Lara Logan, the host of Fox Nation, has been heavily criticized this past week for comparing Dr. Anthony Fauci to Josef Mengele, the saddistic Nazi doctor whose ghost probably still crawls along the concrete corridors of Auschwitz, looking for Jews to torture, but how far off the mark is she?
Logan, who never shies from controversy, brought criticism on herself from “all across the world” by saying,
This is what people say to me [about Dr. Fauci] — that he doesn’t represent science to them. He represents Josef Mengele … the Nazi doctor who did experiments on Jews…. I am talking about people all across the world are saying this because the response from Covid — what it has done to countries everywhere, what it has done to civil liberties, the suicide rates, the poverty — it has obliterated economies. The level of suffering that has been created because of this disease is now being seen in the cold light of day.
Of course, her comparison seems outrageous because Mengele tortured people to experiment on them. He was abhorrently saddistic, and he saw Jews as nothing but animals to be experimented upon. Dr. Fauci is not saddistic that we know of, and he certainly does not directly torture people or select them by race for experimentation. However Logan says “people” are saying this to her because of the effect on societies of the policies Fauci advocates.
Because of her comparison to Mengele without clear qualifications, the American Jewish Committee responded by saying,
Utterly shameful. Josef Mengele earned his nickname by performing deadly and inhumane medical experiments on prisoners of the Holocaust, including children. @LaraLogan, there is no comparing the hell these victims went through to public health measures. An apology is needed.
Mengele medicine
Hold on a minute. How can one argue that Fauci is not conducting medical experiments on children? Millions of children in the US have been ordered to get the experimental injections that Doctor Fauci has prescribed without any extensive testing on a small group of children first. Many of them are barred from going to school if they do not get, at least, two of the experimental injections.
Hundreds of thousands of pregnant mothers have been ordered to get the experimental injections (when they were “experimental”), which have not been properly tested on pregnant women for the effect they might have on their unborn babies’ development — especially their hearts where the vaccines have been proven to cause serious problems in a small number adults with fully developed hearts. What if they cause much more prevalent problems in minute developing hearts?
Whether or not those experiments are “inhumane” is something that will only prove out over time. If all goes as hoped, then they weren’t inhumane. However, if 20% of all of our children turn out to have significant heart troubles early in life, then they were grossly inhumane! It may take two to three years down the road for accumulations of trouble to build in their hearts to where they experience serious health problems. Most of the fetuses who have been bathed in the vaccine for months haven’t even been born yet. So, we are far from having given adequate testing on small groups of pregnant women before forcing the vaccines on all pregnant women.
I question other critical counterclaims brought against Logan’s possible exaggeration. One such claim stated Fauci’s policies have not killed thousands of people like Mengele did. Is that any more true than the claim that Fauci’s policies are not experimenting on children? By USDA definition the vaccines were all “experimental” until very recently when their “approved” status was rushed into place compared to the years over which most vaccines must wait for approval.
I believe tens of thousands of people have already died who would not have died without Fauci’s policies. They died due to being kept out of hospitals for medical treatment because they were told by Fauci and all who follow him that hospitals needed to be kept available for huge waves of expected COVID patients. Many times those waves did not even show up, so hospitals had plenty of space; yet people died for want of treatment for other medical problems:
People who had never contracted COVID-19 died during the worst parts of the pandemic because many medical procedures were forbidden by government order to make room in hospitals for victims of the virus. They died of cancer, kidney failure and other things that were killing people long before anyone ever heard of COVID-19.
That is a travesty of extraordinary human cost due to misguided policy that was too rigidly pushed on people in places where hospitals had very few cases of COVID and never did get swamped. Not even close.
Hospital battlefields
Now we have become even more extreme to where hospitals or doctors are actually turning away patients who desperately need medical treatment on the sole basis that they are not vaccinated. That is whether the hospital is full of COVID patients or not. I read just this week about a couple turned away from a hospital due to being unvaccinated:
Earlier today, I was horrified to hear that one of my readers had just been denied access to a local hospital. He was taking his wife in for a very important reason, but there were people at the entrance that were checking the vaccination status of everyone that attempted to enter. He and his wife had not been vaccinated, and so they were turned away.
