Non-medical vaccination exemptions are increasing

By Mathew Goldstein

The rate of non-medical school vaccination exemptions granted to students in Maryland on parental request, based on the Maryland census as reported by the CDC, has been increasing. Here are the numbers:

2023-24  out of 63,224 students

Any Exemption 2.2% 1,393

Medical Exemption 0.7% 451

Non-Medical Exemption  1.5% 942

2022-23 out of 59,684 students:

Any Exemption 1.9% 1,143

Medical Exemption 0.5% 307

Non-Medical Exemption  1.4% 836

2021-22 out of 53,866 students

Any Exemption 1.5% 801

Medical Exemption 0.5% 258

Non-Medical Exemption  1.0% 543

2020-21 out of 65,764  students (census plus voluntary private responses)

Any Exemption 0.9% 610

Medical Exemption 0.2% 109

Non-Medical Exemption  0.8% 501

The non-medical exemption rate in 2018 was 1.1% and in 2019 was 1.0%, so the rate dropped suddenly in 2020 before increasing again. This could be an anomalous two year side effect of the COVID vaccination campaign. Disregarding the 2020-2021 pandemic years, the non-medical exemptions have still increased significantly from the 1.1% reached in 2018 to the most recent 1.5%. Non-medical exemptions are 2-4 times more frequent than medical exemptions.

The Robert F. Kennedy Jr. independent campaign for President that relied on foolish anti-vaccination rhetoric failed. Transactional, sycophant rewarding, self-serving, Trump praised Kennedy after Kennedy endorsed him, saying he would appoint Kennedy to be chair of a commission on vaccine safety and integrity if he moves into the White House. Allowing non-medical exemptions for contagious disease vaccinations that have been carefully empirically vetted for safety and effectiveness is so obviously counterproductive that no more effort should be needed to argue for this assertion than to argue for vehicle seat belts. A recent study found positive correlations between 22 virus infections, some of which can be avoided by vaccinations, and increased risk of experiencing subsequent neurological problems [Nueron, Volume 111, Issue 7P1086-1093.E2April 05, 2023] (reminder: get your annual flu shot). "The largest effect association was between viral encephalitis exposure [avoid with measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine] and Alzheimer’s disease," the researchers write in the study. "Influenza with pneumonia was significantly associated with five of the six neurodegenerative diseases studied. We also replicated the Epstein-Barr/multiple sclerosis association. Some of these exposures were associated with an increased risk of neurodegeneration up to 15 years after infection." Regardless of who is our next president, state laws that grant non-medical contagious disease vaccination exemptions should be retired. Maryland law should also make it mandatory for providers of the state mandated vaccinations to report all such vaccinations to the state vaccination database. 

Furthermore, insofar as state law nevertheless does permit contagious disease vaccination exemptions, or any other exemptions for anything that is by default legally mandated, both religious and non-religious individuals and families should be provided equal opportunity to qualify for that exemption. Laws which unnecessarily single out religious beliefs exclusively as the sole acceptable non-medical justification for obtaining contagious disease vaccination mandate exemptions, as is the case in Maryland (it is plausible that in practice non-religious exemption requests are being granted in Maryland, I do not know if the religious qualification restriction is actually being meaningfully enforced), are improperly biased against non-religious citizens. 

Our Supreme Court should be willing to acknowledge that laws exhibiting this bias against non-religious citizens are in conflict with the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses of the constitution. As we know, the current Supreme Court majority is unfriendly towards those legal provisions, but we can still ask our state lawmakers to remove this bias from state laws. That these exemption laws are often restricted to religious believers may be a symptom of a desire to limit the harm by limiting the number of exemptions granted while avoiding acknowledging that granting such exemptions is bad policy.

Who are the moderates promoting reconciliation with Israel?

By Mathew Goldstein

Ismail Haniyeh, the former leader of Hamas who was assassinated by a bomb in Tehran, is claimed by some to have been a “moderate”. He was ‘pragmatic’ and ‘open to negotiation’, said the Guardian. CNBC at least had the decency to hedge, calling Haniyeh a ‘relatively moderate figure’. He was similarly depicted ‘as a moderate’, in comparison with ‘more hardline’ Hamas leaders by Reuters. 

