Image

COVID Wars: Shoddy Science and Medical Malpractice

“Increasingly we are being vindicated. Barely a day goes by when we do not learn even more about just how wrong so much of the ‘science’ was, how dictatorial and totalitarian our governments were, and how much medical fascism was allowed to take place.”


Medicine and science have been massively abused over the past few years:

Some of us were quite sceptical of what was being done to us in the name of Covid from very early on in the piece. Things did not seem to add up, and the hysterical media alarmism, coupled with Statist overkill via lockdowns and all the rest certainly made us wonder.

And many of us wondered out loud. We got absolutely hammered and hated on for daring to ask hard questions and query the official narrative. For simply expressing our concerns we were turned into despised pariahs and treated as the scum of the earth.

Yet increasingly we are being vindicated. Barely a day goes by when we do not learn even more about just how wrong so much of the “science” was, how dictatorial and totalitarian our governments were, and how much medical fascism was allowed to take place. Simply considering all the injuries and deaths so far with rushed and improperly tested medicines should wake us up.

All this, coupled with the clearly stated aims of individuals and groups like Schwab, Harari, Gates, the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset mob, makes it clear that we whistle-blowers and questioners were absolutely right to stick our necks out and dare to look closer at what was – and is – happening.

There are now innumerable articles and videos and plenty of books on all this. Last year I offered this list of titles.

Four recent articles that have appeared on these matters are worth drawing your attention to. The first one speaks about slodderwetenschap (the Dutch term for ‘sloppy science’). The authors say this especially occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic:

We had front-row seats to witness the media reporting claims of a breakthrough made one day, then dismissed the next. It’s one of the first occasions the public has been able to clearly see how messy the scientific process can be – when it’s done sloppily.

One of the more public facets in the swirling whirl of COVID-19 misinformation was the continuing role of Dr Anthony Fauci, the Chief Medical Officer to the President of the USA. Fauci insisted that his pronouncements of the moment, such as suggesting it would only take 15 days to slow the spread of the virus or that masks were ‘unnecessary’, were ‘science’ and as such not to be questioned. Yet, the main method of science is to question. Fauci was abusing his claims of expertise and in the process helping to erode the public’s trust in science itself.

The researchers argue that one of the drivers of sloppy science is that people find it hard to accept results that are a work in progress; they much prefer the neatness and superficial completeness that often comes with incorrect work. It can mean that shortcuts are taken – and alternatives are ignored because they cause disruption.

Results that are desired are often declared correct due to political and financial pressures or even fears. This culture involves accepting storylines that are presented without further examination (eg, Fauci’s ‘I am Science’). Naïve acceptance can cause real harm – especially when the initial claims need to be qualified or are disproved. What arose during the COVID-19 pandemic was the increasing proliferation of unsound science, which meant policy leaders – misled by misinformation – made terrible decisions with devastating ramifications. The debate about the longevity of lockdowns as a means of dealing with COVID-19 and the seemingly deliberate suppression of the role of natural immunity post-infection stand out as two prominent examples.

They close their piece by outlining seven critical mistakes where sloppy science can creep into the scientific process:

1. Jumping straight into giving explanations for unexpected observations. The impulse to be the first to obtain results makes shortcuts tempting.
2. Disregarding variables that could be of importance to the research. Selecting suitable variables is critical for good science – it’s a process that should not be rushed.
3. Not correctly considering the context of the experiment. For example, how the research relates to the real world.
4. Inflexible modelling. For example, only using a single model instead of an open-ended model to determine outcomes.
5. Making bad sampling assertions. Like applying statistical functions across populations as a whole – when they may only apply to specific subsets.
6. The overuse of labelling and categorisation. Mislabelling a category too quickly and without proper thought to meaning.
7. Prematurely applying scientific findings. Dangerously utilising early results; they may not be well understood or used by others to make misinformed decisions.

Sloppy science, shortcuts, and COVID-19

A second article is “What Happened to Medical Ethics during the Pandemic?” Dr. Elizabeth Evans begins the piece this way:

We have a global crisis of medical ethics. In the last three years, under the excuse of the pandemic ’emergency’, we have seen the destruction of the sacred doctor-patient relationship and the violation of fundamental human rights and the ethical principles of informed consent and bodily autonomy. Politicians and health officials have effectively practised medicine on individuals they don’t know, and worse, have done so through enforced Covid treatment protocols and mandated testing, face masks and vaccines, which were required for the public to access basic freedoms and rights such as to work, travel and even to shop.

She continues:

Covid policies restricting and banning visitors for hospital patients led to countless people being cruelly deprived of support from their family and friends during times of suffering, and even being forced to die alone. These policies were disproportionate, unethical and barbaric.

Enforcing the wearing of face masks (which have known physical and psychological harms) and Covid testing for staff, patients and visitors, in order to work or to access healthcare, violates ethical principles and informed consent.

