The capture of the medical profession by its suppliers: Vaccine hesitancy explained

Following Dr Norman Swan’s bold assertion in the ABC advertisement promoting vaccines screened on 27 August 2021 that the coronavirus vaccine has saved millions of lives, I find I can no longer remain silent. Where is the data to support this statement?

There has been a very strong desire within both the medical profession and the general public for this to be true. But, if we can get past the state of blind panic, in fear of our lives, and also get past the very popular but false assumption that anyone who questions a supposedly authoritative view must be a selfish nutcase, and look at researched evidence, then we find that this assertion is rather dubious.

The investigation that follows here finds rather compelling evidence that vaccine interests claimed credit for the large decline in mortality in the first half of the twentieth century and got away with it when most of the decline occurred before vaccines were available. The medical profession has gone from warning about the possibility of this capture between 1970 and 2000 to now fully accepting it as if it is proven fact. This has resulted in the whole profession now becoming captured by its principal supplier group, the pharmaceutical drug industry. That industry has used its monopoly on both supply and medical opinion to proffer only one solution to the current pandemic when there is another readily available non-patentable treatment that achieves the same thing but without any risk of death. We are therefore now being treated by a business model rather than by the practitioners who are simply following it in good faith. It appears that those we have placed our trust in have themselves been hoodwinked, and that the community has been both gaslit and hornswoggled.

In the absence of any other market competition, politicians are even doing the drug companies’ marketing for them. It’s not the politicians’ area of expertise, so they just follow the ‘best medical advice’. Politicians then run expensive taxpayer funded PR campaigns around this single proffered solution. The ABC 7:30 program a couple of weeks ago (August 2021) advised that AZ costs $0.40 a jab and Pfizer $14. Multiply this by the number of people in the world and there is an enormous world-wide market to be tapped, not to mention the discrepancy in profit margin. Governments are even paying incentives i.e. doing the drug companies’ marketing for them. The Australian Labor party even wants to pay people $100 to get the jab, many times the price charged for even the most expensively priced product. A high profit margin, a world-wide monopoly, governments doing the marketing, mass fear in the community, a product that is the only professionally approved antidote, the possibility of further variants creating the need for ‘booster’ shots creating an assured future revenue stream, a no questions will be tolerated approach, all this must surely be a marketing department’s heaven on earth, nirvana. The bonanza this produces for the pharmaceutical industry is almost beyond earthly contemplation. It is now too big to fail with populations panicked into accepting their only solution.

Fear about our health/ survival causes us to look for authority to save us, and the currently accepted authority is the medical profession. But this is a paternalistic, authoritarian view of the world that we have been imbued with for generations. Passively adopting this is at odds with our struggle against that, with our supposedly liberated, egalitarian, individualistic way of thinking in the ‘modern world’. Instead, any questioning is labelled as ‘fringe’, based on misinformation that could not possibly be right. Do we really think that understanding medical policy stuff needs brain power that we don’t have and that they do? What about their human propensity for misinterpretation, self-interest and self-delusion, just like the rest of us? The fear, even hysteria around the coronavirus, is not conducive to clear, rational, considered thought.

So let’s look back in history at the evidence to see how we got to where we are now, in the hope that might inform us on how to move forward.

How did we get here?

In 1970, the then head of the Harvard Medical School, Dr. Kass, gave a speech that was subsequently published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases titled “Infectious Disease and Social Change” warning that those promoting vaccines would try to take the credit for the twentieth century decline in mortality from infectious diseases and would monetize this to increase their power and prestige and that public health officials needed to be careful to not credit the wrong things.

In 1977, Drs. McKinlay & McKinlay published a study in The Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly titled, “The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century.” This confirmed Dr. Kass’ views and showed that vaccines (and other medical interventions) were responsible for between 1 to 3.5% of the total decline in mortality since 1900. It said “92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950” i.e. before most vaccines existed, and that medical measures “appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900–having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances.”

In 2000 in a paper titled “Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century” by Guyer, Freedman, Strobino & Sondik in Pediatrics Dec 2000, Vol 106 No 6, epidemiologists from both Johns Hopkins and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reconfirmed this saying “Thus vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century…nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccine were available.” The study went on to explain the things that actually were responsible for a massive decline in mortality: “water treatment, food safety, organized solid waste disposal, and public education about hygienic practices.” Also, “improvements in crowding in US cities” played a major role. Clean water. Safe food. Nutrition. Plumbing. Hygiene. These were the primary reasons mortality declined so precipitously. At least according to the data and published science.

