8 Comments

New to yer writin' --fine article and agree fully. If ya don't mind the musins' of a crackpot I'd like to add a thought. So I'm full-out on board with the liability issues--if all parties were responsible and legally liable for product failures ya'd THINK that would natur'ly make'em behave and produce safer stuff to avoid suits. 'Cept er one BIG problem apart from sayin' there's no time (for the "market" to determine what's wanted / what works)--which is baloney but they use it ta' get their EUAs--there is genuinely the fact that when faced with legal liability and lawsuits some companies / businesses go for what's a safer bet in the "immediate" and end up doin' more harm than good... A couple'a examples from a mama bear here:

1. here in Amerika many healthy mamas are forced into unnecessary c-sections by "doc-turds" because they are told that there is "too much risk" (as in gettin' sued malpractice-wise) if they allow a (better-for-mama) "natural birth" scenario--i.e. they can "guarantee results" (instant ones) like they can with a "controlled operation" like a c-section. They couldn't give a rat's patoot that c-sections are not a walk'in the park for mamas and have their own side fx, they couldn't care less that babies born natur'ly do better--via the process of movin' down the birth canal and by gettin' good bacteria in that process, denied c-section mamas. And then the cuttin' of the cord thing--most c-section procedures do this pronto---and that also compromises infant health. BUT the whole idea of malpractice if a labor is too long (and they don't know what the heck to do cuz doc-turds ain't midwives an' they all get nervous "waitin'" on nature...) and the risk of allowing natural birth with, say, a more rapid fetal heartbeat... all that plus the risk of malpractice loomin' in their brains--by many doc-turds' own admission--DETER them lettin' nature take its course, all to the detriment of both mamas and babies. The feel risk-benefit to their own pockets shift in favor of horrible-for-mamas-and-babies c-sections...

2. most folks know that after a mama gives birth it's a GOOD thing to walk around, get the circulation goin'... HOWEVER I can tell ya that NY Cornell Presbyterian doesn't let mamas walk 'round because of "fear of lawsuits." I was literally told this -- had to be in a wheelchair cuz the risks of "slippin' and fallin'" I was told were too great and they could "be sued." A later experience at another hospital (I'd ruther have had a homebirth but that's another story...), was the opposite of the first one--they said "sure mama, you git up and walk 'round" and they let me take my baby girl with me--clearly they were NOT worried about lawsuits....

These 2 examples illustrate that liability alone ain't gonna cause folks better results at least in "medi-sin" (fer it's a sin to call it medical nowadays!) Some "malpractice" insurance is so high for MDs that they become hospital employees (under the bigger umbrella) ruther than havin' their own practice and havin' to cough up so much fer malpractice--a scam end of the insurance industry from all I gather too...

Addin' re the derisive "doc-turds," that I apply this term to some'a my own fambly!--that's what I think o' the standard profession and the pharma-funded lousy medical "education" they git! None'a them'll even READ what I tried to send'em on the jabs... Honorable folks like Drs Kory, Gold, Zelenko and McCullough, to name a few, are proper doctors...a term limited to only those determined to "do no harm" vs the bull-headed "turds" determined to do as much harm as possible!

Many of us are fully DONE with conventional "medi-sin" now that we've seen what's happened here. CERTAINLY if you "foller" economics alone (which I git is yer wheelhouse and an interestin' one)--the profits fer Big Pharma, hospitals, doc-turds on the take, NIH, CDC an' all them patent holders etc. were HUGE... BUT in the long run, trashin' the US economy with all these lockdowns an' deaths couldn't possibly be good for "most" business--some may not even survive this mess--and yet most supported these foolhardy mandates n' jabs... Ed Dowd sees some corporations wakin' up that they are in financial trouble now... When most businesses can't see their own bottom line (let alone their rears from a hole in that ground), how can honest free market mechanics fix this--'specially when most doc-turds ain't remotely savvy 'bout "crony" vaxxines let alone non-existent ethics...

Thoughts on this? I'm just a' thinkin' that liability alone -- esp. if short term, is only one piece of the puzzle and can be problematic in the aforemention'd malpractice issue which causes doc-turds to make WORSE health decisions for their "patients" (thanks in advance fer any insights...)

Ya'd think that some of the fools convinced in the "religion" of the clot-shots would AT LEAST have enuf common sense to reject 'em on a purely economic basis

Expand full comment
Feb 21, 2022·edited Feb 21, 2022Liked by Barry Brownstein

Big Pharmacy has immunity for their vaccines, no wonder therapeutics are not mentioned at all, insane! I know you didn’t go into ivermectin. But my son who works for MLB came down with Covid in July. He tried to get ivermectin at pharmacies in USA. No luck. His Mexican boss offered to get some in Mexico. He took 4 pills ($50/pill) and was better within a day and was back to work In 3 days. Big Pharma and government are in collusion. No mention of therapeutics or comorbitities, just vaccines, vaccines and vaccines.

Expand full comment
Feb 20, 2022Liked by Barry Brownstein

A brilliant summation Barry. You are spot on in your observations.

Expand full comment