A German university is awarding $1,900 scholarships for 'doing nothing,' and all applicants have to do is answer what they won't do and why

• HFBK University of Fine Arts in Hamburg, Germany, is offering three people a $1,900 scholarship if they can come up with a good reason to do nothing.
• The university's "Scholarships for Doing Nothing" program was announced on August 25, and submissions are open until September 15.
• Applicants must answer four questions about how their plan to not take action could be beneficial.
• The scholarship was created by a professor in hopes of encouraging students to strive for "a lack of consequences" rather than success.

• One university is offering students from around the world the opportunity to win a $1,900 scholarship for doing nothing at all.

  The unique scholarship program — called "Scholarships for Doing Nothing" — is offered by the HFBK University of Fine Arts in Hamburg, Germany.

  The application opened on August 25, and submissions are accepted between now and September 15. Applicants are required to create a proposal based on this central question: "What action might I refrain from performing in order to prevent my life from having negative consequences for others?"

  Friedrich von Borries, a design professor at HFBK, created the scholarship to challenge social perceptions of achievement and success.

• "The world we are living in is driven by the belief in success, in growth, in money. This thinking was leading us into the ecological crisis — and social injustice — we are living in," Borries told CNN.

  "We wanted to turn that upside down — giving a grant not for the 'best' and for 'doing a project,' but for doing nothing," he added.

• 
  Scholarship winners will have their ideas showcased at Hamburg's Museum of Art and Design. 

• To apply, students must submit answers to four questions: "What do you want not to do? How long do you want not to do it for? Why is it important not to do this particular thing? Why are you the right person not to do it?"

  Borries said that his idea was partly inspired by the lack of activity during COVID-19 lockdowns.

  
  

• "During COVID, we stopped being busy not only to protect ourselves but to protect others. That is something I find very important and I hope we will be able to transfer this attitude into the post-COVID times," he told CNN.

  Applicants from around the world, not just students of the Hamburg-based university, are encouraged to apply for the scholarship.

  The three winners of the scholarship will have their ideas featured in an exhibition at Hamburg's Museum of Art and Design called "The School of Inconsequentiality: Exercises for a Different Life" from November 5 until May 9, 2021.

  Friedrich von Borries and representatives for HFBK University of Fine Arts in Hamburg did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

• https://www.insider.com/win-scholarship-doing-nothing-university-germany-hamburg-2020-8
  

 

What Happens to Facts & Truth When Liars Control the Source of Information

Context: What’s on my mind today

In her masterpiece of history and political theory, Hannah Arendt wrote in 1951 that her analysis of both mass murdering, kleptocratic totalitarians and merely murdering, kleptocratic tyrants showed that they both heavily relied on propaganda. It was a key tool to, e.g., deceive and then divide, confuse/demoralize, instill irrational fear, distract and ultimately conquer and subjugate. I call propaganda something that is intended to deceive, divide, make irrationally fearful, confuse/demoralize, conquer and/or subjugate “dark free speech” (DFS). In the legal and social context of modern America, it is mostly (~99.9% ?) legal, protected free speech. American courts gave up on trying to deal with DFS at least as early as 1945 the Thomas v. Collins supreme court decision.[1]

What happens to facts & truth when liars control public health messaging

The New York Times writes:

“WASHINGTON — Political appointees at the Department of Health and Human Services have repeatedly asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to revise, delay and even scuttle weekly reports on the coronavirus that they believed were unflattering to President Trump. 

Current and former senior health officials with direct knowledge of phone calls, emails and other communication between the agencies said on Saturday that meddling from Washington was turning widely followed and otherwise apolitical guidance on infectious disease, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, into a political loyalty test, with career scientists framed as adversaries of the administration. 

They confirmed an article in Politico Friday night that the C.D.C.’s public morbidity reports, which one former top health official described on Saturday as the “holiest of the holy” in agency literature, have been targeted for months by senior officials in the health department’s communications office. It is unclear whether any of the reports were substantially altered, but important federal health studies have been delayed because of the pressure.

