Let me start by saying that I do not see Bill Gates as a nefarious billionaire working to profit from promoting mass vaccination of the human race. He is worse. A busy body, do gooder out to save mankind from itself with unlimited resources at his disposal. I just say that to get it out of the way. I also am not an anti-vaccination advocate, all in all I believe vaccinations have done far more good than harm for mankind. At most I believe that we may be over vaccinating our children too rapidly and this may be causing long term harm. I also believe that governments have not been open and honest about potential and actual dangers that vaccinations have or may cause. Of course they do this in order to save us simple people from "panicking" and foregoing vaccinations altogether, which in a free society we should have the right to do. No the problem I have is when large institutions become enmeshed and indistinguishable from each other.
It is widely known that the nation's opioid epidemic was mostly driven by pharmaceutical companies, primarily Perdue Pharma, pushing these addictive drugs through doctors to patients. They did this without any concern for the potential addiction consequences it eventually inflicted on millions of Americans. In many respects it was more immoral than tobacco companies hiding from the public the known risk of smoking. They not only hid the risk of their products, which they pedaled for profit, they did so by using medical professionals some knowingly, some not. They helped turn an institution which above all others we need to trust, into a vehicle to destroy people and families. These companies turned our family doctors into pushers.
The reason I bring this up is that we are now being asked to trust both pharmaceutical companies as well as our public health establishment. The same industry that manufactured an addiction crisis teamed with a government entity that not only failed us in the current pandemic, but whose institutional culture seems guided more towards control and their own agenda than the public's health.
Then there is another caveat to throw into this mix. Unlike a practicing physician who not only directly interacts with and cares for patients, "public health" official at the macro level, live and work in an environment ruled by politics and all federal bureaucracies are liberal. They after all are big government. When it comes to the federal public heath agencies, the very nature of their profession creates an incestuous like relationship with pharmaceutical companies. They sit on their Boards, they leave government to work or to lobby for them,
they depend on them for a good portion of their funding
NIH often partners with representatives of industry, academia and patient advocates, among others, to support and conduct medical research to improve human health. Each partner brings its unique resources and strengths to the table and the resulting synergy improves and speeds progress toward common goals.
In theory these relationship can serve a good and positive purpose, and they are not all bad, much good is achieved as the result of them. But this comes with a price. Nobody doubts any longer President Eisenhower's warning of what he coined the Military Industrial Complex. The partnership between defense contractors and government agencies which ultimately leads to waste, graft, and a public/private culture of scratching the other's back . A culture where the government agency is beholden to their private "partner" for its expertise and the private partner is beholden to the government agency for its profits. We on the right, call it crony capitalism, it never starts that way, but it always morphs into it.
Big government married to big business loses site of the "little guy" more commonly known as US citizens. This morphed entity, which claims to seek only the greater good in its never ending quest to protect the "little guy" instead becomes a massive Borg whose real goal is to survive and protect itself. The little guy, the public, becomes not only secondary to the original purpose, but a pawn in the Borg's insatiable desire for growth and control. Survival is the Borg's primary goal, whether it be military, medicine, education or any other such partnership the outcome is always the same, protect the public/private Borg at all cost.
I have no way of knowing if hydroxychloroquine is effective in treating Covid-19. What I do know, is there are studies that say that it is, and there are studies that say that it isn't. I also know that I have read numerous accounts of individuals who have taken it as part of a doctor's prescribed treatment and they were quickly relieved of symptoms and resumed their life without harm. There are numerous doctors worldwide using it as part of a treatment regimen for Covid-19 and finding success with it. These doctors, and not just the ones in the news recently, are fairly convinced that it works in certain circumstances and have been reporting on it for months. There have also been studies done which were obviously specifically and deliberately done to undermine the use of a drug, which before Covid-19, had been safely used for over half a century to treat and prevent other diseases in many millions of patients. But suddenly it is bad for doctors to prescribe it?
Over the years I have come to instantly question anything which begins with the statement, "research shows." Given a choice of someone who has "studied" and "researched" nearly any thing, as opposed to someone who has actually used or witnessed the same, I chose to ere on the side of the actual experience rather than the study. Even without this admittedly biased outlook on my part, whatever happened to, "it is between the doctor and the patient?"
The Doctor and the patient are the little guy being absorbed by The Borg.
While Gilead, and Pfizer and the rest of them are Dr. Fauci, the CDC, the FDA, NIH's "partners" we are their experiment. If something like hydroxychloroquine stands in the way of feeding The Borg, it must be neutralized. The Borg must survive, humanity depends on it, becomes the justification.
What if there is no vaccine? What if the trials don't pan out? It is not a done deal. I want you to consider this as well. What happens if they do come up with a vaccine and this vaccine is harmful to old people? What if the elderly and others who are the very people most likely to be severely impacted or die from Covid-19 can't safely use it? This is not unusual. For example nobody over the age of 49 is supposed to take what is known as a live influenza vaccine. Many people with certain chronic conditions cannot take certain vaccines. So who would we immunize? Would the dicta be that those least likely to be impacted be immunized, to protect those who could be? This is the same rational for wearing masks. In fact it is the same rational for shutting down our national economy! Treat the healthy to protect the potentially at risk population seems to be the new public health protocol. Now this approach is doing more harm to the healthy than it does in protecting those at risk.
"We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from Covid. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose, that are above excess, than we had as background, than we are seeing deaths from Covid.”
- Robert Redfield Director CDC
But by all means protect the Borg.
A group of German doctors;
Comments