One may wonder where were the people on the streets banging their pots and pans for the water supply and sewerage engineers and workers of times gone by?

As https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-impact-of-vaccines-on-mortality-decline-since-1900-according-to-published-science/  says in commenting on the McKinlay study:

at least 96.5% of the decline (and likely more than that since their numbers included ALL medical interventions, not ONLY vaccines) had nothing to do with vaccines. You don’t get to say you saved humanity if, at most, you were responsible for 3.5% of the decline in mortality rates since 1900 (and probably closer to 1%).

And

… they (the McKinlays) warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone. They predicted that this would happen. (It’s worth noting that the McKinlay Study used to be required reading at every medical school.)

What happened?

The lessons of history have long since been ignored then forgotten. Dr Kass’s fears have been realised and surpassed. The narrative he warned of has become accepted as best-practice, conventional wisdom, and anyone that questions it must be a loony, not doing the community-minded thing of protecting themselves and others. Well-intentioned medicos and researchers now devote their lives to it.

How could this have occurred?

Medicos are principally concerned with their patients’ health. Other management issues can be outsourced to allow more time to focus on the main game. This allows support staff and suppliers not sharing the medicos’ preoccupation or ethical constraint to run amok.

What mechanism has been used to do it?

The mechanism is very simple, almost straight out of Animal Farm. The medical profession operates on the basis that ‘health = the absence of any disease’. This is true enough and very easy to defend, until the way it has actually been implemented is considered, which is with the unstated qualification added ‘that is recognised and treatable by the medical profession’. In practice, this means that unless there is a drug to treat it, it’s not ‘real’ and it’s all in your head: You should just accept medical authority and go away and stop pretending to be sick.

This is a complete perversion (even reversion) of the Hippocratic oath that does not seem to occur to most medicos, who have little time to spend on anything other than keeping up with all the latest drugs, leaving any more serious philosophical questions to senior medicos or professional bodies. Of course, when a medico gets an unrecognised disease, they have no other choice but to go looking like everybody else on the internet for ‘non-expert’ advice provided by natural therapies, perhaps furtively or perhaps not even recognising the conflict of condemning lay-people for doing just that and not basing their opinions on ‘medically acceptable’ ‘proven scientific fact’.

Removal of this silent qualification from the de facto definition of health will only happen when control is taken away from the drug induced stupor that medicos are now forced to exist in. The profession has effectively required all practitioners to become drug pushers, leaving little room in their training or treatments for any other option. This is an almost inevitable consequence of the very simple and common but perennially very difficult to deal with procurement problem of capture by suppliers.

Where is the competition?

Effectively suppressed is the answer. Naturopathy and Homeopathy together with Chinese medicine and most of the medical schools for blacks were run out of medicine by the 1910 Flexner Report in the USA, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report. This was long before Dr Kass came to prominence and outside all living memory. The effect of this report was that: 

Medical schools that offered training in various disciplines including electromagnetic field therapy, phototherapy, eclectic medicine, physiomedicalism, naturopathy, and homeopathy, were told either to drop these courses from their curriculum or lose their accreditation and underwriting support. A few schools resisted for a time, but eventually most complied with the Report or shut their doors.[20.  Stahnisch, Frank W.; Verhoef, Marja (2012). "The Flexner Report of 1910 and Its Impact on Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Psychiatry in North America in the 20th Century".   Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2012: 1–10.] 

Another source says: 

The Flexner Report [under the aegis of the Carnegie Foundation] … effectively said to all leading medical centres that if it wasn't evidence-based Western medicine, all of the Chinese medicine, everything before it, that was all effectively witchcraft. We pitched out all of the thousands of years of our understanding of wellbeing to a very, very narrow perception of what health is, which has dictated us for the last hundred years. 

That paralleled also with the rise of chronic disease, the tsunami of chronic disease that came into Western society, and it was significant because it had a relationship that we weren't moving anymore. We are driving more, more tobacco. The quality of our food had changed… if you look at it in medicine terms, it would be called a common source epidemic, not particularly different than what we're facing right now https://woodsolutions.com.au/webinars-podcasts/woodsolutions-weekly-webinars-2020/elements-enriched-environments-tye-farrow 2020. 

