Communicating Fear

Generating fear among a population is the best technique to gain control over them.  Fear is particularly easy to achieve when using a complex discipline, that few people understand, and communicating it in a way that distorts reality.  Good health, for the overwhelming majority of Americans, is ever elusive and loss of good health or life is devastating to contemplate, for us or people that we love.  Medical science has become so complex, with myriad contradicting information, we have developed a system that can confuse even professionals. This can be achieved by reporting in percentages, graphic analyses or relative risk ratios.  Any of these statistical techniques has the ability to deceive or confuse the interpreter.  One of my favorite quotes from Mark Twain is: “There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics.”

Drug companies, news outlets and marketing departments often find alarmism the best method to push a product, story or agenda.  This type of communication targets the limbic regions (emotions and behavior) of the brain rather than the cortical brain (attention, awareness, perception, thought, judgment).  The limbic system is a subcortical (unconscious) region of the brain with influence over the endocrine (hormones) and autonomic nervous systems.  In other words, using specific language that manifests emotion, has important implications on physiology, through hormonal or autonomic control.  Our cortical brain detects changes in the physiology (increased heart rate, cortisol levels, catecholamine levels, etc.) and we respond to this stimulus, reflexively, trying to achieve physiologic homeostasis.  Emotional responses are subconscious and often irrational as the conscious (cortical) brain controls judgment.  Limbic regions of the brain are more primitive than the cortical regions and, based on evolutionary theory, more critical for survival.

To better recognize the deceit, whether accidental or intentional, we have to understand the difference between absolute and relative risk.  If someone tells us that a drug can reduce our risk of a stroke by 75%, many of us would determine efficacy in this drug.  Let’s say that the absolute risk of stroke in the study population was 4/100,000 (.004%), in the placebo group.  Then, in the treatment group, the risk of stroke was 1/100,000 (.001%).  This medication prevented 3 strokes out of 100,000 people.  In this scenario, the absolute risk of a stroke is incredibly low in the placebo and treatment group; however, this is a 75% risk reduction.  As you can see, to better understand whether the side effects of a medication are worth the risk, it is important to know absolute risk, not relative risk.  

As we have seen, over the last month, the Delta variant of the coronavirus is spreading aggressively across the world.  We are told that the Delta variant represents a high percentage of the cases of the coronavirus, specifically in America.  Reports are as high as 68-84% of the cases are this specific subtype.  In order to get this information, genomic sequencing has to be performed and this cannot be done at any lab.  Most of these samples have to be sent away (sometimes to different states) and results would take a long time to obtain.  Also, not every positive test is sent for genomic sequencing as we don’t have the resources or capability to test all samples.  If you look at the image attached to the blog, you will see that less than 5% of the positive coronavirus samples are being sequenced in Nevada out of nearly 8,800 samples.  Interesting to note, there have been 152 coronavirus diagnoses in Nevada in the past 14 days (roughly 11 new cases per day) and 132 were the Delta variant (or 87%).  Statistical representation can be quite deceiving on the surface and it is important to look at them closely.

To make better sense of the data, we need to consider mortality risk, by age, of COVID-19 versus all cause mortality by age.  This will more accurately represent the threat that COVID-19 imposes on society.  In 2018, here is the data for all cause mortality, predating COVID-19, for all age groups:

Risk of all cause mortality by age group:

  • Under 1 year – 1.1% (1,100/100,000)
  • 1-4 – 0.048% (48/100,000)
  • 5-14 – 0.027% (27/100,000)
  • 15-24 – 0.14% (140/100,000)
  • 25-34 – 0.26% (260/100,000)
  • 35-44 – 0.39% (390/100,000)
  • 45-54 – 0.79% (790/100,000)
  • 55-64 – 1.8% (1,800/100,000)
  • 65-74 – 3.6% (3,600/100,000)
  • 75-84 – 8.9% (8,900/100,000)
  • 85 and over – 27.4% (27,400/100,000)

Here is the data on COVID-19 mortality by age group (COVID-19 mortality % x all cause mortality %):

  • Under 1 year – 0.002% (2/100,000)
  • 1-4 – 0.0003% (0.3/100,000)
  • 5-14 – 0.0003% (0.3/100,000)
  • 15-24 – 0.0002% (0.2/100,000)
  • 25-34 – 0.01% (10/100,000)
  • 35-44 – 0.027% (27/100,000)
  • 45-54 – 0.08% (80/100,000)
  • 55-64 – 0.2% (200/100,000)
  • 65-74 – 0.49% (490/100,000)
  • 75-84 – 1.3% (1,300/100,000)
  • 85 and over – 3.6% (3,600/100,000)

What this data shows is that all cause mortality increases with age and specifically over the age of 85.  In a given year, after the age of 85, a person’s risk of mortality, for any reason is 27.4%.  Consequently, the risk of mortality from COVID-19, after the age of 85, is 3.6%.  Of the deaths that occur, in a given year, after the age of 85, 13% (3.6/27.4 x 100) are a result of COVID-19 and 87%, are of other causes.  There are numerous ways to represent these numbers through percentages that can appear more alarming.  We have to be astutely aware of this deception.

