TSOT043: Cardiologist who earlier said any concern was "irrational" and based on lies bothers to investigate, and reverses course entirely
Sep 30, 2022, 06:03 AM
A prominent cardiologist in the U.K. who in early 2021 appeared on a national morning show, but since he didn't appreciate the delta between respiratory illnesses getting hundreds of news impressions before it even spreads versus a new one getting BILLIONS of impressions, didn't bother to realize he could be echo-chambered by his uninformed colleagues. As a result, despite not truly looking into it himself (his words - , and so he in essence ridicules those who have concerns, by saying they are believing in social media lies and that their concerns are "irrational."
But then, sadly, his impetus for actually looking into things is a "no good explanation" death in his own family.
Of someone who three years earlier had very minimal plaque and no blood flow decrease, per scans and checkups, but when the person dies, they have 75% and 90% blockage.
What really went on is what I've told you before.
And, unfortunate as the personal tragedy was that got him there, the same cardiologist says nothing more should be done until we completely look at the raw data.
Now he says we should review to determine if there is a net public health benefit. but that's him being conservative and diplomatic. The case study itself, because he has the details, basically indicates, as we've told you over and over again, that the solution is worse, for many demographics, than the problem.
And as we've told you, it is because they took a simple and basic and sound way to create a vack-seen, and partially thanks to the U.S. government's policies that majorly incentivize "new" over "more effective", developed an inelegant and indirect way for the immune system to "recognize" the disease, recklessly assuming that the very effect they want to induce - making the body become a factory for protein structures it would not otherwise create - would result in no overproduction or no unpredictable harms, that someone not thinking with their greed might have seen, since literally you're tinkering with the human cell's protein factories.
Complete with analysis and some refresher of things previously discussed.
That said, related episodes (among many):
But then, sadly, his impetus for actually looking into things is a "no good explanation" death in his own family.
Of someone who three years earlier had very minimal plaque and no blood flow decrease, per scans and checkups, but when the person dies, they have 75% and 90% blockage.
What really went on is what I've told you before.
And, unfortunate as the personal tragedy was that got him there, the same cardiologist says nothing more should be done until we completely look at the raw data.
Now he says we should review to determine if there is a net public health benefit. but that's him being conservative and diplomatic. The case study itself, because he has the details, basically indicates, as we've told you over and over again, that the solution is worse, for many demographics, than the problem.
And as we've told you, it is because they took a simple and basic and sound way to create a vack-seen, and partially thanks to the U.S. government's policies that majorly incentivize "new" over "more effective", developed an inelegant and indirect way for the immune system to "recognize" the disease, recklessly assuming that the very effect they want to induce - making the body become a factory for protein structures it would not otherwise create - would result in no overproduction or no unpredictable harms, that someone not thinking with their greed might have seen, since literally you're tinkering with the human cell's protein factories.
Complete with analysis and some refresher of things previously discussed.
That said, related episodes (among many):