Don't Be a Sucker

Medical Apartheids Lead to Very Dark Places

My recent decision to publicize Dr. Miller’s story struck a chord with many and, not long after, ended up on national television. I think that Dr. Miller’s story appealed to so many because it spoke to both the worst of what many of us have seen in the last few years and to the best in humanity many of us sincerely wished we’d seen more of. If you have not yet watched the interview, please do because it sets the context for this article:

One of the reasons Dr. Miller’s story struck a chord with so many people is because they directly experienced the medical discrimination he described and, in some cases, saw a loved one who was unvaccinated die because of their unethical treatment.

Before we go any further, I need to provide a few disclaimers since I have very strong feelings on this topic and am not necessarily writing from my typical impartial style.

When I write, I try to follow two rules:

The first is to not talk about myself because I don’t want what’s on here to be about me—the only time I share personal stories is when I feel others can relate to them, and they hence benefit from hearing them.

The second is not to make Nazi or Hitler analogies. This is because comparing people to Hitler is one of the most overused responses on the internet and because Hitler did some truly awful stuff to my family, so I do not like to ever inadvertently trivialize what happened in Nazi Germany.

This was a difficult article for me to write, and those rules will not be followed today.

Nazi Germany followed an escalating pattern of persecution and genocide of undesirable minorities (e.g., Jews) that eventually resulted in them being thrown in death camps. Early in the process, Jews were branded as vermin that carried disease. That, in turn, was a key “scientific” justification used by the government (e.g., Public Health Officials) to persecute and isolate them.

In the 1930s (prior to the establishment of the Jewish ghettos, which were followed by the concentration camps), one of my beloved relatives developed an easily treatable cancer. At the time, the political climate in Germany had already progressed to the point no hospital in Germany was willing to treat a Jew. Her husband eventually learned of one hospital in Cologne that would take Jewish patients (which was quite far away from them). However, by the time she was able to get there (there were heavy travel restrictions in Germany), her cancer had progressed to being inoperable, and she died.

Note: My family believes the Cologne hospital was willing to treat Jews because Cologne had a high concentration of Catholics, one of the few groups that resisted the Nazis.

Medical discrimination was not unique to Nazi Germany. Another well-known example was the Apartheid system in South Africa (which lasted from 1948 to the early 1990s), where Blacks were second-class segregated citizens in a developed country ruled by whites. One of the many consequences of this system was that most hospitals would not take black patients, and they suffered various health complications that could have easily been addressed had they been allowed into the hospitals. The important thing about South Africa’s Apartheid is that while it is universally condemned now, when it existed, it had many supporters around the world.

Don’t Be a Sucker

Because of World War 2, the USA became the leading superpower and was held in high regard across the world. Specifically, the USA was credited with liberating the world from the evils of Nazism, it had unrivaled economic success resulting from the USA having one of the only intact industrial infrastructures in the world (except for Pearl Harbor, there were virtually no attacks on our soil), and after the war, we did a lot of work to rebuild the countries decimated by the war.

In this golden age of America, our government did something unusual; it put out propaganda I fully agree with. One reader (another dissident doctor) sent me a video that my jaw dropped when I saw. I think this is something everyone needs to see, so if you can find the time to watch it now, please do:

What is so striking about this “propaganda” piece the military made approximately 75 years ago to discourage fascism within the United States is how perfectly it describes exactly what is happening today in a better way than almost anything else I’ve seen on the subject.

The key points of this video are:

•A common tactic a group lacking power uses to take control of a country is to split it into groups along wedge lines it identifies in the population (e.g., ethnic, religious, or sexual minorities) and then get each of those smaller groups to distrust each other.

•Many not in the initially targeted groups will go along with the splitting and discrimination because it makes sense and will only complain once their group is targeted (at which point it is too late for them to protect themselves).

•You have to assume anyone trying to turn segments of society against each other is not your friend and is doing it so they eventually can steal everything you have from you. 

•When this happens, aggressive censorship always occurs in tandem to maintain the lies used to justify those artificial divisions.

•The people who go along with this revolutionary group (and are promised to be part of the in-group that gains power at everyone else’s expense) always inevitably suffer the same fate as the other groups they initially targeted. These individuals are frequently referred to as “useful idiots.”

Hatred toward the Unvaccinated

When you consider my relative's story, it should be easy to see the parallels with what we witnessed during COVID-19. The thing I found particularly alarming about all of this was the state-sanctioned hate I saw towards the unvaccinated, which was justified under the non-sensical argument you were a murderer if you refused to take a vaccine that was never proven to prevent transmission (and mechanistically should not have been able to).

