Slides From a Presentation I gave for Health Choice Maryland Titled '17 reasons why it is irrational to trust the medical community'
Enjoy!
I had the honor to give a presentation yesterday at a Health Choice Maryland event, loosely organized around a previous post, 17 reasons why it is irrational to trust the medical community regarding the covid vaccines.
I figured that some people might find the slides helpful, or may just enjoy looking at the picture of Redfield holding his facemask not by the loops as any healthcare professional is drilled to do by habit, but by the contaminated mask part.
With public health officials like this, who needs viruses?
Anyhow, I was only given 20 minutes to lay this all out, so I had to go all lean and mean (anorexic really) to stay within the allotted time.
Text in italics I wrote beforehand intending to say, or is approximately what I actually said (not always the same thing, but hey, this was my first time).
HCW Presentation
Objective: to show that there is a clear and persistent pattern of decisions and behavior that cannot be explained if the scientific/medical establishment was trying to practice objective science as prescribed by the scientific method.
It is understandable that there would be mistakes in the chaos of a novel pandemic, we’re not omniscient, and so it’s expected that there will be moments or decisions we’ll come to regret in hindsight.
However, a clear and persistent pattern of egregiously poor decisions & behavior suggests that there’s a systemic corruption of the processes by which the scientific community & govt determine & disseminate scientific knowledge/information, and make policies.
I had a second objective as well. One way to define an expert is “someone who has sufficient mastery of a subject that he can make an objectively delusional proposition seem plausible and true to someone unfamiliar with the subject”. This information asymmetry between credentialed ‘experts’ and laypeople has been a driving force behind one of the more frustrating and stressful aspects of the pandemic for many people: While they have a clear intuition, experience and/or observation that the official narrative is false, or that something is very off with institutional science, it is exceedingly challenging to translate these convictions into precise specific arguments, let alone doing so through the prism of technical scientific concepts & language.
I was hoping to be able to provide some degree of assistance in formulating or translating people’s instincts into cogent arguments and observations.
Title Slide
For the record, there were a few more reasons that were not included for various reasons :)
Reason #1
In order to react & deal with a pandemic, we need to know what the “facts on the ground” are.
Data is how we capture, articulate & communicate the “facts on the ground”
If the data doesn’t reflect the real world though, we have a problem.
Well, the various data we used for the pandemic not only did not accurately capture the facts on the ground such as they were, but were often altogether divorced from the reality.
To give one example, take the death data. ‘Covid Deaths’ is supposed to capture people killed by covid. The way covid death was defined however was typically ‘anyone who died within 30 days of a positive covid test’. The inevitable consequence of this was that the death data became polluted with a massive number of deaths that were not caused by covid. (In fact, around the summer of 2020 there was a single county (I think it was in WA) where 5 people were killed by covid within hours of being shot, over the span of a couple of months.)
Then there were the models, in particular, Professor Neil Ferguson’s infamous Imperial College doomsday model that precipitated the initial lockdowns.
This goes beyond using polluted data – this was so bad that it didn’t even rise to the level of junk science, rather was plain junk.
Here we have Ferguson’s rich history of prior pandemic apocalypses where he was ‘just a bit outside’.
The most egregious example is his prediction that an avian flu would kill 200M (!!) ppl, but over a 7-year span there were only a trifling 282 deaths.
That comes out to less than 2 deaths for every 3M deaths predicted.
This was the guy who the scientific establishment & govt relied upon to initiate the most disruptive, draconian, and destructive policies ever inflicted by supposedly ‘civilized’ societies upon themselves.
Reason #2
To clarify, a bureaucracy both tends towards a “one size fits all” mentality, and additionally, the very fact of bureaucrats making decisions for people necessarily means that they are supplanting doctors/patients conducting individually tailored or holistic healthcare analysis & decision making for the patient.
This usurpation by bureaucracies of doctors was so pronounced and unhinged that “let Doctors Be Doctors” became one of the defining rallying cries of the “resistance”.
Reason #3
This one is self-evident.
Reason #4
It’s not just risk stratification, but that’s the main piece of information that people need to know - what the risks are based on individual characteristics and environments (e.g. places, environmental conditions like indoor vs outdoor etc.).
This is perhaps the most ironclad testament to the profound unmitigated failure of public health officials to perform their most essential function - people literally thought that the Black death was ravaging the country, and adjusted their behavior accordingly.
Reason #5
This isn’t exhaustive, not by a long shot, I just took the list I put together around June/July 2020.
I was trying to highlight that the medical community was getting all the details wrong. Details are where expertise is manifest - experts are supposed to be technically proficient and thoroughly familiar with the granular details of the subject of their expertise.
Flatten the curve was a reference to the question immortalized by Steve Deace: “How can we flatten a curve we don’t know when it began?”
Reason #6
There are two distinct dimensions to the failure of doctors to practice doctoring when it came to covid.