I refer to this as deception because there has been a lot of investment in the development of the coronavirus over the years.  Like I have shared in one of my earlier blogs, the CDC does hold the patent on the coronavirus isolated from humans, testing methods to detect the coronavirus and test kits for it:

It is also interesting that Richard Rothschild (owner of all central banks in the world) has a patent on the system and method for testing for COVID-19, which was issued in 2015:

When an entity (CDC) that owns and controls the virus, the system of testing for the virus and the narrative surrounding the virus, one begins to wonder if the deception is intentional.  

Trust the Science or Trust the Scientific Method?

“Trust the science” is a phrase that we have heard ad nauseam over the last year.  What this actually means is: “we don’t understand how these vaccines work, but we should take them anyway because they are going to save humanity.” We are told to “do our part” or “stop the spread,” often by people that have little knowledge about disease transmission or how vaccine intervention effects disease propagation within a population.  There are several characteristics that need to be considered before an intervention is made, especially when it comes to infectious diseases within a global population.  Currently, we are being told that EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated to control this disease, but this is not how vaccines work. I think this messaging has led to large-scale confusion and social strife between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.  Vaccination science is presented in terms of “number needed to treat” (NNT).  An NNT is the number of people that are needed to receive a vaccine to prevent one illness.  It is an intrinsic property of a drug, not the disease.  Below are the NNTs for the three vaccines approved in the United States for Emergency Use:

Pfizer: 119 vaccines needed to be administered to prevent 1 illness

Moderna: 81 vaccines needed to be administered to prevent 1 illness

Johnson & Johnson: 84 vaccines needed to be administered to prevent 1 illness

When trying to understand infectious disease within a population, it is important to: know the reproductive (or transmissibility) rate (RO) of the pathogen; discern mortality/morbidity associated with the disease;  appreciate the severity (or lack thereof) or threat of disease within the population, identify high-risk subpopulations, understand long-term sequela of people that are infected by the pathogen; and recognize consequences of vaccine administration.  Unfortunately, in medicine, occasionally the “cure” is worse than the disease.  When we harm people in an attempt to help them, we call this “iatrogenic.” It should also be acknowledged that disease is on a continuum, in all cases, and disease severity is variable between individuals.  The COVID-19 situation has created major confusion and hysteria, promulgated by the CDC, some would argue by design.

Manifestation of symptoms is paramount, not only to seek treatment, but to be administered treatment, only by informed consent from a practitioner.  With COVID-19, we abandoned the idea of symptomatology as the basis of disease and we began believing every positive test WAS disease.  This is not how pathophysiology works.  As an example, for total hips and knees, we screen patients for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization in an attempt to prevent post-operative infections.  If the patient’s nasal mucosa is colonized with MRSA and has a positive test, we consider the patient to be colonized, not infected.  Just because MRSA is present, doesn’t mean that the person is manifesting disease.  Same with a positive COVID-19 test.  Colonization does not equal pathophysiological disease, nor can the patient spread the virus at such a concentration that will cause disease in another person.  Because the data collected by the Health Department and CDC decided that any positive test meant the presence of disease, our data has been grossly contaminated with bad, irresponsible science. It has been so poorly collected at such a massive scale, we will never get the true results of the percentage of people that have symptomatic disease.  Our public officials pushed treatment (quarantine, masking, social distancing, etc.) even in the absence of disease (symptoms). The public was trained to assume everyone was infected until proven otherwise.  This is not science.

The scientific method was developed in the 17th Century; it is a method of answering a question by objectively testing a hypothesis to get accurate results by controlling for certain variables and manipulating one variable at the time.  It is a way to get to accurate results and establish how certain variables are associated with one another.  Throughout the years, there have been design parameters and policies put in place for specific reasons to prevent injury to humans.  There are eight phases of a vaccine trial to achieve FDA approval: Exploratory Stage, Pre-Clinical Stage, Investigational New Drug (IND) Application, Phase I Trials, Phase II Trials, Phase III Trials, Post-Licensure Monitoring, and Phase IV Trials.  Here is a brief description of all of the trial phases and typical duration in each phase:

Exploratory Stage: Basic laboratory research (2-4 years); they claim that the mRNA science has been tested for a couple of decades.