The way in which the Covid vaccine rollout was conducted around the world was shocking in its failure to adhere to normal ethical practices and in the widespread use of glib marketing, coercion and even bribery.

Unbelievably, we have seen Covid vaccines – a completely new technology with no long-term safety data on health, fertility or cancers – rolled out not just to those at most risk from Covid, but to those at little or no risk, including children and even pregnant women. This goes against all common sense and well-established medical practice and ethics.

It was unprecedented that a pharmaceutical product still in the clinical trial phase was administered to children and pregnant women on such a mass scale. That this was done without full disclosure of the known and unknown risks, and with aggressive marketing, seriously undermined the ability of anyone to give full, voluntary and informed consent, and was reckless in the extreme.

Evans finishes as follows:

This ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is a dangerous and unethical way to practise medicine. At the heart of the practice of safe and ethical medicine is the doctor-patient relationship, where the patient’s unique medical history, his or her individual risk-profile and personal philosophy and wishes should always be the prime concern of the doctor administering a treatment.

If doctors cannot uphold their oath to ‘First, do no harm’ and are mandated to follow top-down ‘one-size-fits-all’ policies and protocols, they become mere agents of the state, patients are dehumanised and harms and atrocities will inevitably follow. It is urgent that the erosion of medical ethics we have witnessed over the last three years is halted and reversed. It is time for medical professionals to reclaim their profession and ethical values and for patients to demand ethical care from their doctors and nurses.

What Happened to Medical Ethics during the Pandemic?

A third article also discusses how doctors are very much concerned about what has transpired over the past few years. The piece begins:

Doctors who have dedicated their lives over the past three years to fighting for medical freedom spoke out Thursday against censorship and the use of government power against critics of the COVID-19 narrative at the 2023 White Coat Summit held in Washington, D.C. by America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS). “Defending our right to speak freely is critical,” said former emergency room doctor Dr. Simone Gold, an early opponent of draconian COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates and founder of AFLDS.

“This threat of censorship cannot be overstated,” said Gold, who had been sentenced to solitary confinement for entering the U.S. Capitol building during the January 6 disturbance, where she spoke out against government mandates and COVID lockdowns. “It is the foundation of America, but it is also the foundation of all human liberty that we can be able to speak freely.” 

One doctor said this:

According to Jensen, the censorship practiced during the COVID response was a type of “cancer” that began at the policy level and continually metastasized as researchers failed to push back against pharmaceutical companies and doctors were threatened with job loss for refusal to accept prevailing narrative. He recounted that private citizens took on the role of “tattletales” to report neighbors or churches that were bucking lockdown orders while governments tracked people’s movements by tracing their cell phones.

The last layer of the “cancer,” according to Dr. Jensen, was the rotting away of “informed consent,” robbing individuals of the ability to thoroughly examine and assess all relevant information. “Informed consent was a casualty of this metastatic cancer called censorship,” he said. Jensen also highlighted what he called “sins of omission,” the decision not to report or emphasize vital information.

“We had fact-checking bullies who knew not what they were fact-checking,” he said, remarking that “natural immunity [was] kicked to the side like some stray dog” while opposing opinions about the durability of natural immunity, the safety of ventilators, and the efficacy of PCR tests were not heeded. “Individual rights, one by one, were taken away from us,” Jensen said. “And that’s where I got ticked off.”

Frontline doctors condemn COVID censorship at 2023 White Coat Summit

A final set of pieces has just appeared in the Weekend Australian. It is behind a paywall, and I am waiting to get access to the text. But the two headlines and info I offer here should be enough to get you interested:

‘Covid cover-up: how the science was silenced’

Anthony Fauci delib­erately downplayed ­suspicions from scientists that Covid-19 came from a lab to protect his reputation and deflect from risky research his agency had funded, his boss says.

‘Patient zero and the hijacking of Covid’s truth’

Secret research, frantic emails and scientific subterfuge with catastrophic consequences… new revelations about the likely origin of Covid-19 are shocking.

In sum, we are told to “follow the science”. What we have witnessed far too often over the past four years is “follow the money”. Be it corrupt politicians, Big Pharma, medicos with vested interests, or globalist bodies seeking to control us all, we have seen how quickly and easily science and medicine can be corrupted and hijacked for nefarious ends.

The Caldron Pool Show

The Caldron Pool Show: #12 – Jordan Schachtel
The Caldron Pool Show: #39 – Q&A (with Tom Foord)
The Caldron Pool Show: #13 – Douglas Wilson
The Caldron Pool Show: #34 What is Christian Nationalism? (with Doug Wilson)
Image

Support

If you value our work and would like to support us, you can do so by visiting our support page. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Visit our search page.

Copyright © 2023, Caldron Pool

Permissions

Everything published at Caldron Pool is protected by copyright and cannot be used and/or duplicated without prior written permission. Links and excerpts with full attribution are permitted. Published articles represent the opinions of the author and may not reflect the views of all contributors at Caldron Pool.