I’ve had multiple people share “Plandemic” with me and then ask for my opinions, so I thought I might create a more cohesive response and share my insights as a naturopathic doctor. I obviously don’t fit into the “narrative” as someone who shuns insurance and drugs as part of my approach to health. But on the other hand, I rely on authorities like the CDC for information and guidance. I have a foot on both sides of the fence on a regular basis, so it is with this bias that I write. Keep my bias in mind as you read, as you should with everything you read.
First, by writing this I am in no way confirming that what “Plandemic” claims to be true is actually true. I think most of us like to envision the world as a black and white place, but almost everything is actually shades of gray. That is to say, there are certainly some things in the movie that are true, some that are a matter of opinion, and some that are likely false.
You can see this play out very clearly in our mainstream media. You watch CNN and it’s the end of the world, then you watch Fox cast the same story as a moment of triumph, or vice versa. Funny thing is, if you didn’t watch the news, you would be largely unaffected by whatever it was that they were going on about. Partially it’s a matter of opinion, partially it’s how they spin things and your own bias, but part of it is that much in this world is a matter of interpretation. It’s grayscale. Likely, the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes.
Next, the scientific community can be petty and political just like any other community. I think a lot of people envision scientists as altruistic individuals who just want to make the world a better place through scientific advances. Some are just that, but some really aren’t. Science is highly competitive, we compete for discoveries, government grants, patents, and so forth.
It is also highly political. You can gain power and influence if you are a great scientist. The way to power and influence in science is to write papers, get them published and establish yourself as an expert in your field, to create something new and patent it so you can profit from it, and then eventually use this to work your way onto advisory boards, peer review boards, dean of a program, and so forth.
Once you are in this position, you can absolutely use that power to control what has been referred to as “the narrative”. Let’s say you are on a peer review board for the publication “Science”. All sorts of scientists submit their papers to you for review in hopes of being published. If your personal bias is that organic foods are no better than conventionally grown food, do you think you would be keen on publishing a paper that compares organic to conventional and finds organic has higher mineral content. Likely not.
Now compound that decision with the knowledge that a conventional food company is willing to pay you a generous sum of money if you send such papers their way before they are published. You would have to be of exceptional character to refuse this offer and publish the paper! We know for instance that the FDA’s food pyramid from the 90’s was largely influenced by certain food lobbyists and in disregard of the science. Read the book “death by food pyramid” if you don’t believe me.
Here’s another example of how healthcare is more political than scientific. We know that cholesterol is a terrible indication of heart health. We have much better markers, like fractionated lipids, Lp(a), PLA2 and so on. We also know that except in rare cases, you don’t raise your cholesterol by eating cholesterol containing foods. We make 90% of our cholesterol ourselves. We even have massive reviews that show that the only population who benefits from prescription of statins is men aged 40-75 who have already had a cardiac event.
Yet everyone “knows” if your cholesterol is above 200 you will be put on a statin drug indefinitely to “prevent” a cardiac event and told to avoid fat. This is despite the fact that a cholesterol of 220 is all-cause mortality protective AND a cholesterol of 140 or lower puts you an increased risk for suicide. Docs do it because they are told to do it. Who tells them? Drug companies and the American Medical Association (AMA). This is a clear example where standard protocol is not driven by science. It may be that our standard of care just lags behind what the research, or it may be something else. This is where your personal bias comes into play and determines whether you say it is “greed and corruption” or “trust the process and eventually the protocols will be revised.” Which one is right? They probably both are to an extent.
This is all to say that I don’t know whether Dr. Mikovits is telling the truth or whether she too has ulterior motives. We can’t really know because she claims that the very system we are supposed to trust is the one lying. However, she could just as easily be trying to save face and taking advantage of the current attitude and distrust of the government to spin a story of corruption that so many of us who are forced out of work are ready to believe. It confirms what we already feel, that the government is not to be trusted, it is corrupt and power hungry.
The bottom line is that you would be naive to think that our scientific boards are unbiased, but it would be just as naive to accept her narrative as gospel truth. Just like what we see in the news, the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two sides. I think for most of us, there has been a lot of cognitive dissonance with all the recent events and their polarizing nature. The best we can do is acknowledge our personal biases, do our best to collect information from various sources, and try to abstain from making emotionally-based decisions.
We all come to our own conclusions based on our own experiences. It doesn’t make a person bad or good, just different. It’s ok to have a different opinion and still have a dialog about it. Just realize that most things, even the things that seem black and white, are probably gray.