Pre-Clinical Stage: Animal trials (1-2 years)

IND Application: Submitted to the FDA and has to be approved by the institutional review board, it must include description of manufacturing methods and testing processes (30 days).

Phase I Trials: Initial adult testing with 20-80 individuals to test for safety and efficacy in a small group (variable length, but at least 6 months)

Phase II Trials: Larger human subjects with several hundred individuals to determine vaccine safety, immunogenicity, proposed doses, schedule of immunizations and method of delivery. (6 months – 2 years)

Phase III Trials:  Larger groups containing several thousands to tens of thousands of subjects, monitoring for safety, efficacy and immunogenicity on a large-scale. These are double-blind (gold standard), placebo controlled studies (1-4 years).

Post-Licensure Monitoring: Vaccine adverse reaction reporting system (VAERS) data

Phase IV Trials: Manufacturer continues to monitor drug (1-4 years)

The COVID-19 vaccine was released from four different companies in less than a year (with more on the horizon): Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca.  AstraZeneca is not approved for Emergency Use Authorization in the United States. Historically, even with familiar vaccine technology, the fastest a vaccine could get to market would normally be 5 years (to ensure safety and efficacy to a human population).  The technology that we have chosen to use, not only was approved for use much faster than any other vaccine in history, it is a technology we have NEVER used for vaccines, or treatment of any disease for that matter.  Here is the most current United States VAERS data from the COVID-19 vaccine that we have as of July 23, 2021 (adverse events CAUSED by the vaccine):

Deaths: 11,940

Hospitalization: 40,991

Urgent Care Visits: 65,067

Office Visits: 88,920

Anaphylactic Reactions: 4,110

Bell’s Palsy (facial paralysis): 3,714

Miscarriages: 1,272

Heart Attacks: 4,799

Myocarditis/Pericarditis: 3,201

Permanently Disabled: 12,808

Thrombocytopenia: 1,932

Life-Threatening Reactions: 11,199

Severe Allergic Reactions: 22,286

Tinnitus (ringing in the ears): 6,123

I do not consider, from this data, that these “vaccines” are safe and effective.

So, to answer the question, I trust the scientific method far more than I “trust the science.”  The scientific method was subverted, in this case, for a virus that is characterized as disease by a positive PCR test.  PCR testing to “diagnose” a disease is shameful and wrong.  There is a very high false-positivity rate to this type of testing, which has enabled the CDC to manipulate public hysteria at their discretion.  Fauci and his underlings have been wildly inconsistent with their messaging throughout the pandemic.  This is the largest bastardization of science and the scientific method in history.

COVID-19 Vaccination Craze

It has been a tumultuous year and a half for most people around the world.  As the pandemic began to encroach in the daily lives of us all, our lives have drastically changed and are still being affected. Unfortunately, it doesn’t even feel that we are on the back side of the pandemic yet, as the CDC has continued to double down on Americans with the new “Delta” variant. As the pandemic hysteria matured, the business I worked for presented its physician employees with a contract addendum that gave them exclusive rights to ask us to work as many hours as they deemed necessary, without any work-hour restrictions, and gave them unilateral discretion to “adjust” our pay however they wanted without notice.  Included in this addendum was a non-competition clause, not allowing me to work in all of West Michigan for a year if I decided to sign the contract, but then leave later.  I elected not to sign the Contract of Enslavement and was dismissed from the hospital in October, 2020.  The separation agreement restricts me from ever being employed by the hospital again as a consequence of my dissension. 

The hospital I worked for was a regional referral center for West Michigan and we did see high numbers of COVID-19 patients.  It was a bit frightening working in such a large center at the time because the science was evolving and there were people that did get very sick and many that died.  Although the disease seemed to primarily affect the elderly population, with certain comorbid conditions, some young people were seeing aggressive pulmonary disease requiring respiratory support. Identifying young patients at risk of the cytokine storm seemed to be elusive. As the pandemic progressed, the hospital administrators found interesting ways to intervene, making ridiculous, arbitrary decisions that had no scientific basis.  For instance, they decided to rope off hallways allowing one-way traffic; they segregated entry points into the hospital with separate entrances for hospital staff and another for patients/visitors (we were ok in the building together, we just needed to enter from different locations); employees (the people with the most exposure to COVID) were directed to enter through the Women’s Center, near the labor and delivery unit, risking exposure to pregnant women (without having any information on how COVID-19 affected a fetus or a pregnant mother); and we were inundated with masking (except while eating or drinking because the virus was respectful of dining) and our arbitrary 6’ social distancing, that still makes no sense to me to this day, as aerosols have been shown to travel up to 300 feet.

