Doctoring

Doctoring, right now, to me, it seems the strangest of words. It sounds as if it means taking care of a person who is unwell, yet we know it also means to falsify.

I’ve just read the first 22 pages of Dr Malcolm Kendrick’s “Doctoring Data” book, which says on the front cover, “How to sort out medical advice from medical nonsense.”

Dr Kendrick is perhaps most famous for his explanations regarding cholesterol not causing heart-attacks. The idea that cholesterol is bad for us is medical nonsense. Some may claim it is just an over-simplification as some small-low-density-lipo-particles have been associated with heart-attacks but these are the ones made in the human liver from excess sugar. The good medical advice here would be that excess dietary sugar and excess blood sugar may well be linked to greater likelihoods of heart-attacks and to all-cause-mortality.

In the world of medicine/healthcare much data has been doctored for decades, yet in the CoViD era this doctoring seems, to me, to have reached new extraordinary heights.

Here is an example from UK MHRA data (I am sure Dr Malcolm Kendrick could explain my example better):

“In weeks 9 to 12 of 2022, 92.1% of those who died within 60 days of a positive test for CoViD had received at least one shot of a CoViD ‘vaccine’.” That is an undisputed fact. Yet, because far more elderly and generally unwell people have had injections than younger and generally well people this does not prove the injections to be ineffective. These 3,736 deaths may have been mainly among people who did not need the mysterious CoViD virus to kill them, perhaps making vaccination status irrelevant.

The same report shows 321 people died within 60 days of a positive test for CoViD were not included as “at least one shot of a CoViD ‘vaccine’.” These account for the other 7.9% of these deaths. What MHRA do not tell us is how many of these ‘unvaccinated’ fatalities were after one, two, three, four or zero shots of a CoViD ‘vaccine’.

The way the data is presented we may well think that those who are not in the “at least one shot of a CoViD ‘vaccine’” grouping and described as ‘unvaccinated’ would indeed be ‘unvaccinated’.

The reality would seem to be that because anyone dying within 14 days of an injection is discounted from the vaccinated group, the numbers of ‘unvaccinated’ who died will be less than 324. Therefore the percentage who died, “within 60 days of a positive test for CoViD had received at least one shot of a CoViD ‘vaccine’” will be greater than the reported 92.1%. How much greater? There is no indication of any truly ‘unvaccinated’ person dying during that time period.

If the recently vaccinated were to be included in the vaccinated total then we may well be able to conclude the injections to be ineffective.

As I said, I am sure Dr Malcolm Kendrick could explain my example better. He could also do so with more humour!

When I first started reading Dr Kendrick’s work, nearly 10 years ago, I found his style odd for a medical man. Within a few pages I came to very much appreciate his humour. Perhaps this is because the way mainstream medicine/healthcare has been in recent years has been so crazy, to those of us brought up with the idea of “first do no harm”, that we may have to laugh often to avoid crying!?

On this leaflet the word ‘ineffective’ has been used, yet with doctored data there is no way to know for sure. Please demand the MHRA release information on the numbers of people who died following each CoViD injection and how many days after each injection was given.