by A Midwestern Doctor, Lew Rockwell:
Last year, I learned of a Yale study which had discovered the COVID vaccine persisted in the body and caused long term immunological impairments—something I believe relates to the egregious production process that characterized the COVID-19 vaccines.
Since I did not want to interfere with the publication process, I held off from disclosing anything within the study which had not already been leaked by someone else. Today the study was pre-published, so I can now discuss what they found (in a heavily revised version of the previous article). The first half of this article provides the context for that study, while the second half discusses it (e.g., that the vaccine spike protein can persist in the body for at least 709 days and cause at least two years of chronic immunological suppression and autoimmunity that directly correlate to the presence of chronic illnesses).
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Note: as this study was conducted by a team of immunologists, they primarily focused on immunologic changes (and as a result many of the other chronic consequences of vaccination were not discussed). Additionally, it should be noted that they originally strongly endorsed the vaccination (both to prevent COVID and to treat long COVID—which is often disastrous) and came from a very pro-vaccine institution. As such, the fact they were willing to change their stance on this should be acknowledged (and indicates a lot of work went into verifying the accuracy of their data).
Upsides and Downsides
A lot of things in life are trade-offs, and as I’ve gotten older, more and more I’ve come to appreciate how many things in our society boil down to the fact that the options for addressing them (at least within the existing paradigm) all have significant downsides, so in many cases no solution exists which is satisfactory to all parties involved.
As such, this dilemma is typically managed by some combination of the following:
•Having a biased focus which emphasizes the benefits of an approach a side supports and downplays its downsides (or conversely disproportionately focuses on the downsides of an opposing position). To this point, I’ve had countless issues I’ve debated both sides of and been able to effectively persuade audiences of each one—which highlights how subjective many of the entrenched beliefs we hold actually are (and, in turn, is why I put so much work here into fairly presenting both sides of each controversial topic I cover).
•Sweeping the downsides under the rug and gaslighting the populace into believing they don’t exist.
•Blitzing the public into supporting a questionable policy before they have time to recognize its downsides, and if that fails, overtly forcing them to go along with it.
Note: I believe one of the reasons why governments frequently do horrible things to their people is because they are put in the position of having to “solve” a problem (but with no truly satisfactory way to do it), so they become habituated to using the three previous strategies to push their chosen policies along and simultaneously develop a collective mentality that those questionable approaches are necessary for the “greater good.”
There are many different manifestations of this dilemma, many of which I believe are essentially reflective of a foundational concept in medicine—sensitivity and specificity.
An ideal diagnostic test would catch every instance of a disease (100% sensitivity) and simultaneously never have a false positive (100% specificity). Unfortunately, in almost all cases, this is impossible to do, and instead a trade-off exists where you can either prioritize sensitivity (which leads to a significant number of false positives) or prioritize specificity (which leads to a significant number of false negatives). During COVID for example, a decision was made to prioritize sensitivity with the PCR tests (by having a high replication cycle thresholds) so no cases of COVID would be missed, but this resulted in such poor specificity that the PCR tests effectively became worthless (except for drumming up fear) since they produced so many false positives.
As such, when tests are designed, attempts are made to ensure there is a good balance between sensitivity and specificity. In some cases this is successful (e.g., there are many lab results we will take at face value), but in many other cases, given the technology involved, it’s not really possible to do so (or it is, but lobbying led to over-diagnosis so a medical product could be sold).
Similarly:
•Many policies in the justice system aims to enact fall into this same situation. For example, an ideal death penalty is robust enough to deter murder (and keep violent criminals away from the public), but simultaneously lenient enough that it doesn’t accidentally execute innocent individuals. Since there is no way to have both perfect sensitivity and specificity on this, different states take radically different approaches to how they enforce the death penalty (lying all along the spectrum between sensitivity and specificity). Likewise, our judicial system was founded under the principle “innocent until proven guilty” whereas many other countries have judicial systems that are the exact opposite.
•In medicine, one of the greatest challenges is finding the appropriate dose, as people differ, so what might be a safe and therapeutic dose for one person could be toxic for another. As such, standardized doses are typically chosen by finding the best overall balance between efficacy (a sufficient dose) and safety (avoiding a toxic dose), but for many drugs, the standardized dose leads to many more sensitive patients becoming severely injured by the drugs (which is then commonly “addressed” by gaslighting those injured patients).
Note: a much more detailed discussion on the art of dosing can be found here.
•Every medical intervention has its risks and benefits, and ideally, the job of a physician should be to accurately weigh those to determine the best treatment for a patient (while simultaneously conveying what they are to the patient). Unfortunately, in many cases, they don’t (which is a large part of why patients are so dissatisfied with the medical system).
Overall, there are three key takeaways from this paradigm I wish to focus on in this article:
1. It is often incredibly difficult to find an acceptable balance between sensitivity and specificity, and many of the conventions our society now follows were the result of years of debate and protest from both sides to find a palatable middle ground between the two.
