Blindly trusting medical experts can damage your health and even kill you. Today's doctors and researchers exist in a medical ecosystem that absolves them of responsibility for recommending the most profitable treatments rather than the most beneficial.

If there is one positive thing to come out of the COVID-19 “vaccination” catastrophe, it is that ever more people will stop trusting “the experts” and take responsibility for their own lives, health, and outlook. We are conditioned to unthinkingly hand over responsibility for our bodies to doctors and nurses, assuming that they always have our best interest at heart. But now, it is becoming increasingly obvious that this is not the case: doctors and nurses — considered to be “medical experts” — are mere pawns in an industry that does not prioritise patient health.

How can this be? Surely medical experts know the most about health, and therefore we would want to consult them to stay healthy? And so if an expert says that a mRNA injection will be beneficial for us, then should we not follow that expert advice? After all, most of us have not spent years at medical school and reading medical journals, so what can we possibly bring to the table in this decision?

Actually, quite a lot. Because the health of our bodies and those of our close family and friends are our sole interest, we have a major advantage in terms of our focus and end goal over medical experts who are juggling many other factors, some of which are decidedly not in their patients' interests. These other factors might include the cost and availability of treatment, its profitability to the doctor and/or hospital, the age of the patient, the status of their insurance, and whether a proposed treatment is approved by Big Pharma. Doctors and nurses have a complex triage of factors to consider in patient “care”.

A medical expert is someone who has accumulated a large body of knowledge regarding their speciality, and as such they are likely to have a more detailed understanding of any particular medical issue within that speciality. But their loyalty is not to human health per se, but to their own success as “experts” and that of their clinics, hospitals and research centres.

Most general practitioners are Big Pharma salespeople: they are selling a system for which they get great financial benefit. Most researchers are funding-chasers: they are selecting and pursuing only research that will get funded, and they are pushing for results that will please those funding them (mostly Big Pharma), or they are trying to bury those results that are displeasing. And government advisers and consultants are Big Pharma reps: they are pushing Big Pharma agendas for kickbacks, future employment possibilities, and general medical status. They know that at the end of their tenure, they will look to suck more directly on the teat of Big Pharma. And hospital or university administrators are Big Pharma pimps: they are in the pockets of Big Pharma as it is there that most of their funding comes from, and most of their workers or students will want to be enmeshed as much as possible with Big Pharma for the success of their careers. So hospitals and universities are run in ways that maximise the involvement and promotion of Big Pharma and its products and procedures, as well as concomitant funding foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. And even leading medical journals are receiving significant funds from Big Pharma, with many editors receiving huge “donations” for accepting papers. This is not in the interest of medical science, and is no doubt a factor in prescription drugs officially being one of the leading causes of death, and is likely why so many medical interventions are found, years later, to be no better than a placebo.

In other words, medical experts of all persuasions are being essentially bribed to act in ways to please their paymasters. If that coincides with saving lives or restoring health, what a bonus! But usually, the maximising of profits within the medical framework involves keeping their clients in a state of “meh” health-limbo where they will need to take long-term prescription drugs or other interventions to suppress unwanted symptoms. The emphasis is never on “curing” the patient, as that would mean the loss of a customer.

This means that Big Pharma's control of the entire medical system imposes a business model on that system, and this makes the system potentially your enemy. And it means that doctors, nurses and hospital administrators are not necessarily acting in your interest, so you really have to be on your guard. There is some overlap between patients' interests and those of Big Pharma, but that overlap is not consistent and there is an awfully big area with no overlap at all.

It is important to note that this is not an indictment against capitalism. A glance at communist countries like China shows a parallel abusive system. What we have in the West is actually not a free market but a closed market that influences and is in league with government. In communist countries, business is subservient to government, but the two are still hand-in-hand, as they are in the West, imposing tyranny on the individual. So both democratic and communist health systems can be equally abusive to their patients.

As the medical industry grows, gaining ever more control over society, government and the medical policing organisations, the potential for that industry to generate profit increases exponentially. At the same time, the human cost of that profit in terms of damage and death also increases as safety corners are cut. This is how something as dangerous and poorly tested as the mRNA injectables ended up being given to over 70% of the global population. Safety was little more than a PR exercise by an industry eyeing a mouthwatering return on investment given the “emergency status” declared by WHO and by governments. The system is a medical business, not a healing or health system. These are not the same thing, and we confuse them at our peril.

This is why a non-expert is often more effective when researching medical issues. They are not being distracted by money or professional status/connections, focusing purely on the desired medical outcome. That is a huge advantage that goes a long way to making up for a lack of knowledge. And that is why parents trying to save their child or someone trying to save their partner can be, and often have been, so effective. Money and loyalties to paymasters cloud the judgement of even the most “objective” experts, whereas the single focus of a non-expert to maximise health can cut through a lot of the dilemmas and isolate the best solution.

