COVID-19 Debate between cardiologist Dr Daniel and suspended Dr William Bay

on Café Locked Out 8-8-23

This debate can be found at https://cafelockedout.com/videos/ - go to 8/8/2023. It’s 147 minutes.

I will comment within my areas of qualification and experience, leaving the points of medical contention to be addressed by medicos such as Billy, Chris Neil and My-Le Trinh who was commenting during the debate. I nevertheless note that this video https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/big-picture-interview-by-james-patrick, from inside the medical R&D industry in the US, seems to conclusively addresses several of the medical issues raised.

I first acknowledge Daniel’s courage in addressing a hostile audience. I also acknowledge his intent of patient care and seeking truth. I do however think he has a substantial way to go in achieving those goals and that he has been seriously mislead. I also think any serious debate, seeking other than a frivolous contest, needs to result in deeper consideration of the issues raised. In that spirit, I was motivated by his remarks to write this blog detailing a dozen deficiencies I saw in his arguments.

1.       Where there’s any confusion, it helps greatly if we all first know and agree what we are all talking about. The Oxford Dictionary defines coercion as “the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats”. So the absence of immediate, direct physical force does not mean that the use of threats to persuade isn’t coercion, that may become physical. Mandates were there to coerce = bully. Some International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments currently being considered by the WHO go further and propose physical force be allowed. Legislation was recently passed in Western Australian enabling this. From Biblical times, exclusion meant death through withdrawal of community support - it may not have been from a direct blow, but eventual death was certainly physical. We decry cyber bullying because of its debilitating psychological impact and its potential to become physical. Arguing that no one was forced, just because they weren’t physically pinned down and jabbed this time, defies any reasonable logic and indicates Daniel’s perspective was within the groupthink of the group not being oppressed, and so he had no real idea.

2.       If nothing can stop transmission 100%, where was Daniel and the rest of his profession when the whole of the medical establishment and the media was telling us that it was so highly effective? It seems that Daniel has realised this to be the case now and is attempting to back-justify. He is wanting us to overlook and forgive the en-masse silence of the medicos at a time when they were the only ones who could have spoken up, stood up, resisted and made a difference. If they had done this at the first sign of something contravening what they previously knew to be true, the politicians, hospital administrators and hospital boards would have had the problem, not us - those unqualified to handle it. So, no matter how much medical cockiness, bluff, arrogance and hindsight wisdom you dress it up with, you can’t just weasel out of it without anyone noticing! How can there be any future trust in the medical profession without public acknowledgement, along with some evidence of repentance and contrition? Sorry, Daniel, but it’s tough luck if you’re offended. You don’t think the people sacked or physically/ financially injured and gaslit were offended? Your profession has brought this upon itself by not speaking out and taking action when it should have. It needs to accept responsibility for that now and do something about it.

3.       Daniel pontificated from great and informed cardiological height that he requires the gold standard of double-blind peer reviewed journal published studies. That’s useless if you are investigating a crime like fraud! There’s a fair chance that when there are so many medical whistle-blowers being suppressed/ silenced/ cancelled/ censored/ deplatformed, that somebody is trying to hide something they don’t want the medical profession or the public to know. When you have a hammer (double-blind, peer-reviewed etc. etc.) and your job (cardiology) is using it, then everything looks like a nail. Expertise can lead you into error when you step outside you own area and assume the same things will work everywhere/ anywhere else.

4.       Daniel effectively said several times “It could be this” and “it could be that” – anything but the vaccine! OK, sudden death may not be completely new. But in the current numbers? And the age groups? And the circumstances? Seriously? Come on Daniel, I guess you are just barracking for your team, but if you haven’t just had your head in the mainstream media bubble and you’ve actually looked at some of the independent media as you claimed, then you must surely be seeing some of the evidence of this e.g. this one from a  Dr Thorpe https://freedomintruth.substack.com/p/time-for-the-truth (note particularly the sonographers comment underneath). So it seems you were just trying really hard to justify your own confirmation bias. It seems your profession will go to almost any length to avoid responsibility for the disastrous medical mistakes of the pandemic. Blind Freddy can see that something has changed and that it would be good to know what that was. But no, there has been absolutely no curiosity coming from the medical profession or authorities! No one seems to want to even look! The single, most obvious thing is the mis-labeled vaccine that was actually approved in the US as a ‘counter measure’. The emperor has no clothes!

