READER LETTER: The ‘Healing Beyond COVID’ conference is going to help almost nobody. I have the proof.

My name is Frank Han and I am a paediatric cardiologist who was formerly a citizen of London. I therefore care that my friends out in the Channel Islands have access to the most up to date medical information available.

I now live in the United States – and unfortunately have had front row seating to the conferences and intentions of the main presenters at the upcoming Healing Beyond COVID conference, and know that their intentions are far from genuine. I will prove my point by looking at their actions rather than their words.

What Del Bigtree wants 

The main presenters are Mr Del Bigtree, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Dr Tess Lawrie, Dr William Makis, and Dr Peter McCullough.

While many would love to get more treatments for chronic health conditions and autism, the fundamental premise of Bigtree’s argument is false. The study was not censored, it failed publication due to its numerous weaknesses and the presence of more effective studies showing vaccines do not cause autism. This is similar to a car manufacturer performing quality control on its products and rejecting those that have been assembled incorrectly. What does cause autism? Genetic factors and having older parents are two major risk factors. The argument in the movie is simply repeated because it tugs on emotions, not because it has any grounding in reality. Chronic diseases like asthma already have considerable research into their causes and one practical, achievable objective is the reduction of air pollution.

What Angus Dalgleish wants 

Professor Angus Dalgleish is a cancer consultant and his most commonly shared argument is the presence of turbo cancer.

To see if total cancer diagnoses are increasing, an extremely helpful set of numbers to examine are death rates and new cancer diagnoses, shown below (https://globalvaccinedatanetwork.org/news/turbo_cancer_and_mrna_myth_that_defies_biology_and_physics): 

While the professor himself may have seen more patients dying of aggressive cancer, we have statistics for a reason, which is to see if the findings we observe, generalize to the whole world. We can clearly see that people are dying less which is in large part due to significant advances in cancer medications. A massive contributor to less death is the effective public health messaging to avoid factors that trigger cancer like tobacco consumption. Secondarily better medicines have been a huge help. 

We can also view the rate of new diagnoses – while some of the graph illustrates a rise in the rate of cancers, the rate started rising well before the advent of COVID vaccines. I assure the reader that a time travelling vaccine has not yet been invented. If people were systematically getting cancer from COVID vaccines, more diagnoses would be occurring as more people were getting vaccinated, which is not observed. I clearly empathize with the absolute shock of receiving a diagnosis of cancer, but the most important next step is for such a patient to seek out guideline directed medical treatment. Lastly, it is the responsibility of Dr Dalgleish to not just suspect the vaccine causes cancer with a biologic mechanism – he needs to show that mechanism actually happening in a way that matters to people. Just thinking about it is insufficient.

What Tess Lawrie wants

Next on the list is Dr Tess Lawrie. 

People dealing with cancer were advertised as having been cured by ivermectin – however, what was hidden is that they were getting standard of care cancer medicines at the same time. It is not logical to believe that a traveler teleported from London to York, when it was actually the train that did the job. There have been attempts to use ivermectin to attack certain cancers, but these were all laboratory experiments not relevant to the complicated interlinked biological systems of a whole human. 

I too would be cheesed off if my local public health agency enforced lockdowns; in the USA we admittedly had “lockdown lite” where most activities were still permitted. However, there is still room to look to other nations health agencies to understand how to balance personal freedoms with necessary precautions in case a more serious virus actually comes. Working with a local relatable health agency is preferred to “orders from above”. Valid uncertainty discussed accurately is appreciated. Lastly, being direct about the personal benefit of a particular intervention is crucial. A well-fitting N95 is most helpful to its user by blocking viruses and therefore reducing the risk of illness from all respiratory illnesses.  

What William Makis wants

William Makis used to be a physician in Canada but was struck off the register in his home province of Alberta, which legally means that he is legally not allowed to represent himself as a physician or practice medicine. He will try to sell even more cancer cures, specifically febendazole, but his logic suffers from the same shortfalls as Dr Tess Lawrie above. Normally a cancer physician is required to show that his medicine works. He attempted this on famous Dilbert cartoon author Scott Adams, with his prostate cancer, but made a serious error in clinical judgment when his therapy both did not work and resulted in him losing time that could have been spent on seeking out more certified cancer physicians. When a trained mechanic is required to fix an airplane, would any bloke off the street suffice? The cures promoted by Makis have not been censored, they have just been disregarded because they do not work.

What Peter Mccullough wants

Lastly we will be seeing presentations from Dr Peter Mccullough.

He used to be a cardiologist in the United States but became an antivaccine activist mostly focusing on vaccine myocarditis and running a supplement pill line that claims to cure various side effects of the COVID vaccine. As a cardiologist myself and someone who has encountered patients with vaccine myocarditis, I want to share my utmost sympathies that some people’s lives were genuinely turned upside down by the COVID vaccine. However, Mccullough has most of his facts upside down. One of his most commonly used arguments is the sale of his supplement line. Not only does Peter Mccullough fail to reach the normal medical standards of demonstrating medication effectiveness, his medications have actual harm that ironically have resulted in permanent partial vision loss of a fellow antivaccine advocate. The best evidence he can present of his pill line’s effectiveness is word of mouth. For the early treatment of COVID, he advocates a sequence of several medications, of which none have actual proven clinical effectiveness generalizable to everybody. Lastly, he may again promote the idea that COVID vaccines promote blood clots. This is refuted by every available line of evidence that says vaccines reduce the risk of severe outcomes of COVID, including blood clots.

All the presenters will try to claim, in some form or fashion, that science that cannot be questioned is inherently unscientific. Science is not the representation of one person – it is a tool invented by humans to figure out how nature works through inquiry and questioning. Science is inherently self questioning and course-correcting. Science has clearly gotten things wrong in the past, such as the nature of what causes infections. However, we now have the benefit of hundreds of years of science showing us that infectious agents like bacteria, viruses, and fungi, cause infections. What you will never see from the Healing Beyond COVID presenters is any acknowledgement of their mistakes. In their mind, they are always right and infallible. This is inherently unscientific. Their responsibility is done once the doubt has been manufactured and they have collected their fees. This is inherently unscientific. 

Frank Han, Paediatric Cardiologist