The reports are written largely for scientists and public health experts, updating them on trends in all infectious diseases, Covid-19 included. They are guarded so closely by agency staff members that political appointees only see them just before they are published. Health department officials have typically only received notice of the titles of the reports. 

The New York Times interviewed five current and former federal health officials on Saturday with direct knowledge of efforts to warp the weekly reports. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to frankly discuss internal deliberations at the Department of Health and Human Services. 

In an email obtained by Politico and confirmed by a person with direct knowledge of the message, Dr. Alexander accused C.D.C. scientists of trying to “hurt the president” with the reports, which he referred to as “hit pieces on the administration.” Dr. Alexander asked Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the C.D.C. director, to edit reports that had already been published, which he believed overstated the risks of the virus for children and undermined the administration’s efforts to encourage schools to reopen.”

So, once again, new evidence bubbles up from the black cauldron that our corrupt, incompetent, immoral president and his authoritarian enablers have no qualms about lying, deceiving and unjustifiable emotional manipulation for the president’s personal political and financial gain. The president and his enablers do not even care if the lies and deceit cause innocent, deceived people to die. As the court said in 1945, every person must be his own watchman for truth. In my opinion, that is more true now than it has been for a while.

Footnote:
1. The Supreme Court gives up (again?): “But it cannot be the duty, because it is not the right, of the state to protect the public against false doctrine [lies]. The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion. In this field, every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.  West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Nor would I.” U.S. Supreme Court in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545 (1945) (Robert Jackson writing in concurrence) (brackets [ ] are mine)

DFS is ancient, not new. The destructive power of DFS has been documented for millennia. Arguably, the vicious tactic goes back to some of the earliest written records that humans ever produced. Mass slaughter at the hand of man tends to focus the mind. It seems to attract the attention of both pro- and anti-slaughter ancient historians, sort of like murder and mass slaughter movies and TV shows do the same with enough of the modern public to keep the murder and mass slaughter coming. For better or worse, the power of DFS to win hearts and minds is a reflection of the heritage humans got from evolution.

Change is NOT in the air…

What’s something that everyone agrees we should change, but somehow it never changes?

And, why doesn’t it change?  What’s the problem??

 

Thanks for thinking about it and posting.  And recommending.

Regarding the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an obscure but potentially critically important organization. (don’t let your eyes glaze over yet) The corny 2 minute video at their website (shown above) explains what ICER does and why it does it. Short answer made shorter: ICER evaluates the cost-effectiveness of new drugs, in part by comparing their cost-benefit profile with existing drugs to treat the same diseases.

Guess who hates ICER?
Hint: Pioneer (new) drug companies and the GOP
Answer: Pioneer drug companies and the GOP

Why? Money.

In an article, Special Report: Big Pharma wages stealth war on drug price watchdog, Reuters reports on how things are going with ICER:

“(Reuters) - As evidence grew this spring that the drug remdesivir was helping COVID-19 patients, some Wall Street investors bet on analysts’ estimates that its maker, Gilead Sciences Inc, could charge up to $10,000 for the treatment.

Then a small but increasingly influential drug-pricing research organization, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), said the treatment only justified a price between $2,800 and $5,000. Shortly after, Gilead announced it would charge about $3,100 for a five-day treatment and $5,700 for ten days - in line with the ICER recommendation.

The episode illustrates the growing power of the Boston-based nonprofit to hold down U.S. drug prices. Over the past five years, ICER has pressured drugmakers to lower the cost of nearly 100 drugs. It aims to play a similar role with emerging COVID-19 treatments and vaccines. Health insurers increasingly use ICER's fair-value analyses to limit access to expensive drugs or to negotiate steeper discounts with drugmakers. (For a graphic on drugs ICER has rated overpriced, click tmsnrt.rs/3hiYULv).