In Australia in the last few years, the federal government has been successfully lobbied to close down health fund rebates for many natural therapies, catching out those that hadn’t organised and unified nationally, irrespective of whether they provided effective treatments or not, which was the ostensible purpose of the legislation. Plausible deniability is a wonderful thing!

The pharmaceutical industry business model is based upon drug patents, and nature cannot be patented. It is very difficult to commercialise natural products where there can be no protected commercial basis providing security to make significant investment. There’s no big money in it. So the promotion of and reliance on pharmaceutical drugs rather than natural treatments is a business model problem that can explain how the medical profession has become captured by drugs.

In this pandemic environment, we are continually encouraged to have a conversation about vaccination with our trusted GP. But when we go to see a medico, we are effectively being treated by a business model rather than by the practitioner. They have been obliged to promote the drug company business model under the guise of maintaining their professional ‘best practice’ standards.

We might as well train a flock of parrots to just keep repeating “take drugs, take drugs, take drugs, …” and then set them up in GP practices to counsel people, for all the use the medicos’ advice on business models, risk and alternatives is, now that they are all captured! We could even get a Lieutenant-General to run the parrot training effort if we can’t find some government bureaucrats or kids in a big accounting firm to stuff it up first!

 

Is there a natural substance that achieves the same result and if there is, how does it compare with vaccination?

The effect of big money influencing research agendas towards drugs is that investigation of natural remedies is not widely or vigorously pursued. An authoritarian power disparity can then be used to criticise the alternatives as lacking scientific basis and consequently discredit them. This does not benefit the community. It is simply supporting and promoting some for-profit organisation’s business model.

Nevertheless, some such research has been done that has produced evidence of the efficacy of Vitamin D in significantly reducing the likelihood of contracting a respiratory disease and of dying from it. Professor Roger Seheult MD reports on multiple studies that have shown this in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha2mLz-Xdpg, (Dec 11 2020 & with 12M views at 21 September 2021) pointing out that it has no adverse side effects.

The vaccines used to date don’t stop you getting the disease and have also had multiple deaths recorded following injection. How good is a vaccine that doesn’t stop you getting the disease? Is that what we expect of a smallpox or a tetanus vaccine? How good is the marketing that has driven us to accept that? And not ask any questions? We also do not know if the vaccines will produce herd immunity. If they don’t stop you catching it, how is herd immunity going to work? The medical profession has somehow assumed that it will and is putting blind faith in something that doesn’t seem to make sense. The flu vaccine hasn’t produced that outcome and a new one is needed every year. So how can that principle possibly work for this other virus when it hasn’t for the flu? Does herd immunity only work for a season? Aaha, there is a business model problem of guaranteeing a forward revenue stream. So the mutation of the virus provides perfect cover for failure of the vaccine to be a vaccine. What utter brilliance! Absolute marketing perfection, well and truly in the Goebbels league!

So it seems the vaccines we’re getting aren’t really very good at all. With these sorts of questions unaddressed, where is the logic for vaccine passports? Or removing rights of the unvaccinated for not supporting treatment by business model?

One blessing has been that staying home when you are sick and wearing masks seems to have controlled the flu, despite all the fear (and vaccine promotion) about the dire consequences of having outbreaks of both together. That seems to have saved many more lives than the virus has taken, in Australia, at least. The ABC reports on 17 September 2021 that there were 350 deaths from the flu in Australia in 2019 and none in 2021.

Both options reduce the severity and likelihood of death, but the vaccinations have the additional risk of causing death, whereas Vitamin D does not. So why have vaccines gained ascendancy? One obvious answer is the money that can be made from them. Another is that there is no effective competition left anymore.

The effect of the vaccine on reducing severity seem to be comparable with Vitamin D, both of which have to be administered in the right dosage for some time before they take effect. But one has potentially fatal side effects and the other doesn’t. Where has the Hippocratic oath gone? To first do no harm? Yes it’s difficult to see through the drug induced stupor that monopoly has delivered.

Without the prior capture issue masking all the unanswered efficacy questions, a more independent evaluation could have been conducted. Who knows how many more lives could have been saved if we had ramped up the supply of Vitamin D compared to the number of lives saved minus the deaths (both admitted and unadmitted) caused by the vaccines? Asserting an answer based on a misdirected attribution of credit doesn’t cut the mustard or pass the evidence- based criterion test.

