From a doctor bewildered at where all this COVID stuff is going
Until recently, the practice of medicine was based more on science, less on science fiction. Even when science fiction acted as foreshadowing, hard evidence was required to turn fiction into non-fiction.
We are told to practice evidence-based medicine. However, evidence today has taken a back seat to wishful thinking — or is it an agenda? A refresher on recent issues is required to see how science fiction has increasingly replaced science and where it leads.
This science fiction story begins with the 2019 "virus" and 2020 "vaccine." A selection of the story's chapters includes a virus of which the CDC claimed not to possess a reference sample. A vaccine that did not fit the definition of a vaccine. Approval of a vaccine for which the studies had not reached clinically important endpoints. The lack of time to understand the vaccine's intermediate and long-term effects. The lack of legal liability placed on the manufacturers. The cheap, effective treatments available but ignored.
Are we practicing evidence-based medicine when mandating what is not a vaccine, as the CDC defines? If this were a vaccine, it would directly stimulate the immune system. It would protect the injected from the disease. It would not claim to protect others from the disease. It would not be in use while mutations arise. What we have does what it should not do and does not do what it should.
The vaccine's clinical endpoint was to prevent mild disease, which could simply be an increase in coughing. Is that clinically relevant? What about having a positive PCR test? That test will be withdrawn at year's end. It cannot differentiate a coronavirus from influenza or other viruses, and the way it is used generates far too many false positive results.
The public does not know what it does not know. By not disclosing potential medical effects, people can never give informed consent. By not advising the public of useful preventative actions, effective anti-viral treatments, or the importance of monitoring for treatment response if treatment needs an adjustment, malpractice at least in the general sense is inflicted on everyone injected.
Now an anecdote to demonstrate the negative effect that science fiction can have on nonfiction. I have a friend whom I will call X, who lives in a rural area that is served in part by a large medical center. X was found to have a medical problem affecting various organs in the body. At intervals, one specialist after another evaluated X, and at intervals, tests, and procedures were ordered. To date, there is no firm diagnosis, no end date for testing, no formulation of a treatment plan. Months have been and are being chewed up.
Meanwhile, X works for a school that trains people for hospital work. X's students rotate through hospitals that are part of the same medical system where X is a patient. X instructs students in one of those hospitals. The "system" has mandated that all staff, students, and instructors undergo "mandatory vaccination."
So here we have X, who has an actual undiagnosed and potentially fatal condition, especially as time goes by without treatment, mandated to undergo injection of a concoction of chemicals, not yet fully disclosed, with unknown long-term effects, for the theoretical risk of contracting a mild viral disease, the endpoint studied.
Keep in mind that spreading the virus was not studied, true vaccines are not by definition used to protect others, and only 10% of the population has tested positive for the virus, or something, by a test that is to be withdrawn by year's end.
X's story does not end there. Last year, X came down with a case of the virus, according to symptoms and testing. Sick for days. Recovered with the use of medications dared not to be mentioned. Despite all the above, the hospital still demands that X get the vaccine.
Question: Do you get a measles vaccine if you had the measles? Of course not. Why? The measles virus is stable, and once infected, you have resistance. Is the coronavirus stable? No. Moreover, what does the currently mandated vaccine protect X against? The virus X had nearly a year ago. So why should X be injected with an old product to protect X against something X was already sick from? Is the Influenza vaccine in use five years ago recommended for use against today's mutations?
Which way will the wind blow for X? Morbidity and mortality may be complete between the underlying illness and the vaccine. Riddles, mysteries, and enigmas. Like peeling an endless onion.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.