FDA commissioner Marty Makary tried to explain that decisions belong to doctors and patients—not government panels. But CBS’s Margaret Brennan wasn’t ready to hear it.
I have a red T-shirt, courtesy of my membership of AMPS, which says, "Let doctors be doctors".
MSM generally lack any knowledge of medicine or science and resort to "follow the experts" rather than appreciating a nuanced approach to patient care.
Another way of understanding the mindset of the MSM is all left brain and no right brain.
Overall, it's a bit like discussing philosophy with a 2 year old.
There are NONE so blind as those who will NOT see, as there are NONE so deaf as those who will NOT listen.
The MSM is comprised of the ignorant instructing the masses, all at the behest of those with vested interests!
Such a situation is mirrored here in OZ, where you have a medical doctor who spouts drivel and pontificates piffle, who is allowed to keep his medical licence even though he hasn't actually seen any patients for 40 years. 😲
You have the "Health Editor" 😬 of a supposed "reputable" print newspaper with absolutely no qualifications in any sort of health science, who likes to take pot-shots at those who DO have such quals.
You have a "Health rounds TV journalist" 🙄 who openly boasts about receiving an award for her miserable efforts, and then you find out the organisation that awarded her this cheesy chintz is a Big Pharma astro-turfing front group.
I shakes my head in disbelief 🫨
Thankfully we have Doc MaDem who shows us what REAL journalism is all about 👍
During covid we learned just how many people were happy to outsource all their thinking to the govt and its bureaucrats. We also learned just how incompetent, dangerous and evil so many of our politicians, bureaucrats and "experts" were. Add in journalists like Margaret Brennan who were incapable of properly evaluating and questioning total BS from Pharma and the govt.
My doctor was outstanding, he insisted on giving proper informed consent, and did not recommend the jabs to anybody. He lost patients over it, but he was being a proper doctor... Remove AHPRA, remove the dead hand of bureaucrats and let doctors be doctors...
In short, trust for doctors, medical professionals and "experts" is at a critical all-time low. How will they ever rebuild this trust if they keep lying, obfuscating, and evading the truth?
The government's response to COVID in most countries (beholden to Big Pharma and their marketing juggernaut) is the largest public health disaster in modern history.
Face it: Left-tilting media pundits invariably prefer doctrine over fact-based decisions. "Follow the SCIENCE" to them means 'the experts we support know what's best for us so it's best for you too' whenever something comes up that demands making a personal choice over simply accepting what's delivered in latest statements from government and industry shills.
Decades ago it wasn't easy to know what was propaganda. Now it's virtually impossible to distinguish propaganda from truth.
Maryanne, I read Dr. Bryam Bridle’s substack this morning on pregnancy and the shot. It made my blood curdle. Canada is not following the States like usual, they’ve condoned the shots for pregnant women. Give him a read, it’s anger making. The CBS interview shows clearly the results of successful propaganda, and the absolute difficulty in scaling that mountain. People’s minds are totally closed shut.
What I have learned from all that has happened (covid revealing) is to ask “who are the experts and why are they considered the experts?” When you do that research the truth (which happens to be a lot of ambiguity) reveals itself.
Big Pharma has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits (within the law). These companies are responding to the regulatory environment. They are not the enemy here.
Governments have a significant interest in their Pharma companies success, particularly in products that prevent illness in their increasingly aged population, and in taxing the profits from their sale.
Interests have aligned. A significant proportion of pharma profits have been generated by selling products that prevent (rather than treat) illness in this demographic.
So both the government and Pharma hope that these products will be widely used. The best way to facilitate this is to mandate their prescription and suppress evidence of harm.
I believe a regulator in the USA has recently approved a vaccine intended to prevent illness where it is admitted about 1 in 40 are likely to experience a serious adverse event. Oh!
I agree that the pharmaceutical industry is fundamentally bound to generate profits. But governments are elected by the people to serve the people. This is where the breakdown occurs. Governments should not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship in my view.
With this brand new technology put in peoples arms, no doctor would know anything. Even the molecular biologists didn’t know until they tested. Doctor’s could only adhere to the guidelines or diktats because they were lost and still are.
Yes - what to do? I wrote somewhere else on here that it ultimately comes down to doctors communicating risk to patients. You say, “no doctor would know anything”—but THAT should have been communicated to the patient.
Instead, we got blanket assurances: “It’s SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.” That was a lie.
Of course, we can’t turn back time. But imagine if your doctor had said: “There’s significant uncertainty in recommending this under-tested, novel product. It has no medium- or long-term safety data, and clinical trials did not show a reduction in hospitalisations or deaths.” Would that have changed your willingness to take the jab?
In bioethics, medical decisions are meant to rest with the patient—after the doctor has honestly and transparently conveyed the potential benefits and risks. That’s informed consent. And that’s what was denied.
