How an online Physician community turned into an Echo Chamber

An inside look at what doctors were saying privately to each other at the beginning of the pandemic...

Here I share another body of “inside” information: a report from inside a very large and private group of physicians on a large (and highly regulated) social media platform that will remain unnamed. The original article was published on The Defender, the on-line publication of Children’s Health Defense more than a year ago.

It’s been 18 months since I participated in this on-line forum. My commentary is intended to demonstrate how the medical community rapidly devolved from what I thought was a stable, discerning and collaborative group of professionals into what could be described as a mob of confused clinicians that quickly abandoned logic, reason and consequently, the second pillar of ethical medical practice: informed consent.

Those of us who have witnessed this tragedy unfold have been shocked by the transgressions of our government, the support of censorship and the unscientific attitude of scientists themselves. We have been equally shocked by how many people, sometimes in our own community or family, are oblivious to this.

I don’t have any clear answers. However I have had a more intimate access to the minds and hearts of some of the physicians who have been attempting to guide their patients through the last three years. What can the comments, questions and responses between doctors three years ago tell us about them?

I am not excusing the medical community for their actions over the last three years. Instead I want to better define what we are up against. The edicts from our authorities stem from unfounded positions held by our agencies of public health. These agencies, like the FDA and the CDC, do not directly wield any authority over how doctors care for their patients yet they hold sway over the public because the medical community trusts them. Once that trust is eroded their reign will end. 

In order to accelerate this process it would behoove us to better understand how and why they think what they do.

This is what I witnessed in the private exchanges between doctors:

• Initial reports from physicians on the front lines told a grim tale. Most physicians in practice today have never dealt with a deadly pathogen spreading through their community unabated. Most physicians have never had to deal with this level of infrastructure failure. Not panicking was quickly regarded as irrational.

• Early treatment options were inappropriately dismissed, and those advocating for them were not just ignored, they were vilified and threatened.

• This led to the destruction of productive exchanges. Dissenting opinions were rarely raised due to the risk of backlash including calls to revoke medical licenses. The group turned into an echo chamber.

• mRNA “vaccines” were accepted with nary a challenge to their purported safety or efficacy despite only a few months of data from the on-going Phase III trials.

• A few months into the vaccine campaign doctors began to report serious adverse events from the shots, in droves and in private. Yes, they did.

When I posed questions at the World Vaccine Congress held earlier this month they were politely dismissed. The physician community treated skeptics with far less courtesy.

What follows is an abbreviated and edited version of the Defender article. I discussed the article with Joe Martino last year here:

---

In late 2020, a colleague of mine, who is board-certified in pulmonology and critical care medicine and had been on the front lines treating COVID patients, invited me to join a large, private group of physicians on a “very popular social media platform” who had assembled to educate each other in a time of uncertainty.

At the time I was mystified by what was unfolding in front of me. Why was the head of the NIAID warning us not to see if Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin worked given the fact there was no real alternative? These medicines have had a long history of safe use for other indications. What would be the danger?

The CDC was already recommending that all people would need to get vaccinated, even those with a documented bout with Covid-19. How did they know that getting jabbed might not have an untoward effect in those with prior immunity?

Moreover there was no justification of the confidence our authorities had in the Covid-19 vaccines’ safety and efficacy. Published trial data included only a few months of observation. In Pfizer’s trial of some 40,000 participants, only 10 (page 1, Results) came down with severe COVID.

Does an efficacy based on 10 outcomes (9 in the placebo wing and 1 in the vaccine) justify the deployment of this intervention on hundreds of millions of people? I didn’t think so.

Were other doctors asking the same questions that I was asking? I joined the group to find out what other doctors were saying about this. Suffice it to say that the tone and content of the comments were disquieting.

This group has more than 20,000 doctors, each one vetted by the group’s administrators. Admission to the group is through invitation by a member only. The members span nearly all specialties of medicine, from rheumatology and pediatric cardiology to ER medicine and infectious diseases.

The intent was to share our understanding and personal experiences in order to care for the public more effectively.

I saw a comment thread about the superiority of vaccine-induced immunity over natural immunity, so I jumped in. I stated that that would be the exception to the rule, especially given the fact that we have no long term data on a formulation that had been tested for only a few weeks on participants. Immediately my credentials were challenged.

“Are you a doctor?”

“So we are supposed to trust an anesthesiologist about the immune system?”

The responses were disquieting and the loudest voices were expressing absolute certainty about basic concepts that were incorrect, to the best of my knowledge. I was dismayed but also curious. I went back to some of the first comment threads to see if I could figure out where things got derailed.

A pattern emerged from my survey of the exchanges between doctors. There had been growing skepticism, which was vehemently attacked from the beginning. This undoubtedly delayed the formation of a unified minority in opposition to the mainstream narrative.

Although we may think the medical establishment is monolithic in its scientific opinion, this is not true. The majority of medical professionals do continue to trust the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — but there has never been unanimous support, despite what the public has been told.

Below I have selected actual comments from the group on a handful of the most pivotal topics that were discussed.

