The Dangers of Licensing . . .

Many people think that licensing professions - medicine, for instance - is a sound idea because it reduces quackery. 

Well, so much for that, eh? 

Consider the contrary alternative - as applied to the practice of another profession. That of journalism. Anyone is free to write, without having to beg the state or a state-enforced guild of some kind (that's you American Medical Association) for permission to do so. Permission that is conditional. Permission that can be rescinded - and for more than what is styled "malpractice," as regards the practice of medicine.

The latter having become synonymous with obedience.

The state of California, as a for-instance, along with the medical guild that holds a sword of Damcoles over the heads of physicians in California via the threat of taking away their permission to practice, has been trying to do just that to any doctor who tells the truth about the inefficacy of "masks," alternatives to the "vaccines" or questions anything the state/guild state as absolute truths that may not be questioned.

And the truth is no defense.

This sort of thing was also being done on an ad hoc basis nationally during the "pandemic," via threatened firings - loss of privileges - if a doctor refused to "mask" or (more serious) did not try to force the "mask" upon patients.

The California business has been temporarily held in abeyance by courts but there is as yet no challenge to the principle underlying it - that to be allowed to practice medicine, one must obtain the state's permission and be anointed by a state-backed guild to do so.

But it is precisely that principle which must be rejected if doctors are ever again to be free to practice medicine.

As journalists in this country still are.

For now.

Naturally, there is a movement afoot to end that - by licensing journalists (just as Dr. Goebbels did in Germany; just as Stalin did in Soviet Russia)  and thereby controlling journalism, just as medicine is now controlled.

Imagine the consequences of that - including for medicine.

If journalists were required to be licensed by the state and/or the practice of their profession made conditional upon the permission to do so of a state-enforced guild of some kind, it is doubtful anyone - excepting those who'd been harmed by them - would know the truth about  . . .  anything. Including the truth about the drugs that were pushed on the populace by a medical system completely controlled by the same mechanisms.

Instead of people becoming aware of the facts - and becoming "hesitant" to take these drugs - most would have continued to take them, because that's what their licensed-and-approved doctors - the "experts" - told them to and no one else was telling them about the sound reasons why they might not want to.

"Masking" would have never ended. Dr. Fauci would not be in hiding. Albert Bourla - head of the chief drug cartel - would not have to worry about free-range journalists accosting him with "impertinent" questions.

The asking of such questions is a danger, all right - to lies and those who spread them.

It is precisely because the practice of journalism does not require permission - and for that reason the right to practice it cannot be taken away for displeasing authority - that journalism is capable of exposing the truth.

Especially about authority.

This has long been understood to be an essential bulwark against abusive authority. Once upon a time, "mainstream" journalists practiced such journalism, as for example the TV program, 60 Minutes.

But that was long time ago.

"Mainstream" journalism has become a kind of guild the members of which no longer question authority but rather cheerlead for it - often deliberately avoid covering anything that calls it into question, as for example the recent revelations - on video - of a senior Pfizer drug-pusher openly admitting alarming things about the company he works for. These revelations - this video - ought to have been all over the "mainstream" news, rather than ignored by most of it.

And this is precisely why "mainstream" journalists are no longer trusted.

Journalists outside of the "mainstream" have a growing rather dwindling readership/viewership because they have been free to tell the truth - and the truth always finds an audience, because the truth is essential to physical as well as psychological survival. If young children are not told the truth about dangerous things that can cause them harm then they are much more likely to be harmed by dangerous things. Every parent knows this. Or rather, used to know it.

This is no less true for adults - viz, the drugs that don't immunize that licensed quacks continue to insist are "vaccines." Which they are pressured to do by threat of loss of their license to practice.

And so they squelch the truth in favor of lies that cause harm to those whom they lie to. And thereby become the very thing that "licensing" was - ostensibly - erected to prevent.

Quacks.

That word has an ancient lineage, going back to Medieval times, when quacksalvers would push mercury - a toxic liquid metal - on the sick as a "salve" for what ailed them. Modern quacks push drugs that provide no immunity from sickness as "vaccines." It is fundamentally the same kind of malpractice. Lucky for us there were unlicensed journalists who were free to practice their profession - who exposed this malpractice.

This does not mean that some journalists - absent licensing - won't also be guilty of "malpractice." Just as there will always be some people who decide to use a gun for criminal purposes, irrespective of laws forbidding this. The point is that the truth stands a chance when it is free to combat untruth. Quack journalists, at any rate, would not have a lock on their profession; instead it is policed by the truth. Journalists who got it right would rise in esteem and trustworthiness. Those who were more often wrong than right - or who were caught lying - would soon be out of the profession by dint of no longer having an audience.

Precisely as is happening to the "mainstream" journalists, which probably accounts for their eagerness to turn the practice of journalism into a duly licensed profession - just like medicine.

. . .

If you like what you've found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster - and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price - free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!