Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Quackery

“Innovation.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Quacks delude themselves that they are brave mavericks who are being persecuted for “innovation.” That’s why they attack scientific authority that tells them they are quacks and cranks as “corrupt” and “unimaginative.”

A week ago, I wrote about the reaction of COVID-19 vaccine quack Dr. Pierre Kory to learning that the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) had informed him that its Credentials and Certification Committee had voted to strip him of his board certifications in internal medicine, critical care, and pulmonary medicine. Unsurprisingly, Dr. Kory’s reaction was to weaponize legitimate complaints about the ABIM that a number of physicians enrolled in its maintenance of certification program have made regarding its onerous expense and time commitment in order to portray the organization and its president as utterly corrupt and in the thrall of the powers that he views as forcing harmful vaccines and public health mandates in response to the pandemic in order to control the population. He also portrayed himself and his fellow quacks from the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) as brave maverick “innovators” whose “innovation” frightened the powers that be, such as the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the ABIM.

As I’ve mentioned many times, quacks often portray themselves as misunderstood geniuses, “brave mavericks” who are “apart from the herd,” and, above all, “innovators” whose “innovation” threatens the established order in science and medicine. The examples are numerous, although octogenarian cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski usually stands out to me as the example about whom I’ve written the most over the years. Of course, this self-image as masters of “innovation” resonates with the followers of quacks, as well as their fellow quacks, which brings me to a physician about whom I have been meaning to write for a while who goes under the pseudonym of A Midwestern Doctor, which I will henceforth abbreviate as AMD. AMD has a Substack called The Forgotten Side of Medicine, because of course he does. There, he defended Kory in a post entitled (predictably) What Happens To Doctors Who Innovate? It’s subtitled—because of course it is—”Lessons to be learned from the American Board of Internal Medicine.” (Personally, the main lessons I’ve learned from the ABIM are that it’s too timid to do what really needs to be done to deal with doctors like Pierre Kory, but that’s just me.)

You can probably see where this is going, but let’s see what AMD has to say:

I chose “The Forgotten Side of Medicine” as the name for my publication on Substack because it touches upon the three critical facets of medicine:
  • The art of medicine and depth of doctor-patient relationship—both which are becoming lost as we switch to an increasingly technological and algorithmic practice of medicine.
  • The forgotten victims of medicine who suffered much of what the current generation is now also experiencing at the hands of a greedy industry which values profits over human beings.
  • Forgotten medical innovations that got lost to history because they challenged the current medical orthodoxy or threatened the medical monopoly.
I recently completed an article discussing how grant system (which only funds orthodox research) has played a pivotal role in causing innovation to disappear from medicine. When I reviewed Pierre Kory’s pending de-certification by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), I realized those events illustrate another common way critical innovations are prevented from ever seeing the light of day.

Aha! Where Dr. Kory only dealt with what he saw as the “corruption” of the ABIM as the motivation for its war on “innovation” as exemplified by brave mavericks like him, AMD is going to take a broader view of The (Medical) Man’s war on “innovation” and brave maverick like Dr. Kory (and AMD, of course). Quacks also love to emphasize the “doctor-patient” relationship as their justification for their quackery versus science-based medicine, which they portray as cold, impersonal, and, yes, “algorithmic.” They also love to claim that there are “forgotten medical innovations” that they know about but medicine rejects because they “threaten” The (Medical) Man, or, as AMD puts it, the “medical monopoly.” This is a very old narrative, and AMD clearly believes himself to be “apart from the herd as well,” as can be seen by his attack on how education is carried out:

Almost all of my time in the educational system has followed the same pattern:

Information gets thrown at students, like spaghetti being thrown against a wall again and again, in the hope some of it will eventually stick. In my own case, since I tried to learn and understand the information when it first was presented, I “got it” and had the surreal experience of seeing what I was taught in eighth grade be thrown at the wall again and again well into my undergraduate degree.

Because of course he did. Maybe this is true. Maybe it’s just arrogance and an inflated view of himself filtered through the lens of his self-conception of himself as a brilliant medical iconoclast who sees what’s wrong with medicine and deconstructs it. That’s not to say that his criticism is entirely without merit. One piece of advice that he gives in this post actually stands out as good advice:

Whenever I give students advice on what specialty to go into, my advice is always the same: “you will make more money than you’ll ever need regardless of your speciality—pick the one you actually enjoy rather than the ‘better’ one that burns you out.”