I don’t divulge any information that would reveal the identity of the commenters. I have taken their comments mostly verbatim with occasional paraphrasing and additions for clarity for those unfamiliar with medical jargon. Grammatical errors remain uncorrected. Emphases are mine. Opening quotes within a block indicate a different doctor being quoted.

I also concede that unless one is a member of this discussion group, nothing I share here can be independently verified.

Doctors have been traumatized

Nobody likes to be attacked whether it be in an on-line exchange or otherwise. I was shocked to see that medical professionals would resort to personal insults to squelch the opinions of others with similar training and education.

Why was this happening?

They had been traumatized.

Here is one of the first posts in this group, offered as a PSA. In it, the physician is sharing personal experiences treating COVID patients at a time when there was no vaccine, no early treatment protocols, limited PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) and absolutely no guidance from the CDC:

“I am an ER (Emergency Room) MD in XXXX. Every one of my colleagues have now seen several hundred Covid 19 patients and this is what I think I know.

Clinical course is predictable. 2-11 days after exposure (day 5 on average) flu-like symptoms start. Common are fever, headache, dry cough, myalgias(back pain), nausea without vomiting, abdominal discomfort with some diarrhea, loss of smell, anorexia, fatigue.

Day 5 of symptoms — increased SOB, and bilateral viral pneumonia from direct viral damage to lung parenchyma.

Day 10 — Cytokine storm leading to acute ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) and multiorgan failure. You can literally watch it happen in a matter of hours.

81% mild symptoms, 14% severe symptoms requiring hospitalization, 5% critical.

Patient presentation is varied. Patients are coming in hypoxic (even 75%) without dyspnea. I have seen Covid patients present with encephalopathy, renal failure from dehydration, DKA (Diabetic Ketoacidosis). I have seen the bilateral interstitial pneumonia on the xray of the asymptomatic shoulder dislocation or on the CT’s of the (respiratory) asymptomatic polytrauma patient. Essentially if they are in my ER, they have it. Seen three positive flu swabs in 2 weeks and all three had Covid 19 as well. Somehow this [expletive] has told all other disease processes to get out of town.”

The clinical picture this doctor painted was dire. Patients who came to his facility for other reasons also had findings consistent with acute COVID infection. He summarized the situation well. It was pretty much all COVID, all the time.

This doctor offered more disturbing information:

“China reported 15% cardiac involvement. I have seen covid 19 patients present with myocarditis, pericarditis, new onset CHF and new onset atrial fibrillation. I still order a troponin, but no cardiologist will treat, no matter what the number in a suspected Covid 19 patient. Even our non covid 19 STEMIs (S-T segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) at all of our facilities are getting TPA (tissue Plasminogen Activator) in the ED and rescue PCI (Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) at 60 minutes only if TPA fails.”

The doctor is saying that invasive cardiologists at their facility were choosing not to intervene in their typical fashion in patients showing signs of a heart attack because COVID infection is causing similar diagnostic test results.

This was an extremely important observation from the doctor who was telling the group what was happening at their ER. Covid-19 infections were presenting as acute myocardial infarctions (heart attacks). Even though the clinical findings that would indicate a need for urgent angioplasty were present, cardiologists chose to intervene differently in those patients even if they didn’t have Covid. 

This observation should also help to remind us that when we encountered the ancestral SARS-COV2 strain it was causing heart problems like myocarditis, just like the mRNA vaccines do.

The physician went on to edify the group about further diagnostic findings and then revealed another startling reality: Patients were getting discharged to home despite their need for supplemental oxygen — a clinical indicator that hospitalization is necessary.

They simply didn’t have the resources to manage this crisis (same doctor):

“I had never discharged multifocal pneumonia before. Now I personally do it 12-15 times a shift. 2 weeks ago we were admitting anyone who needed supplemental oxygen. Now we are discharging with oxygen if the patient is comfortable and oxygenating above 92% on nasal cannula. We have contracted with a company that sends a paramedic to their home twice daily to check on them and record a pulse ox. We know many of these patients will bounce back but if it saves a bed for a day we have accomplished something. Obviously we are fearful some won’t make it back.

We are a small community hospital. Our 22-bed ICU and now a 4-bed Endoscopy suite are all Covid 19. All of these patients are intubated except one. 75% of our floor beds have been cohorted into covid 19 wards and are full. We are averaging 4 rescue intubations a day on the floor. We now have 9 vented patients in our ER transferred down from the floor after intubation.”

In my mind, this doctor was a hero, not only because of the commitment to treating a disease under horrendous circumstances but because of the final advice offered:

“I undress in the garage and go straight to the shower. My wife and kids fled to [my in-laws home]. The stress and exposure at work coupled with the isolation at home is trying. But everyone is going through something right now. Everyone is scared; patients and employees. But we are the leaders of that emergency room. Be nice to your nurses and staff. Show by example how to tackle this crisis head on. Good luck to us all.”

Most doctors at that time had no first-hand experience treating the devastating infection that seemed to be ravaging communities. This report from the front lines was confirming their worst fears.

Young and old, healthy and infirm were showing up in emergency rooms and ending up on ventilators. Hospital staff was getting overwhelmed. It was only a matter of time before this macabre scene would appear in their own emergency rooms and ICUs.

I have read through the rest of the details this ER physician gave. They were, for the most part, sound. Of course, there was no mention of early treatment. It was very early in the pandemic.

However many doctors still refuse to accept that this disease can be treated with remarkable success outside a hospital.

Nevertheless we must understand that valid reports from the field like this one can explain, at least partially, why the medical community is still reluctant to let go of the idea that Covid is a huge threat. Though the situation has gotten much better, it is very easy for the medical community to simply attribute the improvement to vaccination uptake.

The Controversy begins: Early treatment

In the summer of 2020, doctors began hearing of early and effective treatment for COVID patients. One would think that when faced with a hopeless situation any potential treatment would be considered rigorously with an open mind. That didn’t happen, at least not in this large group of physicians.

Here’s a post from July 2020 attacking America’s Frontline Doctors, headed by ER physician and Stanford-educated attorney, Dr. Simone Gold:

“Thoughts about how to combat the “America’s frontline doctors” press conference video that has gone viral? Basically claiming that they are using hydroxychloroquine and zinc to cure and prevent COVID-19 and scientists are lying about it not working and not being safe.

At one point one of them said those of us not using it are like the ‘good Nazis’ who watched Jews die and didn’t do anything. And said to stop telling them we need double-blind studies. They obviously have an agenda of their own and support reopening the country and schools because we have a ‘cure.’”

This particular post is fascinating. America’s Frontline Doctors was bringing light to the fact that they were having documented success in treating COVID cases though there were no double-blind studies to validate their protocol.

But why should we demand double-blind studies in the midst of a pandemic when there wasn’t any treatment to begin with?

Members of America’s Frontline Doctors were well-trained physicians like those in this group, and they had a remedy that was being ignored for no good reasons — especially given the plight that the country was in.

Why did they have to be “combatted?” They supported reopening the country and schools because they believe a cure exists. Is this any evidence that they “have an agenda of their own?”

The group’s members had much to say about this. Hundreds of comments were posted, and overwhelmingly the response was shock and fury. Here are two representative examples:

“So frustrating. They lost me right at the beginning. None of them have masks.”

“It’s really sad how easily propaganda thrives in our social media environment.”

These two comments reflect the majority opinion of the group. It must be propaganda, after all, what kind of doctor would appear in public without a mask?

This one was one of the more popular responses:

“They need to be discredited. They’re not acting responsibly. They are not advocating for a treatment that needs to be looked at legitimately. They’re claiming to have a cure that is being denied from the general public by mainstream medicine and science. They are literally trying to discredit the rest of us.”

This one received the most support from the group:

“Nothing saddens me more than the willful dissemination of false information by our own. It’s bad enough for the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Joneses to push this type of narrative, but it’s unconscionable when a physician does it. The only recourse we have is to professionally tell the truth to our patients and our community and to report unethical physicians to their states’ medical boards.”

These comments did not cite any emerging medical opinion from other parts of the world or previous research that demonstrated hydroxychloroquine’s (HCQ) antiviral properties against previous SARS coronaviruses.

Instead, suggestions that COVID-19 could be successfully treated were labeled “false information.” They were calling America’s Frontline Doctors liars. Also note the insinuation of political motivation behind the support of early treatment.

I was also witnessing the emergence of an unthinkable attitude among medical professionals: Those who have differing opinions must be unethical and need to be reported (three separate commenters):

“How are these ‘real doctors’ not under board review for spreading such misinformation during a pandemic?? Has their board been notified?”

“The Texas medical board should pull her license.”

“All of the physicians in the video who have active licenses should have them revoked. All of them need to be reported to their state board.”

The call for the revocation of medical licenses was the turning point for the group. Once this became thought of as a reasonable response there was no going back.

Another physician who participated in this group who wishes to remain anonymous told me last year:

“I am aware of multiple threats issued toward members of the group, and I am aware of at least one situation where someone’s opinions expressed in that private group ultimately led to a complaint to a state medical board.”

This was no longer a safe space for counter arguments, no matter how many there were. This was a crucial turning point in the last three years and it happened early on. Not only were doctors under attack for speaking out publicly, they could not voice their concerns privately either.

The following doctor mistakenly believes HCQ requires “emergency use approval” (a term that does not exist) in order for a physician to prescribe it for COVID-19. Physicians should know that they have the power to prescribe any fully licensed medicine (like HCQ and Ivermectin) for whatever indication they see fit. Approval from the FDA is not required. They comment:

“Inform their state’s medical board. HCQ emergency use approval for COVID has been revoked.”

In just a few months, doctors’ attitudes toward data and each other radically changed. A group of physicians who may have found a cure for a dangerous disease was being attacked by other doctors.

There was no sanctioned treatment at the time. Why would the possibility of a cure be anathema to physicians?

Moreover, doctors know full well the immense personal sacrifices required to obtain a license to practice medicine. What kind of treachery would justify immediate revocation of a medical license? The off-label use of a generic drug to cure a potentially lethal infection?

Of the hundreds of comments this topic drew, the overwhelming majority shamed Dr. Gold and her team. Only a handful of physicians chose to cite data that supported the use of HCQ as an early treatment for COVID.

None of them received any broad support.

Here’s one that received a modicum of attention:

“Hydroxychloroquine has not been shown to have adverse effects at the doses they are using. There are many treatments that were initially mentioned at the start of the pandemic as being harmful, that are now beneficial… such as high-dose steroids. I think we should be open-minded about treatments for covid. These physicians have found that Hydroxychloroquine and zinc have worked for numerous patients. We cannot discount this information.”

But by and large the group continued to regard America’s Front Line Doctors as “fringe” and misinformed:

“There are all sorts of legitimate MD’s with fringe views or who can’t read or interpret updates on hcq. Even in these groups how many times do we keep bringing up hcq already still?”

The following response came quickly but was not acknowledged. In it the physician sheds light on an important point: Not every doctor believes that early treatment with HCQ is crazy.

Although the doctor seems to agree with the majority, this was one of the first clues there may have been a quiet minority that sided with Dr. Gold and that that minority might be problematic:

“I don’t think it’s as fringe as you think. I think we’re divided at a rate closer to the general public than we’d like to think.”

Another doctor summarized the situation with even more rhetoric:

“We have entered a new era of being a physician. Integrity and compassion have been replaced by financial gain and fame as worthwhile traits to be pursued. I know it has always been the case in a minority, and maybe it is just that the minority now not only have a platform but a cause.

But by doing this they are undermining the rest of us who are trying our best to help people who are desperate and now are looking at those of us using the latest research and best practices like we are just wanting people to die to achieve some agenda. It is sickening, disgusting what these others are doing. And state medical boards are afraid to do anything about it.”

Only four months into the pandemic many doctors in this private group seemed to have largely abandoned their logic and curiosity. Apparently having a treatment undermines those who had nothing to offer people who were dying. This is obviously an absurd position. The fact that it was not met with immediate criticism indicates how a mob mentality was starting to emerge.

We must remember these comments were made in July 2020, before there was a vaccine available. There were no sanctioned options at the time — yet any doctor who suggested that there were became a pariah.

How could so many trained medical professionals unite in a mission to excise dissenters, abandon open inquiry and devolve into what might be best described as tribalism?

Could it be that the idea that a commonly used generic drug and an over-the-counter dietary supplement might actually be a life-saving, pandemic-ending solution was too outlandish to be true?

There was another possible reason. Most physicians were aware that Pharma giants were working at a feverish pace to formulate a COVID vaccine to save humanity, yet few knew that in order to receive FDA Emergency Use Authorization(and the relaxed standards for evidence of safety that come with it) there must be an emergency AND there must not be any effective, alternative treatment available.

If HCQ were acknowledged as an effective therapy, neither stipulation would have been satisfied. Dr. Gold became the target of a relentless media attack while Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, stubbornly refused to budge unless a randomized double-blinded trial proving that HCQ was effective against SARS-COV2 was published and peer-reviewed, a process that would take months at the very least.

Mainstream medicine had been hoodwinked by a smear campaign that targeted some of their own.

We have a Vaccine!

I joined the group shortly after the vaccine rollout in the United States. I wanted to know what was behind all of the exuberance around this rapidly developed and even more rapidly tested product. Why was everyone so confident the vaccines were going to work and pose little risk?

Trial participants were monitored for only a few weeks after their second dose and there were no COVID deaths in either wing of the trial.

There were only a handful of severe COVID infections, making it impossible to draw any robust conclusions about efficacy. How would we know they were safe if adverse events were passively reported for only a few weeks? 

Although there seemed to be an impressive, almost difficult to accept, reduction in relative risk of infection (which we soon found out was fleeting if there ever was one to begin with), there was only a tiny reduction in absolute risk of severe COVID. 

The trial data didn’t warrant a rapid vaccination campaign on hundreds of millions of people, did it? Apparently this large group of doctors thought so.

But these were not the kinds of questions that were being asked of the group. Instead we had these (three separate commenters):

“My grandfather is 90 with heart disease. Vaccinate or wait?”

“Have a patient with lupus and a history of anaphylaxis with flu vaccines. What do people recommend?”

“Cancer patient, immunosuppressed on dialysis. Vaccinate?”

I certainly didn’t know the answer to these questions, but who did? The trial participants were relatively young and healthy. Apparently having no relevant data from the trials didn’t stop doctors from opining, often with unbridled confidence, on these matters. The near-universal opinion was to vaccinate, vaccinate and vaccinate.

But why? Answer: Because COVID is horrible. This seemed to be a good enough reason for most group members. Another line of attack was forming. This time it was against hesitance around COVID vaccines.

Any cautionary positions brought immediate suspicion. What if a doctor told patients to wait until we know more? People might worry the vaccines weren’t safe.

But what if they weren’t?!

Debunking Myths of Vaccine adverse events

Several months later, a new topic predictably emerged: Vaccine adverse events.

Early on, however, there was little acknowledgment of potentially severe adverse events. Instead, this phenomenon was considered no more than a myth.

In this post, a member of the group is looking for advice on how to respond to a growing sentiment of public distrust of COVID vaccines. The member shares this public statement coming from a parent who voiced concerns on a different platform:

“How do we combat statements like this (here she is quoting one of her patients):

‘My daughter was vaccine injured at 18 months. There is no way in hell I’m allowing a drug that has no long-term studies & may cause sterilization to enter her body. You trust the FDA? You trust pharmaceutical companies who are racing to produce a drug that will make them billions $$$ in a matter of months? You trust your children’s health to the FDA who approved Agent Orange, GMO’s, mercury in flu vaccines, Gardasil which causes death & severe neurological damage, the same FDA that allows pesticides that cause cancer in your foods. I’d rather get CoVid & maybe it will be cold or flu like maybe it won’t. I’ll take my chances. Wear a mask sanitizer & keep doing as we have been.’

The group had responses that expressed frustration because this person’s attitude must be borne of ignorance and paranoia. Comments from four doctors:

“People blame vaccines for all sorts of health issues, especially for kids. It’s incredible the lack of causation.”

“I honestly don’t have time for this in the ED. People have the right to be stupid, and I’m not going to break a mental construct in 10 or 15 min. We can only present the facts as they are available, render a medical opinion, and let them decide what to do. If people want to play Russian Roulette with their health/COVID/vaccine, its not really much different than drinking, drug use and promiscuous unprotected sex. We in the ED will always be there to try and pick up the pieces of their shattered lives when they come crawling to us in desperation later.”

“I’m sick of playing along and being “nice” with the antivaxxer rhetoric of paralyzing uncertainty.”

“When debating on social media, I think you have to keep in mind that you’re playing for the audience. For every idiot being vocal about this, there are ten others lurking and reading and trying to decide what to think. If you engage calmly and reasonably, cite evidence, and make it clear which side of the debate has the smart people and the evidence, and which side has the lunatics and the conspiracy theories, you can keep undecided folks from drifting info further nonsense.

As to this specific post, it’s difficult to argue with because they are using a Gish Gallop (throwing out so many arguments that it’s simply too much effort to counter all of them, even if the individual arguments are weak). If there’s a specific point they’re focused on, debate that as best as you can. Keep in mind that there are skeptics and science communicators that spend a lot of time debunking this, and sharing their articles can save you the trouble of doing so yourself. Good luck! The misinformation is horrible.”

In the following response, a doctor offers some peculiar advice: Stay-up to-date on “misinformation.” That’s an interesting departure from what doctors are trained to do: Be familiar with information.

How does someone stay up-to-date on misinformation? See the comment:

“The best way to combat all of the fears about the covid-19 vaccine is to stay up-to-date on all of the misinformation. Have ready answers for their fears and your patients will be more confident. https://vaxopedia.org/…/the-truth-about-covid-19-vaccines/”

Vaxopedia is an online site, run by a physician, that offers dozens of references that “debunk” vaccine concerns. Nearly every source cited on the webpage is a “fact check” or mainstream media source like Reuters.

No physician in the group pointed out the gross double standards with regard to evidence. Observational studies and randomized trials that demonstrated significant efficacy of repurposed drugs like HCQ and ivermectin were dismissed, yet a lone doctor’s website that quoted mainstream media was held in high regard.

However, I noticed a discernible shift happening in the group. Other doctors had started to back a more moderate stance, asking questions and granting some legitimacy to vaccine concerns of the “lunatics” and “stupid conspiracy theorists:”

“So, I’m not anti vaxx, and definitely playing devil’s advocate, but are any of her statements made about what the FDA has let and continues to let pass incorrect?

Questioning motives in capitalist democracy does not make you a heretic. These are the beliefs of a lot of people and their fears are valid. Pharmaceutical Companies did race for-profit and a lot of people are getting rich off of this Vaccine, i.e. the stock prices of those companies and those that had insider trading knowledge and made millions. Monsanto was approved to manufacture Agent Orange as well as pesticides and GMO seeds. Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act that relieves Monsanto from any legal recourse for harming people with their product. Blacks were injected with syphilis for over 30 years as a government experiment.

As healthcare professionals, we can’t be dismissive of these fears. We have to educate and gain trust back.”

One doctor even hints at being unvaccinated:

“I think we can choose to not fall into false dichotomy and have both vaccines and extreme oversight into how they’re formulated. So many things have been unleashed on the public and then been proven to be extreme health hazards. I’d rather wear a mask for the rest of my life than pay a pharmaceutical company to use me as living data collection.”

Vaccine injury “Myths” become Facts

Just two months into the vaccine roll-out in the U.S., a doctor in the group posted this startling anecdote:

“Just saw a patient, an RN, who received 2nd dose of Pfizer vaccine 3 days ago and that evening started experiencing dizziness, loss of balance and double vision which continues through today.

Her husband also has reactivation of his trigeminal neuralgia after receiving 1st dose of Moderna.”

The doctor who posted the above report is concerned because the patient is an RN (Registered Nurse and thus credible in their eyes) and has a spouse that also suffered neurological symptoms after vaccination. How could this be a coincidence? The doctor queried the group for any similar experiences.

Remarkably, a flood of adverse event reports ensued, some minor and others crippling.

Dozens of doctors reported that they themselves or their patients were suffering similar issues (here are comments from 16 different clinicians):

“I never had any underlying disorder but started a new lower lip twitch 2 days after 2nd dose of Pfizer. I’m almost 4 weeks out and still feel it intermittently. I never ever felt that before the vaccine. Some may not think related but I absolutely do.”

“After hours of a HR (Heart Rate) of 120-130s I was exhausted. Supposed to have my 2nd this week.”

“Has anyone seen slurred speech and word finding 24hrs after Pfizer dose. Went to ER, no stroke. Dx (Diagnosed with a) migraine. Now 4 days with same symptoms. Pt had COVID-19 in July 2020.”

“I had bilateral paresthesias of feet and hands one week after the moderna shot 1.”

“Saw a XX yo male who had a petit mal seizure 2 weeks after first dose of Pfizer and no other changes whatsoever in routine or diet or exposures or meds/supplements.”

“Had two days of the reactivation of the thoracic shingles neuralgia I had three years ago.”

“Have a patient who developed neuralgia at the thoracic region the next day after receiving 1st moderna vaccine. Suspected shingles but no rash has appeared and has followed 1 dermatome. Now they are 2wks out and still having the pain.”

“Had my first dose of Moderna 1/9. Had HA [Headache] and fatigue x 7 days. Had reemergence of trigeminal neuralgia since then. In remission 4 months after battling x 2 years. Consulted rheum about 2nd dose. They said to go ahead. I’m due Saturday. This post makes me want to not get it.”

“I personally had dizziness, loss of balance, and double vision with both my shots, worse with the second within 20 minutes of the vaccine.”

“I have had multiple pts [patients] with migraine.”

“One hemorrhagic stroke.”

“Local physician died (hospitalized within a few days and never left alive,) Myocarditis and another with pericarditis and pleural effusion … My list goes on … and yes I have reported to VAERS it is time consuming and not purely passive as they also have contacted me on cases.”

“I had neuropathy of my hands and feet from one moderna vaccine in January.”

“In the past 3 days, 4 patients post J&J with neuro symptoms. 3 LOC (loss of consciousness) and AMS (altered mental status). One with bilateral LE (lower extremity) weakness and discoordination going to higher level of care for further eval.”

“Post Vaccine HSV1 (Herpes Simplex Virus) encephalitis. Pt had no history of HSV1 and 2.”

“I’ve seen a lot of reports of rashes, hives, tachycardia, stroke-like symptoms, dizziness, and in one case SVT (Supraventricular Tachycardia) after vaccination. I wish we could get better real-time data.”

Strokes? Shingles? Altered mental Status? Palpitations? Double vision? Seizures? Weakness? Death? How many people have been gaslighted by the medical establishment for reporting the very same injuries that doctors were reporting in private?

Let’s take a breath an move on…

This doctor reminds everyone to report to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS):

“For everyone who has had a notable reaction to a vaccine, please report to FDA to help build the database. https://www.fda.gov/…/vaccine-adverse-event-reporting …”

Another doctor takes the time to reflect on how little is known about mRNA vaccines, the puzzling recommendation of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) to vaccinate the pregnant and how little is really known about these vaccines and how they work.

In this long comment below, the doctor presciently reminds others of the potential danger of spike proteins and examples of how some vaccines have been deleterious. Finally, someone else was voicing my own concerns:

“So everyone will have to help me out as I am very concerned about mRNA vaccines, specifically this one. I have seen a fair amount of reports regarding Neuro side effects, trigeminal neuralgia, transverse myelitis, shingles, etc.

The way I understand it, the mRNA manipulates the ribosomes to encode the COVID spike protein which in turn is released throughout the body. At which point our own immune system develops antibodies to the spike protein. So we essentially are immunizing against the proteins of the virus.

So we are filling the body with spike proteins. From what we know about COVID, MIS-C (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children) and breakdown of the blood-brain barrier causing neurological symptoms; encephalitis from COVID are HIGHLY suspected to be caused from the spike proteins themselves.

We do not know what long-term effects on the neurological system can be caused by these spike proteins, is there a correlation in the neurological symptoms and the spike protein which has been shown to be the cause of inflammatory response to the endothelial cells of the blood-brain barrier.

Is this going to result in permanent demyelination of neurons or other neurological events? We do not know but there obviously have been some neurological side effects from the vaccine.

ACOG states that the vaccination should not be withheld from pregnant women. We have no idea if there will be teratogenic effects on a fetus. Too early for that information.

If mRNA vaccine technology has been around for a long time and has been researched in many diseases, why have we not seen any in stage 3 or 4 trials as of yet? We do not know long-term effects yet. We seem to have forgotten Rotashield.

That vaccine was not pulled out until it has been administered for over a year because it took that long to recognize its adverse effects. The initial vaccine for Anthrax, initially given during Desert Storm has been highly suspected as a cause of a spike in cases of multiple sclerosis.

Now I am the farthest from an anti-vaccine and lecture on the need for immunizations and have seen the effects of unvaccinated children. While I do not dismiss the COVID deaths, this virus still only has a mortality rate of around only 1.7%. Vast Majority of those >65 years old.

443k deaths, 26 million cases.

Around 600 total deaths under 25 in the nation!

Vaccinate over 60 years old, those with Comorbidities etc.

My question is do we really have enough information to properly educate our patients about this vaccine. Seems to me we have gone away from evidence-based medicine and are pushing theory. But you say that we have been researching mRNA vaccines for years, then why have we not used them yet and how did they cram decades’ worth of research into 6-12 months??”

Scores of doctors were reporting vaccine injuries since the inception of the massive vaccination campaign. None were being publicly acknowledged. It seems that the medical community was content to register reports with VAERS. Little did they know that the CDC would never verify any of their reports.

The following response attempts to rationalize a hush-hush attitude by explaining the disease is “likely” worse than the treatment. This opinion is not based on any data. but echoes a clear bias held by the medical establishment:

“So I guess what I’m saying is, pick your poison. This patient likely would have had worse outcomes if they had the virus. Who knows?”

Who knows indeed. Despite the dozens of documented adverse events coming from the group, this next doctor still urges a unified voice around “the science”:

“Big picture:
Confirmed US deaths from COVID: >441K
Confirmed US deaths from COVID vaccine: 0

For people wanting to wait or saying “pick your poison” when it comes to COVID vs vaccine, I sincerely hope you aren’t saying these things to your patients. The science on this is quite clear and the medical community must speak with one voice. We believe in science, we believe in evidence and we have faith in the data.”

The key word in the above comment is “Confirmed.” But how were COVID deaths being confirmed exactly?

Throughout the pandemic all that was needed to log a “confirmed” COVID death was either a positive PCR test or even just a suspicion of Covid-19 in the mind of the physician in attendance.

On the other hand, deaths following a vaccination require a full autopsy with special studies to confirm causation, but none were being conducted at that time.

The double standard with regard to proof undeniably led to an exaggeration of COVID deaths and the suppression of vaccine deaths. No doctor in the group was willing to point this out.

In any case, at the time of these reports of vaccine injury there were no interim safety data from the Phase III trials that were still underway. Post-marketing surveillance data which was supposed to be considered carefully was still not available. Injuries that were reported soon after inoculation should have been considered due to the vaccine until proven otherwise, not the other way around. That’s the only way to prevent an iatrogenic medical disaster.

Nevertheless, if all these physicians who reported vaccine injuries took the time to file a report on VAERS what good would that have done anyway? Even today, the CDC still has not investigated the majority of VAERS reports.

A more interesting question: how many other physicians in that group of over 20 thousand witnessed injuries soon after vaccination and chose not to say anything to the group?

Who knows? My guess is that there was more than one and possibly many. What else could we expect when several months earlier if you supported the use of early treatment with HCQ your medical license might have been threatened? How likely would a doctor be to volunteer the fact that they are seeing vaccine injuries in this forum? Some did; most probably didn’t.

The idea that vaccine adverse events have been over reported in VAERS is preposterous. It’s actually a question of how grossly they are being underreported.

Vaccinate children?

By the autumn of 2021, the FDA had granted EUA for Pfizer’s vaccine in 12- to 17-year-old adolescents. This group of doctors now was faced with another challenge: 

How would they respond to one of their own who had a child that suffered an adverse event from these inoculations?

“My son who is XX y old had an adverse reaction the day after his 2nd Pfizer vaccine. I reported it directly to the Pfizer database (I guess they are collecting their own adverse event database), and the local children’s hospital cardiologist who oversaw my child’s case asked my permission today, so he can make an official report to VAERS.”

This report drew relatively few responses from the group. Of the few, most expressed compassion. One doctor thought it was irresponsible to not include more details about the child in such a forum. To that doctor, merely implying that an event which required a cardiologist was due to the vaccine was irresponsible because the consensus, if all the details were offered, would conclude otherwise.

A few weeks later another member brought up another important issue: Pfizer’s adolescent trial was not powered to be able to detect serious adverse events. 

“We want to get our kiddo vaccinated but are wondering if anyone is anxious about the relatively low sample study size for this group?

“Anyone considering waiting for a few weeks for more data to come out?”

Response:

“[I am a pediatric immunologist] No concerns. Everything is a risk, to me not vaccinating my kids is a greater risk than vaccinating.”

The pediatric immunologist’s opinion was that COVID posed a greater risk to their children than any vaccine danger. But how did this specialist know?

They couldn’t. The central issue was that the trial was too small to quantify or even detect the risk, let alone efficacy.

Nevertheless, the comment received no direct criticism for its unsubstantiated claim.

The next opinion was cautionary. Here the physician states the uncontested facts from the trial: The study was too small to detect the risk of myocarditis. No child in the study developed any severe disease, hence it was impossible to calculate what the vaccine’s efficacy was in preventing severe symptoms, if there was any.

Furthermore, the trial showed no benefit from the vaccine for children who had COVID and recovered. Eyes were not completely blind to what was unfolding in front of them. 

It’s encouraging that this comment received the second-most support of any others on the topic:

“I’m in the minority on this board. I’m waiting on my 8 year old. Cases of COVID were mild in placebo and vaccine arms, no cases of severe disease/hospitalization/MISC in either arm. No examination of preventing asymptomatic disease. At this point, until there is data that the reduced dose used in the trial actually does something to reduce severity of disease in an age group where 50% have asymptomatic disease, I’m holding off. CDC estimates 40% of kids in this age group already had COVID — zero kids in either arm with evidence of prior COVID got symptomatic disease in this study. Also study size too small to detect the only concerning side effect out there for me — myocarditis.”

However, the most appreciated analysis came from a pediatric cardiologist who, it turns out, had enrolled his even younger children in one of the trials. This doctor explained that they regularly see kids who are suffering from heart issues from COVID:

“My X year old and Y year old are vaccinated (from the trial). No concerns. As a pediatric cardiologist, I am much more concerned about the long-term cardiac effects from Covid which I am routinely seeing in children even when they have an asymptomatic or a very mild/short-lived course.”

Though an expert, this doctor is under the impression that the vaccine prevented infection (which we knew didn’t for more than a few months based on adult data) or perhaps “long-term cardiac effects from Covid”. What long-term effects? How did he know if the vaccine would prevent them if the trials were so short and the vaccine had been only unleashed on the young so recently?

Nevertheless, the opinion of the pediatric heart specialist carried a lot of weight because he was also considered an expert on the topic. 

Once again, the doctor did not quote statistics or trial data, only his experience to date, i.e., anecdotal evidence. Expert opinion and anecdotal evidence are considered to be the least robust in science.

This specialist is falling into a logical fallacy that was ubiquitous in the medical community at the time: “the long-term cardiac effects from Covid” are very real, therefore the vaccine must prevent them, i.e. disease bad, ergo, vaccine good. There wasn’t any data to support that claim at the time. As a pediatric cardiologist he was offering no more than the platitudes from the pediatric immunologist who edified us: “everything is a risk”.

Where, doctors, is the data?

Finally, this comment:

“I vaccinated two of mine yesterday with joy. I am worried that this question is being asked over and over in a physician group. I can’t imagine the hesitancy in the general population. no concerns at all !!safe vaccine Bad disease … it’s as simple as that.”

This last comment is telling. The physician is worried that too many physicians have questions about the vaccine’s safety in children, especially around myocarditis.

This means the public will be even more hesitant.

But under what circumstances would a doctor worry that their own colleagues are expressing concern that a treatment that has not been tested adequately may not be safe? Isn’t that what doctors are supposed to do?

Again the doctor quoted above believes that a simplistic approach to a complicated situation would not only suffice, but it would also be more prudent. Their comment says it all: “Safe vaccine. Bad disease.”

We see the essence of the mantra that had been repeated from all mainstream media reflected in her comment. COVID is bad, ergo, the vaccine is good. The adverse events reported in this forum were quickly forgotten.

We may excuse the layperson for adopting a black or white perspective of a picture with many shades of gray but a physician? Though the disease may be bad, it does not necessarily mean the treatment is safe. One doesn’t have to go to medical school to understand this.

Summary

Several times the group’s administrators were forced to issue statements reminding members to be polite and refrain from derogatory language and personal attacks.

Why was this necessary? We were all professionals. We had common goals. We all had taken the same oath.

Why were doctors condemning other doctors who held different perspectives and not the perspectives themselves? There wasn’t any room for a second opinion in medicine anymore.

Last year I reached out to the specialist who invited me to the group in 2020. I asked her for her general impression of the nature of the exchanges there. She responded flatly, “I don’t read or participate in that forum anymore. It’s become an echo chamber.”

She was right. But it didn’t start that way. Medical professionals were preparing to meet a disaster with shared knowledge and experience in early 2020. But then something happened. It may take a generation of behavioral scientists to explain it.

I recently wrote about my experience at the World Vaccine Congress held in Washington D.C. during the first week of April, 2023. My trip to our nation’s capital and the week-long conference pass was funded by Children’s Health Defense. (Thank you to all who support the work of this organization).

There were few, if any, doctors in clinical practice in attendance. Participants were mainly scientists and marketeers who were employed by the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex with a few other interesting characters thrown in. Every single person I interacted with was well-intended but un or misinformed. Despite the vitriolic comments within the medical community towards each other, I believe that doctors are in the same state.

While not ignoring the untold damage that has been wrought by the pandemic response measures, including the mRNA “vaccines”, or the malevolence of the orchestrators of this tragedy, it is worthwhile to acknowledge that we are being opposed by a large group of people who are uninformed, traumatized or both. They are not psychopathic.

This should be encouraging. It is possible to change someone’s mind. It’s impossible to change their heart.