This perversion of expertise by money and status is mostly unconscious, so those “experts” probably genuinely think they are giving good advice. Doctors, nurses, clinics and hospitals making money with dangerous mRNA injectables have mostly fooled themselves into believing Big Pharma lies because, for them, questioning Big Pharma is not in their interest and will only lead down a rabbit hole that could well unsettle their entire professional foundation and basic income. Better not to rock the money and career boat and pretend that the medical system is objectively focused on health, and avoid questioning the system. And of course dismiss anyone who questions that objectivity as a “non-expert”, “anti-vaxxer” or a “conspiracy theorist” who should be silenced for the good of society.

In the past, governments have been aware of the dangers of an uncontrolled industry that could harm public health in its drive for profit, and so they have established policing organisations (such as the FDA and CDC) in the interest of public health, to keep the Big Pharma lion in the cage, ensuring that its drive for profits does not lead to outcomes dangerous to the public. Unfortunately, over time, those agencies have been bought out and corrupted by Big Pharma (money does that), and are now run in the industry's interest and not that of the public. Their only limiting factor in industry-promotion is that they cannot make it too obvious that they are pro-industry and still have to pay lip-service to public health, or risk general outcry.

So while stringent safety requirements and multi-stage trials were once needed before the release of new treatments and drugs, those requirements are now being substantially reduced, especially on the ground for rapid development of treatments needed for what the industry itself can label as a “pandemic”. In other words, the label alone warrants cheaper development costs and, therefore, higher profits. That is why pandemics are likely to become quite common now… they are hugely profitable!

We have all heard of in-vitro and in-vivo safety testing: the former being “within the glass” or test-tube testing, often involving cell lines; and the latter being “within the living” or animal/human testing. Traditionally, in-vivo studies have always been required for new drugs and injectables because the environment of living systems is too complex to adequately reproduced in a test tube. In other words, in-vitro testing can green-light a product that is still dangerous when taken into the body of an animal or human, and so in-vivo testing must take precedence in any safety trial. And because human life is regarded as more valuable than other animal life — such as that of mice, rabbits, dogs and monkeys — in-vivo testing is mostly done on animals first before moving to human testing. This process minimises the chance of hidden dangers in new drugs and other interventions.

But now there is in-silico testing, which means that a computer model of a drug, injectable or other intervention is created, and then that computer model is “fed in” to another computer model of human biological systems, that are perhaps virtually infected by yet another computer model of an overlying infectious agent or a disease. So the testing essentially occurs in a virtual reality.

The problem with computer models is that living things are complex systems, and as such, they can only be approximately modelled. This is similar to computer models of weather systems: reality soon diverges from the virtual model because the model is not as complex as reality and therefore does not run forward in exactly the same way. So in-silico testing will never be, even in theory, as definitive as in-vivo testing. The other issue of in-silico testing, along with in-vitro testing, is that it is easier than in-vivo testing to manipulate the results, making any Big Pharma products deploying these tests appear safer than they actually are. (In-vivo testing can also be manipulated, but it is more difficult to hide that manipulation, especially if subjects die.)

But where in-silico and in-vitro testing has a huge advantage is in costs: it is significantly cheaper to run virtual and cell-line tests than involving complex organisms like animals and people. The other advantage in these types of test is that they do not harm animals. This writer is against animal testing and so would very much like in-vitro and in-silico testing to become affective enough to eliminate this need for animal testing and go straight through to the final-stage human testing, but unfortunately the technology is not there yet. So any push by the industry towards in-silico testing, as is happening, is premature and merely a strategy for higher profits and better control over outcome.

This total domination of the entire medical eco-system by Big Pharma is not in the interests of public health, and it means that “medical experts” are just experts at facilitating and perpetuating this business “profit-maximisation” system. Therefore, following the advice of medical experts may not be in our health interest. And questions involving highly profitable but controversial interventions such as the mRNA “vaccines” are going to be dismissed by the experts because they are naturally loyal to their paymaster — Big Pharma. This does not necessarily mean they are dishonest, just understandably biased.

People are humans first and foremost, and any professionalism or expertise is built on top of that foundation. This is why even the hardest-nosed scientist is biased in favour of outcomes associated with a pecuniary interest. It is a rare person who can rise above this self-interest foundation and focus on truth, no matter what the consequence is to their income and status in the medical community.

We like to think that doctors, especially, are objectively focused on the health of their patients — as ensured by their Hippocratic Oaths — but, unfortunately, this is just not the case. And as the medical system has grown like a cancer in society, it has developed ever greater insulation for its workers from the consequences of their actions in service to Big Pharma. It does this by creating a whole ecosystem of treachery, so those working in that system are never aware of the treacherous nature of their actions, and certainly feel no responsibility when they are made aware. This is how doctors and nurses can give the murderous mRNA injections without a thought about their effectiveness and safety. In that Big Pharma ecosystem, those “vaccines” are safe and effective, and any information to the contrary is misinformation from perfidious anti-vaxxers, by definition.

