How Can All the Doctors Be Wrong?

Pseudoscience in Academic Journals: a vehicle for propaganda and a Psyop for the vulnerable

So much of the modern world can be explained by the 1969 speech of Dr. Richard Day known as The New Order of Barbarians. This is a speech given on March 20, 1969 to a group of Pittsburgh pediatricians by the National Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, USA. Dr. Day claimed to be member of a globalist conspiracy that had grown so powerful as to control world events. Dr. Day described changes that would be implemented by the end of the 20th century and in some cases are still ongoing - primarily for purposes of population control. So much of modern world history and social structures can be understood through this speech.

Any intelligence officer will explain the easiest way to hide something is in plain sight, and the “Great Reset” is merely a continuation of the plan first described in 1969. The worldview described by Day is essentially Fascist, and blogger Jamie Dlux recently uncovered that Dr. Day was the stepfather of the daughter of Albert Speer. My own research into Dr. Day is that he studied infant metabolism at the Rockefeller Institute in the 1930’s and served in the US Army as a medical consultant into hypothermia (airmen crashing into frigid water). This would have put him into contact with the Project Paperclip work debreifing Nazi scientists on the Dachau hypothermia experiments.

The existence of this global depopulation conspiracy has been confirmed by others, notably Dr. Rima Laibow and attorney Daniel Sheehan, and the scale of it is staggering; in fact, it’s so big most people probably shut down when confronted with a slice of reality. Just confronting a major event such as 9/11 where the official story is beyond absurd provokes very unsettling questions about the nature of our media, the structure of our society, and the power of self-censorship. Corona happened because the 9/11 criminals got away with it.

Dr. Day explains it the best:

• People are too trusting

• People don’t ask the right questions

• For everything, there is a true purpose and an ostensible purpose

A Midwestern Doctor recently rehashed the psychobabble behind “mass formation psychosis,” but overthinking the work of a Belgian public intellectual distracts from the fact mass delusions come about through sophisticated propaganda - and this propaganda serves a true purpose, which in the Case of Corona is primarily depopulation, erosion of civil liberties, and wealth transfer - as it always has been. The Dr. asked what traits allow someone to be “awake” and see through the current lie. My experience is “awake” people have themselves recognized themselves to have been a victim of fraud. A case in point is Dr. Assem Malholta, whose father was covid “vaccine” injured (as was my father) and went public opposing “covid injections” as causing cardiac problems.

We, of course, need the Assem Malhotras of the world, who for a limited time cut through the lies on mainstream platforms, the problem is they never go further and put one falsehood into the big picture, as is the case with Dr. Michael Yeadon, who over the course of two years figured everything out. Dr, Yeadon is now warning about the danger of digital implantable ID’s - something laid out by Dr. Day as part of “the plan” way back in 1969. Dr. Yeadon eventually figured out what I figured out on Day 1: there never was a virus or a new illness - something I’m tired of arguing about and is very isolating but easily provable through physicist Dennis Rancourt’s excess mortality analysis (which is what convinced Dr. Yeadon).

Another problem is the perception people have to be eased into the truth. Dr. Rashid Buttar stated on CNN ‘covid’ was a pre-planned operation for the purposes of reducing the population. It was the truth. CNN then responded “I think you’re crazy.” It’s that old ad hominem pejorative lobbed at the “conspiracy theorist.”

Even if you want to believe SARS-cov2 exists and that the tests have been validated, if we lived in the rational world most people think we do, Corona should have fallen apart with the May 2020 leak of an official German Government report by a blue panel of experts denouncing Corona as a “Global False Alarm.” The report called it one of any 100 seasonal cold viruses in circulation no different than any others. That should have been it. If we had real journalism instead of intelligence agency media controlled by globalist conspirators, the report would have been sensational news, governments would have toppled, and heads would have rolled - or everything would have died down, as happened with Swine Flu in 2009 (in retrospect, a predictive programming operation preparatory for Corona).

I was prepared to suspect there was no virus because I was aware of the hoax of HIV, which was predicted by Dr. Day in 1969 as a means of population control. In 2000, George W Bush told Oxford-educated President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa that the US Government knew HIV didn’t cause ‘AIDS’ and that HIV didn’t exist, but “we can’t tell the world.” Bush was the grandson of Planned Parenthoold chair Prescott Bush who hired Dr. Day and helped fund the rise of Nazi Germany. George W Bush, knowing HIV doesn’t exist, announced PEPFAR in 2003.

Clearly, with PEPFAR and “HIV” there is a true purpose and an ostensible purpose.

