• Nathan Riley, MD

The One About the C19 Injection

Several months ago, I wrote an essay, the thesis of which was that in response to a reportedly scary new virus called SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (C19), a willingness to comply with prolonged lock-downs and to forsake human connection has been a reflection of our society's apprehension to accept our own mortality. I did this by illustrating the ways in which the medical establishment manages birth and death, as if death is the ultimate bad outcome and as if bad outcomes in birth - a fortunately rare but expected feature of being human - are the ultimate failures of Western medicine. Given the lack of information around C19 at that time, I had hoped that my essay would serve as an appeal to the masses to consider just what we were putting at risk if we continued on such an undiscerning path. This essay is a follow-up, as much more information has come to light.


Before I get into the weeds, I keep asking myself: does the world need yet another C19 essay? In short yes, I think that essays from critically-thinking physicians are vital right now, as we all need to be reminded that there is real power in standing behind your truth and doing what is right.

In a world teeming with narratives and counter-narratives, everybody seems to be simultaneously lost and found. Maybe this should not be surprising given the political dichotomy at the heart of the media narrative around C19, but picking a side - red versus blue, vax versus anti-vax, mask versus unmask - is no longer sufficient given what is at stake. If health care professionals like physicians and midwives want to be treated as scientists, then they must remember what it means to act like scientists, the primary condition being a willingness to ask hard questions and explore truth. After all, is not a willingness to ask questions and change our practices based on the answers the very attribute that sets us apart from technicians? (If I have already lost your interest, please skip to the very bottom.)

Apart from the media narrative, an additional deep challenge that we face is what has evolved as an utter failure of the scientific literature at large. While prestigious medical journals are being bought off by Big Pharma, the formal study of natural therapeutics is practically nonexistent, as natural compounds cannot be patented and research costs cannot be recouped. Institutional pressures to produce interesting results through the development of synthetic, novel therapeutics furthermore leads to all sorts of data manipulation. These realities have made navigation of the C19 pandemic extra difficult, even for us scientists.

Admittedly, the early days of this pandemic gave me fright. Some people were getting very sick before dying on life support. The most susceptible - the elderly and those with chronic medical illness - comprised the vast majority of these deaths. By late summer, C19 positive tests continued to climb, but stories of cold storage trucks parked behind hospitals vanished as deaths went on the decline. Restrictions like social distancing and masking held strong, though, as the fear of future waves had already sunken its teeth. Months later, in the words of my friend and colleague, Jennifer Summerfeldt, a maternal health counselor living in British Columbia, "It is as if everyone is under a spell."

Given the urgency in 2020 of a concerted global effort against what originally seemed like a scary contagion, it was a shocking insult to those of us who hailed evidence-based medicine to see The Lancet - likely the most prestigious medical journal on the planet - publish a study claiming to have evaluated the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, a proposed therapeutic for C19, in over 90,000 people worldwide, which would have been an incredible feat of research. This study was published in May, 2020, then retracted shortly thereafter when The Lancet issued an apology for the fraudulent publication.

If the world's most prestigious journals are publishing fraudulent data, how can we be sure that our governments are executing reasonable policies to protect us given that they are presumably guided by these journals?

My family has chosen not to receive the C19 vaccine. First off, my family experienced natural infection from C19 back around Thanksgiving. It is unreasonable to suggest that a person receive a vaccine after recovering from the viral illness against which the vaccine is meant to protect. Second, this new vaccine technology was not passed through the vigorous safety trials that most other medical devices are forced to overcome before approval by the FDA. To help you further understand why we did not get the vaccine, what follows is my assessment of the C19 situation so far. Like I said, there is no doubt that many people were getting very sick over the first half of 2020. What is most challenging for me is the narrative that ensued thereafter, which seems at best misleading and at worst nefarious.

The following list is by no means comprehensive, and I will modify it if more convincing evidence comes my way:

  • C19 is far less deadly than we originally thought, at least for those who screen positive with a nasal swab.

  • People who are getting very sick or dying during this pandemic either cannot take care of themselves, choose not to take care of themselves, or are elderly. And I am not convinced that it is an infection that is the biggest culprit of these deaths. Perhaps we are finally suffering the dire consequences of our toxin-laden environment?

  • We also fail to realize just how devastating isolation from people and the outdoors can be for our health, particularly for the elderly and those with anxiety and depression. I would also be remiss not to mention these effects on childhood development, but that is a different conversation for a different time.