5.       You can remain in your technical boffinry bubble and bleat about correlation not being causation. You can ask for the RCT studies that there has not been time to do, ‘proving’ it, hoping to cast those who suspect causation as uninformed, unqualified, unscientific idiots who should just shut up and take notice of you. The big problem with that argument is reversal of the onus of proof. Vaccines used to be required to demonstrate that no unacceptable level of harm resulted. Just because the pharmaceutical industry absolved itself of liability with the 1989 USA VICA Act doesn’t mean that the medical profession had any licence to reverse its onus of proof to the public. VICA was a victory for pharmaceutical profit over community health, leaving the medical profession itself as the only remaining line of defence. Vaccine rollouts have been permanently suspended before with far less death and injury. The guidelines have previously required any unusual events to be regarded as having a high likelihood of being caused by the new product. You are the ones doing something different so it’s up to you to first prove that it’s safe - and act quickly when the data indicates it’s not. That hasn’t happened. Your fellow cardiologist Aseem Malhotra from the UK has said this and called for C-19 vaccination to cease – as have many other medicos you may want to disparage and ignore. Sorry, you cannot just reverse the onus of proof and hope no-one notices.

6.       ‘Diagnosing’ ‘wrong-think’ in patients heads, when their ailment happens to be something the medical profession is either unable or unwilling to see or understand, is nothing more than medical gaslighting, indicating a medical ego/ arrogance problem. An “I don’t know” would be far more honest and would admit the reality that there might be something outside the current pharmaceutical medical knowledge/ narrative that needs investigating. Of course, medical hubris since cracking the genetic code has produced the impression that your profession knows and understands everything about the human body. Harari even claims that so much is known that we are now hackable animals! You just have to hope that no-one notices the contradiction with the mass puzzlement of the medical profession in dealing with the vaccine injured! That can surely only now mean incompetence, mistake or fraud! You can’t have your cake and eat it as well.

7.       Daniel based his defence of adoption of the COVID measures without scientific justification on panic – everyone was afraid all the hospitals would fill up and all the staff would be sick and not there. Leadership is supposed to be about keeping your own head metaphorically when everybody else is losing theirs. It seems the leadership was so panicked that no-one thought to read the pre-existing, long-standing pandemic preparedness plan that had been based on science - that had none of the proposed measures in it.

8.       Daniel also expressed complete faith in politicians and their decisions. Oh dear! This ignored the overall systems view of whoever might have been in control of setting the broader international political and for-profit agendas, as well as the possible fallibility of our local politicians. As more damming evidence tumbles out indicating that it was a well-planned fear campaign designed for pharmaceutical profit (see recent evidence from the Australian Senate – in full at ParlView | Video 1585181 (aph.gov.au) or in shortform at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN4o3lJR0yM with commentary by Dr John Campbell. Dr Sam Bailey’s research on Pfizer’s history of adverse legal outcomes at https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/corruption-and-medicine/the-story-of-pfizer-inc/  is also worth watching), the medical profession is looking increasingly naive in not recognising the power and control game it was being used as a pawn in. No matter how uncomfortable, it will not be well served by remaining so.

9.       Daniel paid lip-service to scrutinising pharmaceutical companies. This minimised the significance and difficulty of now rectifying the whole-of-profession procurement problem of losing control of its pharmaceutical industry suppliers, that has enabled it to effectively buy the whole profession. This was done in 1910 in the USA when the Flexner report ran natural therapies and blacks out of the medical profession and funded medical schools on condition that only their products were promoted. For details of this, see https://medicocapture.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-captureof-medical-profession-by-its.html published almost two years ago on 22 September 2021. Fixing this is something that cannot be shovelled off to the freedom community with its lack of political power. It’s something only the medical profession itself and the political class can address, and Daniel’s remarks gave no hint of any acceptance of responsibility for doing that.

10.   Daniel justified his view as being the majority view, apparently believing that numbers or voting produces truth. Politics is about power and therefore numbers - of people who will think or do stuff with you, for you or to you. It is not about principles or ethics or truth. We might think those things are nice, but they are not essential for the game. In a democracy, those things can provide a useful excuse for getting elected. The democratic style of politics is still politics and so doesn’t necessarily produce truth. It’s just another way of making decisions so we don’t all kill each other along the way. So no matter how many people or doctors and cardiologists might think one way, they can still all be wrong if they’ve been misled or ill-advised or adopted a theory that subsequently turns out to have been invalid. That’s why mainstream journalists used to acknowledge the importance of whistleblowers having information that the rest don’t, that would turn community views. So Daniel presented an invalid argument supporting AHPRA’s censoring of doctors based on the popular narrative at the time, now known so conclusively to be false.

