Scientific "Consensus" Loses A Legal Challenge

“Incontestible” (/ĭn″kən-tĕs′tə-bəl/): 1) not open to question, obviously true or 2) incapable of being contested or disputed.
 My readers may recall the four part series that I published which detailed my expert legal defense of Canadian emergency medicine physician Dr. Charles Hoffe. To recap, Dr. Hoffe is defending himself against the British Columbia (BC) College of Physicians and Surgeons who are going after his license (and his money) for publicly sharing his medical and scientific opinions on various aspects of Covid, the vaccines, and early repurposed medicine treatments. The College’s position is that his opinions consist of “misinformation which harms the public.”
 A brief review of Dr. Hoffe’s case:
 Canadian community doctor Dr. Charles Hoffe was one of the first to notice something was “wrong” with the vaccines in April 2021 after he witnessed terrible injuries (strokes etc.) and even a death in the patients he was vaccinating. He then wrote an open letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia with his observations and concerns, suggesting that perhaps the jabs should be put on pause until their safety could be more assured. One paragraph from the letter said:
 “In our small community of Lytton, BC, we have one person dead, and three people who look as though they will be permanently disabled, following their first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The age of those affected ranges from 38 to 82 years of age,” he wrote.
 Hoffe was then banned from working in the local emergency ward and other provincial hospitals. He later submitted more than a dozen claims of vaccine injuries on behalf of his patients, but all were denied validity.
 *For more background, click tweet below by Dr. Mark Trozzi (another persecuted Canadian doctor) for a summary of what is happening to Hoffe (it also includes a link to a powerful speech by Dr. Hoffe).

 I submitted lengthy and highly referenced pro-bono defenses of four of Hoffe’s many accurate statements (my colleagues Jessica Rose, Kevin Mckiernan, and Peter McCullough defended other of his statements). The 5 statements that I defended were:
 “ Ivermectin is very effective in the prevention of Covid ”

 “Ivermectin is very effective in the treatment of Covid ”

 “Given the near complete restriction on access to ivermectin by the Canadian gov’t, it is reasonable to use veterinary formulations ”

 “ Ivermectin is an unbelievably safe treatment for Covid ”

 “Covid mRNA vaccine shedding is real and can cause disease in non-vaccinated people”

 Although our team of experts wrote lengthy and highly referenced defenses supporting the scientific accuracy of Hoffe’s many public statements, the College responded with a motion submitted to the Disciplinary Panel, “seeking judicial notice of the truth of facts.”
 Wait, what? “Judicial notice?” “Truth of facts?” Let me explain (from Brave browser AI):

 So what “facts” were they seeking judicial notice of? The below was taken from the summary of the Panel’s ruling written by Hoffe’s amazing attorney Lee Turner (his legal summary is included in full at the end of this post):
 The College asked the disciplinary panel to take judicial notice of the following “facts” and thereby prevent Dr. Hoffe from presenting any contrary evidence in his defense ( Ed: I bolded what I maintain are the “false facts” in the list below) :
 The Covid virus kills or causes other serious effects;

 The virus does not discriminate;

 Vaccines work;

 Vaccines are generally safe and have a low risk of harmful effects, especially in children;

 Infection and transmission of the COVID-19 virus is less likely to occur among fully vaccinated individuals than for those who are unvaccinated ; vaccines do not prevent infection, reinfection or transmission, but they reduce the severity of symptoms and the risk of bad outcomes;

 Health Canada has approved COVID vaccines, and regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness;

 Health Canada has not approved ivermectin to treat COVID-19; and

 Health Canada advises that Canadians should not consume the veterinary version of ivermectin.

 Subscribe now
 Fortunately for Dr. Hoffe, in its June 29, 2024 decision, the disciplinary panel declined to take judicial notice of items 2-5 , did take judicial notice of items 7-8 (the straightforward anti-ivermectin recommendations), and took judicial notice of a revised version of items 1 and 6. The short story on Item 6 is that they ruled “the safety and efficacy of a pharmaceutical product cannot be discussed in such blunt fashion as to say that it "is" or "is not" safe and effective.” Further, they “ declined to take judicial notice that Health Canada’s approval was a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness .” Hah! So, essentially, the College was shot down in their attempts to gain “judicial notice” for absurd and easily disprovable scientific falsehoods.
 Note that the above attempt at “judicial action” is exactly what the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) did in their response to me and Paul Marik’s defense against their accusations that we violated their shiny new “misinformation policy” that the ABIM launched in the middle of Covid.
 With the help of lawyer Alan Dumoff, we submitted a massive 69 page document with eleven exhibits (totaling hundreds of pages) and almost two hundred references which supported the numerous scientific statements that we had publicly made about ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and the mRNA vaccines.
 In regard to our treatise on ivermectin, they simply rebutted our conclusion using less than a handful of the over 100 controlled trials available. They then simply claimed that our statements on ivermectin were wrong and that ivermectin did not work (note they only pulled from the fraudulent “Big 6” trials and ignored all the meta-analyses). Total joke.
 On the inefficacy of vaccines claim, they literally cited the original 2020 Pfizer trial purportedly showing 95% effectiveness (with more deaths in the vaccine arm) as well as other vaccine manufacturer conducted trials. Note they cited the findings of the 2020 study to support their argument… in July of 2023. Yup.
 But their response to our detailed analyses and citations showing the toxicity of the Covid mRNA vaccines was nothing short of outrageous. I maintain it was an example of a type of “judicial notice” type action because they ignored all of the immense data we had provided by instead simply concluding that the mRNA vaccines were safe based on, get this… the published “consensus” opinions of completely captured agencies like the CDC and WHO as follows:
 Moreover, the vaccine safety data overwhelmingly contradicts your statements about vaccine risks. See, e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines,” https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/safety-of-vaccines.html (updated March 7, 2023) (reporting that “Adverse Events (Serious Safety Problems) Are Rare,” and that “[t]he benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks”); World Health Organization, “Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines,” https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/safety-of-covid-19-vaccines (March 31, 2021) (stating that “[b]illions of people have been safely vaccinated against COVID-19,” that “mRNA vaccines [for COVID-19] have been rigorously assessed for safety, and clinical trials have shown that they provide a long-lasting immune response”).
 The ABIM basically said to us, as Attorney Turner wrote in his summary of the BC College Panel decision, “It is so because we (CDC and WHO) say it is so.” Insane. Remember, scientific conclusions should be transparent, debatable, and allow for differences in interpretation and weighting of evidence. It should also draw data from as many sources as possible (i.e. the totality of the evidence approach). Further, conclusions should change accordingly as data accumulates and evolves. I would now also add that scientific conclusions should avoid over-reliance on captured medical journals controlled by Pharma and RCT’s controlled by Pharma - those sources are highly suspect and in my mind are the root cause of everything that went wrong in medicine during Covid.
 The best part of the ABIM’s argument was this absurd contradictory statement:
 For all these reasons, the CCC (Credentials and Certification Committee) concluded that you have provided false or inaccurate medical information to the public. Your conduct thus poses concerns for patient safety. Contrary to the assertions in your submissions, the CCC does not reach this conclusion as a means of advocating for “public health messaging,” stifling legitimate scientific debate, or questioning whether physicians may – as they deem appropriate – prescribe medications off-label for their patients. Rather, the CCC seeks to “further the professional integrity of medicine by encouraging evidence-based debate” (emphasis added). Indeed, as set forth in ABIM’s False or Inaccurate Medical Information policy, physicians have an ethical and professional responsibility to provide factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus driven scientific evidence.
 The contradiction (in case you didn’t catch it) is that they say they want to “encourage evidence based debate” but only if the data we use to debate is limited to “ consensus driven scientific evidence .” What? How can you debate a scientific topic when you can only use evidence that has been deemed valid by their own established “consensus?” Clown world my friends. And that is why we are likely to lose our ABIM certifications. Note that although the CCC voted to revoke our certification already, the decision is not final because, subsequent to the CCC’s above letter, Paul and I were allowed to defend ourselves in an appeal hearing before a panel of physicians but we are still awaiting that panels final decision.
 However, in the Hoffe case, the recent Panel decision to not allow “judicial notice,” as Lee Turner wrote in his summary, “prevents regulatory bodies from saying “it is so because we say it is so.”  They instead now have to prove the facts they assert and those who disagree will be allowed to challenge those facts and present contrary evidence.
 Scientific debate is still alive for Dr. Hoffe and us expert witnesses. Game on. My deposition as an expert witness is coming up this month. Wish me luck :)