That’s actually pretty good advice. Unfortunately, even as he points out how few listen to him, he can’t resist self-aggrandizement:

Unfortunately, most of them never follow my advice. As a result, many of classmates have reached their wits ends with medicine and often share how they are wondering when they can afford to retire, whereas I love what I do, I plan to practice until the end of my life, and I even have the bandwidth to take on the immense side-project of writing millions of words online to help set things right with COVID-19.

Because, to AMD, AMD is just that awesome. It’s tempting to say that I’ve done the same thing and have been at it not just for COVID-19 but for all of science-based medicine for much, much longer. Oh, wait. I just did. But, unlike the case for AMD, that’s all I’ll say about it. Of course, what do I know? I’m one of those subspecialists decried by AMD who’s spent so many years in training and apparently doesn’t have much to show for it, at least not to him:

Yet, the benefits of this proliferation of medical education are somewhat questionable—for example doctors during COVID-19 demonstrated less ingenuity and ability to adapt to the needs of their patients than doctors did a century ago during the 1918 influenza. Likewise, many of us (e.g., Pierre Kory) have noticed that the specialists are less able to help patients than general practitioners and typically all just say the exact same thing—especially within a hospital setting.

Of course, one of the advantages of subspecialization is to learn a specific field far deeply and broadly than the average physician. It never occurs to AMD that perhaps the reason that specialists “all just say exactly the same thing” is because they have deep expertise in their subject matter and try to practice evidence-based medicine. That’s why AMD attacks all of them saying “exactly the same thing” as though it were a bad thing! See also how AMD implicitly brags about how he and his fellow alleged “generalists” supposedly “see” so much more because they are generalists. While it is true that a generalist might see some things that a specialist might not, the real question is: How many of these “things” that they see are scientifically justifiable, rather than correlations that don’t indicate causation or efficacy of treatments? (Ivermectin comes to mind.) Let’s just say that someone like AMD, who recently posted that he found a Mike Adams video—a Mike Adams video!—called Vaccine Zombie to have been “prescient” is not someone who sees connections based in science

Here’s the video, in case you don’t remember:

Yes, I wrote about this video when it was initially published. Let’s just say that if you think Mike Adams is anything but a bonkers conspiracy theorist, you, too, are likely a bonkers conspiracy theorists (or at least well on your way to becoming one). Basically, the overall idea is that vaccines turn you into a zombie, as illustrated by the rather racist imagery of the nurse giving vaccines and the use of a very Michael Jackson-like dancing zombie.

It’s thus not surprising that AMD echoes Dr. Kory’s attack on the ABIM as “corrupt.” Basically, throughout the article, he describes the system of medical education as a “carrot and stick” approach, with the “carrot” being higher income as a subspecialist and the “stick” being sanctions like losing board certification or medical licensure for too much “innovation.” There’s even a whole section that might as well have been written by Dr. Kory all about the salaries of ABIM leaders, how much it charges for maintenance of certification, and its supposedly fascistic control of what doctors can say, leading to “censorship” and “cancelling.” Personally, my retort to this sort of argument is simple. If ABIM is all about such “control,” why did it take two to three years to act against “innovators” like Dr. Kory? Why did ABIM only go after a handful of the most egregious spreaders of COVID-19 misinformation, like Drs. Pierre Kory, Peter McCullough, and Paul Marik?

To AMD, it’s not just the ABIM, either. It’s the NIH and other federal scientific organizations that fund research. In particular, AMD doesn’t like the NIH panel that concluded that Dr. Kory’s “early treatments” were not supported by evidence:

Likewise, there has been a longstanding issue where corrupt panels are appointed to provide guidelines for treating diseases which always end up supporting the interests of the sponsors of those panels. This was best illustrated by the NIH panel that officially decided what treatments were appropriate to treat COVID-19 in the hospital which then became a de-facto law.  In the case of that panel, its members were directly appointed by Fauci (who was heavily invested in remdesivir), most of them had significant financial ties to remdesivir’s manufacturer, and not surprisingly, despite a lot of against remdesivir, they voted for their drug to be the standard of care for COVID-19, a decision that cost thousands of American lives.

Sadly, this is not by any means an isolated case and there are many other cases of corrupt panels pushing unjustifiable guidelines into medical practice (e.g., consider the recent decision to add the COVID-19 vaccine to childhood vaccine schedule despite children having a real risk of a vaccine injury but no risk of COVID-19). Likewise, prior to COVID-19, one of the most impactful examples was paid-off panel that decided everyone needed to be on statins even though an independent group using the same set of studies reached the opposite conclusion.