Keith, government has indemnified Big Pharma against any adverse financial consequences of producing harmful or ineffective vaccines, colluded with them to hide their harms and lied about their ineffectiveness and coerced people to take them. Furthermore, it has recently come out that the flu vaccines are not only ineffective, but likely negatively effective.
There is nothing in this scenario that is anything but corrupt.
Have you heard of the concept (& reality) of regulatory capture. It has proven to be an inevitable consequence/phenomenon/reality of government regulation of business and professions. It has been demonstrated in every regulated sector for at least 150 years. The companies seek to control the regulators to the detriment of the public and new enterprises and approaches to processes.
"A significant proportion of pharma profits have been generated by selling products that prevent (rather than treat) illness in this demographic."
What proportion of those profits you speak of go towards political contributions and lobbying for big pharmaceuticals' interests, hmm?
Or the pharmaceuticals' stock price bumps that congressional insiders benefit from with no oversight of their financial affairs while in positions of influence over policies that benefit big pharma, hmmm??
I agree, it's this regulatory framework which needs addressing. Stop pharma "buying" influence by banning political contributions from such companies, and insist politicians disclose personal financial interests in this industry. Otherwise, it's only going to get worse and worse.
This is getting ready for AI medicine if Brennan wins. Formulaic why do we need personal general practitioners if symptoms and needs are defined and AI does the rest. The algorithms could even be manipulated to support American Big Pharma
Thanks for bringing this interview to our attention and for the wonderful analysis. I think the most important moment of the video is the last second before it cuts off. Brennan gives an exasperated, knowing look to the camera. To me, that look expresses all her disdain for President Trump and his “anti-science” appointees. She’s signaling to her audience of true believers to dismiss everything they just heard. At least that’s my take.
You'd have to hope for transparency in communication of risk - the willingness to explain that there is great uncertainty in recommending an under-tested, novel product with no medium to longterm safety data and did not show reduced hospitalisations or mortality in RCTs. With that information, the patient needs to decide what risk they're willing to take.
When the programs are sponsored by Big Pharma, it’s ‘everyone’s’ responsibility to protect the brand. Public health is a long way down the list.
I have a red T-shirt, courtesy of my membership of AMPS, which says, "Let doctors be doctors".
MSM generally lack any knowledge of medicine or science and resort to "follow the experts" rather than appreciating a nuanced approach to patient care.
Another way of understanding the mindset of the MSM is all left brain and no right brain.
Overall, it's a bit like discussing philosophy with a 2 year old.
There are NONE so blind as those who will NOT see, as there are NONE so deaf as those who will NOT listen.
The MSM is comprised of the ignorant instructing the masses, all at the behest of those with vested interests!
Such a situation is mirrored here in OZ, where you have a medical doctor who spouts drivel and pontificates piffle, who is allowed to keep his medical licence even though he hasn't actually seen any patients for 40 years. 😲
You have the "Health Editor" 😬 of a supposed "reputable" print newspaper with absolutely no qualifications in any sort of health science, who likes to take pot-shots at those who DO have such quals.
You have a "Health rounds TV journalist" 🙄 who openly boasts about receiving an award for her miserable efforts, and then you find out the organisation that awarded her this cheesy chintz is a Big Pharma astro-turfing front group.
I shakes my head in disbelief 🫨
Thankfully we have Doc MaDem who shows us what REAL journalism is all about 👍
"spouts drivel and pontificates piffle"....Lol! I need you to write my articles! hahaha.
Thanks JB
I am but a dim low wattage glow compared to the magnificence of the dazzling incandescence that emanates from YOUR wordsmithery.
I mean… who am I to argue?! 😂
You are THE BEST 👌
Keep up the great work ! 👍
During covid we learned just how many people were happy to outsource all their thinking to the govt and its bureaucrats. We also learned just how incompetent, dangerous and evil so many of our politicians, bureaucrats and "experts" were. Add in journalists like Margaret Brennan who were incapable of properly evaluating and questioning total BS from Pharma and the govt.
My doctor was outstanding, he insisted on giving proper informed consent, and did not recommend the jabs to anybody. He lost patients over it, but he was being a proper doctor... Remove AHPRA, remove the dead hand of bureaucrats and let doctors be doctors...
Your doctor sounds like a keeper!
The indoctrination has been thorough.
In short, trust for doctors, medical professionals and "experts" is at a critical all-time low. How will they ever rebuild this trust if they keep lying, obfuscating, and evading the truth?
The government's response to COVID in most countries (beholden to Big Pharma and their marketing juggernaut) is the largest public health disaster in modern history.
Face it: Left-tilting media pundits invariably prefer doctrine over fact-based decisions. "Follow the SCIENCE" to them means 'the experts we support know what's best for us so it's best for you too' whenever something comes up that demands making a personal choice over simply accepting what's delivered in latest statements from government and industry shills.
Decades ago it wasn't easy to know what was propaganda. Now it's virtually impossible to distinguish propaganda from truth.
