February 2025 – artdiamondblog.com

Chinese Communist Regulators Will Want to Deep-Six DeepSeek

Many policy experts have worried than China’s economy will surpass the economy of the United States. If we lived in a world of totally free trade, I would not care if this happened. Economics is not a competitive sport where one team can win only if another team loses. A free economy is not a zero-sum game. If you are OK with me mixing metaphors: a rising tide really does lift all boats. (Amar Bhidé (quoting Paul Krugman, if memory serves) does a good job of making this point in The Venturesome Economy.)

But even though it wouldn’t bother me, China’s economy will not surpass that of the United States if China continues to oppressively regulate its economy and we continue to exuberantly unregulate our economy. An economy thrives when entrepreneurs thrive and entrepreneurs thrive when unregulated.

Consider the recent hand-wringing over the recently announced DeepSeek Chinese A.I. program. The Chinese Communists will be especially energetic in regulating entrepreneurs in the A.I. sector because the Communists cannot afford to have Chinese A.I. programs giving true answers to questions in any way related to the Chinese economy, or to the corruption and authoritarianism of the Chinese Communist regime. A.I. policy expert Barath Harithas understates the situation when he says: “Overregulation and the need to adhere to ‘core socialist values’ could risk neutering A.I.’s potential” (as quoted in Pierson and Wang 2025, p. A4).

Barath Haritas’s statement on overregulation of A.I. in China can be found in:

David Pierson and Berry Wang. “Success of DeepSeek Lifts China, but Party May Halt Its Progress.” The New York Times (Tues., February 4, 2025): A4.

(Note: the online version of the article has the date February 2, 2025, and has the title “DeepSeek Is a Win for China in the A.I. Race. Will the Party Stifle It?”)

The book by Amar Bhidé that I praise in my initial comments is:

Bhidé, Amar. The Venturesome Economy: How Innovation Sustains Prosperity in a More Connected World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Dying Cells in a Tumor May Be a Cause of Metastasis

I have read that most cancer deaths occur due to metastasis. Cancer that remains limited to an original tumor can often be managed as a long-term chronic condition. If Cheung (below) is right that dying cells in a tumor are an important cause of metastasis, then does that suggest that senolytic drugs that kill senescent cells, may be useful in delaying or stopping metastasis?

(p. D7) Much about how tumors metastasize — spread and take up residence in faraway sites — still remains a mystery, said Dr. Kevin Cheung, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. His research recently showed that dead and dying cells within a tumor might create an environment that makes it easier for living tumor cells to get out and spread.

For the full story see:

Nina Agrawal. “Exploring Some Big Questions About Cancer.” The New York Times (Tuesday, February 4, 2025): D7.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 29, 2025, and has the title “7 Big Questions About Cancer, Answered.”)

The academic article co-authored by Cheung and mentioned above is:

Yamamoto, Ami, Yin Huang, Brad A. Krajina, Margaux McBirney, Andrea E. Doak, Sixuan Qu, Carolyn L. Wang, Michael C. Haffner, and Kevin J. Cheung. “Metastasis from the Tumor Interior and Necrotic Core Formation Are Regulated by Breast Cancer-Derived Angiopoietin-Like 7.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, no. 10 (2023): e2214888120.

Some Heavily Subsidized Hospitals File Liens Against Poor Patients, Rather Than Bill Medicaid

Laws that were once well-intentioned but are now outdated often remain on the books. The laws that allow hospitals to take out liens on the property of poor patients are an example. Some policy experts have proposed that each law or regulation should have a “sunset clause” that gives a date on which they expire unless they are passed again. Another solution to the lien practice would be if all hospitals were managed on the basis of ethical side-constraints. They would then not take advantage of the perverse incentives that the lien laws create.

Even without ethical side-constraints, exploiting the outdated lien laws would be harder if greater competition between hospitals created greater transparency about shady practices–the reputation of unethical hospitals would suffer, and they would lose patients.

(p. A1) When Monica Smith was badly hurt in a car accident, she assumed Medicaid would cover the medical bills. Ms. Smith, 45, made sure to show her insurance card after an ambulance took her to Parkview Regional Medical Center in Fort Wayne, Ind. She spent three days in the hospital and weeks in a neck brace.

But the hospital never sent her bills to Medicaid, which would have paid for the care in full, and the hospital refused requests to do so. Instead, it pursued an amount five times higher from Ms. Smith directly by placing a lien on her accident settlement.

