Here's a question for those in the healthcare field or any others with inquiring minds : How are vaccines made and then administered, and why? Historically, vaccines were made from a killed or attenuated virus or bacterium. In the case of the new mRNA technology, they use neither, opting for a mimicry of a single spike protein rather than the entire protein compliment of a whole virus. Common sense would suggest that a complete protein model would provide a better immunologic response than a single protein mimic. Just like shooting a shotshell from a shotgun at a clay target moving through the air is more likley to be successful than trying to hit the target with the single bullet of a .22 caliber rifle, so is the complete package of proteins associated with a killed virus more likely to activate a strong immune response compared to a single protein. Sure, you might get lucky and hit the target with that single bullet, or a particular virus with a single particular spike protein, but you also have a better chance of missing, especially if anything changes. What exactly is the inoculation comprised of ?  It's a very small amount of the antigen ( the thing the antibody reacts to) which in this case is a virus or small piece of a virus. The micro dose is used so the patient does not develop a full blown case of whatever it is they are trying to prevent in the future by "priming" the immune system. By producing a subclinical case the immune system should be able to identify and respond to any future exposure. An actual infection has already initiated a full-blown ( and often very symptomatic ) response so more, and and actually better "informed" antibodies, are produced in preparation for a future possible exposure.  So again, common sense would suggest that actual infection by a live virus would produce a better, more robust response to the entire virus proteins than any micro dose in the form of a vaccine produced using a killed, attenuated or merely a single protein of a virus. Who were vaccines orignally designed to protect ? The answer, of course, was to protect the most vulnerable from a particular pathogen that might kill those in a particular at risk group. For a disease like smallpox, it was of concern for the working class (soldiers ) of a developing society. For other illnesses like chickenpox, measles, whooping cough, or even polio, it was the young people. These two groups are the future of any society. In what group is the current virus most likely to cause a serious illness ?The elderly and the infirmed. If we are being totally honest, neither of those groups is necessary for the survival of a society or for it to function. All vaccines, mask mandates, isolation dictums should have been, and still should be, directed at the group most affected, not the population in general, especially when the overall survival rate is so high with no treatment at all. How can that statement be made ? By simply comparing ongoing case and death rates that show little change unless early intervention is initiated, with the ongoing deaths which are still primarily in the older and already sick populations. Herd immunity would have been reached long ago with that approach.

    Why is there so much concern about vaccines ? Most are not worried about conventional, targeted vaccines, only about the newer, still unproven over time, inoculations using mRNA technology. The distrust comes from the flip-flopping on policy directives using the excuse that "things change over time" while telling the public "we've been preparing for this and studying these things for decades". Denial and refusal to recognize or even consider issues like successful early outpatient treatments used around the world and the lack of any advice other than "get the shot" further fan the flames of discord. Simple steps like improving ones health with diet and exercise or how to improve the quality of the immune system with things like vitamin D3 ( especially since about 80% of the US population is D-deficient ), vitamin C, and the most important, adequate zinc intake, the mineral that actually kills or stops replication of a virus, is seldom mentioned or discussed by organized, corporate medicine.  Likewise, any mention of off-label use of drugs like Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine are met with derisive comments touting studies that said they don't work. What isn't shared is that those studies were done using the medicines in isolated form rather than in a recommended cocktail of drugs used elsewhere with success, or the 'studies' used toxic doses. One also is not likely to read that some of those studies showing failure were later retracted. A 'study' is certainly flawed if it doesn't even use the "cocktail" proposed for successful treatment. One might ask if a 'whiskey sour' is a whiskey sour without the whiskey!

   We are also hearing that "because of the un-vaccinated, all the ERs and ICUs are full" . The wording is always done in such a way as to avoid saying what kind of patient is filling those units. Many are there with Covid, some because of Covid, but many others are there for cardiac problems, strokes, diabetic ketoacidosis, cancer, pneumonia, RSV and of course trauma. During the summer months, anyone that has worked at a level 1 or 2 trauma center can attest to the fact that they are historically full and diverting patients at these times. It's easier to blame it on the unvaccinated than to expand on the facts or tell the whole truth. 

