Someone posted an article about a young woman who died from the covid shots. A medical doctor stepped in to discount it a insignificant in relation to all who have received the shots, and all who are saved by them. Here are the exchanges:
Dr.: We assume risks with every action we take. This story is sad, but it doesn’t undermine the significant upsides to being vaccinated. How many mothers died of Covid that might have lived if they were vaccinated? Clearly a lot more than had serious complications from the vaccine.
(other commenter 1): you may be right to some extent. But, if you’re going to shove the upside of the COVID vaccine down my throat 24/7 then you have to also show the downside. · Dr.: yeah, that’s fair. The risks are real, just disproportionate in my views.
(other commenter 2): Young mothers like her? Extremely few are dying from Covid. · (other commenter 1): exactly. Absolutely disgusting that someone in her demographic was forced to take the vaccine.
Dr.: my point was the level at which the two statistics are disproportionate. It looks like just in the US there has been over 4K females in her age demographic who have died from primary Covid. How many have died from the vaccine? It’s not even close.
me: to dr. - But how many people would have survived covid if they had knowledge/access to the proven treatments that aren't big-Pharma sanctioned? And how many people would be prevented from getting covid if simple nutritional measures, such as vitamin C and D supplements, and even other additional supplements were given to everyone?
(commenter 1 responding to me): Exactly! Any healthy person under 50 has an extremely low, probably less than regular flu, risk of dying from covid!
Dr.: nothing supports that nutritional measures can come close to the protection offered from a vaccine. It’s not even close. What treatments are you referring to? The current treatments seem to be very effective. What supports an off label option being better? Can you share what you’re referring to? You lose credibility when you say you have a less chance of dying from Covid from the flu. The death counts aren’t even close. Also, the flu represents a family of over 60 viruses and Covid represents one. An ecological fallacy doesn’t make your point anymore valid.
me: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/ https://www.theguardian.com/.../huge-study-supporting... A couple to start with regarding ivermectin. Vitamin C and D have been known to boost immune system for decades. Zinc is also good to have. Do you really thing the Pharmaceutical industry has your good health in mind? Do you really think the Pharmaceutical industry does not pump millions, and millions, of dollars into lobbying efforts in DC? Time to wake up from you MSM slumber.
Dr.: that’s a prepublication study and looked at rates of infection and not outcomes as you alluded to in your previous comment. In medicine we wait for the trials and peer review before treatment options become standards of care. No one is ignoring Ivermectin and it’s role it might play but the studies are still ongoing. The first study that made this drug a household name for managing Covid was redacted for data manipulation and plagiarism. Currently there are a bunch of studies being conducted (some funded by the NIH) but we need a little more time to assess the value of the drug in managing the virus.
Dr.: did you even read that second link you posted? Seems like you’re just googling your bias. You literally posted an article that questions the validity of and Ivermectin study that made it a household name. That second link backs the claims I just made and are EXACTLY why you can’t take a preprint study as validated scientific data.
me: Sorry if I posted a faulty link; I try to limit the amount of time I spend bringing people "into the light", because I could spend all day trying (I hope to be successful in just one person, but I may never know). If all of us who see through the propaganda of MSM and the medical/Pharma establishment can get through to just one other person, it will be worth it. I don't know if I asked you this, but do you think the big pharmaceutical companies have your best interests/health in mind? Do you think their huge influence on medical doctors results in those doctors having your best health in mind? Do you think Democrats (and many Republicans), who are lobbied by the big pharmaceutical companies have your best interests in mind, in regard to covid? You must be able to see how covid is being used for political purposes, don't you? It is disgusting that our politicians have reached a point in their digression of the past few decades that they now value wealth and power so much that they are willing to let (and maybe even cause) 10s of thousands of people die to achieve that.
