A GP speaks out about the pandemic: “None of this was science as I know it!”
- beyondthemainstream
- Feb 19, 2022
- 11 min read
Updated: Nov 22, 2022
Dr Dave Cartland, MBChB GP BMedSci (Hons), completed a Biomedical science degree in 2004 gaining first-class honours - with a large component of this reading in immunology, virology, microbiology and medical statistics. He then graduated from Birmingham Medical school in 2008 and qualified as a GP in 2014. He has just resigned, over the government, media and NHS handling of COVID.
Independent data analyst, Joel Smalley, recently published Dr Cartland’s social media posts on his Substack blog. Here is an abridged version of the article:
Death certification
…very early on, death certification changed, and all the safeguarding related to a second ‘part 2’ Doctor verifying events around death to come to agreement about what we call the medical certificate of cause of death (MCCD), was over-ruled.
Over time I started to see patients’ death certificates coming through in patients that were generally severely unwell with multiple comorbidities as MCCD 1 (a) COVID-19, the main cause of death felt by the doctor or coroner.
When looking at the notes, I was seeing when they had been admitted to hospital, they had clearly ‘entered the building’ having been unwell with other things… cancer related issues, end stage COPD exacerbations or renal failure, broken bones, strokes, heart issues…
All it seemed to take was the mere mention of ‘cough’ by a relative (a common symptom around the time of anyone’s death) the MCCD would be confirmed-COVID-19! This was happening with alarming regularity.
PCR tests
It is commonly accepted that when using PCR, you have to set a cycle number of amplification. The agreed limit to get a good amplification and reducing false positive ‘signal’ is 20-25, depending which data you look at. To go over and above this cycle threshold yields very high percentage of false detection.
40-45 cycles have been used as standard throughout the pandemic. Consider this in simple terms as a game of Chinese whispers - in the amplification process translation errors commonly occur in the decoding process and an early error will pass through to the next and subsequent cycles. Just like Chinese whispers, the initial message after 45 people may be very different to the original word in the game/PCR sample compared to 25. Again, warning signals.
Deaths within 28 days…
The medical statistics being used were and are still vague, such as ‘death within 28 days of a positive covid test’ - about as nebulous as you can get for such key figures important in a worldwide pandemic. [They] seemed to be being purposefully blurred.
It certainly didn’t seem good medicine to report a person in intensive care for example that has died of a PE secondary to his elective total hip replacement and passing away from this, as a ‘COVID 19’ death, due to asymptomatic positive screening - this just didn’t add up!
For medics, even now simplified data is hard to find, with guidance ever changing almost weekly. Finding straightforward data - e.g., how many of those 150,000 recently surpassed deaths were actually FROM …not WITH COVID-19 - seem impossible to lay hands on. Surely for such an inherently important statistic, clarity should be paramount, particularly in order to counsel our patients and risk assess for ourselves as independent practitioners.
Asymptomatic diagnosis and transmission
It sounds very basic to say this, but to have a medical condition or to be called a ‘case’, one must satisfy a basic criterion… you must have symptoms and the presence/evidence of the disease like a scan or a test.
However, in the case of COVID-19, people were being told something I have never heard before in my career. You can be a ‘case’, a dangerous ‘threat to your gran’ without even having a symptom. A dangerous spreader of the virus without so much as a sneeze. The hallowed ‘asymptomatic carriage’ (AC).
Viruses cannot live very long at all outside of a human cell, as they are fully dependent on human cellular machinery that they borrow to allow them to reproduce.
If you have a virus, particularly a SARS-type respiratory tract virus, you KNOW you have a virus, whether it’s a sniffle, aches, pain - but still not AC.
The AC fallacy use that has driven fear into our society as we mask up, avoid others, keep our 2 metres and decide not to visit our elderly relatives is implausible. Aside from that, the collateral harm from all the psychological physical and social/economic harm is a ludicrous idea in the face of such a lie.
I saw an advert that could only be described as propaganda and misinformation, where a family were all mixing inside the house and small black particles of virus were pouring passively from all of the family members mouths into each other’s faces in a bid to promote space and window opening.
I couldn’t believe my eyes.
Respiratory viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are known to spread by aerosol generation i.e., ‘coughs and sneezes spread diseases!’ - not by asymptomatic carriers. I may be speculating here, but I personally feel asymptomatic ‘carriers’ are mislabelled false positives.
None of this was science as I know it!
When does the harm to patients for such damage become an important denominator? From fear of seeing the GP, delayed cancer diagnosis, bottle-necking of NHS services/inflation of waiting lists, palpable mental health distress, social issues such as poverty and loneliness the list is endless? Surely to allow all of this as a trade-off, the threat needs to be ‘bubonically’ high, and the risk of treatment low to allow such measures to become acceptable.
