2.2.3 – Flawed approach of Modern Medicine, Research & Legislation.

Author: Mayank Pincha

1. Why are the risks COVID-19 and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines not stratified?

Conjectures get drawn from the conditions of those that are highly sick, those who have reported to the hospitals, and those who have died on ventilators. These conjectures are then applied to people those have no underlying medical conditions and those without any symptoms.

So lets stratify the risks for the following three categories of people and examine the need in each category for COVID-19 vaccination:

A. Healthy People

When we say that the body produces antibodies in response to the virus/ vaccine, what do we mean? What really is producing the antibodies ? Is it not the body’s own invisible healing mechanism that produces the antibodies? Isn’t that what we normally call natural immunity? Correct? When we say “the vaccine is working”, isn’t it because the body is able to produce the antibodies and keep itself in a state of readiness, to mount an attack against a pathogenic virus? In other words, natural immunity is able to produce the antibodies. So it naturally follows that vaccine triggered immunity is nothing but “vaccine triggered natural immunity”. Correct? So vaccine is only supposedly triggering an ability in the body which is already there. What is already there? It is the ability to produce a response to an external threat! How did we just define that ability? That’s defined as natural immunity! So if the vaccine is working, it actually means that natural immunity is working. Is this not correct? So when healthy people say that “vaccine is working”, it is actually their natural immunity which is working! To the contrary vaccines have known side effects, which means they have to be toxic. So why do side effects show up only in few people? Read On…

B. Immuno-compromised People

If a person is immuno-compromised due to underlying conditions, no matter how much their body trigger an immune response, how can it mount an adequate response? After-all the body is already weakened by low immunity. Correct? As per the traditional definition of vaccines, it is the body’s job to create antibodies. Vaccines are only meant to trigger the body to produce them. The very people who are vulnerable due to underlying conditions are also the ones who are immuno-compromised. Correct? Hence they are the ones who cannot produce a sufficient immune response! And if one doesn’t have the ability, no matter how much he/ she is triggered, the body can’t produce the adequate immune response. Think about it. Isn’t that the reason why we have contra-indications prescribed for administering vaccines to people? So it cannot be given to every person, it seeks to protect. On top of that, in case of the current COVID-19 situation, their mind has to deal with fear mongering and toxicity from the experimental COVID-19 injections.

C. Chronically Ill People

If vaccines are not harmful, the worst case scenario would have been, that they would do no harm to the recipients, if not anything beneficial to the body. Like the media keeps falsely acclaiming that “Ivermectin does not work for COVID”, but they don’t say “Ivermectin can be lethal in certain cases”. However, the COVID-19 experimental injections are indeed lethal to some people. Is this not so? This is why we have some people reporting adverse reactions following immunizatio

n. Right? So why is it lethal to some people? Why does it have to be lethal to some and not lethal to others? Could it be that to those to whom it is lethal, it is because their body could not protect them from the serum. In fact their body’s ability to maintain homeostasis was actually disturbed by the chemical adjuvants in the serum, as they were already chronically ill. It is possible that either the body simply could not flush out the excessive toxins or they were one of the lucky ones who received a placebo shot in this “grand experiment”. If the recipient’s body was able to flush out the adjuvants, then it was a healthy body which anyway could have dealt with any virus as well.

2. A half hearted approach, smells of bias

As per the definition of evidence based medicine, where its seeks to advise clinical practitioners to rely only on best evidence through systematic research, is it not denying experiential “evidence” by Natural medicine practitioners? Lets not even get to Traditional Practices being overlooked. Lets look at how Ivermectin is being questioned as a treatment for COVID-19. Ivermectin is ruled out citing the reason that this evidence is not sufficient to prove any benefit.

Laboratory studies found that ivermectin could block replication of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), but at much higher ivermectin concentrations than those achieved with the currently authorised doses. Results from clinical studies were varied, with some studies showing no benefit and others reporting a potential benefit. Most studies EMA reviewed were small and had additional limitations, including different dosing regimens and use of concomitant medications. EMA therefore concluded that the currently available evidence is not sufficient to support the use of Ivermectin in COVID-19 outside clinical trials…

Whereas, Remdesivir was used under Emergency Use Authorisation, despite it being lethal during its trials

3. Magical healing properties have to pass a consultation with Drugs Technical Advisory Board under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The land of Yoga and Ayurveda i.e. India, has an Act in Parliament called – Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

As per this Act, a magical remedy is defined as;

any talismanmantraamulet or any other object which is claimed to have miraculous powers to cure, diagnose, prevent or mitigate a disease in humans or animal.

The Act prohibits advertising of drugs and remedies for listed as well as scheduled conditions/ diseases including cancer, diabetes, and for those for which there are no accepted remedies or which requires a timely consultation with a registered medical practitioner except after consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board, constituted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Central Government, if they so deem necessary, with people having experience in Ayruveda / Unani.