The “vaccine” became available in December, 2020 as a result of Operation Warp Speed and the Moderna vaccine became the first available.  Pfizer was shortly behind the Moderna vaccine, then followed Johnson & Johnson. When the “vaccine” became available under Emergency Use Authorization (far different than FDA approval), they were a hot commodity and many people wanted their shots to “get back to normal.” Social media platforms exploded with images of masked people getting their shots and “doing their part.” Many of these masked individuals were young, healthy people that had a minuscule mortality rate from the COVID-19 disease. They then gave daily updates on their social media sites, alerting the public that they were fine and the vaccine is safe. Unfortunately, these social media anecdotes are not equivalent to the rigors of the scientific method.  It should be recognized that we had never used this type of technology for immunizations ever in the history of medicine.  This Emergency Use Authorization was granted without animal experimentation, an important component of research trials to ensure human safety. Because this was new vaccine technology, I chose not to be an early adopter until I had more data to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

Upon my departure from the hospital, I posted a picture of my arm (as impressive as it is) on social media, with no needle going into my arm, and alerted the public that I was fine and had no side effects.  This was met with harsh resistance from my colleagues, shaming me for being irresponsible and that I needed to use my position to share with the public that the “vaccines” are safe. It was at this point that I became disheartened with the profession that I once loved. I took an oath in medical school, at our white coat ceremony, that I choose to always honor, no matter the consequence:

“I do hereby affirm my loyalty to the profession I am about to enter. I will be mindful always of my great responsibility to preserve the health and the life of my patients, to retain their confidence and respect both as a physician and a friend who will guard their secrets with scrupulous honor and fidelity, to perform faithfully my professional duties, to employ only those recognized methods of treatment consistent with good judgment and with my skill and ability, keeping in mind always nature’s laws and the body’s inherent capacity for recovery.

I will be ever vigilant in aiding in the general welfare of the community, sustaining its laws and institutions, not engaging in those practices which will in any way bring shame or discredit upon myself or my profession. I will give no drugs for deadly purposes to any person, though it be asked of me.

I will endeavor to work in accord with my colleagues in a spirit of progressive cooperation and never by word or by act cast imputations upon them or their rightful practices.

I will look with respect and esteem upon all those who have taught me my art. To my college I will be loyal and strive always for its best interests and for the interests of the students who will come after me. I will be ever alert to further the application of basic biologic truths to the healing arts and to develop the principles of osteopathy which were first enunciated by Andrew Taylor Still.”

After months of observation, further data collection and now professional uncertainty, I am still unable to suggest that these “vaccines” are safe and effective.  We know that as of July 25, 2021, 11,405 people have died due to the COVID-19 vaccines ( There are over 400,000 vaccine-related injuries as well. A whistleblower from the CDC has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services for suppressing the actual number of deaths associated with these vaccines; the actual number is around 45,000 deaths (see attached pdf below). In 1986, Ronald Regan signed H.R. 5546, National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, removing all liability from vaccine manufacturers for vaccine-related injuries. This act applies to the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers as well.  This data is being aggressively suppressed by Big Tech and our Health Department.

This has been the most aggressive and ridiculous vaccine campaign I have ever witnessed.  You can get free Krispy Kream donuts if you show your vaccination card.  The governor in Ohio had a drawing giving away 5 free college full-ride scholarships to vaccinated people and $1,000,000 a piece for 5 “lucky” vaccinated Ohioans. We are inundated with politicians (not scientists, physicians or public health officials) pushing the vaccine on the American people. We get free food, free money, free college, etc., but only for the vaccinated individuals. I believe, if the vaccines were so important for survival of our species, that would be incentive enough for receipt. Our government officials have gone to great lengths bribing people to take the “vaccine,” now they are moving toward punishment of the unvaccinated.  They have started punishing the vaccinated as well to promote discord and segregation between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.  This is an attempt to bully the unvaccinated into getting the shot by coercion which is the most vile trick imaginable.

We are now in the era of vaccine mandates, despite their short duration and already dismal track record.  We still have no long-term data on them whether they cause very serious problems in 5-10 years, like cancer, dementia, etc.  These are remnants of genetic material and we don’t know how the body metabolizes this foreign mRNA code. There is a report that they do demonstrate prion-like disease (mad cow disease, kuru, etc.) in an in vitro testing ( Because of my adamant resistance to push this “vaccine” on people, and refusal to take it myself, I am at risk of losing my job and being banished from medicine altogether.  Vaccine mandates by big medical systems are coming rapidly, despite the questionable legality. It has been my decision to stand in solidarity against these vaccines and lose everything that I have worked for to protect my fellow man, as that is the duty I have accepted when I took my oath. I had always anticipated leaving medicine on my terms, but it appears that this decision is being made for me at a pretty rapid pace.  God has something better in store for me and I await to see what that is.

