I come out to my Medical School Classmates as an "Antivaxxer"

It's not so easy to convince doctors they could be wrong about vaccine safety. But what about 9/11?

Last week I and five classmates from medical school gathered for a weekend in Minneapolis for the first time since graduation 27 years ago. We all had stood in a large auditorium near the end of the last century, took our oath “to do no harm”, accepted our medical diplomas and moved on to different training programs around the country. It’s an event which is repeated at all medical schools at the beginning of every summer.

I really liked these old chums of mine. They weren’t just hard workers, they were smart and dedicated to their fields and their patients. But I think we became close during our shared experience for other reasons. We had a love of music and art. We enjoyed good food. We had great senses of humor. We were all intensely curious about everything.

A quarter of a century later we had graying hair and a lot more money in our wallets. Beyond that nothing had really changed. I was pleased to see that their rare mixture of diligence, dedication, ethics and inquisitiveness had paid off. Three became oncologists—two in large private practices and the other had just accepted a prestigious directorship position at one of the largest academic centers in the nation. Another became a prominent high-risk obstetrician. One pursued pediatric infectious disease and was able to weave together a career involving clinical care, research and consultation to cutting edge commercial ventures.

And then there was me. Unlike the others’ my trajectory was marked by fits and starts. Six months into my internship in internal medicine I knew I was in the wrong field. I was so disillusioned that I contacted old friends in tech, hoping to return to an industry that would always make room for an MIT engineer with six years of experience.

But it was one of these buddies who gently urged me to consider anesthesiology, a field that wasn’t often considered by medical students at the time but offered a unique path in medicine. Anesthesiologists need to know a lot about physiology, how to intervene quickly and effectively when a patient’s life hangs in the balance and how to establish rapport and trust with a new patient on the day of surgery. It was a mix of everything I did like about medicine. I went into the field on his advice alone and I have always been grateful for it.

Three years into my career as an anesthesiologist I already was suffering from burnout. I dropped my clinical commitments and spent a few years traveling and exploring meditation. It proved incredibly therapeutic. I returned to full time clinical practice and eventually led a busy anesthesia department at a large community hospital outside of Boston.

And then…

On a fateful day in 2017 I saw a video of World Trade Center 7 dropping to the ground in seven seconds on 9/11. I left my role as the director of my department so that I could throw my efforts into what was then a largely ignored effort to demand a reinvestigation of those events.

Three years later, after dozens of conversations with engineers I realized we had a much bigger problem. Those who should know better didn’t. Their years of education and experience based in the understanding of how the physical world behaves was thrown out the window if it conflicted with conclusions from a governmental “investigation”.

The root of the problem was, in my view, the inability to examine how one’s own mind arrives at a conclusion. In order to apprehend the nature of the underpinnings of the human mind the mind must first be brought to stillness. To glimpse the bottom of the pond, it is said, the surface ripples must be extinguished. Not an easy task for the head-centered.

I once again put my clinical duties on hold and submitted my resignation. I wanted to put my ideas on paper so that they could be shared with a larger audience. I consulted a dear friend who was a talented astrologer (a vocation which I had dismissed out of hand but began to reconsider as I was realizing that I had been misinformed about many things).

I was obligated to give a 90 day notice. When, I asked her, would be the most auspicious time to announce my departure? She called me back a few days later.

“Well, there’s not a bad time. But if you submit your ninety day notice on our around December 19th, you are going to leave with a ‘bang’.”

I took her advice and worked my last day on Friday, March 20, 2020. Monday, March 23 was the last day of normalcy in hospitals across the United States. Nearly every operating theater closed down to elective operations on Tuesday the 24th because of a rapidly spreading coronavirus purportedly springing from a wet market in Wuhan, China, a locale unknown to most people in the world unless you were a virologist interested in bioterrorism/defense.

Wuhan was home to the infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology, China’s first Biosafety Level-4 laboratory which opened just two years previously.

Eighteen months later I was employed not as a clinical anesthesiologist but as the Science Editor for The Defender, Children’s Health Defense’s on-line publication. CHD was founded and chaired by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a man endlessly derided by the medical orthodoxy for his pseudoscientific views and irrepressible desire to spread medical “misinformation”.

