Those of you who have been subscribers here are well aware of my thoughts and feelings about Dr. Pierre Kory of the FLCCC. He is an early treatment hero. He has sacrificed his professional reputation and possible license in order to save countless lives in America and around the globe. He is currently under review for the revocation of his board certification in internal medicine by the American Board of Internal Medicine. I was listening to Steve Kirsh’s VSRF (Vaccine Safety Research Foundation) weekly update where Dr. Kory was sharing some details about this on-going investigation on him. I have to admit being frightened to hear about the limits to his legal defense. Dr. Kory stated that he has scientific research to debunk any claims made against him however, if the board only considers peer reviewed research, then he concluded that he will lose his case.
I beg to differ Dr. Kory. The reality is that you do have considerable evidence to support your claims, independent of peer reviewed research. I believe the strongest case you can make are the conclusions of three expert witnesses who are in the best position to evaluate the reality of peer reviewed literature that they have overseen in their tenure as Editors in Chief of two of the most highly respected peer reviewed journals; The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Lancet. I have shared those conclusions before but here it is again for those new to my substack.
Dr. Marcia Angell, Harvard physician and editor in chief of the NEJM said:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor.”
Dr. Relman, another former editor in chief of the NEJM said this in 2002 - “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
Richard Horton, current editor in chief of the Lancet said:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness” (2). Horton R. Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? [Last accessed August 5, 2015]. www.thelancet.com. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf.
Additional proof that is available to Dr. Kory, to challenge the board, can be reflected in a review of recent events regarding tainted research that has been accepted for publication by these very prestigious journals. Dr. Andrew Hill was an analyst for a large clinical trial, the Together Trial, on repurposed drugs. Dr. Tess Lawrie, who had in prior years been a well respected analyst who did assessments for the WHO, has a video where Dr. Hill clearly states that the conclusions of the research were actually written by the company who paid for the research to be conducted. This is a glaring example of issues raised by Richard Horton, the Editor in Chief of the Lancet who notes “flagrant conflicts of interest” and “invalid exploratory analyses”. Was the journal article subsequently removed once the evidence became public? No it was not. It was instead widely publicized by the New York Times and all mainstream media outlets. If that’s not proof enough of the need to re-examine the actual validity of scientific research, I’m not sure what would provide a better example of it, but let me take another crack at it.
It is my understanding that multiple, highly published physicians have been prevented from the opportunity to publish their critical research on Covid in these very peer reviewed journals. Many have already completed the rigorous peer review process, and been accepted, which can take months, yet prior to anticipated publication, their papers have mysteriously been rejected for publication at the last minute. In addition, there have been multiple instances of papers that were in fact published that were later retracted and removed due to the reality that their research did not support the public health narrative. The only possible plausible explanation for such a revocation to take place would have been the determination of fraud, which was not the case.
I believe that the confluence of all of these issues would have considerable legal implications for the Board of Internal Medicine. Such premeditated assaults against dedicated expert physicians must stop. We have a moral and ethical obligation to call out these egregious efforts to prevent the science and the truth from seeing the light of day. The reality is that every day, primary care physicians are seeing the physical consequences of mass vaccination against Covid and they are remaining silent. The reality is that every day, the emergency room physicians are seeing the consequences of mass vaccinations and they are remaining silent. The reality is that Ob-Gyn’s are seeing the consequences of mass vaccination and they are remaining silent. The reality is that pediatricians are seeing the consequences of mass vaccination and are remaining silent. The reality is that cardiologists are seeing the consequences of mass vaccination and are remaining silent. The reality is that oncologists are seeing the reality of mass vaccination and they are remaining silent. The reality is that nurses are seeing the consequences of mass vaccinations and they too are remaining silent.
It has been made clear to each and every physician, nurse practitioner, physician’s assistant and registered nurse that in order to keep their job, if affiliated with a hospital, they must remain silent. They must not complete VAERS documents for each patient that they believe is suffering from a vaccine injury. They certainly must not alert their patients to the reality that their symptoms are consistent with a vaccine injury. If they are in a private practice, it has been made clear by the AMA and their state medical boards that they must not question the pubic health narrative, privately to their patients or in any public setting. To do so would be to risk their medical license.
We already know that there have been pre-pandemic situations of pressure that were placed on physicians to remain silent in the face of concerns, even when a patient’s health has been compromised. Whistleblowers have in fact retained or regained their positions due to an investigation at the U.S. Office of Special Council (OSC) Perhaps Dr. Kory’s legal team can make an appropriate referral to the OSC.
If this were happening in a third world country under authoritarian rule, no one would be surprised by the fraud that has been revealed. This is, however, happening in the United States of America. The doctor-patient relationship, that has been honored and respected for over 100 years, is no longer allowed. The bioethical hallmark of informed consent, set forth by the Nuremberg trials, is for all intents and purposes, gone.