Hence, something that is claimed to have magical healing properties has to pass the Drugs Technical Advisory Board. But when Germ Theory claims that we are somehow magically at risk of illness/ death from an invisible, un-isolated virus, then such conjectures also should have had to pass through Drugs Technical Advisory Board and with Ayurveda / Unani experts? Any establishment or person claiming magical properties of viruses has committed crime as per Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act. Also why is there no evidence required to rule out the impact of fear/ panic/ paranoia/ stress in causing aggravation being blamed on the virus?

We would like legal experts to consider if we can claim that magic includes “sorcery, witchcraft, spellworking, devilry, voodo, witchery, charm, illusion, & deception”. Claiming that humans are going to somehow magically die from a virus is devilry, deception and witchcraft, which is prohibited by Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

Whereas there is actual research on how panic induces partial breathlessness, without understanding of which we may end up drawing conjectures that breathlessness is caused by coronavirus (panic induced breathlessness is explained by the Bohr Effect, which can be reversed by the Buteyko Method of Breathing, which is based on Yoga).

4. The Buteyko Method has not been properly promoted as a Key Healing Tool for Asthma, citing “Limitations of Research Methodologies”.

Lets look at the denial of the Buteyko method which is based on empirical evidence, as to how a very powerful tool is set aside on grounds of “inability to research”, etc. This shows lack of interest in finding natural solutions to diseases.

“Many of the studies that have evaluated breathing retraining have significant methodological flaws, including small sample sizes, possible patient selection bias as well as heterogeneity in design that makes coming to a firm conclusion difficult. These studies are also hampered by the difficulty in proper blinding and placebo control which could introduce more bias into these studies.”

The fact is, limitations of research methodologies and limitations of science is considered as a denial of possible benefit from the Buteyko method.

The inability to rule out a placebo effect does not mean a placebo effect is ruled out. When a placebo effect is established, a condition should be treated as being psychosomatic and the importance of a placebo effect should then be highlighted by Public Health Regulators. Just because a solution cannot lead to a patentable product, does not mean Public Health Regulators are absolved of the responsibility to educate masses about the workings of a placebo effect on human health. If drugs are not more helpful than a placebo, then we should return to classic the psychosocial holistic medicine.



Other Articles from the Author

2.1.1 – COVID Narrative: “House Of Cards” Debunked
2.1.2 – The Burden of Proof regarding potential harm from Corona Measures & Injections, is not on people.
2.1.3 – Why has “Public Health” chosen EBM & Germ Theory, as the ONLY official path of medicine?
2.1.5 – Can Public Health rely solely on For-Profit Research ?
2.1.6 – Evidence-Based Medicine, Rests on a Flawed Assumption of Immunity to COVID-19
2.2.1 – Burden is on Public Health, to rule out the Nocebo Effect of virus fear mongering
2.2.2 – Panic causes Partial Breathlessness as explained by Prof. Buteyko
2.2.9 – Whether viruses exist or not and whether they are harmful or not, doesn’t matter for public health.
2.2.10 – What divides the pro-vaccine and the pro-nature?
2.1.15 – We suffered really to protect others theoretically
2.1.18 – Ayurveda vs Allopathy

 111 total views,  5 views today

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 thoughts on “2.2.3 – Flawed approach of Modern Medicine, Research & Legislation.

  1. Lu says:

    Too much positive wording is given to the poison jab. There is nothing, zippo, nada good about these jabs. To even suggest that this is anything beneficial is just adding to the confusion.

  2. Lu says:

    So it cannot be given to the very people it seeks to protect. (This sentence needs to be changed to the below example. Also, no comma is needed after the word people.)

    So the so called “vaccine” cannot be given to the very people it allegedly seeks to protect.

    Any and all reference on this website to the jab as being beneficial in any way needs to be corrected. This poison jab is neither effective or safe.

  3. Lu says:

    1. Why are the risks of COVID-19 and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines not stratified? (Title needs to be changed to alleged benefits or so-called benefits. The jab has no benefit. The word ‘of’ needs to be inserted to rusks ‘of’ COVID-19.

  4. Lu says:

    “…..Laboratory studies found that ivermectin could block replication of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19)

    Should read: the alleged virus that allegedly causes COVID-19 (There is no evidence of the virus or evidence of the cause of illness except for those who receive the jab). We know the jab is a major cause of illness and even death.

  5. Lu says:

    Actually under
    A. Healthy People

    Healthy people also have suffered severe harm and even death from the so-called “vaccines” not just the other targeted populations. This poison hurts everyone in every category that got the batch with the most harmful ingredients.

Leave a Reply