I, like Dr. Noorchashm, have some concerns with Dr. Kory and loud advocacy down one specific road. I understand where he's coming from: When someone tries to silence debate rather than engage in it the only way to break through the intentional wall is to yell louder, or shoot the persons building the wall.
Since the latter is frowned upon in a polite society we're left with the other option.
Nonetheless I object -- and have -- to a single-minded focus. By definition it fails to account for acquired knowledge over time, never mind being exactly what the other side is doing.
As for calling Dr. Kory's view a scheme, that's over the line. In fact, its likely actionable, specifically when couched in the claim, no matter how-carefully wrapped, that unlawful acts are taking place. Which Noorchashm did, I remind you.
As someone who has had Covid-19 and hit it with repurposed drugs, all of which I had to source outside of alleged "professional advice", and having successfully treated my own person with same, knowing it was Covid because I seroconverted and proved that both before (being negative) and after (being positive) the fact, again, without any professional assistance from your so-called "profession" because it was denied me, never mind formal refusal at the time to be given monoclonal antibodies because I was not fat, over 65, diabetic or non-white I think I have plenty of reason to ride your ass and that of the "orthodoxy."
Yes, I know my experience is called "an anecdote" or a "case study" and is not proof. It is, however, my experience and thus stands as it is, like it or not.
I have every right to relate my personal experience to others.
Yes, I refused to take these so-called "vaccines" prior to getting Delta. Why? Many reasons, and I will list them again since otherwise you'd have to go back and read my work over the 18 months prior to my getting hit:
- Insufficient data on intermediate and long-term effects. I can't "un-take" a shot and whatever it does, it does. Since the firms in question were given a nearly-blanket and impenetrable liability shield I trust exactly nothing out of their mouths or anyone else's derived from their claims (that includes all the so-called "experts") because there is no way for me (or my heirs) to go to court and pound them if the product proves defective.
- Zero evidence of long-term protection and, from the titers raised by the EUA trials, evidence that the manufacturers knew the protection, to whatever degree it was conferred, was temporary. This, standing alone, meant that whatever the risk profile was from the jabs it was almost-certainly not a one-time bargain. What we didn't (and still don't) know is what the multiplicative factor is with repeated insults. No matter how small a risk is if you put an exponential multiplier on it enough times you're going to get screwed. I did not fail math in High School.
- Zero evidence that as the artificially-high titer waned binding capability would not remain. That's especially bad because it raises a direct and profound risk of VEI -- that is, enhanced disease either to the original virus or to other related viruses to which those binding antibodies can attach. This risk, if it occurs, is catastrophic to the person who got the jab and impossible to mitigate later. It requires years to know whether this will happen with regular, in-depth follow-up which obviously couldn't be done originally due to time constraints and isn't being done now on a systemic basis.
- The mRNA technology in particular is one that has no track record at all and in fact the record is of 10+ years of failure for other indications, including cancer, where fairly high levels of potential harm are tolerated because the alternative is certain death. It therefore requires years of evidence to convince me that "this time its different" and nothing other than time and a full exposition of the data over that time will convince me.
- All of the jabs used in the United States, without exception, hijack your cells to produce the material your immune system then notices and attacks. This is very different than direct introduction of the material to which your immune system is expected to respond as with all of the inoculations we commonly use in that the latter does not implicate your own tissues in the potential immune response while the former inescapably does. This raises the risk of autoimmune attack which, if it occurs, can be permanent and severely disable or even kill you. Without decades of proof that this does not occur, given that we understand the causes of autoimmune disease very poorly to begin with, such jabs posed a potentially extreme risk of permanent disability with no way to qualify how great that risk might be.
- I was, at the time, while of moderately-advanced age (57) healthy with no co-morbid factors and therefore was not at elevated risk other than for age. I am not fat or diabetic, my blood pressure is not high, I am not asthmatic, I do not have (or have had) cancer, my lungs and other organs function properly, my immune system function is normal, I consume no prescription drugs for any indication on a regular basis and I'm quite athletic, able to and do run at distances up half-marathons regularly. The data out of NY's coroner made clear that age is not, standing alone, a morbid factor for this disease and I suffered from none of the factors that were implicated in that data set for increased risk.