HIV/AIDS is instructive because it shows how for 40 years a harmful false medical paradigm has been sustained. Hundreds of thousands of healthcare professionals believe in a nonexistent lethal sex virus, used to justify and make acceptable public school sex education - for the true purpose of limiting fertility. In Africa, ‘AIDS’ is used to allocate resources away from things like malaria control and poverty reduction and toxic “AIDS Drugs” are rammed into poor black people to shorten their lives - all under the delusional direction of “healthcare professionals” blinded to the many paradoxes of the false HIV/AIDS paradigm. HIV does not fall apart because there is a broad conspiracy to make sure it doesn’t fall apart, aided by a propaganda media.

Dr. Day describes the trick: Falsified Scientific Research

Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that some scientific research data could be - and indeed has been - falsified in order to bring about desired results. And here was said, "People don't ask the right questions. Some people are too trusting." Now this was an interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all being doctors of medicine and supposedly very objectively, dispassionately scientific and science being the be all and end-all ... well to falsify scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church ... you just don't do that. Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New International Governing Body, probably to come through the U.N . and with a World Court, but not necessarily through those structures. It could be brought about in other ways.

In other words, scientific journals are vehicles for propaganda in the form of fake science…and Doctors are especially naive that they might be lied to. As Francis Stonor Saunders described in her must-read book on the CIA’s infiltration of media, unknowing propaganda experts are usually the most effective because they actually believe the lies they are telling.

---

In the year 1999 when President Mbeki was questioning HIV and AZT, Prinzmaritsburg lawyer Anthony Brink wrote an essay, “How could they all be wrong? Doctors and AIDS?” It is available on his website as part of his book Debating AZT, but I reprint it here:

I suppose one has a greater sense of intellectual degradation after an interview with a doctor than from any other human experience - Alice James

A response sometimes heard to the expression of doubt about the integrity of the HIV-AIDS paradigm as a medical model for understanding disease incidence is, “How could all the doctors in the world be wrong?” There are many possible answers to this question.

One might point out that unanimity has never guaranteed the soundness of medical constructs, and examples of this abound. The history of medicine both ancient and modern is a wrecking-yard full of broken and abandoned ideas. In this century alone innumerable medical theses have collapsed to which nearly all doctors once subscribed, such as bacterial theories of scurvy, beriberi, and pellagra, and more recently, the immuno-surveillance and retroviral theories of cancer aetiology - for which billions of dollars funded thousands of convincing research papers during the “War on Cancer” declared by Nixon in 1971. Then there was swine flu: 1976 saw President Gerald Ford on television, at the behest of the American medical establishment, solemnly urging all Americans to get vaccinated against an imminent deadly influenza epidemic. About 50 million Americans were panicked into being immunized with useless or harmful vaccines rushed onto the market. Adverse reactions resulted in damages claims of $2.7 billion. Not a single case of swine flu appeared subsequent to the death of a sick recruit undergoing basic training in a boot camp in New Jersey (hardly an unusual event) that had ignited all the hysteria. Before HIV-AIDS, and alongside the “mad cow” craze in Britain and the avian flu folly in Hong Kong, the great swine flu fiasco was perhaps the most telling instance in recent times of how medicine can lose its head. [I would add the acid theory of stomach ulcers and the chemical imbalance theory of psychiatric drugs - TJB]

Another answer to the question goes to the fact that most doctors have scarcely more than a layman’s grasp of the concepts that populate biology at its molecular horizon. For instance, most would gape dully if asked to define the peculiar characteristics of a retrovirus (like “HIV” we’re told) as distinct from other viruses, or distinguish endogenous and exogenous retroviruses, or articulate the rival contentions advanced by molecular biologists about whether the whole of retrovirology might be a mistake, a wrong turn at a scientific road-fork, a bad inference drawn from the evidence of certain metabolic biochemical phenomena which look odd when seen against old-fashioned rules of molecular genetics, and the possibility that retroviruses might not exist as infectious agents at all - that it is rather the classical dogma that needs an overhaul. Taxed about the HIV theory of AIDS, most doctors can do little more than quote the claims of their authorities, like priests citing papal bulls and encyclicals, making obeisance to their cardinals.