Is this anecdotal account untrue or a misrepresentation? That’s something we need to ask with every report of that kind. Maybe the full story is that hospital was simply full due to COVID and was forced into triage mode, but that is not always the case:
Dr. Jason Valentine, a family medicine physician at the Diagnostic and Medical Clinic Infirmary Health in Mobile, Alabama, informed his patients this month that, effective Oct. 1, he would no longer treat those who hadn’t been vaccinated against Covid-19.
Turning the unvaccinated away may be understandable if hospital beds are full of COVID patients already and triage has become essential:
Around the same time, a leaked memo indicated that the North Texas Mass Critical Care Guideline Task Force was considering whether to take Covid vaccination status into account in deciding who gets ICU beds when more of them are needed than are available.
If a hospital has only a few beds left available and expects a lot more COVID patients and believes those who have been vaccinated are more likely to recover with treatment than those who are unvaccinated, then the choice to exclude the unvaccinated is the kind of unfortunate-but-necessary triage medical facilities sometimes have to do when faced with more patients than they can care for. However, that was reportedly not the case with Dr. Valentine, and there are others like him. The medical ethicist in the article above notes,
It would be unethical if a doctor were to refuse treatment because of anger, resentment or frustration, including over a patient’s decision not to get vaccinated. Doctors, and health care professionals more broadly, are bound by moral obligations to prevent illness and restore health for anyone without regard to certain objections they may have about them…. Valentine’s explanation for what he’s doing, while perhaps understandable, isn’t defensible from an ethical point of view…. He said he decided not to treat unvaccinated patients because “Covid is a miserable way to die and I can’t watch them die like that.”
So, force them to die by refusing them needed medical treatment because you are angry with them for the risk they took on? That is plainly coercive and perhaps retributive, yet so easy to rationalize with the claim that you are just trying to protect others.
Who exactly were the people who were turned away a risk to, other than themselves? The vaccinated? Don’t the vaccinated believe in their vaccine? If the hospital is turning away everyone who is unvaccinated, including their own staff, even if they already have naturally enhanced immunity from having successfully beat COVID doesn’t it follow that everyone inside is vaccinated?
Why should the vaccinated care if those who are exposed are unvaccinated people who chose to take that risk over the risk they perceive in the vaccine? Could no ward be created specifically for the unvaccinated? In fact, if it almost everyone needing hospitalization is unvaccinated, as we are told, who exactly is the hospital treating for Covid if they are turning away the unvaccinated?
I’m calling this nothing but coercive use of medicine by doctors to force vaccination because doctors believe doctors always know best … even when forcing experimental injections that have had no longterm testing. They are following the science where there simply is none … because their can’t be because none of the vaccines has existed long enough for long-term testing.
Daniel Wikler, a medical ethicist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health recently penned a column for The Washington Post that argues a patient’s access to care should not be contingent on whether they have received the COVID-19 vaccine. The same ethics that guarantee a life-long smoker will be treated for lung cancer should also apply to the unvaccinated, Wikler argues.
When arguments reach the level of Harvard medical ethicists it implies there are many people on the other side of the debate — people who disagree with Wikler and think the unvaccinated should denied medical access. For example,
Wikler’s stance contradicts that of Trish Zorino, a scientist and expert in behavioral neuroscience for the University of Colorado – Denver…. Zorino opined, “As controversial as it may be, we should deprioritize the eligible unvaccinated patients during medical triage. It’s a free country, and you can absolutely choose not to get the vaccine. But choices have consequences, and the willingly unvaccinated have made this consequence necessary.“
Her final statement sounds less like she is concerned about essential triage and more like she is trying to force behavior and using the threat of death to do it. I don’t see in Zorino’s statement a rationale that says this must be done for solely the sake of prioritizing treatment to those who are most likely to benefit. Even though she is talking about triage situation, her statement reads more like someone who is angry at patients who have refused “proper medical advice” to get vaccinated, and she is saying, “You made your bed, so lie in it!” It is an expression of the rage the vaccinated unjustly hold against unvaccinated. How is it any different than saying to a smoker with cancer, “You made your choice, so just go die!”