Yet he openly and proudly celebrated the 7 October brutality, calling it a ‘victory’, agitating for a further ‘jihad of the swords’, predicting that the ‘army of Muhammad’ will be returning to wreak vengeance on Jews. 

What apparently made him a ‘moderate’ in the minds of some people is that he was open to talks with Israel. He was OK with having backdoor channels with Israeli officials. He would talk in secular language when talking to non-Muslims. Yet at the same time he was also OK with constructing underground tunnels from which Israel’s demise was plotted by fanatics. He cheered the spilling of Palestinian blood, too. ‘[The] blood of the women, children and elderly… we need this blood so that it will ignite with us the spirit of revolution’, he said, helpfully explaining that ‘donations to Gaza are not ‘Humanitarian Aid’ but ‘Financial Jihad’. His message to Muslims was that the battle is really all about ‘our Islamic Nation’. When speaking to his fellow Muslims he emphasized this ‘is not the battle of the Palestinian people, or Gaza, or the people in Gaza’.

Moderates are the people seeking peaceful reconciliation between Israel and Arab countries. Hamas (Islamic Resistance) is one of the groups in the region, together with Hezbollah (Party of God), the Houthi’s in Yemen, and Iran, that actively opposes such reconciliation and are working to try to stop it. Hamas attacked on October 7 with the goal of undermining and sabotaging the movement toward peaceful reconciliation that was advancing. Haniyeh and his movement deliberately escalated tensions in the Middle East when they green-lighted the rape, kidnap and murder of more than a thousand people in Israel on 7 October. Hamas, including Haniyeh when he was alive, are enemies of all genuine moderates.

Hamas justifies a continuous war against Israel with false claims that they are fighting in defense of Islam. Israel offers to end war and let the senior leadership, including Sinwar, leave if all hostages are freed and Gaza is disarmed. There is no need for Gaza to be armed. The use of Gaza as a staging ground for ongoing violent attacks against Israel is the root cause of this battle and all previous battles between Israel and Gaza since Hamas started ruling Gaza in 2007. November’s hostage-truce deal collapsed reportedly because Hamas proposed returning seven bodies and three living captives, who were two men and one woman, instead of the 10 living hostages it was supposed to release on the eighth day of the deal. The government of Israel claims it knew that the women among the seven purportedly dead hostages were alive and assessed that Hamas would immediately kill them if Israel accepted the changed terms.

Kamela Harris’ DNC speech

 By Mathew Goldstein

Kamela Harris’s DNC speech is worth spending the time  required to listen to (try 1.25x), IMO. One word in one short sentence in her approximately fifty minute speech was noteworthy for being odd, although we can anticipate it will generally be considered normal. She reassuringly said, while momentarily looking down, that she “knows” that her dead mother (who died in 2009) is watching her. Wishful magical thinking misrepresented as knowledge is not good. Her speech would have been somewhat saner if she had instead acknowledged that she imagines her mother is still watching her. We would all benefit from more sanity.

How about sex testing for female Olympic competitions?

By Mathew Goldstein

Richard Dawkins’s Facebook account was deleted after he posted on X that genetically male boxers should not fight women (he stated in a tweet on July 29, "Two men, pretending to be women, are being allowed to compete against real women in the Olympics"). The famous evolutionary biologist posted on X this morning about what he characterized to be censorship, writing that as of this morning [August 10] he was not provided with the reason for the sudden removal of his account. Dawkins’s tweet, quoted below, was reportedly viewed over 10 million times.

My entire @facebook account has been deleted, seemingly (no reason given) because I tweeted that genetically male boxers such as Imane Khalif (XY undisputed) should not fight women in Olympics. Of course my opinion is open to civilised argument. But outright censorship?

