A key theme in George Orwell’s totalitarian classic, 1984, was the ruling party conditioning the citizenry to ignore what they saw with their own eyes if those observations clashed with the interests of the party. In turn, the book detailed example after example of how this was enacted (e.g., citizens were expected to state with conviction “2+2=5”) and how again and again, they forced themselves to deny ever having believed something they had previously espoused with complete fervor for the ruling party.Note: Orwell termed this cognitive process “doublethink”

Since we live in an information age where ideas can rapidly scale throughout the population, determining what constitutes truth has profound economic and political impacts and as a result, a lot of resources are devoted towards ensuring the current “truth” conforms to the vested interests that operate society.

In our society, a cornerstone of this monopolization of truth has been the edification of “credible sources” and conversely, conditioning a habitual tendency to dismiss anything which does not come from a credible source.

The most concise summary I’ve seen of where this began was written by renowned journalist John Pilger. In it, he showed how the companies which came to be viewed as the most prestigious media institutions (e.g., the BBC) quickly compromised on their principles of objectivity and presenting both sides of a story when the government needed them to. In tandem, the idea of “professional journalism” was created which instilled the widespread belief that a news story could only be deemed credible if it came from a journalist working within one of those prestigious media companies.

Thus, what constituted news rapidly became only what either the government or the corporatocracy (who inevitably bought out those news sources) deemed acceptable for the populace to hear. In turn, since our “free” media morphed into being nothing but a propaganda mouthpiece for the establishment, the public was continually mislead on critical issues with enormous social consequences (e.g., consider some of the egregious examples Pilger cited such as the countless costly, catastrophic and pointless wars we’ve been involved in).

Fortunately, the internet has broken that monopoly, and now a thriving alternative media ecosystem (which tells the truth) is rapidly emerging that is slowly outcompeting the legacy media (which fills us with useless drivel). Recently, I saw an excellent comedy sketch describing the current state of affairs:

Credible Sources and Medicine

Since there is so much money in what constitutes a medical “truth” there has likewise been a large investment to ensure tight control exists over the existing medical narratives. In turn, a lot of frameworks have been put in place to ensure a medical fact can only be considered “true” if it is endorsed by a “credible” source. I will now look at three key facets of this paradigm.

Anecdotes

Most of our conception of reality is based off of experiences we’ve had which we then generalize onto future experiences (e.g., if someone was assaulted, they often view entirely benign interactions as threatening). In some cases, those generalizations are invalid, but other cases they are completely valid, which in turn makes it possible to argue for or against making those generalizations (depending upon which perceptual filter one brings into the argument).

Within medicine, I’ve had a longstanding policy to have a fairly low threshold for taking an anecdotal observation under serious consideration. For example:•If I see someone having an unusual reaction following initiation of a therapy or treatment, I immediately consider the possibility it could be caused by the intervention and then try to figure out how this could possibly be happening or what other things might explain the reaction. In turn, I would often stop therapies much earlier than my colleagues would consider doing so.•If I hear multiple reports of a therapy working for something, I will seriously look into if it could work and then compare it to the other options I know of for the condition to see if there is merit in trying it.•If I see multiple instances suggesting something really strange is happening that should not be possible, I will start looking into how it could be possible. This for example is why I put so much work into trying to expose the otherwise inexplicable COVID-19 shedding phenomenon.•If I see multiple instances of someone having a highly unexpected reaction to a pharmaceutical, I tend to assume that reaction is a somewhat frequent side effect. For example, once the COVID vaccines hit the market, because of the reactions I was coming across in normal clinical practice was clear to me within 1-2 months that they were unprecedentedly dangerous and needed to be pulled from the market. However, since there were no “credible sources” to substantiate my observations, it took the medical profession much longer to recognize the issue (and much of them still have not).

