One of my relatives (who is unaware of this blog) excitedly gave me a book yesterday that she told me I had to read.
After I read it, I realized it had a few things going for it which necessitated discussing it with an audience that is already well versed in this subject.
First and foremost, the format in which the book (at least the paper version) is presented makes it an excellent gift (I wish I had realized this sooner than Christmas eve). Since the topic of vaccination is quite complicated and requires dispelling many flawed narratives, there’s no way to get around that problem without a lot of densely packed text—I’ve written over 400,000 words here and I still have only scratched the surface of what I feel needs to be discussed on the vaccine topic…..
Cause Unknown solves this problem by being tightly packed with provocative color images that tell the same story again and again and again—a lot of people started to die suddenly or became disabled in a completely unexpected way immediately after the COVID vaccines entered the market. This is an excellent approach because it’s simple enough for people to process without getting overwhelmed by the complexity, and it repeatedly provides the human face to these tragedies so people can relate to them rather than disassociating into its overwhelming details and technicalities.
Thanks for reading The Forgotten Side of Medicine! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
A month ago, I wrote a review of Died Suddenly which ended up being one of the most popular articles written here due to its explanation for the mechanism behind the clots the producers used to explain the cause of these unprecedented sudden deaths. I believe this review provides a valuable reference point for Cause Unknown’s strengths.
My review of Died Suddenly was mixed. On one hand, I felt that the documentary does an excellent job bridging the current gap we are now struggling with; we have reached the point where there is overwhelming data against the vaccines but many people are still on the fence about them—in essence, facts no longer matter; all that matters is how persuasive each message is. Died Suddenly in turn was able to put forward some extremely persuasive points that shocked those on the fence into taking a position on this issue.
Unfortunately, a decent amount of what was in Died Suddenly was also a poison pill for closing the deal and making those it influenced stop supporting the narrative.
Specifically Died Suddenly:
•Had insufficient editorial oversight, and a significant amount of easy-to-disprove false information made it into the film.
•It went overboard with conspiracy references that were not necessary to prove the central point.
Because of these poison pills, many were led to believe the idea people were dying suddenly following the COVID vaccine campaigns was simply the product of conspiracy theorists’ irrational confirmation bias. I suspected this would mean the ultimate result of that documentary would be to make “died suddenly” disappear from Google news searches (the fact that you could find many cases of people dying suddenly there was what started the died suddenly meme). While my prediction was true and remains the case in general searches, it seems to have stopped affecting the news searches since people are still dying suddenly but no more fact-checks are being written about Died Suddenly.
Cause Unknown takes a different tactic. By painting the same picture over and over (in a well-presented format) and not going a step further by inserting conspiratorial poison pills, it provides a much more persuasive argument for those on the fence.
For example, I believe it is quite likely the vaccines were designed to reduce the population. This is because:
•There has been a fixation for centuries in the Western leadership of their sacred duty to control the population, and there are many examples of that leadership engaging in highly unethical population control operations (documented here).
•Governments around the Western world cannot fund the retirements (e.g. pensions or social security) and medical care of the elderly they are committed to funding.
•Vaccines have been seen as the ideal method for population control due to the widespread faith in them and their feasibility of deployment (many other attempted population control measures have failed on this front). For this reason, there have been decades of research into developing sterilizing vaccines and multiple examples of them being covertly forced upon third-world citizens (documented here).
•There were serious design concerns with the vaccines potentially affecting fertility (e.g., qualified experts sent a detailed petition to the EMA in 2020 to stop the vaccines on these grounds). These warnings were ignored and the vaccines were instead mandated on pregnant women and women of childbearing age.
•After the vaccines came out, it was discovered through a Japanese FOIA that their lipid nanoparticles accumulated in the ovaries (which is a red flag for fertility) and that menstrual abnormalities were one of the most common side effects of the vaccines. Pregnant women and women of childbearing age were nonetheless still mandated to receive the vaccines.
•Since the time the vaccines came out, there has been a sustained increase in deaths amongst those not expected to die alongside an even more important reduction in fertility (concisely documented here).
Unfortunately, while this is extremely concerning (thus why I made the sustained effort to present the case it is happening), regardless of the evidence presented, if I were to tell the above to many people, they would simply shut down and tell me to stop spreading conspiracy theories.