System of Profits Over Results

When I was growing up, I was fascinated by the human body and the way it worked.  I was immediately drawn to the biological sciences, physiology and anatomy.  On the surface, I found the medical profession, as a whole, driven by knowledge, curiosity and strived for continued advancement to improve the human condition.  Much to my dismay, this is an illusion, focusing on short-term metrics and missing the larger picture. Hyperspecialization and expanding understanding in the nuances of certain fields of medicine give us, both physicians and patients, false comfort that we are progressing rapidly for the greater good of our patients. Unfortunately, in most cases, this is not the situation.  I’m not suggesting that all medical research is not impactful for improvement of quality or longevity of life, but much of it is not.  As a society, we have become fatter and sicker through modernity and with contemporary practice methods.

As our understanding of all disciplines of medicine have significantly expanded in the last 60 years, it has led to disappointing results. In the last 60 years, the life expectancy in the United States has only increased by 8.5 years.1  Meanwhile, in that same period of time, obesity rates have increased nearly 300%.2,3 Not only have our obesity rates increased, our super obesity rates have increased disproportionately.  There has been nearly a 600% increase in the prevalence of type II diabetes mellitus in that time frame.4 Cancer diagnoses have increased (some of this is due to more rigorous screening).5 The United States spent $730.4 billion in 2016 on preventable diseases.6 These are only some of the staggering statistics demonstrating worsening health of Americans, despite our medical advancements.  I don’t want to suggest that all medical services rendered are futile, but it’s hard to ignore that the industry promotes disease maintenance rather than restoration of health.

I cannot think of another industry that provides such an expensive service with such dismal results. The National Institutes of Health, the major funding source for medical research in the United States, has an annual budget for medical research around $41.7 billion.7 Preventable disease costs in the United States continue to increase annually, but there have been no initiatives that have reversed this trend. While we would like to believe that our government is independent of medical “progress,” the two are very much integrated. Application of a medical grant is quite onerous and have to be approved by a committee within the entity that is providing the funding. Most of the research dollars come from the federal government as they have the most money to hand out to the researchers applying for the grants. If the research you are interested in does not coincide with what the government wants us to “know,” it is not funded. Private companies (Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, etc.) do have independent funds for research and development as well, but ultimately have to “play by the rules” the government sets in order to have a fair consideration when the Food and Drug Administration reviews products for market approval. Our government primarily controls what they want us to know by controlling the grant money. They don’t have an interest in us having knowledge in how to cure disease because that would eliminate a revenue stream.

In the book “Antifragile,” written by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, he writes about noise-to-signal ratio as it applies to research.  Much of what we read is noise and it is difficult to identify signal amongst the noise.  Many university professors are required to either pay their own salary or significantly support their salary by acquiring grants and producing publications.  Not everything that is published has significant impact in their field of study.  Editors of many of these journals are very financially and socially connected to certain institutions and researchers.  That certainly plays a role in the content that is published.  A lot of medical research has very small sample sizes and we are supposed to extrapolate the results to a much larger population.  Statistical analysis attempts to control for all variables, but this is not always perfect.  Mark Twain once said, “There are three types of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics.” I am by no means attacking the discipline of statistics, but it is not perfect. There are numerous layers of bias that goes into publication from the people supplying the grant money to the editors that publish the research. It is not only important intellectual ideas that progress science, there is a significant financial and social component that is involved.

Ultimately I’m an optimist, but I’m quite pessimistic that we will produce a system that will result in resolving the problem of “preventable diseases.” The government and hospital systems would lose out on significant sums of money if we had a population of healthy people. We have found a way to make lots of money from obese patients through bariatric surgery. Other chronic diseases are well maintained on medication. Polypharmacy has become the norm for our elderly population. I would submit that the human body was not designed to be sustained on chemicals and procedures. Our society has been conditioned to believe that there is a quick fix for all conditions. When people have lived with decades of poor biology, it is impossible to correct this poor biology with a physician’s prescription with a pharmaceutical “cure.”








When to Fight or When to Fold?

We all have varying tolerances of how we will allow others to treat us as individuals.  When there are seemingly high stakes (financial loss, loss of a friendship, family disruption, etc.), that tolerance seems to increase, as setting firm personal boundaries can be risky and result in perceptible, short-term negative consequences. The book “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” written by Stephen Covey, addresses personal interaction and the tolerances that most people will allow.  He equates relationships to “emotional bank accounts;” there are deposits and withdrawals.  When a person/entity overdraws, this negatively impacts that sanctity of the relationship.  If a relationship is bound to financial compensation (especially when it affects an entire family and livelihood), it increases the complexity of the relationship and tolerance.