 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, Op-Ed’s, and pro bono doctor defenses, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated.
 Subscribe now
 *Dr. Hoffe’s Attorney, Lee Turner, wrote a summary of the import and details of the panels decision from a legal perspective below:

 Dr. Charles Hoffe is a family and (former) emergency room physician in British Columbia who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia for making public statements about SARS-CoV-2, the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, and other alternative treatments including ivermectin, has successfully defeated an application made by the College seeking judicial notice of the truth of facts alleged by the College concerning these issues. In its efforts to discipline the physician, the College has alleged that the statements made by the physician are misleading, incorrect or inflammatory and constitute professional misconduct. The College asked the discipline panel to take judicial notice of the following facts and thereby prevent the doctor from presenting any contrary evidence in his defence:
 The Covid virus kills or causes other serious effects;

 The virus does not discriminate;

 Vaccines work;

 Vaccines are generally safe and have a low risk of harmful effects, especially in children;

 Infection and transmission of the COVID-19 virus is less likely to occur among fully vaccinated individuals than for those who are unvaccinated; vaccines do not prevent infection, reinfection or transmission, but they reduce the severity of symptoms and the risk of bad outcomes;

 Health Canada has approved COVID vaccines, and regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness;

 Health Canada has not approved ivermectin to treat COVID-19; and

 Health Canada advises that Canadians should not consume the veterinary version of ivermectin.

 In its June 29, 2024 decision, the disciplinary panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia declined to take judicial notice of items 2-5, did take judicial notice of items 7-8 (the straightforward ivermectin claims), and took judicial notice of a revised version of items 1 and 6.
 The panel was prepared to take judicial notice of item 1 that reads:  "COVID-19 can kill or cause other serious effects”.
 The College explained their rationale for taking judicial notice of a revised version of item 1 by referencing evidence presented by the doctor in his defence that included the following:
 risk of severe disease and death from COVID-19 is extremely skewed to those above 70 years of age, especially those with multiple comorbidities. The average age of persons that died from COVID-19 in Canada was approximately 84 years old;

 very low proportion of COVID-19 related deaths in Canada occurred in those under 50 years of age-the data shows very high (although not 100%) survival rates for those under 70;

 average rate of lethality from COVID-19 for Canadians is much lower than estimates given by public health officials; and

 reported hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, because many hospitalizations and deaths "with, and not from" COVID-19 were wrongly attributed to COVID-19

 With respect to item 6, the panel endorsed findings of an earlier provincial Court of Appeal decision that held the safety and efficacy of any drug is always relative and as a rule the safety and efficacy of a pharmaceutical product cannot be discussed in such blunt fashion as to say that it "is" or "is not" safe and effective. The panel held that the issues raised in the citation should be determined based upon the evidence that is tested through cross-examination rather than by taking judicial notice of one party's assertion of the facts, and in this case, based upon statements made by public health officials or public health agencies.  The panel held that it was prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that Health Canada had approved  the COVID -19 vaccines, but declined to take judicial notice that Health Canada’s approval was a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness.
 This decision on the issue of judicial notice, is consistent with the June 28, 2024 decision of the US Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo Secretary of Commerce et. al. which overturned the landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.   The Chevron decision had given rise to what is commonly referred to as the Chevron deference doctrine. Under this doctrine, federal agencies had the power to interpret a law that they administer when that law is vaguely written, and courts were required to defer to the agency's interpretation of a statute. In Loper, the US Supreme Court rejected the Chevron deference doctrine calling it "fundamentally misguided." They said court should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous laws rather than having to accept the agency's interpretation. Commentators have suggested that the Chevron deference doctrine gave the powerful - the people who control the agencies like the FDA, CDC and FCC - a significant advantage in court making them essentially the ultimate decision-makers in interpreting ambiguous laws. Commentators have pointed out that many of these agencies are captive agencies with close ties, including financial ties, to the industries that they are charged with regulating and therefore they lack objectivity with respect to those industries. The ruling in Labor means that federal judges now have more authority to interpret these laws.   The decision by the British Columbia Disciplinary Panel of the College of Physicians of Surgeons of British Columbia prevents regulatory bodies from saying “it is so because we say it is so”.  They have to prove the facts they assert and those who disagree will be allowed to challenge those facts and present contrary evidence.
 The case against Dr. Hoffe is far from over. This development is significant in that a government agency cannot make the rules, interpret them, and claim they hold the truth on an evolving scientific or medical issue.
 Lee C. Turner, Partner, Doak Sherriff Lawyers, LLC, Kelowna BC V1Y 2A9
 (Professional Law Corporation)

Summary: In a recent development in the defense of Dr. Charles Hoffe against the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons, the judge ruled that the College has to prove its alleged "incontestable truths."