- I had every reason to believe that Covid-19, like essentially every other virus, would confer upon me durable immunity if I became infected and survived. That immunity might not be life-long or perfect but the odds that it would not be protective against a severe or fatal outcome on a permanent or nearly-so basis was, on the historical evidence, statistically-indistinguishable from zero. Indeed at the start of this pandemic we had scientific evidence already in on SARS-1 with people who had been infected and survived having knowledge of, and thus protection against, serious outcomes more than a decade later. Since that is also a coronavirus and was well-studied there never was and still isn't reason to believe that infection was not durably protective.
- I had concerns based on the data, starting in early summer of 2021, that the jabs might interfere with the building of natural immunity if I took them and then got infected anyway. Only significant passage of time (years or even a decade or more) can exclude this risk (OAS) and if it occurs, given that coronaviruses mutate at a very rapid rate compared with other viral families, it could kill you on reinfection with a mutated strain by causing your immune response to be ineffective down the road. Since I had reason to believe the protection from the jabs was not durable this became of particular concern to me by about June of 2021, and reinforced my decision to that point that taking the shots would be foolish given my specific underlying risk profile.
- I had been following the repurposed drug situation, the "accidental natural experiments" with said drugs and the correlations with same since March of 2020 in depth. Having read well north of 200 medical papers on the subject over the previous year I had a decent understanding of how the disease progressed, what was likely to work to interdict it during its different phases, which of those had very small to vanishingly small risk of severe side effects and I was able to obtain and stock back interventions that I believed might be effective, some of which were pharmaceuticals and others of which were classified as supplements. I also read of correlating factors for severe disease (specifically Vitamin D deficiency) and that is trivially able to be insured against for pennies in other than the summer months (in summer its free), which I did. I was thus confident that whatever my baseline risk of being hospitalized or killed was I would be able to put another zero on the "won't have that happen" odds between these factors.
Given all of the above the decision was not difficult at all. I had a large body of unknowns that could not be discovered for a period of years, some of which if they became realized risks would be catastrophic or even immediately fatal. As time had gone on additional serious risks were discovered to be potentially in play, none of which had been addressed, discussed or disproved. On the other side of the scale was about a year of knowledge of the disease etiology, its mechanisms of damage to the body, how certain personal health factors influenced that and what mitigations had statistical correlation with interdicting it.
I made my decision, I was ultimately infected, I used the drugs and supplements that I believed would be of benefit and while Delta was no cake-walk the outcome was success. I neither went to the hospital or died, and I have no long-term discernable effects from the event, other than an IgG antibody titer that persists to this day (last checked a couple of weeks ago.) In fact on an objective cardio-pulmonary basis the impact of my infection with the "evil" Delta was materially less than that which I suffered from whatever got me in the first week of January 2020, which was likely (although I can't prove it) H1N1. That infection took more than six months to fully recover from in terms of cardio capacity!
Of course then the so-called "good doctor".... goes here.
But what is more concerning to me is that you three do so, while expressing unusual zeal for ignoring the established principles of Immunological science, as licensed American physicians to vocally disparage and dissuade millions of Americans, who have already lost trust in their government and expert institutions, from becoming immunized against COVID-19. This is a critical medical and ethical judgement failure on your parts.
Well, to put not fine a point on it: Bull****.
There is no clear balance of risks and benefits for the jabs that applies on a blanket basis. This is in fact true for every immunological product and indeed for every drug irrespective of its class or purpose. I would not take a varicella shot for one simple reason: I already had chicken pox and thus it offers me nothing but risk. Yes, the risk from that shot is extremely small but when measured against zero benefit you would be stupid to allow anyone to give it to you.
Yet when it comes to Covid-19 this is precisely the problem -- we had a decent part of the population as of December of 2020, before the first jab went into anyone on a widespread basis, that had already had Covid-19. So where was the loud outcry then and where is it now, or even threats to revoke medical licenses for giving the jabs to people who already had the disease? Even the CDC now admits there is zero statistical benefit to receiving one or more such jabs if you have previously been infected. Such a recommendation or even demand is thus nothing more than risk, including the risk of death, without the possibility of benefit and yet even today the CDC and everyone else screams at people to get jabbed and boosted even if they've been previously infected and recovered!
