Dumb doctors, laced water, seatbelts, and Peter Singer

Some ingredients of our Australian bio-security state

I already had a low opinion of doctors after years of watching them overprescribe anti-biotics to our two kids. They truly are a one trick pill pushing pony.

That low opinion has turned into full blown contempt.

As a “professional” class, they have been completely corrupted during the pandemic. To the extent that medicine is a “competence hierarchy” it has been completely and totally hijacked, corrupted and captured.

And yes, I know the odd, good doctor, but exceptions do not make the rule, and the rule is, unequivocally, that medicine is now a failed and wholly captured profession.

Dumb doctors

AusDoc is the main information and news source for Australian doctors. Early on they had some balance in their reporting but that didn’t last long. They are an unashamedly biased propaganda source for our dim witted medical profession.

One of my favourite articles was this from July 2021, in response to Clive Palmer’s campaign to get the word out about the dangers of the jab (unfortunately behind a paywall).

The GP vs Clive Palmer: The information war on COVID-19 vaccines

The article promotes our own Dr. Thomas Walsh, a young GP from Victoria, and his attempts to calm the concerns of his patients about the jab risks and Clive’s maildrop pamphlets.

Here is Thomas working to put his patients minds at ease:

He explained to one patient that, just like with vaccines, if he followed up 100,000 people who had been given a glass of water to drink, a few months later a certain number would have died. “It still doesn’t tell you the most important thing, which is why did they die?” he said.

In Australia is takes about 10 years to become a GP. GPs are those that were not good enough to become specialists, that’s where the big bucks are. Said another way, GPs and the bottom of the medical barrel, their memory and exam taking skills could not get them any further.

According to our AMA, there were about 37,000 GPs in Australia as at 2018. These are the foot soldiers of the new bio-security state, and they are whipped into shape by their commanding officers, the state based medical boards that can sanction them and remove their license to practice as they did to the principled and brave Dr. Paul Oosetrhius:

Supporting Dr Paul Oosterhuis – Doctors for COVID Ethics

I couldn’t tell you how many are asleep, awake or partially awake, but I am confident that a very large portion of GPs are maintaining their willful ignorance of all the states falsehoods. A great many of them are simply rigid, inelastic, incurious, conformists (as they have been trained to be), but a good share of them are minimising their exposure to non-state information for fear of waking up their conscience. At 2 am in the morning, when there is only you, your thoughts and your conscience, nobody wants to think of themselves as a bought and lying coward.

But back to the water analogy of our brainiac Thomas.

If 100,000 people drink water, a few months later some of them will be dead. True.

The background annual death rate in Australia is 640 deaths per hundred thousand per annum. So, after 3 months we would expect 160 deaths at a rate of 53 per month.

But if we find after 3 months that there were say 240 deaths, 80 more than normal, and that most of the deaths were within days of drinking the water, in fact 36% of the excess deaths were within 24 hours of drinking the water, then you can say with confidence that there was something in the water. It was laced water.

Thomas is just one of the many foot soldiers in this campaign against Australians.

But higher up we have been cursed with some of the most heinous examples of “Public Health experts” found anywhere in the world. Here is the Chief Public Health Officer of South Australia.

Are you ready for Maready?

I’ll write more about Forrest Maready some other time. He is someone worth knowing.

The reason I am mentioning him here is in connection with our mate Thomas (above).

If you now accept that the Covid jabs are dangerous, that the narrative is false, that pharma and the medical establishment can and do lie, then you might be asking yourself:

What else have they lied to me about?

Have they lied to me about other vaccines?

If these thoughts have crossed your mind, then you are ready for a bit of Maready. The place to start is this very short book Unvaccinated.

Towards the end Forrest talks about what medical students study at university about vaccination.

Finally, the really strange thing about doctors (and nurses) and vaccines - they are not taught much about them in school. Hardly anything, actually. Compared to the hundreds of hours an anti-vaxxer is likely to have spent studying vaccines, most health care providers know next to nothing. They learn a lot about disease and the immune system and assume that vaccines interact similarly. Unfortunately, they don't. As I mentioned about the ACT problem with the whooping cough vaccine, they are very different. Physicians may spend a few hours learning the schedules recommended by the government and spend a few hours learning which vaccines should be administered subcutaneously (under the skin) as opposed to intra-muscularly. Beyond that, they learn almost nothing about vaccines.

