The Drum beat of medico turmoil

This blog reviews Ellen Fanning’s interview with journalist Wendy Zukerman on The Drum on 16 February 2022.

After watching that interview, I read Wendy’s blog. She found two researchers who basically said yes, myocarditis can cause death, but it’s not that serious and most people get over it after a while even though they get frightened. She also said that the ‘anti’ side only looks at the vaccine cons and not the pros which she lists as less likelihood of getting COVID and less likelihood of getting sick. That’s difficult to comprehend when the failure of the vaccine to stop transmission has long became so obvious that it is not even officially claimed anymore, and Vitamin D is well known to reduce both transmission and severity. She also quoted data that is known to have been stage-managed using factors such as lack of compulsion to report, paying bonuses to hospitals if a death can be even remotely related to Covid rather than to any comorbidity, not considering cases under investigation and limiting time reporting periods, all of which serendipitously happen to favour vaccine manufacturers’ marketing.

Wendy’s use of language indicated that what she was actually seeking was her own confirmation bias for a moral position formed from having previously been astroturfed. But things have moved on, requiring re-evaluation of any such positions. She already acknowledged there were more than just the one death that she found. If you look here: https://www.informedchoiceaustralia.com/post/1000-peer-reviewed-studies-questioning-covid-19-vaccine-safety you will find a pdf list of 1,000 papers on adverse events of many types in Covid-19 vaccine recipients, all with links to where they are published in various peer reviewed medical journals, of which 226 look at myocarditis. Each one of these is by one or more doctors/ PhDs/ scientists researching the cases that have come to their attention.

So concern about the vaccines has not been artificially concocted by shifty fringe dwellers, disenchanted activists, yobbos getting drunk at a pub somewhere or anti-vaxxers. The concern originates from highly qualified people publishing in peer-reviewed journals. To take a very recent example, Virolologist Professor Luc Montagnier, a joint recipient of 2008 Nobel Prize in medicine for discovering AIDS, spoke to the Luxembourg Parliament on Wednesday 12th of January 2022 saying:

“These vaccines are poisons. They are not real vaccines. The mRNA allows its message to be transcribed throughout the body, uncontrollably. No one can say for each of us where these messages will go”. He said the 3 vaccines Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna all contain a sequence that transforms into a prion and he knew 21 people who died of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease caused by prions after receiving 2 doses of Pfizer vaccine. He said “there needs to be a discussion about (the) Medical Ethics … principle of ‘first, do not harm’ but what is happening today is completely the opposite.”

Is such a distinguished person’s statements to be treated as misinformation?

Who are we to believe - The Professor or Wendy?

There seems to be an enormous dogfight going on inside the medical profession with reputations being trashed either through accusations of peddling misinformation or of corrupt conspiracy. The fight seems to be between two very understandable positions. On the one hand are those in positions of administrative authority, feeling the pressure both from governments to come up with an answer and from their own embarrassment that they don’t have a safe (by conventional vaccine standards), patentable product that can actually control a pandemic (see: https://medicocapture.blogspot.com/2022/02/this-blog-examinesstrategic-management.html ). On the other hand are the seasoned old hands, the technical experts still dealing with the science who can see the dangers of their managers/ administrators rushing to do something – anything. At the moment, the administrators seem to be winning, with their vice-like control on media coverage and consequently the public narrative.

This internal fight is not something the general public should continue to be expected to arbitrate on for their own personal safety. We need the media to be flushing out both sides, identifying the differences and inconsistencies in messaging so that governments, the medical profession and the general public can come to an agreed position, and all can then learn something from this disaster. Continuing to sledge pro-vax versus anti-vax just won’t do it. The phenomenon of the ‘misinformation’ fantasy suppressing anything adverse to the vaccine manufacturers needs to stop. It has induced the media (and Wendy) into taking sides in both an internal medical fight and a marketing competition between different suppliers’ products. The media has no business doing that and has now made itself a target for the side it has not covered.

Dr Steve