The jabs originally looked like a fairly decent risk:benefit gamble for those in nursing homes and otherwise at very high risk, but who had not been previously infected, at the outset. I said so at the time, quite-clearly -- even with all the unknowns given that we knew of a roughly 5% infection mortality rate in severely-compromised people, plus the fact that the average survival time for a person admitted to a nursing home is six months the choice to be jabbed was, on the basis of available data, reasonably determinable as odds-on for such persons.
For everyone else the decision was never that clear.
This, even with what was trivially-discernible as trials that failed to demonstrate either sterilizing immunity or durable protection. Three months is not durable. In addition indications that the trials were gamed were present all the way back when they began.
Now, with more time, we've developed information that is more adverse to both the safety and efficacy of the shots!
Indeed the reported rate of serious complications and death from these jabs looks to be some one hundred times that of another common non-sterilizing (and often worthless or nearly so) inoculation we hand out to over 100 million Americans a year -- the flu shot.
When all the "errors" go one way it is extremely likely they're not errors at all -- they're probably intentional -- because errors do not have a directional bias.
Why should not Dr. Kory present the position that the risk and benefit equation is not clear, it is certainly not clear for younger, healthy people and the data was deliberately screwed with to make it look better than it was?
All of which is true, by the way.
How bad is what appears to be the deliberate skewing of the data? We don't know and thus we cannot put boundaries on it or prove it.
We can't look. So says Pfizer, Moderna and J&J. So says the FDA.
"Eat this, inject that!" says the doctor.
"Show me the data", says I.
"No." says the doctor and the government.
Well then **** you sir, and may the plague of a thousand locusts descend upon your home, your assets, your clothing and your penis.
Especially when you further tilt the scales by actively denying people the right to choose mitigating drugs that, to the extent each or all of them work, make the risk:reward benefit calculation adverse to getting the shots.
Speaking of risk and reward how about Remdesivir. Or, as I've taken to call it, Run-Death-Is-Near. A drug with a known toxicological problem, specifically to the kidneys, that is a multiple-time loser, including with Ebola where it not only didn't help it led to higher rather than lower mortality rates and thus was stopped during the trials. May I remind you that Solidarity, a fairly large-scale trial, said Remdesivir was worthless? These results were reported in the NEJM close to one year ago yet hospitals in the US are still pumping people full of that crap today.
The reality is that our federal public health agencies have badly failed at accurate and honest messaging about the vaccine and its efficacy. The vaccine’s presentation by Mr. Biden’s administration as a binary silver bullet was an error that only stoked more mistrust, when its inefficacies became visible with the growing environmental viral load.
It was not an error: It was an intentional lie and it pervaded not only Biden's Administration but Trump's as well and still does right now and here at the FDA, which claims the shots PREVENT the disease.
They do not.
We know this conclusively; exactly none of them provide the at least one year, 50% or better protection against infection and transmission that the FDA has historically required as a minimum, which is (usually) barely met by the flu shot.
The original trials were never powered to detect whether these jabs met that criteria, nor was the routine testing and follow-up done to detect it either -- on purpose.
Therefore any claim that these jabs prevent the disease was and is not an error -- it is intentionally false, especially given the data we have now.
The antibody titers produced were wildly beyond that from natural infection without any explanation as to why. A reasonable explanation is that the manufacturers either knew or suspected that (1) the protection would rapidly wane and thus gamed the test so as to pass the deliberately-short timeframe required to sell them and (2) viral evasion due to mutation was likely. Worse, setting the titer there while serving to conceal the failure and thus sell product may have also potentiated enhanced binding antibody levels, that is, vaccine-enhanced disease over time which would not become evident until after the trials were complete and 200 million Americans got jabbed.
Which, sadly, we may now be seeing with Omicron and even with Delta.
Can I prove the latter? Not yet. But if turns out to be true what are you going to do about it?