COVID-19 cases and deaths higher among the vaccinated
I took a short look at the data from my own surgery (admittedly low numbers) to try to spot a trend. I counted 102 ’cases’ of positives in the first two weeks results and traced their vaccine status.
In that 2 weeks, 94.1% of the patients were treble or double jabbed (mostly treble) and just 2% unvaccinated. The next week, 100% of the 38 patients were double or treble jabbed, zero unvaccinated.
I decided to see what was happening nationally, using UK and Scotland gov.uk surveillance figures, and was startled to find similar findings. In one study, initially looking at just positive cases in UK, the dataset showed 89.7% percent positive results over a three-week period for treble vaccinated v 3.7% for unvaccinated. Even with a lower proportion of unvaccinated people as a percentage of the total population, these percentages were too far apart.
A recent Scottish data set (weeks 1 and 2 of 2022) where 28% of the total Scottish population were unvaccinated and 72% vaccinated showed (roughly speaking), outcomes of the parameters of 1) positive test 2) admission to hospital and 3) death was seen to be represented by 80% of the total numbers in treble vaccinated status whereas only 20% were unvaccinated in proportion.
Why were people vaccinated for a disease going on to die in a ratio of 4:1 from the disease they were trebly protected from!! Alarm bells ringing… again.
Study after study, data set after data set, seemed to come to the conclusion that the vaccinated group seemed to be at higher risks of catching COVID-19 despite full vaccination status - and have higher admission rates and death.
[See the figures for COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths among adults in England, vaccinated versus unvaccinated, up to 27th March 2022:]
Benefit v risk being ignored
Alongside phenomena discussed above, I was starting to see flickers of what I am calling ‘signals of harm’. At this time, I felt slightly isolated professionally as no one would seemingly enter deep debate on the subject, offer alternative explanations for data, evidence of safety - all at the same time as hearing from the government that the vaccine was ‘absolutely safe’ in children and pregnant women, under the guise of adverts with the headline ‘the best way to protect yourself from Omicron is to be treble vaccinated’.
This didn’t seem true to me.
To accept a medical treatment of any description you have to weigh the benefit v risk of the treatment v the disease. Recent plethora of data sets show that multiple comorbidities go hand in hand with high risk of death or serious adverse outcome, in addition to age and immunosuppression.
Rolling the Jab out to anyone in the world over 5 didn’t seem to take into account the individual’s personal risk - the smoking 80 year-old diabetic and the fit, well, 20 year-old sportsman have completely different risk profiles for becoming unwell from COVID. Why was this not being extrapolated and why were we jabbing people with a treatment they simply DO NOT NEED?
Vaccine adverse events
In just one week:
I saw a terrible case of a very fit gentleman who, two days after his vaccine, was suddenly unable to move his hands and feet and became swollen, a reactive arthritis, coming inexplicably on without any prior rheumatological history.
A couple I did a home visit on came out with a most bizarre skin rash, with large ulcers appearing widespread to the body - the like of which I have never seen! - again within a week of the jab and no prior history of skin problems.
I had a bizarre conversation with a medical registrar who advised me that a patient needed to commence anticoagulation for a clot on his brain which was triggered by his sinus inflammation seen on the MRA scan. The gentleman advised me he had never so much as sneezed in his life. He had his jab 4-5 days prior.
And then the worst, two 40-year-old female patients without significant medical history both died within 1-2 weeks of the jab from MCCD VITT (vaccine induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia) - catastrophic clotting to multiple systems. The coroner had obviously attributed this to the jab.
I was reading and hearing on official media that reactions were extremely rare, but I was wondering how rare does rare have to be for it not to become common? Everyone seemed to know someone who had fallen foul. I looked on the yellow card reporting system and VAERS, but the incidence of what I was seeing from experience didn’t match the data from these resources and seemed understated.
I saw an article today from MHRA data, which showed huge increases in reaction to the COVID jab across all manufacturers at unprecedented scale compared to any other previous jab ever.
I eventually wrote a post asking for people to contact me personally on social media. In the last 48h I have personally had over 200 DMs with personal stories of post-vaccine injury reaction and even deaths.
Aside from this, more worrying observations from different arenas. Reports of footballers dropping like flies; numerous tennis stars falling ill during games; pilots dying in never-before-seen numbers; the USA just reported an increase in life insurance claims by up to 40% in last 3 months; funeral directors and doctors going public on unprecedented young folk ‘dropping dead’ and post-mortems of VTE causation; increased numbers of referrals for uterine cancer - the list goes on.
And not a word from the mainstream media. If it’s all coincidence, then where is the debate, where are the scientists calling it out and debunking such ‘conspiracy theories’?
Censorship
By now it has become clear, one mantra, one narrative: Vaccine, Vaccine, Vaccine.
No discussion of potential harm and suppression of alternative treatments with some solid medical grounding - e.g., zinc/ivermectin/Vitamin D data - with no apparent push to offer general advice on this as ‘COVID prophylaxis’, if you like.
To debate and seek evidence-based medicine or to offer alternative viewpoint or to even speak freely - a right that was fought hard for - seem to have succumbed to censorship.
Who better to speak about the mRNA technology being used than Dr Robert Malone, the very experienced and humble scientist who had a huge role in its research and application in vaccine technology. Not debated, simply deleted and platform removed – because of a concern from the ‘inventor’ that there are risks associated (to hugely understate his viewpoint). This is a view I would clearly like to give credibility and time to, and would wish to hear his voice.
Dr Mike Yeadon, Dr Peter McCullough and so many eminent and qualified doctors and scientists, all vastly qualified, published and relevant to the COVID debate given their credentials, are limited to backstreet media platforms and underground presentation of their opinion [because they are] in opposition of the major narrative.
This is unprecedented in my career!
Informed consent
Valid consent involves speaking to a patient about the full benefit of a treatment but also to be open and honest about the risk, to enable concordance - a mutual agreement between patient and doctor to enable a plan of action going forward.
For consent to be valid it must be fully informed. And even if I don’t agree with a patient, as long as they have capacity, they are equally allowed to disregard your treatment despite your advice.
Coercion of an NHS member of staff to take a medical treatment against their will is simply and by anyone’s definition blackmail. From another perspective it is in breach of the Nuremberg code and law: Public Health Act 1984 45 (C).
There is severe lack when it comes to some of the ‘consenting’ I have witnessed in clinical practice. Every human has a right to their own bodily autonomy. To give someone a treatment they refuse, or to force physically or emotionally is considered assault and battery in law. To disagree with bodily autonomy and valid consent goes against the good medical practice that the GMC encourages us to follow.
Simply asking a patient if they know they are here for their second COVID jab, a brief check on contraindications and… Stab… into the arm it goes… is NOT valid consent (I won’t mention the lack of drawing back on the syringe to check it’s not in a blood vessel prior to administration used in all other IM injections).
Even on the conveyor belt of mass vaccination clinics, this is just not good enough. People are completely unaware that in that small amount of fluid injected, lies mRNA material that encodes a virus’s genetic message in a variety of different transport media - e.g liposome coat - and has never before been rolled out outside of clinical trial. Neither were they aware that it is being used under an emergency use authorisation (EUA) like a ‘needs must’ legal waiver; neither do they know that the major producers of the vaccine have taken indemnity from prosecution for all current and future harm under the EUA running for many decades yet to come.
I could go on.
Yellow Card reporting of adverse events
Given the jab’s roll out being a clinical trial, why was it not made clear from the outset about how to report adverse events? This is just simply bad medical practice, however coincidental or frivolous it may turn out to be. Surveillance of benefit is important, but surveillance of harm/risk should be in equal measure.
I have seen a multitude of blank faces and ‘what’s a yellow card’ when asked if they have reported their relative’s reaction to the government scheme. Even the ones who have, didn’t persevere due to complexity or time constraints.
Data is becoming apparent on the vastness of this underreporting of post vaccination adverse events/death with blind eyes being turned left, right and centre. These incidences are swiftly debunked by the medic or swept straight under the carpet in every hospital and surgery.
Medical confidentiality
Confidentiality is the cornerstone of medical practice. To speak of a clinical discussion outside the confines of the clinic room is a breaking of such confidentiality. A patient’s medical history is private!
This seems to have been ignored, particularly in the media, and among colleagues ‘off with covid’ and/or ‘their vaccine status’. You only have to switch BBC TV or Sky Sports News to hear about the latest COVID positive actor, politician or sports player.
Do you ever remember switching on the TV and hearing about David Beckham’s orthopaedic history? But it’s ok to reveal Cristiano Ronaldo’s Covid status/shielding regime? Public figure or not, confidentiality is paramount.
mRNA ‘vaccines’
Prior to this pandemic, mRNA [vaccines] had never been passed as being safe or effective for human use.
Play this back for a second… we are giving you a jab of fluid, a novel treatment, that will be absorbed into your human cell, using human cell machinery to transcribe that code into a protein (which is how genes are expressed). A protein that is viral in origin and design. Not only that, but a cytotoxic spike protein that will induce an immune response in a way never used before.
I fully expect the same number of sleeves would not have been rolled up in knowledge of the above.
- END -
Click on the image blow to read the full article on Substack:
Comments