Medical Technocracy, Extreme BioPower and Human Rights: Heretic Criticism of "Public Health" Authoritarian Corona Policies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


This paper presents remarks and considerations for the coming controversy on the Corona policies (or “scandal”). It is argued that these policies unjustifiably infringe on individual rights, and seriously threaten democratic values. These policies expose deficiency in political theory, unable to restrain the
“rule of experts” and their recommended policies, allegedly based on solid “science” and medicine, but often reflect professional and other biases, resulting in loss of scientific integrity, infringement of basic individual rights and breach of
medical ethics.
Public health Corona considerations warrant frightening paternalism, promoting dystopian states based on unrestricted “extreme biopower” policies which govern human bodies, including enforced mass “treatments” (lockdown) with unprecedented authoritarian control.
As a profession, public health developed indifference (and even intolerance) to individual rights, since their prescribed mass practices (e.g., water fluoridation or vaccines) were often countered by skepticism. It thus became a professional habit to enforce policies which are considered desirable from PH perspective, thus forming an authoritarian mindset, mostly undisturbed by infringements of individual rights, truth and conventional medical ethics, including a habit of exaggerating benefits of PH policies and undermining social costs (“side effects”), harms and injuries. Such habits breach basic scientific and medical ethics, defile free and unbiased argumentation in science, and make PH and medicine mostly a matter of belief in the opinions and worldviews of medical hierarchies and
technocrat experts: scientism.
Current political theory is based on the antiquated theory of "separation of powers" (government, legislature, and judiciary). Technocracy became a Fourth Power, relying on the prestige of science, still unchecked and regulated, especially
with relation to individual rights.
“Disbelievers” in current PH corona policies are contemporary "heretics", on par with religious heretics in the past. They may suffer from similar persecutions and legal restrictions, including the threat of state (legal) violence, unless their rights are protected as classical liberalism previously protected freedoms of belief, conscience and religion.
“Heretics” often adhere to natural health, currently not part of medicine and its conception of human nature. Separation of the State from Medicine [appendix I] (excluding the necessary regulation and state-sponsored or subsidized medical services) could secure the right to natural health (including medicalization-free cannabis and psychedelics), individual rights and democratic values, in post-corona liberalism or libertarianism. Appendix II describes "Chi-Corona", Chi-Kung
breathing techniques which enable civil-disobedience: presence in public space without infringing on the (medically unjustified in open spaces) Israeli PH guidelines of mandatory facial masks (exempted for respiratory consideration during physical exercises).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)230-266
JournalSocial Ethics Society Journal of Applied Philosophy
StatePublished - Jul 2020


  • Bioethics
  • Public health
  • Public space
  • Medicine
  • Medical technology
  • Post Corona Syndrome Disorder (PCSD)


Dive into the research topics of 'Medical Technocracy, Extreme BioPower and Human Rights: Heretic Criticism of "Public Health" Authoritarian Corona Policies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this