Oh by the way, every prior attempt at vaccination against a coronavirus ended in this sort of failure. The entity that claims it doesn't this time carries the burden of proof and it better be iron-clad proof too because if you're wrong the harms can be catastrophic.
See, that's why we don't do this sort of thing as a rule and anyone who is intellectually honest both knows and admits it: This risk is real, if it happens you screw an utterly huge number of people, the screwing is likely to be long-term or even permanent and there's nothing you can do about it.
Is not allegedly the "prime directive" in medicine First, do no harm?
Well now..... experimental jabs, liability shields, using known toxic drugs that have repeatedly failed trials due to safety and in fact has repeatedly caused mortal injury in those trials on a widespread basis in hospitals and systematically denying access to drugs that have decades-long safety records to people at the earliest sign of illness.
Doctor, hypocrisy much?
BUT, none of these federal failures, nor any of Dr. Fauci’s prejudices and errors (or even the alleged corruption my friend, RFK Jr., elaborates on in his new book), justify anyone, especially three seemingly decorated and licensed American physicians, acting to compound the harm to America and American institutions, by disparaging UN-IMMUNE persons from becoming vaccinated.
There might be a reason for it sir. The above may well be the reason.
Now let's talk about the jabs specifically.
The truth is that COVID-19 vaccine induce a powerful Adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein in the majority of vaccinated persons. This immune response, though it wanes and requires boosters in some, protects the majority of the vaccinated from severe illness. It protects the majority from becoming infected. It reduces transmission in the majority.
Only the first statement in that paragraph has factual basis. The rest are conjecture and require balance, which you refuse to provide. Indeed, you deny it even in the face of large-scale "natural experiments" such as in Israel and Denmark where, the data now shows, against Omicron the jabs are worse than worthless; they make infection more likely.
Indeed the data is that even against the pre-Delta variants this was true until two weeks after the jab sequence was completed. That is, you were temporarily made more-susceptible and this pattern of wildly-increased infection occurred in every state and nation where jab rollouts commenced exactly when it commenced. You and everyone else dismissed this by falsely claiming these people were "unvaccinated". If you are offering jabs into the middle of a pandemic then an infection that occurs at any time after the jab is accepted must count against the vaccine's effectiveness. It is your profession that chooses when to offer and recommend said jabs, I remind you and thus if you choose to administer them into a spike of infections and they make that worse that outcome counts against the intervention you prescribed.
Why should I ever believe someone in the future when it comes to my health once I prove they've lied. Many have, and they claim to be experts. "You become a dead end to the virus" if you get jabbed? "Vaccinated people do not carry the virus -- they don't get sick"? Yeah, Rachel Maddow is not an expert at anything except having diarrhea of the mouth. How about Fauci, Walensky and Bouria? Is not the latter the CEO of one of the companies making these products? Are not the former two those who encouraged lockdowns, mandatory masking, mandatory vaccinations and more? All three claim to be subject-matter experts and all three were completely full of crap.
Indeed there is evidence that the original trials were deliberately gamed and thus were frauds. I've gone over this in substantial detail. Can I prove it? Not without subpoenas but eventually someone is going to get through that wall. How is it that you accept alleged "trial" data that is generated and filtered only by the interested parties and which nobody else can look at, especially after the first batch of it is proved to be garbage? It's not like pharmaceutical companies have lied before, right? Oh wait, they have, and have been charged, prosecuted and punished for it. Do you believe a bank robber who has been convicted will not rob a bank in the future? Why would believe a pharmaceutical company that has been caught cheating would not cheat again, especially when they try to hide data from the public for decades and in fact go to court in an attempt to block its release? How about when those same firms execute contracts with governments that require the government to indemnify them if, in the future, it is proved the product is defective? We know they did exactly that because those agreements have been leaked and published.
Further, and perhaps most-seriously, we knew very early on that viremia, that is, virus in the bloodstream, including the spike, only occurred with severe and fatal cases of Covid-19. We also knew starting in September of 2020 and documented by December that the spike alone, absent the rest of the virus, was pathogenic in the human body, specifically in the endothelium. It is thus a reasonable belief that when someone ends up in the hospital or dead from Covid-19 this is likely the root cause at least some of the time -- and maybe all of the time.