Professor Seheult even gives the amount necessary to provide resistance, as well as reporting that Dr Faucci himself is taking Vitamin D. Medicos often tend to shun their own treatments, thinking they are healthier than the rest, and also not wanting the side effects. So, one wonders has Dr Faucci had any of his own vaccines? Did he look at the individual risk mentioned in the next section? What would be the consequences if he died after having a vaccine? Would it be worth taking that PR disaster risk?

The safety/ side effects issue

We have to understand that when medical spokespeople talk about ‘good’ vaccines, what they really mean by ‘good’ is that they don’t kill too many people. If they want to save a population, they don’t have any other commercially acceptable and available tool, so there will be some casualties that we should all accept, like we do in any ‘good’ war.

But how can any form of ‘safe’ be defined as not killing too many? This is surely a perversion of the English language, not to mention the Hippocratic oath. What they really mean to say is that there is low risk. But this means there is a risk. And the calculation of risk relies on statistical interpretation that, along with the data, is not accessible to the general population. It is also open to manipulation or favourable interpretation by those controlling it, who can tell us what they want us to hear.

For example, the TGA website reports 210 deaths following COVID vaccinations but interprets this as “Apart from the single Australian case in which death was linked to TTS, COVID-19 vaccines have not been found to cause death”. These two things do not gel. Their argument appears to presume that the elderly were going to die anyway, so there’s no problem here! It also ignores the possibility that most of these will already be on a large cocktail of medical drugs with multiple side effects and there’s no way of knowing whether this next one was the complicating one or not.

We hear repeatedly in the media about protecting the most vulnerable elderly. Too bad that they are the ones that are dying the most following administration of the vaccine that was supposed to do them good. Of course, it was administered by the younger ones who (just want to get out of lockdown and) think they know it all and how best to care for them. So, let’s kill them nicely with kindness! Many of them can’t talk back anyway. The road to disaster is littered with good intentions. Too bad that the answer we think seems pretty good might not actually work in practice.

Where is the data proving there is no link between the vaccine and these elderly deaths? Is it just a serendipitous (for the drug companies) accident? If we are looking for data to prove there is a link, then, of course, there is none, as there hasn’t been sufficient time to assess long-term effects yet. But that does not mean there isn’t one. This is the sort of thing that ethics approvals are supposed to deal with. But we are in such a crisis, with only one officially condoned solution and none other known to most people, that any normal ethical considerations that would counsel delay and adequate testing are likely to be swept out the window in favour of rushing regardless to the current large-scale experiment.

The TGA conclusion of one death does not adequately address these questions and makes no mention of the alternative combination of side effects from the drug cocktail possibility mentioned above and so, ‘out of an abundance of (reader) caution’, would have to be disregarded as correlation rather than causation. The actual odds are therefore 210 in 3.6M = 1 in 17,143. Any airline in the world, even those with the worst safety record, offer odds better than 1 in a million. These odds are not good, and Pfizer is marginally worse than AZ in the number of deaths. At the time of writing, the TGA site still only reported to 27/5/2021 despite the website saying that it gives weekly reports. With this sort of publicly available information, one can only wonder what is being withheld and speculate as to why, providing the basis for potentially unjustified conspiracy theories to propagate and proliferate.

That leaves every individual in the community to deal with the question of wondering who the casualties will be. The authorities are saying it’s good, but will I be one of the unlucky casualties? That conundrum constitutes a transference of responsibility and accountability away from the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry to the individual who is ill equipped to handle it. That is what gets labelled as the medical condition of ‘vaccine hesitancy’. It is a way of avoiding accountability. But we all accept that because of our political views on individual freedom of choice! And having choice is supposed to be good! Catch 22. And now we have a publicly condoned brain-washing campaign to convince everyone to ignore these things and get the jab!

The real problem is abdication of responsibility from where it can and should reasonably be accepted. Sheeting that home would force a refocus on avoiding monopoly of control. Don’t we have an ACCC that’s supposed to be doing that? Release of information is actually under control of ‘the authorities’ and failure to release it will itself generate hesitancy. One can then only presume that the news is actually bad, and any regular updates would not have supported the vaccine rollout.

Given the TGA dismissal of the current known death rate and whatever the death rate is that is currently going unpublicised, it is a little difficult to trust the asserted interpretation that we should get vaccinated because the death rate is lower among the unvaccinated; as it is evident from the clinical trials that it would also have been lower if Vitamin D had been administered at the same scale.

What is the basis for ignoring the side effects?