Many people in hospitals every day are there because they made dumb choices, such as ignoring their doctor’s orders and becoming obese, ignoring the doctor’s orders with respect to their diabetic diet, ignoring the doctor’s orders against smoking, cliff climbing, using recreational drugs, drinking too much, etc. And we don’t know yet if choosing not to vaccinated is even a dumb choice. On an immediate basis, it is for many but not all (due to many individual health reasons); on a longterm basis, that remains to be seen entirely.
The hospital wars are not just expelling those who have COVID
The argument is not just that the unvaccinated should be denied treatment for Covid. It is that they should be denied all medical treatment even if they test negative for Covid simply because they do not carry proof of vaccination. So, it is clearly about coercion to vaccinate, and this kind of DEADLY coercion has already spread to a systemic level.
Here is what the American Academy of Pediatrics says:
“If after counseling efforts are exhausted, parents decline immunizations, the AAP says pediatricians may request they sign a vaccine refusal form and/or seek care from a different health care provider,” the AAP stated, adding that it is an “acceptable option for pediatric care clinicians to dismiss families who refuse vaccines.”
They mean to dismiss entire families from all care for no other reason than that the parents refused vaccination for their children. How coercive is that? It’s not triage being carried out because the clinic is overwhelmed from COVID. This vaccine policy was put in place a couple of years before COVID existed. So, it is not even “Your child got COVID because you didn’t get him or her vaccinated, so you did this to yourselves.” It’s “Your child broke her leg, and you are in the group that won’t vaccinate, even after we told you we would no longer treat your child; so, take her someplace else! We do not treat unvaccinated children for anything!”
I find that practically diabolical. So, how far off is it from Josef Mengele? It is total deprivation of medical care for children who have no dog in the fight for the sake of forcing vaccine policy. Hospitals and clinics should never be turned into a policy battlefield. Depriving children of all medical treatment because their parents refused to vaccinate them is inhumane at best. If they’re suffering pain when they’re turned away it IS torture, especially if all pediatric facilities decide take up this recommended policy, which they might, leaving the children nowhere to go.
This pre-COVID article states the AAP made clear this policy was to boost the US immunization rate. The AAP stated nothing at all about triage or situations where clinics are near capacity. Just let people know you won’t treat their children in the future for anything if they refuse to have their children vaccinated now.
They stated their rationale as follows:
It’s clear that states with more lenient exemption policies [for vaccines] have lower immunization rates, and it’s these states where we have seen disease outbreaks occur as the rates slip below the threshold needed to maintain community immunity.
That was their reason for the policy. I say, find other ways than deprivation of medical care for children to boost immunizations!
Fortunately, this new swing in the vaccine war is meeting opposition now that it has become so overt:
In Texas this year [2019], a bill was introduced that would make it illegal for doctors to refuse service to patients based on their immunization status. The bill was heard in committee, but did not receive a committee vote.
No nuance, no medical exemptions, no diversity
Unfortunately, COVID hysteria is pushing public opinion more in the direction of withholding medical treatment for any illness from all those who refuse vaccination. So, yes, when you are willing to hurt people to that degree (even children), as a society, due to fear of the unvaccinated, even though you are protected by being vaccinated, it is mass hysteria. It’s not that far off from German society standing by and watching what was done to Jews because they had become the ones to blame.
Enough people have felt justified in this to pass new state and federal policies that do not even allow nuance for underlying health reasons (such as already having the heart issues the vaccines are known to occasionally cause) or for pregnancy concerns.
Yes, the CDC claims it allows “medical exemptions,” but when you look at their website or actually talk to doctors as I have to get an exemption, you find they have reduced the exemptions down to making allowance for people who are allergic to the actual ingredients in the vaccine. I know because every doctor I went to get a medical exemption told me my pre-existing immunological condition was irrelevant for one reason: The CDC only allowed for exemptions for allergies to the ingredients in the vaccine. I was told that repeatedly, and I don’t need the vaccine because I already had COVID, and the science is clear that those who have had the disease are just as well protected, if not better protected than those who are vaccinated, and they are not more likely to spread COVID than those who are vaccinated.
Maybe a little diversity in the human choices allowed would prove to be safer in the long run, rather than putting everyone on the same train with an unproven longterm destination. This, remember, is not just a new vaccine. It’s an entirely novel kind of vaccine technology that has never had any longterm testing on a small group before being forced upon the entirety of humanity. That is the biggest medical experiment in the history of the world! So, would a little diversity from that approach not be a wise precaution, even though it has its own risks?