It is impossible to inject something without some of it ending up in the circulation -- that is, in and around the endothelium. That begs the obvious question as to which is more-dangerous: A definite exposure of your endothelium to the spike from an injection or a possible one from infection if, and only if, you get severely hammered? Nobody knows and nobody has done the work to find out. Despite the signal in December of 2020 we went ahead anyway without first disproving that the balance of harms went the wrong way especially in healthy, low-risk individuals.
On top of this we knew very early on that there was no reduction in transmission from the jabs; a person who had a "breakthrough" was just as infectious (per Fauci and the CDC itself) and thus might be more-dangerous because by hiding symptoms you make the problem worse. If I do not know I'm sick I will not self-isolate in my home since I have no reason to suspect I'm infected. An inoculation that does not prevent infection, replication or transmission but prevents symptom expression is thus not only bad from a public health perspective its disastrous. Indeed one can reasonably make the argument that intentional blinding of symptoms is involuntary manslaughter. We have historical precedent for this, incidentally, in the fiasco surrounding the DTP vaccine in the 1970s and the twenty-fold higher case rate for pertussis today after the formula for that jab was changed to DTaP, a non-sterilizing inoculation that prevents neither infection or transmission. Do you think I can't read history and the CDC's own data on pertussis cases?
What's worse is that we now know the jabs don't work with any degree or durability at all. How do we know this? Because the CDC has proved it with their own contemporary data, that's how. The >65 cohort is the most vaccinated in the United States. Indeed, the CDC says that 88.3% of those >65 have been fully vaccinated, and 64.3% have received boosters, that is, the third shot.
The proof they don't work is that the CDC also reports that hospitalization among those >65 for Covid is roughly as high or higher this winter as it was last winter when there were no shots. With nearly 90% of that age cohort fully vaccinated across the entire United States if the jabs worked to prevent severe disease we would see a ratable decrease in hospitalization among that cohort. Indeed, since we know natural immunity is protective against severe disease for much longer than the jabs, at least one year, again by the CDC's own data, if the jabs did nothing we'd expect to see a lower rate among that segment of the population simply because many of them already had the virus and survived. There are simply not enough unvaccinated and uninfected seniors remaining if the jabs work and yet there is in fact no decrease at all compared with last winter's surge among the most-vaccinated population subgroup.
This strongly implies that what the jabs are doing is producing VEI (vaccine-enhanced infection); that is, causing actual harm and either wildly potentiating first infections or, far worse, destroying immunity from infection whether prior to or subsequent to vaccination such that people are getting the virus a second or subsequent time and not mildly either; they're getting hammered since this is not relying on "infections", it's hospitalizations. We knew the latter was likely this summer, incidentally, because "N" protein seroprevalence in Britain flatlined during Delta -- an impossibility unless the vaccine was interfering with building that titer or destroyed existing antibody titers if jabbed after being infected and recovered.
Never mind that there's evidence these jabs may be back-boosting other common coronaviruses. That was known to be a risk in May of 2021. We see that in the data too; people showing up in the ER and Urgent Care with "covid-like illness" but they don't have Covid, and a huge percentage of them are vaccinated. Are these jabs turning the common OC43 and HKU1 coronaviruses, that usually produce mild colds, into severe disease events? Maybe -- and we knew they might in May of last year but didn't bother to follow up on that either. Since OC43 is believed to have been the cause of a Covid-like pandemic in the 1890s if this proves up we will have screwed millions of Americans -- or even perhaps tens of millions -- instead of helping them.
But, even then, systematic off-label use of controversial and unvetted drugs in millions of Americans would be a very questionable practice.
What is "controversial" and "unvetted" about a drug that has a 30+ year record with nearly four billion human doses consumed worldwide and, of course, all of the results of same in evidence? You can run all the teeny little trials you want but you will never get the statistical power on safety that comes from decades of widespread use. We have that for Ivermectin. We have it to a lesser, but still powerful extent, for hydroxychloroquine. I know people who are using Plaquenil and have been for an extended period of time for chronic conditions. They're not falling over dead while this specific use would be for a week or so at maximum.