In turn, in my own clinical practice, while I spend a lot of time considering the existing scientific evidence, many of the actual decisions I make are based off “anecdotes” or “uncredible sources.” By the existing standards that have been instilled in our profession, this makes me a horrible doctor unfit to practice medicine. Yet on a case by case basis, I have a significantly higher treatment success rate than my “credible” colleagues—most of my patients either improve or fully recover, something not typically seen within my profession, and more importantly, I almost never harm them.

At this point, I believe that if an effect is somewhat common (e.g., a drug causes 10% of its recipients to develop severe headaches) you don’t need a well-conducted trial to detect it, whereas if an effect is fairly small (e.g., a drug causes you to have a 0.5% increased risk of a stomach ache in the next year) you need a well designed trial to detect it. Since most of the drugs on the market are approved on the basis of relatively small benefits (which may be an artifact of their trials being designed to create the illusion the drug has a benefit that it does not), those trials are needed. However, since minuscule benefits aren’t sufficient to achieve a high treatment success rate, I place a much lower weight on these “credible therapies” than my colleagues.

Credible Evidence

Presently, we deem medical evidence to be credible if it is put forth by a “credible source,” which means that it was published within a prestigious medical journal, espoused by a scientific authority, or pronounced by one of scientific institutions.

Unfortunately, as we’ve seen over the last few years, each of these groups is hopelessly corrupt—which makes sense, as there is so much money in the current “medical truth” ample bribes are available to ensure they all tow the partly line. For example:•In addition to the pharmaceutical industry being the primary sponsor of the medical journals, it has now been shown that all of the major medical journals are under the influence of the World Economic Forum. This helps to explain why they only published information favoring the narrative (e.g., that supporting lockdowns, remdesivir, or the COVID vaccines) while simultaneously refused to publish anything which questioned it (e.g., vaccine harms or the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).This extended to the point completely nonsensical studies which should have never passed a basic peer-review were published by the top journals if they supported the narrative. For example, the Lancet published a highly impactful study which stated hydroxychloroquine was killing people that was derived from an obviously fake dataset which was created out of thin air by a USA data-analytics firm and the Lancet eventually reluctantly retracted the article after numerous readers pointed out its data had to be fake.•The public officials whose words were taken as gospel throughout the pandemic (e.g., Fauci) repeatedly contradicted themselves or lied, but nonetheless were still treated as 100% credible experts we must defer to—even after numerous FOIA emails showed they intentionally lied and worked to cover up inconvenient information that undermined their narrative (e.g., Fauci did this with the fact COVID-19 originated from a lab that he funded to weaponize the SARS virus).•The CDC and the FDA have ignored all evidence the COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe (e.g., by their criteria, the death signal for the COVID vaccines was triggered but they never reported it to the public). Instead, they constantly have repeated the mantra the COVID vaccines (and boosters) are safe, effective, and necessary.

Skeptics

If you manipulate the facts in front of you, it becomes possible to argue almost anything (e.g., I’ve had times where I won a debate and then later won a debate advocating for the completely opposite position). Going through this process gives one an appreciation that there’s more to something being true than how effectively you can twist the existing information to conform to your narrative.Note: a case has been made that logic evolved not for the purpose of discerning truth, but rather for gaining control of a tribe and getting them to follow you.

One of the pillars the current monopolization of truth within medicine rests upon is having a core of ardent skeptics who will attack anything which deviates from the official narrative, which is typically done by painting the dissenting point as “un-credible” so that an uninformed bystander will assume that dissenting information should not be trusted.

