Yes. The message of truth is very clear. The shots are bioweapon poisons and the drug companies knew that. Planned that? Tragically, most people these days seem not to understand even basic math such as percentages and risk. If doctors say it is okay, they obey.
Yes. The message of truth is very clear. The shots are bioweapon poisons and the drug companies knew that. Planned that? Tragically, most people these days seem not to understand even basic math such as percentages and risk. If doctors say it is okay, they obey.
Philip: I believe that most physicians are too busy to look at studies. However, if the FDA prominently noted ARR and NTT, then patients would bring that to their attention. There wouldn't be anyway for a doctor to dismiss their patients' concerns by just quoting "95% efficacy." All I know is that it wold be MUCH better than what is done currently.
Physicians are NEVER too busy to play golf, drink booze, and why are they suddenly too busy to learn their trade? Once on the job as staff physicians, they mainly want to pad their incomes with the smallest amount of extra study. When I needed to find another specialist, I saw several physicians all of whom practiced algorithmic medicine. These physicians oozed laziness, arrogance, and a "take it or leave it attitude".
Michael: My wife is quite sick so between us we have seen dozens of physicians. By-and-large we have not experienced physicians as you've described. Maybe you should investigate others?
The question is "does said physician keep up with the advance of medical science or is the physician trapped in an algorithmic world where he/she follows diktat often written by Big Pharma"? I'd wager that few physicians read an entire research paper, they just read a summary and then they follow said diktat which becomes "the standard of care". Who establishes standard of care? Journals under the sway of Big Pharma have enormous clout. Are you sure your physicians are reading entire papers or are they skimping? Are they compelled by insurance companies to follow said diktat? Science is one thing but adherence to societal/professional mandates is quite another. Are you the best possible evaluator of a physician's command of his/her field of activity? Are you a studied individual that knows terminologies or do you depend on the physician to impact on your perhaps scanty knowledge and understanding?
Michael: As a physicist I am competent to read and understand medical studies. Based on my wife's longterm ailments, I have studied that subject area quite thoroughly. No MD has the time to read 95% of the studies published. However, when presented with a particular problem, conscientious ones will then do that. Further, with our physicians, I have given them copies/links to studies I have found interesting. In every case they were receptive to my research. Like every field, there are good and bad doctors. Our experience is that most are good.
Yes. The message of truth is very clear. The shots are bioweapon poisons and the drug companies knew that. Planned that? Tragically, most people these days seem not to understand even basic math such as percentages and risk. If doctors say it is okay, they obey.
Philip: I believe that most physicians are too busy to look at studies. However, if the FDA prominently noted ARR and NTT, then patients would bring that to their attention. There wouldn't be anyway for a doctor to dismiss their patients' concerns by just quoting "95% efficacy." All I know is that it wold be MUCH better than what is done currently.
Physicians are NEVER too busy to play golf, drink booze, and why are they suddenly too busy to learn their trade? Once on the job as staff physicians, they mainly want to pad their incomes with the smallest amount of extra study. When I needed to find another specialist, I saw several physicians all of whom practiced algorithmic medicine. These physicians oozed laziness, arrogance, and a "take it or leave it attitude".
Michael: My wife is quite sick so between us we have seen dozens of physicians. By-and-large we have not experienced physicians as you've described. Maybe you should investigate others?
The question is "does said physician keep up with the advance of medical science or is the physician trapped in an algorithmic world where he/she follows diktat often written by Big Pharma"? I'd wager that few physicians read an entire research paper, they just read a summary and then they follow said diktat which becomes "the standard of care". Who establishes standard of care? Journals under the sway of Big Pharma have enormous clout. Are you sure your physicians are reading entire papers or are they skimping? Are they compelled by insurance companies to follow said diktat? Science is one thing but adherence to societal/professional mandates is quite another. Are you the best possible evaluator of a physician's command of his/her field of activity? Are you a studied individual that knows terminologies or do you depend on the physician to impact on your perhaps scanty knowledge and understanding?
Michael: As a physicist I am competent to read and understand medical studies. Based on my wife's longterm ailments, I have studied that subject area quite thoroughly. No MD has the time to read 95% of the studies published. However, when presented with a particular problem, conscientious ones will then do that. Further, with our physicians, I have given them copies/links to studies I have found interesting. In every case they were receptive to my research. Like every field, there are good and bad doctors. Our experience is that most are good.