Hilariously, AMD claims that “Steve Kirsch recently wrote an excellent article highlighting three “scientists” whose guideline recommendations were ultimately responsible for the deaths of nearly a million Americans,” and cites a link is to one of Dr. Kory’s articles ranting about “corruption” in medicine for concluding that ivermectin doesn’t work and presenting the same dubious evidence that quacks have long liked to cite in favor of ivermectin. Again, ivermectin does not work against COVID-19. Even the cell culture data that led to the idea that ivermectin had antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, always showed that ivermectin was at best a highly implausible treatment given that the concentration needed to inhibit the virus is 50- to 100-fold higher than can be safely achieved in the human blood stream. Also, Steve Kirsch is one of the most unhinged antivaxxers whom I’ve ever encountered, and that’s saying a hell of a lot. Still, none of that stops AMD from claiming that “corruption” dictates the practice of medicine.

Similarly, AMD attacks scientific consensus:

Throughout COVID-19 we saw consensus-based medicine (CBM) masquerading as evidence-based medicine be forced upon America and had our eyes opened to exactly why EBM is so important the practice of medicine. CBM is why doctors were not allowed to utilize protocols they saw were keeping their patients alive and instead were forced to use protocols created by corrupt committees that killed thousands of Americans and created the urgent need for a vaccine to end the pandemic. Likewise, CBM was why an unproven, dangerous, and ineffective vaccine was allowed to remain on the market, why every doctor who challenged it was cancelled, and why the response to all these concerns was instead to mandate the vaccine and gaslight everyone who was injured by it.

This is basically the same old crank attack on scientific consensus that goes back to the old Michael Crichton quote about how “the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus” and there is “no such thing as consensus science,” in which he concluded boldly and foolishly, “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” I’ve addressed this nonsense multiple times before; so I’ll provide the TL;DR version: What is a scientific theory but the best, most reliable consensus about how a scientific phenomenon functions? What is evidence-based medicine but an expert consensus on what the evidence indicates to be medical practices most supported by science and evidence? What is science-based medicine but a consensus on what science indicates to be the medical practices most based in science? Science itself is the process by which we come to an agreement, a consensus if you will, about how nature works. Consensus is central to science. That’s not to say that the consensus shouldn’t be questioned. However, if you’re going to question an existing scientific consensus, don’t expect to be taken seriously if you can’t bring a level of science and evidence to support your “challenge”—your “innovation”—strongly enough to lead scientists to question the existing consensus.

Let’s just say that “questioning” of the scientific consensus on COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines by the likes of AMD and Dr. Kory isn’t based on anything near the level of evidence required to lead scientists and physicians to question that consensus. While it is true that anyone has the “right” to challenge a consensus, again, don’t expect to be taken seriously if you can’t back up that challenge.

AMD can’t resist citing examples of medical “innovation” that were either later found to be harmful or that were ignored by the medical establishment of the day. Unlike the FLCCC’s list of ways that the scientific consensus in medicine has changed before (and therefore my quackery is a valid challenge to it), which uncharacteristically left out the example of Ignaz Semmelweis, AMD definitely includes him. He also includes examples of frontal lobotomies (because of course he did). Again, it’s the same old tired trope in which quacks cite historical changes in the medical consensus, various medical fads, and examples of medical “innovation” that were later found to be harmful as though they justified their quackery. He also cites his rant against the NIH and the lack of “innovation” in medical research (which might be worth its own response by me), which might well be worth a separate post by me in the future. However, in reality, what AMD’s rant is ends up being nothing more than an attack on Peter Hotez and the NIH, filled with a large dollop of conspiracy mongering about the NIH grant process being a quid pro quo in which only scientists who support the existing power structure, a conspiracy theory that I’ve debunked in detail before. It’s clear to me from his rant that AMD has never served on an NIH study section and likely has never been the principal investigator on an NIH grant.

AMD concludes:

I believe if we allowed doctors who had the best intentions of their patients to innovate, the public would have much more confidence in the medical profession.

Of course he does. Unfortunately, AMD’s definition of “innovation” is the same as that of quacks since time immemorial, namely doing whatever they want, even when it’s not supported by evidence, and portraying themselves as brave mavericks whose “innovation” is rejected not because it has no scientific evidence to support it (or because evidence shows it to be harmful) but because it is a “threat” to The (Medical) Man.