A third answer would make the impudent point that it is fallacious to imagine that doctors generally have a superior capacity for reasoning than their patients. The notes given medical students speak to the scant education that doctors receive in this art. To read them is to see how flimsy medical and biological theories are dished up as fact for rote learning, making the kind of call-and-answer instruction one sees in farm schools in this country look like an adventure in lateral-thinking training. Doctors do so well at school because they’re the kind of guys who are the most easily schooled. In myths and legends to outdo the Hare Krishna people. Especially virologists, who occupy the haughtiest of medical echelons, but who seem to have the dimmest bulbs in the upper story. As revealed by what they swallow without a hiccup. And regurgitate to their students. Like the timeless French fancy (“Le Rage”) that a bite from a dog acting wild and crazy (but a wild animal acting tame) can make you go mad too - and die. (But not the animal; man is the ‘end-host’ they say.) You can go the same way from eating steak. Although nobody can plausibly say why. Or some cancers are caused by viruses and are infectious. Or the most hilarious notion of them all: having sex can be deadly. Mothers’ milk too. But not spit. All of a sudden. After millions of years. Thanks to a mutated virus from monkeys. Or maybe the moon. And all of this without any evidence. Not a shred. And there’s a funny part to it. You might be feeling fine. But you’re sure to go in months time from any one of a couple of dozen diseases or malignancies. No, make that two years, well actually five; shall we say eight, or ten, or twelve, maybe fifteen; OK perhaps your life is just shortened a bit. Definitely? Yes, most certainly; no, not necessarily. Look, we don’t know. How, why? We don’t have the faintest idea. Theories zigzag like a drunk at the wheel.

“We are still confused…, but at least we are confused at a higher level of understanding”
- Paul Johnson, professor of Immunology, Harvard Medical School

Excuse me. Is this the circus?

Nor do doctors necessarily proceed from a more rational mindset than Joe Public does. The opposite may be the case. That HIV/AIDS as a medical construct could have taken root so richly among doctors, despite its absurd fundamental tenets (which fly in the face of everything known to virology), illustrates the point. As Harvey Bialy, scholar in residence at the Biotechnology Institute at the University of Mexico and editor at large of the prestigious science journal Nature Bio/Technology puts it, the HIV theory of AIDS “turns immunology upside down and inside out.” To begin with, never before was the presence of antibodies taken to be prognostic of future disease. They used to be thought of as good things - evidence, where the patient appears healthy, of a successful immune response to a pathogen defeated. Former molecular biology professor at Jons Hopkins and Harvard Universities, Charles Thomas predicts that after the balloon pops, historians will be studying the flight of common sense in the lunacy of the AIDS age “for a 100 years, …how America gave AIDS to the world.” But since HIV/AIDS as a diagnostic construct is still hegemonically regnant in our time, the point about the way doctors as a group tend to think needs illustrating with a different example. What better than the turn medicine took during the Third Reich.

The Nazis’ virulently irrational and barbarous doctrines of racial hygiene found huge appeal for German and Austrian doctors in the era [as well as American and British sympathizers - TJB]. No other profession was as well represented on Nazi party membership lists. From an ostensibly sober, rational profession functioning as an elite caste in a culture that seemed itself to be the fruit of the Enlightenment, just under half of them [doctors] were card-carrying Nazis. Of course not all engaged in the sadistic butchery of untermenschen for which the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trials were conducted, but it would be a mistake to imagine that such criminals were aberrant quacks from the fringes, flourishing like vermin on the opportunities created within the Nazi eugenics paradigm. In fact many medical practitioners and academics tried or named in testimony at the trials had enjoyed international eminence in their professional fields. Dr. Edwin Kazenellenborgen, for instance, who got life imprisonment, had served on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School.

Scholars of religious thinking have long known that the more horrible and improbable the founding superstitions of a new faith, the greater its capacity to mobilize the popular imagination and the stronger the force of the revolutionary engine. In medicine, religion’s first cousin, the same sometimes applies. Like and infant upstart religion with imperial designs, the HIV/AIDS paradigm calls for a vigorous rebellion against long-established models of understanding. Woe betide any conservative scientists reluctant to become conversos to the rude new creed, who point out that the new theory is ridiculous on its face, that the link between AIDS and sex is no stronger than its link with sleeping, they become marginalized like Jews defying the demands of medieval Christendom, not racked and burned, but ostracized - scientifically defrocked, backlisted, and deligimated, stripped of research funding, banned from lecturing podia, kicked out of their laboratories, rendered unemployable in academia or industry, menaced with confinement in psychiatric wards, isolated from graduate students in whom they might instill heretic doubts, and barred from publishing in the journals that once craved their papers. But naturally; radical political dissident Noam Chomsky [a fake dissident -TJB], Professor of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US has pointed out that “if you undermine power … you are reviled, imprisoned, driven into the desert” [which explains his cushy job - TJB]. The AIDS phenomenon at root is a vast pumping aggregation of interests with enormous political and economic power. Doctors and scientists who challenge its sacred tenets risk attracting the wrath of the revolution’s red guards. They won’t be thrown from windows. But their careers will be over. for their reactionary intransigence these critics will be marked always with pejorative epithets, as persistent as tattoos, like ‘discredited’, ‘loony’, ‘maverick’, ‘dangerous’, and ‘irresponsible and pernicious.’ Just to make sure we correctly tell the wits from the dunces. And to discourage us from asking, “Well, what are these guys actually saying?”