It seems to me hospitals or doctors refusing entry or treatment to unvaccinated people who have significant medical needs is all about controlling you to make sure you do as the medical establishment tells you. If you don’t, they will make you pay, even with your life.
Turning away an unvaccinated patient looking for medical care? Bad, bad idea, says a Toronto bioethicist. “I think it sets, from an ethical point of view, a terrible precedent,” said Kerry Bowman, an assistant professor at the Temerty Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto.
Yet, that is the pathway of fear that nations around the world are starting to take, and that is why I think the Nazi comparison is not altogether out of line. How far down that railroad do we want to take people before we make the comparison and say maybe modern society is on a journey toward Nazi Germany? Logan got ridiculed because it’s not that bad yet. But, of course, it’s not that bad yet. Nazi Germany wasn’t that bad when it first started down this path of dividing society and herding people either.
That is why the ethicist above argues it is a “terrible precedent.” The fear-based social pressure that breaches old ethical bounds, which we are now witnessing, is exactly where begins such a journey begins. The train has just left the station, so we can stop it, but there is a lot of momentum and argument building in that direction already — even (and especially) at top levels, such as President Joe Biden who has already blamed all the unvaccinated for all the problems of this plague: “YOU are the reason….”
That is dangerously divisive for society. When Germany’s leader blamed Jews for all of Germany’s woes, he managed to turn fear and anger into hatred focused on a single group of people in order to make them the scapegoat for German society’s troubles. It doesn’t start in concentration camps. It ends in them if that’s the train you decide to take. So, listen to the warnings from medical ethicists:
We’re rewriting medical ethics and human rights … We cannot be in a position where healthcare workers become judgmental of their patients.
While hospitals generally cannot legally turn people in emergency situations away from emergency wards unless under triage procedures, they have always been able to turn people away who are not in need of emergency treatment. Now, instead of being based on ability to pay, it is based on vaccine status:
CALGARY – Two Calgary women are speaking out after they were denied access into medical facilities because of their vaccination statuses. Bree Alexander says she took her six-month old daughter Kalayah to the MCI The Doctor’s Office clinic in the southeast to examine eczema on her infant’s foot. When she arrived and revealed she didn’t have her COVID-19 shots, she says the staff told her she wasn’t allowed in the building. “I just started bawling and I left,” she said. Alexander says she isn’t against vaccinations and that both her young children have received their shots. “I’m also fully vaccinated except for the COVID-19 shot because it just seems kind of forced,” said Alexander.
The hospital could have just required that she take a rapid COVID test if wanting to be careful about infecting others were there only objective. Alexander is not generally against vaccines, but she expressed that she still has reservations about this particular one being forced into her arm. Neither was this a clinic that was full up with COVID emergency patients and in triage mode. Its a general-practice clinic simply turning away anyone who isn’t vaccinated in order to use availability of medical treatment as a way to force people to do what doctors tell them to do. And this is in a country with supposedly universal medicine!
At another facility in the story, a patient who recently had back surgery and was experience problems was turned away just for not being vaccinated. She was not seeking an ICU bed or admission into an emergency ward, so this was not triage! It was another restriction of medical privileges as a way of coercing people to get vaccinated because some doctors are angry at people for not taking their advice and getting vaccinated. And it is not a few isolated incidences.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta says it doesn’t have a specific number of complaints related to unvaccinated patients being denied care but says it’s heard of many reports of it happening.
While the clinic involved claimed these were not institutional policies but localized choices that misinterpreted institutional policy, I believe these misinterpretations happen as a result of medical staff wanting to force their ways on others by holding the Sword of Damocles over their heads. “Get vaccinated or suffer.” After the clinic said it clarified its policies to all staff, the patient says she tried to make her appointment for back-surgery followup again, and was again turned away solely due to not being vaccinated. Do the vaccinated people inside so completely not believe in the efficacy of their own vaccine that they are scared to death to treat people who are unvaccinated, or are they just coercing people to do as commanded?