The quack narrative never changes.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

29 replies on ““Innovation.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

I see a family practitioner, and a neurologist sub-specializing in MS care.

The family practitioner made sure I got the covid vaccine, but it was the neurologist who thought of testing my blood for antibodies. As a specialist, he connected the dots between my immune-suppressant drug and antibodies. The general practitioner knew that I was on an immune-suppressing drug, but didn’t think about the details of how it worked.

More generally, I like knowing that the different people providing my medical care will understand each other’s notes, and that I can change doctors without having to explain everything from scratch. I wonder whether Dr. There-Is-No-Consensus expects all new his patients to start from scratch. I also wonder whether he turns away patients who are also seeing specialists like gynecologists and eye doctors, because they should be getting their pap smears and prenatal vitamins and eye exams and diabetes care in the same place.

I’d be a little surprised if your GP didn’t know that immunosuppressant drugs suppressing your immune response and therefore your antibody response to the COVID-19 vaccination. Perhaps your GP just didn’t think of it at the time? It was a very busy time for GPs. My daughter and my sister both have MS, and their GPs told them both to take extra precautions – avoiding crowds and indoor spaces, masking and distancing – on top of the vaccinations. I didn’t see either of them face to face for about 6 months at one stage, and their husbands did all the shopping.

“If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” I’ve addressed this nonsense multiple times before; so I’ll provide the TL;DR version: What is a scientific theory but the best, most reliable consensus about how a scientific phenomenon functions?

The reason that consensus even appears in science is directly because of the principle of replication. Without replication, we can’t be certain that a result is repeatable. And, since replication really only matters if it can be replicated in the hands of someone else, it becomes necessary for science to be a consensus –people talking to each other and agreeing on the results that have been replicated. That’s not even talking about peer review. If there could be a subjective reality, there could be a subjective science, but science is about objective reality. It can’t work if it can’t prove that a result isn’t totally subjective. Consensus has to be about the most important thing in science.

The “foolish physicist” is wise. The whole point of science is to answer those questions that can have a definite and true answer.

For example, the idea of “atoms” kicked around for millennia, until, during my grandparents’ childhood, experimental and theoretical evidence led chemists and physicists to a consensus: all matter consisted of atoms. Crichton was an idiot.

And physicists salute our science based colleagues in medicine for their marvelous work. Damn the quacks, full speed ahead.

When you look at AMD’s substack and see which other sources it recommends, it’s easy to see he’s not really into good science. He does like a good conspiracy theory though. You can see that when he complains about how Dr Fauci was “invested” in Remdesivir and got his cronies to approve it. But that is an old claim that was debunked back in May 2020! Like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, remdesivir had already been tested and approved. But remdesivir was a broad spectrum antiviral that was developed to treat hepatitis C and being considered for Ebola and Marburg viruses. So it’s not surprising that a trial to test it started almost immediately in February 2020. But both remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine were given an EUA very soon in the pandemic. Hydroxychloroquine was very widely used but just didn’t seem to make a noticeable difference and the EUA was withdrawn and when it did go through well done clinical trials it proved not to be effective. Remdesivir was trickier to verify because it had to be given intravenously but as an antiviral it also had to be given early in the course of the disease while there was still virus to kill. But it proved to be effective and received full FDA approval.

And his scientific ignorance really shows when he goes after medical consensus.

Throughout COVID-19 we saw consensus-based medicine (CBM) masquerading as evidence-based medicine be forced upon America and had our eyes opened to exactly why EBM is so important the practice of medicine. CBM is why doctors were not allowed to utilize protocols they saw were keeping their patients alive and instead were forced to use protocols created by corrupt committees that killed thousands of Americans and created the urgent need for a vaccine to end the pandemic.

Having studied The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in my undergraduate years many years ago, I tend to take a very Kuhnian view of evidence and consensus. That is, it takes solid replicable evidence that is not well explained by the current paradigm or consensus to overturn or expand that consensus. And those doctors who didn’t want to give up treatments “they saw were keeping their patients alive” needed to keep in mind Feynman’s law about not fooling yourself and you being the easiest person to fool.

When the same groups that showed that remdesivir and convalescent plasma (and Paxlovid and Molnupiravir) did have a benefit while hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin did not, that should have been the end of it. But AMD really gets into special pleading when he gins up his quasi-met-analysis chart that just dumps all the results in together so he can ignore the quality of the trials and make it look like his favorites actually work.