Dowd’s approach instead is to:
•Present indisputable evidence a huge problem has emerged no one has an explanation for and leave it to the reader to connect the dots over why no one is investigating it (especially since it represents an existential threat to many financial firms). This avoids the catch-22 we run into of any possible explanation for what is happening appearing to be “too conspiratorial” and thus causing many to close their minds to the entire topic.
•Make the information short and to the point so the average reader can keep track of all of it.
•Focus on the financial aspect (a lot of people are dying which will have catastrophic costs for many sectors of the economy), a message with universal appeal. Everyone cares about financial data (people tend to assume the market will show the truth and no one wants to be on the losing end of an investment trend). More importantly, people in power (who, because of the systemic corruption in our system, are best positioned to change things) sadly tend to care much more about losing money than human lives, so this is the argument most likely to persuade them.
Additionally, unlike Died Suddenly, a lot of work appears to have been done to vet the content of Cause Unknown (e.g., an excellent decision was made to provide verification QR codes for every tragic sudden death story that was provided). Since I have been extensively researching this topic for the last year, I had previously dissected many of the references Dowd’s team utilized for the book and was only able to identify one error in it (Becker’s afterword stated that 25% of FDA approved drugs are later pulled from the market; while quite a few have been, the figure is not this high). Writing here has taught me just how difficult it is to properly vet references, so I commend the work that went into obtaining that degree of accuracy.
Note: Died Suddenly was released immediately before Cause Unknown. Because of the poison pills, Died Suddenly put forward, I can only imagine how frustrating its release must have been for Edward Dowd.
What Other Lessons Can We Learn From Cause Unknown?
Previously I wrote two articles here which expand on two of the key themes of the book and I believe are valuable references for those who wish to learn more about the topics raised by this book.
The first is that whenever a catastrophic disease emerges as a result of an environmental toxin (or societal behavioral change) if the government does not want to acknowledge it (either because that would require them to admit fault or because too much money is made from keeping the cause on the market) two things will typically happen.
Initially, all authoritative sources will deny the event is happening. Then, once the problem has persisted for a while and people have become habituated to it, the problem will be recast as a syndrome with an unknown cause (or to an alternative cause such as long-COVID).
By following this approach, it makes it possible to dissipate the public’s focus from the initial cause and protect the responsible parties. Because much of what has happened with sudden adult death syndrome mirrors what has happened with many previous syndromes, I felt this was important to discuss:
Secondly, while the deaths from these vaccines are a horrific tragedy, there has been much less recognition of the much larger number of people who have been disabled by them. This represents both a catastrophic cost to our economy and a nearly incomprehensible degree of suffering for the vaccine injured. This subject was further discussed here:
Cause Unknown also touches upon a critically important lesson Dowd has discussed further in other interviews which was recently brought to my attention by Emily Oster’s disingenuous plea for amnesty.
That article ruffled enough feathers that someone actually paid for this
Oster’s central argument was that the COVID Cultists needed to be forgiven for their actions because much about COVID was unknown and those who forced the pandemic policies on us (e.g., lockdowns and vaccines) were doing the best they could with the information available. I disagreed with her argument because the information was known if you looked for it, and more importantly, because imperfect information has never been a valid excuse for catastrophic failures in leadership.
The second point is arguably more important than the first and illustrates many of the shortcomings in the current direction of our society.
To succeed in most systems, assuming you do not get lucky (e.g., win the lottery), you need to do one of the following:
1. Abide by the rules of the system and perfectly conform to its process.
2. Consistently demonstrate a high level of competence and ingenuity.
The second option is the only one that can create the innovations necessary for creating wealth and strengthening the community or country that implements it. Conversely, I believe the first option can only succeed if a monopoly already exists that prevents any type of genuine competition from existing in the marketplace (which would otherwise result in the best option being naturally selected for).
In most fields, the majority of participants will be willing to work hard to succeed, but they will not be willing to take risks or break away from the herd and act differently from everyone else. Dowd’s method of investing has been to recognize when unusual trends began in the stock market, verify there was a legitimate basis for the trend, and then take a risk to invest in it. This approach worked, and because of its success, he gained an impressive reputation in the financial circles (it is not easy to become Blackrock’s portfolio manager).
