The lack of integrity in our scientific and medical authorities is a tragedy. So many journals have behaved disgracefully during this pandemic. Thank you for this review and going to bat for these doctors who care about people.
At this point, any attempts at rational discussion with the gatekeepers of authorized approved blessed by God and possessors of the Waters of Life, etc. etc. etc., reflects a touching and naive belief that one can wring justice from, say, the gates of hell when the imps guarding them don't give a half shit.
I'd say start gathering class-action battle-hardened law firms willing to stand up for the rights of man, or whatever, because the horrors looming with the approval of the vax for our tiniest children need everyone of decency to man the ramparts for an extended and quite literally, unfortunately, to the death struggle.
I understand that Dr. Kory's medical license is now under attack. Parents of unvaccinated children will soon find it impossible to enroll them in daycares, preschools etc. and will be desperate when thereby shut out from, basically, all babysitting options.
This is now a disaster of unfathomable depths. What weapons do we have to survive it?
It's time for everyone to go back to a more sustainable way of living. Instead of spending $1200 for a smart phone and $150 for cable etc etc etc, one parent must stay home, grow a garden, raise the children and live the way we are supposed to be living instead of how we are pretending to be living right now. That is all.
The barring of the use of vitamin C always blew my mind. That just shows the insanity of the hospital's position. And not only for covid. But for sepsis too. This is someone who's had a burr on the ass for Marik since his sepsis studies. Time we enpanel a new medical board, so doctors like Kory, McCullough, and Marik can be allowed to practice medicine without interference for saving lives. Shameless.
I tweeted this on Dr. Kory’s November 2021 post you linked. I know he’s really needing support right now, may God be with him and protect him and his colleagues. Thank you for defending him.
I honestly cannot understand the reason for all this madness. Doctors stand aside Institutions that work hard to preventing patients from getting treatment. It looks like an horror novel. All the doctors from FLCCC deserve profound recognition from their work and courage to defend what is right.
'Well, it appears that hospitals get an add-on payment for using the "official" treatments (remdesivir, convalescent plasma). Something like fluvoxamine or ivermectin may imply a big financial loss if it displaces those incentivized treatments, and the hospital would have a hard time winning that argument if its own published data show favorable results by using repurposed generics.
It’s hard to parse the regulatory documents, but there seems to be a bonus in the region of $20,000 per patient, so it's not small potatoes (65% of $30,000). Please let me know if there’s additional nuance here, or if the rules have changed since.'
I'd really like someone in the hospital system to confirm or deny (or otherwise explain) this.
I think one of the issue is looking at this from the perspective of incentivization. I believe we refer to this as an incentive because nefarious actors may see this as a way of lining their wallets.
I think to rationalize this argument, look at it from the perspective of hospital necessities and burden. A relatively empty hospital with low ICU admission likely would not require all of the medical equipment or staff needed to support this hospital. As such, there's an argument that these ICUs may be able to trim some of that expense fat.
However, more heavily burdened hospitals/ICUs would require more equipment, more staff, more medications, etc. etc. in order to keep up with such high admissions. As such, this money can be portrayed as some compensatory mechanism for the supposed financial burden these hospitals need in order to keep up.
So on one hand this could easily be portrayed as a validation for the need of said money because of the high admissions and burden on the medical system, and on the other hand there could be actors that are trying to skim off some of those finances while acting as if they need the money- hence they become incentivized to increase admission rate.
I think one of the most definitive ways to see where the cards lie is to actually crunch some numbers and seeing if these admissions lead to a net good in hospital finances.
I'm pretty sure this is the right lens. And yet, the way things look, it may have lead the hospital to actively smear a top ICU doctor, and eliminate important scientific evidence. Literally the worst scientific conduct I can imagine.
There certainly is something to be said when doctors attempting to prevent patients from entering the ICU in the first place are the ones who are being targeted. I think in these types of instances there tends to be a reliance on outsourcing authority to the alphabet agencies rather than relying on independent thought on the matter.
Because he approaches evidentiary issues so carefully, I doubt that our worthy host would agree, but the unwarranted retraction sought by SNGH seems to me relevant to the wider issue of repurposed drugs for early treatment. Taking the broad view, I find consilience of evidence very compelling. In other words, if the medical establishment, for financial gain, smears and bans the most effective protocol for hospitalized Covid patients, they would also smear and ban ivermectin and HCQ. Thus I conclude that these drugs have received further evidence of efficacy from the official actions smearing and banning them.
The lack of integrity in our scientific and medical authorities is a tragedy. So many journals have behaved disgracefully during this pandemic. Thank you for this review and going to bat for these doctors who care about people.