It requires a certain level of bravery to draw a hard moral line in the sand, especially when there is risk for significant financial loss.  Many people during the pandemic were furloughed or let go, which is highly devastating and the decision was made for them.  When a person is morally stressed, but has good job security, it becomes easy to develop moral relativity. I have recently been presented with a COVID-19 injection mandate by my employer.  This violates all of my beliefs about how people/patients should be treated.  Informed consent is far different than coerced consent and it just so happens that much of the information needed to make this critical decision is being censored.  The important question to ask is “why” is it being censored?

You may have seen in my previous post that I question the COVID-19 injection mechanism of action on how it stimulates the immune system. It doesn’t make any sense biologically, as the lipophilic nanoparticles do not target immune-specific cells.  We, as a society, have been programmed to accept, by blind faith, that our Big Pharma companies care about us and our health.  If any of you have worked in Corporate America, you may realize that most companies covet profit over their employees.  Big Pharma is no different.  Unfortunately, the system that has been created requires that physicians be “aligned” with organizational trajectory and they link compensation to physician compliance.

The process by which this occurs is slow, deliberate decisions to strip decision-making away from the physicians.  I have discussed how that has been allowed to happen in my previous post.  It is death by a thousand cuts. It happens by such a slow process that employees accept small losses in hope to get some negotiating power later.  This never happens. What is lost is lost and it will never come back.  If you are perceived as maligned with the organization, they make your life quite challenging.  Therefore, we sacrifice ourselves, accepting moral relativity, in exchange for financial comfort.  In my experience, health care systems are not interested in a zero sum game, they are interested in dominating. Dominating the geographical area, patient population and real estate.  Health care no longer exists in this country; it is big business, with a substantial revenue flow, disguised as health care.  

It is time for physicians to take our profession back.  We have allowed this perversion of our profession and have lost all control.  I think it is time for a change and focus on health restoration and maintenance rather than disease management.  Our current health care system is good for hospital executives, insurance companies and Big Pharma.  The system is detrimental to physicians, patients and communities.  Fighting back for our noble profession should be our #1 priority; and what better time than now?

Corporatized Medicine and the Gradual Destruction of Physician Independence

It goes without saying that modern healthcare is a financial anomaly, that mostly benefits one side. No other line of business operates in such a convoluted payment scheme. The system works for large hospital systems and insurance companies, but fails the people that it advertises to serve. We have observed the obesity epidemic to flourish without a robust counterattack necessary to combat this “pandemic.” If we mobilized our resources as aggressively for preventible disease as we did for COVID-19, we would be well equipped as a system to address the true problems that affect far more people than COVID-19 ever will.

Hospital systems have a unique way of collecting money which is perverted from any other transactional situation you’ve ever encountered. Most large hospitals are “non-profit organizations.” This gives them tax exemption status. Secondly, the itemized bill that the patient receives from the hospital is not at all what the hospital is paid by the insurance company. The hospital has negotiated, with each insurance company, a rate in which they will accept for payment. For instance, if a bill is $100,000 for the patient, your insurance company (depending on their market penetration in that area) may negotiate a 60% reduced payment schedule. Therefore, the insurance company would only pay $40,000, but if you were to pay out of pocket, you would owe the hospital the entire $100,000. Negotiations that the hospital and insurance company have agreed upon is not public information. When the hospital accepts a significantly reduced payment, they track the amount of “uncompensated care,” the delta between the actual amount and the negotiated amount throughout the year. At the end of the year, the hospital will submit this “loss” to the federal government for reimbursement through the Disproportionate Share Hospital program through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In 2017, the amount of taxpayer dollars that were dispersed to these hospitals, collectively was $17,100,000,000 ($17.1B).

As the compensation for hospitals have kept pace or exceeded the rate of inflation, individual physicians have been suffering yearly decreases in reimbursement, forcing us to work harder for similar or decreasing wages. Because of this disparity, the lower paying specialties (but arguably the most important), like internal medicine, pediatrics, family practice have been unable to pay overhead for their individual offices. This has driven them toward hospital employment in order to maintain their practice and still receive a decent wage for the service they provide to the community. At this point, the federal government has gained control of our entire health care system based on “initiatives” they feel are important. Compensation for the physician is then tied to the “initiatives” that the hospital system believes are important. These initiatives are usually screening for certain illnesses that will continue to trap the patient in the hospital system and the hospital maintains the revenue stream from that one patient. If you do this on a large scale, this equates to a significant amount of money.

Now that hospital systems control the physicians, there is significant disruption in the patient/physician relationship. We now see them as a transaction, rather than a person. It has dehumanized the way that we originally started. There has been a significant increase in the number of administrators in hospital systems over the last 3 decades, far outpacing the growth of physicians. Health care costs have kept pace with the number of administrators that have been hired. Physicians salaries have slightly increased over the last 6 decades, but slower than the rate of inflation. This is not a sustainable system and it has become a real problem for patients.