  • Living in a state of fear is likely just as potent a poison as any harmful substance we find in nature. Stress delays wound healing, promotes inflammation, and makes you more susceptible to infections.

  • C19's genome has never been sequenced. Sequencing would require purification and isolation of the virus, and this has not been done. As a matter of fact, Koch's or River's postulates have never been satisfied in demonstrating microbial transmission as the cause for any disease as far as I am aware. This is the cornerstone of the germ theory of disease, leaving many people at long last paying more attention to terrain theory (i.e. lifestyle factors to maintain healthspan)

  • Because C19 has not been sequenced, a reliable RT-PCR test could not have been developed.

  • Even if we could develop an adequate RT-PCR test, this technology was not developed for the purpose of universal screening for a respiratory illness in asymptomatic people. Furthermore, this technology is unreliable as the result can be manipulated by ramping up the number of amplification cycles until you find a positive result. Then, once you do, it is not clear if that positive result reflects that the target nucleic acid is derived from your own cells or a foreign invader (i.e. virus) because the C19 genome was never sequenced in the first place.

  • Given that we began screening all persons for the C19 virus with RT-PCR regardless of their symptoms, it is my opinion that many deaths were wrongfully attributed to C19. For example, imagine a person who is enrolled in hospice for oxygen-dependent heart failure, severe kidney disease, and alcoholism presents to a hospital with shortness of breath. If he were to die in the coming days and a C19 RT-PCR is positive for C19, I would argue that he died with C19 not of C19.

  • There has not been a single quality study that has demonstrated the utility of masks or social distancing in the spread of viral illness.

  • Since wide adoption of germ theory in the 19th century, medical scientists have myopically focused on outside invaders like bacteria and viruses as the cause of many terrible diseases, ignoring research like that of Dr. Charles Campbell, who hung around smallpox patients and their open vesicles, yet finding no evidence of the spread of the disease through coughing or touching.

  • Policies were put into place in 2020 that forced small businesses to close due to the perception that this would protect consumers. Meanwhile, heart disease continues to claim far more lives than other causes yet legislation has never been put into place to reduce advertising or access to Coca-Cola or McDonald's. The former brand is valued at $84 billion; the latter at $123 billion.

  • A packet of genetic material protected within a protein envelope sounds a lot like (and looks a lot like) an "exosome", and this schematic doubly describes an elegant way in which all biological organisms or cells can intercommunicate, whether the cells of the human body (via the circulatory or lymphatic systems) or the trees in a forest (via mycorrhizae and mycelial networks). Perhaps the transmission of a "virus" is a signal from the environment about an impending stress. Our cells could universally accept the script to upgrade our software. If the hardware is out of date, then the body becomes sick and dies. Various other plausible theories are emerging as to the role "viruses" in the biosphere.

  • Viruses are copious in nature. It is estimated that they outnumber bacteria 10:1. It is literally impossible not to be in contact with them. They are inside you, all over you, and all around you. It will not do us any good to vaccinate against a single "strain". Even the well-studied annual flu vaccines only work modestly well at best.

  • The argument for asymptomatic carrier status has not panned out. Again, no data.

  • The presence of antibodies and their association with immunity has been overstated.

  • The only treatment that seemed to help those suffering from this strange new illness was steroids, which might suggest an inflammatory condition rather than an infection, as steroids are a relative contraindication if a nasty infection is truly brewing. Inflammatory conditions are largely mitigated by environmental factors.

  • ACOG has endorsed the vaccine for all women over the age of 11, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, which is the most jaw-dropping part of this whole story, considering my background as an OBGYN. Bear in mind that we are still shaming women for even taking sips of wine in pregnancy let alone encouraging them to jump on an experimental trial of a technology of questionable safety.

  • Based on recent reports, the U.S. officials leading the charge against C19 were either dishonest or disorganized with regards to their communication around what they knew early in the pandemic (e.g. Fauci email leaks).

  • The mRNA vaccine is an untested technology, and it is not really a vaccine. A conventional vaccine purportedly contains sugars and proteins from the envelope of a virus, and its injection elicits an immune response in the body, which can supposedly be gauged through the production of antibodies. This new technology contains mRNA, which is taken up by our cells then translated into proteins by our cytoplasmic ribosomes. This seems at best to be more characteristic of an autoimmune response and at worst to result in you becoming a genetically-modified organism (GMO), neither of which sounds desirable.

  • Even though the C19 vaccines are not conventional in design and are, in fact, experimental, legal recourse for adverse effects will be limited to the historically modest payouts from the countermeasures injury compensation fund.