What is particularly noteworthy in Dowd’s story is that when he made these calls, most investors would make up excuses to avoid taking the same risks Dowd did and dismiss the existence of the trend he identified. Instead, they would only be willing to “take the risk” once everyone had gotten on the bandwagon to invest in the stock and most of the growth that could occur in the stock had already happened (thus preventing the bandwagoners from making much money).
While I have not worked in the financial sector, I have found that for the fields I’ve participated in, the majority of people will also want to conform to the existing methodology everyone else is using, even if it’s very clear that approach yields a poor outcome and an out-of-the-box (but “risky”) approach is much more likely to yield a superior result. One of the most eye-opening experiences for me after I entered the medical profession was seeing how similar the devotion to flawed but orthodox approaches I had observed in the competitive gaming community was to what I saw in the medical field. Most doctors were simply unwilling to consider unorthodox treatment strategies until a significant number of their peers had already adopted them.
In my eyes, the only reason why this can perpetuate is because the medical industry has a profound monopoly over the practice of medicine. The only way an inferior but highly lucrative product can take over the medical marketplace is if any competing therapy (e.g., one that is cheaper and more effective) is outlawed from the market. Since the entire medical industry revolves around ensuring the scalability of the current medical cash cow (scalability in medicine and how it relates to treating vaccine injuries is discussed further here). Once you learn to look for them, over and over, you will observe events like the egregious suppression of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to protect the dangerous, but lucrative drug remdesivir occurring.
The net result of this monopolization is our nation spending more and more each year here while settling for very little in return. Currently, one-fifth of all the money spent in the U.S. goes to healthcare, but the U.S. is typically ranked last when the healthcare outcomes of each nation are compared.
This model is also reflected within the medical field by the focus of physicians frequently defaulting to doing what the guideline driven medicine insurance companies require for reimbursement (or their administrators' mandate to increase reimbursements). Doctors typically follow the standard operating procedures they have been taught rather than taking “risks” by following an unorthodox approach to help a patient they know is unlikely to benefit from the conventional approach.
This mentality was best illustrated by COVID-19 where most physicians were content to just offer everyone Tylenol in the ER, send them home, wait for the patient to become critically ill, put them on oxygen, eventually ventilate them once supplemental oxygen no longer appeared to suffice, and then lament that nothing could be done once those patients inevitably died. Since the government provided large reimbursements for following this deadly approach (and other subsequent ones like providing remdesivir) there was no motivation to look for a better approach. Most (but fortunately not all) physicians in turn were extremely resistant to considering alternative treatment options (even when begged to by family members of patients expected to die).
My best guess is that this mentality arises from the educational system (discussed further here). Over the decades, its focus has shifted from encouraging critical thinking (which encourages taking risks and creates a meritocracy) to training the intellectual members of society to rigidly conform to the system in return for a steady paycheck. Because of this, you will encounter many people like Emily Oster or the frequently ridiculed ex-Twitter employees who fail to produce anything of value but whose employment remains subsidized because they uphold the current orthodoxies.
In turn, this systemic subsidizing of poor performance in accordance with the current institutional inertia kills most of the incentive to take risks. Those risks are important since they create the policies that can lead to better and often necessary outcomes (the most consequential example I know of for conformity at the expense of performance is what regularly transpires throughout the Federal government).
Unfortunately, instead of encouraging our citizens to effectively navigate uncertainty, we have a situation like that illustrated by Oster where the current generation feels entitled to have a clear and defined path to follow with only one right (but typically suboptimal) choice.
Similarly, consider the current state of governance. Many profound failures in leadership can only be prevented by taking risks at times when the existing information is not fully known and threatening entrenched interests that do not want to change a dysfunctional status quo. Yet, if a leader performs abysmally but has the support of the vested financial interests by prioritizing their needs above everyone else, the media will support the leader and by monopolizing the marketplace of ideas is able to prop up the leader up regardless of their failures in leadership.
In medicine, I see many of the same issues created by our universities emerge. Some of the more depressing changes I’ve observed in recent years with medical students is them demanding that every problem they encounter folds neatly into a perfect little box (they will actively challenge the fairness of anything with an element of ambiguity) and an increased hostility to things which fail to conform to the current medical or political narrative.