Ever since Don't Be a Sucker was made, the USA has had a relatively consistent policy of not encouraging significant hatred and division between different segments of society. However, during Obama's presidency, it began to and I've now seen many things transpire that I have found profoundly concerning for the nation's long-term viability. 

I dislike and disagree with plenty of people, but unless I believe their actions are criminal, I don't interfere in their lives and go my separate way. Since Obama, that equation has changed, and now large segments of society feel it is acceptable to go after people who fit into a group they do not like.

I sincerely believe (as detailed here) that the push to mandate childhood vaccines nationwide, which began in 2015, was part of a broad industry plan to buy out the entire Democratic party and set the stage for the mandatory adult vaccinations we saw a few years later. Since I worked to help stop the initial campaign from happening, when COVID-19, a highly transmissible and allegedly lethal virus, emerged at the end of 2019, I immediately grasped how dire of a situation we were in.

For this reason, like many, I burned more sleepless nights than I want to think about trying to get a viable treatment for the disease into clinical practice before a vaccine was developed and forced onto the population. Sadly, we were all stonewalled and held to an infinitely higher standard than Pfizer was. For example, much of what we did that was already being used on people across the world could not even advance to small trials on eager American volunteers. 

Note: Unless you've worked in drug development, it is difficult to put into words just how low a standard Pfizer was held to in their regulatory submissions that were allowed to advance to human trials and how infuriating it was reading over the documents once they we got access to them.

What made me the most worried about the 2015 vaccination campaign was not the fact that children were being forced to take unnecessary vaccines that could seriously injure them (including children who had already been injured), but rather the political climate that was created. The media stoked a hatred towards the unvaccinated I could not recall it doing towards any other groups (besides possibly Arabs for a short period after 9-11). 

More importantly, I saw my colleagues that openly professed compassion for all patients (and were militant towards those who did not) publicly say very nasty things about the unvaccinated (e.g., wishing their death from "vaccine-preventable" diseases even though the risk of most of those diseases is almost zero irrespective of your vaccination status). This was particularly concerning because if any of us said anything close about another patient demographic, we would have instantly been reported to HR (or worse), whereas this discrimination was actively condoned and encouraged by my colleagues.

Typically, when something really bad happens, such as how the unvaccinated were treated throughout COVID-19, it doesn't come out of nowhere. Instead, like the previously described situation, it built on a festering issue in the background most people had ignored.

Much more could be said about the unacceptable discrimination the unvaccinated received over the last two years. Josh Guetzkow, for example, put together an excellent summary of the hatred the unvaccinated faced, which was repeatedly scientifically quantified to greatly exceed that faced by other groups that are commonly discriminated against. I will quote one portion of his article:

A few comments on the screenshots before I paste them in. Perhaps the most amazing thing about these statements is that people felt that it was OK to express these opinions “out loud” in public on-line settings and were often encouraged and congratulated by others.

This is in contrast to other forms of prejudice that people have become more reluctant to express openly as such views are seen as illegitimate or not acceptable in polite society. But here they felt no shame. And since these people had no problem expressing their views in public, I am not going to go out of my way to protect their identities, though in some cases the screenshots were anonymized before being sent to me.

Although we have not by any means hit this point, I would like to mention something I repeatedly thought about while writing this article:

In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell, the Two Minutes Hate is the daily, public period during which members of the Outer Party of Oceania must watch a film depicting Emmanuel Goldstein, the principal enemy of the state, and his followers, The Brotherhood, and loudly voice their hatred for the enemy and then their love of Big Brother.

The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow the citizens of Oceania to vent their existential anguish and personal hatreds towards politically expedient enemies: Goldstein and the enemy super-state of the moment. In re-directing the members' subconscious feelings away from the Party's government of Oceania, and towards non-existent external enemies, the Party minimises thoughtcrime and the consequent, subversive behaviours of thoughtcriminals.

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.

Do I Hate Doctors?

Given that I commonly describe the awful things my profession does (e.g., medical gaslighting) and the psychological mechanisms that give rise to that pathology, many assume I hate my colleagues but refrain from saying so. Similarly, a vocal minority of commenters frequently request that I profess my hatred towards my colleagues in the comments since I never do so publicly.

Although I've had to bite my tongue for many things I've witnessed throughout my medical career, I hold no hatred towards (most) of my colleagues or profession (although many close to me who the medical system has severely injured do not share my sentiments). This is for a few reasons:

1. Most doctors are remarkable human beings; they care about others and are fairly intelligent. The standards to get into medical system are quite high, so people who become doctors typically represent the best society has to offer.

2. The behaviors I despise are seen throughout my profession. This means the issues are not specific to the individual physician; rather, they are a product of the training they receive. What this means is that most people, if they became doctors and went through the same training (and programming), would behave in the same way.

