Discover more from Popular Rationalism
The Dangerous Arrogance of Allopathic Medicine
Calling it Hubris Would Be Too Nice
“You have to treat them like little babies. You can’t challenge their wants, and they don’t know the difference between wants and needs."
“It’s impossible to reason with them. The best you can do is to make them think your solution was their idea.”
“What do you expect? When they graduate from medical school, they are literally told they are gods.”
These were three different responses I received from statisticians and computational biologists with whom I worked with who had far more experience than I with working with MD’s doing research in academia. I had had a run-in with a person who had decided for himself that he would go back on the promise of making me the principle investigator of a program grant I brought in and managed. I managed the consortium for a year, and we were re-funded for five years to the tune of $7.5 M a year as a direct result of my effort in keeping a loose consortium together that the jackass had tried his best to tear apart. How did I succeed? By doing the opposite of that the lying person who ended up stealing credit for my work.
There’s either something that happens to the human mind, or a selection for a particular type of mind, that needs to dominate specifically at the expense of others. In academia, it’s called “eating your young”. Rather than reward and re-invest in success, those with power in academic medical research simply steal credit - and research funding - from their underlings. It’s destructive to the human spirit, and equally harmful to progress in science.
And it’s all ego and elbows. Yuck.
People who survive longest under these types are sycophants and yes-persons. But they don’t ever quite truly succeed.
In my book “Cures vs. Profits”, I provide a list of characteristics of objective scientists, and those of individuals who perform “Science-Like Activities”. And knowing what I know about the biased means by which CDC and medicine have warped counts and official reports to make the “Delta wave” appear to be an epidemic of the unvaccinated, and worse, I’m still surprised at the arrogance of allopathy this late in the game. Some of the means by which bias has been injected into COVID-19 vaccine safety recently came to light via two whistleblowers involved in the Pfizers’ allegedly fraudulent Polack et al. study in NEJM, which, in spite of two whistleblowers, has still not been retracted.
The arrogance that prompted this article is none of the above. It was this article found in the article from Medpage today, entitled (Trigger Alert: Do Not Throw Your Phone or Laptop):
“How Do We Handle Compassion Fatigue Toward the Unvaccinated?
— Healthcare workers are facing a conundrum ... caring for those who won't care for themselves”
I mean REALLY???
I don’t want to start something, but I’d venture to guess that those who do not vaccinate take care of themselves far better than those who do.
Even if we just look at the issue of vaccination, those who do not vaccinate have done their homework. They realize and recognize the biases at play; they have followed the publications and studies that show how numbers are cooked. They know why Barnstable County data show the vaccine has zero, or negative efficacy, depending on whether you consider those who have received a single or a double dose.
They’ve heard about pathogenic priming and disease enhancement, molecular mimicry, and they tend to eat organic, get more sunshine, and give and receive hugs.
And many are naturally immune.
The part of the public that wants a quick fix, a pill, to make it all go away refuses to take the time to learn biology, toxicology and immunology (all courses available at IPAK-EDU.org, btw).
But “Compassion fatigue” in a time when the vaccinated, according to former FDA Scott Gottlieb, are not firmly in the risk category of getting infected, and getting sick with serious COVID-19.
Gottlieb, who was recently acquired by Pfizer (Wikipedia says he an independent member of the board of directors of Pfizer, Inc.), was also recently on the news (next to scrolling updates on the stock of vaccine manufacturers), made it clear that he would not feel “comfortable” in a large group of people who only had two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. The host asked Gottlieb about the safety of participating in holiday gatherings with “family or a potential, you know big dinner with you know 15, 20 people?”
Gottlieb: “Yeah look, I wouldn't feel comfortable in that kind of of a setting if I was vaccinated six or eight months ago and haven't received a booster yet.”
He continued: “(T)here's infection happening among people who've been vaccinated... they are both getting the infection and spreading the infection. We're seeing bad outcomes we saw the case of that nursing home in Connecticut…”
The information Gottlieb is citing comes, like all information on vaccine safety and efficacy now, a press release that claims that Pfizer plans to submit a study for peer review.
The press release states that the study of 2 vs 3 doses found an “observed relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% (95% CI: 89.3, 98.6) reflect(ing) the reduction in disease occurrence in the boosted group versus the non-boosted group in those without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
The press release, which reported no safety concerns, contains no information on the diagnostic methodology, nor any mention of covariates or potential confounders.
But not to worry. The message is “get your booster now, and we’ll publish the science later, because, well, just trust us”.
From the press release:
“Pfizer and BioNTech plan to submit detailed results from the trial for peer-reviewed publication. The companies also plan to share these data with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and other regulatory agencies around the world as soon as possible. “
Well, that’s good to know. One cannot help but wonder: Do the whistleblowers have additional information about data cooking going on over at Pfizer?
And, by the way, Gottlieb did not disclose his conflict of interest, and did not mention natural immunity once.