    While concern remains with all of us regarding covid and the various response options, simple research helps remove some of the 'smoke and mirrors' that seem so prevalent in this polarizing and politicized topic. One can compare the year-long case/death rates in the US with a vaccination rate of around 55% with a country like Israel with a vaccination rate of about 95%. After looking at the up/down cycles and case spikes of both countries and seeing that similarity, look at the rates from mid summer until mid september 2021, when the above vaccination rates were reached. Note that BOTH countries began an upswing in late August of similar magnitude.....but wait, one country is almost toatlly vaccinated so how could that be? Maybe those vaccines aren't quite as effective, long lasting and certainly aren't better than a natural infection. If this simple comparison was a "contolled study", the end result would be a statement that there is no difference or advantage or protection from the virus whether vaccinated or not.  

   There's little doubt that healthy people, both young and even older without co-morbidities, that exercise , eat right, and follow normal precautions of any flu season are reluctant to volunteer for a study on unproven mRNA technology.  In the same respect, the very young, with their large and very active Thymus glands that mature copious numbers of T-cells, should have little to fear from a virus that loses it's vigor when killer T's are on the prowl. Too bad that adults don't have that same, robust T-cell response since their Thymus glands begin phasing out and finally dissappear around age 45, replaced by maturing (then aging!) B-cell immunity utilizing the immunglobulins. These are the same immunglobulins one finds in the monoclonal antibodies that are being discussed so much these days. We can only hope that a healthy adult immune system , one that can be strengthened with adjuncts like certain vitamins, will learn quick enough via infection or vaccine, how to overcome an invading virus.

   What are the answers we need? To start with, being totally honest and upfront, answering concerns and questions with something other than "because the CDC says so" or "studies in journals (those journals sponsored by drug companies) state this is so". We need sound, common sense reasoning, not the oft repeated rhetoric of a biased ivory-tower expert. People want things they can do do now to help improve the odds like diet, exercise, supplements and adjuncts used around the world. No one complains and many copy the efforts of athletes that improve their performance in this way, yet if a similar approach is made for a "health crisis", it's considered heresy. That, my friends, is the height of hypocrisy.

  As the year so many looked forward to (2020 -"we're in touch so you be in touch" ) comes to a close, perhaps the most important question is what have we learned ?  Without a doubt, we've learned that an invisble enemy can infiltrate and render asunder the strongest societies of man. We've also learned that medicine and politics don't mix. Can we take the information we've gleaned from the disaster that will always be associated with the term 'twenty-twenty' or will our collective memories dim with time as we've seen with December 7, 1941, 9-11 and other dates specific to different parts of the world?

   When a new or novel virus was first identified, referenced as to it's source in China, and labeled as one that could potentially cause severe flu-like symptoms with human to human transmission, America fell back on those entrenched in public service postions as the guides to lead us through a potential valley of the shadow of death. At first, people were told to take the usual flu percautions with little or no reference to the age of individuals most likely to be affected, the health problems that could complicate contracting the virus, or any advice on what one could do to better prepare themselves healthwise should they be exposed to the virus. As time went by, new terms became the watchwords like frequent handwashing and social distancing. Later, the use of masks, at first felt to be of little value (and for good reason), was promoted to the limelight and in fact, became an easy option to provide 'protection' from a virus with a reported ever increasing virility. Death and death counts were emphasized in all reports as this would increase the fear among the population. Very few took the time to explain the importance of the age as well as general health of many of those that unfortunately died. Finally people were told that the disease was primarily dangerous to the elderly or those with significant co-morbidities, but by then, the damage had been done with the average person simply scared they would die. Fear is a very powerful and very personal thing and as any psychologist can explain, will often limit ones reasoning skills. Unfortunately, some Americans (and other wealthy investors around the world ) have learned that any crisis can offer multiple opportunities on a variety of levels to enrich ones personal wealth. This in itself is not inherently wrong when involving production of a product that someone else wants. That's the basic premise of a capitalistic society that rewards the efforts of the individual. However in this particular case, greed may have clouded many of the decision making processes that the general public was forced to deal with. Hopefully it was simple greed and not other disturbing possibilities related to control of the masses by the ever increasing scope of government.