But the claim that

doctors during COVID-19 demonstrated less ingenuity and ability to adapt to the needs of their patients than doctors did a century ago during the 1918 influenza.

really grates. What really struck me in following the course of this pandemic and how we responded to it was how vastly better our scientific tools had gotten just in the last 20 years (and even more so compared with 100 years ago). Scientists in 1918 couldn’t even isolate the influenza virus. Barely a month after the first cases of this novel form of pneumonia were identified, we had a complete genetic sequence of the virus and a couple days later people who had been developing mRNA vaccines took that information and immediately started producing candidate vaccines to start the testing process. And we could identify changes in that genetic sequence and see where different variants originated and watch them propagate.

And of course he is quick to make claims about corruption and killing Americans while ignoring the grifting of his buddies at the FLCCC.

So it is no surprise that he is anti-vaccine to the core.

“And those doctors who didn’t want to give up treatments “they saw were keeping their patients alive”’

Interesting, isn’t it? These INNOVATIVE doctors did not want to give up their old treatments (even after they were shown not to work) for new INNOVATIVE treatments (even after they were conclusively shown to work)!

And it’s not just the physician quacks but also the uncredentialed ( woo-meisters, alt med proselytisers/ anti-vaxxers) who assert that they are bold innovators years ahead of the standard- the latest thing, the ne plus ultra of discovery, la nouvelle vague, paradigm shifters all!
however, they usually simultaneously claim that they religiously follow ancient traditions and methods known for centuries. Go figure!

Having sampled A Midwestern Doctor’s, um, innovative brilliance on Substack awhile back, I’ve been hoping AMD isn’t an actual physician but some other practitioner masquerading as a doctor – a naturopath or chiropractor, for instance – or maybe even a rug or basement doctor. Lord knows we’ve got enough quacks and denialists with MDs; we don’t need any more.

Based on recent posts, it looks like this character shares a lot of similarity with Thomas Cowan, who surrendered his California medical license following earlier disciplinary action, in order to move to the east Coast and establish a “New Biology Clinic”, taking patients for hefty subscription fees as well as selling supplements. AMD, like Cowan*, is heavily antivaccine (AMD had a Substack post titled “What Makes All Vaccines So Dangerous?), also has a fascination with water structure’s effect on health (AMD promotes what he calls :”liquid crystalline water”), and insists that the heart (literally) is Not A Pump (Cowan wrote a book on that very subject), because gee, AMD just can’t comprehend how the human heart could pump blood throughout the body. A midwestern base suggests that AMD is not actually Cowan, but the two walk and talk alike.**

If any of AMD’s patients view AMD as a science-based physician and trust in his/her medical advice, I feel sorry for them.

I haven’t seen that AMD is an out-an-out germ theory denier or believer in 5G causing Covid-19 like Thomas Cowan, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
you could lose your mind.

***classic TV reference.

Eric Clapton Headlines Beverly Hills Gala for Fellow Vaccine ‘Skeptic’ RFK Jr.
The two Covid conspiracy theorists make a fitting double bill for nostalgic, deep-pocketed donors in Beverly Hills

AUGUST 31, 2023

ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr., 2024 presidential hopeful, announced today that he will be joined by rocker Eric Clapton for a campaign fundraiser at a private estate in Beverly Hills on Sept. 18. Clapton will perform live at the event, with tickets starting at $3,300, up to a maximum contribution of $6,600.

“We expect supporters from across the U.S. to fly in for the evening,” Kennedy’s website noted. High-end donors will enjoy an exclusive reception before Kennedy delivers remarks, followed by Clapton taking the stage.

not in the article: perhaps Eric and Junior can share their experiences of what it was like to take heroin, presumably that substance was held to higher standards of manufacturing purity than vaccines …

I won’t hold my breath waiting for RFK Junior to denounce this:

Conspiracy Theory Kingpin Calls for Hunter Biden’s Execution
At a wild pitstop of the ReAwaken America tour, headlined by Donald Trump Jr., Stew Peters demanded “permanent accountability” for another presidential failson


CONSPIRACY THEORIST STEW Peters made a startling demand for public executions at the latest stop on the ReAwaken America tour — calling for the death of Joe Biden’s son Hunter as well as Dr. Anthony Fauci, whom Peters insisted should “hang from a length of thick rope until he is dead.”