11.   This led to another of Daniel’s oversights. Given that politics is dog-eat-dog sport with a fair absence of rules, all players need to be mindful of what damage can be done to them. We also know that genocide has happened in both communist and democratic countries over the last century, including in Germany where their medical profession played a significant role. Concern over making sure a population is not inadvertently drawn again into the same mistakes is quite reasonable. It is also very well known that there are powerful crazies promoting eugenics who have the money to fund (= buy) whole professions. The opportunity to mass-inject provides a huge opportunity for mischief for anyone who can gain control of or hoodwink a whole medical profession. It is not unreasonable for populations to be assured on such matters. This is why there needs to be community oversight and transparency to ensure the medical profession is not captured by commercial or other interests. This has not been happening. Medical hubris and arrogance has led to dismissal of questioning and of evidence. Yes, educated avoidance of known irrelevancies is necessary to avoid waste of expert time, within your controlled technical medical environment. But outside that environment, on broader issues affecting the whole community, effective consultation is necessary. This means more than PR and marketing of ‘right-think’. It actually involves giving people the opportunity to comment, responding to concerns raised, then addressing them.

12.   Finally, Daniel launched into an unprovoked, emotional, fact-checking/ pharmaceutical shill type sledging attack on Gerard Rennick. He needs to roll up his medical arrogance mat, retract his faulty labelling and unreservedly apologise for his remarks. From the above dozen oversights listed, he can hopefully now see that they were an unwarranted and baseless insult, not only to Senator Rennick but to the whole of the Café Locked Out audience. The profession wants a monopoly on consideration of medical issues, considering that doctors shouldn’t publicly criticise each other and should only do so internally. That would be fine if that debate had been allowed and studies and data indicating error had not been suppressed. That indicates failure of the profession’s management and leadership. You want to disparage non-medical people for trying to figure out for you what you should have been doing internally but have failed. That’s just a blatant attempt to transfer responsibility and accountability. No profession is exempt from or different or special when it comes to economic and political power-plays, not even the medical profession. You can indulge yourself in your internal bubble of groupthink. That’s what has made you so susceptible to being taken in. The over-riding issue is the loss of democracy that you have inadvertently facilitated. Your whistle-blowers are sign of a malaise – just the same as they are in any other area. You should be embarrassed that politicians advocating freedom have had to get involved to sort out the mess your profession has created and still refuses to accept responsibility for. They have had to get involved because medical self-regulation has completely failed.

Daniel sought an interview to demonstrate the truth of his view and the falsity of the ‘freedom’ view. For the above reasons, I think he achieved the opposite. The participant comments indicated similarly. His view may well have been correct for him with the information he had received and the perspective that he has. I have presented here perspectives that he seems to have not considered.

The freedom movement is well used to any new data/ revelations being ignored, sledged and dismissed and knows very well the feeling of frustration that Daniel obviously had about what he considered a logical view not being accepted, in his case, by the freedom community. We can also empathise with the daunting prospect of wondering how to bring about change when the whole profession seems powerless regarding its own funding and therefore strategic direction. I expect Daniel may then come to the same conclusion that we have - somebody is hiding something for some reason, and he may perhaps start wondering who, how, where and why.

Perhaps Daniel might also now see why the freedom community is so disappointed and disillusioned with the medical profession. It is a disgrace that it has taken a patient ‘revolt’ to even start to wake the medical profession up, to start wondering why they aren’t respected like they were before, to start to recognise it is their own actions that have brought this about, to get them to think about following their own code of ethics. The profession should be hanging its collective head in shame. Along with Daniel, individual medicos who have snapped out of this collective slumber now need to struggle with how to change their establishment.

They can, of course, draw some comfort from the knowledge that, despite all their education, they, along with many others, have been taken in by a private enterprise profit-seeking psychological operation on an industrial scale with military impact. For a comedic take on how that happened, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQChw_Rk1Kk based on the work of Professor Mattias Desmet.

It is absolutely essential that individual practitioners start to feel the heat and do something within their own profession about correcting the things that have brought such disrepute upon the whole profession. Professions are supposed to exercise their intellectual power for community benefit, not for private profit maximisation. Let’s hope that the medical profession can return to doing that.

For many of us, having been forced into playing a power game to defend ourselves and simply survive, going back to the normal care-free life that so many ‘normies’ seem to have gone back to for now is a pipe dream. We are still being threatened and coerced within what we had thought was a democratic society. It is a disgrace upon both major sides of politics in Australia that our democratic system has degenerated in the same way as Germany’s did before WW2, with so few even noticing – while still turning up to lay Anzac Day wreaths commemorating what our forebears did - that we now seemingly couldn’t care less about and are too busy throwing away for the sake of convenience and an easy life, not to mention group acceptance. Our Anzacs must be turning in their graves.

Steve McGrath PhD