Until a year ago he could be dismissed as a once formidable environmental lawyer whose encounter with a “brain worm” left him in a profound cognitive decline. Now he was, at least on paper, in charge of a 1.4 trillion dollar budget and the head of public health in this country.

How would my old med school buddies regard me now?

A Foray into the Vaccine issue

(Names have been changed to protect identities)

To their credit, my old friends listened with open curiosity about my association with Kennedy and Children’s Health Defense. I explained how just a modest dive into the Pfizer mRNA trial led to big questions around the validity of their claims of efficacy and safety.

How could they claim 95% efficacy if they only tested 170 of the 3,400 people who expressed Covid-19 symptoms in their trial?

If every person who had symptoms actually had Covid, their shots would have had an efficacy of less than 20%.

On the other hand, if their shot was indeed 95% effective and the unvaccinated who had Covid symptoms actually had Covid, why did so many of the vaccinated succumb to something that looked like Covid but wasn’t?

In order to have any idea of the product’s actual efficacy Pfizer should have let us know how many symptomatic participants tested negative for Covid so that we could extrapolate into the giant pool of symptomatic which was roughly evenly divided by vaccine status. They suspiciously didn’t. Why?

Within months after making these spurious claims of astonishing efficacy, Pfizer inoculated placebo recipients with their product, eliminating any possibility of having good long term safety data. Why were they allowed to do this if the public was promised a proper, two year long study which all agreed would continue even if the shots were authorized for public use?

Why didn’t the FDA demand answers to these basic questions?

Six months later, after several hundred million people around the world received the primary series, Pfizer quietly released their interim results demonstrating greater all cause mortality in the treatment arm.

Based on the best data available, that from a large, randomized placebo-controlled study with matched cohorts we should have scrapped the vaccine and come up with a different one. But instead we pushed it on everyone, including the aged, infirm and pregnant—folks who were barely represented in the trial cohorts.

That was enough for me. Somebody had to speak up. CHD was one of the few platforms that pierced the walls of censorship and remained standing despite relentless rebuke from the Pharma-controlled legacy media juggernaut.

My oncology buddies didn’t say much. The obstetrician, Katherine, shook her head. She had seen with her own eyes how the vaccine made a big difference in her high risk patients.

I declined to offer a gentle counter argument. The vaccine wasn’t available until 10 months after the ancestral strain hit the public. Less pathogenic strains were circulating, a portion of her vaccinated patients had undoubtedly been protected from prior exposure to the virus, the most vulnerable had already succumbed to the worst outcomes months before a vaccine was made available.

I knew she was accurately accounting what she experienced herself. We disagreed on how to interpret it.

I stayed relatively quiet. I have since learned that it is hard to change the mind of someone who believes they have seen proof with their own eyes. I was in the same boat she was. Dozens of people who have been seriously injured by the mRNA products have approached me to tell me their story over the last few years. Those whom I knew in my family and friends who were vaccinated and boosted succumbed to Covid multiple times while those who didn’t got Covid once and never again. Why should my experience trump hers? It shouldn’t.

Katherine correctly sensed that my skepticism around the utility and safety of the mRNA shots was part of a larger issue I had with vaccines as a whole. Those folks at Children’s Health Defense think that vaccines cause autism, an idea that any doctor should reject out of hand. How was it that one of her own classmates succumbed to such nonsense?

I put it plainly:

“I thought it was a crazy notion when I first heard it too. Unfortunately when I searched for the evidence that this was not the case, I couldn’t find any. The reality is that there has never been a properly powered retrospective study comparing outcomes like ASD between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.”

She shook her head again.

“You’re wrong, Madhava. There are dozens of studies that prove there’s no link. The Danish study with millions of kids proved that the MMR vaccine was not linked to autism.”

Katherine was alluding to an oft cited study by Madsen et al published 23 years ago which purportedly proved that there was no difference in the incidence of autism between kids who got the MMR shots and those who didn’t.

At that point I knew the conversation had reached the limits of its utility. My point was that there were no comparisons made between unvaccinated and vaccinated kids. The Madsen study looked only at MMR. Both cohorts received vaccines—an important confounder if one hypothesizes that the excipients in all vaccines could contribute to the risk of developing an ASD diagnosis years later.

We were no longer listening to each other.

I was familiar with the study. Those who claim no ASD association with MMR cite the key table from the study:

The table is deliberately misleading. “UNVACCINATED” actually refers to children who did not get the MMR shot. The authors never tell us how many other vaccines the unvaccinated got. They tell us explicitly in their description of their study’s design:

“We obtained information on MMR vaccination at 15 months of age, since only this exposure is relevant to the end point under study.”

Moreover the unvaccinated person-years is roughly a third of the vaccinated. Denmark has a high rate of vaccination. The so-called unvaccinated cohort wasn’t actually unvaccinated. We were never told how many other shots these kids got. Vaccine load was not a confounder considered in their adjustments.

A deeper dive into the numbers reveals more problems. The table above shows that the adjusted relative risk of developing an ASD diagnosis is nearly equal or less among children who get the MMR compared to those who don’t.

The problem is that that the unadjusted relative risk is actually significantly higher in vaccinated children. The unadjusted relative risk is calculable from the number of cases in each group by interval since vaccination. The horizontal line in the plot below is the rate of autism in the unvaccinated—11 per 100,000 per year (53 in 482,360 person years).

The authors adjusted for the socioeconomic status, birthweight, sex, gestational age and mother’s education of the kids in the study. How could the rate of autism be higher in the vaccinated between 12 to almost 72 months after vaccination and nearly three times higher in kids 30 months out because of these factors? The authors never explain their calculations. If this paper was properly peer-reviewed it would have not gone into publication unless the authors at least explained why the crude risk ratios (plotted above) were significantly higher in the vaccinated cohort but lower after their adjustments. That is the key finding of the study after all.

“OH MY GOD. IT’S EXPLODING!”

Of course, I didn’t go into all of this. There’s a time and place for such exchanges, and this wasn’t one of them. We were at an impasse. But then, an opening…

Tim, one of the oncologists, asked me why was I so skeptical early on if I had no prior interest in vaccines?

“Well…I had since learned that when every single media platform echoes the same narrative and mocks those who question them you can be sure that there is an element of deception taking place. I realized that after I began investigating the events of 9/11”

Pin drop silence.

I recounted how I reacted when I saw a video of WTC 7 coming down for the first time in 2017. I showed them that clip:

Like most of the public not one of them had known about this building and what happened to it on that day. NIST’s entire explanation hinged on their computer model’s behavior. I reminded them of the basics of the scientific method. If the model matched what was observed it means their hypothesis could be valid, it doesn’t prove that it is. There might be another explanation that also results in similar behavior.

However if the model’s behavior doesn’t match what we observed then we know their explanation is wrong. There’s no way around it. NIST proved themselves wrong with their own model. Here’s a segment from my friend and architect Richard Gage, on a recent episode of Redacted which unequivocally demonstrates that NIST’s model fails to replicate observed behavior:

“What about the twin towers, Madhava? We know they came down from a pancaking collapse, right?”

I let them know that this “pancake” theory was not part of the official technical explanation because it had no bearing on how the towers were constructed. This fallacious explanation had been planted in the minds of the public by Popular Mechanics and other programs which came out soon after 9/11.

The concrete floors were held up by trusses. Even if the top floors fell upon the bottom intact, “gathering momentum” as they fell, the trusses would have failed immediately leaving the infrastructure of the building, the columns comprising the exterior facade and the sturdier central columns intact.

NIST never explains how that could have happened and in fact, explicitly declared that this was outside the scope of their own investigation. Nevertheless, we don’t have to be experts to see that this would have been impossible. If the top could crush the bottom to dust, it too would have been crushed in the process. It’s the third law of motion.

Try to crush a brick with another brick. If you strike it hard enough to break it, the brick you are holding must also break.

The doctors were silent. Peter, Katherine’s husband, was the lone non-medical person. He, like me, held a degree in Electrical Engineering. Now he shook his head.

“The burning jet fuel weakened the lower parts of the building. It was severely compromised prior to the collapse.”

I countered that even our government admitted that most of the fuel ignited on impact and what was left burned within 10 minutes. The fires at the impact zone continued to burn until the collapse sequence was initiated. Heat rises. If any part of the building was compromised from fire it would have been the upper portion, which, in fact, was not as sturdy as the lower portion which was designed to support more weight.

“If you think the buildings crushed themselves under their own weight I suggest you take a closer look at the uncontested video footage from that day and ask yourself why did they stop showing this on all media channels a few days after the event?”

And then, something wonderful happened. They picked up their phones and within minutes saw something which couldn’t be unseen. And they found it on their own:

“OMG. It’s Exploding!”

I don’t know how far they will go in their own inquiry about this event, but the look in Katherine’s eyes was familiar to me. She was starting to trust her own eyes and not the experts outside her field. I think a seed was planted. Only time will tell. From my own experience I know that once someone realizes they were wrong about something they were sure about, breakthroughs start to happen.

The reality is that seeing through the Covid deception is not so easy, especially if you are part of the medical establishment that has been taught to only trust official sources and their data and, more recently, denigrate anyone who questions public health authorities.

How would an excellent clinician like Katherine know if her patients were suffering from “long-Covid” or “long-Covid-vaccine” if the symptoms are indistinguishable from each other and she believes these products were rigorously tested for safety?

If our only real view of population-wide outcomes is based in datasets offered by our health agencies, what are we to do if the data has been manipulated or cherry-picked? That’s where it gets very uncomfortable.

The deception behind 9/11 is much different. Eight years ago when I began speaking publicly about the absurdities in the official explanation, “9/11 truthers” were nearly universally regarded as naive and prone to the seduction of “conspiracy theories” and therefore not to be included in any polite conversation.

Things are shifting. Believing that two 110 story buildings of reinforced steel and concrete could come crashing through themselves leaving a relatively small pile of debris in its foot print and jettisoning hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete across lower Manhattan now comes with liabilities. Attacking those who don’t believe this fantasy now comes with serious questions about your credibility on other matters.

It’s been my hope that the growing body of applied mathematicians, doctors, medical scientists and epidemiologists who saw through the Covid deceptions will turn some of their attention to “the science” around 9/11. Our goals are linked.

The Tide is Turning

This the theme of this year’s gathering of the best researchers and clearest minded spokespersons in Washington DC on September 10th, 11th and 12th.

My colleagues at the International Center for 9/11 Justice have asked me to offer some thoughts to open the three day long symposium on the 24th anniversary of the event that transformed our world and how we think about it.

I will have the honor of opening the event and introducing the best minds and the most dogged researchers as we come together to learn from each other and strategize how we can more effectively plant seeds of hope and clarity among the body politic.

See the event details here. If you are unable to attend in person, you can watch the livestream on Redacted. If you are so moved you can also donate to the organizations hosting this event (see event details above).

Please consider the fact that these groups have been tirelessly working for decades on shoestring budgets in the interest of liberating humanity from its preoccupation with war, fear and a need to perpetuate an ever more powerful security state.

There is an intoxicating amount of excitement around this event this year. Not only will we hear from structural engineers, architects, pilots, firefighters, citizens and families of the victims of that false-flag event, we, for the very first time, have a sitting US Senator appearing in support of a reinvestigation.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) will offer his remarks on the first day.

Former US Congressmen Curt Weldon (R-PA) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will also be part of the line-up.

While the “9/11 Truth” movement is often construed as an unpatriotic, pseudoscientific endeavor to push a dystopian narrative, it is exactly the opposite. We have the best scientists and the most patriotic citizens and representatives on our side. We are collaborating to “demolish” long held ideas that may have once served us but are now stifling our prosperity:

• That we need ever more advanced weaponry and surveillance to keep us safe

• That the true psychopaths lurk in dark caves in remote mountain ranges and not sequestered in the halls of power outside of public scrutiny

• That we live in a world of scarcity

• That extraordinary rendition and torture is somehow “Patriotic”

• That our so called “free press”, established under our Constitution’s first amendment, is doing their job to hold our government accountable

This is a movement for peace and truth. Here are a few more articles about the event:

Forthcoming 9/11 Conference in Washington, DC, and an interview with Bastian Barucker on Structural Deep Events & Propaganda

We are Going to Washington DC! And Bringing You With Us! 9/11 Truth and Justice Conference — September 10 to 12

Dennis Kucinich joins the fight for 9/11 justice at ‘Turning the Tide’

Hope to see you in our nation’s capitol next month. Please leave your comments.