As the world grapples with the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, a pressing question lingers: Did we take the right approach in dealing with the virus? Vaccination has been championed as the path to normalcy, with governments worldwide urging their populations to get jabbed. However, the narrative surrounding COVID-19 treatment and vaccination is far from settled.
In some countries like the UK, Israel, Chile, and Argentina, the data raises eyebrows. Reports suggest that 9 out of 10 COVID-19 deaths occurred among the vaccinated, with a case fatality rate significantly higher than in the unvaccinated. This contrasts sharply with the story we were told: that vaccination would lead to fewer deaths and a lower spread of the virus. The statistics seem to defy the promise of the vaccines, prompting a critical reassessment of what we’ve been doing and why.
One point of contention lies in the concept of “informed consent.” When vaccines were rolled out, they were presented as the safest and most effective means of combating COVID-19. Yet, the sheer number of reported adverse reactions—over 5 million in the USA and Europe, alongside 70,000 deaths—paints a different picture. What’s more, the legal protections afforded to vaccine manufacturers under emergency use authorization (EUA) raise ethical questions. Did individuals truly have full awareness of what they were consenting to, or was this consent clouded by fear and urgency?
The discussion isn’t merely about being “anti-vaccine.” It’s about advocating for “sane” vaccines—those that are proven to be safe and effective. The issue here is the systemic bias against alternative, cheaper treatments that have shown promise. Ivermectin, for instance, has been hailed by some researchers as a potential game-changer. By May 2020, there was substantial evidence suggesting its effectiveness against COVID-19 variants. However, instead of embracing these findings, there was a concerted effort to suppress information about alternative treatments.
So why the resistance to these alternatives? It could boil down to a financial motive. Ending the pandemic with cost-effective treatments like Ivermectin threatens the economic interests tied to vaccines and other expensive therapies. There’s a stark contrast between the cost of using Ivermectin, estimated at around $1 million to end the pandemic, versus the $160 billion per year to maintain an ongoing vaccination strategy. The pandemic, it seems, became a lucrative business opportunity rather than a public health crisis in need of swift resolution.
Moreover, the pandemic revealed a concerning lack of quality control and pharmacovigilance globally. Despite more deaths linked to COVID vaccines than all other vaccines combined since 1990, there was a startling lack of follow-up and investigation into potential side effects like myocarditis and thrombosis. This neglect raises a troubling question: Were public health authorities more invested in promoting vaccines than in ensuring their safety and efficacy?
The introduction of COVID-19 vaccines also marked a shift in the doctor-patient relationship. Governments turned a personal medical decision into a mandate, infringing on the physician’s right to practice medicine tailored to individual needs. Where was the outcry from medical associations over this erosion of medical autonomy? The silence was deafening. It seemed the medical community was willing to overlook the nuances of patient care in the face of an administrative mandate.
So, where does this leave us? The ongoing debate over COVID-19 treatment and vaccination highlights a broader issue in healthcare: the need for a balanced approach that considers all options, not just the most profitable ones. While vaccines have their place in the fight against infectious diseases, they are not a one-size-fits-all solution. It’s time to acknowledge the complexities of this pandemic and move toward a more nuanced, evidence-based approach to public health.
In the end, it’s not about choosing sides in a vaccine debate. It’s about ensuring that decisions are made based on a full spectrum of evidence, free from bias and financial influence. We must strive for a healthcare system that prioritises genuine, informed choice and promotes treatments that are both safe and effective. Only then can we truly say we have learned the lessons of this pandemic.
Original Article: Prepare for Change
Go Further: Scientific proof of the PLANdemic with 2000 peer-reviewed published references.
