The federal bureaucracy consist of agents for special interests and of anti-American ideologues. The federal bureaucracy stands between President Trump and any renewal of America.
A recurring theme in human society is how frequently groups of people will hold viewpoints that are diametrically opposed to another group yet both groups will be absolutely certain they are completely correct and the other is completely wrong. In each instance, this means that at least half of the people involved are wrong and incapable of seeing evidence repeatedly presented to them which shows this.
For example, consider the recent drama that unfolded after ACIP’s decision to reevaluate the newborn hepatitis B vaccine, where for context:
• Many people have believed for decades that significant harm results from newborn hepatitis B vaccine and that mothers who give birth at hospitals are routinely forced to vaccinate their children for it despite not wanting to.
• While significant observational data suggests this harm, as the FDA affirmed at the ACIP meeting, no controlled studies have ever assessed if the harm exists (despite their having been requested for decades).
• The public justification for newborn mass vaccination is that it serves as a safety net for the extraordinarily rare case (roughly one in a million) where a hepatitis B positive mother is not tested for hepatitis B, infects her child during childbirth, and the partial protection the vaccine provides is able to prevent the child from going on to develop a lifelong hepatitis B infection—despite there being no evidence thirty years of this policy has reduced hepatitis.
• ACIP’s new policy was to shift to making newborn vaccination optional for mothers who tested negative for hepatitis B.
While it seems like an open and shut case on what to do there, due to the way organized medicine behaves, I was doubtful this policy could be implemented, and for that reason, spent the last three months trying to help mobilize support for it.
Why is this? Quite simply, much of the medical profession is so invested in their way of seeing the world that they simply cannot see things which directly contradict it. Because of this, the (extremely rare) case of hepatitis B being contracted in unvaccinated children filled their entire mental focus, while conversely, the far more common (and frequently far more severe) injuries from the vaccines passed through one ear and out the other, and were all reflexively written off under the notion “no controlled studies demonstrate this, so that’s proof it’s not happening”—despite the fact controlled studies of vaccines are explicitly prohibited due to them being “unethical.”
As such, in the previous article I highlighted the ACIP meeting as I felt it illustrated an archetypal example of this psychological process and again and again, you could see every representative of the medical profession be completely unable to see anything but their own highly biased narrative on the safety and necessity of the hepatitis B vaccine.
Note: these are quite long, but throughout them, you can find examples of this close-minded behavior.
Likewise, once ACIP’s completely sane recommendation to stop vaccinating newborns of Hepatitis B negative mothers was enacted, it was treated as an existential catastrophe by both the medical profession and the media and a series of appallingly inaccurate expert interviews were aired to condemn this decision (e.g., Paul Offit, a former ACIP member, refused to attend the meeting to testify in favor of vaccines, then went on CNN and made a series of lies there, including claiming he was not invited to testify despite CDC records showing they made repeated attempts to contact him).
Of these, the most noteworthy one was that the ACIP chair, Hawaii Pediatric Cardiologist Kirk Milhoan MD, was fired from his position, as while he was highly regarded for his decades of service (and a severe regional shortage of his specialty where, in 2023, only an eighth of the needed doctors were present), the hospital instead chose to side with the deluge of complaints they received about the ACIP decision attempting to cancel Milhoan and fired him. See this.
While much could be said about this, I wanted to highlight that:
• A key theme in Robert Mendelsohn’s 1979 Book Confessions of a Medical Heretic was that anyone who challenged the current dogmas of the medical field was expelled and treated identically to a heretic (e.g., consider how many doctors who tried to save COVID patients Fauci’s remdesivir protocols killed were then fired from their hospitals, had their medical licenses and board certifications targeted).
• It’s well recognized that doctors frequently only speak out against the medical profession or air unorthodox views at the very ends of their careers (to avoid being cancelled), and in this regard, the number of prominent mid-career doctors speaking out is extraordinary (e.g., for years the vaccine safety movement prayed we could have one well-recognized doctor advancing this message on a national stage; instead we have many).