One argument used in favor of coercion for the good of society is this one that also reeks of branding one group of people with all the ills of society:
Unvaccinated people have become a reservoir for the far more contagious Delta (and other) variants, allowing infection to spread—even among the fully vaccinated. COVID infection rates and deaths, which dropped to record lows last spring, are now at some of their highest levels in some states.
In other words, if your vaccine doesn’t work, it is not the vaccine’s failure. It’s the fault of those people who didn’t get the vaccine. Yes, the shortcoming of the vaccine is actually being blamed on the people who didn’t get the vaccine because they don’t believe in it!
Counterarguments to that claim were raised by a minority of virologists and other doctors months before this false blame emerged. Those doctors claimed just the opposite — that the mRNA vaccines, themselves, may provide the ideal breeding ground for worse variants because their protection is limited to identifying the spike protein. That allows viral evolution to find a way around the vaccine with nothing but mutations to the spike protein. It creates a community of millions of people who are only immune to a tiny aspect of the total virus, so if that one part changes, they’re immunity is lost.
Vaccinated immunity is not nearly as robust as naturally enhanced immunity from having gotten the disease, which is far broader in identifying and immediately attacking many aspects of the virus, making it harder for the virus to mutate to where it can evade capture and destruction.
And all of this is now exactly what we have seen with the new Omicron variant where the first person to bring Omicron into the US in California was a fully vaccinated person. So was the second, a Minnesota man in NYC! So was the the third in Colorado! The big scare with Omicron, in fact, is exactly that the virus has changed its spike protein enough to evade the vaccine.
Scientists have said the Omicron variant likely developed in an immunocompromised person, such as someone with HIV, who could not quickly combat the disease so that it had more time to mutate within a single person. This was possible in someone whose immune system did not mount a sufficient response to where viruses survived and mutated inside the person’s body for a longer period of time.
The emergence of Omicron in a patient unable to clear the virus quickly was “the most plausible” origin story for the world’s newest variant of concern.
However, the minority group of immunologists I just mentioned argued early on this would be a likely outcome from a group of people who are effectively immunocompromised by having artificially acquired very weak vaccinated immunity. (Weak because it only focused on the spike protein.) In fact, they argued this kind of vaccine evasion would be much more likely to happen among a group of millions of people who had been taught by the vaccine to mount a very weak response to just one aspect of the virus. There would be millions of more chances for a virus to emerge that could evade capture throughout this entire mass of people with just a few mutations of the spike protein; and if that virus also happened to be more deadly…. Well, you do the math.
So, maybe society should be glad to let circulate those people who have already had COVID to where their natural immunity is more broadly developed. A large number of those people distributed through the working force (not provided for as an allowance under the Biden mandates and many state and local mandates) would make for much more robust workforce, less likely to be devastatingly decimated by the next variant, which could make shortages to the point of starvation a possibility and far worse inflation for the entire world a certainty if it were to happen. Maybe some diversity???
Concentrating the population
For more than one person that I’ve read, our singular path toward beating Sars-CoV-2 has called to mind a verse from JRR Tolkien:
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Maybe a one-ring approach is not the broadest defense against the virus. Yet, that is being forced upon the entire USA by mandates that do not allow those with natural immunity to participate in society — to work, to earn a living, to produce, to provide customers in public places and events. Would not both the consumer side of all the economies of the world and the producer side be more stable if all of those with naturally enhanced immunity were allowed to make a living so they could keep producing and keep consuming, should a variant of the virus emerge that evades the vaccine’s little spike-protein trick? Would not all of society be less impoverished? Yet, the Biden mandates do not allow for even that reasonable breadth because they are obsessed with the single-track vaccine approach to ending COVID.
How far down this road of “one ring to rule them all” is society going to allow itself to be weakened economically and physically? How far before we can say without being eviscerated for it that these policies are starting to look as hostile to humanity and outright damaging to the health of individuals as Josef Mengele’s? We’re talking MILLIONS of unvaccinated people all over the world who are starting to be treated like this and a good share of society that is saying, “Good! They deserve it for not being one of us!” Not being vaccinated or not being a Nazi?
Another counterclaim I read, defending Fauci and his followers against Logan’s Mendele comparison was that Fauci’s policies have not resulted in concentration camps or in people being forced to wear stars on their arm to show what areas of society they are allowed to frequent. Is that really true?
