ‘Long Covid’ for instance, is a set of thromboembolic injuries which resulted from exactly this illegitimate ‘there are no treatments – you should have been vaccinated’ control-oriented philosophy.7 8 The reader should note that we reject the term ‘Long Covid’ for these deaths, and instead cite the actual etiology, EUA Shadow Deaths, outlined below.

The Nuremberg Code of 1947 addresses the context of circumstance wherein the standard of care has not been identified for a medical or therapeutic condition, and various approaches to treatment (including the action of withholding treatment so as to provide for a ‘control group’) are under consideration or testing (aka ‘experimentation’ in 1947).9 In the real life scenario above, I was involuntarily coerced into becoming part of an experimental protocol of withholding all treatment (the control), in favor of testing a vaccine purported to offer certain benefits against Covid-19 infection or severity. The various arguments made as to the efficacy of that vaccine are moot. A decision was made to coerce me, without sufficient knowledge on my part nor my consent, into participating as a control-group member in an experiment evaluating test-group vaccines versus the action of withholding any and all treatment. Much as a healthy beagle might be terminated after starvation for comparative autopsy in a pesticide toxicity study. All this of course as part of various vaccines’ completion of Phase III and IV testing now underway.10

A controlled experiment is one in which every factor is held constant except for one variable per test group.11 In this case, that one variable is the introduction of a particular vaccine (say the Pfizer-BioNTech version) to a test group. The fact that the vaccine was not held to standard against ‘the best alternative medical treatments or therapies’, means that denying me access to those available remedies, constituted indeed a control-test experiment exposing me to a potential of harm through contrived inaction. An experiment which risked my person, well being, health, and life without my knowledge or consent – and nothing else. My diagnosing clinician even stated as much, without fully realizing it.

In other words, I was allowed to choose whether I would be a member of
the ‘no treatment allowed’ control group or alternately one of the vaccine test groups;
however, through denying me timely treatment in order to protect the vaccine EUA,
I was not offered the ethical choice of not participating in the experiment altogether.

Neither was I informed as to the nature of this experiment, nor was I made aware that other treatments or therapies were at my avail, should I decline participation.

Nor was I allowed to be made aware of the comparative strength of natural immunity versus the vaccine, nor to see critical cohort testing data indicating the adverse effects risk quotients of the vaccine itself (both very basic ethical information sets), so that I could make an informed choice.

I was fraudulently coerced by medical professionals (and by advising health officials) into the belief that I had no choice, I had to participate. My life was endangered and I was exposed to unnecessary amounts of suffering and expense as a result of this coerced experiment. I was not offered the remedies or recourse to address the situation in the instance where the experiment failed or failed to ensure my safety (the experiment failed in both these regards), nor was I given the opportunity to bring the experiment to an end.

This set of actions constituted a violation of my human rights, subject to The Nuremberg Code of 1947. The following excerpts from that Code apply to the specific offenses outlined in my circumstance.12

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur;

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

~ The Nuremberg Code of 1947 (see footnote 12)

A seven-count violation of my human rights. I lost loved ones to this experiment. My family suffered extensive career and financial losses, we all suffered physically and mentally beyond reason, and any member could have died inside this experiment.

One elder family member who underwent a severe cytokine storm, very nearly died of blood clots in her lungs and other organs twelve days later (right on time as per Exhibit 1 below), solely because she was actively refused treatment by her general physician until she was actually dying – a tortiously late intervention in an otherwise foreseeable and treatable condition.

Each of us fell victim to contrived ignorance, fully unaware that our lives were being exploited for experiment, experimental use money flow, and political purposes. Millions of American citizens each bore a similar drama inside this crime against humanity.

The time has come for jurisprudence and restitution regarding this crime.

How Many Persons Were Impacted by this Unethical Experiment/EUA Exclusion?