3. Replacing and overhauling the medical system is a monumental task, and since we are so dependent on it, we can't just scrap it. Although there are many things medicine does wrong (e.g., caring for most chronic diseases), there are also many things it does right, and I cannot even begin to describe how difficult it would be to replace them.

4. Outrage is relative to your existing baseline. For many, since they've assumed doctors are wonderful people they can fully trust with their most important matters, seeing them do the opposite constitutes a very deep psychological violation. In my case, I've seen so many examples of horrific acts of mass human cruelty and barbaric institutions throughout history (some of which would likely give you nightmares if I went into them), that I've accepted that humans can do terrible things if they are in the circumstances that create them. 

My general rule has been that anytime a dysfunctional or evil ideology is pushed on the population, approximately 90-95% of human beings will go along with it. That figure, in turn, is relatively constant regardless of the field you examine (e.g., medicine).

Furthermore, many techniques have been developed over the years to manipulate crowds, and most successful dictators use some combination of them. When you understand the methods and how feasible they are to implement (which, for ethical reasons, is something I will never discuss further), you are forced to accept humans are capable of both excellent good and great evil, and both are regular occurrences.

5. The only solution to these issues is encouraging people to come together rather than polarizing and dividing them. I think most doctors are good people, and I believe directly attacking them is ultimately counterproductive.

What happened in Nazi Germany?

During WWII, Nazi doctors discarded the fairly advanced medical ethical guidelines promulgated by the Weimar Republic in 1931 that protected the individual and replaced them with an ideology furthering the perverted primacy of societal good as defined by the Third Reich. Within a few years, Nazi medical ethics placing the state above the individual became part of the standard curriculum in all German medical schools.

The scarcity of medical resistance to the Nazi regime has been explored, but remains a troubling mystery.

One of the things I find so disturbing about Nazi Germany was not how many people it killed (there are countless barbaric genocides through history), but rather the inhumanity of it and how everyone became cogs in a soulless machine of death. A large part of this was because the Nazis used the evolving discipline of science to create “objective and unquestionable” justifications for their genocidal policies.

For example, German public health authorities made a point to brand Jews as carriers of disease that needed to be isolated from society (and eventually euthanized).

I am now going to quote a paper on the medical policies of Nazi Germany. Since this a highly charged topic, I will leave you to draw your own conclusions of if we have repeated any of the mistakes of the past.

Adolf Hitler equated the Jews with bacilli [tuberculosis is a bacilli] and referred to them as the “racial TB [tuberculosis] of the nations”

Nazi ideology incorporated the eugenics movement with its focus on racial hygiene as central to public health and thus promoted TB as a marker of genetic inferiority legitimating stigmatization, sterilization, and even euthanasia of people afflicted by the disease.

In 1935, the Law for the Protection of the Genetic Health of the German People was passed that prevented individuals from marrying if they suffered from a variety of diseases deemed to be “genetic,” including TB, despite evidence to the contrary.

An even more sinister motive for the mass screening of TB was to collect personal information to serve as a means for racial classification.

The popularity of the eugenics movement in Nazi Germany was tied in part to the fact that the medical profession embraced it and the Nazi party.

Stephen Post states, “Doctors were not unwitting victims, but rather active and responsible agents committed to hygienic theories that legitimized Nazi racial ideology”

No euthanasia law was passed, but Hitler issued a statement on his personal stationary endowing certain doctors in the Reich with the power to euthanize their patients. The process was done in secret because it involved murdering German citizens, although knowledge of the killings eventually leaked out. Doctors also signed forged death certificates, falsifying the causes of death. When parents received notification of the death of their children, the reason given was often “TB.” By October of 1939, the program had been extended to include adults as well, and special killing centers were designed

Public outcry eventually halted the euthanasia program briefly in August of 1941, but it resumed in 1942 and continued for the duration of the war based largely on the power bestowed on Nazi doctors to determine who to starve, poison or gas.

The most notorious example of Nazi medicalized killing of people supposedly suffering from TB occurred at the Hadamar euthanasia center in Hesse between June of 1944 and March of 1945. Evidence at the Hadamar trial revealed that the medical staff celebrated the ex- termination of their 10,000th victim with a small beer party, toasting their success over the deceased’s body

Doctors and planners also incorporated medical experimentation into the euthanasia program. Some of the most repugnant TB experiments were trials of the Bacillus Calmette Guérin (BCG) vaccine carried out on German mentally and physically disabled infants and children removed from their parents’ homes under the guise of being sent to special treatment centers but actually destined for euthanasia.