Fauci’s policies have spread apartheid “all across the world.” Now, admittedly, Fauci is just the figurehead of the US medical establishment. There are in fact, hundreds if not thousands of doctors behind him who develop and support the policies he proclaims. So, the question is not really whether the figurehead is like the man, Mengele. Not in my mind. It is whether the policies put out by this group are the start of a Nazi-like superiority that thinks it must herd people into one camp for the betterment of society to the great detriment of those people who become the ghetto wherever they are because they cannot even get a job — even if they are already naturally immune to COVID.
The new gold star of the ghetto is a vaccine card. It makes no difference whether the people who are “allowed in” have the stars or the people who are barred from entrance. All that matters is that you can distinguish between the insiders and outsiders. In this case, the insiders are the sneetches who get “stars on thars.”
People are not just being banned from hospitals where you might try to argue there are legitimate health risk concerns, though I don’t see how since there are no longer unvaccinated people inside of those hospitals. It goes way beyond that. Some parts of the US have outlawed the unvaccinated from entering public facilities or attending large public events without a vaccine card or from going into restaurants without a vaccine card — even if they have natural immunity from having had COVID. Seattle, for example, has passed such laws for all restaurants and many other public facilities.
How is that materially different than banning a huge segment of society from participation in society by placing a star on their arm to see who can enter and who cannot?
Far worse than being banned from public places and events, the Great Unwashed have been forcibly barred from their livelihoods like lepers. Is anyone thinking this through to what it really means? Does it not force the unvaccinated to become dependent upon the charity of the rest of society for their survival? They are banned from their livelihoods! Does society not care if their children die of starvation just because these unvaccinated people are regarded as an evil scourge who must be routed from society at any cost. That IS the Biden mandate! Or is no one smart enough to realize that is where this leads for everyone who is terminated from their work.
And what do we know from Germany’s experience society eventually does when it cannot afford to feed all the people it has concentrated outside of general society? Please don’t tell me forced starvation is not torture or try to tell me that people who are deprived of their jobs and of unemployment benefits can somehow still eat. If they can, it will only be by begging. If you’re vaccinated, what are you so afraid of — especially when you don’t even make exemptions for those who have already had COVID and are certainly as immune as you are if not a lot more immune?
Neither Fauci nor anyone who helps develop or carries out his and Biden’s policies seems to be giving a moment of thought to the torture they are bringing upon entire families who are shut out of their livelihood and have to face ghetto-like impoverishment solely because they won’t conform to Fauci’s dictates and the horde of doctors like him who hand down their social prescriptions with no apparent concern at all about the actual destruction their policies bring to literally thousands of families, including the young children in those families. It is forced ghetto-level impoverishment.
Why do you think Biden stayed his own execution of this policies until after the holiday season? It would be darn poor optics to be seen as the Grinch who stole Christmas from all the little children by giving mommy and daddy their pink slips just a couple of weeks before Christmas! He postponed it until after the holidays to avoid that ugliness and to avoid the economic damage those policies would bring to the whole nation by severely wounding the holiday shopping season that is when retail businesses finally enter the black for the year. In other words, none of this looks like ghettos yet (so it may sound like I am exaggerating) but only because of Biden’s stay and the courts longer-term stay against implementations of the mandates.
While they have already hit many people, the mass damage has been stayed for the moment.
In the second half of this short series, which I’ll be publishing on The Great Recession Blog in the next day or so, I will look at the strong condemnation multiple courts have given to Biden’s dictatorial overreach (mandates are dictates, and these came no legislative process), and I’ll lay out just how extreme US society has become, even to the point where one mainstream financial commentator has ranted in earnest that Biden needs to deploy the military to enforce the vaccine mandates on US citizens. (Don’t tell me that doesn’t reek of Naziism.)
In the meantime, if you should be interested in how the mandate was forced down my own throat at the cost of my job for refusing, inspite of multiple reasonable fact-based exemption requests, along with the story of my pregnant daughter-in-law, who was kicked out of the obstetrics ward where she worked as a surgical tech for refusing the vaccine, you can listen to raw audio of the interview done by RT.com here.
Government sanctioned terrorism
And they think no one can stop them