The COVID-19 Conundrum

Although this should be a science-driven topic, led by physicians and researchers, this pandemic has been horribly politically contaminated. To my dismay, our approach (conventional medicine) to this infectious disease has been eerily different than any other condition we diagnose and treat. I feel that there are a few reasons for this, but I am going to avoid personal opinion in this blog post. Because of the political divide regarding mask-wearing ideology, impact of mRNA vaccinations or efficacy of an arbitrary 6′ social distancing radius, I will try to stick to factual information that is unable to be politically disputed.

When the COVID-19 pandemic started to hit mainstream media, right around February 2020, I was returning home from Bangladesh on a mission trip, treating an underserved village in Sirajganj district of the Rajshahi division in Bangladesh. I was traveling home from the capitol city, Dhaka, when I received an e-mail on my cell phone from the CDC telling me that there had been one documented diagnosis of COVID-19 in Dhaka. Dhaka is a city of 20 million people, and Bangladesh does not have the capacity or resources needed to test (especially that early in the pandemic) enough people, but it was unlikely just one person that had been affected in a city of that size, living in tight quarters.

When I returned home to Michigan, February 5, 2020, I had come down with a very nasty respiratory infection and had no reserve when trying to work out. I was tired, had the chills and a bad respiratory illness that lasted for about 6 weeks. At that point, I thought it was just a bad respiratory bug that lingered for weeks on end. My family and co-workers thought nothing of it as the pandemic had not reached the states, according to the mainstream media. My wife and kids remained healthy, even without distancing, masking and only sleeping in a separate room than my wife for a couple of nights. We were in Florida on vacation in early March, and this is when COVID started to become real for the citizens of the United States. While we were there, this is the time that Disney World shut down. For a while, we didn’t even know if we were going to be able to get a flight home to Michigan.

As the pandemic progressed, my thoughts have evolved. I have learned a lot and have become disappointed in a lot. Most of my disappointment lies with some of my colleagues that have been persuaded by media propaganda and have lacked the critical analysis of the data that we have been given. Virtually nobody (there may be some centenarians, but too young to remember) has lived through a pandemic with the last one being the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918. Because of this, this situation was “new” to our medical discipline. It felt as if our medical colleagues and system started making decisions out of emotional panic rather than calm, rational, strategic thinking.

Here is what we know:

1.) The CDC has an approved patent on the “Coronavirus Isolated from Humans”:

This patent was granted in 8/17/2010 with an extended expiration of 7/17/2024. This patent is illegal. Under 35 U.S.C. Section 101, a patent on something natural is prohibited. If the coronavirus was manufactured, a patent is legal, but it is a violation of biological and chemical weapons. This patent also gave them a patent on a specific detection method and a test kit for the virus. This gave the CDC complete control over the entire industrial complex surrounding the coronavirus.

2.) The CDC has a patent on “Methods for producing recombinant coronavirus”:

Ralph Baric, Ph.D., is a virologist and UNC-Chapel Hill, he received funding through the CDC to conduct “Gain of Function” research on the coronavirus.

3.) This is the only disease that we search for, whether you’re healthy or sick.

During our medical training, we are instructed to order exams based on a patient’s symptoms. With rising health care costs for patients, we try to be judicious about ordering tests or imaging exams. The coronavirus has adopted a different approach and we not will test EVERYONE, whether you’re sick or not. Indications for testing is enormously broad and one of the symptoms of the disease is simply human existence.  This lack of judicious testing, in addition to making PCR the gold standard for detection, has grossly inflated the positive test results and deaths attributed to COVID-19 around the world.

4.) The logic of basic science of how vaccines and immune systems work have been abandoned.

Historical vaccinations have been inactivated virus/bacteria, live-attenuated viruses, toxoid or viral vector vaccines.  This mRNA vaccination has never been used on a large scale and the animal testing was bypassed in order for emergency use. The basic science surrounding these vaccines are sound.  The virus is injected into the body and the white blood cell (macrophage) “eats” the virus and digests it in the phagolysosome.  The white blood cell then identifies a foreign piece of material to the virus and places it on the cell surface for presentation for development of humoral immunity (antibody generation through B- lymphocytes and stimulation of helper and memory T-lymphocytes).  This presentation is very important for the induction and perpetuation of immunity to a certain invading organism.

With the mRNA vaccine, its vector is a lipophilic (fat-loving) granule, carrying a 40,000 positive-sense RNA molecule for the spike protein.  “Corona” stands for “crown,” and it gets this name from the numerous spike proteins that sit on the cell surface.  When the lipophilic granule gets into the body, it doesn’t selectively target the white blood cell, it just gets incorporated into the nearest cell, because there is no target on the surface of the lipophilic granule to ONLY go to the white blood cells.  Also, the phagolysosome is intricately involved in the antigen presentation to the humoral immune system, which is bypassed with this mRNA particle.

