A lot of what I read seems to be confusing and I know from living overseas that you can't get a good perspective on US news on the media.
But behind the headlines, there are indications of problems causing lack of trust in those controlling the news: Not by q or conspiracy sites, but from mainstream people.
Dr. C as a nurse educator with expertise in public health has an excellent site that analyzes the data in plain English.
Recently he has been warned by Youtube that he would be censored for commenting on data that they say is not true. So now he just quotes the medical and public health literature, and tells us he is being careful so he doesn't upset the experts of the social media.
It might not work: Here he analyzes an article on the BMJ (British Medical Journal) which ironically has been warned for what it says. Now, I have disagreed with medical journals in the past, but you know; That is how we docs work. Indeed, we used to have journal clubs where we discussed articles and analyzed them, including pointing out where we thought they made mistakes. But threatening shutting down their ability to communicate by someone who is unknown sounds more like political censorship than science. But hey, that's just me.,,,
here is Dr. C: asking who checks the fact checkers
I worry when there appears to be a cover up of the side effects of the vaccines, where the risk/benefit ratio is wonderful for those of us who are high risk, but for the young, who rarely die from Covid (especially omicron variens) the risk might not outweigh the benefit.
Are public health authorities doing their job, or have I missed something?
We see a similar willingness to compromise basic public health practices for PC groups. Hence the scandal of "public health" authorities who encouraged violent protests against racism, but forbad private gatherings.
And indeed, we see a similar absurd approach to monkey pox by the same medical community that mandated masks and face shields and isolation to stop the spread of covid, but when confronted with a disease that is known to be spread by close contact including sexual contact , there was a refusal to do what was always done when similar epidemics exploded in the past: stop high risk activity by closing places where it happens...
Why? Because in today's world, promiscuity and sexual expression are rights that are more important than public health.
It is fairly simple to stop the spread of monkey pox, which needs skin to skin contact and either thin skin (as in infants) or tiny abraisions that let the virus enter.
And the prevention is fairly straightforward:
Quarantine and immunization have been known to stop the spread of small pox back in the days when Washington ordered his army to get vaccinated.
But now, that part about avoiding risky meetings where certain behavior known to spread monkey pox has been ignored...Instead, immunizations, which take 7 to ten days to work, were offered but no attempt to stop massive rave parties where it could spread, This shows either an ignorance of what goes on in these gatherings, or else it shows that medicine/public health authorities are rejecting science by ignoring behavior that can affect one's physical health for political reasons.
A similar blindness to the consequences of newfangled "reforms" that the PC are pushing can be suspected about Pope Francis and his beloved "synodality on synod" nonsense.: it reminds me of the manipulation of encounter groups we were forced to attend in the 1960s, which was supposed to be about bearing our souls honestly but was actually just a way to manipulate people to go along with the group leader.
Here, that wiley Cajun at EWTN interviews a guy who was retired by Pope Francis.
This idea that sexual promiscuity is a harmless activity that should never be limited ignores three thousand years of Biblical ethics, and also ethics of many non Christian societies. Even non believers have to realize that such rules survived because they pragmatically encoded thousands of years of human experience into what works to make a viable society.
Yet we are seeing the promoting of sexual sin as a risk free and morality free activity in many modern churches (and an attempt by liberal German bishops to impose this on the Catholic church).
Yet this ignores the danger to the spiritual health of the soul: ignoring that the sexual revolution has caused the meltdown of the family in the west, which has terrible effects on children.
But it also ignores the health problems of promiscuity on the individual.
--------------------------
update: From NYPost:
California makes it illegal for doctors to disagree with politicians
Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed California Assembly Bill 2098, making it the first state to attempt to censor what physicians can say about COVID-19 to their patients. This is a dangerous, and likely unconstitutional, effort that other states must resist.
read the entire article.
So will the AMA and other medical societies who have been taken over by activists (which is why I quit them years ago) and pretend to represent docs condemn this? Who knows...
And unanswered is the question: Who makes the rules?
The statute does not specify who is the arbiter of “contemporary scientific consensus” on COVID.---------------
Myocarditis was more common in patients who received the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine as compared to the non-mRNA vaccine and was also higher in patients who received the second dose of the vaccine.
No comments:
Post a Comment