Should we trust the government with our health?

As government is telling us where we can go and how we must behave during the COVID pandemic, we must have faith that our government cares about our health. Right? Government and medical practice can be blended and work well together. Right?

Before we grant government more control over our well-being, I believe we should look at how it has cared for us in the past.

In the 1920s, the federal government deliberately poisoned, by some counts, 250,000 Americans. There was never even an acknowledgement, much less an apology. As its interdiction efforts during Prohibition were largely failing, Uncle Sam simply required the addition of methanol to industrial alcohol they knew would be diverted for drinking purposes. Many died, developed kidney failure or went blind from methanol’s effects on the optic nerve. (This where the saying “blind drunk” originated.)

Any time a politician or bureaucrat proposes a surrender of freedoms in the interest of our safety, I can’t help but think about our government’s murderous past. Prohibition was not the only time that the federal government thought deliberately killing Americans was a good idea.

President John F. Kennedy spared many lives when he rejected the deliberate shooting down of an American jetliner in a false flag attack the Pentagon dubbed Operation Northwoods. Cubans were to be blamed, providing a justification for the invasion of their island. Once again, there was no acknowledgement and no apology for such homicidal insanity.

Why aren’t any claims by the government that they have our best health interests at heart met with skepticism, when targeting Americans has historically been actual policy? A short editorial cannot begin to accommodate a fraction of the murderous lies that have been promoted by those who “want to keep us safe.”

We must distinguish those who claim our safety as a priority, but obviously don’t mean it, from those who make the claim and do mean it: the vast majority of medical professionals. I believe we should guard against intermixing groups with these disparate objectives.

When was the last time you heard a politician admit to an error? Not some “I’m rethinking this” sort of whitewash, but a forthright “I was dead wrong” statement and “I’m sorry.” Even if caught red-handed, no politician or bureaucrat will likely ever say this unless they want to commit career suicide.

Physicians, in contrast, make a diagnosis, implement preliminary treatment, then look for any and every sign and lab result that would prove them wrong. Savvy doctors also rely on experienced nurses to call into question treatment decisions. Proven wrong, physicians then choose another path and treatment, acknowledging that they have been fooled.

Having learned from their “mistakes” and near-misses, seasoned physicians are subsequently less likely to fall prey to “decoy” or “false flag” presentations masquerading as illness. Countless patients are alive because of this physician desire to discover and admit error. The withering criticism every physician in training has received is largely meant to instill this vigilance for error, the opposite of the mindset of the politician, who can admit no wrong.

What happens if we try to mix two professions with diametrically opposed interests: one whose sole interest is getting re-elected, and the other whose sole interest is determining the true nature of a patient’s distress? Hasn’t the experience of the last two years shined a light on medical treatment, government style? Clearly, putting those who can never admit mistakes in charge of those whose admission of mistakes is a life-saving part of their profession invites disaster, as we have seen.

While it is difficult to find truth in the media fog, I believe we can narrow things down by excluding the statements of those who have lied to us in the past. Not those who have simply been mistaken, but those who have attempted to deceive, usually to save themselves or further their own interests.

We should remember that those deceivers in the political world who have purposefully killed or who have proposed killing Americans have never acknowledged this or apologized. To think that “they are not lying this time” is no different from believing that Lucy will faithfully hold the football for Charlie Brown.

I believe we should insulate the medical profession from the political profession, which has embraced the idea that the end justifies the means. Distinguishing the professional ethics and methods of politicians and the medical profession should help us not only reject further government intervention in medicine but begin the process of rooting it out altogether.

About Dr. G. Keith Smith
Dr. G. Keith Smith is a board-certified anesthesiologist in private practice since 1990.  In 1997, he co-founded The Surgery Center of Oklahoma, an outpatient surgery center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, owned by more than 90 of the top physicians and surgeons in central Oklahoma.  Dr. Smith serves as the medical director, CEO and managing partner while maintaining an active anesthesia practice. He has made appearances on the John Stossel Show, CNBC, Huffington Post, The O’Reilly Factor, Capital Account, The Ron Paul Channel, NBC Nightly News and has been featured by Reason Magazine’s TV division.   The New York Times, Time Magazine, ABC news, Forbes and many others have written articles featuring Dr. Smith’s revolutionary approach to the pricing of health care and uncompromising free market principles.