Parkview is among scores of wealthy hospitals that have quietly used century-old hospital lien laws to increase revenue, often at the expense of low-income people like Ms. Smith. By using liens — a claim on an asset, such as a home or a settlement payment, to make sure someone repays a debt — hospitals can collect on money that otherwise would have gone to the patient to compensate for pain and suffering.

They can also ignore the steep discounts they are contractually required to offer to health insurers, and instead pursue their full charges.

The difference between the two prices can be staggering. In Ms. Smith’s case, the bills that Medicaid would have paid, $2,500, ballooned to $12,856 when the hospital pursued a lien.

“It’s astounding to think Medicaid patients would be charged the full-billed price,” said Christopher Whaley, a health economist at the (p. A19) RAND Corporation who studies hospital pricing. “It’s absolutely unbelievable.”

The practice of bypassing insurers to pursue full charges from accident victims’ settlements has become routine in major health systems across the country, court records and interviews show. It is most lucrative when used against low-income patients with Medicaid, which tends to pay lower reimbursement rates than private health plans.

. . .

Hospitals have come under scrutiny in recent years for increasingly turning to the courts to recover patients’ unpaid bills, even in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. Hospitals, many of which received significant bailouts last year, have used these court rulings to garnish patients’ wages and take their homes.

But less attention has been paid to hospital lien laws, which many states passed in the early 20th century, when fewer than 10 percent of Americans had health coverage. The laws were meant to protect hospitals from the burden of caring for uninsured patients, and to give them an incentive to treat those who could not pay upfront.

. . .

When states have permissive hospital lien laws, some hospitals take advantage in ways that hurt patients. These hospitals tend to be wealthier, The New York Times found, and many of those that received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal bailout funding during the pandemic are among the most aggressive in pursuing payment through hospital liens.

Community Health Systems, which owns 86 hospitals across the country, received about a quarter-billion in federal funds during the pandemic, according to data compiled by Good Jobs First, which researches government subsidies of companies.

One of its hospitals in Tennessee refused to bill Medicare or the veterans health insurance of Jeremy Greenbaum after a car crash aggravated an old combat wound to his ankle. Instead, the hospital filed liens in 2019 for the full price of his care, records show.

For the full commentary, see:

Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg. “The Upshot; Waiting for Insurance Payout? A Hospital May Collect It First.” The New York Times (Tuesday, February 2, 2021 [sic]): A1 & A19.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated Feb. 12, 2021 [sic], and has the title “The Upshot; How Rich Hospitals Profit From Patients in Car Crashes.”)

Appeals of Health Insurance Claim Denials Often Succeed, but at Great Cost

About 75% of those who appeal insurer rejections of healthcare claims, end up receiving an approval of the claim. But that does not mean that of those who did not appeal, 75% would have succeeded. Presumably one difference between those who appeal and those who do not appeal, is that on average those who appeal have stronger cases. Of course there are other differences, like perseverance, and the opportunity cost of the time and energy it takes to appeal.

Those opportunity costs, and the damage to morale whether the claim is appealed or not, are usually not counted among the costs of our healthcare system.

Note also in the case discussed below that claims for treatment of rare diseases are much more likely to be denied than otherwise similar claims for common diseases. You see randomized double-blind clinical trials (RCTs) are unlikely to have been done for treatments for rare diseases for a couple of reasons. One is that it is hard to find enough patients to populate the RCT. Another is that even with an eventually successful treatment, the revenue will not be enough to cover the costs of the RCT. So insurance companies can reject the claims because there is no “evidence” for efficacy–where “evidence’ is defined as the outcome of an RCT. The lesson: if you’re going to acquire a dire illness, make sure it is a common dire illness.

(p. A1) CUMMING, Ga.—After three years of doctors’ visits and $40,000 in medical bills didn’t cure their daughter’s rare condition, April and Justin Beck found a specialist three states away who offered a promising treatment.

They set out before dawn last spring for the nine-hour drive to Arkansas Children’s Hospital in Little Rock, where Dr. Aravindhan Veerapandiyan explained how infusions of antibodies could help Emily, now 9 years old, and her misfiring immune system.

They returned home with an appointment to start the infusions. But the Becks’ insurer, UnitedHealthcare, declined to pay for a treatment it said wasn’t medically necessary.