In December 2019, I recognized that an unprecedented trend had started and COVID-19 had a high likelihood of turning into a global catastrophe. Then in January 2020, I publicly went on record about this. Yet, when I tried to explain these issues to my colleagues (even just basic things like the need to stock up on protective equipment), I was met with disbelief and told SARS could never enter the United States (my only colleague who agreed had independently reached the same conclusion). Since I am familiar with the psychology of my profession, I expected this response, but I nonetheless spoke out in the hope it would build the trust that would be needed in the near future.
Two months later, I watched many of those same doctors adopt the COVID hysteria and lament the fact that the protective equipment they desperately needed was unavailable and that there was no way to treat this catastrophic condition. Hoping they would listen to me since I had been the only one to warn them of COVID-19, I then shared the best therapeutic options I had uncovered from my previous three months of research. Although a few were now open to listening, most still refused to consider what I presented as there were no guidelines nor sufficient evidence to support taking the risk I was proposing to save patients expected to otherwise die.
Next year, when the vaccines came out, I immediately recognized something I had not anticipated was occurring; the rate of injury I was encountering for the vaccines was orders of magnitude above what I had previously observed for any other vaccine (I expected them to be unsafe and ineffective, but nothing on the scale of what I observed). I extrapolated what this trend would likely lead to, found the preliminary evidence to support it, and warned my colleagues I had engaged on the subject of COVID-19 over the last year.
Once it became clear the completely unprecedented propaganda campaign for the vaccines had hypnotized most of my colleagues, I switched my focus to doing what I felt I could still do. I documented every injury I came across so I could have proof to show to colleagues and friends who were on the fence about the vaccines (that compilation later played a key role in launching this substack) and shifted my focus to identifying ways to treat the coming tsunami of non-fatal vaccine injuries.
Dowd and many of the other well-known faces in this movement throughout their interviews have disclosed a very similar experience to my own; they anecdotally recognized an extremely concerning trend was emerging, verified it was real and then broke from the safety of the herd to warn everyone about what was happening. What makes Dowd’s case unique is that while medicine is largely controlled by entrenched financial interests that allow monopolies with poor outcomes to be sustained, the financial world still adheres to natural selection (Dowd in turn has seen the collective psychology we are observing with the current vaccine bubble play out in the past with many other infamous bubbles like this one).
Because of this, I believe Dowd’s unique perspective from being a highly successful contrarian in the markets provides a credibility that would not be afforded to a physician able to obtain similar outcomes in medicine (e.g., consider the relatively unknown case of Paul Marik, one of the most respected physicians in his field who was then fired and blacklisted from all future employment because he developed a protocol which saved many patients otherwise expected to die from COVID-19).
Medicine is hard to relate to (people thus often defer to experts instead of trying to understand a complex topic). Finance is much simpler, money is money and everyone can recognize who was able to make it (whereas in medicine we can arbitrarily make metrics the public takes on faith that prove whatever is currently needed by the industry).
For those of you wishing to know more about Dowd’s experiences and how his team compiled the data that has gradually made Wall Street lose its confidence in the vaccines, much of it is discussed in this recent interview:
It is my hope that Cause Unknown will eventually be made into a brief documentary as I feel its current written presentation is already very close to what many of us had hoped Died Suddenly could have been (it is highly persuasive and has no poison pills that make it inadvisable to send to relatives).
This has been a difficult year for many of us (the epidemic of vaccine deaths is a very challenging subject to broach), and I hope the upcoming holiday can be a time for us to all come together and remember what the most important things in life are.
In closing, I want to restate how much I sincerely appreciate the support each of you has provided for my work this year. As a small token of my appreciation, I’d like to share one of my favorite Christmas songs with each of you. I wish the rest of the year treats each of you well and it is my hope that far more positive things are on the horizon in 2023 as it seems many larger forces (e.g., institutional investors and public opinion) are finally starting to move against the COVID vaccines.
Thanks for reading The Forgotten Side of Medicine! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
I sent out the wrong draft in the email. I apologize for the typos there; they have now been corrected.
You are doing mankind an incredible service. Thank you. There is still a lot of good in this world. And it’s worth fighting for.