SARS-CoV-2 Treatment: An Independent Assessment of the Medical Establishment

What happened to the Hippocratic oath?

The Chinese Communists (ChiComs) have touted their handling of the virus from the very beginning, including masking, social distancing, contact tracing, traditional Chinese medicine, and draconian lockdowns. In parallel the new Great Helmsman, Xi Jinping, called for “international cooperation” and the export of those “Chinese methods” in combating the virus worldwide, as noted in this agitprop from China Daily in March 2020. This was amazing chutzpah from a country that has been opaque about the virus origins and medical data related to early cases in China. And they are still at it in August 2021, reinforcing authoritarian methods for “containing” the virus while extolling the “docility” of the Chinese people in following ChiCom “regulations,” as noted here:

The Chinese public have always been complying with the government's regulations and following its guidance to curb the spread of the virus, and their active reaction to the latest outbreak of the Delta variant reflects their confidence in and support for the country's anti-virus policies and strategies.

In regions where COVID-19 cases had emerged, people complied with the governments' regulations. They actively underwent several rounds of nucleic acid tests and followed social distancing measures, as demanded by the local governments.

Yet, the US Medical Establishment – almost without any independent analysis – immediately followed suit in early 2020 in a series of pronouncements from the CDC and NIAID’s Dr. Fauci. Shifting-sand directives on the use of masks, lockdowns, social distancing, and emergency-use injections have since become the norm from the Medical Establishment since January 2021:

• Two-week lockdowns to stop the spread

• Six feet of separation, then three feet

• Masks indoors, outdoors, everywhere (despite adverse consequences to children/others)

• Asymptomatic spread (or not)

• Children spread the virus (or they don’t)

• The PCR tests work (or they don’t)

• There are no therapeutic drugs that work (there are!)

• Herd/natural immunity (or not; just take the shot!)

• Injections über alles (consequences be damned)

The parallels continue, as the ChiComs continue to export increasingly ineffective Sinovax and Sinopharm injections to other countries while the US Food and Drug Administration approved the Pfizer-BioNTech injection despite its decreasing effectiveness against virus variants (and without the involvement of the promised independent “Advisory Committee,” as noted here).

And then there are the injection-related deaths as reported in the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS), which total 22,607 as of 21 January 2022.

Whom to believe? And what happened to the Hippocratic oath to uphold professional ethical standards and “do no harm” to one’s patients? Oh, that’s right; Hippocrates wasn’t Chinese. The ChiComs, who have many ulterior motives (deflect responsibility, lay the foundation for worldwide authoritarian controls, etc.)? The Medical Establishment, which consists of the UN’s World Health Organization, the US Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), American Medical Association, and the state health bureaucracies who flow CDC/NIH/FDA directives down to hospitals and doctors? Or independent doctors and scientists outside the Medical Establishment who have directly treated virus-infected patients and developed successful therapeutic regimens and have great concerns about the virus injections, as summarized in this 8-minute video?

An independent team of non-medical scientists led by John Droz, Jr., has conducted an analysis of virus-related actions taken by the Medical Establishment to ascertain whether those actions were taken in the best interests of the public and also were consistent with genuine science. A key objective in producing this report is to promote personal responsibility in making medical decisions: “all medical decisions by patients should be well-educated — including getting information from different perspectives — so that with their physician they can make informed health decisions.” The conclusions in the report are startling.

The report bounds the problem by summarizing what “science” really is:

A key understanding is that Science is a PROCESS. As a competent scientist wrote that the process involves: “Using a refined craft of methodological inquiry to dispassionately examine and test tentative explanations about the nature of truth in the natural world.” Therefore, real Science revolves around skepticism. Once this understanding is absorbed, citizens should consider outside independent competent sources of information (usually less influenced by financial or political gain), and then use critical thinking skills so that they can make science-based decisions about technical matters (e.g., their health), while simultaneously defending their rights and freedoms.

An important disclaimer is also prominently featured at the beginning of the report:

This Report is not opposing vaccines — rather incomplete or misleading information from the Medical Establishment regarding such an important health decision. We support social-distancing, hand sanitizing and other Science-based COVID-19 measures.

Here are a couple of excerpts that identify inconsistencies and problems associated with the guidelines and actions of the Medical Establishment:

• COVID-19 data from (or supported by) the Medical Establishment, have been incomplete to purposefully deceptive. [This includes data about COVID-19 injections.] For example, the data on COVID-19 deaths fail to distinguish between dying from COVID-19 vs. dying with COVID-19. (Per the CDC: 95% of US COVID-19 deaths had an average of four (4) co-morbidities!) This results in highly inflated COVID-19 death figures, which allows government officials to justify enacting shutdowns, etc. Further, there is no Medical Establishment data accounting for deaths from the government COVID-19 regulations (e.g., suicides, drug overdoses, criminal acts, etc.).

• Inexplicably, to date the Medical Establishment has yet to support some well-documented effective COVID-19 therapies (see this outstanding discussion by a renowned MD). The main “therapy” (for what the Medical Establishment calls a pandemic), has been for victims to go home, drink fluids, etc. — then go to the hospital when they are in dire straits. This stunningly inadequate protocol is despite numerous scientific studies that various therapies (when started early) will markedly improve a patient’s outcome. Even over-the-counter (OTC) items like Zinc and Vitamin D have been scientifically shown to have measurable benefits. (Combining them would likely result in even better outcomes.)

The report includes a fascinating comparison of Western medical practices that focus on identifying modalities (problems) and then working on specific preventatives and cures versus the holistic approach of Eastern medical practices that includes a focus on optimizing the immune system. The report advocates the use of both in combatting the virus.

The chapter discussing vaccines is particularly important. Here are two of the 15 points that were included:

• The possible negative consequences of COVID-19 bio-chemical injection are far-reaching, and many may not be apparent for months or years. This study says: “no one actually has any idea of medium- and long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccines.” Who is looking for these, and who will report them? The injection proponents: the Medical Establishment!

• One documented, yet rarely discussed, very problematic adverse consequence of getting the COVID-19 bio-chemical injection, can be Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), or Vaccine Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED). This serious side effects can worsen later infections from other COVID-19 variants. (In other words, the extent of ADE/VAED won’t be known for some time.) That’s a major concern expressed by the physician who is reportedly an inventor of the mRNA injection.

A chapter in the report lists dozens of useful linked references on a variety of topics, including immunities, masks, therapies, PCR diagnostic tests, and vaccines. And finally, the report concludes with 15 key take-aways from the analysis conducted, three of which are provided below:

• The Medical Establishment’s data (e.g., COVID-19 fatality rates) are unreliable. Bad Data easily results in a domino effect of erroneous conclusions and ineffective “solutions.”

• The Medical Establishment has misinformed the public regarding broad-spectrum, Science-based therapies for treating COVID-19 (e.g., combining Ivermectin, Zinc and Vitamin D).

• It appears that the Medical Establishment gives priority to favoring the pharmaceutical industry instead of protecting the health and welfare of the public.

The entire report is a must-read. It is long past time for the Medical Establishment to stop dancing to the ChiComs’ authoritarian tune and start promoting successful treatment regimens and personal responsibility for doctor-patient decision-making. Time to stop the federal and state public health bureaucracy from corrupting the Hippocratic oaths of doctors everywhere.

The end.