They decided to fight back. “I really had no idea it was going to be this hard,” April Beck said.

Health insurers process more than five billion payment claims annually, federal figures show. About 850 million are denied, according to (p. A8) calculations by appeals company Claimable, based on data from health-policy nonprofit KFF and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Less than 1% of patients appeal.

Few people realize how worthwhile those labors can be: Up to three-quarters of claim appeals are granted, studies show.

Patients who fight denied claims must marshal evidence from medical studies, navigate dense paperwork and spend hours on the phone during what is often one of the most difficult times of their lives. They debate insurers over whether a patient might ever recover from a stroke, or whether an expensive new treatment holds real promise.

. . .

The sense of futility that keeps people from appealing denied claims is part of a current of anger against insurers that surged in December [2024] after the assassination of UnitedHealthcare Chief Executive Officer Brian Thompson.

. . .

In one letter, UnitedHealthcare denied the treatment because the medication wasn’t ordered from an in-network pharmacy. In another, on July 25, [2024] the insurer said the treatment wasn’t medically necessary and hadn’t been proven helpful for Emily’s condition.

“The services are not eligible for coverage because your plan doesn’t cover unproven procedures,” the insurer said.

Rare cases often put patients and insurers in protracted conflict. Some people want experimental treatments that insurers reject because they aren’t thoroughly proven to work. But for patients with rare conditions, the number of cases are so small it’s difficult to widely document a drug’s effects.

. . .

April learned from a Facebook support group for parents of children with PANS/PANDAS about Claimable, which uses artificial intelligence to help patients appeal denials. Claimable was offering to submit claims for PANS/PANDAS patients free of charge.

The Becks on Dec. 6 [2024] sent their appeal to the new denial based on medical necessity by email to UnitedHealthcare, copying Andrew Witty, CEO of its parent company, as well as Georgia’s governor and attorney general. Claimable encouraged them to copy Witty on every interaction.

The package included a letter from the PANS Research Consortium stating that immunoglobulin therapy is widely accepted as standard treatment for kids like Emily and that, as of Nov. 22, 2024, 13 states have made it illegal to impede access to the treatment for people with PANS/PANDAS. The letter cited 25 studies backing the treatment’s efficacy. It was cosigned by physicians from Stanford and the National Institutes of Health.

. . .

Two days before Christmas, a representative from UnitedHealthcare called to say Emily had won her appeal. UnitedHealthcare told the Journal that its medical director decided the infusions would be appropriate as a trial for Emily.

For the full story see:

Julie Wernau. “These Families Beat Health Insurers.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, February 13, 2025): A1 & A8.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed years, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Feb. 12, 2025, and has the title “Health Insurers Deny 850 Million Claims a Year. The Few Who Appeal Often Win.”)

Dow Chemical CEO Oreffice Candidly Called Environmentalists “Professional Merchants of Doom”

I have the impression that few C.E.O.s today display the open candor that Ralph Nader admired in Paul Oreffice. Is that because cancel culture has been efficient at weeding out any rising executives who might be tempted to be candid? Or do I have a mistaken impression due to the press not reporting as often on the candid comments still being made by some C.E.O.s?

[I was happy to see that Oreffice had learned public speaking in a Toastmasters Club. I heard a lot about Toastmasters as a child–my father was very active in Toastmasters and was eventually elected President of the whole international self-help organization.]

(p. C6) In a 1977 speech at Central Michigan University, Jane Fonda accused Dow Chemical of exposing workers to dangerous substances and not paying its fair share of taxes. Paul Oreffice, who was then president of Dow’s U.S. operations, sent a letter to the university denouncing Fonda as “an avowed communist sympathizer” who was spreading “venom against free enterprise.”

He also cut off Dow’s donations to the university.

. . .

Addressing a business conference in 1979, Oreffice described environmentalists as “professional merchants of doom” and enemies who were destroying free enterprise, according to a Washington Post report.

. . .

Ralph Nader, the consumer-protection crusader, often was at odds with Oreffice but saw merit in his candor. “He is comparatively open to interviews, to questions from audiences, to debates,” Nader wrote in “The Big Boys,” a 1986 book written with William Taylor. “Despite his position as chief executive of a major corporation embroiled in ongoing controversies, he chooses not to hide behind company spokesmen and other bureaucratic shields.”

. . .

Oreffice resisted organization charts because he believed they “put people in boxes.”

. . .

. . ., Oreffice . . . learned public speaking at a Toastmasters club, . . .

As a CEO, he reduced costs and bureaucracy through attrition rather than mass layoffs. “How can you expect allegiance from your employees when you don’t show them any yourself?” he wrote in his memoir.

For the full obituary see:

James R. Hagerty. “An Outspoken Former CEO Of Dow Chemical.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, February 1, 2025): C6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date January 29, 2025, and has the title “Paul Oreffice, Outspoken Former CEO of Dow Chemical, Dies at 97.” Where the wording is different between the two versions, the passages quoted above follow the online version.)

Oreffice’s memoir mentioned above is:

Oreffice, Paul. Only in America: From Immigrant to CEO. Macon, GA: Stroud & Hall Publishers, 2006.

“Once Autonomous and Highly Esteemed, Doctors” Lament Being “Trapped Between Insurers” and Hospital Managers

As health regulations and malpractice lawsuits increase, doctors have increasingly needed support staff to help them navigate the morass. Large hospitals and clinics have such support on staff, so doctors increasingly have found it easier to join such institutions, than to run their own private practice. But a trade-off is that they give up considerable autonomy, making the practice of medicine less fulfilling and risking burn-out. To protect themselves and their institutions, doctors must follow the protocols rather than follow their experience-based judgement to innovate for the benefit their patients.

(p. A6) The killing of a top health insurance executive outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel last week triggered an outpouring of public anger at an industry many Americans blame for the ills of the nation’s healthcare system.

Count doctors among the aggrieved.

. . . Doctors say their frustration is born of intimate experience and has been building for years.

Their chief complaint is the aggravation and expense of convincing insurance companies to pay them for their patients’ treatment. Even when they are ultimately approved, MRI scans and other vital but costly procedures often require days of campaigning and paperwork, say doctors.

“It’s getting worse,” said Dr. Zulfiqar Ahmed, an internist in Augusta, Ga., who has practiced in the U.S. for 35 years. “This is not only UnitedHealthcare—this is universal in this country.”

. . .

“They hire certain doctors, and they sit at a desk, and their whole purpose is to deny or delay,” Ahmed said, echoing a common complaint among doctors.

. . .

In a recent post on X, Dr. Alan Nguyen, a spine specialist in Fort Myers, Fla., noted that when insurance-company doctors reject an MRI request, he now asks for their name and health provider identification number. “I tell them if a cancer is missed, then the patient will know who to sue,” wrote Nguyen. In an interview, he said he believes the situation had worsened significantly over the last five years. When insurers denied treatment, Nguyen observed, doctors were still left to deal with the patients and their pain.

A familiar lament among doctors is how sweeping changes over the last 20 years—some instigated by insurers, others not—have degraded their profession. Once autonomous and highly esteemed, doctors are increasingly employees of large hospital chains and find themselves trapped between insurers and their own cost-conscious management.

. . .

Dr. Richard Lechner, a family dentist in New Britain, Conn., for years paid for three administrative staff members whose days, he said, were mostly spent fighting with insurers. This for an office that consisted of one dentist and two hygienists.

“They’re always throwing up roadblocks for practitioners like me to get paid,” Lechner said. Requests for additional documentation, or claims of paperwork lapses, were, he said, “specifically designed to prolong, prolong, prolong and then hope the dentist gives up.”

Last year, Lechner did give up: He sold his private practice to Dental Associates of Connecticut, a company that operates a network of more than 40 dental offices across the state. Like Davidian, he is now an employee. Much of the work of chasing insurance claims is now handled by a specialist team at Dental Associates’ central office.

“The primary reason I sold my dental practice is because I couldn’t keep up with the insurance companies’ shenanigans,” he said. “I thought I was going to have a stroke.”

For the full story see:

Joshua Chaffin and Julie Wernau. “Haggling With Insurers Getting Worse, Doctors Say.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, Dec. 13, 2024): A6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date December 12, 2024, and has the title “Doctors Say Dealing With Health Insurers Is Only Getting Worse.” Where the online version provides somewhat more elaboration than the print version, the passages quoted above follow the online version. In the print version, but not the online version, the last four paragraphs quoted above appear in a separate boxed sidebar with the title “Dentist Gave Up, Sold His Practice After ‘Shenanigans’.” In the online version, the paragraphs appear at the very end of the main article, with no separate heading or sub-heading.)

“The Pitt” Captures ER Reality, but Omits the Burden of Paperwork

I have not seen “The Pitt,” but I enjoyed the intensity and the theme song of “ER.” I also am a fan of the creator of “ER,” Michael Crichton, who shortly before cancer stole his life, had the courage to stand up against dishonest environmentalism.

(p. A10) “The Pitt” is a rare type of hospital drama—one that gets it right, according to real-life medical workers.

. . .

From their perspective, “The Pitt” is the most authentic medical drama since “ER.”

. . .

In August [2024], the estate of “ER” creator Michael Crichton sued the studio, Warner Bros. Television, and several producers behind both shows. The lawsuit alleges they developed “The Pitt” as a sequel to “ER” and changed only a handful of plot details after negotiations with the estate faltered. Warner Bros. Television declined to comment.

. . .

Dr. Weston McCarron, a fan of the series, wants his wife to watch so she can “finally start to get a glimmer of a feeling for what I do at work.” He supervises overnight shifts at a St. Louis trauma center, where he treats everything from gunshot wounds to farm-equipment injuries in patients flown in from rural areas.

“You go from these outrageously stressful and heart-wrenching situations to the opposite, within minutes,” McCarron said. “The Pitt” nails the seething atmosphere of a crowded waiting room, and the moment a grieving mother’s wails ring through the ward, he said. But the doctor quibbled with some things, such as the show glossing over how much time doctors spend on computers filling out patient charts.

For the full review see:

John Jurgensen. “‘The Pitt’ Is a Hit With Medical Workers.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2025): A10.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed year, added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date February 13, 2025, and has the title “Doctors Agree: Finally, a Medical Drama That Gets It Right.”)

Curing Cellular Senescence Could Extend Healthy Lifespan

Senolytics are chemicals that kill senescent cells, cells that do function properly but do not die. The cells are believed to cause aging and eventual death. They also are believed to cause illnesses such as coronary artery disease and Alzheimer’s. If senescent cells can be expelled, then we can hope to extend, not just lifespan, but what really matters–healthy lifespan.

(p. A10) The same underlying factors that contribute to aging also play a role in the development of diseases, says Richard Faragher, a professor of biogerontology at the University of Brighton and board member of the American Federation for Aging Research. He cites the example of a biological process called cellular senescence, which is when cells that stop dividing but don’t die build up as people age. The process is linked to various age-related diseases.

“Can we do anything to impact the fundamental biology of human aging? I think the answer is an emphatic yes,” says Faragher.

Longevity drugs, if proven to work, could slow or prevent the onset of age-related conditions rather than treating them after they develop, and eventually save millions on chronic disease spending in later life, advocates say. In 2021, the costliest 1% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries accounted for 19% of spending, according to the nonpartisan watchdog agency the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Beneficiaries in their last year of life tend to generate more spending than others.

For the full story see:

Alex Janin. “The Scientific Fight Over Whether Aging Is a Disease.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025): A10.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date January 27, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

Libertarians Salute Trump for Keeping His Promise to Pardon Free Trade Innovator Ross Ulbricht

Libertarians believe that governments should stay out of voluntary exchanges between consenting adults. So when Ross Urlbricht set up Silk Road as a platform for exchange that excluded governments, he became a libertarian hero. (For an extensive account see Bilton 2017.) When Ulbricht was given a disproportionately severe sentence, he became a martyred libertarian hero.

Libertarians are conflicted about Donald Trump. They like his courage and perseverance, but don’t like his name-calling and bullying. They like his deregulation and downsized bureaucracies, but don’t like his tariffs and industrial policy.

Trump promised that if elected, he would pardon Ross Ulbricht. On the first full day of his second term, The Donald kept his promise. Libertarians like that–a lot!

Michael Milken was an entrepreneurial finance innovator whose RICO conviction, instigated by Rudy Giuliani in his New York City prosecutor days, was a travesty of justice. (See: Kornbluth 1992; (an aside in) Milken 2023, and Sandler 2023.) The second Bush could and should have pardoned Milken, but did not. Trump late in his first term did, putting justice ahead of political correctness.

Not many people care about Ulbricht and Milken, but those who do care, care–inclining them to keep open minds on Donald Trump.

For The New York Times‘s snidely dismissive view of the Ulbricht pardon see:

David Yaffe-Bellany and Ryan Mac. “Pardon Is Won By Leveraging Trump’s Needs.” The New York Times (Fri., January 24, 2025): A1 & A15.

(Note: the online version of the article has the date January 22, 2025, and has the title “How Trump Was Persuaded to Pardon an Online Drug Kingpin.”)

The best known account of Ulbricht’s Silk Road is:

Bilton, Nick. American Kingpin: The Epic Hunt for the Criminal Mastermind Behind the Silk Road. New York: Portfolio, 2017.

The books on Milken mentioned in my comments are:

Kornbluth, Jesse. Highly Confident: The Crime and Punishment of Michael Milken. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1992.

Milken, Michael. Faster Cures: Accelerating the Future of Health. New York: William Morrow, 2023.

Sandler, Richard V. Witness to a Prosecution: The Myth of Michael Milken. ForbesBooks: Charleston, South Carolina, 2023.

Warren Buffett Said Obamacare Is “Two Thousand Pages of Nonsense”

Our health system is a mess. The latest major effort to “fix” it was Obamacare (the so-called “Affordable Health Act”)–two thousand pages cobbled together by lobbyists, deep state staffers, and legislative log-rolling that resulted in high costs, opaque rules, perverse incentives, and unintended consequences.

(p. A15) Medicare doles out reimbursements for services that may or may not be real, helpful to the recipient, or reasonably priced. It’s very hard to know. Congress doesn’t want doctors and hospitals back home closely policed. Result: Medicare controls spending, perversely, with blanket low reimbursement rates for necessary and unnecessary services alike.

. . .

. . . government programs are born in chaos—with congressional horse trading and payoffs to appease interest groups. That’s why government programs make so little organizational sense. Remember when we had to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it? (“Two thousand pages of nonsense,” said Warren Buffett at the time. “The problem is incentives.”)

For the full commentary see:

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. “Business World; Elon Musk’s Useful Experiment.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2025): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date February 11, 2025, and has the title “Business World; DOGE Is Elon Musk’s Useful Experiment.” In both the online and print versions, the phrase “born in chaos” appears in italics for emphasis.)

“Stand for Health Freedom”

I believe that respecting each other’s freedom is what makes America exceptional. It is the right thing to do. But what a wonderful miracle, that on balance respecting freedom results in much else that is good, including better health and more happiness.

I believe that vaccines sometimes have bad side effects, but that on balance some vaccines are among the greatest contributions to human health.

But we should convince, not mandate. We should respect freedom because that is what is moral to do. And if we do, there will be more medical innovation; more and faster cures.

(p. A11) Ms. Wilson’s organization, Stand for Health Freedom, has become part of a grassroots push . . . . . . . To Ms. Wilson, those involved have coalesced around one idea: “There’s roles for government, and telling us how to care for our bodies is not one of them.”

. . .

Stand for Health Freedom is a young organization, but the wider movement “goes to the very roots of America,” said Lewis A. Grossman, a professor at American University’s law school who has studied the history of libertarianism.

“There’s always been a robust portion of Americans who embrace these values,” Mr. Grossman said. As early as 1902, organizations like the American Medical Liberty League were pushing for freedom from vaccine mandates. In the 1950s, the John Birch Society and National Health Federation took up the cause. In 1975, a group opposed to water fluoridation in Rockland County, N.Y., called itself the Citizens for Health Freedom.

But by and large, these groups and others like them existed outside the mainstream. Starting in the 1960s, however, American trust in institutions began to wane.

. . .

Then, Covid struck and cities were locked down. Public health officials also fumbled critical early messaging, painting the vaccines as a “miracle” that would provide permanent immunity, said Michael T. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

“We really lost credibility, because that’s not what happened,” Dr. Osterholm said.

Suddenly, medical freedom became a salient issue to many more Americans, and resistance to Covid restrictions became their unifying principle. . . .

Much of that growth occurred online, as people lost faith in traditional medical institutions and searched for like-minded thinkers, Dr. Osterholm said. New supporters flocked to Ms. Wilson’s organization as it took on all sorts of causes.

. . .

As it grew, Ms Wilson’s organization gained support from a politically diverse group of advocates. Roughly 40 percent of the people who have taken action on the platform are Democrats, she claimed. Ms. Wilson saw this as evidence that “there are plenty of people who care about being the one who makes the ultimate health decisions for their children,” she said.

“This is common sense,” she added, “not strange or rare.”