No doubt there is a ”diversity“ of opinions on this board lol. I am often surprised when there is over the top push back against medical science as most of us here wouldn’t be alive today without the benefit of it.
Overwhelming though, I really appreciate this board for all the members who are leading by example. Living their best lives despite health challenges. I also appreciate the “real talk” as my kids would call it. People telling it like it is.
My cardiac surgeon was mad as hell at my health plan for following "official" medical science as represented by the CDC/NIH/FDA guidelines here in the USA instead of past medical experience of the cardiac surgeons at his hospital. The question is what is pushback against medical science. It has been asked "what is truth". I would ask, "what is medical science". or maybe more simply "what is science"
My answer would be that science is what follows the "scientific method" that I learned in college and that provides full access to all raw data to allow replication of the methods and results. All to often, the researchers do not allow access to all data preaching that they must "respect patient privacy" nor access to all methods (although some give the exact software and subroutinesiutilized). Ionaides in his report, on Why Most Research Results are Wrong, gave a good deal of reasons that go far beyond the simple money buys results (not that it cannot, nor that it frequently does). However, many other causes really do exist.
Recently, in the USA, two government reports were found on US government web sites. The first was the report approving the Pfizer vaccine. It had an appendix that showed more people died after taking the vaccine then die.d in the control group that took the placebo vaccine. (see
This Is What Makes Reasonable People Cry Foul, Conspiracy And Crime!!! Berenson is now banned from Twitter, et.al. Their fact checkers claim that he is spreading medical misinformation. Read both sources and decide for yourself.)
The other was a Dept of Defense ppt presentation from a Dod website. It showed that the DoD had reports based on Medicare bills that showed the vaccines lost their effectiveness in preventing Covid infections and in preventing the vaccinated from spreading Covid. The title was Entitled “Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Against the Delta Variant Among 5.6M Medicare Beneficiaries 65 Years and Older,” a slide presentation dated Sept. 28, 2021, reveals that among the elderly especially, Chinese Virus injections do not work to protect against disease. (one source:
DoD Data Show That 60% Of "Covid" Hospitalizations In 65 ...)
Both of these were during the period the US federal government was pushing vaccines as a way to protect people against hospitalization and. death. So what is "science", the National Institute of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Federal Drug Administration official policy positions or their reports and Medicare data that seem to contradict these positions?
I like reading the peer reviewed literature but particularly like both double blind patient matched studies AND also like case studies done with real patients in an outpatient setting.
Listening to scientists that have published a lot give video lectures is also useful. Paul Marik, Intensive Care Professor at Old Dominion University, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Robert Mallone, and Attorney Tom Renz (a medical malpractice attorney whose mother got Covid) gave presentations at a Jewish meeting in New York (available at
Vaccine Risks In Children – Renz Law ) and for an alternative view read the fact checkers at Yahoo and FactCheck.afp.com (available at:
Inaccurate claims about 'rabbinical court' opposing Covid ... an at
Inaccurate claims about 'rabbinical court' opposing Covid ... )
As was asked "What is Truth" and "What is Science" When the bureaucratic national experts disagree with the professional practicing experts where is the truth. I was once a "national expert" in my field of engineering. When asked for an opinion on a particular "local" project by a congressional politician who wanted to know why the earmark project was not working, I had to beg off and tell him that he needed to ask for a study to look at the issues on a local level and on a "as actually installed and operating" basis even though I could provide an educated guess at the reasons. Real facts are sometimes difficult to get at by members of the public who cannot afford the $100k and up of real world studies taking months or years to complete.
My cardiac surgeon knew a LOT more than my cardiologist at the time of my congestive heart failure. I had no idea that there was a conflict in the interpretation of the science of how often to do tests for people with my medical condition. I simply trusted my cardiologist to know "the truth" and "the medical science". I was wrong. He knew what the experts at the CDC were saying and did not know what the experts at the health plan's hospital heart surgery unit were saying. You have to read broadly and this site helps point you in the right directions as to what to read.
However, regardless of how unfortunate for us it is, truth and science are still subjective. Just recall that old fashioned Greek, Jewish and Roman logic and science underpin math and that math and logic in turn underpin science. Recall also that science is not religion and religion is not science.
For me, if it is not testable, questionable and replicable, it is not "real" science.
Walk in Peace,
ScribeWithALancet