Isn’t that now the main problem for us who don’t have the scientific expertise?
Maryanne, I read Dr. Bryam Bridle’s substack this morning on pregnancy and the shot. It made my blood curdle. Canada is not following the States like usual, they’ve condoned the shots for pregnant women. Give him a read, it’s anger making. The CBS interview shows clearly the results of successful propaganda, and the absolute difficulty in scaling that mountain. People’s minds are totally closed shut.
Galling.
What I have learned from all that has happened (covid revealing) is to ask “who are the experts and why are they considered the experts?” When you do that research the truth (which happens to be a lot of ambiguity) reveals itself.
I see things a bit differently.
Big Pharma has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits (within the law). These companies are responding to the regulatory environment. They are not the enemy here.
Governments have a significant interest in their Pharma companies success, particularly in products that prevent illness in their increasingly aged population, and in taxing the profits from their sale.
Interests have aligned. A significant proportion of pharma profits have been generated by selling products that prevent (rather than treat) illness in this demographic.
So both the government and Pharma hope that these products will be widely used. The best way to facilitate this is to mandate their prescription and suppress evidence of harm.
I believe a regulator in the USA has recently approved a vaccine intended to prevent illness where it is admitted about 1 in 40 are likely to experience a serious adverse event. Oh!
See: https://open.substack.com/pub/trusttheevidence/p/forgotten-antivirals?r=1dwgdy&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
I agree that the pharmaceutical industry is fundamentally bound to generate profits. But governments are elected by the people to serve the people. This is where the breakdown occurs. Governments should not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship in my view.
With this brand new technology put in peoples arms, no doctor would know anything. Even the molecular biologists didn’t know until they tested. Doctor’s could only adhere to the guidelines or diktats because they were lost and still are.
Yes - what to do? I wrote somewhere else on here that it ultimately comes down to doctors communicating risk to patients. You say, “no doctor would know anything”—but THAT should have been communicated to the patient.
Instead, we got blanket assurances: “It’s SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.” That was a lie.
Of course, we can’t turn back time. But imagine if your doctor had said: “There’s significant uncertainty in recommending this under-tested, novel product. It has no medium- or long-term safety data, and clinical trials did not show a reduction in hospitalisations or deaths.” Would that have changed your willingness to take the jab?
In bioethics, medical decisions are meant to rest with the patient—after the doctor has honestly and transparently conveyed the potential benefits and risks. That’s informed consent. And that’s what was denied.
Keith, government has indemnified Big Pharma against any adverse financial consequences of producing harmful or ineffective vaccines, colluded with them to hide their harms and lied about their ineffectiveness and coerced people to take them. Furthermore, it has recently come out that the flu vaccines are not only ineffective, but likely negatively effective.
There is nothing in this scenario that is anything but corrupt.
But I say, don't focus on these companies. It's the regulators that are responsible.
Have you heard of the concept (& reality) of regulatory capture. It has proven to be an inevitable consequence/phenomenon/reality of government regulation of business and professions. It has been demonstrated in every regulated sector for at least 150 years. The companies seek to control the regulators to the detriment of the public and new enterprises and approaches to processes.
The evidence that those antivirals are effective is suspect.
That's true, but this might be because they have not been subject to trials which are properly powered.
"A significant proportion of pharma profits have been generated by selling products that prevent (rather than treat) illness in this demographic."
What proportion of those profits you speak of go towards political contributions and lobbying for big pharmaceuticals' interests, hmm?
Or the pharmaceuticals' stock price bumps that congressional insiders benefit from with no oversight of their financial affairs while in positions of influence over policies that benefit big pharma, hmmm??
I agree, it's this regulatory framework which needs addressing. Stop pharma "buying" influence by banning political contributions from such companies, and insist politicians disclose personal financial interests in this industry. Otherwise, it's only going to get worse and worse.
Why do you defend these wicked monoliths?
Great work! Good to see the adults back in the room.
This is getting ready for AI medicine if Brennan wins. Formulaic why do we need personal general practitioners if symptoms and needs are defined and AI does the rest. The algorithms could even be manipulated to support American Big Pharma
Thanks for bringing this interview to our attention and for the wonderful analysis. I think the most important moment of the video is the last second before it cuts off. Brennan gives an exasperated, knowing look to the camera. To me, that look expresses all her disdain for President Trump and his “anti-science” appointees. She’s signaling to her audience of true believers to dismiss everything they just heard. At least that’s my take.
Exactly—that was the very moment I realised nothing Makary said had registered with her.
"The world moves on"
Yeah...but we, the public , don`t forget..
This follow the guidelines makes going to the doctor a difficult task for most of us.
You'd have to hope for transparency in communication of risk - the willingness to explain that there is great uncertainty in recommending an under-tested, novel product with no medium to longterm safety data and did not show reduced hospitalisations or mortality in RCTs. With that information, the patient needs to decide what risk they're willing to take.
Margaret B is a whore for Big Pharma.