The BCG vaccine was developed in France by Drs. Albert Calmette and Camille Guerin from bovine TB weakened by 230 sequential subcultures and first tested on humans in 1921. A disastrous trial of the vaccine in Lübeck in 1930 in which a virulent TB strain was accidentally sub- stituted for the attenuated strain resulting in the death of 72 of 251 immunized children led to a ban on the further use of the BCG vaccine in Germany. In late 1941, howev-er, the ban was partially lifted to permit Dr. Elmar Türk to conduct 2 series of experiments initiated by the Vienna Uni- versity Pediatric Clinic and conducted at the Spiegelgrund children’s euthanasia facility on 5 victims all under the age of 5

The large numbers of people moving into the ghettos, especially in Poland, led to overcrowding, starvation, and the outbreak of disease, a situation that the German-imposed Jewish Councils, known as Judenräte, established to oversee a variety of administrative and social welfare organizations including health services, never had the adequate resources to combat.

One German rationale for the creation of ghettos was based on the racist belief that Jews were the carriers of disease, especially typhus, and TB. German propaganda conflated Jews with disease and identified them as “plague-boils.” Many German doctors thus conceived ghettoization in part as a public health measure to protect the German and Polish populations from lethal epidemics that they argued the Jews spread.

The Germans erected signs outside the ghetto walls stating: “Achtung! Seuchengefahr,” or “Attention! Danger of Infection” or other similar warnings. Conditions in the ghettos induced disease, a major ramification of the faulty German reasoning and one that ultimately led German authorities to seal the more populated ghettos.

Typhus is a central theme of ghetto histories even though TB was a serious problem. Squalid living conditions and lack of soap made a disease like typhus inevitable as it was spread by body lice and often epidemic in the ghettos

Many ill people never went to doctors, knowing they had few medicines for treatment. Others simply died in the streets with their deaths attributed to starvation when they very well might have had TB. Once the deportations began, sufferers of TB or those suspected of having it were often the first selected to be sent to the extermination camps

Ghettos that were able to find ways to contain the diseases were nonetheless liquidated. In the end, Nazi medicine eradicated the disease by eliminating human life

Overcrowding and starvation along with the filth of the camps made them breeding grounds for disease [and disease transmission] throughout the war. And disease threatened all the deportation camps in the occupied countries as well so that people often came into contact with TB before they were sent to the concentration camps.

Heinrich Himmler toured Dachau in January of 1941 and soon after decided that the most logical solution to the epidemiological crisis was to send the experienced T-4 [euthanasia] doctors into the camps. With Bouhler’s approval, therefore, in the summer and fall of 1941 about a dozen T-4 psychiatrists made the rounds of the German and Austrian camps and began inspections, meeting with SS commandants and staff, studying prison files, evaluating prisoners, and inventing a process whereby prisoners determined too sick or weak to work, were dispatched to one of the euthanasia killing centers.

In the summer of 1941, for example, the SS officials at Buchenwald felt overwhelmed by prison transports arriving with suspected cases of TB. In this environment, an SS doctor named Hans Eisele opted to kill the prisoners with lethal injections rather than wait for clearance from a T-4 doctor to send them to a killing center.

Conclusion

One of the most powerful cinematic clips I have seen (which still affects me despite having seen it dozens of times) can be found at the end of the movie Zeitgeist.

The clip is preceded by this quotation:

Divide and conquer is the motto and as long as people continue to see themselves as separate from everything [and everyone] else they lend themselves to being completely enslaved. The men behind the curtain know this and they also know that if people ever realize the truth of their relationship to nature and the truth of their personal power the entire manufactured zeitgeist they [those in power] prey upon will collapse like a house of cards.

As the narrator says, I believe we have much more in common with each other than how we differ. However, as long as we focus on our differences, we cannot stand together on the critical values we all share.

Our recent elections have focused on highlighting the ways we differ from each other and need to hate the opposing side rather than where we have common ground. Like many, I am worried these divisions (which I suspect are being intentionally stoked by enemies outside the United States) threaten our long-term viability as a superpower.

In my previous posts, I’ve tried to publicly promote RFK Jr.’s presidential candidacy because I believe he brings a message that is critical for our times. Unlike most non-establishment candidates I’ve supported (e.g., Mike Gravel, Tulsi Gabbard, and Ron Paul), I believe RFK Jr. has a good shot at making his message be heard by a lot of people. This is because no popular candidate is currently running in the Democratic Primary. Furthermore, due to the disaster with Biden’s illegally mandated COVID-19 vaccines, RFK Jr., who stood against them from the start, has significant support across the political parties (including many Republicans who plan to vote for Trump in the general election).

Yesterday, RFK Jr. announced his candidacy to a packed audience. Regardless of your feelings on him, I would strongly advise listening to his speech because it embodies exactly what needs to enter our country’s political discourse now:

Note: Tucker Carlson also covered RFK Jr’s announcement here.