USA lawyer and Senator Robert Kennedy, who has brought successful damages cases against many pharmaceutical companies, provides a reason in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfnJi7yLKgE . It seems most implausible that we should be regarding him as a source of misinformation. He is hardly in the same category as the popularised aliens and microchip injection claims. He would have taken medical evidence to prepare his court cases. He’s a lawyer and would not be making false statements that he could be sued for.

He points out that evidence presented by the pharmaceutical companies that led to passage of VICA, the USA vaccination Act of 1989, stated that it was not possible to manufacture a safe vaccine. However, the military feared a chemical attack from Russia and wanted to be able to quickly deploy a vaccine to protect US citizens. Vaccines had to be tested against a placebo which takes five years. So they called it a ‘biologic’ to avoid this. Then the VICA Act was passed. This unleashed an explosion in vaccination, as it removed the biggest cost for every medicine, the downstream liability for serious injury. Surely this alone indicates both a business model problem and dis-incentivisation of natural therapies. There’s now no competition, even when the officially favoured products backfire.

What if the further investigation that’s being urged from the US President down finds that the virus did escape from the laboratory in Wuhan? If that were to be confirmed, then we may actually be facing a manmade accidental biological attack, akin to what the Americans feared from the Russians in the 1980s. But is the response to this health crisis hungover from the cold war still appropriate?

And what of reports like WHO, Wuhan lab hack reveals coronavirus 'spliced' with HIV to make it deadly, spread using dry ice? (ibtimes.sg) ? Is it possible for the genetic sequence of COVID-19 to have occurred naturally? That’s a question that would seem to have a very simple Yes/ No scientific answer. The scientists in the area that I know seem to have little doubt that the answer to this question is ‘No’ and that the only way HIV could have been inserted into the coronavirus is by human intervention (gene splicing). However, they seem to be as gaslit as the rest of the community, sensing something is amiss but being unable to put their finger on it or to know what to do about it. If the answer is really ‘No’, then that leads to ethical questions about biological warfare and whether truth is the first casualty of the war against the virus.

If what whistle-blower Dr Judy Mikowitz says in https://forums.phoenixrising.me/threads/the-plague-of-corruption-new-book-by-dr-judy-mikovits-kent-heckenlively.79740/ is correct, then America aided and abetted this research in China and there will be an enormous scientific motivation for cover-up, now that the unintended world-wide disastrous consequences have come to light. This would make it rather disingenuous for the USA to follow through with their threat of claiming reparations from China. There is also the question she raises of the unintended consequences of employees holding patents.

Are we all just supposed to ignore these questions and inconsistencies, just because some authority says we should? Should we universally regard anything we can Google as misinformation? Who decides what to attach that label to? This all leads directly to the question of who the public can trust can when the vaccine PR is so closely following the Goebbels script. Also, some of the links referenced in this discussion piece have become unavailable. This would lead one to ask if they have been censored as ‘misinformation’ and whether misinformation should be defined as anything that some authority does not like.

Kennedy claims that not a single one of the vaccines used on US children, who now have to get 72 (=18x4) vaccinations just to stay in school, has ever been tested against a placebo. Also, the side effects are only monitored for between hours and four to five days. Any deaths after that never happened. So the available data has been ‘sanitized’. He says that every one of the 14 companies who made the 72 vaccines is a convicted serial offender.

He also mentions that reviews of studies of the flu vaccine in the UK in 2010, 2014 and 2017 found they were less than 35% effective, there was no evidence it prevents any deaths or hospitalisations, and it also transmits the flu, making you six times more likely to give it to somebody else. They also found that the flu shot gives you pathogenic priming and makes you 36% more likely to get coronavirus. He mentioned six other studies finding the same thing. He also said that since the flu shot has been mandated to elderly people, their life expectancy has gone down. He says he doesn’t have data on this yet but observed that most of the people who died in the pandemic had had the flu shot – the elderly and first responders.

Now I’m no medico, and neither is Kennedy, but he is obviously not an uninformed fool. He also has a high profile, influencing many people’s views. His arguments would seem like whistle-blower type information that an investigative journalist would feel bound to publicly address from a factual perspective, seeking out views within the medical industry from whatever areas there might be with funding not held hostage to drug companies. But that’s not likely to happen in the current environment. If his claims are false, why have his court cases been successful?

Whatever the truth is, there appears to have been a colossal failure of community consultation, with little recognition that PR and community consultation are not the same thing. Setting out to persuade is not the same as seeking opinion, openly investigating the issues raised and resolving any issues.