Dr. you didn’t post a “faulty link”. You googled your bias and shared a link you didn’t even read. The link worked just fine. I don’t listen to MSM and I’m not a democrat. The drug companies don’t have anyone’s interest in mind but doctors do. They are the ones we need to get our health advise from and they overwhelmingly support vaccines (as evident by over 96% of US physicians being vaccinated). They work. I am a doctor who has lost countless patients to this virus so no, I do not think their influence has any effect on doctors making recommendations in the best interest of their patients.
me: So as a trade-school graduate, do you think you are able to analyze the total picture regarding covid? Why have THOUSANDS of medical doctors and other health professional signed a petition to alert the world about the deadly covid policies? https://gellerreport.com/.../over-10500-physicians-sign.../ Over 10,500 Physicians Sign Petition To Alert Citizens Of Deadly Consequences Of COVID Policies - Geller Report News GELLERREPORT.COM Over 10,500 Physicians Sign Petition To Alert Citizens Of Deadly Consequences Of COVID Policies - Geller Report News Over 10,500 Physicians Sign Petition To Alert Citizens Of Deadly Consequences Of COVID Policies - Geller Report News
Dr.: trade school graduate…yeah okay sure. You’re all over the place. I made no comment on Covid policies. I actually oppose most of them. We started with vaccine risk, you moved the goal post to treatment options and now you’re further moving it to Covid policies? Try and stick to one topic. It’s hard to follow your scattered thoughts. Let’s break down your link: 10k physicians in a global forum sign a petition and that should carry weight? How many doctors globally disagree with them? Millions? They aren’t even signing opposing vaccines or treatment options. The link you provided shows no sources or the actual petition itself so I’m unsure what message you expect me to take from it? Once again, did you even read past the headline? Where did the link you supplied call such policies “deadly”? It didn’t. That’s your bias on full display yet again.
Dr.: I’d consider looking into less biased sources for news as you were the one accusing me of listening too much to MSM. https://www.google.com/.../mediabi.../geller-report/%3famp=1
Me: I guess in about 6 months, we'll know which of us is on the right side of the big-Pharma divide. Unless CDC is able to hide the stats, a noticeable uptick in auto-immune disease, cancer, and other ailments will be apparent in the U.S. Best to you, and please check back in six months. And if you could post one last thing, that would be to explain the difference between auto mechanic school and medical school other than one deals with a living organism, and the other not. (but at least auto mechanics do fix cars; when it comes to disease, medical doctors only treat, and don't "fix") I would be interested in knowing what disease medical doctors are able to cure (infections aren't diseases, but you knew that).
Dr.: it doesn’t matter what the evidence shows in six months you wouldn’t ever admit that you were “on the wrong side.” The data already seems abundantly clear. I have literally no idea why you think these vaccines will cause cancer and auto immune diseases. We have been using this same in oncology for over three decades and there is nothing to substantiate your claim. It’s absolutely baseless. At least mechanics fix cars 😂. I’m gonna ignore that whole last part and just pretend you never said it.
I would engage such people by putting the burden of proof for 3 things regarding vaccines: 1. Necessity (have to prove none of the alternate method works), 2. Safety (They have to prove its safe in long term) and 3. Efficacy (They have to defend the efficacy claims)
Where is this place?
I am sorry to say that when going up against a professional in a particular field that you have no expertise in, it is really hard to engage in a scientific debate on the data that resides within their wheelhouse. It is like bringing a toothpick to a gunfight and somehow think you are on equal footing. The lack of knowledge about the actual data behind scientific articles published in the media only ends up getting you wounded. Remember, the media will report on a study if it fits into a narrative they are trying to promote. That is not the same thing as having a good peer reviewed study that actually carries some weight. Listen to the scientists that are actually discussing these issues and zero in on the studies they are paying attention to and not what is being reported on in the media.
Clinicians are fed a steady diet of evidence based research on a regular basis and they should be able to pull apart weak studies if they actually take the time to read them. I worked in research. The problem is that for every one study published that claims a certain result, there is another study that may claim the opposite or have different results. Money plays a big part in what research is actually funded. Learn the difference between studies that are prepublication awaiting peer review or studies coming out of obscure journals that are not well known where authors literally have to pay to have their articles published. Another aspect is learning how to differentiate between results that are statistically significant and clinical significance. I have had disagreements with colleagues over whether a statistical improvement justifies a particular treatment that cannot actually be seen clinically. I have usually called it adjunk science because it costs a patient money and time while giving them no benefit when more useful treatments could be sought.
My hats off to you for making the attempt. It was a brave effort. That guy was very smug and condescending - typical of many I know. They really didn't want to engage on the data and they never offer any of their own. They were more interested in ridiculing than actually having a conversation. And never put yourself down as having a lesser level of education. No excuses.