I was so confused by hearing this; I bought every book listed on the medical curriculum of a prestigious medical school. I even bought some auxiliary books that were not required but on the optional, "recommended" reading list. After going through each and every book on the list - over thousands and thousands of pages - there were only 4 pages that talked about how vaccines work! There were 11 pages that listed the vaccine schedule recommended by the government, but besides that, 4 pages that talked about vaccines.

I made a video about it, showing the books and how little a prestigious medical school's curriculum spent teaching about vaccines. Many doctors and nurses got in touch with me to confirm this had been their experience in medical school. Of course, students learn more than what is taught from their schoolbooks, but I imagine the disparity continues into their classroom and residencies.

Once I understood that doctors and nurses learn very little about vaccines in school, I began to realize why they are so hostile to people like myself who ask honest questions about them. I have written books on the subject, but there are many, many amateur anti-vaxxer mothers and fathers out there who are much, much smarter than me. Any of us could easily stump an average pediatric doctor or nurse on vaccines with some of our common knowledge.

Yes, you read it right, 4 pages over an entire degree. But then they put on that magical white coat, and it’s assumed they know what they are talking about.

Not unlike the priest that puts on his robe and starts praying in Latin.

The bio-security state

It is not widely known nor understood that the Nazis very early in their reign worked on building a bio-security state. It was through the medical apparatus and calls for the “greater good” that they very quickly took over the medical system and used it to do its bidding.

In his must read essay, Augusto Zimmerman explains.

The New ‘Good German’ and Totalitarian Technocracy

As Cornwell points out:

After Hitler came to power campaigns were launched in the press on radio advocating for regular examinations. Poster campaigns advised men to have their colons checked for cancer as frequently as they serviced their motor cars, and for smokers to desist. Mass X-rays were carried out in schools, the army, in factories, and offices. Since the Nazi war on cancer was conducted on the level of prevention rather than cure, the determination to succeed switched from biomedical research to public health campaigns, the gathering and analysis of statistics, or epidemiology, and surveillance for early detection.

Curiously enough, only a relative handful of German medical practitioners dared oppose these “epidemiological” measures. On the basis of questionnaires, in 1933 the government aimed to bar all doctors who did not agree with its government policies. They were obliged to apply for exemption and, by early 1939, “some 2,600 medical doctors had been dismissed, their places taken by Aryans”. Members of the medical profession, as a group, outnumbered all other professionals in Nazi Party membership. Lawyers formed the next-largest support group of the Nazi membership. Such membership of the Nazi Party within the Reich Physicians’ Chamber peaked at 44.8 per cent. Physicians licensed between 1925 and 1932 showed the largest proportion of party membership, at 53.1 per cent of the profession.

Under the influence of National Socialist thinking within the profession, “medical doctors began to expound the importance of the health of the entire nation as opposed to the health of the individual”. Medical-research scientists did not repudiate the use of human beings for medical experiments. On the contrary, with both criminal law and civil liability laws conveniently suspended, these medical researchers (who had a mind to venture into some unethical and dangerous scientific experiments) knew they could do so with absolute impunity.

And lastly:

As Kennedy points out:

The medical profession has not proven itself an energetic defender of democratic institutions or civil rights. Virtually every doctor in Germany took lead roles in the Third Reich’s Project to eliminate mental defectives, homosexuals, handicapped citizens, and Jews. So many hundreds of German physicians participated in Hitler’s worst atrocities – including managing mass murder and unspeakable experiments at the death camps – that the Allies had to stage separate ‘Medical Trials’ at Nuremberg. Not a single prominent doctor or medical association raised their voice in opposition to these projects.

Does any of this sound familiar?

The great CJ Hopkins makes the following observation:

Pathologized Totalitarianism 101

But the most significant difference between 20th-Century totalitarianism and this nascent, global totalitarianism is how New Normal totalitarianism “pathologizes” its political nature, effectively rendering itself invisible, and thus immune to political opposition. Whereas 20th-Century totalitarianism wore its politics on its sleeve, New Normal totalitarianism presents itself as a non-ideological (i.e., supra-political) reaction to a global public health emergency.

It’s a sharp observation.

The medical establishment today is the “invisibility cloak” of the new totalitarian.

Every GP in the country is now a political agent for the state. I know that they would hate to see themselves that way, tough, that’s what they have become knowingly or unknowingly. Either way, they disguise the states real intent.

Eternal shame and condemnation on every one of them that participates.

Peter Singer’s seatbelt

While on the subject of eternal shame, I’d like to mention another captured Australian, our own, world renowned Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer.

In August 2021 Peter published this embarrassment:

Why the COVID vaccine in Australia should be compulsory

He couldn’t help himself, he went for the fool’s analogy, the seatbelt analogy.