At this point, any attempts at rational discussion with the gatekeepers of authorized approved blessed by God and possessors of the Waters of Life, etc. etc. etc., reflects a touching and naive belief that one can wring justice from, say, the gates of hell when the imps guarding them don't give a half shit.
I'd say start gathering class-action battle-hardened law firms willing to stand up for the rights of man, or whatever, because the horrors looming with the approval of the vax for our tiniest children need everyone of decency to man the ramparts for an extended and quite literally, unfortunately, to the death struggle.
I understand that Dr. Kory's medical license is now under attack. Parents of unvaccinated children will soon find it impossible to enroll them in daycares, preschools etc. and will be desperate when thereby shut out from, basically, all babysitting options.
This is now a disaster of unfathomable depths. What weapons do we have to survive it?
Dr Cory can have no license and practicing in a horse barn and I’d still prefer him to treat me.
It's time for everyone to go back to a more sustainable way of living. Instead of spending $1200 for a smart phone and $150 for cable etc etc etc, one parent must stay home, grow a garden, raise the children and live the way we are supposed to be living instead of how we are pretending to be living right now. That is all.
The barring of the use of vitamin C always blew my mind. That just shows the insanity of the hospital's position. And not only for covid. But for sepsis too. This is someone who's had a burr on the ass for Marik since his sepsis studies. Time we enpanel a new medical board, so doctors like Kory, McCullough, and Marik can be allowed to practice medicine without interference for saving lives. Shameless.
I tweeted this on Dr. Kory’s November 2021 post you linked. I know he’s really needing support right now, may God be with him and protect him and his colleagues. Thank you for defending him.
I honestly cannot understand the reason for all this madness. Doctors stand aside Institutions that work hard to preventing patients from getting treatment. It looks like an horror novel. All the doctors from FLCCC deserve profound recognition from their work and courage to defend what is right.
'Well, it appears that hospitals get an add-on payment for using the "official" treatments (remdesivir, convalescent plasma). Something like fluvoxamine or ivermectin may imply a big financial loss if it displaces those incentivized treatments, and the hospital would have a hard time winning that argument if its own published data show favorable results by using repurposed generics.
It’s hard to parse the regulatory documents, but there seems to be a bonus in the region of $20,000 per patient, so it's not small potatoes (65% of $30,000). Please let me know if there’s additional nuance here, or if the rules have changed since.'
I'd really like someone in the hospital system to confirm or deny (or otherwise explain) this.
I'm pretty sure the broad strokes of this are correct. The only question I have relates to the exact amounts.
I've read similar elsewhere, with sources. It's astonishing, really.
I think one of the issue is looking at this from the perspective of incentivization. I believe we refer to this as an incentive because nefarious actors may see this as a way of lining their wallets.
I think to rationalize this argument, look at it from the perspective of hospital necessities and burden. A relatively empty hospital with low ICU admission likely would not require all of the medical equipment or staff needed to support this hospital. As such, there's an argument that these ICUs may be able to trim some of that expense fat.
However, more heavily burdened hospitals/ICUs would require more equipment, more staff, more medications, etc. etc. in order to keep up with such high admissions. As such, this money can be portrayed as some compensatory mechanism for the supposed financial burden these hospitals need in order to keep up.
So on one hand this could easily be portrayed as a validation for the need of said money because of the high admissions and burden on the medical system, and on the other hand there could be actors that are trying to skim off some of those finances while acting as if they need the money- hence they become incentivized to increase admission rate.
I think one of the most definitive ways to see where the cards lie is to actually crunch some numbers and seeing if these admissions lead to a net good in hospital finances.
I'm pretty sure this is the right lens. And yet, the way things look, it may have lead the hospital to actively smear a top ICU doctor, and eliminate important scientific evidence. Literally the worst scientific conduct I can imagine.
There certainly is something to be said when doctors attempting to prevent patients from entering the ICU in the first place are the ones who are being targeted. I think in these types of instances there tends to be a reliance on outsourcing authority to the alphabet agencies rather than relying on independent thought on the matter.
Because he approaches evidentiary issues so carefully, I doubt that our worthy host would agree, but the unwarranted retraction sought by SNGH seems to me relevant to the wider issue of repurposed drugs for early treatment. Taking the broad view, I find consilience of evidence very compelling. In other words, if the medical establishment, for financial gain, smears and bans the most effective protocol for hospitalized Covid patients, they would also smear and ban ivermectin and HCQ. Thus I conclude that these drugs have received further evidence of efficacy from the official actions smearing and banning them.