Is Joe Biden's Brain Vaccine Injured?

Story at a Glance:
 • One of the most common side effects of the COVID-19 vaccination we’ve observed is cognitive impairment. This can range from brain fog to dementia, and frequently we see a rapid acceleration of pre-existing cognitive decline into Alzheimer’s disease.

• Recently large data sets have emerged which support our observations and indicate millions of people are being affected by the adverse neurological effects of the vaccines. Those datasets are summarized here.

•After Joe Biden became president, he had a rapid decline in cognitive function, leading many to say he is not the same man who assumed the presidency four years ago. Since that decline paralleled his vaccination uptake, the pertinent medical information about his case is provided here so you can assess if the two were indeed linked.

•Many other prominent Democrats have had significant vaccination injuries, including 8% of the Democratic Senators. Each of their brain injuries (3 strokes and encephalitis) and their link to vaccination are discussed here. This article particularly focus on Dianne Feinstein’s case, because like Biden, she had pre-existing cognitive impairment which rapidly progressed after the COVID vaccines (which she forced on America) hit the market and rather than admit it, she did everything she could to cover it up until she died.

Throughout my life, I have had the experience of being able to clearly see something, and have everyone around me, including a lot of “experts,” insist that what I’m seeing does not exist, and then a few years later have my observation become generally accepted as true. This for example describes my experience with the COVID vaccines, as within a month of them being on the market, I had seen so many significant or severe injuries (and deaths) it was clear to me the shots were much more toxic than a typical pharmaceutical. Nonetheless, regardless of what I said, most of my colleagues (except those who were injured by the vaccines) would not listen to me, and it’s only now that mainstream doctors (or left-wing individuals) are beginning to accept that the vaccines were a mistake.
 Similarly, throughout Biden’s presidency, it’s been very clear to me that Biden has progressively increasing cognitive impairment, yet with most of the left-wing individuals I am close to, every piece of evidence I’ve presented to substantiate this allegation is either written off as right-wing propaganda I am being hypnotized by or met with a bizarre excuse to account for Biden’s behavior. Likewise, many of my friends have had similar experiences when discussing this issue within their circle (e.g., to family members).
 Yesterday, Biden shocked the world by having a debate performance which made it clear even to ardent Democrats that he was suffering from cognitive impairment. I, in turn, watched the entire left-wing media implicitly or overtly state that Biden was cognitively impaired and that there was panic throughout the Democrat party of him running in November, as it was both clear Biden could not win and that many other Democrats would also lose because many of their voters would not want to show up to vote for Biden and hence would not vote for the rest of the ticket.
 This in turn suggests two distinct possibilities:

The first is that this debate was used to swap Biden out of the nomination after the primaries were completed (so an insider the public would never vote for could be appointed to the presidency).
 The second is that most of the Democratic party (and much of the mass media) genuinely believed Biden cognitive issues were a “right wing conspiracy” and their responses last night were that of a state of genuine shock.
 In this article, I am going to focus on the second possibility as I feel it also ties into the broader issue of vaccine injuries that has swept the Democrat party.
 The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. To find out how others have benefitted from this publication, click here .