I’d like to share an example of what is happening in mainstream America at your local doctor’s office. I had a first appointment with a new endocrinologist a few days ago in Portland, Oregon. Upon arrival, I was asked to sign an electronic keypad. When I asked the receptionist what it was that she wanted me to sign, she said it was their “privacy policy”. I then asked to see their privacy policy and was met with silence. I asked if she felt such a request was reasonable? She remained silent. At that point, given that I was wearing the required mask and we were separated by a glass barrier, I increased the volume of my voice and asked again, did she think it was reasonable that I would request to see the paperwork for which she was asking me to sign off. That brought a supervisor to the front desk who asked if there was a problem. I replied that I had been asked to sign something that I wasn’t given the opportunity to read and did he think that was a reasonable request on my part to expect to see the document prior to signing. He immediately said that was reasonable and that he’d have the receptionist print out a copy for me prior to my signing. What happened next was very revealing to me. After standing at the front desk for many minutes, it became obvious that the receptionist had no idea where to find the necessary document. I was then asked to wait in the waiting room. As time passed, I was eventually directed to go into the treatment room. Still no paperwork for me to sign. After I was weighed, had my vitals taken and questions asked and answered regarding my currents medications, a nurse arrived with the documents and signature page. The top line of the signature page read that by signing this document, I was asserting that I had received and reviewed the privacy policy document. Two things come to mind about this outrageous situation, 1) This medical practice, which is part of the Providence Hospital system, expects their patients to lie, and 2) not one prior patient even bothered to ask to read what they were signing off on.
We have become so trained to trust our health care providers that we easily give up our rights to know what is being offered to us. The receptionist says sign here and we sign there, no questions asked. Last year, I had to have a same day surgical procedure to explore my GI system and esophagus. In terms of full disclose, nothing of concern was discovered. I had a horrible 24 hours of pre-op requirements and arrived at 6 a.m. for the procedure. Once in the operating room, I was handed a clip board which was my informed consent paperwork. It was painfully obvious that they never expected me to read the document or even consider the possibility that I wouldn’t agree to have the anticipated procedure. Did that represent valid informed consent. It absolutely did not. Did it get the legal requirement done on the surface? Apparently it did. Beyond the truth of this situation is the reality that it would not be in the patient’s best interest to read the potential risks of any surgical procedure, immediately prior to surgery when they are likely feeling anxious and cognitively not 100%. We know intellectually that all surgery involves some risks. We certainly don’t need to be reminded of that minutes before being sedated. Wouldn’t the best time to be considering those risks be with the surgeon, during the consult to determine if surgery was warranted? If the doctor recommends surgery and the patient appears poised to commit to the surgery, that is the appropriate time to discuss the risk/benefit analysis of the potential procedure - not minutes before the surgery.
I have been heartened to observe, on a larger scale, that it is slowly starting to change regarding Covid injections. The much anticipated injections for babies and toddlers has been extremely disappointing to our public health agencies and our government. Less than 1% of new parents have stepped up to have their babies injected with an unproven and lightly tested genetic therapeutic which appears to have poor efficacy and appears scientifically and statistically unnecessary. People have seen their family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers getting sick with Covid, despite vaccination and even those who’ve taken the boosters. The efficacy of these injections is finally starting to reach the public. The vaccines are not preventing infection or transmission. We can’t thank our mainstream media for that wonderful outcome as they too have been captured by their conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical giants. It is due instead to people opening their eyes and seeing the evidence that is before them. It unfortunately creates some internal conflicts for many of those who have been vaccinated, which we call cognitive dissonance. Once you buy into a position, and in this case it was that the “vaccines” were “safe and effective”, it’s psychologically challenging to shift your internal beliefs, even in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We have been fed a steady diet of fear porn for over two years. We were then told ad nauseum that the “vaccines” were “safe and effective”. If you bought the party line, you could let go of your profound fears, which they actually instigated, get injected and start to live your life again. Amen!
Dr. Kory made another remark that I was surprised to hear. He believes the vast majority of physicians who have remained silent are unaware of the scientific evidence that supports an alternate reality, which is the truth. I struggle with that conclusion as more and more physicians are bearing witness to the harm that has been inflicted onto their patients. I remember, during the Trump years, Rachel Maddow called the people who were living in reality, the democrats, as those living on Earth 1. Although I can no longer watch Rachel, who has consistently misled the American people regarding early treatment, I believe that is the story of the medical field today. They have left Earth 1 and are now living in the Twilight Zone where the “vaccines” are still “safe and effective”.