• The largest victims of this cancel culture are patients as the doctors being excommunicated by the church of medicine are typically the ones they would most want to see at their most desperate moments when hospitalized (which is a key part of why the proportion of adults reporting a lot of trust for physicians and hospitals decreased from 71.5% in April 2020 to 40.1% in January 2024).
• As best as I can tell, his hospital no longer has an on-island pediatric cardiologist,
which is particularly unfortunate now that more and more children are
desperately needing this service due to the COVID vaccine myocarditis.
Note: when I posted this article, I assumed Milhoan was just fired
from the Maui hospital (as I knew he was based there and since I didn’t
have contacts there to ask, I just checked the island’s hospital
director, saw he was not listed there and assumed that constituted proof
he was fired). In reality, he had previously been forced to leave that
position due to his COVID-19 related activity and this new firing was
at a Texas hospital he sometimes worked at (presumably by periodically flying there). I apologize for the mistake.
Early Prognoses
Throughout my life, I’ve had the experience of being able to see what was in front of me, noticing that most people couldn’t regardless of how critical it was to observe. Eventually, after getting so fed up with men talking down to me when I raised these obvious observations (to make me submit to their worldview) I switched from being inclined to follow the crowd to being inclined to assume whatever the crowd followed was probably incorrect and prioritizing scrutinizing beliefs of that nature.
This confidence allowed me to begin seeking out others with a similar perceptual framework to my own (which I found constituted around 10% of the population) and to trust the implications of subtle patterns I was seeing. This for example was why when the COVID vaccines hit the market (and there was a near religious jubilation in my colleagues about them ending the pandemic and saving all of us) I cautioned those who asked to wait a bit before taking them as (based on Pfizer’s leaked regulatory data) I felt there was a high probability of long-term autoimmune and cancer issues from them.
Likewise, once they hit the general patient population, from the
start, I noticed each day multiple patients came in reporting
significant (but not fatal) complications they needed help with and had
never experienced before from other vaccines and by the end of the week,
I was certain enough the vaccines would be a huge issue that I notified
a lot of (fairly hostile) people in my circle about it to encourage
them to hold off vaccinating. Shortly after, friends around the country
began contacting me to ask if the vaccine could cause sudden death (due
to a friend or relative dying), and I made the decision to spend the next year verifying and documenting those injuries,
as due to the fanaticism around the COVID vaccines, I felt it was
unlikely anything would be published in any journal on it (which is
essentially why this Substack went viral when I published it in February
2022).
Note: over that year, I saw numerous colleagues I highly respected
continually dismiss every vaccine injury patients discuss with
them—including cases of patients cancelling due to (in their relative’s
word) them dying suddenly from the vaccine.
When I conducted that project, a few nearly identical cases jumped out to me, as it seemed as though the only possible explanation for them was mRNA vaccine shedding—something which by every known mechanism was impossible. For this reason, I made the decision in the original report I published to exclude all known shedding cases (along with two people I verified were magnetic who stated they had become magnetic after the vaccine) as while I suspected something was happening, I knew that would stretch the Overton window too far and cause the far more important point I was trying to convey (that the shots were injuring and killing people) to be dismissed as every critic of my central thesis would focus on those outliers.
As such, I spent the next year trying to collect as much evidence as possible shedding was occurring in a real and reproducible manner alongside looking at every possible mechanistic angle which could sensibly explain what was happening. Two years later, the Overton window had shifted enough for this to be an acceptable topic of discussion, and I spent a year working with Pierre Kory to bring attention to this phenomenon (as it is one of the strongest arguments against all mRNA gene therapies) and the case for it was strong enough that it’s now generally accepted within many circles we frequent.
This all touches upon a critical point—frequently to solve a problem, especially one the group assigned to it has failed to adequately address, you have to have the ability to see a wide sea of possible datapoints, and then have both the intuition and courage to know which ones to focus on and act upon.
Note: This trait characterizes many of the prominent COVID dissidents (e.g., two previously used this skillset to be immensely successful in the financial markets—and wealthy patients in those sectors have told me this skillset was the key to their circle’s success). This is why each of us immediately realized there was something very wrong with the vaccines, whereas most of our peers wanted the safety of the crowd and took much longer to be convinced a signal was indeed there. Put differently, our “filters” allowed us to see what was right in front of us—something which seems obvious in hindsight, but nonetheless the majority of the population was unable to do.