  • Normally new technologies, including conventional vaccines, are tested for several years prior to release to the public. I feel that the release of this technology through "emergency use authorization was a mistake", as I do not think that we were truly in a state of emergency. To make matters worse, early data from Pfizer suggests that the contents of this injection concentrate in the ovaries and bone marrow, which may either have short- or long-term consequences. As an OBGYN, I am thoughtful about the downstream effects on fertility and menstruation, as dozens of people have reached out to me with their personal anecdotes related to new onset menstruation (while using a progestin-releasing IUD, for example), first trimester pregnancy loss, and gingival and rectal bleeding, the commonality here being underlying coagulopathy. Perhaps this is why the consent forms contain some very dicey language.

  • Since the rollout of the vaccine, death tolls appear to have begun to rise once again

As a physician, husband, and father, the past twelve months have been exhausting because our observations as conscious human beings, several of which are described above, do not seem to line up with the narrative promoted by the media, health authorities, and the medical system at large. As healthcare professionals, in particular, we are all just trying to do what we feel is best. I empathize with you, and I will be the first to admit that I have not a clue what is actually going on, as many questions remain. How will this new vaccine technology affect future generations? Why are magnets sticking to injection sites? Is the protein encoded for by the mRNA contained in the injection ("spike protein") actually a toxin in and of itself? Have we been giving too much credit to the germ theory of disease for the past one-hundred years? Is this strange medical narrative all a part of some big scheme to make money for vaccine manufacturers and Big Pharma? Is virology at large a total crock? I hope not, but we simply cannot know for sure, which is why it is critical that we all remain vigilant and continue to ask questions.

I think it bears weight to point out that counter-narratives generally emerge when the mainstream narrative does not correspond to the oddities that we experience with our five senses. Thousands of people are reporting side effects, and the authorities tasked with keeping us safe are merely shrugging off these reports. It is worth repeating that safety trials were never adequately conducted before this injection was offered to the public, therefore these reported adverse effects normally would have been observed prior to this product's approval by the FDA and other oversight bodies.

It is also important to remember that no vaccine in history has been recommended universally to the entire world population, including for those who survived natural infection. It is very appropriate for all of us to be pushing back right now. Remember that you are a human being with innate rights.

As a final thought, there are no pharmacologic cures for any respiratory viral illness. The body has to work through the process on its own, and this requires a strong immune system, which is an essential ingredient lacking for many people living with chronic diseases, those same chronic diseases that have contributed to the severity of C19 for many Americans. No silver bullet medications are likely to save us from C19 or future "pandemics". The best way to stave off any infection or disease is merely to take care of your body. Now is the time to begin thinking about the quality of the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the soil in which your food is grown, along with the depth of your personal relationships. These are going to become increasingly more important as the limitations of the medical establishment in managing disease continue to be exposed.


Note: This essay is naturally going to be confronting to many people's views. Cognitive dissonance may even prompt you to discard my views altogether given that I am a relatively young physician-scientist. I am not the only health care professional, however, to question the dominant narrative. I am grateful that there are a wide variety of resources to help me navigate these waters. The CDC has a wealth of information on their website, so start there. I would also suggest hearing out Thomas Cowan, MD, who senses that the approach to C19 was completely off-the-mark from the beginning. Byram Bridle, PhD, is a pro-vaccine virologist who has voiced serious concerns about the mRNA vaccine. Robert Malone, MD, one of the original inventors of the mRNA vaccine technology has observed that his device may have some serious long-term health consequences. Mike Yeadon, PhD, and former Chief Scientist in Allergy and Respiratory Research at Pfizer, came out very early on in the pandemic warning of just how off-base claims about this virus were. Peter McCullough, MD, thinks that the entire narrative being promoted in the media has been about financial gains related to a vaccine. Roger Hodkinson, MD, has expressed his concerns about universal vaccination against C19. Mahava Setty, MD, no longer trusts Dr. Fauci. Zach Bush, MD, wishes that we would instead focus our efforts on improving our increasingly toxic environment. Start with their work, read their references, then read Virus Mania, a book by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Köhnlein, MD, that contains 1400 references, which all have their own references. This is the process of doing research, and it is the only means available to you to decide for yourself if your intuition is on-point. Then if you have room for dessert, here are twelve retired physicians, PhDs, and professors who have also come out against the current C19 narrative. There is a lot on the line for those of us with science degrees, so it is important that we consider all of these perspectives. Enjoy!

379 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All