What I’ve found fascinating about interacting with these people is that while they are very good at identifying the short comings of evidence or arguments they disagree with, they simultaneously cannot recognize the identical issue when it occurs within things they support. This in turn has lead to the situation where their entire contingent has marched in lockstep to support the COVID-19 vaccines, despite it being abundantly clear they are innumerable red flags with them.For example, skeptics know every single way to tear apart a paper which does not conform to their narrative, yet they simultaneously failed to recognize glaring issues within the COVID-19 trials such as:•Countless whistleblowers testifying that the vaccine clinical trials were fraudulent.•The publications of those trials concealing many of the adverse events which occurred within the trials—but even within the data that was shown, those papers making it clear the benefits of the vaccines were minor to non-existent while the harms frequently were significant.•The COVID vaccines having completely failed to fulfill almost every single thing they had initially been promised to do (which I believe perfectly illustrates the doublethink of 1984).Note: I frequently reference the work of skeptics to verify the validity of something I am considering. In some cases, they do provide legitimate points that need to be considered and cast the entire topic in doubt, but in many others, they invoke a variety of nonsensical criticisms—something I take as a sign no valid counter argument to the point exists and the point is likely true.

Bypassing the Information Blockade

One of the central challenges we’ve faced since the start of COVID-19 has been that the “credible sources” (e.g., the medical journals) have refused to publish information that casts doubt on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. This in turn has forced those trying to bring attention to the vaccine’s dangers to instead use other (“non-credible”) platforms to get that information out—which of course leads the skeptics to immediately dismiss the credibility of those sources.

While monopolizing each “credible source” is often sufficient to conceal something which threatens corporate interests, because over half of the population received the COVID vaccines and so many were injured by them, a lot of unusual workarounds became available to bypass that blockade.

For example, because of how many people were vaccinated and how frequently the vaccines injure their recipients, numerous large datasets show something (which coincided with the vaccine rollouts) has caused an unprecedented spike in disability and death throughout the Western World. While many other toxic pharmaceuticals have entered the market, it was almost never possible to see their harms within population wide datasets nor were members of the public willing to seriously consider what that data said (as typically, owing to the fact they had no personal investment in the issue, their focus instead went to whatever study the media chose to promote to them).

Political Polling

One of approaches that became available because of the unprecedented scale of harm from the COVID vaccines was to utilize the same tools marketing professionals use to sample a market—an approach which has been refined over the years by the political polling industry to have a high degree of accuracy but which only can be used when the question at hand is applicable to a sizable portion of the population (e.g., who will you vote for president).Unlike many anecdotal sources of data (which can be argued to simply be the product of bias) or polls conducted by authors in this genre (which can be argued to be biased since the respondents tend to come from the subset of the population who already have reasons to be critical of the COVID vaccines), political polls (owing to their need to be accurate) are recognized for sampling a random strata of the population which is likely to be representative of everyone.

Because of this, many of us realized political polling might be the key to providing the critical evidence of vaccine harm—and more important, could present it in a manner politicians would listen to (as every politician knows they have to listen to the polls if they want to stay in power). For example, when I initially met Steve Kirsch, my first suggestion was that he needed to focus his resources on having reputable polling firms collect the vaccine injury data he was looking for—which Kirsch then informed me he was already working on doing.

One of the first organizations which began to break this open was Rasmussen Reports, a highly accurate polling firm (they often come the closest to predicting the results of an election—something I believe results from them not having the respondent talk to anyone who might bias them). Additionally, Rasmussen is known for being willing to touch more controversial subjects the other (typically left-wing) polling outlets won’t cover.

When Rasmussen first examined the vaccine issues in July of 2021 they found 32% of American Adults believe public health officials were lying about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

When this was examined in more detail in December of 2022, by sampling 1000 American adults, Rasmussen found:•56% of the population believed the vaccines were effective (while 38% did not).•57% were concerned the vaccines had major side effects.•Democrats were much more likely the believe the vaccine was safe and effective.•Those who were vaccinated had a much higher belief in the efficacy of the vaccines, but much less trust in the safety of them (which suggested the scale of the injuries occurring was sufficient to overcome some of their innate biases—as people often wont’ want to admit they were harmed by a bad decision they made).

•56% of vaccinated adults report no side effects from the vaccine, 34% reported minor side effects and 7% reported major side effects (e.g., those seriously impairing their quality of life). On the surface this figure seemed extraordinary, but it matched what we’d seen in many other datasets.