Why Reason?
Previously, I wrote an article describing my thought process on navigating controversial topics with a high degree of ambiguity. It specifically focused on how critical it is to avoid getting attached to any specific interpretation you have of what is occurring. This is both because, due to the ambiguity present, it is challenging to be sure of any interpretation (so becoming attached to a specific one becomes a barrier to seeing the truth) and because it is not healthy for your mind or spirit to covet and treasure some rare idea it has become in possession of.
However because this is not navigated, I routinely see people arrange a series of datapoints together into a logical chain which arrives at a predetermined outcome, despite many of those logical jumps not being rational (e.g., much more probable alternative conclusions can be arrived at from each data point). Sadly, once this happens, rather than simply be content with holding that belief, they frequently get very aggressive in pushing that belief onto others and slandering those who do not endorse it. Most importantly, this happens in every segment of human society (e.g., this is why I believe the CDC hid all their data the COVID vaccines were killing people), but remarkably, while most people can immediately recognize when others are doing it, they often lack the insight to see they are doing it.
All of this hence touches upon a major question. What is your actual basis for seeking to believe something? I would argue the most common reasons are:
• To eliminate discomfort from the world being difficult to understand (hence making plastering a simplified model onto it being preferable to a complex one which allows significant ambiguity).
• To seek out the comfort of belonging to a (belief holding) group.
• To validate one’s own ego and be “right about the world.”
• To gain power over others by having your truth dictate the flow of society.
Note: this ties into a view within evolutionary psychology that logical reasoning evolved primarily for gaining power within social groups rather than understanding the world and solving problems. Likewise, this highlights a frequent observation in psychology research—more intelligent (and successful people), while excellent at arguing their points, are reciprocally much less able to process (let alone act upon) data which contradicts their deeply held beliefs.
In my case, I had no interest in many of those (e.g., living in a world I fully understood makes life immensely boring and bereft of meaning) and in many cases (e.g., due to bad experiences with domineering individuals) I was emotionally primed against them. For these reasons (and getting quite frustrated with how often I had reached a conclusion I later learned was a product of faulty reasoning on my part), I decided the only path forward was to try to construct a functional means of discerning the truth of the world which was humble, flexible and well-designed enough I would gradually be moving towards the truth with.
Note: a major reason why I do not share many of the things I believe is because while I have enough certainty in them to be willing to act upon them, I think the potential I am incorrect is high enough I do not feel it is ethical on my part to share those views to a large audience, particularly since every year, beliefs I’d held for a long time shift as I learn more (plus, given the volume of content here it eats up a lot of time to correct errors I subsequently discover in past articles). Likewise, this is why I put a lot of focus onto the exact language I preface claims with (e.g., I suspect, I believe, or no qualifier etc.).
Information Overload
One of my colleagues has advanced a compelling theory to explain why a palpable madness seems to be gripping our society and more and more people seem to be going off the rails.
So much information is available now we are constantly bombarded with, that it has exceeded the processing capacity of the human mind. That is making a lot of people destabilize inside, and as the information glut increases, this problem will continue to worsen.
As mentioned above, I believe one of the basic safeguards the mind has to avoid this is by plastering a simplified explanation onto reality or siding with the crowd. Unfortunately, the current demand on the mind (due to the existing information load and the rate at which society now changes) is exceeding that buffer—so, as my colleague describes, we are beginning to see a lot of mental “glitches” emerge, many of us never previously encountered.
Fortunately, many meditation traditions have been aware of this underlying process over millennia and devised a series of methods to bridge that gap—many of which have been invaluable not only in my personal life, but also when practicing medicine and writing this newsletter.
Note: henceforth, I will use the term “subconsciousness.” Arguments can also be made that “unconsciousness” is more correct. I thought this over for a while, and I am ultimately not sure which should be used here.
Additional:
No comments:
Post a Comment