Politicized “health” has lethal consequences, from the Nazi experimentation on those considered unworthy of living, to the abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath, to today’s vaccine experimentation on entire populations. Lee D. Merritt MD “The stark lesson of the Holocaust is that whenever doctors join forces with government and deviate from their personal, professional, clinical commitment to do no harm to the individual, medicine can then be perverted from a healing humanitarian profession to a murderous apparatus.” — Vera Sharav, Holocaust Survivor America is on the brink of extermination — not because of invasion by a strong foreign army on our land (although that is possibly the end game), not because of the implementation of a Cheka-like force rounding up its own citizens (although that too is getting closer), and not because of an Apocalyptic plague ravaging the land (although that is the message the mainstream media would have you believe). No, our nation — based on individual liberty and the rule of law — is about to be conquered because “public health” and our very own public-health officials have been purposefully weaponized against us. Two Worldviews Are Possible There are only two worldviews that can be held regarding our current situation: Either you think public-health experts from all over the country and beyond were well-intentioned but simply wrong about everything from the wearing of masks, to lockdowns, to the benefits of hydroxychloroquine, etc., or you think what has happened to the world as a result of “COVID” was planned and orchestrated. Deciding which of those two views is correct is aided by reviewing the controversial PCR testing program. Even non-medical, non-scientific people have become somewhat knowledgeable about the use and misuse of “PCR,” or polymerase chain reaction, tests. We have learned that these PCR tests are properly used to detect small amounts of genetic material in a laboratory setting. They were never meant for use as a diagnostic medical tool — as their Nobel Laureate inventor Kary Mullis clearly explained before his unexpected death in 2020. Nevertheless, the tests were put into general worldwide use for the diagnosis of COVID. That may be a forgivable error in a crisis — employing a “field expedient” measure not meant to last forever. On the other hand, what is not readily explainable is why the test was universally performed incorrectly. Lab managers are highly trained professionals. They know how to read instructions. They know how to train their staff. They routinely implement new testing in their labs, and ensure that those tests are correctly performed and reported with only a few false positive or false negative outcomes. But in the entire year 2020, instead of doing what the enclosed instructions dictated, instead of cycling these tests 20-30 times, (at the most 25-35 times), every large system lab manager in the United States set the tests to cycle 40-50 times. Michael Yeadon, a former chief science advisor for Pfizer, stated that this over-cycling had the effect of producing a large number of false-positive tests — probably greater than 90 percent. So, in one worldview, we must believe that somehow all lab managers in the United States failed simultaneously to do their jobs — and that they all erred in exactly the same way. (If by accident, why didn’t any lab manager run too few cycles to produce false negative tests?) Must we believe that some universal psychosis hit lab managers everywhere so they mistakenly produced false positive testing, and furthermore that they simultaneously awakened on Jan 21, 2021, to correct the testing procedure? Because on that day, tests were cycled below 35 times and, miraculously, there occurred a huge drop in COVID diagnoses. There are only these two options and two worldviews: You can believe all the above, or you can believe that some authority higher up in the public health bureaucracy instructed all lab managers to over-cycle the tests. And what could have been the purpose for that instruction, except to harm the American public by grossly and falsely over-diagnosing COVID? I for one do not ascribe to the universal-lab-manager-psychosis theory. The other worldview requires that we take a hard look at who is running our “public health.” “Public health” is a concept that only comes about when doctors become servants of the state. And nothing good has ever come of that. Kaiser Wilhelm and the Political Use of Public Health In the latter years of Imperial Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm’s rule was threatened by the Social Democrats. The Kaiser’s advisors at the time suggested that he give the people some boon to offset the offerings by his opponents. So, the Kaiser chose socialized, government-run healthcare. The effect at first was to get doctors and new medical procedures to underserved, impoverished areas. Interestingly, these doctors who brought with them the latest ideas from their university training were referred to as “vaccine doctors” because of the emphasis on prevention and public health. The system worked well at first, but after WWI, as the money dried up for public programs, the medical system was left without funding but with an abundance of paperwork and cumbersome bureaucracy. Additionally, this government medical system brought about a critical philosophic change. Care that was once done on the basis of individual ethics and Christian charity was now done through a collective ethic and nationalized welfare. Government medical authorities did not deal with individual patients, but with data sets. Doctors who previously only dealt with billing individual patients became involved in the national economics of medicine, and the cost to the government of public-health issues. This led to attempts at cost-containment through wellness. But that inevitably became cost-containment by denying treatments. The Kaiser’s medical system, like all socialized systems following it, had to ration care to some at the expense or even termination of others. In 1925, a book was authored by German lawyer Karl Binding and psychiatrist Albert Hoche: Permission for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life. The authors, steeped in Hegelian philosophy from the German education system, identified three groups of people unworthy to live: the terminally ill who request death, “incurable idiots,” and those in vegetative states such as trauma victims. The authors suggested a government body of doctors, lawyers, and psychiatrists who would oversee the selection of euthanasia patients by judging patients’ economic value to society and applying cost-benefit criteria. This plan separated the victims from their personal community physicians, who simply sent their medical records to a centralized, government-run committee — thus depersonalizing the decision to kill them. Community physicians, to whom these targeted people were familiar faces with personalities and real-world history, would most likely not have chosen to participate. But ultimately these doctors were not ethically absolved from consequences of the actions they set in motion. To be clear, euthanasia was not invented by the Nazis, but by physicians with legal help, then implemented by the state. Stalin’s Use of Psychiatric Medicine According to Lenin, government medicine was the “keystone in the arch of socialism.” In his eyes, giving people healthcare simply solidified the dependency and therefore loyalty of the masses to the Bolshevik government. By the time of Stalin, medicine had become a tool of political oppression. Dissidents in the Soviet Union, such as Zhores and Roy Medvedev, Andrei Sakharov, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn were too prominent to be hauled off to the gulag without a worldwide fuss, so they were declared insane and sent for “therapy” at psychiatric hospitals where they could be tortured in privacy. In 2005, Nikolai Skachkov, after protesting police brutality and corruption in Omsk, was forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation for “paranoia.” Investigators said he was suffering from an “acute sense of justice.” Tavistock and the Psychological Manipulation of the Masses “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organization, habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country.” — Edward Bernays, from Organizing Chaos In 1921, the 11th Duke of Bedford, Marquess of Tavistock, gave a building to what was to become the Tavistock Institute. The purpose was to examine the effect of “shellshock” on British WWI veterans and to examine the limits of human psychological endurance. Later, the Tavistock Institute in London officially became a think tank that used Freudian principles to sway the public toward certain social — some would say socialist — ideas. What began as manipulation of individual behavior was expanded to group manipulation, and then generalized to populations. Tavistock’s Brigadier General Dr. John Rawlings Rees applied this concept to warfare, including civilian populations, describing “A controlled Psychological Environment.” Now, in the 21st century, the military lingo is “perception management,” and is part of “unrestricted warfare.”