How about budesonide? We dose people with systemic steroids all the time; prednisone to name one. We know its safety profile quite well, because we use it for a whole host of other reasons. Budesonide, as an inhaled steroid, has much less systemic effect yet it concentrates the effect where you want it if Covid gets out of hand on you before you get sick enough that your O2Sat collapses -- in the lungs. Is it 100% safe? Of course not. No drug is.
What if I demand those things, take them, and they do nothing? So what? Your alternative on offer was chicken soup! Unless the drugs harm me in short-term, acute use I can't be worse off than what you offered me as an alternative, which was nothing!
Explain to why you believe you have the right to deny me that choice.
I remind you that in a tiny little nation called Mexico to our south these drugs are sold over the counter. Indeed you can buy Zpak, HCQ and Ivermectin there for just a few dollars without any gatekeeping whatsoever by the medical "profession."
If your argument is that such active denial "encourages" your preferred path I have a word for that and it has a punishment too: Extortion.
Close to one year ago I posted a list of lies from physicians and alleged public-health experts. Indeed it is precisely your group that has spent close to the last two years claiming a physical impossibility: That a mask could and will stop an aerosol virus. You and your pals, in short, have and still argue that a chain-link fence around my porch will stop mosquitoes from biting me. In addition to not failing math I also did not fail physics.
At the same time you so-called experts have refused to follow up on alleged Covid cases (that is, PCR+) with an inexpensive, couple of dollar fingerstick antibody tests two weeks later. Why is this important? Because a person who comes positive on a PCR test at Ct40 likely never had the virus at all. Since none of the labs report the Ct value to the patient said person has no idea if their "positive" denotes a nearly-certain infection with Covid or one that is wildly-improbable to be a true positive. In the latter case if they were sick they had something else. If they weren't sick they had nothing, In both cases they may well still be susceptible. By calling them "sick and now recovered" you caused them to take risk they would otherwise not take, and this also became (and still is!) part of your argument for "everyone must get jabbed."
But if they do follow up and a huge percentage of the so-called "had Covid" people find out they were lied to and never had the virus perhaps that would be bad..... Indeed it might lead to a very-justified call for heads if your profession quarantined and economically destroyed tens of millions of Americans who weren't actually sick.
I had to go "outside the lines" to source these tests on my own. I did so.
It is my sincere hope that any American reading my opinion here will think carefully about the best way to protect themselves from COVID-19.
On this we agree entirely. I have done so since this first began. Indeed that is part of being an adult.
But my attempts to do so, including to document whether what I had in January of 2020 was Covid, have been intentionally, willfully and maliciously interfered with by people just like you. My access to safe drugs that, on reading of hundreds of formal studies, some great, some not-so-great, some undoubtedly riddled with errors and even lies was refused even though said drugs are in fact as safe or safer than those I can buy over the counter in the local WalMart or CVS.
I can buy all the allergy meds I want without proof that I have an allergy. I can buy all the Tylenol I want without proof that I have a headache or fever. Why can't I buy a drug that is, on the data, roughly one hundred times safer than Tylenol?
The bottom line is this: Until and unless you have a proved-effective alternative on offer at the same point in the progression of disease there is no argument ever for interfering with someone using a safe drug irrespective of whether you believe, or can prove, that it works. The test for this must be simple, binary and put into law NOW: If I can buy something as safe or safer over the counter then I can buy this if I so choose, period. It's my ass and thus must be my choice when all you will offer in the alternative is nothing at all.
The reason is trivially-easy to understand: If a person uses it and it doesn't work provided its safe they're no worse off than eating the chicken soup.
We should demand -- and you, as a so-called "professional" had a duty to demand that all of the data surrounding these jabs be released before they went into arms. You have a duty to insist that there be actual criminal penalties for failing to report adverse events into VAERS and even more-severe penalties for anyone tampering with, redacting or sitting on said reports including not autopsying persons who die shortly after using experimental treatments and publishing the findings, which the jabs all are.