The dangers of governments treating the disease of ‘vaccine hesitancy’

These dangers can best be expressed in the words of Joseph Goebbels himself: 

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things than I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths.

There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyways always yield to the stronger, and this will always be ‘the man in the street.’ Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.

Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character.

The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitive. In the long run basic results in influencing public opinion will be achieved only by the man who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form, despite the objections of the intellectuals.

What you want in a media system is ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.

It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.

We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear’s work, that is its affair. We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.

We have made the Reich by propaganda.

Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.

Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavour to make every item of news serve a certain purpose.

Source: Joseph Goebbels on propaganda – t e r r i b l y  c u n e i f o r m (kuny.ca)

Even the ABC has become completely captured (by its own medicos), patriotically unable to both serve community interest obligations and do any effective independent investigative medical reporting.

And we now hear on the ABC News on 17 September that the epidemic in Indonesia is now under control – when only 20% of the population has been vaccinated. So it wasn’t vaccination that controlled it. It came late to the party and again there will probably attempt to garner credit or claim it will prevent a resurgence.

Is this the sort of society we want? ruled by the notions of Goebbels? untroubled by intellectual argument or truth? suppressing legitimate questioning? espousing ‘smartness’ while closing down means of it emerging? handing the government’s ability to influence over to private interests?

I would think not. So, once again, we learn that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Surprisingly, it’s not a drug; it’s completely natural! And it can’t be patented! And it makes a great vaccine!

Conclusion

So here we have supplier capture producing the ultimate treatment by business model, treating the ‘disease’ the public has of ‘vaccine hesitancy’ by inoculating against it with the PR ‘vaccine’. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Yes, there may be crazy and sometimes politically motivated views about coronavirus, but where there’s smoke, there generally tends to be fire – something someone doesn’t want you to see. And there is definitely fire in the medical profession’s unfortunate capture by interests that do not share the idealism of its ethics.

Vaccine hesitancy is an indicator of a multi-generational failure of the medical profession on many fronts: 

First is allowing itself to be completely captured by its suppliers effectively requiring patenting of treatments.

Second is falling for the commercial ploy of getting government to guarantee against death related to pharmaceutical drugs (That’s a USA originated problem).

Third is a complete failure of community consultation by the profession’s management globally, refusing to take on-board and address the legitimate concerns raised, or to communicate to the point of resolution.

Fourth is suppressing alternative views/ competition and personally abusing them rather than properly and openly dealing with the issues they raise.

Fifth is participation in quickly labelling and dismissing any challenge as unscientific and not based on evidence. 

It seems that unfortunately, the infiltration of supplier interests has aligned with the medical professional arrogance of having knowledge, privilege, esteem and authority.

There has been no medical investigative journalism that I am aware of that has flushed out this issue. The issues raised to date in the media deal with inconsequential fringe matters that the pharmaceutical industry would be delighted to see the population distracted about.

There’s an old saying that if something needs marketing, it’s no good. There is significant ‘wisdom of the crowds’ in vaccine hesitancy. Public scrutiny seems to eventually sniff out rorts. Is that not what the system we call democracy is supposed to be all about? The challenge for the medical profession is to ditch the authoritarian business model and develop the humility to recognise and address well-researched alternative views and deal openly with them, rather than ridiculing them and attempting to just close them down.

Health departments have effectively become accident, drug and disease departments. In so doing, the medical profession has effectively abdicated responsibility for long-term health. The medical profession is great at the heroics of keeping people alive when everything else leading up to it has gone wrong, and we need to preserve that. But as for the much less headline grabbing matter of how to avoid things going wrong in the first place, well that’s not their bag, and it would reduce their principal suppliers’ market. Their two tools of drugs and the knife are certainly not satisfactory answers for that.

Recommendations

The inconsistencies identified and the loss of control of suppliers has emanated from the medical profession – not from any politician, not from any government or political party, not from any media organisation. This means it has effectively betrayed the community’s trust in it. Funny how ignoring seemingly innocuous management problems can come back to bite you and create an inter-generational problem. Accountability for this can only rest with the medical profession, but responsibility for fixing the problem will now require effort from all of those groups, as the base problem has insidiously infected all its close contacts, just like a good virus does. Of course, the media will just follow along reporting, and so no real extra effort will be necessary from them, apart from swallowing pride over lack of investigative reporting. It will really be the medical profession and governments that will need to pick up the pieces.