 The Vaccine Mass Formation
 Whenever you observe groups, you will often observe people defaulting to mimicking the behaviors of the group so that they can fit in and be accepted. In time, this often evolves to there being a very characteristic linguistic style and set of behaviors that emerges—which in many cases seems to be prioritized over the actual substance of what the group is about (e.g., I meet many people who claim to align with “the science” who copy the same phrases and chains of logic prominent scientists like Anthony Fauci use but simultaneously don’t understand any of the scientific points they are discussing).
 Many examples of this mimicry occur. For example, I know numerous men who came out of the closest and then rapidly adopted an identical lispy and flamboyant style of speech, while in the New Age field, I’ve noticed the underlying thread they all share in common is a very distinctive style of speech which emphasizes a profound jubilation over a variety of inconsequential things they encounter. What’s remarkable about this mimicry is that you can often provide non-sensical examples of it that are fully embraced by the group (e.g., I periodically send my New Age friends random nonsense created by a New Age language generator which matches the cadence of the New Age field and frequently receive accolades from my friends). Likewise, in academia, it’s been repeatedly shown that if one produces incoherent nonsense that is written in the postmodernist style, it will often make it to publication (and likewise I’ve had a lot of fun over the years with essays from a nonsensical postmodernist language generator many take as being legitimate scholarly writings).
 In turn, I’ve noticed that in some groups, this repetition or desire to belong to the group will magnify, and before long reinforce itself into cult-like behaviors that seem completely insane to an outside observer—a process which is particularly likely to happen if a nefarious individual deliberately manipulates the group to create this behavior (e.g., a shrewd marketing team, a talented dictator, or a sociopathic cult leader).
 Note: while modern marketing has become remarkably effective at inducing this hypnosis (especially since marketers have the ability to broadcast the hypnotic message throughout the mass media so everyone feels pressured to conform to it), the most powerful manipulation (which is still not possible to standardize) occurs from individuals who figured out how to spiritually manipulate others. In turn, since I’ve seen those people do horrible stuff throughout my lifetime, I previously wrote an article explaining how to recognize spiritual manipulation and not be susceptible to it or the dangerous spiritual practices which accompany it.
 Recently, Matthias Desmet brought the world’s attention to the mass formation hypothesis , which is essentially what happens when the concept I just described (individuals wanting to belong to a group and copying its non-verbal behaviors) becomes magnified to the point that they do completely irrational things, hallucinate things at odds with reality (e.g., seeing a face on the moon), and become willing to engage in truly horrific behavior (e.g., genociding another race or sacrificing their children to the state).
 Desmet’s hypothesis became popular as it provided a potential explanation for why our leaders chose to enact a series of horrific COVID-19 policies, and continued to double-down on them regardless of how much evidence emerged showing the policies were a terrible idea. Conversely, it attracted a lot of animosity as many interpreted it as removing the responsibility from those who were clearly at fault for inflicting all of these horrors upon us (which I believe to be a misinterpretation of what Desmet argued).
 In turn with the COVID vaccines, like many, I noticed there was a hypnotic fixation on them which led to the believers wanting to vaccinate as many people as possible (regardless of the human rights violations that required) and no amount of evidence being sufficient to convince them the vaccines weren’t a good idea.
 One of the things I believe was the strongest proof for this was the fact that as the Democrat leadership continued to promote vaccination mandates, they also repeatedly vaccinated themselves despite numerous severe vaccine injuries occurring within their party.
 Note: I also observed this with many medical professionals who continued to zealously promote vaccination despite being confronted with injuries in their patients.
 Senate Vaccine Injuries
 Many large surveys have found that a continually increasing portion of the country believes the vaccines are causing widespread social harms (e.g., a recent poll found a third of Americans believe the vaccines are killing people) and that a large number of people were harmed by them (e.g., one poll found 7% of Americans believe they suffered a major side effect from the vaccines and 34% believe they suffered a minor one). Because of this, in theory, if a large sample of vaccinated individuals could be identified, there should have been a number of significant injuries in them.
 As it so happened, the US Senate provided that sample, as we saw numerous unusual and severe diseases emerge in the Democrats there at a far higher rate than had ever happened in the past, and more importantly, those diseases were things strongly linked to the COVID vaccines. Furthermore, those injuries only occurred in Senators who had zealously promoted the vaccines.
 Note: it is likely far more injuries than those I listed here occurred within the Senate as due to the political implications of acknowledging a vaccine injury, I would not expect the Senators to publicize them. Those I have listed are simply the ones which were too overt to cover up.
 John Fetterman:
 John Fetterman, a freshman Pennsylvania Democratic Senator (then aged 52) on May 17, 2022,  less than a month after strongly endorsing the vaccine , suffered an ischemic stroke two days before the state primary for his Senate seat. Despite significant signs of cognitive impairment since his stroke, Fetterman somehow won the primary and then the general election. Since becoming elected, Fetterman has had prolonged periods of absence from the U.S. Senate due to needing specialized medical care:
 Fetterman was hospitalized for syncope (lightheadedness) for two days beginning on February 10, 2023. Two days after his release he was hospitalized again, for a severe case of major depression. For about two months, Fetterman lived and worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As part of his daily schedule at the hospital, his chief of staff arrived at 10 a.m. on weekdays with newspaper clips, statements for Fetterman to approve, and legislation to review. During his hospitalization, Fetterman co-sponsored a bipartisan rail safety bill, introduced after the derailment of a chemical-carrying train in East Palestine, Ohio, close to the border with Pennsylvania; the regulation aimed to strengthen freight-rail safety regulations to prevent future derailments.
 On April 17, 2023, Fetterman returned to the Senate to chair the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry subcommittee on food and nutrition, specialty crops, organics and research. The Washington Post said that Fetterman's "voice stumbled at times while reading from prepared notes" during the subcommittee hearing, but "he appeared in good spirits" and communicated a message about the importance of fighting hunger.
 Since that time, Fetterman has had a variety of unusual incidents suggestive of cognitive impairment (e.g., earlier this month he was speeding and crashed into someone).
 Ben Luján
 Ben Ray Luján  is a freshman New Mexico Democratic Senator  who repeatedly promoted the COVID-19 vaccines .
 On January 27, 2022, Luján (then 49) was hospitalized in Santa Fe after feeling fatigued and dizzy. He was found to have had a hemorrhagic stroke from a torn vertebral artery affecting his cerebellum and was transferred to the University of New Mexico Hospital for treatment, which included a decompressive craniectomy. A statement from his office said that "he is expected to make a full recovery". Luján returned to work at the Senate on March 3 and stated by April 21 that he was 90% recovered.
 Chris Van Hollen
 Chris Van Hollen is a freshmen Maryland Democrat Senator who repeatedly promoted the COVID vaccines and tackling COVID-19 “disinformation.”
 On May 15, 2022, while giving a speech, he experienced a hemorrhagic stroke in the back of his head . After a hospitalization, he returned to the Senate. At the time of this injury, he was 64.

 Note: while ischemic strokes are more common, we have seen cases of major blood vessels rupturing after COVID vaccinations (e.g., one of our vaccinated colleagues almost died from a ruptured aorta). We believe this is due to the the COVID vaccine damaging the lining of the blood vessels, as on autopsies, significant damage to the blood vessels is often observed (and likewise in our colleague’s case, the tissue changes observed in his aorta during the emergency repair were highly unusual). Furthermore, this damage appears to increase with time, which likely explains the roughly one year delay between vaccination and rupture in both the Senators and our colleague.
 As there are 50 Democrats in the Senate, these 3 incidents represent a 6% rate of strokes occurring within roughly a year of vaccination (as the vaccines became available in early 2021). As you can see, that is much higher than the 0.083%-0.146% rate you would expect to see for these strokes but congruent with the observed vaccine injury rate.

 Conversely, the only other Senator I know of who had a stroke while in office was Republican Mark Kirk, who in 2012, at the age of 54, a year after assuming office, had a stroke which required a year of rehabilitation .
 Dianne Feinstein
 Dianne Feinstein was another aggressive promoter of COVID vaccination (e.g., she introduced a ridiculous bill to require vaccination or a negative COVID test to fly on domestic airlines). In March of 2023, Feinstein was diagnosed with shingles and hospitalized. While her office initially insisted she would be fine, it was later revealed her shingles had progressed to Ramsey Hunt Syndrome (paralysis of the face) and encephalitis (brain inflammation). As as a result, it took 10 weeks for her to return to the Senate, at which point she was clearly disabled, and her office was gradually forced to admit Feinstein had experienced some disability .

 Once there, it was evident she was both physically and cognitively impaired, but she nonetheless refused to resign. A few months later, in July she ceded her power of attorney to her daughter, then in August she was hospitalized after falling in her home, and finally at the end of September she died of “natural causes,” making her one of the only Senators (and the first female one) to die while in office.
 Note: her death was immediately followed by California governor Newsom appointing a replacement for her in the Senate.
 What is noteworthy about her experience was how rare her conditions were. Specifically, Ramsay Hunt syndrome is estimated to affect 1 in 20,000 people per year (with it typically being seen in immunocompromised individuals), while shingles encephalitis is typically seen in 1 out of every 33,000-50,000 cases of shingles (with it again being more frequently seen in immunocompromised individuals).
 Note: for individuals over 65, between 3.9 to 11.8 per 1000 experience shingles each year (which means around 1 in 500,000 develop shingles encephalitis), while less than 100 Americans die each year from it .
 Conversely, from the start, shingles was one of the most common injuries linked to COVID vaccination and likewise, its more severe complications have been strongly linked to vaccination (due to the immunosuppressive effects of the vaccine). The following table is from the most comprehensive  article  I was able to find on the subject:

 Note: Justin Bieber also recently attracted widespread public attention after he developed Ramsay Hunt Syndrome, a condition which was extraordinarily rare for his age (he had approximately a 27/1,000,000 chance of developing this condition).
 As you might expect, in the same way the COVID vaccines continually failed to work (which is why they kept on requiring more and more boosters) these injuries had no effect on the Democrats’ zeal for the vaccines. One of the saddest cases happened when Representative Castin’s 17 year old vaccinated daughter (who aggressively promoting the COVID vaccines ) died suddenly and unexpectedly in her sleep from a sudden cardiac arrhythmia on June 12, 2022.
 In addition to this being a cause of death linked to the vaccines (sudden cardiac death almost never happens in children), a reader calculated that (prior to the vaccines), a US Representative would be expected to have a child under 18 die once every 200 years). However, while Casten repeatedly publicly expressed his grief over his daughter’s death, that did not shake his faith in the vaccines. For example, this is something he said a year after she died:

 Cognitive Impairment
 Since the vaccines hit the market, we have noticed one of the most common consequences of them has either been cognitive impairment, worsening of existing cognitive impairment, or an elderly patient with cognitive impairment rapidly progressing into dementia (which is typically labeled as Alzheimer’s disease). Additionally, when we’ve looked for it, we’ve found a variety of signs of subtle neurologic injury in a large number of vaccinated adults who do not believe they have suffered complications from the vaccination.
 If we take Senator Feinstein for example, at the end of 2020, the New Yorker reported that Feinstein’s colleagues and staffers were concerned Feinstein was beginning to show signs of cognitive decline which were getting harder to cover up (although others who worked with her denied this). Two years later in 2022 (after the vaccines had come out), the New York Times also covered her cognitive decline but were more explicit in acknowledging it, presumably because it had become significantly worse:
 At 88, Ms. Feinstein sometimes struggles to recall the names of colleagues, frequently has little recollection of meetings or telephone conversations, and at times walks around in a state of befuddlement — including about why she is increasingly dogged by questions about whether she is fit to serve in the Senate representing the 40 million residents of California, according to half a dozen lawmakers and aides who spoke about the situation on the condition of anonymity.
 On Capitol Hill, it is widely — though always privately — acknowledged that Ms. Feinstein suffers from acute short-term memory issues that on some days are ignorable, but on others raise concern among those who interact with her.
 Ms. Feinstein is often engaged during meetings and phone conversations, usually coming prepared and taking notes. But hours later, she will often have forgotten those interactions, said the people familiar with the situation, who insisted that they not be named because they did not want to be quoted disparaging a figure they respect.
 Some of them said they did not expect her to serve out her term ending in 2024 under the circumstances, even though she refuses to engage in conversations about stepping down.
 This cognitive decline further worsened after her hospitalization. For example, shortly after she returned, when asked about her 3 month absence , she insisted she was completely fine, seemed to believe she had been working at the Senate the whole time (e.g., voting) and became confrontational when a reported suggested otherwise. To put this in context, two months later, she ceded power of attorney to her daughter, and after another two months, died.
 Sadly, I do not believe Feinstein’s case is an outlier, and for that reason, I recently attempted to compile all the evidence showing vaccine cognitive decline is a very real thing. The key points I raised in that article were:

1. Friends have complained to me about cognitive impairment following vaccination, and in a few cases, shared that impairment worsened after subsequent vaccinations. Likewise, I’ve seen many signs (others have as well) that these effects are widespread in society (e.g., drivers became worse after the vaccination campaign).
 2. Numerous friends reported to me that their relatives in nursing homes developed rapidly progressing dementia after vaccination and then died shortly later—something which many readers here have since shared with me also happened to their parents or spouses.
 3. Both I and colleagues have noticed a variety of neurological deficits in the vaccinated. This is best demonstrated by the fact the most common symptom Pierre Kory’s vaccine injured patients come to him for is brain fog.
 4. A variety of datasets support these contentions. Those include:

• The rate of motor vehicle accidents increased after the vaccination campaign.

• The Dutch detected a 18-40% increase (averaging out to 24%) in the number of adults seeing their primary doctor for memory and concentration problems following the vaccination rollout.

• A significant increase in disability has been seen throughout the Western world since the COVID vaccines came out, some of which is cognitive in nature.

• VAERS had a massive spike in cognitive disorders being reported after vaccination which was seen after the COVID vaccines hit the market.

• An Israeli survey found that 4.5% of those who received a booster developed anxiety or depression, and 26.4% who already had either then experienced an exacerbation of their condition.

•A study of 2,027,353 Koreans published three weeks ago in Nature found that vaccination resulted in a 68% increase in depression, a 44% increase in anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders.
 • A more recent study of 558,017 Koreans over 65 found vaccination increased the risk of cognitive impairment by 138% and the risk of Alzheimer’s by 23%, and that this risk increased with time .

 The key point with these datasets is that those increases are massive, to the point they cannot be explained by chance.
 Joe Biden
 During Biden’s presidency, he has aggressively promoted the mandates, and has done a variety of things which go far outside what the president typically does. These include:

• Accusing social media companies of “killing people” because they did not make a sufficiently aggressive effort to censor vaccine misinformation (which in turn his administration used to censor free speech and violate the First Amendment ).

•(Erroneously) forecasting a winter of illness and death for the unvaccinated .
 • Illegally mandating the vaccines on America’s workers.

•Pressuring the FDA to rapidly approve questionable COVID vaccinations, to the point its chief (and very pro-vaccine) vaccine scientists did not feel what the White House was requesting was appropriate to do —which ultimately resulted in those scientists being forced out of the approval process and the vaccines approved.
 Given how strong the evidence against the COVID vaccinations actually is, I interpreted that to mean Biden genuinely believes in the vaccines, something demonstrated by the fact he’s repeatedly publicly shown himself receiving the vaccine and reported having at least three boosters .
 As best as I can tell, like his colleague Feinstein, Biden’s successive vaccination appears to be correlated with a rapid cognitive decline which he nonetheless has refused to acknowledge.
 To elaborate, at the time Biden ran in 2020, many including Donald Trump accused Biden of being cognitively impaired , and cited a variety of examples suggesting he may not be fit to be president (e.g., Biden rarely campaigned publicly, whenever asked aggressively refused to take a test assessing his cognitive function, and would make odd confrontational outbursts at voters who challenged him ). Likewise, doctors identified reasons why Biden was potentially at higher risk for cognitive impairment (e.g., he had history of a brain aneurysm and repair in 1988, and had atrial fibrillation).
 Note: one of the most common side effects of COVID vaccination is inflammation at the site of a pre-existing injury (e.g., a brain surgery). Likewise, the vaccines commonly damaged the heart and triggered conditions like atrial fibrillation.
 Nonetheless, Biden was able to perform well enough during the campaign to effectively debate Trump during the 2020 presidential debate and earn a sizable portion of the vote. In contrast, one of the most common talking points I heard when I reviewed the post debate coverage was that “Biden was a very different person there and not the man who ran in 2020.”
 Likewise, during Biden’s Presidency, as time has moved forward I have noticed an increasing number of gaffes. This include him mumbling words incoherently and nonsensically (something which again has worsened as time moved forward), Biden staring into space and being frozen in place while those around him move (also seen here and here ), and him needing to be guided and led away by his assistants. Most importantly, when he was interviewed by a special counsel this year, they acknowledged Biden had repeated mental lapses during the interview.