But how can we even begin to quantify just how large a crime it was? In researching the mechanisms of death involved in either Covid-19 itself, or its even more dangerous secondary effects, I sought out medical publications and studies which would serve to parse Covid deaths into their actual root physiological cause. What I found disturbed me greatly. Covid-19 itself, comprising the indicators and symptoms of fever, cytokine storm, cough, and diarrhea, was rarely the cause of actual death in most Covid mortality. Most mortality occurred a good eight days after all these maladies were well over. Instead, the primary cause of death was ‘venous and arterial thromoembolic events’ (see the black arrow in Exhibit 1 below). That is to say, that 50 to 75% of all Covid deaths came from blood clots.13 14 15 Blood clots (as well as endothelial dysfunction) are conditions which are eminently treatable, provided they are addressed in a timely manner. If they are left untreated for long, myriad systems and organs within the human body will be negatively impacted.

This circumstance was akin to telling potential cancer patients to
‘Check back in with us next year and we’ll take a look at your growing lump then.

In the meantime, if you find yourself starting to die, go to the emergency room’.

Covid Did Not Kill Them – We Killed Them

This set of events constituted a highly unethical, nay monstrous, set of decisions on the part of American health officials. One which has resulted in death and immeasurable harm, from delayed treatment which was administered only under the extreme condition wherein the sufferer was dying. A dying person literally had to force their way into an ER or hospital’s care, just to get access to Heparin or a simple lifesaving novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) pill16 which could have prevented the entire tragedy (as well as offset hospital/ICU overloading) if it had been administered twelve to fifteen days earlier as an outpatient instead.

50 to 75% of all Covid-19 deaths were a result of endothelial dysfunction and blood clotting. Conditions that would not have been fatal if timely out-patient treatment had been made available to the victims.17 18 19

Such readily available treatments were denied to patients, under a contrived ignorance and the unethical protocol of an involuntary experiment that placed them at risk of harm and death. These treatable secondary effects/risks, which were not addressed until a person showed up at the ER dying included

  • blood clots/coagulopathy/circulatory deaths
  • sepsis/bacteremia
  • endothelial inflammation/major organ/heart damage
  • related physical pneumonia/dyspnea
  • dysbiosis (coprobacillus, clostridium ramosum and clostridium hathewayi)20
  • MTHFR homocysteine clearing issues
  • macrocytic anemia
  • metabolic disorder.

Of course, I am not even going to venture a guess as to the financial losses incurred by American citizens under this barbaric method of managing a pandemic. The restitution numbers will be staggering. More appropriate for this analysis however, is a quantification of the human loss in terms of injury, suffering, and life. In particular, we estimate that

  • 20+ million citizens experienced negative life-impacts/injuries/long-Covid aside from the mere pandemic virus itself,
  • 6.5 million citizens experienced excessive suffering, hospitalization, injury, and expense, and
  • 420,000+ citizens died from being denied early and timely treatment of endothelial and thromboembolic conditions (click on the image to expand Exhibit 1 below).
Exhibit 1 – Most hospitalization is too late to prevent otherwise treatable etiology.

Covid EUA-Shadow Injury and Death

Most death associated with Covid-19 occurred after the cessation of primary symptomology (Days 1 – 12 in Exhibit 1), and rather was due to secondary and imminently treatable conditions (Median Day 18.5 in Exhibit 1). These constituted conditions which were neither looked for, detected, nor treated in a timely manner outside a hospital setting, due to the vaccine emergency use authorization (EUA) 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 stipulation that no alternative treatment could exist.

(C) The Secretary may issue an [EUA] authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if …the Secretary concludes—

(3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;

~ 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 – Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies

This false standard of care was enforced upon medical professionals (by the Federation of State Medical Boards, healthcare officials, and medical insurance companies) in order to keep the vaccine EUA in place, both before and after the introduction of the vaccine into the population. This error and malfeasance resulted in the majority of deaths and delayed deaths from Covid-related organ injury, from thromboembolitic, endothelial inflammation, and coagulopathy related causes. Causes which killed Covid patients anywhere from thirteen days to several years after infection.

As one may observe in Exhibit 1 above, the median day of Covid mortality (day 18.5) falls right in the middle of the disease progression timeframe in which venous and arterial thromboembolic events were almost exclusively occurring on average. In fact, the majority of hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality events associated with Covid-19, were a direct result of otherwise treatable endothelial dysfunction and blood clots.21 22 23

Also take note, that the majority of this knowledge shown in Exhibit 1 was held by April 2020. Medical authorities had ample time to distribute, control, and monitor treatments for endothelial and thromboembolitic conditions. They simply chose not to.

An action which resulted in the USA holding a #1 ranking in national deaths, a full 37% higher than even the #2 ranked nation (Brazil) in terms of total deaths.24

Most people did not die of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, nor even its primary Covid-19 symptoms. They died at the hands of obdurate-minded and unaccountable public health officials. They died as the result of a horrendous experiment in humanity on the part of The Party – one conducted gleefully on their political opponents. While at the same time rubbing their noses in the destruction of their children’s lives, shuttering of their small and medium-sized businesses, and overall impingement upon their quality of life.

We, the American citizens, seek remedy for this crime against humanity.

The Ethical Skeptic, “Denial of Early Covid-19 Treatment – A Crime Against Humanity”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 30 Dec 2021; Web,

Perdocent – Opposite of the Autodidact

The perdocent exploits the claim of not having been taught how to do something, as a means of not understanding, of taking control, or to avoid doing any actual work. As a management professional, no matter their appeal to credential, never let a perdocent take control. Always seek to maintain familiarity with the perdocent’s tactics of ego, laziness, and cleverly concealed dishonesty.

During my career as head of both a research lab and systems development and engineering firm, I have run into the circumstance several times wherein a fully educated and trained professional could not learn, nor apply their skills inside new challenges, unless inside the context of a formal course of instruction. For instance, I once asked a two-years out of school systems engineer to apply random sampling analysis in order to ascertain a critical figure from United States International Trade Association consumer good imports data. The team was then going to use the results of this to determine specific value chain node-loading required in our client’s requested project. Instead of seeking more information to help understand and formulate the scope of the question, he retorted, “I have not been trained how to do that”. I responded, “All I am asking of you is to conduct some textbook random sampling to detect failure rates in this class of goods. The data you need in order to accomplish this is already in our data mart. The rest of the team will develop the value chain inputs from there.”

Without telling me, he shirked his assignment, subsequently appealing to his mentor (my peer) in order to plead his case to be excused from the three-hour task. This was very basic sample analysis, second year in undergraduate school type stuff for his major degree.1 Moreover, the reality was that through his surprise appeal to my peer, the individual was pretending to tender expert commentary as to the viability and methodology of a value chain analysis – just not in so many words. A practice I and the team were well recognized for, through over a decade of hard client work up to that point. He did not really know how to do the work, nor did he want to do any work, but he damn well thought that he should also be in charge of the work.

I ended up having to run the sampling analysis myself. Thereafter, the team went on to lead a very successful and industry-celebrated project. Needless to say, that individual’s tenure with the company was cut short subsequent to this incident. This was a case of the Peter Principle in action. The person had been exposed as to their inability to perform outside the context of an academic environment, or in a slightly more complex context than the one inside of which they had learned. He had developed a skill in memorizing a procedure for an exam, but did not really understand what he had ‘learned’ – in the end spinning this as my fault. Such are the familiar tactics of negative Peters, and as well the script following perdocent.

What therefore is (a) perdocent?


/PER-dŭ-sĕnt; from Latin perdoceo – teach, educate, drill, train/ – the state of pretense, lack in diligence, or intellectual compromise wherein one bears an inability to learn and apply, outside the context of a course of instruction. One who follows a procedure well and can pass an exam, however lacks true erudition or ability to recall or apply their learning. The belief that legitimate learning can only occur in an academic structured environment. The opposite of an autodidact or antonym of autodidactic. Also a method of rhetorical argument, in that one may claim that they have not been taught something, so therefore it is invalid or does not exist.

The Warning Flags of Perdocense

The means of detecting a perdocent may involve one or more of the following warning flags.

  • A professional whose greatest actual accomplishment over time was obtaining a degree.
  • A ginormous and well-concealed ego.
  • Rarely either an A or C student. Exploited the cheat or easier way to getting an acceptable grade.
  • Has an oft-spoken-of hobby of an extremely lofty or time-engulfing nature (skydiving, tour surfing, motorcycle racing, band member, etc.) which often takes their attentions away from work. You could not fully understand their hobby.
  • Never misses a social event for this same hobby.
  • A pattern of avoidance of work tasks.
  • Well-honed subtle tactics in backstabbing peers.
  • Attempts to recreate in the work environment their old high school or college fraternity/sorority atmosphere, or the last context in which they were in control.
  • A habit of pointing fingers, rather than circumspection.
  • A skill in manipulating organizational superiors into conflict, especially as a means to divert accountability from self.
  • Amazing skill in timing conflicts with required work tasks.
  • Fixated on how to punctuate the sentence correctly; fails to understand the sentence itself.
  • Abject fear of being seen as making a mistake. Joins the correct clique.
  • Makes or implies the syllogism, “If __________ existed, I would know about it.”
  • Is happy to review others’ work, but never to create their own.
  • Appeals to science, or lofty institutions of which you are not part.
  • Senses which beliefs the most powerful group is invested in, and adopts those same beliefs.
  • Little sincere work or ability inside inquiry or critical questions.
  • Perpetually in critique mode, as opposed to ‘how can I help?’
  • Does not know what value is, not great at budgeting or purchasing decisions.
  • Meticulously avoids circumstances which expose their lack of ability.
  • Maintains an air of ‘I know how it really should be done’. But never seems to actually do it.
  • Always and intentionally the outsider to a project team. Habitually diverted from task by something you are not privy to or do not understand.
  • Sick or facing a personal disaster/injury all throughout the workday, miraculously healed for dinner/entertaining of clients.
  • Gossips, not for epicariacy, but rather as a weapon and for control.
  • Is vengeance-minded, unless vengeance activity means extra work.
  • Is intolerant and loud about the one thing they do understand.
  • Fails to ‘understand’ any time they do not want to understand.
  • Their past accomplishments are always greater than the now at hand.
  • Uses humor as an artifice of attack, or at inappropriate times when seriousness and focus are called for.
  • Rarely holds a job more than two years.
  • Habitual employment of intimidating buzzwords as opposed to precision of language.
  • References are from far back in time, as opposed to recent.
  • Always signing up for training courses, never applies one to actual work.
  • Frequently appeals to authority and credential.
  • Succeeds on how he wears a suit, or on his perceived potential alone.
  • Regards those around him as culturally inferior – especially those who might ask him to do work or be held accountable.

The perdocent can be both the B-student who fails to replicate or apply such academic success into real life; or as well can be that person who exploits the unstructured nature of a challenge, as a means to avoid doing any hard work inside it. Both foibles fall under the guise of ‘not having been trained how to do this’.

A man of genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery.

~ James Joyce, Author

I would rather work with someone who failed three or four times and then got it right, than either the person who knew the right answer from the beginning or regarded the issue as beneath them.

~ The Ethical Skeptic

An ethical skeptic in contrast, makes many mistakes in the process of creative hard work and skills applied inside of novel asymmetric challenge. But she actually learns the subject as well through this process. She will be made fun-of or treated as an outsider by the perdocent. Her mistakes however, become occult trophies earned along a pathway to true success, one which the perdocent will never realize.

The Ethical Skeptic, “Perdocent – Opposite of the Autodidact”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 18 Dec 2021; Web,

The Three Types of Expert

A patent’s viability can be assessed by four objective criteria: its novelty, non-obviousness to a practitioner in the art, ability to be taught from prior art, and finally its isolate case of use. By these same four factors a purported expert may also be evaluated for their genuineness in delivering their craft.

In specific roles during my career I have had the good fortune to both conduct patent strategies and manage successful patenting processes on behalf of my smaller clients. In one instance my team’s patent strategy successfully defended a small company’s novel technology from both politically powerful investors, as well as a very familiar and notoriously predatory intellectual property tech-development company. If you have ever filed an electronic or mechanical device/apparatus patent, you probably already bear a suspicion as to what company this might be. You would probably also be correct.

Moreover, I have a handful of patents in development right now regarding a novel energy technology (which will remain confidential). During these opportunities it was my good fortune to be instructed/mentored by some of the top patent attorneys in the United States. My task was to teach them how each technology could be brought to bear and impact a market or vertical, as well as what features/applications must be protected to the greatest degree through what is called by the practitioner, ‘layering’. Their task was to teach my team how to craft patent structure and negotiate a successful prosecution process with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Despite all this, I am merely a journeyman with regard to patenting – what might be deemed a Type II Expert below. However, this does not prevent me from adeptly applying those lessons learned in developing patents as a Type III Expert in skepticism, nor from spotting the pretenders therein.

The Three Types of Expert

At a basic level, the strength of proficiency on the part of an expert can be discerned through how they deal with randomness and obviousness within their chosen topic of prowess.

Expert – one who can negotiate randomness and spot obviousness, more reliably than the average person.

Therefore, beware of the circumstance where subject professionals who understand this, bear only enough expertise to frame their works or analyses as successes, and essentially nothing more.

The four objective criteria used in crafting a viable patent, are also useful philosophically under ethical skepticism. They bear utility in discerning the pseudo-expert from the real thing; in particular regarding how the erstwhile expert handles randomness and obviousness within their subject. For example, a faking expert skeptic will appeal to a corrupt buzzword called ‘Occam’s Razor’, which conflates the cache of obviousness with simplicity – in hopes that if their target fails to detect this sleight-of-hand, they can then offload to them a number of religious conclusions they favor, as also being ‘simple’ (and therefore scientific).1

In general, with some overlap, there are three types of expert and expertise. The Type I or what I call, Bowel Movement Expertise, the Type II or Semantics Expertise, and finally Type III or Hard Expertise. Their framing along the lines of each of the four objective criteria for successful patents, is outlined in the graphic below.

Type I: Bowel Movement Expertise

The bowel movement expert (derived from an activity in which everyone is an expert, but some regard that their own expertise therein is superior – a perfect storm of ‘their shit don’t stink’ and ‘don’t know jack shit’) is an advisor inside a subject which is part of everyday life or is commonly experienced by many or most people. Many times this species of expert is someone who found a new way to skin the cat, or is spinning a new take on an old subject. Often this can involve a bit of huckster play as well.

An example of this species of expert might be the case of a skeptic, astrophysicist, astronomer, or even instrumental sky-survey specialist who thinks along the lines: ‘If Unidentified Aerial Phenomena were real, I would know about it’. When in actuality, they don’t know jack shit more than the average person about the topic, and a lot less than do subject specialists.

This is also known as ‘Nelsonian Inference’. Type I Experts hold proficiency in how to avoid knowledge.

The Type I Expert misses details, except when they plan to do so.

Politics or advertising are realms of endeavor which involve bowel movement expertise promoted through an appeal to authority. Ultimately the most effective means of persuasion brought to bear by this type of expert comes in the form of Aristotle’s pathos. In other words, this type of expert is there to sell you something by appealing to your emotions or desire for quick and simple finality, as opposed to actual knowledge.

  • Expertise is held to varying degrees by almost everyone – and is rarely novel.
  • Few actual experts exist, and those who pose as such are mostly specialists or hucksters exploiting false novelty, randomness, and obviousness.
  • There exist few or very narrowly applied standards or procedures – while method is usually not teachable.
  • Relies heavily upon abductive inference from an appeal to authority or at best, established prior art.

Examples: Politician, TV gadget-sales personality, weight-loss celebrity, nutritional supplement expert, football or basketball fan.

Type II: Semantic Expertise

The semantics expert is an advisor regarding the terminology, heuristic, or history surrounding a subject – features of academic knowledge which are not generally known on the part of the average individual. Often this involves intimidation of others by means of specialized language concealing a shallow grasp of true subject dynamics, overly-complex formulas and heuristics used to represent otherwise simple principles, while name-dropping a list of prior art practitioners. Though less common, huckster play can be introduced as well – usually in the form of agency, corrupt data-only science, or fake forms of skepticism.

As we cautioned earlier in this article, the Type II Expert bears only that knowledge sufficient to frame their analyses as successes. In abetment, neither do their Type II Expert peers bear a quality of knowledge sufficient to refute what was contended. As a result, sciences led by such experts spend decades adrift in fecklessness.

Such was the state of epidemiology and its impotent ‘SEIR/SEIRS+ model‘ prior to Covid-19. Despite decades of publication-celebration inside self-congratulation circles, those models and their experts failed mankind miserably.2 These experts were firemen who sat around the fire station for decades, wearing the boots and red helmets, boasting academic credential and supposed prowess – but when the fire actually came, they could not so much as don an oxygen breathing apparatus nor start a fire pump. Their exculpatory cover story? Blaming and intimidating outsiders, implying that such incompetence was everyone else’s fault.

Of course this did not stop these same Type II Experts from drowning out the voices of true modeling, simulation, and economic value chain professionals who were sounding the alarm over their actions. As a result of such semantic play-acting, hundreds of thousands of people died – all because the discipline did not possess a competent understanding of coronavirus dynamics nor true expertise on the societal impact of lockdowns and mRNA vaccines.

Psychology or philosophy are realms of endeavor which feature quite a few semantics experts. This is one reason why I refuse to habitually appeal to ancient Greek philosophers – as novel philosophy is developed in the heart, through life-trial first. Only thereafter is it apperceived, crafted, and posed, and not vice versa (I do however make an exception in the case of Aristotle’s three means of persuasion). Ultimately the most effective means of persuasion brought to bear by this type of expert comes in the form of Aristotle’s ethos. In other words, this type of expert is there to promote an agency or line of reasoning through exploiting semantic ignorance, rhetorical argument, and appeal to credential.

  • Expertise is established primarily by means of exclusive terminology or subject antiquity and its long list of noteworthy semantics experts – its expertise is rarely novel.
  • Persuasion hinges upon skill in managing perceptions of success by adeptly surfing randomness and exploiting obviousness.
  • Standards and procedures are situational (take or leave them depending upon the goal at hand) – and are sometimes teachable from prior art.
  • Relies heavily upon relative privation and linear induction from prior art.

Examples: Economist, professional skeptic, epidemiologist, dermatologist, academic philosopher, art critic, sports commentator.

Type III: Hard Expertise

The hard expert is an advisor regarding the functional disciplines regarding a specific subject – features of experience-based and field knowledge which are not generally known on the part of the average individual, nor even sometimes academicians specializing in the subject. This expertise involves well-established standards of performance or development. Not only do they grasp true subject dynamics, but odds are that they have incrementally developed some of the industry standard practices therein. I’ve had prospective new clients in the past namedrop my own practice methodologies and industry success case studies to me in a first meeting, as a means of exemplifying subject prowess. Fully unaware that their case examples were the result of my teams’ work.

For example, microeconomics addresses issues around static scarcity, demand, revenue, and the price-leveraging attainable therein. Such knowledge constitutes Type II Expertise (and does bear some utility).

Value chains in contrast, address incremental flows of value, stakeholder impacts, the loading/efficiency of nodes inside the value chain, and resulting margin-leveraging attainable therein (not just price). The latter equates to Type III Expertise. With this type of expertise, it helps to actually have ‘been there and done that’.

How many instances today have we borne witness to industry failure-consolidation and human suffering induced through price and elite stockholder driven decision-making? This is our real pandemic. The net uptake from this: Never allow an economist to develop your business or national strategy. Never allow an epidemiologist to forecast nor estimate social or economic impacts. They don’t actually know how.

Mathematics, genetics, engineering, or medical interventions technology are realms of endeavor which feature quite a few hard experts. Ultimately the most effective means of persuasion brought to bear by this type of expert comes in the form of Aristotle’s logos. In other words, logic can be applied once all the Wittgenstein features of sound foundational knowledge are well established, and firmly affixed inside recognized standards of deliberation.

  • Expertise is towards the engineering end of the discovery spectrum – and is almost always novel when in development.
  • Filters out randomness and distinguishes the obvious from the non-obvious.
  • Involves established procedures, measures, and technical standards – almost always teachable.
  • Inference is deductive at best, but also often consists of small-increment induction from subject prior art.

Examples: Applied physicist, genetic engineer, cardiologist, mathematician, medical technologist, football defensive line coach.

The adept ethical skeptic should be aware of the type of expert who is approaching them, and regard their strength of advisement accordingly.

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Three Types of Expert”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 28 Nov 2021; Web,