Dr. Steve Karp writes at the American Thinker about issues raised by dubious COVID-19 policies.

Until recently, the practice of medicine was based more on science, less on science fiction. Even when science fiction acted as foreshadowing, hard evidence was required to turn fiction into non-fiction.

We are told to practice evidence-based medicine. However, evidence today has taken a back seat to wishful thinking — or is it an agenda? …

… Are we practicing evidence-based medicine when mandating what is not a vaccine, as the CDC defines? If this were a vaccine, it would directly stimulate the immune system. It would protect the injected from the disease. It would not claim to protect others from the disease. It would not be in use while mutations arise. What we have does what it should not do and does not do what it should. …

… The public does not know what it does not know. By not disclosing potential medical effects, people can never give informed consent. By not advising the public of useful preventative actions, of effective anti-viral treatments, or the importance of monitoring for treatment response if treatment needs an adjustment, malpractice at least in the general sense is inflicted on everyone injected. …

… So here we have X, who has an actual undiagnosed and potentially fatal condition, especially as time goes by without treatment, mandated to undergo injection of a concoction of chemicals, not yet fully disclosed, with unknown long-term effects, for the theoretical risk of contracting a mild viral disease, the endpoint studied.

Keep in mind that spreading the virus was not studied, true vaccines are not by definition used to protect others, and only 10% of the population has tested positive for the virus, or something, by a test that is to be withdrawn by year’s end. …

… Question: Do you get a measles vaccine if you had the measles? Of course not. Why? The measles virus is stable, and once infected, you have resistance. Is the coronavirus stable? No.