It is the nature of lies to appear as truth when they become ubiquitous, and so Big Pharma makes sure it runs a relentless psyops campaign on all those within its ecosystem, and immediately expelling anyone who questions its narrative. (Some are even murdered.) This is how the orthodox medical ecosystem maintains its position and focus: like the great red spot on Jupiter, the soliton of truth and constancy hides a frenetic sorting and expelling of those sucked into its lies.

To break the spell of the Big Pharma lies requires deprogramming and a return to sanity. Those working in the system are like cult members who need to be brought back to reality. On the other hand, those who own and control the system — those at the very top — seem quite psychopathic in nature and are probably beyond redemption. For them, removal from society is the best option, with long-term prison sentences. You only have to see the duping delight of leading players like Bill Gates and the endless pathological lying from medical industry spokespeople like Anthony Fauci to know what evil incarnate is.

What is also important to realise is that this “medical expert” label can be rescinded at any time if that expert takes any position that opposes Big Pharma and its profit-drive. This makes the “medical expert” epithet more of a corporate job title, even in an educational setting. It is only those outside the industry that mistakenly believe that a “medical expert” is an expert in medicine, rather than in the medical industry.

Recently, a UK NHS consultant cardiologist raised the alarm on mRNA “vaccines” because he was seeing a disturbing rise in heart conditions in those who had received it. At first, Dr Aseem Malhotra was avidly promoting the COVID-19 vaccine and even received it himself, but as soon as he realised that there was an unacceptable rise in myocarditis and similar conditions, he spoke out, like any good doctor should. In response, the medical system is trying to excommunicate him because he is damaging their cash cow. Overnight this pro-vaccine doctor was labelled “fringe”, “misguided”, and an “anti-vaxxer” with “dangerous” opinions who must be stopped from speaking out. No doubt the system will try to take away his medical license.

On January 13th, the BBC interviewed Malhotra about the medical industry's promotion of statin drugs to counteract the dangerous side effect of their mRNA vaccines, despite the dangers of statins themselves. So the industry has destroyed countless people's health and lives, pushing its useless but highly profitable mRNA “vaccines” only then to recommend a dangerous drug solution to counter that damage, all to further boost its enormous profits. Malhotra took the opportunity to acknowledge the benefits of statins in high-risk groups, including those who have had heart attacks, but opposed pushing statins onto groups with less than a 20% risk of a heart attack in the next ten years as they would offer no statistical benefit or extension of life for those patients. Sounds entirely reasonable and responsible, except it was too much truth for an industry of obfuscation, and so other “medical experts” have chimed in to excommunicate Malhotra.

Dr Stephen Griffin, a University of Leeds virologist, wrote, “I am genuinely astonished by the BBC allowing someone with a known extreme fringe view on mRNA vaccines and the extent to which they are associated with cardiovascular problems to either hijack an interview on a tenuously related topic to express these views, or indeed to appear at all following even a cursory background check.” Professor Marc Dweck, a leading cardiologist at the University of Edinburgh, added in the Guardian newspaper: “I think that Dr Malhotra's opinions on both statins and Covid vaccines are misguided and in fact dangerous. The vast majority of cardiologists do not agree with his views and they are not based upon robust science.” And Dr Matt Kneale, co-chair of the Doctors' Association, called Malhotra's opinion “deeply dangerous behaviour” that requires the General Medical Council to take action.

This is astonishing criticism of someone who, just a couple of years ago, would have been in their fold. But now he has spoken out against Big Pharma interests — out of concern for public safety after reviewing the data — he is being excommunicated for questioning “Church” doctrine. Malhotra is not supporting the Big Pharma profit game and so he must go.

But you will notice that the criticism of Malhotra above is almost entirely ad hominem. The way medical science works is to draw conclusions, often statistically, from datasets. That way, conclusions can be scientifically assessed and criticised. If Griffin, Dweck and Kneale have a problem with Malhotra, they need to engage publicly with him in critiquing his datasets and the statistics he uses to reach his conclusions. And they need to present their own datasets, justify why their data is different, how their data was collected, and how that data was processed to support their own conclusions that the “vaccine” benefits far outweigh the risks. That would be scientifically honest and in the interest of public health. But making blanket declarations on the back of their “expert” status and position in research/academic institutions, without being willing to substantiate those declarations scientifically, shows academic arrogance and likely the obscuration of bad science.