   Fear has long been known to be a driving force to control the response of others. General fear of anything unknown is magnified because of that single element, the unknown. When that unknown is also basically invisible, it is further magnified with the simple spectre of death. A virus provides the ultimate, invisble unknown that the general public, and in fact many health care workers, know little about. In that case, they will turn to the ultimate protector of society, the government. The government will then turn to the closest 'experts' available, those being ones within the government itself. Announcing that these 'experts' are the only ones with sufficient knowledge to protect society as a whole from the invisble enemy is then further exacerbated by a media that strives on sensationalism rather than factual reporting. Denouce social gathering ( for safety reasons ) with lockdowns and then censor any attempt at offering a contrary opinion, and the perfect storm for population control is put in motion. What else is occuring as the nation fights the invisible intruder ? The economy is becoming more centralized and more under government control by making it difficult for small, independent businesses to remain intact. Large corporations become the only source  for products as everything from the local drugstore, to small restaurants, private doctor offices, legal services and even acountants can't survive as their customers move to online or government supplied services....and all of this in response to fear. Religious gatherings, the backbone of the society formed in America and elsewhere, is slowly disrupted and small, independent churches cease to exist. 

  Why would any government want to do this ? That gets back to control and power. A populist leader is one that gains support for protecting ones independence ( another backbone of the American society ) or promoting ideals favored by many while a globalist is more inclined to one monetary system, one health care system, one energy system etc. because single entities are easier to control  than a vast array of individuals with individual ideas. This is economic totalitarinism controlled by the most economically powerful countries.  When world economies are out of control due to wars, natural disasters. and societal unrest, we again turn to the government to 'save us', all the while blaming the economic shortcomings on the invisible enemy, a virus. Once control of the economy and currencies by going to a global currency network is established, the table is set for individual control by locking ones bank account if one did anything contrary to government mandate, whether that is protesting or failing to accept a vaccine. This is exactly how the Chinese government has silent control over the majority of their population so don't think it can't happen eslewhere. This control issue could be a bigger danger to any society rather than the invisble enemy, yet it is quietly occuring right in front of our eyes. Cryptocurrency is gaining in popularity and if under central control and subject to the whims of those in control, will dictate what you can buy as well as where and when. Sounds like the old company store in coal mining days and in reality, is an economic form of slavery.

  Now that we have seen how easily fear can be used to control most facets of any society, what can be done to prevent the central control and eliminate the fear factor from future pandemics ?  We need to recognize our mistakes and make sure they are not repeated in the future. Remove central control over doctors and their decisions for treating a problem in their individual communities. A Mayo Clinic and a Baylor Scott and White might not use the same approach for treatment. but if the same end result is attained that benefits a patient, is one better than the other ? If the public was aware that an inexpensive treament as an outpatient was just as effective as a very expensive inpatient treatment, shoudn't they retain the right to chose what works best for them ? Censorship of professional opinions must be stopped when dealing with things that affect us all. Only through open discourse are viable solutions discovered, and often discovered faster. The American public should demand information on preventative measures that can be initiated long before any risk of open exposure, including the use of things like Vitamin D3, C, E and Zinc. Other additives have also shown benefit dealing with this or any other insult to the body. Finally, the overall health of the American public has been compromised by fast foods, lack of exercise and an ever increasing sedentary livestyle. Younger middle class generations are becoming more aware of these shortcomings, but the very people that often need this information the most, the underprivileged, or recent immigrant, finds little incentive to learn or even avail themselves of these facts. 

   In the future, we must demand regional input for any decisions affecting the population as a whole. Alternatives to vaccines as well as early treatment should be openly, and without predjudice, discussed. Dictating how a physician treats their own patients with whom they've established that special "Doctor-patient" relationship should not be violated at the whim of the government, a pharmacy, or corporate medical directorate as long as the doctor remains true to their own Hippocratic Oath. Lockdowns of the general population should never again be part of a general plan as the very process of locking individuals indoors is contray to the things that throughout history have been beneficial for treating viruses, that being the outdoors, circulating air and sunlight. Wearing a 'mask' should be a choice, not a mandate and the pros and cons of usage throughly and completely explained as to the filter capabilities of the mask relative to the actual size of a virus. Concentration of viral and other particles within the confines of a mask should be explained as well as how those things add to the risk of wearing one. The psychological aspect of mask wearing among the very young should be detailed. New technologies including the use of newer HEPA filters, UV lights, automatic doors and transit sytems should be encouraged and supported rather than saying "only a vaccine will solve the problem". All those involved with any decision making responsibilities should be required to fully disclose any and all ties to or incentives received from any company involved in producing a product for the treatment of a pandemic.

   The United states now lags behind third world countries in the treatment of this particular virus, Covid19. Our death rates and case numbers are greater, our testing unreliable with to many variables from place to place and test to test. We need to regain the leadership role that so much of the world depends on rather than joining in on a globalist approach that could eventually be the downfall, as well as the economic enslavement, of all but the most elite among the wealthy nations