Peters speaks in the argot of the tin-foil-hat set. To hear him tell it, Fauci deserves the gallows because the federal physician-scientist supposedly backed a Wuhan “bioweapons lab” — and that this “illegal research” cost “millions of lives.” The younger Biden should get the “Julius and Ethel Rosenberg” treatment, Peters insisted, for the “treason” of “selling this country off to rich oligarchs.” Peters also demanded that Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of Homeland Security, be executed as “a treasonous traitor” because he has permitted legions of “rapists and murderers and killers and goons” to breach the border.

“In the world that we are going to build,” Peters declared, “traitors will hang.”

As Peters ramped up this violent diatribe, including with a call to drown doctors who care for transgender patients, no one cut his microphone. The North Las Vegas crowd didn’t recoil; rather, they filled the giant air-conditioned tent hall with hoots and hollers of approval. After Peters thundered his demand for “permanent accountability with extreme prejudice,” emcee Clay Clark treated Peters as if he were a WWE star. “Ladies and gentlemen,” he intoned. “Let’s hear it for Stuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Peters!!”

ReAwaken America is a traveling, far-right roadshow, headlined by pardoned criminal Gen. Michael Flynn, and Clark, the Tulsa-based entrepreneur radio personality. It has drawn raucous crowds across the country, with an atmosphere that’s part political convention, part religious revival, and part QAnon circus. Just minutes after Peters’ call for Hunter Biden’s execution, a different presidential failson, Donald Trump Jr., picked up the same red-white-and-blue mic, and began preaching to the MAGA minions about the dangers and “derangement” of the Left.

Peters couldn’t be a more natural fit in this setting. He is a media maven for a country hooked on conspiracy theories,catering to a religious, red-pilled audience that chooses to live in a dark irreality, full of horrific plots, satanic forces, and illicit knowledge. No longer just a sideshow on the right’s lunatic fringe, Peters, through his dark films and on his nightly streaming broadcast, is reaching an audience of millions. Increasingly, he’s playing host to elected officials, including sitting members of congress, at least one of whom praises him as a “friend.”

Peters is a prolific conspiracy content creator. In the last two years, he has churned out a pair of feature-length films — “Watch the Water” and “Died Suddenly” — each falsely purporting to reveal demonic plots behind the novel coronavirus and the “bioweapon” vaccines allegedly foisted on an unsuspecting public by a nefarious cabal.

His first film absurdly purported that Covid is connected to snake venom in the water, and that mRNA jabs transform humans into satanic “hybrids.” The second movie spreads the widely debunked conspiracy theory that Covid vaccines are causing an epidemic of heart failure — which Peters paints as part of a genocidal plot by “globalist” elites to “depopulate” the world. The noxious films have been streamed by tens of millions of viewers.

In addition to the viral success of his smooth-brained cinema, Peters has also built a large audience for his weeknight broadcasts of the “Stew Peters Show,” which has more than half a million subscribers on Rumble alone. Peters did not respond to an interview request to discuss his worldview or his calls for public hangings. But such calls to violence — in particular toward Fauci — are a staple of Peters’ schtick. As is lofting new, ever-more-absurd conspiracy theories, like that the Titan submersible was destroyed to prevent the public from learning that the Titanic was not, in fact, sunk by an iceberg but in a nefarious plot linked to the Rothschilds.

In a sane world, Peters would be politically radioactive. But the conspiratorial audience that Peters is building is, to be frank, a key component of the modern GOP base. And these days, Peters’ broadcast is not just filled with fellow-citizen crackpots. It’s becoming a venue for right-wing GOP politicians who treat Peters as just another media persona. Peters has interviewed many members of the United States Congress, including Paul Gosar, Bob Good, Pete Sessions, and Andy Biggs, who signed off with the encouraging words to Peters: “Keep preaching, my friend.” He’s also interviewed the anti-vax extremist Robert Kennedy, Jr., now a Democratic candidate for president.

It’s not just that they’re CT nut jobs, they are engaging in stochastic violence. At what point should they be investigated?

“It never occurs to AMD that perhaps the reason that specialists “all just say exactly the same thing” is because they have deep expertise in their subject matter and try to practice evidence-based medicine.”

It strikes me that this is one of the serious dangers of AMD’s position. If a patient went to four different AMDs and was told four different treatments, there’s no way they’d know which were was legitimate or effective. There nothing for them to base their decision on.

