Informed consent for a medical intervention involves sharing known and potential risks. This blog represents my effort to provide a balanced perspective on current SARS-CoV-2 vaccine policy.
The novel COVID-19 immunization technologies were developed and deployed in an incredibly short timeline – an impressive accomplishment. As a physician, I was grateful for this new tool to protect our vulnerable population. Evergreen welcomed the opportunity to provide this option to our community by administering nearly 10,000 doses of this new mRNA technology.
Unfortunately, many of us began to see some complications arise. We observed patients with anaphylaxis, angioedema, ischemic strokes, arrythmias, pericarditis, pulmonary emboli, other thrombotic events, and sudden death within a month of their vaccinations. Anaphylaxis can be linked to a vaccine related adverse event because this life-threatening reaction generally occurs within hours of the inoculation. The other complications have not been clearly causally linked to the vaccines, but these associations remain insufficiently researched. We did report these potential adverse outcomes to VAERS (vaccine adverse events reporting system). My review of the VAERS raw data in April 2021 revealed some worrisome signals.
VAERS data is passively reported and previous research about VAERS data suggested that this resource may only capture 1 to 10% of all vaccine adverse events. A review of the raw data suggested that there were more deaths in 4 months with the three COVID-19 vaccinations approved for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) than with all other vaccinations combined that were administered between the years of 1990 to 2019.
Many physicians and scientists have expressed concern about an apparent lack of transparency. The social media platforms have practiced overt censorship regarding pandemic data and treatment options, but unfortunately, so have official government and academic institutions.
Between May 25-June 3, 2021, a survey of 2000 nurses and 450 physicians showed that 77% of those surveyed had decreased trust in the CDC, and 48% reported that their trust in the FDA had decreased. When the extent of the medical suppression becomes more widely known, please remember that the CDC and FDA does not represent the opinions of all physicians or nurses.
The evidence below from the CDC and VAERS provides additional depth to the “safe and effective” narrative of these EUA inoculations.
The chart below are from a CDC slideshow demonstrating the data on mRNA vaccine induced pericarditis and myocarditis.
The inventor of mRNA vaccine and RNA transfection technologies, Robert Malone M.D. raised safety concerns about the current vaccination policy. His interview link is below. He has been troubled by the push to vaccinate low risk individuals such as children, young healthy adults, and pregnant women. He has suggested that we reduce the fervor to vaccinate everyone given the evolving adverse event data. He is also a bioethicist and recognizes many of the efforts to coerce people to vaccinate as unethical. He also adds that the current procedures seem to counter current Federal law as it pertains to EUA. As we have unfortunately come to expect, he was censored, and even his linked-in site was cancelled.
Lotteries, gifts, and medical segregation to coerce low risk individuals, pregnant women, and children to receive an experimental inoculation approved under emergency use authorization (EUA) is unethical. Institutional medicine and public health authorities should discourage these coercive practices. Instead, they should emphasize a process of balanced, transparent information sharing, and maintain a stance against mandatory vaccination approved under EUA.
Valid early treatment with repurposed medications such as Ivermectin have been summarily dismissed as ineffective or potentially unsafe by some medical institutions such as the WHO, NIH, and CDC. This official determination is despite significant evidence of effectiveness (see study link below), and over 4 billion doses of this medication provided over decades endorses a solid safety profile. Barriers to researching Ivermectin in the U.S. were erected by the FDA and are described by Dr. Malone in his interview.
Suppression of evidence and perspectives is not a scientific process. Vaccination of recovered, naturally immune individuals is not standard medical practice, especially when there is evidence to suggest long term immunity exists (see study links below). So, what is going on? Dr. Bret Weinstein, a professor of evolutionary biology, and a recently cancelled moderator of a podcast provides his perspective in the interview below. I publicly avoid assigning motives to poor decisions, but censorship of clinical observation, data and open scientific discussion is a recipe for catastrophe.
The following link is an Interview with Robert Malone M.D., the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology. He discusses current vaccine options, VAERS signals, repurposed medications and the bioethics surrounding EUA.
The link below is to the interview with Brett Weinstein PhD. He discusses pandemic censorship, vaccines, and his perspective of institutional “capture”.
Ivermectin Meta-analysis from the American Journal of Therapeutics
A few studies that demonstrate evidence of long-term immunity after natural infection:
Vaccine passports and medical segregation is deeply troubling. I reserve hope for an informed consent process for all, without coercion.
And I wish for respectful, civil discourse that may ultimately result in greater unity.
John Powell M.D.