The facts and analysis presented above indicate that self-regulation of the medical profession has failed. To correct this, there are five governance problems that need to be addressed:

1. the internal failure to address the procurement problem of controlling suppliers
2. the legislative measures that have facilitated this,
3. the funding model that preferences drug research and excludes natural remedy research
4. the administrative measures that have allowed drugs & disease model to supplant the health model in so-called ‘health’ departments,
5. the internal authoritarian culture of arrogance/ hubris that has facilitated all of this.

So, the community via its politicians needs to step in to correct the governance above the medical profession by quarantining the medicos to drug and disease therapy and preventing that therapy model from monopolising health. This will need to be done by allowing an official place for natural therapy beside as well as above drug therapy. Achieving this would require legislative change as well as installing administratively competent natural therapy practitioners into positions of power in health departments so that this global debacle does not get repeated. And no, I am not a natural health practitioner.

Surely the world has moved on from an uneducated peasantry needing fatherly discipline from an all-knowing authority figure. The approach to dealing with vaccine hesitancy by abuse needs to come out of the dark ages and be addressed with intelligent public consultation rather than with authority and emotion (hysteria and condemnation), as well as with full and transparent up-to-date information. This will not support the paternalistic, privileged, authoritarian position medicos have enjoyed for decades/ centuries. But attempting to disenfranchise a now much more educated population and encouraging people to abdicate responsibility for their own health into whatever on-size-fits-all approach drug companies want to push, needs to stop. Cutting people out of doing things that will improve their own long-term health won’t support the ongoing revenue streams that financially minded people in those companies will be seeking, but it is necessary. Medical culture and attitudes need to change, and non-drug health needs to be outsourced to natural health practitioners.

It would be a mistake to blame any individual medical practitioners who do not hold any position of leadership within the profession. They are the ones providing vital services and have limited influence over how the profession is led. They are still highly trained, ethically pursuing the alleviation of suffering in their communities and they deserve respect as their work truly is lifesaving in accident and disease treatment, albeit that aspects of their culture and approach will need to change.

However, intergenerational leadership failure is another matter. Failure at that level that does not warrant continuation of the status quo. Of course, key decisions were taken by leaders long gone or in other countries, making the collective leadership problem a very difficult one to address. But guys, you addressed a world-wide vaccine problem at breakneck speed. I’m sure you can rise to this challenge. The answer’s pretty simple (but now oh so complex to implement); get control of your suppliers; remove their monopoly; recognise alternative therapies and support research into them so that effective competition can be generated.

This global disaster in treatment options is a systemic problem that has arisen out of an unfortunate combination of people and groups pursuing legitimate interests, but without adequate regulatory constraints at the boundaries to protect the common good. It is something that happens in many circumstances in life, especially when we have the hubris to think we know the consequences of any new tool we develop and implement. To suggest conspiracy is to presume that there was somebody who possessed supreme insight and actually understood what would happen on a global scale before it happened. That would exceed normal human capacity. It’s far more likely to be due to something that we all tend to do; pursue our own interests before we realise it has an impact on others. When we do realise, then our reputations and livelihoods may well have come to depend upon it, and there will be so many other people involved by then that it becomes very difficult to turn it around.

Meanwhile we have a pandemic to deal with that is killing some people in Australia, as well as around the world. The NSW premier says no jurisdiction in the world has succeeded in keeping it under control. One wonders why she doesn’t look just over the fence, or why Queensland and Western Australia might not be considered jurisdictions. We know how effective those places have been at using non-drug measures - wearing masks so that we don’t spread anything when we can’t socially distance; and staying home, either when we are sick, or right up-front when things start to get out of hand & we can’t fully trace it. We now know we’ve also practically (and accidentally) eradicated the flu by these means. But watch out for vaccine interests attempting to claim that as well. Widespread recognition of that could potentially render flu shots unnecessary and destroy a medical market, at least until we open up. Pity about the public health benefit!

The argument that closing ‘fortress Australia’ off to the world is a stone age approach represents a race to the bottom. It only has any traction because everywhere else has done too little too late and either failed or given up. Queensland and Western Australia has controlled it without drugs, albeit that the politicians there have been spooked into mass vaccination as well.

We could do worse than encourage those with reservations about vaccination and those who should not get the vaccine for medical reasons to do what Dr Seheult says that Dr Faucci is doing; take sufficient Vitamin D.

 

Stephen McGrath, PhD