23 Comments

The FSMB states that physicians "... have an ethical and professional responsibility to act in the best interest of their patients...". For that exact same reason I do not conform necesarily to the "consensus". If I sincerely believe that the "official" guideline goes against the best interest of my patient, it is my duty to disagree.

Expand full comment

We now appear to be in the early stages of becoming an Orwellian, fascist state, in the US and in other "Western" nations around the world. In the US, there is little hope of return to a "pre-facscist" nation unless the US Senate and House of Representatives swing to the right. It is astonishing that there are not more moderate Democrats expressing concern about what their party and affiliated socialist/communist devotees are espousing. The instinct to revolt is hampered by the absence of a strong leadership with a clear strategy for the return of freedom and respect for the Bill of Rights.

Expand full comment

nahhh... we have the 2d amendment, too many fbi/kgb plants. defend yourself!

oz, uk, eu have disarmed their citizens.

Expand full comment

Yup way ahead here in my province of Ontario. Back in April the CPSO posted this letter to its members. Find it ironic that the country we were told is the bastion of socialism - Sweden - embraced a focused risk/benefit approach and that respected their citizens God given rights while the supposedly “free” western democracies peddled soft tyranny disguised as being for the betterment of our collective good. Been working on your Swedish, Gato?

https://www.cpso.on.ca/News/Key-Updates/Key-Updates/COVID-misinformation

Expand full comment

I follow Sebastian Rushworth, a young Swedish doctor who has a health/medicine blog. He says the Swedish constitution prohibits the draconian measures taken by other countries in Europe and the Anglosphere. Many in the Swedish government would have taken the same measures if they weren't prohibited, and many in government and in the public pushed for them regardless, in violation of their constitution. What is remarkable is that they held firm despite the relentless pressure and global messaging.

Expand full comment

I follow him as well! He is brilliant.

Expand full comment

Clinical medicine no longer exists. Doctors diagnose a test result and prescribe a drug, preferably one still on patent that benefits their corporate overlords. They follow protocols set by bureaucrats and "health" insurance companies. Most are too cowardly or too stupid to think outside the box. Doctors are not medical gods. They are fallible human beings (have a lot of experience with that reality). And any doctor who puts his or her ego or self interest ahead of the needs of a patient should find another line of work.

Health does not come from a pill or a needle.

The Federation of State Medical boards is trying to shut down those few doctors who are brave enough to provide early treatment for C19 patients. When in the history of medicine have doctors ever told patients to go home until they couldn't breathe? Seriously, WTH?

Why are the "vaccine" adverse events are being ignored or dismissed? Myocarditis is never mild. It's a big damn deal. Blood clots in the brain (or anywhere else) are a big damn deal. Guillain-Barre is a big damn deal.

Why are they pushing "vaccines" that they just admitted don't stop infection or transmission?

Why are they blocking access to HCQ and Ivermectin? There are people in the US right now who are using animal Ivermectin to treat their illness early.

Something is very, very wrong in the world right now.

Who is behind it and what is the goal?

Expand full comment

This is what I think about too often these days - what is the end game? I know it isn’t good and that our best years are likely behind us unless we are able to wake up enough people to this tyranny and gross abuse of power

Expand full comment

My question exactly—what is the end goal?

Expand full comment

when the official quackery is called information and the dissent to the quackery is called malpractide there you have covidistan.

in covidistan a hypothesis with a bloody horrid consumer risk, for a metric that means nothing becomes fact!

Expand full comment

The Dark Ages just called. They quoted Ahnold from Terminator, "I'll be back!"

Expand full comment

update....'they're back'....

Expand full comment

and yet when a doctor in Oregon cuts the breasts off a 15 year old, without even parental consent, because she want to "transition" to being a male the medical board thinks that is perfectly fine.

Expand full comment

It boils to one concept: any single point control of the truth, especially State sponsored, becomes fallacy. Taking away the ability to have a questioning attitude and challenge the norms effectively diminishes innovation and diversity of ideas. While people may not agree one topics, science or society for that manner never moves forward with mindless consensus.

This essentially attacks the doctor. The effect: less people who have an innovative will want to enter the medical establishment long term. Ultimately has a negative impact on health.

There’s become a full blitz on anyone challenging the traditional vaccine narrative. Not getting into who is right or who is wrong, but there are a lot of very talented and smart individuals with a wide range of opinions. I’d like to hear various views to understand. The effect unfortunately has been the impossibility to have various non biased RCTs and research to look into potential impacts and drive forward new ideas and safety studies. And railroading anyone, regardless of pedigree, challenging the narrative.

It’s a dangerous slippery slope.

Expand full comment

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly."

~ Richard Feynman

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, required only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus."

– Michael Crichton (1942-2008)

Expand full comment

Exactly my point below, libertate.

100%

Expand full comment

Will the establishment actually list all of the facts and all of the disinformation for the record? Will the establishment support the facts with evidence and show the grounds for disqualifying the disinformation? No? I’ll wait.

Expand full comment

As a CA resident, What’s I find fascinating is how parents are flabbergasted at this medical tyranny and censorship after they sat on the sidelines as CA passed SB 277/276 which effectively stripped parents of their medical rights over their children’s vaccine regimen. 276 stripped the doctor-Patient relationship down to the bones, punished doctors foe giving medical waivers, put them on a list, and effectively did away with the waivers.

We all said “watch out, if you do this they will reach for more, eventually they will come after ALL OF US”

Lol, didn’t take long.

Expand full comment

We're reliving history. All the enlightenment questions are in flux just like in Milton's 1600's England... Maybe we could learn from it. Maybe not.

Expand full comment

it happemd to me - yip

Expand full comment

Yes, thank you. I only hope this entire episode is enough to make it clear what a tool for control (and nothing else) licensing is. Any genuine acts of malpractice (or other forms of malfeasance) can be handled by courts. And there is no evidence that licensing produces better outcomes. It's long past time to end it.

Expand full comment

Two questions not directly related to this post: 1) Is there any data on “breakthrough” cases among the vaccinated showing the percentage with/without prior Covid infections?

2) Since it seems increasingly well established that the vaccines do not prevent infections but are argued to help limit severe disease and fatalities; i.e.; they are treatments not really vaccines, is there reliable data showing they provide better treatment outcomes with fewer serious known adverse side effects and fatalities vs other treatment protocols alone? It sure would be helpful to break out data re vaccinated between those who have had and recovered from Covid vs others. Never see any mention of that distinction.

Expand full comment

Reminds me of that twitter sent out by that Bret Hume entity, who is apparently a DNC enforcer in media, during the last election who hinted strongly that any journalist who strayed off the approved story would find it hard to find work in the future. Still, something feels off about this latest ramp-up in the operation. Yes, the mid-terms require they nail down vote by mail and that right quick. But I get the sense that they are having to accelerate the operation. I can't point to any evidence, and I knew they were going to ramp this up again, but still, is the scent of sweaty, jittery, junkie in need of a fix-type desperation, on the wind? Maybe just wishful thinking.

Expand full comment