Additionally, it has been my impression that his cognitive lucidity is highly variable, something demonstrated both by the fact he is sometimes relatively coherent in his speeches, but other times he is not, and that fact that he is continuously absent-minded, particularly later in the day or at night (when these sorts of issues are well known to be worse—with the medical term for it being sundowning ).

 Note: earlier in the Biden presidency a White House doctor shared with a close colleague that Biden had significant cognitive impairment and displayed overt dementia at night.
 As a result of this, many individuals who work with the elderly and those with cognitive impairment have recognized many of the same things they’ve seen in their patients in Biden and hence feel the fact that Biden is being continually brought before the public and forced to give speeches to equate to elder abuse.
 After the debates, I in turn spoke with a gifted neurologist who has a talent for diagnosing these types of conditions with limited information (e.g., no access to an MRI). They were of the opinion that Biden’s clinical picture was consistent with vascular dementia (which Biden was at risk for due to his existing medical conditions and likewise something the COVID vaccine worsens).

One point my colleague emphasized was that Biden had a stuttering disorder which has significantly worsened during his presidency and that one of the most common types of strokes frequently damage the part of the brain responsible for speech (which in turn can create a stuttering disorder) but that a progressive loss of cerebral blood flow (e.g., that seen in vascular dementia ), can also cause this, especially if there is pre-existing brain damage (e.g., Biden’s existing stuttering disorder). Furthermore, in the same way that an increasing loss of blood flow can exacerbate existing brain damage, a loss of sleep (which is extremely common in a stressful job like the presidency) can as well.
 Biden’s Debate
 I believe Biden’s poor performance was due to him both having had his cognitive impairment continue to progress and the fact that the nighttime schedule of the debate made it impossible for his team to chose a period of high lucidity for Biden to speak to the public.
 During the debate, the following jumped out at me (and many others).

1. Biden repeated overt falsehoods with certainty .

 For example, early in the debate he asserted that Trump had told people to inject bleach into themselves, when Trump had in fact discussed ultraviolet light—and the most of media has now acknowledged Trump never said this . In my eyes, the most important thing about this was that Biden appeared to sincerely believe most of what he said .
 2. Biden repeatedly showed his disgust for both Trump and his supporters (e.g., those present on January 6 th ). I found this concerning because history is rife with cognitively impaired tyrants who treated their subjects unfairly due to their own (often petty) delusions.
 3. Biden rarely blinked.
 4. Biden’s face appeared to be mostly frozen. This is a classic symptom of Parkinson’s and also something which can resulted from a vaccine injury where a series of microstrokes can damage the facial nerve (which was corroborated by his face being asymmetrical and his smile being extremely asymmetrical).
 5. Biden often seemed to stare into space for long periods of time, and in numerous cases struggled to come up with a coherent answer when it was his turn to speak (e.g., you could see on his face his was making an effort to think, or halfway through something he said he would close his eyes and pause for a while).
 6. Biden missed many important points he needed to raise for his base (e.g., when talking about abortion, rather than hit the important points, he talked about the epidemic of sister-on-sister rape ).
 7. He had very limited mobility in his hands (e.g., he slowly raised them to make a point and then rarely moved them while he was doing so).
 8. When the debate ended, he needed to have his wife help him walk off stage .
 More than anything else however, he seemed to be in pain, unhealthy and really struggling through the debate. This seemed to be the primary takeaway people from both political parties took from the debate (e.g., Democrats panicked and felt demoralized, liberal pundits were in shock, and many moderates said this debate felt like elder abuse).
 My own takeaway was that prior to the debates, many pundits had relentlessly promoted the message Biden was not cognitively impaired to the point that rather than them simply lying, it seemed as though they had developed a mass formation where they genuinely believed this. Because of this, there were many instances of individuals appearing to panic as their hypnosis broke and they realized that was all hogwash. In turn, the primary reason I watched the post-debate coverage is because it’s fairly rare to see a mass red-pill like this occur and the shock which coincides with it.
 Note: because of how unhealthy our culture is, it’s fairly unusual for individuals over 70, let alone 80, to have normal cognitive function. In turn, since so much responsibility is placed on our leaders for positions (which require a high degree of cognitive aptitude) many have argued for putting age or term limits on our leaders—especially since people should not be making policies that will not affect them (as they will be dead once they go into effect).
 Pfizer’s Fraud
 Once people become strongly committed to an idea, it is remarkably difficult to get them to admit they are wrong—especially since as time progresses, they continually build upon the mental investment within their minds to their position and create mental construct after construct which is dependent upon the position being true.
 In turn, I typically see one of the following break their hypnosis:

•Clear and unambiguous evidence that they were wrong being broadcast to everyone (e.g., what happened last night with the debate).

•Them directly being harmed by the lie (e.g., a pro-vax doctor getting vaccine injured). Curiously, in many cases I’ve seen people still hold onto their lie when their children are victimized by it (e.g., in addition to Representative Casten losing his daughter, I’ve seen pro-vax doctors who had multiple members of their family suffer severe vaccine injuries but still insist the COVID vaccines are necessary for their patients).