While it is possible that there is some other reason for the deletions, it is not believable that a mass deletion of his entire account, or nearly his entire account (there is a rumor that two of his Facebook posts were retained), if deliberate and not accidental, is justifiable. Update: It has now been reported that Meta concluded his account was hacked and his account has been reinstated.

It is certainly reasonable to believe, and to accordingly assert, that biological males should be blocked from competing with biological females in Olympic boxing. Why have a separate female category in boxing, and various other athletic competitions, if not for the purpose of excluding biological males? 

I am inclined to agree that the International Olympic Committee (IOC)  should be vetting athletes competing as females and disqualify those athletes who are found to have XY chromosomes, testes, and male hormones. Such athletes are biological males. A non-invasive blood test can determine both chromosomes and hormones. That is what the International Boxing Association (IBA) claims it relied on when it decided to disqualify the two boxers, Imame Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan. The test was conducted in labs approved by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). It has been widely reported that IBA has a history of financial, governance, and corruption problems, but the reputation of the IBA does not explain why the IOC opts to avoids sex testing (see “Are the Olympic Boxers’ XY DNA Test Results ‘Russian Disinformation’?” by Colin Wright).  It appears that IBA disqualifies anyone with XY chromosomes. A combination of XY with a male hormone profile would arguably be better because it would allow Swyer syndrome females who have XY chromosomes to compete with other females. Maybe additional testing could be required when needed to resolve remaining ambiguities. The details of what vetting methods are the most practical and effective can be hashed out by the experts. There may not be a method that is both practical to implement and 100% effective, so some compromises may be unavoidable. Meanwhile, as a non-expert observer, I am skeptical that avoiding such sex vetting altogether, as was the case for boxing at this Olympics, is the best approach.

Unfortunately, many news organizations are reporting an overly simplistic, one-sided perspective of two winning female boxers being unfairly smeared with spurious accusations that they are cheaters. Their perspective appears to be that when an athlete was identified as female at birth and continues to self-identify as female as an adult that it is somehow uncouth to question the integrity of their self-identification as it applies to the athletic competition context. This superficial perspective is unperceptive to differences/disorders of sex development (DSD) that manifest as males (they have internal testes, not ovaries) with genitals that resemble female genitals and/or to the impact of male puberty (triggered by the additional testosterone secreted from testes, ovaries secrete less testosterone) on athletic performance. 

Update: Khelif’s coach, Georges Cazorla, recently confirmed that Khelif has both a male karyotype and high testosterone, a combination consistent with being a male who has a DSD that contributed to his being misidentified as female at birth.

Coleman Hughes’ new book on race politics

 By Mathew Goldstein

Coleman Hughes has a BA in Philosophy at Columbia University.  His new book, “The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America”, is an exemplar of rational, evidence grounded advocacy, persuasively arguing against the popular “anti-racism” of DiAngelo, Kendi, Crenshaw, Coates, Hannah-Jones, etc. Hughes shows that their political philosophy and strategy is built on neoracist and counterfactual foundations. His argument here is particularly strong. He further argues that their political advocacy is all around counter-productive, it is bad for society and people of all races. This book is worth reading, it is thoughtful, concise, and well argued. 

He “very much” supports “affirmative action in the original sense of the term: aggressively recruiting minority candidates from less-privileged backgrounds and then judging them by race-neutral standards.” He argues that ”achieving equity simply by fiat—that is, by lowering standards of entry for underrepresented groups—does nothing to equip people with the knowledge, skills, and habits required to succeed. Equity by fiat is merely the illusion of equity.” Instead, we “need to recommit ourselves to the principle of race-neutral merit and work toward a society in which more and more disadvantaged people are able to clear meritocratic benchmarks as a result of actually possessing the skills required to compete in the economy.”

A big picture, empirically grounded, philosophy

 By Mathew Goldstein

In his 2016 book “The Big Picture: On the Origin of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself”, theoretical cosmologist Sean Carroll skillfully elucidates a modern, empiricist anchored, philosophy of “poetic naturalism” that starts with, is guided by, and fully embraces, the relevant knowledge we have accumulated to date. Purely rationalistic philosophy is a subject without an object which is OK when the subject is mathematics but is otherwise mostly useless sophistry.  Sean Carroll, an empiricist who has studied philosophy in addition to physics, clearly recognizes this distinction.