Note: this survey (e.g., it’s internal validity) is discussed in much more detail in this short video by Rasmussen’s head pollster.

Since that time, other polls have been conducted which have found similar results. For example Rasmussen subsequently found:

•In January 2023, 49% surveyed believe it is likely that side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths and 28% personally knew someone whose death may have been caused by side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, while the vaccinated were only half as likely to think someone they knew died from the vaccine as the unvaccinated (22% vs. 45%) the difference was much smaller between Democrats and Republicans or Independents (26% vs. 33%). This in turn suggested the sudden death issue was becoming obvious enough people who didn’t want to see it for political reasons were starting to see it.•In January 2023, that 57% of those surveyed wanted Congress to investigate how the CDC handled assessing vaccine safety (presumably since many suspected the CDC had covered up the dangers of the COVID vaccination program).

•In March 2023, 11% of those surveyed reported that they believed a member of their household died from COVID-19, while 10% believed a member of their household died and that their death may have been due to a side effect of the vaccine.Note: given that (even by the most extreme estimates) less than 1% of America’s population has died from COVID-19, this suggests that many of the respondents considered their household to be more than just the people they were living with.

•In September 2023, 47% of those surveyed stated they did not believe the vaccines were safe and 34% did not believe they were effective. These results also politically stratified as Democrats were less likely to believe the vaccines were unsafe (14% vs. 51%) or ineffective (17% vs. 57%).•In November 2023, 24% of those surveyed stated they personally knew someone they believe died from a COVID vaccine, and of those individuals, 69% would be likely to join a class action lawsuit against the pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, there was no political stratification (of the 24% who said, yes, it was 25% amongst Republicans and 24% amongst Democrats), which again illustrates the population is becoming more upset about what happened.•In January 2024, 53% surveyed believe it is likely that side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths and 24% personally knew someone whose death may have been caused by side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.

It should be noted that these results are consistent with each other, and both show that the (politically seismic) issue is not going away and that as time goes forward, more are becoming open to it.

Other surveys have also found similar results, but won’t be covered here in order to keep the article length appropriate. However, there was one I felt deserved a brief discussion. In late 2021, Mark Skidmore conducted an IRB approved study which contracted Dynata, the world’s largest first part data-platform (meaning they were experts at collecting data) to survey the public for the vaccine injuries they were observing.Dynata found 14.6% of those surveyed reported a health issue following COVID-19 vaccination (13.4% of whom classified it as severe) and 21.6% reported someone they knew had suffered a health issue from vaccination (with the frequently reported issues such as heart attacks and strokes matching those commonly attributed to the vaccine).

Skidmore in turn (like many of the other pollsters) used existing statistical methods to argue that since a lot of people had been vaccinated, this meant a large number of people (millions) were being injured by the vaccine. Due to the “controversial” nature of this claim, his paper was quickly retracted despite no valid reason being given for doing so—which again illustrates why the medical journals cannot be relied upon to publish information which deviates from the existing narrative and why alternative datasources (e.g., polls) have sadly become more reliable than the scientific press we used to trust to safeguard the truth.

Steve Kirsch’s Surveys

True to his word, Steve has pursued getting surveys performed to evaluate the rate of vaccine injury. For example, in June and July of 2022, he and the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation commissioned independent polling firms to perform a series of surveys. Four of these surveys specifically evaluated the rate of vaccine injuries and found the following results:

Recently, they commissioned a much more detailed survey of vaccine injury (which can be viewed here) that sampled 1000 adults (which approximates the sample size Rasmussen used in each of their surveys). It found:

•83.62% of Democrats believe the vaccine is safe and effective, 44.49% Republicans believe it is, and 51.81 of independents believe it is.

•Of the 706 respondents who were vaccinated, when asked if they or someone else in their household was injured by a vaccine, 32.47% of Democrats said yes, 20.14% of Republicans said yes, and 24.24% of independents said yes.•When the 197 who reported an injury were asked about who was injured, 62.5% of Democrats reported it was them (compared to 37.5% reporting it was someone else), while 62.07% of Republicans reported being the injured party, and 62.5% of independents reported being the injured party.

Of the 197 who were injured, most considered their injury to be significant.

Finally, all of those who had known someone who had died since January 2021 (which was 194 respondents) were sampled and asked some specific questions on the deaths.First they were asked about the cause of death, and the most common responses were conditions commonly linked to the COVID vaccines.Second, they reported that the majority of those they knew who died had been vaccinated before their death.Third, the ages of deaths in those they knew who died was much lower than the average life expectancy in the USA (e.g., almost as many 31-40 year olds died as those over 60—something which should not happen normally).

Finally, when stratified by party, 52.94% of Republicans attributed the death to vaccination whereas 57.33% of Democrats attributed the death to the vaccine. While this can partly be explained by the fact Democrats are more likely to know vaccinated individuals than Republicans (whose unvaccinated friends obviously cannot have died from vaccination), it also illustrates that the political gaps on this issue are continuing to shrink as it is becoming harder and harder to ignore the wave of deaths being caused by these vaccines. This in turn makes me quite hopeful that Democrat voters may be willing to seriously consider a candidate who has campaigned against the vaccines from the start like RFK Jr.

Note: since VSRF has a limited budget, Steve Kirsch funds much of their critical work through his Substack subscriptions. To advance that mission, he made the full version of the survey (which has a lot more information on which injuries were reported in each demographic) available to his subscribers here. 

Conclusion

A foundational principle of the modern scientific method is that if something is true, it should be supported by independent pieces of data which all reach the same conclusion. For example, if you look at these survey results, they clearly demonstrate repeatability, as they all have fairly similar results (which like many of you, I can state match what I am observing in my own social circle).

Since much of what our society’s vested interests want to be “true” is not supported by real life data, it requires a truly massive apparatus to be in place to ensure a false truth keeps on being propped up.

While COVID-19 has been a truly terrible experience, one of the brightest aspects of it is that it has compelled a lot of people who always want to stay on the sidelines to publicly speak out against the injustices they were seeing happen and begin creating a new era of media which at last is displacing the “professional journalists” who refused to cover these issues (or, as shown by what happened to Tucker Carlson after he called out the media for selling out America to the COVID vaccine manufacturers, were fired if they nonetheless did).

In turn, there are more and signs our politicians are both listening to survey results like the ones in this article and the increasingly loud voice being created by independent media. It makes me truly grateful this is happening and that the legacy media is at last becoming displaced. Like many, I can emphatically state that I share the sentiments expressed by Jimmy Dore in the video I showed at the start of this article.

Note: Like Jimmy, I agree that if the journalists want to get their jobs back, they need to start covering issues people actually care about rather than feeling entitled to your attention because they are attached to a prestigious organization. Similarly, the last few years have taught many of us that the majority of journalists have very little knowledge about the subjects they discuss (which may explain why they constantly defer to the party line on them), and hence do not deserve the blanket trust we’ve always given them to assess critical issues of the time (which was predicated on the assumption they must know what they are talking about if they were allowed to cover it).

When COVID-19 began, and especially when the vaccine rollout started, as I saw how much had been erected to ensure humanity went down the path which had been laid out for us by the ruling class and I thought again and again how it might be stopped, over and over, it felt like I was staring at an impossibly high mountain that could never be climbed.

However, as we’ve all seen, a miracle occurred (e.g., lots of people gave everything they could to help move us up the mountain), and enough things happened for the public to begin awakening to exactly what what was happening. In my own case, it has been both humbling and incredibly difficult to believe the amount of traction this publication has gotten and I thank each of you for helping to make that possible.

Thank you for reading The Forgotten Side of Medicine. This post is public so feel free to share it.