Ethical failure: Dr. McCullough has referred a number of times to one of the foundational ethos of medicine - when a patient seeks treatment from a doctor, the doctor has an ethical duty to either treat the patient or refer the patient to another doctor who will. There is no option “Good luck, I hope it turns out ok” - or in other words, “go home until you can’t breathe then go to the ER & hope for the best”.
Professional failure: Medical schooling is one of the most lengthy, extensive, intensive and exhausting educations. The idea is that doctors acquire a thorough knowledge and understanding of human anatomy, what and how something can go wrong, and how to fix it. Doctors (are supposed to) apply their knowledge and expertise to do the detective work and figure out the pathology of whatever is afflicting the patient in front of them. But when it came to covid, they simply declined to do the most elementary doctoring. This is what I was using Dr. Tyson’s tweet (prior to his summary deportation from twitter) to highlight.
Reason #7
The first major study to come out showing clearly that natural immunity “worked” was about the summer of 2021, around 15 months into the pandemic.
If natural immunity was still holding up 15 months in, that means by definition it was also holding up 14 months, 12, 10, 7, 5, 3 and 3 months into the pandemic as well.
So how did they miss the lack of reinfections for all that time??
Furthermore, natural immunity derived from infection is immunology 101, we have extensive prior knowledge that immunity to coronaviruses works.
In fact, the John Snow Memorandum released to counter the Great Barrington Declaration stated: “It is unclear how long protective immunity lasts(4) and, like other seasonal coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 is capable of re-infecting people who have already had the disease, but the frequency of re-infection is unknown(5).”
All of these headlines or studies are from before September 2020 - showing that the assault on natural immunity was ongoing from the start.
Reason #8
I had limited space on the slide, so I picked one starting premise for natural immunity from those listed 2 slides ago.
And remember, when the vaccines came out, there was only 2 moths worth of clinical data on vaccinated people, whereas there was 10 months of data showing natural immunity was holding up, yet the medical community still claimed that we can’t rely on the durability of natural immunity but we can confidently assume that vaccine immunity would hold up long term.
Reason #9
This requires its own article to even begin to properly flesh out.
The quick version is that the people who made policies or were influential in policymaking were typically illiterate. Literally illiterate.
How many state or local officials knew the first thing about epidemiology, statistics, immunology, vaccinology, not to mention the abstract branch of physics germane for assessing facemasks as a filtration device for particulate matter.
There’s a famous quote, “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.”
Apparently, ‘those who can’t teach, become public health officials’.
The FDA factoid I heard from Dr. Malone.
Reason #10
If you wager all your credibility on something… the conflict of interest here is self-evident.
Reason #11
‘Nuff said.
Reason #12
If you can’t admit you were wrong, then you’re not reliable or trustworthy.
And not only did the medical community fail to admit that they made mistakes that were mistakes at the time they were made, but Fauci declared himself to be the living embodiment of SCIENCE incarnate. This is instructive beyond Fauci’s unhinged narcissism. What Fauci is essentially saying with this is that everything he did represented the best analysis and right decisions at the time with the available information - he was literally ‘science’ itself in action.
And SCIENCE cannot be wrong.
Reason #13
This includes the ones listed in the previous slide.
Reason #14
The object of fraud and censorship is to disseminate lies and prevent the dissemination of the truth.
Reason #15
The primary financial conflicts of interest (to put it rather mildly) is not from out-and-out bribes (which do happen, such as Andrew Hill’s university getting a $40,000,000 extortion bribe to doctor (pun intended) the results of Andrew Hill’s Ivermectin meta-analysis results).
Rather, it emanates from the funding scheme of scientific research. The vast, vast majority of scientific research funding comes from governments, non-profits, or billionaires. All of these people or institutions have agendas. It is an intuitive, self-evident reality obvious to everyone that if you undermine an agenda of your financial benefactor who has the ability to pull the funding… you will almost definitely lose the funding (if not worse). Thus, scientific research will not dare cross the agendas of those who fund it.
Reason #16
And many, many more.
If you were serious about hewing to objective science - as in following the scientific method - then you would call out obvious distortions of the science. You would especially protest against absurd caricatures of your statements or advice, for in addition to grotesquely molesting the actual science, such behavior makes a mockery of your credibility and expertise.
Not only did they not protest the cray-cray, but often public health officials openly pushed delusional or incoherent “advice”.
Ironically, Redfield turned out to be correct - vaccines have far greater negative efficacy than masks do, so one is indeed more likely to contract covid if vaccinated than if wearing a mask.
True story - my parents were on a flight from Miami to NYC where there wasn’t an empty seat on the flight, and that was announced when they landed.
Reason #17
Yeah, about that….
Honorable mention goes to:
Politicization of the medical/scientific community
Failure of public health to perform holistic risk/benefit analysis for proposed policies
Public Health officials disregarded all other health considerations besides for covid
Hiding evidence/data from public
Fine job indeed! Takes you by the hand and ever so gently and politely shows you around our hellscape of anti-rational egregious shitheadedness.
I attended the event and really enjoyed your comprehensive presentation and the slides! It would have been nice if you didn’t have to rush through it, but your points were still clear. Thank you!