I wonder if the patient would naturally chose which sounds or feels the best to them, or was the least costly. Could this lead to a price war with AMDs forced to offer cheaper, or better sounding, or more grandiose claims for success?

It’s all a bit bollocks anyway, my experience is that treatments from doctors ARE influenced by their personal experience. Choice of recommended painkillers for one.

Of course. There’s always variability in recommendations between doctors, but it’s within a much narrower range than between AMDs.

That’s what I expect. Maybe they recommend a different painkiller but it’s always a genuine painkiller.

I read the free version of AMD’s latest on Archetypes, hoping that he would go full bore Jungian- he didn’t though he revealed how he can guess astrological signs better than chance, appreciates ancient systems’ like Ayurvedic/ TCM typology and how recipients’ personalities may change after organ transplants BUT most importantly, he feels that large trials are not necessary and fail to reveal adverse effects …
isn’t that one of the reasons why they are done in the first place?

-btw- reading Substacks is not recommended for improving your current state of psychological well being

re Substack:

it would be interesting if someone investigated/ published how much money popular Substack alt med/ anti-vax writers make. I know that Kirsch makes real money and Celia Farber’s dreck posts earn 42K USD annually; even Igor makes proverbial pocket change. Substack is the newest form of virtual cosplay where anyone can play doctor, researcher, intellectual, rebel or highly opinionated truth teller. They seek out which CTs and rumours are popular and then “support” them with their own “evidence” / speculation/ fantasies. Warhol said everyone would be famous for 15 minutes but this is becoming ridiculous.

According to PressGazette (for what it’s worth), the top 27 newsletters/blogs on Substack collectively make $22 million a year.

The most recognizable Usual Suspects are outside the top ten, but each still is said to haul in $500,000 annually (Mercola, Malone and Kirsch). One Substack authored by a pro-vaccine writer, Your Local Epidemiologist, also is reported to make $500,000 a year.

Not chump change.

If Igor commissions a new t-shirt with “Who’s Afraid of the Club of Rome?” on the front and his Substack URL on the back, he could amp up his subscription numbers from star-struck Costco females, earning at least enough to buy a few more institutional-sized cans of pitted prunes and kidney beans.

“One Substack authored by a pro-vaccine writer, Your Local Epidemiologist, also is reported to make $500,000 a year.”

Well-deserved by epidemiolgist, Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, for her excellent and succinct coverage during the pandemic (I am subscribed only to the free version) and her promotion of all pandemic measures advised by the public health experts. She puts a lot of time and effort into her posts and uses part of her income to employ others to help with the research and fact checking.

For anyone interested, here is the transcript of an interview with Dr. Katelyn Jetelina on the Ezra Klein Show on 29th Aug 2023.

Stanislaw Burzynski is my favorite – he sells chemicals for use in cancer therapy, but gets hilariously upset if you notice that he’s selling chemotherapy. He also brags about people who were taking his chemo who survived their cancer, but doesn’t notice the pattern that all the patients who survived were taking tested chemotherapy as well as his garbage.

the money-grubbing folks at St Judes charge zero dollars for real medicine, but Dr B. sends his patients out to beg in the street for his stuff. Noble!

Speaking of Ygor…

Igor’s Substack featured an article ( Thursday) that reveals that the public has been grievously misled about how long vaccinated people produce spike protein- hint– it’s not what they were told by the experts.. NO!!!!!

Now I know why he and others might believe this but will leave the explanation to commenters who can do this more succinctly than I can.
Take a look, sceptics!

-btw- Igor thinks I’m a nice person, smart and talented so I can’t be too cruel, can I?
Yes, I could: it’s for his own good and his followers’.

I am thinking we need a new internet law with respect to anyone suggesting Steve Kirsch is a good source for commentary about anything to do with medicine. Rather like Scopie’s Law for citing Whale.

I also point to a phenomenon I have noticed. Those who decry consensus is not science are invariably deniers on the wrong side of consensus in science. Most scientists are aware that the consensus in science can change, but it requires good evidence to do that. Bloviating at length on Substack will not do that.

Apparently a ‘brave maverick’ consensus is ok.

Of course, if the brave mavericks can’t agree on why X is bad then maybe that’s evidence they don’t really know. If they DO agree then they have a consensus…..

But how can a group of independently minded iconoclasts ever agree to a consensus on anything except maybe hating SBM’s consensus?

I would advise those people who consider scientific consensus wrong, to defy the consensus on gravity and jump from some high building.

Comments are closed.


Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading