The need for respectful scientific dialogue:
A fundmental principle of science and medicine is to welcome responsible challenges to prevailing understandings and to encourage respectful scientific dialogue regarding differences of opinion. Unfortunately, to date, healthy, respectful, scientifically rigorous dialogue about COVID-19 issues has not optimally occcurred. In fact, since the beginning of the pandemic, promoters of the prevailing COVID-19 narrative have strongly discouraged scientific dialogue. Excellent scientists and physicians who have responsibly and appropriately challenged the prevailing COVID-19 narrative and its mass vaccination campaign have been summarily demonized, “debunked,” and dismissed as deplorable purveyors of harmful misinformation and disinformation.
Only one COVID-19 narrative has been allowed—the prevailing narrative espoused by the CDC, NIH, WHO, and obedient conventional media. Some scientists and physicians who have appropriatetly challenged this narrative have been censored or otherwise punished. Some have been threatened with loss of employment, loss of grant funding, or loss of licensure. Many scientists and physicians, including those at prestigious medical schools, have been afraid to voice their concerns out of fear of reprisal. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the primary promoters of the prevailing narrative and its mass vaccination campaign have shown little or no willingness to engage in desperately needed dialogue, despite urgent calls for such dialogue. Instead, their primary reaction to challenges has been silence or punishment. This behavior of the promoters of the prevailing narrative violates the above-mentioned fundamental principle of science and medicine. It also violates fundamental principles of ethics and democracy.
The need for informed consent:
Another fundamental principle of science and medicine that has been routinely violated throughout the pandemic has been the obligation of physicians to obtain true “informed consent” from individuals (subjects) before they are enrolled in any experiemental study or experimental treatment campaign (such as the mRNA vaccination campaign). Consent is not truly “informed” if adequate information is not provided to those who are being asked to consent. Throughout the pandemic, particularly since roll-out of the mass vaccination campaign, the public has not received adequate, truthful information regarding the pandemic in general and the COVID-19 vaccines in particular. A good example of this failure is the short, simplistic, and scientifically unsound message that has been routinely given to those who are being coerced (even mandated) to undergo COVID-19 vaccination. That message has been: “The COVID-19 vaccines are extremely safe and effective; it is your social duty to get vaccinated; it is selfish to remain unvaccinated; if not for yourself, get vaccinated for the sake of others; this has been a pandemic of the unvaccinated; get vaccinated now—our patience is growing thin.” That message is scientifically incorrect and abusive. That message does not conform with the principles of informed consent.
The need for critical thinking and independent clinical judgment:
A third fundamental principle of science and medicine is that scientists and physicians should use their own critical thinking skills and fund of knowledge to independently evaluate what their leadership is encouraging them to do. In other words, they are obligated to do their own homework (to the extent of their ability), rather than simply accept what their leadership is telling them. This principle serves as an important safeguard. At the very least, it provides a healthy double-check, a second opinion, regarding policies that are being promoted.
Throuhout the pandemic I have noticed that most physicians have not done a great deal of their own homework regarding COVID-19 issues. Instead, they have tended to obediently and unquestioningly accept the understandings and edicts handed down to them by “experts” and health care administrators. This is partly because physicians have been chronically so overextended with clinical work that they have had little time to do their own homework. But also, many physicians have probably felt their knowledge of immunology, virology, and vaccinology is insufficient to adequately critique the scientific merits of the prevailing narrative. In other instances, physicians have been afraid to criticise the prevailing narrative out of fear of reprisal. For whichever of these reasons, many physicians have failed to adequately do their homework and have failed to share adequate homework with their patients and the public.
The need to provide the public with scientifically sound information about COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccination campaign:
Given the above failings, I felt a need to do extensive homework about COVID-19 issues and share the results of that homework with the public. As a retired pediatric rheumatologist, I had the time, the background, and the inclination to help educate the public—particularly for the sake of children. I felt an obligation to try to fill the void created by the absence of scientific dialogue, the absence of a true “informed consent” process, and the dearth of critical and careful independent examination of the scientific merits of the prevailing narrative. The primary intentions of the articles on this website, therefore, are to stimulate and facilitate much-needed scientific dialogue about COVID-19 issues; provide scientific information that will improve the “informed consent” process; and share needed homework that many physicians have not done.
The need for an Independent Honest Objective International COVID-19 Commision:
Since the beginning of the pandemic I have called for an Independent International COVID-19 Commission of scientists and physicians to engage in honest, objective, rigorous scientific dialogue regarding complex COVID-19 issues and controversies. Such dialogue would have informed us all and would have helped everyone to better determine what information is most accurate. Unfortunately, no such Commission has been established. Instead, confusion, conflicting information, extremism, and polarization have reigned. I would have much preferred to have written articles that simply shared and explained the true scientific dialogue that took place in meetings and publications of an Independent International COVID-19 Commission. But since there has been no such Commission and no such dialogue, I have had to develop and share my own best understandings of COVID-19 issues.
The limitations of my writings:
As I have mentioned in several of my writings, what I have written simply represents my best understanding of COVID-19 issues at the time of each writing. Despite my best efforts, some of my understandings may not be entirely correct. Some of the information I have provided may, in the final analysis, prove to be incorrect. Our understanding of these complex scientific issues is a difficult, dynamic, evolving process. Accordingly, our understandings should change and improve, as more information and experience become available.
So, I want to make it clear that the articles posted on this website simply represent the scientific opinions of the author, at the time of each writing. My opinions are based on my cumulative personal experiences as a physician, my review of medical literature relevant to the COVID-19 situation, my discussions with other scientists and physicians, and my thoughtful efforts to make sense of the many complex issues involved in the COVID-19 situation. My articles represent well-intentioned but imperfect offerings that I hope will stimulate and facilitate desperately needed scientific dialogue, among scientists, physicians, public health officials, politicians, citzens, friends, and families. The goal is to inform dialogue and facilitate arrival at the best possible understanding of the COVID-19 situation.
With the above in mind, please realize that I cannot and do not guarantee that all of the information provided in my writings will prove in the final analysis to be fully accurate or complete, or will not need change (particularly as more information becomes available). The information in these articles simply represents one physician’s best understandings at the time of each writing.
The information on this website is intended for educational and discussion purposes only and should in no way replace the ongoing medical advice of your own health care provider.
The information on this website is not intended as a substitute for consultation with a licensed healthcare practitioner, such as your physician.
Before you make any changes in your health care decisions or plans, please consult your physician or another licensed healthcare practitioner to thoroughly discuss relevant information—including (only if you wish) statements, understandings, explanations, opinions, suggestions, and recommendations provided in the writings on this website. Your health care provider knows you and your medical history best. My hope is that you have a good relationship with your health care provider such that you can have a mutually respectful discussion about what treatments and recommendations are best for you.
Robert M Rennebohm, MD