A Scientific Assessment of the Medical Establishment’s Handling of COVID-19

Patient samples are transferred by scientists into plates before entering the PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) process for COVID-19 testing at the Glasgow Lighthouse coronavirus testing facility, in Glasgow, UK, in an undated file photo. (Jane Barlow/PA)

Commentary

The Chinese communists have touted their handling of the virus from the very beginning, including masking, social distancing, contact tracing, traditional Chinese medicine, and draconian lockdowns.

In parallel, Xi Jinping called for “international cooperation” and the export of those “Chinese methods” in combating the virus worldwide, as noted in this agitprop from China Daily in March 2020. This was amazing chutzpah from a country that has been opaque about the virus origins and medical data related to early cases in China. And they are still at it in August 2021, reinforcing authoritarian methods for “containing” the virus while extolling the “docility” of the Chinese people in following the “regulations,” as noted here:

“The Chinese public have always been complying with the regime’s regulations and following its guidance to curb the spread of the virus, and their active reaction to the latest outbreak of the Delta variant reflects their confidence in and support for the country’s anti-virus policies and strategies.

“In regions where COVID-19 cases had emerged, people complied with the authorities’ regulations. They actively underwent several rounds of nucleic acid tests and followed social distancing measures, as demanded by the local authorities.”

Yet the U.S. “Medical Establishment”—almost without any independent analysis—immediately followed suit in early 2020 in a series of pronouncements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NIAID’s Dr. Anthony Fauci. Directives on the use of masks, lockdowns, social distancing, and emergency-use injections have since become the norm from the Medical Establishment since January 2021:

• Two-week lockdowns to stop the spread.
• Six feet of separation, then three feet.
• Masks indoors, outdoors, everywhere (despite adverse consequences to children/others).
• Asymptomatic spread (or not).
• Children spread the virus (or they don’t).
• The PCR tests work (or they don’t).
• There are no therapeutic drugs that work (there are!).
• Herd immunity (or not; just take the shot!).
• Injections über alles (consequences be damned).

The parallels continue, as the Chinese regime continues to export increasingly ineffective Sinovac and Sinopharm injections to other countries, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration just approved the Pfizer-BioNTech injection despite its decreasing effectiveness against virus variants (and without the involvement of the promised independent “advisory committee”).

Who to believe? The Chinese regime, which has many ulterior motives (deflect responsibility, lay the foundation for worldwide authoritarian controls, and so forth)? The Medical Establishment, which consists of the U.N.’s World Health Organization, the CDC, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the American Medical Association, and the state health bureaucracies who flow CDC/NIH/FDA directives down to hospitals and doctors? Or independent doctors and scientists outside the Medical Establishment who have directly treated virus-infected patients, developed successful therapeutic regimens, and have great concerns about the virus injections, as summarized in this 8-minute video?

An independent team of medical and nonmedical scientists led by John Droz Jr. has conducted an analysis of virus-related actions taken by the Medical Establishment to ascertain whether those actions were taken in the best interests of the public and also were consistent with genuine science. A key objective in producing this report is to promote personal responsibility in making medical decisions, “All medical decisions by patients should be well-educated—including getting information from different perspectives—so that with their physician they can make informed health decisions.” The conclusions in the report are startling.

The report bounds the problem by summarizing what “science” really is:

“A key understanding is that science is a PROCESS. As a competent scientist wrote that the process involves: ‘Using a refined craft of methodological inquiry to dispassionately examine and test tentative explanations about the nature of truth in the natural world.’ Therefore, real science revolves around skepticism. Once this understanding is absorbed, citizens should consider outside independent competent sources of information (usually less influenced by financial or political gain), and then use critical thinking skills so that they can make science-based decisions about technical matters (e.g., their health), while simultaneously defending their rights and freedoms.”

An important disclaimer is also prominently featured at the beginning of the report:

A view of a Moderna COVID-19 vaccine vial. (Eugene Hoshiko/AP Photo)

“This report is not opposing vaccines—rather incomplete or misleading information from the Medical Establishment regarding such an important health decision. We support social distancing, hand sanitizing, and other science-based COVID-19 measures.”

Here are a couple of excerpts that identify inconsistencies and problems associated with the guidelines and actions of the Medical Establishment:

• “COVID-19 data from (or supported by) the Medical Establishment, have been incomplete to purposefully deceptive. [This includes data about COVID-19 injections.] For example, the data on COVID-19 deaths fail to distinguish between dying from COVID-19 vs. dying with COVID-19. (Per the CDC: 95 percent of US COVID-19 deaths had an average of four co-morbidities!) This results in highly inflated COVID-19 death figures, which allows government officials to justify enacting shutdowns, etc. Furthermore, there is no Medical Establishment data accounting for deaths from the government COVID-19 regulations (e.g., suicides, drug overdoses, criminal acts, etc.).”
• “Inexplicably, to date the Medical Establishment has yet to support some well-documented effective COVID-19 therapies (see this outstanding discussion by a renowned MD). The main “therapy” (for what the Medical Establishment calls a pandemic), has been for victims to go home, drink fluids, etc.—then go to the hospital when they are in dire straits. There are numerous scientific studies on various therapies (when started early) will markedly improve a patient’s outcome. Even over-the-counter (OTC) items like Zinc and Vitamin D have been scientifically shown to have measurable benefits. (Combining them would likely result in even better outcomes.)”

The report includes a fascinating comparison of Western medical practices that focus on identifying modalities (problems) and then working on specific preventatives and cures versus the holistic approach of Eastern medical practices that includes a focus on optimizing the immune system. The report advocates the use of both in combating the virus.

The chapter discussing vaccines is particularly important. Here are two of the 15 points that were included:

• “The possible negative consequences of COVID-19 bio-chemical injection are far-reaching, and many may not be apparent for months or years. This study says: ‘no one actually has any idea of medium- and long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccines.’ Who is looking for these, and who will report them? The injection proponents: the Medical Establishment!”
• “One documented, yet rarely discussed, very problematic adverse consequence of getting the COVID-19 bio-chemical injection, can be Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), or Vaccine Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED). These serious side effects can worsen later infections from other COVID-19 variants. (In other words, the extent of ADE/VAED won’t be known for some time.) That’s a major concern expressed by the physician who is reportedly an inventor of the mRNA injection.”

A chapter in the report lists dozens of useful linked references on a variety of topics, including immunities, masks, therapies, PCR diagnostic tests, and vaccines. And finally, the report concludes with 15 key takeaways from the analysis conducted, three of which are provided below:

• “The Medical Establishment’s data (e.g., COVID-19 fatality rates) are unreliable. Bad Data easily results in a domino effect of erroneous conclusions and ineffective ‘solutions.’”
• “The Medical Establishment has misinformed the public regarding broad-spectrum, Science-based therapies for treating COVID-19 (e.g., combining Ivermectin, Zinc and Vitamin D).”
• “It appears that the Medical Establishment gives priority to favoring the pharmaceutical industry instead of protecting the health and welfare of the public.”

The entire report is a must-read. It is long past time for the Medical Establishment to stop dancing to the Chinese regime’s authoritarian tune and start promoting successful treatment regimens and personal responsibility for doctor-patient decision-making.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.