Conversations surrounding surgical plans and procedures to patients or patients’ families is always more painstaking in the presence of an engineer. They are often not satisfied with the mundane, rehearsed speech that you have delivered countless times, to other patients, that accept your words as gospel. Most patients do not take particular interest in the nuance involved in the intimate violation of their body; rather, they grant universal consent, to a complete stranger, to perform an unconscious (under anesthesia) assault on their body assuming the surgeon has altruistic intent. It is a prodigious privilege to care for patients and humbling to understand that most patients give us the authority to protect their most precious asset. How have we earned this privilege without more scrutiny or concern of our character? Does a degree alone entitle us to this high level of moral integrity and trust? I submit that it should not and more patients should be emboldened to ask more questions and truly understand the proposed violation of their body.
Whenever I discuss a procedure with a patient, and an engineer is present, the conversation often becomes a dissertation defense. It is important for them to know the modulus of elasticity of the particular metal being used and number of stress cycles it can sustain due to concerns of fatigue failure. They want to know intention of every screw, if the defect from the drill bit will weaken the structural integrity of the bone, and how much nickel is in the stainless steel implant to ensure corrosion resistance. I have literally spent 90 minutes with an engineer about how a specific screw aperture size in a femoral nail will be more resistant to fatigue failure than an implant with a larger aperture size; in addition, we discussed the necessity of antibiotic-impregnation to treat an active infection, in addition the cement would subsequently increase its structural integrity of the construct by increasing the functional radius of the nail. I find mechanical engineering to be a fascinating field of study; success in orthopedic trauma requires detailed understanding of its principles. Although these conversations can be onerous and laborious, they solidify understanding of the discipline, encourage stimulation of thought and provide an opportunity to better articulate principles. Engineers are trained to think, not accept information as dogma given to them by authoritarian figures; they are strong data analysts with a desire to understand “how” and “why.”
Contemporary education is failing children in the United States. This is not at all diminishing the importance or expertise of educators; they do not have jurisdiction of curriculum development, it is determined by the state and they are mandated to meet specific benchmarking requirements. Kids are not being taught how to synthesize, the education system is not conducive to this environment that foster these skills. Instead, they are taught rote process to solve math problems and buzzword recognition to answer questions on a multiple choice test. With declining annual budgets, increasing class sizes and unappealing salaries (for the amount of work that is required), this has resulted in the fundamental destruction of education. We have not adequately equipped our educators with the resources necessary to achieve excellence for our children. Multiple choice and standardized testing as a gauge of aptitude is the most unauthentic and illogical method to assess students’ understanding of material.
I have been attacked from multiple people regarding my position on COVID-19 and the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. As a physician and scientist, it is imperative to evaluate ALL information, not just some of the information, or echo our ignorant politicians’ rhetoric. As I have written about in previous posts, statistical graphical analysis can often deceive the interpreter. At first glance, the data may look compelling in one direction, but upon scrutiny, you may identify how the data has been misrepresented. This is classic Dunning-Kruger effect. What is most concerning to me is that some of the highest vaccinated countries are seeing a significant resurgence of disease. When conflicting data appears in the dataset, it must be accounted for, not ignored or censored. Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1964 once said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Recently I was labeled a conspiracy theorist for an explanation of basic science and another for showing specific patents that the CDC and Richard Rothschild have on COVID-19 methods for testing (both issued many years before 2019). Data is not a conspiracy; it is extra information that needs to be assimilated into an existing paradigm or an alternate hypothesis needs to be considered. Inconsistent messaging and changes in policy from the CDC has further disrupted true understanding of this disease and confidence in this agency. Because the CDC has so badly handled the data and produced policy originating from emotion, rather than science, it has destroyed confidence in the medical system as a whole. Instead of respectful, healthy debate, those that are skeptical about the inoculation of a substance that has never been used before (lipid nanoparticle as the delivery vector and mRNA as a means to produce immunity), it is a full on assault of bullying in an attempt to change the mind of the skeptics. Science progresses through skepticism, detailed questioning and trying to prove your hypothesis wrong (not right). If a scientist actively works to try to disprove their hypothesis, but cannot, the assertion is that the hypothesis must be correct. Working to prove a hypothesis as correct is fraught with significant bias.
There is superfluous information circulating regarding COVID-19, but we have to be suspicious when some institutions become aggressive with censorship of information. Our fabulous Facebook fact-checkers have labeled this as “misinformation.” It was once “misinformation” about the Wuhan lab leak theory, but now that appears to be the most plausible explanation as to its origin of dissemination. The more data points we have, the better we will understand the pandemic. If there continues to be censorship of information, this leads me to believe we are not interested in the truth. We need to continue to ask detailed questions and look at ALL of the data and not take graphical representation of data at face value. It is imperative to assimilate the data – scientific, political and financial – to generate a hypothesis and make decisions based on cumulative understanding. We need to have better discernment and not accept authoritarian doctrine. Accepting affirmative data while ignoring negative data will opacify the true results due to implicit or conformation bias. For instance, there has been plenty of evidence to suggest that natural immunity provides robust immunity to COVID-19 over vaccine immunity. Herd immunity should include those that have been previously infected as we have demonstrated lasting antibodies to far more surface proteins than spike protein in isolation:
Why are public officials (not physicians) so concerned about getting every person in the world vaccinated if natural immunity has demonstrated adequate, robust immunity?
If natural immunity is equivalent or slightly better than vaccine-associated immunity, why do naturally immune individuals get enticed with free donuts, free money, free college, free fast foot or, now, a vaccine passport to enjoy freedoms that vaccinated people can enjoy? Should I sign up for the varicella vaccine if I have already had the chicken pox? Why have I demonstrated robust natural immunity from the chicken pox, but I won’t from COVID-19?
What are the long-term consequences of the lipid nanoparticle incorporating into our host cells? Is this an inert synthetic lipid particle? We know that the phospholipid bilayer is active in metabolism with creation of steroid hormones, production of prostaglandins and other hydrophobic reactions. What is the metabolic end point of the lipid nanoparticle? How many copies of the spike protein are being made prior to enzymatic destruction of the mRNA? Why are we seeing hypercoagulable phenomena with these vaccines? Why are more people not concerned about this?
The narrative that all humans need to be vaccinated is the most ridiculous assertion in all of vaccine science. This is clearly not how vaccines work. Natural immunity has always been associated with reaching herd immunity, but the World Health Organization changed their definition this year, conveniently, to only include vaccinated individuals. We must ask ourselves, why are public officials pushing so hard to ensure EVERYONE is vaccinated (especially with the volume of concerning VAERS data)?
Let’s start thinking like engineers and asking many more questions to get to the bottom of this. We should also be outraged by the continued censorship that will prevent a strong understanding of the natural history of exposed individuals and not just be provided with information of vaccinated individuals.