A fourth explanation lies in the fact that for all their social status and prestige, in truth doctors generally function close to the bottom of the food-chain in the medical-industrial-complex, and serve as little more than a thoughtless delivery system for the pharmaceutical corporations - those wares they peddle makes the medical drug industry one of the most profitable legal enterprises on the planet. Just how little room doctors are allowed for independent judgment founded on their own observations is revealed in the fact that in some places a doctor who declines to follow an approved treatment regimen such as chemotherapy for cancerous tumors, in view of his empirical assessment of its utter uselessness and lethal toxicity, risks sanctions from his controlling guild. Imagine the trouble a doctor would be in were he brazenly to announce his conclusion that having investigated the business, reactive HIV antibody tests results are virtually meaningless - pointers to no more than heightened non-specific immunologic activity. And were he to refuse to diagnose negative or positive, selecting for life or death, like a Nazi doctor calling links or rechts. Or marking ‘+’ on the medical files of slow or crippled German children, to mark them for murder during the euthanasia programme.

In sum, one doesn’t have to cast about to far for answers to the question, “How could all the doctors in the world be wrong about AIDS?” Medicine’s penchant for screwing up magnificently, its characteristic intellectual sluggishness, and the appeal of “magical thinking” for its practitioners is plain to anyone who turns back a few pages.

---

A magnificently well-composed essay by a solicitor who got it right - and that did raise a discussion of Nazi Germany. However, Brinck was not the first to ask the question. In 1993, MacArthur Genius Robert Root-Bernstein independently asked the same question:

---

How Could So Many Scientists be So Wrong? - RRB (1993)

In conclusion, several crucial questions remain to be addressed. To begin with, how could so many scientists be so wrong? How could the vast amount of information concerning non-HIV immunosuppressive agents have been overlooked for so many years? Assuming these agents do play a role in AIDS, what are the medical, research, and health policy implications/ What can be done to prevent the spread of AIDS that has not been tried?

There is no mystery about how so many scientists could be wrong. Science, despite its elusive grail of objective truth, is just as human and just as fallible as any other human endeavor. Martin Kamen, a biochemist whose invention of radioactivity labelled compounds allowed several Nobel Prizes to be won for elucidating the nature of cellular metabolism and viral replication, tells a reveling tale in his autobiography. During the early 1950’s, Arthur Kornberg, a future Nobel Laureate, arrived at Washington University in St. Louis where Kamen was then working. “Arthur inaugurated a ‘brown bag’ lunch seminar in which we met at regular intervals to discuss papers of interest. These sessions were great learning experiences for me. Whoever was assigned to lead the discussion would prepare a short typed summary of relevant data provided in the paper. We would examine these without prior consideration of the author’s summary and contentions and decide what they showed. Then we compared our conclusions with the author’s. It was surprising how often authors of great prestige in the biochemical community failed the test. Surprisingly, and yet predictable, since almost all data have more than one interpretation and fit more than one pattern. That was the lesson that Galileo taught Aristotle. It was the lesson that Pasteur taught the medical community, that Darwin taught biologists, and that Einstein taught Newton. It is what makes scientific revolutions possible. Perhaps it is a lesson that we must learn again with AIDS…

An even more important element of the HIV/AIDS story may be physicians. Recent studies by Dr. Thomas Chalmers of Harvard University and Marlys and Charles Willte and Ann Kiran of the University of Arizona, among others, have demonstrated that physicians are perhaps the most authority-minded of all professionals. They are evaluated in medical school not on the basis of their critical thinking skills, their creativity, or their independence, but on their ability to learn quickly, to memorize well, to act prudently, and to be able to quote authority extensively. They want and are paid for having answers, not questions. Since the American Medical Association, following the lead of the NIH and the National Academy of Sciences, officially espouses the dogma that HIV = AIDS, every medical school and every biology and medicine textbook follows suit - and so do physicians. HIV is their answer - no questions asked. It is no wonder that the vast majority of physicians are satisfied that if HIV infection is being “treated,” AIDS is being treated.

---

And herein lies the rub: if Doctors are causing harm, they will be blinded to their harm and be the last to know. This isn’t a freak accident or an expression of human nature; rather, it is a conspiracy to weaponize the gullibility and trustingness of professionals to do harm to the untermenschen via a State Medical Board-enforced “Standard of Care.” What a sad, sick message.

Dr. Day laid it out:

The image of the doctor would change. No longer would the .. he be seen as an individual professional in service to individual patients. But the doctor would be gradually recognized as a highly skilled technician - and his job would change. The job is to include things like executions by lethal injection.