The Controversy Surrounding Medical Doctors' Stance on the COVID-19 Vaccine

Why are many medical doctors against the COVID-19 vaccine? It is often suggested that this skepticism is due to a lack of understanding or scientific evidence, but a deep dive into the root causes reveals a complex interplay of factors. In this article, we will explore the reasons behind medical doctors' stance, as highlighted by informed virologist Michael Yeadon in May 2023.

Understanding the Skepticism

One key factor in the medical community's skepticism is the inherent skepticism about vaccines and their approval processes. Much of this skepticism stems from the way new treatments and vaccines are tested and approved for use. Michael Yeadon, who led respiratory and allergy research at Pfizer from 1995 to 2011, offers valuable insights into this issue.

The Zithromax Example

Yeadon mentions the case of Zithromax (azithromycin), an antibiotic often prescribed for chest infections. In clinical trials, the control group typically receives the standard-of-care treatment, meaning the new drug is compared to existing standards rather than a placebo. This approach ensures that the new treatment is not inferior to the current standard.

However, despite the widespread use of Zithromax and its proven effectiveness, some claimed there was "no evidence of clinical benefit." This claim is misleading because it does not account for the design of the clinical trials. Yeadon notes that Zithromax was clearly effective in treating chest infections, and this effectiveness was demonstrated in post-market data.

Impact of Misleading Guidelines

During the so-called viral pandemic, guidelines directed healthcare providers not to prescribe antibiotics for suspected cases of COVID-19. This intervention had devastating consequences, leading to a 50% decrease in antibiotic prescriptions for chest infections. As a result, easily treatable bacterial infections led to community deaths, many of which were mistakenly listed as "covid19" deaths.

These measures were not based on sound medical evidence but rather on the general belief that antibiotics should not be given to those with suspected viral infections. Yeadon points out that this approach was part of a broader set of guidelines that included inappropriate and injurious mechanical ventilation, the use of a potentially toxic drug (remdesivir), and the improper use of sedatives and respiratory depressants in care homes.

Consequences of Misguided Guidelines

The incorrect and often harmful guidelines were imposed by senior medical officials within medical associations, who were morally complicit in their dissemination. Doctors and medical professionals who argued against these guidelines faced admonishments and dismissal. Yeadon recalls instances where doctors risked their careers by questioning the guidelines, emphasizing the systemic issues at play.

Resistance to Misleading Claims

Some medical professionals, including nurses, non-medical PhDs, and even laypeople, recognized the flaws in these guidelines. The widespread belief that a "covid19" pandemic was causing thousands of deaths was exposed as a contrivance. The actual cause of deaths was multifaceted, involving misguided treatment protocols and healthcare practices.

Ultimately, there is a growing awareness that the medical community must be more diligent in questioning approved guidelines and pushing for evidence-based practices. The skepticism among medical doctors regarding the COVID-19 vaccine is not irrational but a reflection of a deeper concern about the integrity of medical guidelines and the potential for harm caused by misinformed decisions.

Keywords: vaccine skepticism, medical doctors, COVID-19, vaccine myths, virology research