On the subject of Bioethics, here's a fascinating document out of the UK:
ETHICS AND BEHAVIOUR CHANGE SEMINAR HELD AT THE HOUSE OF LORDS
February 10, 2011
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldsctech/179/17917.htm
This reveals the thinking of leaders not just in the UK, but in the US and other western nations that have adopted behavioral science "Nudge" strategies to implementing public policy. Should be right up your alley. The discussion gets into the acceptability of using deception and manipulation to achieve public policy goals. Drawing the line at subliminal deception, but other coercive deceit considered acceptable for achieving a "greater good."
That UK Parliament Subcommittee referenced work from another fascinating document by the Nuffield Bioethics Council that was first published in 2007. This is the ethical framework in which our public policy leaders are following today, and actually for quite some time. They call their approach, "Stewardship," that balances protections of individual health rights and collective health responsibility. Long. Very, very long, 200+ pages. Not highly technical, most have the vocabulary for it, but a lot of words to sort through. Don't let the UK origins of this confuse you or make you dismiss it as non-applicable. This guides our governance in the US, as well. Both governments are joined at the hip in these matters.
https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf
A lot of words needed by those using sophisticated linguistics to give the impression of a fair and balanced discussion of individual vs. collective concerns. By constructing numerous straw man arguments ostensibly supporting individual rights that they immediately strike down and discredit as they give them voice, while asserting collecitve responsibility as unquestionable facts. It engages in classic Orwellian "doublespeak" as it declares evidence must be provided to justify taking collective action without informed consent of individuals but then says that individuals bear the burden of providing evidence that proves resulting harm to reject the collective action if its imposed without evidence its safe and effective. The water fluoridation section gets into that example. Many similarities with mask mandates and experimental vaccines today.
This document can be summed up as mental masturbation for advocates of authoritarianism, stroking themselves into a froth of glorious benevolence that effervesces into blissful proclamations of "good stewardship" protecting all of humanity. King George couldn't have written a better reply to justify his rule after receiving the Declaration of Independence from the American colonies.
Great primer on Nudge Theory and Pitfalls (pulled from Archived web version, the actual site was taken down)
https://web.archive.org/web/20201128015542/https://www.asianwarrior.com/2018/03/nudge-theory-and-the-pitfalls-of-behavioural-economics.html
How to mobilize opposition to this corrupt system:
Annual Review of Psychology - Social Mobilization
September 16, 2007
https://sci-hub.st/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033718
Michelle, this information shows that the origins of the many sweeping changes that ails society today, pandemic-related and beyond are in psychological manipulation of the public mind. The ethics of the field that you retired from no longer respecting the individual, the sanctity of one's own mind and reason. Treated as obstacles to be overcome by sophisticated mind trickery. To gain not just compliance with the demands of authorities, but to manufacture demand for authoritarian demands made of others not participating in a manufactured group think. The applied science of totalitarianism. The wheels have come off the ethical practice of psychology. This is something that those with your training and experience who are unburdened by threats of revocation of license to practice or economic sanction must build a movement within in order to help lead others who lack your training out of the aura of symbolic mystics and magic of linguistic sorcerers. Psychology has been weaponized against We, The People.
This is a study of "Covid skeptics" MIT released in January, 2021. It's long but not super long. It has a few sections that can be a little challenging to read but is mostly in plain language you'll be comfortable with. It's fascinating!
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07993.pdf
This study reveals the mindset of those "experts" making public policy today based on "the best science." Read how they define that. Read how they characterize "skeptics" who conduct rigorous science as the scientific method demands. Read their points of contention with the "skeptics" science. Read their conclusions about "skeptics."
You'll find their criticisms are from The Twilight Zone, not Earth 1. They are right because they declare they are, their consensus, their orthodox of science says so. No presentation of their evidence, no science to be objectively weighed. Just their assertions.
"Skeptics" are wrong because they aren't allowed into the exclusive club that is polled to divine "consensus." Their presentations of rigorously adhered to scientific research, data and findings lauded for producing research that belongs in top science publications like NEJM, JAMA. But dangerous and wrong because it is "unorthodox." Because the science "skeptics" produce challenges the consensus of those in authority. Not because its wrong. And because of that it is dangerous and must be countered or censored as dis/misinformation.
Dr. Kory knows this is what has become science in the US and the West today. A religion of strict orthodoxy that punishes heretics. Galileo and Socrates knew this type of science. We are living in a Twilight Zone waving goodbye to Earth 1. The system is irreparably broken, trust in our medical and science institutions forfeited forever. They must be razed to their foundations and rebuilt differently. The rot is that utter and complete. Civil disobedience is our wrecking ball. Strength in numbers is our mission, we must build our movement to sufficient numbers to overcome their power advantage. The system has become a dangerous religion of falsehoods that worships itself.