•Them realizing they were a victim of fraud. I believe the fraud angle is persuasive because it shifts the burden from them to the fraudster and hence protects their ego. Because of this, I’ve repeatedly focused on trying to prove that Pfizer committed overt fraud, as I believe once individuals become aware of it, it will make them willing to change their position (e.g., previously I discussed how Pfizer faked the data it sent to the drug regulators which indicated their vaccine was producing the proteins it was supposed to create within the body—which was a major challenge facing this experimental gene therapy).
 Recently the Kansas Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Pfizer alleging that they repeatedly and systematically committed fraud with the vaccines. The key points from it were as follows:

1. Pfizer used its confidentiality agreements with the U.S. Government and others to conceal, suppress, and omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, including the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

2. Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data – the study was repeatedly delayed, including a delay from January 2023 to February 2024 because of a late vaccination of a single study participant (out of 44,000 participants). Likewise, Pfizer promised to make its data available to researchers but never did so.

3. The FDA did not immediately make the safety and efficacy data for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine available, claiming it would take 55 years, but a federal judge forced them to release 55,000 pages per month rather than 500.

4. Pfizer destroyed the vaccine control group once the FDA approved emergency use authorization in December 2020 (ultimately only 7% of the placebo group did not receive a vaccine).
 Note: destroying the placebo group is a very common tactic used to conceal a high rate of injuries in a research trial.

5. In its press release announcing the emergency use authorization (EUA), Pfizer did not disclose that it had excluded immunocompromised individuals from its COVID-19 vaccine trials (whereas they later relentlessly pushed the vaccine on them).

6. Pfizer knew its COVID-19 vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis.

7. By March 2021, the United States military and Israel's Ministry of Health (which was working hand in hand with Pfizer) detected a safety signal for myocarditis the public was never notified about. Nonetheless, Pfizer’s CEO denied a link existed.

8. In August 2021, after Pfizer obtained FDA approval through an EUA to provide its COVID-19 vaccine to 12 to 15-year-olds, Pfizer decided to study “how often” its vaccine may cause myocarditis or pericarditis in children by testing 5-16-year-olds for troponin I. Once a safety signal was detected, Pfizer’s CEO nonetheless denied it.

9. Pfizer also detected a safety signal relating to strokes. The FDA's and CDC's “surveillance system flagged a possible link between the new Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and strokes in people aged 65 and over," while an FDA study found that individuals 85 years or older who received both a flu vaccine and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine “saw a 20% increase in the risk of ischemic stroke.”
 Note: one of the original names for the vaccine was the “clot shot.”

10. Pfizer did not release the data within its adverse event database—which as of February 2021 included 158,893 adverse events and 1,223 deaths. Furthermore, Pfizer was so overwhelmed with the adverse events, they had to hire hundreds (if not thousands) of staffers to process logging those adverse events (and nonetheless had a massive backlog). Despite this, Pfizer determined no causality existed between the vaccine and any of those injuries.

 11. Pfizer only tested the booster shot on 12 trial participants who were in the 65- to 85-year-old age range and did not test it on any participant older than 85.
 Note: Biden is 81.

12. Pfizer did not publicly release adverse event data from its database. By February 28, 2021, Pfizer’s adverse events database contained 158,893 adverse events from 42,086 case reports, including 1,223 fatalities, although Pfizer again did not make causality findings. Pfizer was receiving so many adverse events reports that it had to hire 600 additional full-time staff and expected to hire more than 1,800 additional resources by June 2021. Pfizer had such a backlog of adverse events that it might take 90 days to code “nonserious cases” that pfizer did not know the magnitude of under-reporting.

13. Pfizer announced a study on pregnant women but omitted the fact that more than one in ten women (52) who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during their pregnancy reported a miscarriage, many within days of vaccination. Six women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during their pregnancy reported premature deliveries; several babies died.

14. Pfizer’s February 18th 2021, press release also did not disclose other adverse effects on the reproductive systems of women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. By April 2022, Pfizer knew of tens of thousands of adverse events connected to its COVID-19 vaccine, including heavy menstrual bleeding (27,685), menstrual disorders (22,145), irregular periods (15,083), delayed periods (13,989), absence of periods (11,363) and other reproductive system effects.

15. Pfizer failed to recruit 83% of the women they had sought to study for their 4000 woman pregnancy trial, then destroyed the placebo group for the study, and still has not completely the quality control review process for it.
 16. Pfizer misrepresented and concealed material facts relating to the durability of protection provided by its COVID-19 vaccine (until it was time to sell boosters).

17. Pfizer repeatedly said its COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission even though Pfizer knew it had never studied the effect of its vaccine on transmission. This point is important because Pfizer repeatedly gave very heavy-handed statements based on this lie (e.g., that you would kill your grandmother or endanger your community if you didn’t vaccinate) which in turn were used to justify Biden’s abhorrent mandates. Likewise, once clear evidence emerged the vaccine did not prevent transmission, Pfizer and the Biden administration continued to assert this lie to promote their product.

18. Pfizer aggressively utilized back channels to censor speech on social media that was critical of their vaccines—and likely did so in collusion with the Biden administration. The vast extent of this abhorrent conduct is contained within Alito’s dissent on the recent Supreme Court ruling relating to government censorship.
 Note: the above summaries were sourced from Carl Henegahn and Kanekoa and then further modified by me.
 Many learning of these points are understandably outraged. Sadly, as things like this are fairly common within the pharmaceutical industry, many of us assumed Pfizer’s talking points were lies from the start and hence are less shocked by these revelations.
 Conclusion
 Our country has been in an accelerating decline for decades , and I view the COVID-19 disaster as being a symptom of that decline rather than an isolated event. In turn, my hope is that as more and more shocking events happen, it can at last motivate the public and political class to begin taking things seriously and working together to fix the situation we are in rather than becoming even more polarized and simply doubling down on blaming the other side for everything that is going awry.
 In the case of last night’s debate, the fact that we clearly had a cognitively impaired man struggling to lead the world’s greatest super power, beyond making waves within the United States, sends an even stronger message to the rest of the world that something is seriously wrong with America and it should no longer be treated as the sole superpower. My hope is thus that this sends a message to America’s political class that the current course we are going on is unacceptable and needs to change.
 Likewise, my sincere hope is that members of the Democrat party will begin to be able to tie Biden’s “inexplicable” cognitive decline to the COVID vaccines, as many who have worked with him have noticed he is simply not the same person who assumed office four years ago, and more and more difficult to ignore signs are emerging that the Democrats made a huge mistake pushing the vaccines.
 Because of this, if you have the ability to share this point within your social circle—particularly that the exact same thing happened to Dianne Feinstein (who liked Biden refused to acknowledge her impairment and instead had her staffers create a facade until she died), that would be greatly appreciated. The Democratic party is in a state of shock right now (which is when people are the most mutable), so I believe this is the best time to get that message to them.
 I sincerely thank each of you for your support of this publication and the work each of you has done to try to fix the mess we are in now.
 The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 To learn how other readers have benefitted from this publication and the community it has created, their feedback can be viewed here . Additionally, an index of all the articles published in the Forgotten Side of Medicine can be viewed here .
 This post is public so feel free to share it.

 Share

 Give a gift subscription
 Refer a friend

Summary: How the Democrats became consumed by their own product


USA Today Published Our Op-Ed Calling For The Questioning Of Trump/Biden Covid Policies In Tonight's Debate

Even though my career as an academic medical educator ended in early Covid when I resigned from the University of Wisconsin, I am proud to say that I have not wavered from what I believe is my calling. It’s just that now, instead of teaching medical students, residents, and fellows at the bedside of sick patients (think Dr. House), I devote most of my time disseminating my knowledge and insights (largely on Covid) to the general public via this Substack and the now almost two dozen Op-Ed’s I have published in major corporate media outlets.
 Studying Covid has given me the newfound and profoundly disturbing knowledge of the extent to which our government, media, and medical system has been irredeemably captured and corrupted by industry. That reality has led to hundreds of thousands of lives being lost unnecessarily , the health of millions permanently damaged , and excess mortality continuing to rage across the world’s most vaccinated countries.
 Although the U.S has other immense problems (i.e. wars driven by the military industrial complex), this aftermath of the two candidates Covid policies must be addressed at the upcoming debate. To this end, I, along with the investigative journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer, published an Op-Ed calling for those questions to be asked. It was picked up not only by USA Today but also a network of regional and local newspapers across the country. Let’s see what impact it may have tonight, enjoy:

 In the run-up to the presidential election, Misters Biden and Trump are disturbingly reticent about America’s once-in-100-year plague — and averse, even, to criticize each other’s performance.
 This is not a case of left-right harmony. Rather, the candidates fear an issue that might expose flaws in—or voter disagreement with — their COVID-19 response.
 In a matchup unique in history, the receding pandemic straddled two presidencies, giving each leader a singular moment to show presidential mettle. But it also killed 1.1 million Americans (the  highest rate among wealthy countries ); introduced a vaccine that worked poorly and  harmed some , and left a legacy of sickness,  suicide ,  overdose and government distrust .
 If the presumptive candidates believe they have earned another chance to govern, they should answer for what they did, for better or worse, to tame the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There must be an accounting, including hard questions in the first debate on June 27.

 Five months before America’s first post-COVID-19 presidential election, pollsters, pundits,  articles  on “ key   issues ” and the candidates themselves seem largely to have forgotten the last four years.
 A national poll asked voters which candidate they trusted most on democracy, crime, U.S. standing, and immigration, but did not bring up the event that grade schoolers will recall into their 80s. If they get there.
 The economy, abortion, Israel and healthcare are surely important. But so is a pandemic. Ask the families of the million-plus.
 190,000 ‘excess’ deaths

 The tentacles of COVID-19 are insidious and spreading. The number of Americans with a  disability is up by 3.4 million , or 11%, from before the pandemic. Cancer is  surging  in  young adults . And more people are still  dying  than  normal  and predictable.
 In 2023,  190,742 more Americans died than in 2019, the year before the virus changed everything. Those 5.3% extra deaths are more than America’s combined military losses since Korea .
 While the elderly perished first in 2020, deaths among 25-to-44-year-olds are surging now, rising 21% from 2019 to 2023, our analysis  of CDC data shows.
 Think of these numbers when young adults succumb to unexplained causes, or when the FDA commissioner tweets  that declining longevity in America , a pre-pandemic trend, is “catastrophic.” U.S. lifespans— lower than 30 other countries — are not only going down in 70-somethings.
 Given their history with this contagion, both candidates must answer for what the British Medical Journalcalled America’s “devastating pandemic outcomes.”
 “Americans killed by covid-19 represent 16% of global deaths in a nation with 4% of the world’s population,”  BMJ said . Behind that dismal outcome is a broken public health system and an unhealthy, unequal population.
 Mike Kelly: Why is MTG screaming at Dr. Fauci? Can we ever debate with civility again?
 COVID vaccines promoted, not treatment
 America’s leaders — former President Donald Trump first, then President Joe Biden — chose to vaccinate the nation’s way out of COVID-19, to the point of  mandating shots for 100 million workers and adopting them for infants, for whom they are still not  formally   licensed .
 Facilitating emergency use of an unapproved vaccine required, under law, that there be no “adequate” alternative . There was another option, but doctors were all-but banned from treating COVID-19 with cheap, approved drugs.
 The Biden FDA led a crusade against one drug in particular,  branding ivermectin — its 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine notwithstanding—as a “dangerous and even lethal” drug meant for horses and cows . It was not true.
 In March, the FDA removed its misleading posts after a  federal judge  said it had no authority to give medical advice on a legal drug that, incidentally, “also comes in a human version.”
 Unfortunately, FDA’s advice was hyped by media  and heeded by medicine. A 52-year-old woman died after a hospital cut off her court-ordered ivermectin three times, even as she improved. (Dr. Kory is an expert witness in her family’s wrongful death lawsuit.) Many could have been saved with many  proven early treatments .
 In recent weeks, the pandemic discussion has shifted. A New York Times article told of “thousands” of vaccine-harmed people . A former FDA official, Janet Woodcock, admitted these were “life-changing” injuries that “should be taken seriously.” A former CDC director, Robert Redfield, told an interviewer , “Those of us that tried to suggest there may be significant side effects…we kind of got cancelled.”
 Such assertions have unilaterally been labeled pandemic “conspiracy theories”. The vaccine skepticism of Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is pointedly reported.
 But less well-known is a study of 99 million COVID-19-vaccinated patients,  published in April in Vaccine , that found significant neurological, cardiovascular and hematologic side effects. In early June, another study in BMJ Public Health  found ongoing excess deaths in 43 countries, the U.S. included, despite “containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines.”
 “This raises serious concerns,” the article concluded.
 Ask the candidates: Do they share that concern?
 Dr. Pierre Kory, M.D., a pulmonologist and critical care specialist, is a founder and president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance , based in Washington. Mary Beth Pfeiffer is an investigative reporter and author.   Thanks to expert actuary Mary Pat Campbell, FSA, who accessed and analyzed CDC mortality data.

 Subscribe now
 *If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, Op-Ed’s, and doctor defenses, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated.

Summary: Disastrous pandemic management policies straddled two presidencies and left a legacy of unnecessary death, disability, and increasing poverty. The candidates need to answer for their actions.