The new rules of medicine (original post)
The pandemic has ushered in significant new changes to how the medical community operates. These "new rules" put an end to the inefficiencies and errors that have hampered scientific progress.
The medical community should be ashamed of itself. You’d think that the entire academic community would be outraged at the scientific abuses that are happening in medical science today.
But you’d be wrong. Everyone ignores the transgressions.
Welcome to the new normal
Here are the new rules (in case you didn’t get The Memo from President Biden) for how to behave in the new world:
The objective is to vaccinate every human in the world with the vaccine. No iffs, ands, or butts. Safety isn’t an issue. We don’t care how many people we have to kill. We don’t care if the vaccine kills more people than it saves. Those are details. Vaccinate everyone. And quash any dissenting opinions.
No more need for anyone to investigate serious adverse events (like death, etc) in clinical trials or under EUA. So, for example, the 8,000+ deaths reported in VAERS can all be ignored despite the fact that Dr. Peter Schirmacher definitively determined the vaccines are killing people. We made sure the US press didn’t report that, so nobody here will know. And Congress won’t investigate since they don’t want to look bad. Nobody is going to hold you accountable. So just lie about it like what Pfizer did in their Phase 3 trial. You will not be prosecuted and the outside advisory committees will not ask any questions. Trust us. It’s all wired in. And the public is completely clueless because we made sure the press wouldn’t ask any questions.
Phase 3 clinical trial fraud is now expected: If anything bad happens, don’t worry; just cover it up! Take Maddie de Garay, a 12-year old injured in the Pfizer 12-15 year old trial who is now paralyzed for life. It started less than 24 hours after her second dose. Pfizer handled it brilliantly by saying it “abdominal pain.” This made it much easier to get FDA approval. The FDA will not believe the family or medical records. They will never investigate. They will only listen to the drug company. Compensation received by the family: ZERO. The trial documents they signed promised that there were no serious adverse events, but that was necessary to get the kids to enroll. If they get injured, tough luck for them. DO NOT send a letter of apology. Have no fear either. The medical community will look the other way. They really don’t care if kids are injured in vaccine trials. If they did, they would have demanded an investigation. If you had any doubts that we have this whole thing rigged, Maddie de Garay is proof we have them all locked up. That story will never get out so have no fear about getting caught. It just will not happen. Ever. And even if it does, don’t worry because you have a liability shield just like you wanted.
Papers that endanger the “safe and effective” narrative must be censored. No appeals. It used to be that papers that pass peer review get published. That is so old school. Here’s a great example… Jessica Rose’s paper, A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products was published. But we called the publisher and they took down the paper over the objections of the editor of the journal. The reason they cited was brilliant: the publisher claimed the paper was “not invited.” Nobody will question that. The paper exposed the fact that myocarditis is more dangerous than people had been led to believe. It was removed because it would have upset the false narrative that the vaccines are safe and effective. As you can see, there were no objections from the medical community at all. Just another day. Censorship of science that doesn’t support the false narrative is not only acceptable today, it’s expected. If you don’t censor stuff that goes against the narrative, you will pay a heavy price.
Evidence-based medicine hierarchy principles no longer apply. There is a new Sheriff in town. The highest level of evidence in evidence-based medicine used to be the peer-reviewed meta-analysis and systematic review. No longer. Expert opinion, formerly the lowest level of evidence, is now the highest if it is from any of these sources: the NIH, FDA, WHO, AMA, Gates Foundation, GAVI, or a major drug company. If any of them say “don’t use it,” follow orders. Ivermectin is the poster child here. We suppressed that totally even though formerly it would have been embraced. The world will trust us, not the stupid medical journals. The medical journals that published those systematic reviews will be punished. But it doesn’t matter anyway, since when the AMA says something, it overrides anything in the medical literature.
Drugs that work against COVID must be suppressed since they would jeopardize the EUA of the vaccines. We’re going to sabotage all the US trials that work against the narrative. Unfortunately, Fluvoxamine was shown in a large Phase 3 trial to reduce the risk of death from COVID by 12X. They did it outside the US. While that’s better than anything we have today, it doesn’t fit the narrative so the NIH and WHO continue to ignore it. They will simply say, “we need more evidence.” Doesn’t matter how many people die in the meantime. Doctors like George Fareed and Brian Tyson who discover early treatment multi-drug protocols with 99.76% risk reduction are have been “persona non grata” at all government agencies. All attempts to contact the NIH or FDA will be ignored on repurposed drugs that work. Vaccine must be the only option. Otherwise, nobody will take it. Get it?
Open scientific oral discussion/debate questioning the safe and effective narrative is forbidden. It used to be that if you had a scientific disagreement with a colleague, you’d talk to them. No longer. That’s so old school. The new way is dueling documents, progressively longer and longer. Generally 100 pages or more. And you only get to play that game after you have your side published. No more real-time discussions and debates that would settle issues quickly. That would be bad news. This is a pandemic but we can’t sacrifice written documentation just to settle an argument quickly. We need to take time to do it right and document everything, no matter how long it takes. Using document battles, we can string people out for years before they figure it out. By then, it will be too late. Again, never ever engage any of these people who are trying to tell the truth. You should label them as “misinformation spreaders.” We have a deal with Wikipedia that they will trash all their reputations by relying on the fact checkers that we’ve all paid off.
You must not question the mainstream narrative. Nobody prominent who supports the narrative that the vaccines are safe and effective shall agree to debate any prominent opponent of the narrative. Only bad outcomes can come of that. Challengers of the narrative should be ignored, censored, intimidated, jailed, or killed if necessary.
No more accountability. CDC scientists who don’t do their job (like John Su by failing to compute a key number needed for risk benefit analysis) will not be held accountable any longer. So if they screw up, they screw up. Even if millions of people die. Big fucking deal. Look, the new rule is that the CDC and FDA are always right and cannot be questioned. If they release a report saying vaccines reduce all-cause mortality by 66%, instead of laughing at how absurd that is (since it would mean that nobody could die from anything except accidents and even those would be reduced), everyone is expected to suck it up and say nothing if you don’t like it. If the CDC says cloth masks work for COVID, it’s true. If they say they don’t work for smoke, it’s true. If you point out that the virus is 25x smaller than smoke, you will have your medical license revoked for endangering the public. Got it?
Did I miss any changes? Does anyone have a copy of the original memo that was circulated to the medical community? I had to piece together this list just from my personal experience, but I hope I captured the essence for those in the medical community who did not get The Memo.
Esteban wrote in the comments below: The underlying points are that the system is completely broken, now more so than ever, that voters are not and have not been able to change it, and that the founding fathers were very worried about a democracy with voters who lacked the skills necessary to defend the legitimate interests of society.