We must always bear in mind that a doctorate or professorship, or a leading position at a university or research institute, does not somehow bestow objectivity and honesty onto their recipients. If anything, the more an academic/scientist is embedded in the medical system and reaping its rewards, the more likely he or she is to be in the pockets of Big Pharma. So when Professor Marc Dweck, in the Guardian article, tries to dismiss Malhotra as, “not having a cardiology career so to speak of”, he betrays not only enormous arrogance but also indicates, without realising it, that Malhotra is not so embedded in the system and therefore is less likely to have been bought out by that system. The great professor, on the other hand, occupies a “chair of clinical cardiology” at a leading UK university with huge levels of funding from Big Pharma and Bill Gates. Playing the “I'm the expert” card underlines his intimacy with the medical industry, and therefore indicates that he may have reluctance biting the hand that feeds him.

This is not to say that Griffin, Dweck and Kneale are bent doctors and consciously pushing for the interests of Big Pharma. Maybe they are, maybe they are not. But considering the funding all of them get from the medical industry and other political funding bodies, it would be likely that, at least unconsciously, they favour their backers. They probably believe they are undergirding public health by accepting funding from Big Pharma to conduct research, such are the contortions of the mind when seeking justification for obvious conflicts of interest.

MIT-educated engineer, Steve Kirsch, has been offering large sums of money if leading doctors and researchers can convince him, mathematically using official data, that mRNA “vaccines” are safe and effective. So far, no leading doctor or researcher has dared to take up the challenge, and nobody has been awarded any money. The simple fact is that the safety of mRNA “vaccines” is indefensible. Indeed, vaccines with far better safety records have been pulled in former times when those dangers became apparent. We just, unfortunately, live in a time when Big Pharma now controls enough of the medical ecosystem to get away with murder… literally!

That is why “rogue scientists” like Malhotra are so important to public health. They are not being bribed as much, so are more likely to take an actual scientifically objective perspective. And this is also why it is often retired academics and doctors, with little to lose, or those outside the medical industry, who are most willing to oppose and expose Big Pharma. And in a smaller number of cases, courageous doctors and researchers with ongoing careers have stood up for public health, and suffered the loss of jobs and medical licenses as a result, with a few ending up in jail. This is the medical world we currently live in; it is little different to religion in the Middle Ages.

Are doctors and professors (with positions at top hospitals and universities) really “experts” in human health if they are juggling, not only health concerns, but funding and status issues in their minds when they are making decisions and giving advice? Would you call that person a medical expert? And if you or a family member were very ill, would you want advice from such “experts” knowing that there are other non-health factors being taken into their “expert” consideration? Maybe that “expert” thinks that the best course of action for your mother or father is to give them Remdesivir to hurry them along to the pearly gates in order to clear a hospital bed? (Remdesivir is so deadly that it was even pulled from Ebola treatments, according to Dr David Martin.)

So the next time someone dismisses your opinion about mRNA injectables and other controversial interventions on the grounds that you are not an expert, remember that it often takes the naivety of a small boy to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. Naivety and truth are not mutually exclusive. If more ordinary people took responsibility for their health and for what goes inside their bodies, without a doubt fewer people would have allowed themselves and their children to have been “vaccinated”. (The ones to feel the most for are those that were forced to take these injections — the ones who had no choice.)

Ordinary people like you and me have a huge stake in this game — our lives and that of our family and friends are on the line — and that should be enough for us to question and regard with suspicion anyone who is including a profit or status variable in their outlook equations. And that means questioning all “medical experts”, Malhotra included. And the way to do this if one lacks medical knowledge is to use the court method of pitting one expert against another to try to get to the truth. But if “medical experts” do not allow themselves to be cross-examined, and are not explicit about how they have reached their opinions and the datasets they have used, their “expert testimony” has no foundation and needs to be dismissed, as it would be in any court.

When we consider how tainted medical experts actually are by their funding and loyalties, we will stop putting these representatives of Big Pharma, who masquerade as patient-focused doctors, on pedestals. We need to seek out the advice of more independent practitioners and information sources — and they are not difficult to find. But finding the truth, or at least a closer approximation to truth, can only be done if we mature from the infancy associated with blindly trusting those in authority.

Over the past few years, anyone not under the spell of “medical authority” and the mass media disinformation campaign paid for by Big Pharma and Gates will have seen how medical experts have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and dangerous to listen to. And with the Big Pharma mRNA “vaccine” fiasco, trust in the medical system is thankfully evaporating.

Of course, many will continue to “trust the experts” and blindly follow their directions because they are too deeply conditioned not to do so. But their numbers are dwindling as the medical Potemkin village of responsible hospitals full of caring doctors and nurses crumbles, revealing the cold, stark exterior of an industrial park and depopulation death camp, with facilitators who hold the lives and suffering of their clients in little regard. Even the mainstream media is finding it increasingly difficult to ignore the dark new reality of the medical system.

It is time to hold this industry to account, and to call out the doctors and nurses who have callously endangered terminated the lives of those who have innocently (and somewhat naively) put themselves in their “care”.

For them, the writing is on the wall.