by Jeff Thompson
America seems to have forgotten what the term ‘public health’ truly means. Numerous examples of counties/cities nationwide have slapped the label of ‘threat to public health’ onto just about anything imaginable. For example:
- Racism? Yep, we can make that a public health issue. The CDC will even defend such a decision, saying that racism is dangerous to the public’s health (I wonder how they feel about communism). [source]
- We don’t view crime as a public health issue. Nope. Guns are the problem. We need to label them as a public health threat as well. [source]
- Masculinity? Yeah, we can make that a public health threat too. [source]
- Climate change? Why, yes! Absolutely! [source]
- Misinformation? Yep. [source 1 – source 2]
While you can undoubtedly see how all of this is ridiculous, let me point out the true public health threat that America has not come to terms with yet.
What happened to Primum non nocere?
First, do no harm.
Doctors and hospital administrators refusing to treat patients are the true threat to public health.
Imagine a world where doctors outright refuse to treat you because of your skin color – a world where the hospital bars your admittance to the ER based on your religious beliefs. A world where you’re not permitted to pick up your medication because you have three children with you, and humans are bad for the environment.
It sounds like a nightmarish scenario. And it should. It would be a world without justice, where human rights don’t matter, and where humans are nothing more than worms. Yet, that is the world in which we live today.
Doctors worldwide are refusing to treat patients who won’t get the Covid vaccination, regardless of the patient’s reason for doing so.
This is a hostage situation
Imagine a doctor telling you that you aren’t allowed to enter the ER for your broken arm unless you first give him a semen sample. How on earth have we allowed these types of ‘conditions’ to be attached to the reception of medical care? And no, I’m not talking about the inability to pay.
I fully understand the necessity of refusing non-necessary medical care (e.g., plastic surgery, fertility treatments, etc.) to a patient that can’t pay. Yet right now, we’re witnessing the twisting of Americans’ arms behind their backs by their own hospitals to force them into submission.
Consider Jason Valentine of Alabama, who refuses to treat non-compliant patients for anything. We’ve seen other doctors do similar elsewhere. Some hospitals are even taking patients off of organ transplant lists until they agree to accept the jab. In Washington state, the University of Washington Medical Center took a man off of the heart transplant list because he refused. The University of Alberta hospital told their patient Annette Lewis she couldn’t get her double lung transplant unless she took the jab. A woman who had a personal kidney donor was not allowed to get the transplant because of her religious objection to the vaccine.
What if doctors refuse to treat people for their lifestyle choices too?
What if doctors were allowed to choose the lifestyle choices that were acceptable to them personally when deciding which patients to treat?
Imagine if doctors throughout America put signs on their doors saying from now on, they weren’t treating patients who had sex outside of marriage? We’d have a whole lot fewer politicians getting healthcare. I can tell you that. What if tomorrow doctors decided they would no longer treat anybody who’s ever smoked a cigarette in their life? You’re a vegan? Sorry, it’s to the curb for you. You don’t support our farmers.
Wouldn’t all of those things be a “threat to public health?”
Am I the only one who sees the inconsistencies here?
It’s not just refusal. It’s the refusal to treat properly as well
Let’s say you’re sick. There is a medication out there you’ve heard has done wonders for others with your condition. It has FDA approval, it’s been widely used and studied for years, and somebody won a Nobel prize for its creation. You would like to receive this treatment for your condition. Yet the doctor says no.
For example: ivermectin.
Pete Lopez ( a Vietnam Vet) died after doctors at the Memorial Hermann Sugarland hospital refused to give him ivermectin – even after a court ordered the hospital to give it to him. Similarly, Jefferey Smith of Ohio was denied ivermectin by West Chester hospital in Ohio.
St. Luke’s Health in Texas refuses to administer ivermectin for anything other than parasitic infections now.
If sick people get better after taking ivermectin, why is there a sudden push to keep people from getting it? What is going on here?
Overall lasting consequences to the public health
Nationwide healthcare worker shortages will lead to massive logistics problems. The public will see reduced services and an increased time till care is received. Furthermore, triage will prioritize those who have complied.
Consider the case of Lewis County General Hospital in New York. It’s there that as of September 24, 2021, the hospital will no longer be delivering babies. Why? Because vaccine mandates caused many staff members to quit or accept unpaid leave for refusing to comply. Therefore, the hospital doesn’t have the staffing necessary to ensure safe deliveries. This is not the staff’s fault. It is the fault of hospital administrators, hospital boards of directors, the mainstream media, and politicians worldwide.
New York is not alone in this.
- 125 healthcare workers quit at Indiana University Health System.
- Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas forced 153 health care workers to resign, or the hospital fired them.
- 175 healthcare workers were terminated in North Carolina because they hadn’t gotten the shot.
Isn’t closing hospitals by forcing healthcare workers (who were last year touted as heroes) to participate in a medical treatment in which they did not wish a threat to public health? Isn’t it a threat to public health to close entire wings of hospitals instead of treating people?
Further threats to public health
Doctors could lose their licenses for not toeing the party line, for spreading ‘misinformation’ as the Federation of State Medical Boards recently issued this warning to medical professionals: “Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license.” [source]
Aspen Laboratories, a lab in Colorado, denied Candace Owens a Covid test due to her political beliefs.
Owens was sent a letter by Aspen Laboratories’ co-founder Suzanna Lee informing her that her “booking” was being canceled and that she would be “denied service” because of her aversion to governmental face mask mandates and her analysis of the effectiveness of vaccination shots.
“We cannot support anyone who has pro-actively worked to make this pandemic worse by spreading misinformation, politicizing, and discouraging the wearing of masks and actively dissuading people from receiving life-saving vaccinations,” Lee wrote in the letter obtained by “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
Doctors openly discuss whether or not they have any duty whatsoever to treat those who have not complied. Also, the possibility of health insurance companies raising the rates of those who refuse is a reality. Is it a threat to public health that unvaccinated people may be unable to obtain any kind of medical treatment?
What is the true threat to public health, then?
In short, we see the building of a philosophical framework for the dehumanizing of those who don’t fall in line, which will lead to a true public health crisis of its own accord in the form of a “legalized” genocide.
So, what do you think?
Is racism, masculinity, freedom, misinformation, climate change, or guns the true public health crisis? Or is the threat to public health something else entirely?
About the Author
Jeff Thompson is an avid fisherman who likes to spend time sailing on his boat and reading while at sea.