You further have a duty to stop lying in your professional capacity and so does everyone else who claims a "professional" credential when it comes to medicine. There are no approved jabs available to the public and the reason for it is obvious: Until and unless approval and recommendation comes for children marketing and selling the "approved" version is outside of both the PREP Act and NCVIA liability shields which means if Pfizer sells it and someone gets harmed they will get sued and lose. Comirnaty is not available; I challenge you to find vials of it with lot numbers and produce them. I have issued this challenge repeatedly since the alleged approval but not one such lot number and photograph of a vial has been shown in actual use. The jabs that are available are all under EUA, they are and remain experimental to this day, the trials appear to have been gamed, the control group was deliberately destroyed making fair comparison impossible, some data from the trials was not reported at all including some that suggested a significant mortality increase, there is now a significant mortality increase in the working-age population that is not from Covid-19 and exactly correlates with the initiation of these jabs into that part of the population, the CDC's own data says that the most vaccinated cohort is still getting sick and winding up in the hospital WITH COVID in equal numbers to before any jabs were available and more.
But you have done none of this.
Indeed what you have done is the opposite and in fact you still claim that which the data and even the CDC disclaims: That the jabs prevent, on a material basis, acquisition and transmission of the virus.
I have no quarrel with anyone who reads your material, mine and everyone else's, does their own evaluation of all of it, weighing it as they see fit and comes to the opposite conclusion I did -- that for them in their opinion, the jab is a superior choice. Were I in a different personal health situation I might well have come to that conclusion as well.
But there is no clear-cut, true for everyone answer in this regard especially when much of the data necessary to accurately calculate the odds either is being withheld on purpose from public disclosure and analysis, is being deliberately misrepresented or, perhaps worse, simply cannot be discerned without the passage of time that has not yet occurred.
I am not anti-vaccine. I was forcibly inoculated with a whole host of things when I was young as are most children but on analysis as an adult I cannot disagree with the choices my parents made on my behalf. Likewise, I made those decisions for my daughter when she was a child, and with one exception I agreed with the recommendations and she received those shots. The one exception she had every capacity to change upon reaching her 18th birthday and I explained to her both my decision and that she was free to alter it at her discretion as an adult. I have no idea what she decided because, since she is now an adult, her private health decisions are none of my damned business. Likewise she decided (as a young adult) against the Covid-19 shots, got the disease (at the same time I did, which is why I know she had it), recovered without incident and now has natural immunity just as I have.
When it comes to the medical "industry" and "profession", especially that of so-called "public health" I do not trust it -- or you -- and never will in the future. Your "profession" has destroyed its own credibility with your own hands and words. Your "profession" has engaged in a two year long scream-fest of lies, you have failed to take reasonable mitigating actions for the most-vulnerable who we knew within weeks were at especially high risk, many of your cohorts deliberately exposed people in nursing homes to infected individuals, you have advocated for and used extraordinarily dangerous drugs which in addition to being dangerous have been proved in large trials to be worthless, you have continually advocated for "protective measures" that are physically impossible to be functional in actually reducing transmission and might increase it through physical transport of contaminated material from one place to another and you have repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that your preferred intervention is in fact a sterilizing inoculation and are completely, 100% of the time safe. These were not errors -- these statements and acts were undertaken either with reckless disregard for the truth and known limitations of the data available or worse, with actual knowledge of falsity where there has been years or even (in the case of masks) decades of hard science proving you were full of crap.
Covid-19 is not the first load of garbage your so-called "profession" has run on the American population. Roughly a million Americans a year die each and every year in whole or part as a result of the decades long pile of garbage your profession has and continues to run on what people should put down their piehole and is largely why obesity and diabetes continues to wildly expand in the United States and elsewhere. Indeed that load of crap is likely responsible for a huge percentage of all Covid-19 deaths -- perhaps as many as half or even more!
There is no possible way for you to reclaim credibility with me. You simply can't. That which you or any other so-called "medical professional" assert from here onward must be backed by scientific evidence with all the data exposed, no redactions and no "trust me" assertions because you are not trust worthy. Each and every piece of evidence that is missing I will construe against whatever you assert and that is perfectly reasonable, given the history of the last two years.
I write in defense of the United States and Her public health,
Hooman Noorchashm MD, PhD
In a word: