This pandemic, and the draconian response to it, never seem to go away, perhaps by design. However, because so much is at stake, people need to hear all the critical available data.
By Russell L. Blaylock, 8 December 2021
I have never seen such an enormous effort by government, medical bureaucracies, media, private institutions, and even medical institutions to prevent dissenting views from being openly discussed — even the opinions of highly qualified scientists in every field of medicine from epidemiology, infectious disease, virology, pathology, and protective equipment engineering. This includes removal of dissenting physician’s licenses, loss of hospital privileges and retraction of peer-reviewed, published articles from the medical literature. Science, as any true scientist should know, can only advance by an open discussion of all points of view — especially dissenting viewpoints. Science advances by challenging hypotheses and prevailing theories. Institutionalised views stifle scientific advancement and will, especially in clinical medicine, ultimately harm people. These rigid viewpoints become ideological in that any dissent from the particulars of the orthodoxy constitutes a cause for a vicious attack and shunning.
At the core of all medical practice is the concept of informed consent. No prescription, procedure, surgery, or vaccine is to be given or performed without advising the patient, as regards the possible risks and benefits. According to the principle of informed consent, a patient – or in this case, the public at large – must be informed of the indications for the treatment, the efficacy of the treatment, possible available alternatives to the proposed treatment, and most importantly, all the potential side effects and complications, whether acute or long term. This is especially so for new and relatively untested procedures. For example, it has been estimated that for a new type of vaccine or especially genetic treatment, a minimum of 10 years of testing is required.
What Is Informed Consent: The Vaccine, And the Immune System?
The most common cause for medical malpractice lawsuits is a doctor or institution not providing informed consent before initiating treatment. Not only are we now being denied informed consent, but also a war has been launched by powerful people and institutions, even governments, to prevent vital information from being disseminated.
Unfortunately, the major institutions are purposefully hiding essential data and altering the data available within official circles to convince the public that there is only one solution to this so-called pandemic: Vaccination with virtually untested biological agents.
The blackout of essential information has become so intense that highly respected virologists, infectious disease specialists, and even the person who developed the technology of messenger RNA (mRNA) “vaccines,” have been banned from social media, the news media, and other sources of contact with the public at large.
The effort by vaccine promoters has become so intense that reputations are being ruined, careers destroyed, and even death threats received – as happened to the former head of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Robert Redfield.
No dissenting voice is allowed, no matter how well-qualified, and supported by hard scientific data. One thing that keeps the public in the dark is that most people have virtually no understanding of the complex subjects of immunology, virology, epidemiology, or infectious disease pathology. To people untrained in these areas, it all seems quite simple: There’s a disease outbreak, you make a vaccine against the disease, people become immune, and all is well.
Unfortunately, because of the incredible complexity of the immune system, it does not always work like that. In fact, we are now learning that vaccines, under certain conditions, can make things much worse for the vaccinated. However, these Covid shots are not actually vaccines — they are genetic biological agents that to this day remain largely untested. (They were tested for only 2 months before being given Emergency Use Authorisation [EUA] approval for public use.) That means if you take them, you become the guinea pig.
Some will respond that Pfizer did test its vaccine before being released. According to their information, over 11,000 people were given the vaccine and carefully followed. Afterwards, they announced the vaccine as 95% effective and quite safe. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) interviewed several women who participated in the so-called pre-release study. They each in turn had similar stories — Pfizer would not return most of their calls when they experienced serious side effects. They also stated that they signed an agreement that stated should they experience complications Pfizer would assume all costs of their medical care. Several of the ladies stated that Pfizer did not pay a cent of their medical expenses, which ran into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Despite the recommendation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that these companies should test the vaccine for at least 2 years, this suggestion was ignored by Pfizer and Moderna.
Russell Blaylock, a retired American neurosurgeon, wrote the above in an extensive paper, ‘Covid-19 pandemic: What is the truth?’, published on 8 December 2021 in the Surgical Neurological International journal. We are republishing sections, more easily digestible portions, of his article as a series of articles titled ‘Covid Pandemic Truths’.
This article is the second in our series and covers the sections in Blaylocks’s paper as subtitled above. You can find the first article in this series HERE.
Although we have not included them, Blaylock’s article is well referenced.