The Body seeks to connect wellness providers and those who seek care and share Judeo-Christian values and adhere to the foundational principles of medical ethics. These include most importantly respect for individual autonomy. The physician, much like a firefighter or police officer, is a designated and long respected protector of the community. Common throughout history a proverbial “snake oil salesman” will appear with a fake cure that seeks to profiteer by exploiting an unsuspecting and often fearful public. This nefarious and unfortunate phenomenon of human behavior is one of the important reasons for the physician’s protective role. This article explains two core physician skills required for licensure and safe medical practice in the community, which now appear to be neglected by mainstream medicine and necessitate a paradigm shift in healthcare delivery.

The first involves basic interpretation of the medical literature and the second involves adherence to medical ethics. These two critical skills are so fundamental, they are taught during the first-year curriculum of every medical school in the country. This fund of knowledge is tested by the first part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam during the second year of medical school. Because the practice of medicine is evolving, at no time is it assumed that a medical student will ultimately possess all knowledge of treatments of all human ailments. Therefore, it is critical for the future clinician to learn basic skills needed to assess the efficacy and safety of any new treatment brought to the market by entities that may have ulterior motives, have conflicts of interest, or simply be inept. Also, educators do not intend to invest four years of training an individual to find that person deficient in ethical fortitude.

Following the COVID debacle eruption, the application of these skills were uniquely straightforward in the case of the COVID 19 genetic treatment. This is the first time in recent history that a decision was made to rapidly deploy a biologic product across essentially the entire population based on a short 2 month data set from a singular trial.1 The study was presented in arguably one of the highest impact journals in the world to justify the “needle in every arm” campaign. Based on this readily available evidence, a medical student completing the first year curriculum, could have quickly arrived at a benefit-risk assessment discovering that the “95% safe and effective” statement was essentially fraudulent and violated an industry care standard for communicating risks and benefits to patients.2-4

The physician would have been ethically obligated to advise persons based on the evidence from the Pfizer BioNTech trial that roughly 140 people need to be injected to prevent one case of COVID. That is, one has a roughly a one out of 140 chance of gaining any benefiting from the gene based injection. Moreover, it is roughly 20 times more likely to be harmed by the treatment than protected from contracting COVID. Finally, one is nearly twice as likely to be hospitalized for any reason as prevented from hospitalization due to COVID. If the physician missed this, the results from the second trial involving the Moderna gene product (again published in the New England Journal of Medicine several weeks later) showed similar harms outweighing any benefit.5-6

There are two possible reasons for mainstream medical providers violating the long supported and advocated care standards highlighted here. The first is incompetence and the second is simply “following orders” to protect one’s employment, while knowingly abandoning the duty to act in the best interest of the patient. Regardless of the reason, in the post-COVID era, the question remains: Can you afford to trust mainstream medicine any longer? This widespread and ongoing medical malfeasance necessitates a paradigm shift in healing philosophy and health delivery. Thank you for supporting The Body, your trusted source for wellness information.

1. 1. Polack FP, et al. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. N Engl J Med 2020: 383: 2603-15.
   2. Fischoff B, et al. (2011). Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User's Guide. FDA.
   3. Brown RB. Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials. Medicina 2021, 57(3), 199.
   4. Brown RB. Relative risk reduction: Misinformative measure in clinical trials and COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. Dialogues in Health 1, (2022) 100074.
   5. Baiden, L, et al. Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. N Eng J Med 2021; 384:403-416.
   6. Fraiman, J, et al. Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults. Vaccine, (2022) 40(40), 5798–5805.