The only honest “mainstream” doctor

is not actually honest

Since the Joe Rogan - Robert Malone podcast when everyone finally found out about Mass Formation (psychosis), the phenomenon Dr. Mattias Desmet had written about way back in January 2021, so many point to Vinay Prasad as the mainstream doctor we can all trust. He thinks pretty highly of himself as evidenced by his claim that he wrote the ‘single FAIREST analysis' of Malone's views you will read.

When a “mainstream” source tells you they are giving you the fairest analysis, or they have “fact-checked”, just imagine the last time you heard someone say “No offense but…” or “I’m not racist but…”

You got yourself ready to hear something offensive or racist. If you do decide to read Prasad’s self-proclaimed unequaled-in-its-fairness analysis, you’ll need brace yourself for some heavy duty gaslighting, fallacious reasoning, and flat out lies.

You don’t have to read it though, because I did and will show you just how dishonest the only honest mainstream doctor truly is. I can’t proclaim to know that he’s controlled opposition or even that he actually believes what he’s written, I can only tell you that it’s well-delivered disinformation through the vehicle of omissions and half-truths.

Let’s start with the "fairest" analysis claim. What he actually does is create a textbook example of a limited hangout. He's a propagandist disguised as a truth teller. He's the centrist democrat of vaccine pushers. He really wants you to believe him because he believes Dr. Malone, and Joe Rogan is just a regular guy - just like Vinay is.

He knows that most people are not going to read much after the first few paragraphs so he begins by agreeing with the myocarditis risk that Malone raises because that's easy.

Everyone already knows this.

He even later reiterated that on twitter to emphasize how much he agrees with it. This has long been established so he loses nothing and hooks those who can’t recognize propaganda when it’s something they agree with. Since people have been gaslighted (gaslit?) into thinking that there is such a thing as “mild” myocarditis, it’s not a tough admission to make for a propagandist.

That’s where the obfuscation really begins. He says that Malone makes the claim that vaccines have lots of dangerous side effects and focuses on paralysis, seizures and irregularities in women's menstrual cycles.

Prasad writes, “I have seen no evidence to support any of these claims.” but then completely ignores the first two claims and focus only the women's issue. He does this for a very important reason: he knows that the implication is that he hasn’t seen any scientific studies, but he is both lying and being dishonest.

There is plenty of evidence of women attesting to this issue in real life and there’s no question that he knows this. He certainly knows this because there have been several articles written about it in the mainstream media and studies have been commissioned BECAUSE of the concerns expressed publicly by so many of them.

As for actual scientific studies, he also knows that there is no evidence because no studies have been completed, at least at the time of the Rogan interview. Women are often excluded from clinical trials, and have been from the mRNA vaccine studies because of the "complexities of the menstrual cycle.” Quite simply, there is a lot of first-hand testimony that there are significant issues, and there is recent research which supports Malone. That Prasad hasn’t seen them is a reflection on his own lack of knowledge, not an absence of evidence. Or of course, and more likely, he's lying.

He polishes off this dishonest track by failing to address either of the other two side effects, and comically accusing Malone of being irresponsible and of using fear-mongering for even bringing such evidence up at all.

Next he sets in on VAERS. First he uses the fallacy of incredulity to dispute Dr McCullough's 45,000 figure and goes on to parrot the same garbage that the corporate media has been peddling about VAERS being a highly unreliable tool. (If we can’t use this database to know that the vaccines are dangerous due to its unreliability, how can we know that they are safe? Because Pfizer and Moderna said so - that’s the evidence.) He even goes so far as to say that the database is not only not underestimating vaccine injuries as it has been proven to do, it can actually overestimate them. **He provides no evidence for this claim.**

His next topic is natural immunity and again he parrots corporate media talking points. First he says "Malone goes over the top" and says that he refers to "multiple studies". The quotes are very clearly scare quotes since using them implies that there are issues with the studies, but he doesn't explain which studies lead him to use the scare quotes to begin with nor, why they should be discounted. Not only that, he goes on to say that "At times, Malone refers to accurate studies, but I worry the audience draws the wrong inference."

It's not Malone's job to make sure that people draw the correct inference, and he is not implying anything anyway. No inference skills are needed. He is flat out telling you everything. He is not beating around the bush or being vague.

Vinay’s next one is simply a gem:

“Vaccination is almost surely preferable for most un-immune adults.”

I'll just leave that there.

Finally, it is the smear of all smears, which as Mark Crispin Miller points out once this one has been lobbed you know that you have won. He stops just a couple nanometers away from actually calling Malone a conspiracy theorist but the implication is clear as he refers to both Malone and McCullough's comments on Hydrochloroquine and Ivermectin.

“These are entirely false and insulting allegations, and Malone’s in particular are flat-out conspiratorial.”

I am not sure why he is insulted or what his sensibilities have to do with his the veracity of what the doctors are saying. Saying that you don't like what somebody says is not evidence. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is the mother of all smears and designed to lead to the censorship of opposing viewpoints. Again, his reasoning is simply the fallacy of incredulity, as if corporate hospitals which have been bleeding money and closing all over the country wouldn't do something for money or that the health system overall isn't completely in the grip of Big Pharma. All you have to do is put hospital and fraud into your favorite search engine and the entire population of China walking into the ocean would disappear before you reached the end of the search results.

Prasad is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He recommends the vaccine for otherwise healthy adults in this smear piece, and has done so elsewhere. His record on the issue is clear while his definition of the word “fair” probably isn’t one that you’d find in the OED.

….

Addendum August 2023

If any of this comes across as an elevation of the Robert Malone, who, as the so-called creator of the mRNA vaccine, is intimately aware of the dangers posed by the technology, nevertheless took the vaccine because he suffered from psychosomatic illness long covid (or, depending on which explanation you read, because he was tricked by the government despite being an expert in 5th generation warfare, recommended it to children (just not “healthy” ones), well that was not the intent.

In fact, who I thought Robert Malone was when I published this has changed greatly since then because of this article and the exchange I had with a reader who has since deleted his comments.

I encourage reading Diane West's Risk Analysis to learn more about Dr. Malone and his problematic double speak.

Nevertheless, I do not want to fall into the trap of discounting the message because the messenger has proven to be less than trustworthy. When evaluating information that Dr. Malone presents, one must always evaluate the information independent of the manner in which it is presented. Truth can come from liars, and honest people can tell you things that are inaccurate.