A big picture philosophy starts with the Core Theory which is ekinological. The Core Theory consists of the Standard Model that describes quantum particles and fields plus the Theory of Relativity that adds non-quantum spacetime gravity. It can be operationally represented with a single equation for “the amplitude to undergo a transition from one configuration to another in the path-integral formalism of quantum mechanics”. The amplitude translates into a probability of transitioning to a particular next configuration. The causes and effects, reasons why, purposes, and goals of teleology are all absent from the ground level Core Theory. Yet causes and effects, reasons why, purposes, and goals have central roles in our day to day lives.  

Sean Carroll argues that we are rationally compelled on the available evidence to reconcile these discrepancies by adopting a pluralistic, multi-level, description of our universe. At the ground level is the Core Theory. The higher level phenomena emerge from, and can be mapped back to, the Core Theory. The emergent properties are distinct and real, their secondary status as higher level phenomena does not diminish the centrality of emergence as a substantial and important component of how the universe operates. The Core Theory does not by itself provide a complete description of reality. Higher level emergent properties are as essential to our understanding of the operation of our universe as the ground level Core Theory. 

Therefore, when we describe how our universe operates, the appropriate language to use depends on the “domain of applicability” where the topic being discussed resides. Terminology that describes the Core Theory ground level context should not be intermixed with language that describes the higher emergent level contexts. Nor, for example, is terminology that is applicable at the emergent levels of chemistry, or cellular biology, always appropriate when the context is the level of a multi-celled organism, etc. This overlaps with Daniel Dennett’s perspective: “First, materialism reigns, and the major philosophical problems of consciousness, meaning, and free will all have accounts that owe more to biology than to physics. The beginning of life is the beginning of reasons and meaning and information (in one of its most important senses);” [I Have Been Thinking, p. 390].

The conventional meanings and connotations of some commonly utilized words conflict with a poetic naturalism perspective. Therefore, to communicate accurately, we will sometimes be better off either avoiding some potentially misleading words or adding clarifications. In his book Sean Carroll includes clarifications, and selects words, to avoid miscommunication. Yet he does not directly discuss this general communication complication. This is a significant and unfortunate omission.

We need to be careful to ensure that our higher level context descriptions are consistent with the lower level context descriptions in the sense that we can map what happens at the higher levels back to the lower levels. At the same time, we should avoid mistakenly insisting on a one to one, bidirectional, mapping. There can be many lower level configurations that map to the same  higher level phenomena. Emergent properties that are absent at the lowest level, such as the arrow of time, can very much impact our experiences and interactions. The difference between past and future is an example of an emergent property that is too fundamental for us to ignore even though it is absent from the ground level Core Theory. 

It also needs to be said that not everyone is onboard to the notion that time is an emergent property. Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, while he recommends this book, disagrees with that and various other arguments found therein. It is worthwhile to read his counter-arguments in his review of this book https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/science-big-picture-mysteries-remain/. For example, Smolin argues that “We know exactly how to make a robot, but have no idea how to design or construct a human being (except the old fashioned way). How can we confidently claim that they are the same? The argument seems to be that the universe is a machine, so humans and robots — as subsystems of that universe — must be machines too. This begs the question, because different machines operate by different principles, and the principles needed to make our minds comprehensible remain unknown.” On this particular point I am inclined to agree with Smolin.

Unlike Smolin, Sean Carroll rejects David Chamber’s argument that unconscious zombies that are physically identical to conscious people and that mimic the behavior of conscious people are conceivable which Chambers then claims implies consciousness is a property of the universe. Sean Carroll says consciousness is an emergent property of particular physical systems and therefore is an inevitable property of such physical systems, so such philosophical zombies are inconceivable. I am inclined to agree with Carroll’s perspective here, along with most of what Carroll argues in his book. But to be fair, I have not read a book by Smolin, if I did then maybe he would convince me otherwise.

The central disagreement appears to be whether matter has additional, fundamental, irreducible properties beyond those described by the laws of physics as they are understood today. Smolin says yes, Carroll argues no. After reading Carroll’s book, it is my opinion that Carroll has compelling arguments that the known laws of physics are incompatible with the existence of such additional, fundamental, irreducible properties. Smolin is no doubt right to point out that our current understanding is still cloudy, giving us some reason to think we may be missing significant details which, if eventually found, could substantially revise our big picture understanding. However, citing such a possibility is not a particularly strong refutation of Carroll’s arguments.

Multiple ways of knowing, the holistic approach

By Mathew Goldstein

The US Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council on Environment Quality published the “Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Indigenous Knowledge” which states that “Multiple ways of knowing or lines of evidence can improve research outcomes and improve decision making.” It describes “Indigenous Knowledge” as follows: “Indigenous Knowledge is based in ethical foundations often grounded in social, spiritual, cultural, and natural systems that are frequently intertwined and inseparable, offering a holistic perspective. Indigenous Knowledge is inherently heterogeneous due to the cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic differences from which it is derived, and is shaped by the Indigenous Peoples’ understanding of their history and the surrounding environment. Indigenous Knowledge is unique to each group of Indigenous Peoples and each may elect to utilize different terminology or express it in different ways. Indigenous Knowledge is deeply connected to the Indigenous Peoples holding that knowledge.״

Guidance for federal departments and agencies interacting with indigenous nations and tribes arguably does not need to say anything about what knowledge is and who is knowledgeable. And insofar as it does discuss knowledge that topic should not be the central focus of such a document. Yet this particular guidance almost exclusively focuses on indigenous ways of knowing and science in contrast to, and in concert with, non-indigenous ways of knowing and “western” science, as if knowledge and science come in different flavors like ice cream does and we select our ways of knowing and science on personal and social group preferences like we select our clothing. 

Much of what this document says in this regard is dubious, starting with the theme that there are multiple, coequal ways of knowing which vary by group and individual identities. While multiple lines of evidence can improve decision making - the more relevant lines of evidence taken into account the better - how does “multiple ways of knowing” also achieve that goal? This document repeatedly asserts that Native American ways of knowing are coequal to alternative ways of knowing of nonNative Americans. What about various coequal ways of knowing for different Protestant denominations? Are there coequal Confucian ways of knowing? This document does not say, but the implication is that each group has its own, equally valid, way of knowing.

Grounding knowledge in ethical foundations is a mistake common to religious beliefs. The operation of the universe may be, and as far as we can see from the available evidence actually is, ethically indifferent. Deriving knowledge from ethical foundations simultaneously results in unreliable knowledge claims and unreliable ethics. To be non-fictional ethics needs to be grounded in knowledge and knowledge needs to be derived from evidence. So the sequence is evidence first (not “social, spiritual, cultural, and natural systems”) as the foundation for knowledge second as a grounding for ethics third, not the other way around.

This White House document, while it has good intentions, is misguided. Knowledge claims need to be properly justified with evidence to be valid. Both indigenous and non-indigenous people are prone to pass on stories of their history or how the universe operates over many generations that are false. The mere fact that a group of people claim to speak about their own history or in accord with their own experience  does not suffice to establish that their understanding of their history, or of how the universe works, is true. Nor does the observation that they adopt a more holistic approach give their understandings of how the universe works additional credence. On the contrary, insofar as a more holistic approach equates with claiming knowledge outside of, and beyond the reach of, what the available evidence supports, that is a counter-productive recipe for overstating and exaggerating claims of possessing true knowledge.

This document is counter-productively slighting and denigrating the distinction between well justified knowledge claims anchored in overall best fit with available evidence and poorly evidenced or non-evidence assertions being misrepresented as knowledge. The standard for what qualifies as knowledge should not, and does not, vary by tribe, by ethnicity, by race, by culture, by location, or by any individual or group identities. This should be obvious, but sadly, as this document demonstrates, it is not, at least not for the US federal government executive branch responsible for overseeing science policy. IMO, this is a symptom of an overreaching politicization of our governments and of our institutions more generally.

Believing in a single unitary religion, both Protestants and Catholics sometimes viewed non-Christians who were also neither Jewish or Muslim as suitable either for conversion to the true faith or worthy only of death or enslavement. This attitude, baked into mistaken religious beliefs, which in turn are rooted in incompetent epistemology, shaped the Europeans’ relations with Africans as well as Native Americans. This attitude also spilled over into similarly negative attitudes towards Jews and Muslims, and also contributed to warfare between different groups of self-identifying Christians. Native Americans were among those who suffered the ugly consequences of this arrogance. It is a misdirected and counterproductive mistake to try to redress and counter this history by disputing and attacking the epistemological foundation of reliable knowledge formation.

We do not know the long-term impacts

By Mathew Goldstein

Dr. Hilary Cass, former President of the Royal Colleg of Pediatrics and Child Health, recently submitted her final report and recommendations to the National Health Services (NHS) England in her role as Chair of the Independent Review of gender identity services for children and young people. The report concluded that “for most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress”. Five European countries, Finland, Sweden, France, Norway, and the U.K. have recently restricted hormone treatments for adolescents and pre-adolescents with gender distress who are not intersex/hermaphroditic because of a lack of evidence of the benefits and concern about medium and long-term harms. Intersex, defined as chromosomal and phenotype inconsistency or phenotype not classifiable, characterizes about 0.018% of people [Sax L. How common is intersex? a response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. J Sex Res. 2002 Aug;39(3):174-8. doi: 10.1080/00224490209552139. PMID: 12476264.].

Additional concerns cited in the report commissioned by the NHS include that “Social justice” ideology is driving medical decision-making, and “the toxicity of the debate” has created an environment “where professionals are afraid to openly discuss their views.” That “social transition”—when children assume other gender identities—is an “active intervention” that may set youths on a path to medical transition. And that this intervention may make gender dysphoria worse. That clinicians “are unable to reliably predict which children/young people will transition successfully and which might regret or detransition at a later date.” That a disproportionate number of patients were “birth registered females presenting in adolescence. . . . a different cohort from that looked at by earlier studies.”  That many parents feared their children had been medicalized by professionals who didn’t take other difficulties into account, “such as loss of a parent, traumatic illness, diagnosis of neurodiversity, and isolation or bullying in school.” That the majority of gender-dysphoric patients in early studies found that their symptoms desisted during puberty, with most coming out as gay or bisexual later.

IMO, adolescents can be encouraged to explore without medical interventions. We do not yet understand what we are doing to the young people who are being medically transitioned. There is some evidence that sex hormones have a role in brain development. One concern is that the brain is among the last organs to mature.  We should accumulate sufficient evidence to confidently estimate the benefit versus harm ratio with controlled and monitored trials first, before commercializing medical gender transitioning for young people. 

United States medical authorities are continuing to endorse and promote unquestioning, affirmation style, commercial medicalized gender transitioning for youth. We are doing so “on shaky foundations” according to Dr. Cass and a substantial number of other experts. Sex is observed, usually at birth, by looking at genitalia, with a chromosome assessment back up when genitalia do not suffice. Like eye color, fingerprint pattern, etc., sex is an observable biological reality. A babies name is assigned at birth. Yet the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics promote the less accurate and more politicized phrase “sex assigned at birth”. IMO, we should be protecting transgender people from hate and discrimination by expressing our solidarity with them and supporting their entitlement to be themselves and freely express themselves, not by obscuring or denying the facts about biological sex.

The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics unanimously voted to change its policy. It now bans transgender women athletes from participating in women’s sports. IMO, that is the better policy and other sports organizations should do the same. There are some sports competitions where male puberty has no impact on performance, but the impact of male puberty on sports performance is usually substantial, lasts for years or is irreversible, and is firmly evidenced.