Instead, we are now hearing demands for the freedom to be unvaccinated against the virus that causes COVID-19.

In his mind, the default state, the “ethical” state, is that of vaccination against Covid and those “demanding” their freedom to choose are mistaken in their moral orientation.

The oddity here is that laws requiring us to wear seat belts really are quite straightforwardly infringing on freedom, whereas laws requiring people to be vaccinated if they are going to be in places where they could infect other people are restricting one kind of freedom in order to protect the freedom of others to go about their business safely.

Here he bases his position on the assumption that an unjabbed can “infect” and jabbed cannot. You would think that even an under graduate bioethicist would know the medicine before opening his mouth on policy and politics.

But Mill had more confidence in the ability of members of “civilised” communities to make rational choices about their own interest than we can justifiably have today.

What a fantastic line “…than we can justifiably have today”. The view from the ivory tower leans towards contempt. The further you are from real life, the more damaged is your capacity for empathy. Empathy is what makes us human, and diminished or damaged empathy disconnects us from our own humanity, and that disconnection is sociopathic.

Jeffery Tucker wrote profoundly about this disconnect back in July 2020:

The Bloodless Political Class and Its Lack of Empathy

Adam Smith explained empathy as a feature of the human personality. “As we have no immediate experience of what other men feel,” he wrote, “we can form no idea of the manner in which they are affected, but by conceiving what we ourselves should feel like in the situation … By the imagination we place ourselves in his situation, we conceive ourselves enduring all the same torments … and become in some measure the same person with him.”

That’s what real life is like. But political life today seems to seek to banish that very human feeling. It’s as if they are playing a video game featuring all of us but we are mere figures on a screen programmed to do what they want. They have no obligation to understand us, much less worry about the pain they inflict, because, like figures on a gaming screen, we surely don’t feel pain at all.

-

The emotional gap between the rulers and ruled has never been wider in modern times. It seems completely unsustainable. It’s like they aren’t even trying to connect with people. 

Now back to Peter:

“I’m admitting young healthy people to the hospital with very serious COVID infections. One of the last things they do before they’re intubated is beg me for the vaccine. I hold their hand and tell them that I’m sorry, but it’s too late. A few days later when I call time of death, I hug their family members and I tell them the best way to honour their loved one is to go get vaccinated and encourage everyone they know to do the same.

“They cry. And they tell me they didn’t know. They thought it was a hoax. They thought it was political. They thought because they had a certain blood type or a certain skin colour they wouldn’t get as sick. They thought it was ‘just the flu’. But they were wrong. And they wish they could go back. But they can’t.”

Here Peter falls for one of the proven pieces of propaganda. He is quoting a doctor posting on Facebook (!). I guess it must be true! He is basing his ethical reasoning on propaganda that he has ingested and swallowed whole. He is using the “Facebook doctor” to make the “medical point” that young and healthy people are dying of Covid and begging for vaccination when it is too late.

This man is a world renowned philosopher and bio-ethicist. Is he dumb or captured or both?

I think this little girl understands the subject matter better than Peter Singer.

And lastly:

The same reason justifies making vaccination against COVID-19 compulsory: otherwise, too many people make decisions that they later regret. One would have to be monstrously callous to say: “It’s their own fault, let them die.”

Yes, according to Peter Singer, compulsory Covid vaccination is for our own good, just like compulsory seatbelts are for our own good.

Except Peter, seatbelts have gone through more safety testing then any of the jabs (did you know that?) and seatbelts do not produce cytotoxic spike protein (did you know that too?). And lastly, seatbelts don’t cause heart attacks in young healthy men and women, I have to assume you don’t know that either otherwise your sociopathy would be willful.

I will end by quoting myself:

Pick a side: The jab is either safe or it isn’t

The issue of Informed Consent is similar to the issue of Effectiveness…they both follow Safety.

If something is not safe, then you don’t get to present it to the public for them to make a “free choice” with “informed consent.” You only get to exercise your “free choice” and “informed consent” over a medication that has been proven to be “safe” first.

The government does not permit “unsafe” cars to be sold to the public, and there is nobody arguing that cheap and unsafe cars be sold and that citizens will exercise their freedom to either buy these unsafe cars or not.

The government does not permit restaurants to produce unsafe food, even if the restaurant gave clear warning signs about the risks and possibility of illness.

There is a presumption of safety first and it is WITHIN THAT PRESUMPTION that Freedom of Choice and Informed Consent exist.