The industry has moved aggressively to combat the threat to its profits in two ways: With open criticism of ICER’s formula and with a stealthier campaign to undermine its credibility through proxies, including veterans’ groups and organizations that claim to advocate for patients but have ties to the pharmaceutical industry, Reuters found in a review of industry connections and funding among groups targeting ICER. 

Two such groups – the Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) and Value our Health – are led by employees of Thorn Run Partners, a Washington-based lobbying and public relations firm that counts nearly a dozen drugmakers as clients. PIPC denied it is part of a larger industry-financed proxy campaign to undermine ICER’s impact. Thorn Run declined to comment, and Value Our Health did not respond to inquiries.

As remdesivir gained momentum, PIPC complained to ICER in a June letter that its methodology, which examines how a drug improves patient quality of life, was unfair for COVID-19 drugs. It also held a webinar for patients criticizing ICER’s methods.

The group’s chairman, former U.S. Democratic Representative Tony Coelho, argued in the letter that ICER’s methods yield a flawed value assessment for COVID-19 drugs that could lead insurers or government programs to limit coverage to the elderly and people with disabilities because ICER’s formula attributes a lower value to their medicines than those for healthier patients. In a statement to Reuters, Coelho attacked ICER’s formula as a flawed “one-size-fits-all assessment.”

Gilead also pushed ICER for a higher price during its remdesivir review. The firm told Reuters that ICER’s assessment failed to consider savings from shorter hospital stays and underestimated how much insurers or the government would be willing to pay.

Remdesivir is the only COVID-19 treatment ICER has assessed so far. Steven Pearson, a Harvard academic who started ICER, said it will likely review more coronavirus treatments if they make it to market, including potentially those being developed by Regeneron and Eli Lilly and Co that use antibodies to generate an immune response. The two companies declined to comment.

ICER’s assessments are not used to deny care to patients based on their health, Pearson said. Rather, the formula helps insurers or government programs choose the most cost-effective treatment for a specific condition, based on its price and benefit in providing a better quality of life. Pearson pointed out that the formula has long been used in the health systems of countries including England, Canada, the Netherlands and Sweden.

PHONY GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN 

The industry has followed the same playbook before: soliciting criticism from outside groups - some of which it finances or staffs - to create the impression of a broad-based patient uprising against ICER’s pricing assessments rather than an industry push to protect profits. 

Last year, ICER invited input as it revamped its assessment methods. Two of more than 50 comment letters came from six California veterans’ groups, who blasted an ICER contract with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), saying its formula denies veterans care and “inherently discriminates” against people with disabilities.”

If it sounds like doing what ICER does is a no-brainer good thing, that is because it is a no-brainer good thing. What is a brain exploder is the fact that this kind of analysis is not being done by the federal government to inform the public about when they are being price gouged. Once again, lobbyists backed by special interest campaign contributions and a corrupt two-party political system serves special interests at the expense of the public interest.

The industry response: Lies & insulting irrationality

The Remdesivir company complained that ICER’s assessment (1) failed to consider savings from shorter hospital stays, and (2) underestimated how much insurers or the government would be willing to pay. Both complaints are either irrational or a lie. First, ICER is fully aware of benefits from shorter hospital stays and any other source from drug treatments. Their analyses ignore no known benefits, otherwise it would not be a “cost-benefit” analysis. That assertion is a lie.

Second, it is irrational to argue that what insurers are willing to pay is completely irrelevant to a cost-benefit analysis. Whatever insurers are willing to pay will be paid by consumers one way or another, e.g., higher insurance premiums or no access to drugs at all (‘extreme health care rationing’). Cost is cost. This argument is insulting in its irrationality and intent to deceive the public.

Also insulting and irrational is the industry tactic of its sleazy, deceptive phony grassroots campaigns.

Lies, insults and irrationality are all legal and just business as usual, i.e., money talks and the public interest walks.

ICER'S TEN LEAST COST-EFFECTIVE DRUGS
ICER’s recommended price based on a cost effectiveness threshold of 

$100,000 per quality year of life gained from the drug