When it incorporated into the cytoplasm of the cell, ribosomes (protein manufacturers) begin making multiple copies of the spike protein, usually within the muscle cell, since this is an intramuscular administration.  The muscle cell has one function — to contract.  It has no idea how to present foreign material to the immune system and it’s not the job of the muscle cell to do this.  Apparently, the spike protein is transported out of the cell and into the intravascular space, but these particles are too small to stimulate phagocytosis and go freely in the blood stream.  We do not test for antibodies after vaccination, which I think many people would be surprised that no antibodies have been generated, based on the process required, with a different method of vaccination.

The spike protein is a fusigenic (sticky) protein causing rouleaux formation of red blood cells, leading to coagulopathic conditions (heart attacks, strokes, miscarriages).  I have also seen reports of the spike protein crossing the blood-brain barrier and behaving like a prion disease, a rapidly progressive, irreversible neurological disorder (i.e. mad cow and kuru). – 

5.) PCR testing is inappropriate as the “gold standard” for detection of the virus

For those of you unfamiliar with PCR testing, it stands for polymerase chain reaction.  The developer of this technology, Kary Mullis, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 for this discovery.  It has myriad uses in nucleic acid science and has been able to detect presence of DNA from a very tiny, almost undetectable, sample size.  The way it works is that a sample of interest is placed into a broth of nucleic acids with a long base ‘primer’ that will attach to a certain sequence that we are looking for, specific to the virus or DNA sample we are looking for.  Then we duplicate the sample for a certain number of cycles to get a much larger sample to see if the “thing” we are looking for is actually present.  It is a highly sensitive (will identify presence of), but non-specific test.  Specificity refers to the ability of a test to rule out a disease in question.  PCR can detect presence of RNA, but is unable to tell us if there is enough viral particle to cause symptoms or pass on to someone else.

Historically, we have used a threshold of 17 cycles to determine presence of nucleic acid in question, but the CDC and WHO increased this threshold to 40 cycles, which will detect and even smaller amount of RNA present.  This is completely inappropriate test because of its lack of specificity.  A good test, especially for an infectious disease, is a test that has both high sensitivity (ability to detect the disease) and high specificity (the disease is actually causing the symptoms we’re looking for.  Because there is a high sensitivity, but low specificity, we end up with a very large false positivity rate.  This is an absolute disaster of a detection method, especially for a virus causing a pandemic.

I hope this post helps elucidate the science behind COVID-19, the vaccine and detection of the illness.  One main question I have now is: how was the coronavirus RNA so stable for over a year, but now we’re seeing massive instability with numerous variants? This boggles my mind and seemingly defies all logic.

Health Care or Disease Management?

I am an orthopedic trauma surgeon in Grand Rapids, MI and have become disillusioned by the health care system in which I operate. It is my intent to use this blog, in addition to a podcast that I am going to launch, to suggest to my followers that there need to be some radical changes in our “health care” system to provide an environment that will start working for the consumer.

When I am discussing our medical system with many people, I describe our current system as “disease management,” and try to convince them that true health care doesn’t exist in hospital systems. We have allowed MBAs to hijack our noble profession and this has effectively disrupted the essence of the sacred patient-doctor relationship. It has become an “encounter” factory that has led to high burnout (or moral injury) rates and high suicide rates among physicians. This is counterintuitive to our entire mission, when dedicating your life to helping others. How can we provide the necessary help to others if we are so morally and ethically demoralized by the toxic system that has been established? I propose to you that it is impossible and it is well demonstrated in the results of many of our patients.

As I came to the realization that we live in a perpetual system designed to lose (for the sake of corporate profit), I became quite cynical and depressed. There is a system out there that can and will work much better; it requires early individual engagement in a program; re-educating the general public about healthy habits; focusing treatment of mind, body and spirit; rejecting the idea that pharmaceuticals and polypharmacy is the cure to disease; and being held accountable to the plan. Over the last few months, I have become much more hopeful and excited for the future of medicine. It will involve a self-directed, personalized health environment that would primarily eliminate an insurance intermediary. It will not eliminate the need for medical insurance or ALL pharmaceuticals (at least initially), but the aim would be to lower monthly premiums because our patients are more healthy.

I hope you find this blog (and eventually the podcast) to be engaging and insightful. Our corporatized health care system has been a disaster for many and will only continue to get worse. It will be my goal to post a 3-4 blogs per week initially on different topic, all of which I feel are paramount to living a healthy and happy lifestyle!