Take this as a learning experience and actually try to see what were the points they were arguing and whether those points were actually valid. As far as the supplements are concerned, unless you are dealing with a clinician that can see the therapeutic value in their use, you are not going to make any head way. Almost any kind of nutritional approach to patient treatment and care is completely dismissed in school - it is all about the drugs. It is really rough for those of us that do try to incorporate nutrition and supplementation into our patient care modalities with a more complementary approach. Nothing should be overlooked. This has become the glaring divide that we are seeing occur within the medical ranks.
You will be better prepared next time. Many of these professionals are going by their own form of media bias that comes through the CDC, FDA, and medical associations and organizations. These entities during times like our current situation that is highly politicized, will keep their members abreast of studies that are circulating in the media and how to debunk them. I find that many times, especially with hot-button issues like vaccines, they can be repeating their own narrative bias that they are accusing you of. They actually have not even read the research either - they use the preprinted debunking talking points they saw in their inbox. So, if you are not actually familiar with a particular study that you are trying to cite, they simply throw the debunking narrative back at you and you are at a loss. When you can actually cite one or two points in a study and ask for discussion on those points, you can surmise fairly quickly whether they have actually ready the study or whether they are using the Cliff notes. At that point, you know you have them and they know it. It is amazing to see how fast the conversation with be deflected or it reduces to the level of personal attacks and insults. But, if they have read the report, you need to be ready to discuss it.
You have to be willing to discuss the points you bring up and not jump to something else. If we truly want to engage and have some kind of meeting of the minds, we have to be willing to see the other side and stay on topic. Otherwise it just becomes two different sides trying to flood the zone with their own information dump. Neither side at that point is actually listening and it becomes a waste of time and each side walks away thinking what a jerk the other one was.
I would think that a doctor who has lost countless patients to the Chyna virus would have something better to do than argue with someone on facepage. Call me crazy. I no longer trust any of them. Edit: he used an emoji. What a fag.
Honestly it sounded more like a typical left wing pattern of just being a jerk and a bully. They really look down on people like us and think they are superior. Their arguments aren't really arguments at all but some way to deflect the real issues by nit picking some other meaningless point in an attempt to demean while never really defending their position. I have been in far too many of those types of debates with professionals on a state public heath forum. They like to throw out stats that aren't based on any substantial data. Usually everything is some twisted epidemiological computer modeling product that in the end is just an opinion. I never really considered pubic health a hard science. When confronted on their lack of real data and the weakness of their study parameters or conclusions, they would often deflect and demean - never answering the challenge. The only way to beat these types is at their own game and twist them up in their own perverted logic. It is a beautiful thing to witness. I guess that is why they quit inviting me to speak at these events.
You can almost smell the arrogant air of superiority with this doc. Sometimes these people just want to pick a fight and make themselves feel better by putting the deplorables in their place and then go brag about it. It gets tired. I am so glad I am not working with them any longer. Covid made the decision for me to leave. I keep my contact to a minimum and just try to help where I can. And you are right, if this clown was all that busy saving the world, they sure as hell would not be on FB throwing up. You are right about the emoji too.
My education is far above that medical doctor! Remember, you only need a BS (and maybe just a BA) degree to get into medical school, which IS a trade school (notice he didn't want to defend my assertion of that; just laughed it off). I didn't want to spend the time to properly find JUST the right references/reports/articles, so thought just a few articles would be enough, but like you said, he wanted to only deal with HIS sources. And as far as jumping around, that's just me (and my family isn't too happy about it :) ). I thought the funniest, and saddest, thing he said was "nothing supports that nutritional measures can come close to the protection offered from a vaccine. It’s not even close", which is EXACTLY what you would expect almost all who have been brainwashed by their medical school. Remember, medical doctors are not scientists, and medical school does not train them to be scientists.
Doc said: "In medicine we wait for the trials and peer review before treatment options become standards of care." I would have questioned the 'trials' for the vaccines against that statement.
And after a few more exchanges with the guy, ending with him making the lame claim that the almost non-existent seasonal flu during the 2020-2021 season was due to masking, etc., I found out he isn't even a medical doctor, he's an optometrist!