Falling back on "my long experience as a doctor" is not tenable after the last few years have taught so many of us painful lessons about the reliability of doctors.
I previous wrote two rebuttals to Kory when he insisted the Midazolam Murders weren't possible (he seemed to be bridging towards my points but never formally addressed me):
Most of his points made use of unevidenced anecdotes, personal first hand claims, and misleading conflations, such as confusing emergency care services in ICU ('ventilators') with non-emergency care homes. There's more but you can read my rebuttals.
After I published the articles, an account become particularly aggressive towards my point-by-point rebuttals in the comment sections. It was not named Kory, but the doggedness of the account was such one could argue it seemed to have some sort of personal stake. An alt? Who knows, but in all my time of writing rebuttals, I rarely see extremely passionate commentators trying to act as the 'authority of the other author'.
The fact you appear to be experiencing what can only be described as bad faith arguments, might have something to do with the fact Dr Kory has a personal vested interest in defending the government narrative. See, in his "rebuttals" to the Midazolam Murders, he admits he was part of the medical staff who administered Midazolam to ventilated patients.
So naturally, he's not going to want to acknowledge government policies resulted in death, because to do so, would be to also implicate himself.
Jan 16Liked by Jessica Hockett, Jonathan Engler, Martin Neil
Wow, what a novelty! A group of knowledgeable people expressing their opinions and welcoming debate! Something sorely lacking in the last 4 years indeed!
Dr Kory is one of the “Good Guys” (as are y’all), but he has his weak areas like everyone else. I hope that he takes a dispassionate look at your response and does some re-evaluation. Sometimes it is an issue of competing priorities -- you can’t take all of your suppositions down to the root all at the same time, or you would get overwhelmed.
Well, although it was heavy going and there was a lot I really didn't follow, I was one of those who DID read through both your original article, Pierre Kory's response and your response to his. And reading his, even as a layman I was struck by a number of the contradictions you mention. His seeming faith in PCR tests, the stories of "superspreaders" and the CDC took me aback; as did his seemingly casual references to "venting" patients, as if blithly unaware of that procedure's incidence of iatrogenesis. My own "gut-feeling" is that, as you suggest, his idée fixes must be the result of his own quite peculiar experience of the pandemic panic/pandemonium, leading to confirmation bias, but also, generally, due to "professional deformation" (the moulding of one's ideas by one's profession). Because of this, incredibly he still seems quite willing to accept much of the original covidist dogma. I find this curious and regretful, as Dr Kory proved his courage and ability to question by his championing of Ivermectin/early treatments. For that reason, I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. Amid all the division currently being so successfully inflicted on "the resistants" I believe we need to give "confirmation bias" to the ideas that unite us!
Jan 16·edited Jan 16Liked by Jessica Hockett, Martin Neil
Let's say you hire a private investigator to look into a recent and sudden spate of illness and death in your community. Nothing noticeable has changed whatsoever in your community so everyone is puzzled and alarmed by what is happening and what is causing these deaths.
The investigator comes back unable to find anything, after weeks of looking into the matter, has found no concrete evidence himself, and declares that what has beset the community is an invisible submicroscopic particle floating through the air.
What would you do? Accept this at face value? Fire the guy and hire someone else? Keep looking for other more tangible explanations?
The above is a true story- with only an embellished wrinkle- that illustrates the madness of looking for an invisible particle floating through the air to explain that which has already been explained at length and with concrete evidence by many people.
I tried searching for this to attribute it, but I can't find whose substack article it was quoted in. Basically, the idea is that every year seasonally our lungs are colonized by a mix of microorganisms. Due to seasonally induced changes, these often manifest as flu like symptoms. Traditionally, medicine prefers to view the symptoms of this flu like illness as caused by a single dominant pathogen.
If, instead, the symptoms are are result of a mixed colony, then the presence of some novel virus may or may not cause a deviation in symptoms from other typical flu like illness. It just isn't that important as it is added to the milieu.
The problem starts with the view that any cluster of flu-like symptoms should be attributed to a single cause. That is useful for diagnostics, testing, and treatment, but may not reflect what is actually going on. Hence the mish-mash of overlapping symptoms being attributed to multiple causes and the veteran doctor's assertion that he can just tell based on a nebulous constellation of symptoms. Of course a doctor has to settle on a course of treatment, which causes them to select a causal agent as that determines the course of treatment!
The bottom line then becomes that without the PCR testing, whether there was a new coronavirus circulating or not, there would not have been a pandemic. Instead, doctors would have said "the flu is worse this season." The difference with 2020 was narrative rather than something empiric. Neither can we completely rule out that there was a novel virus, just that it did not cause a unique and highly specific signature in the mix of seasonal respiratory symptoms even if it perturbed the constellation of symptoms doctors were looking at.
I'll need to read all these articles more closely when I have a bit of time, but at first glance, I'm reminded of the movie, _Blow Up_, in which a possibly-incriminating photograph is repeatedly enlarged, revealing at first some details, but ultimately only photographic grain. Sometimes, the closer you look, the less you see.
”Happy Hypoxemia" was never anything more than a known failure rate in the pulse oximeters coupled with confirmation bias and pernicious insentive structures (yes, couples sometimes come in 3s )
Having read all articles, it is my opinion that Dr. Kory has made the better defense thus far. As I find that regrettable, allow me to add a few comments.
1. Dr. Kory made several key admissions which could have been capitalized upon better. For instance,
1.1 He admits: "I cannot explain why certain hot spots became medical disaster zones while other areas or countries, apparently not far away geographically did not exhibit such manifestations." This is an enormous problem to Dr. Kory's position, and gave a lot of room for comment.
1.2 He admits of several novel features, such as "reproducibility of this constellation of symptoms," "ICU’s full of patients with the same disease," and, "a disease which spread so rapidly and widely," among others. However, the fact that he has never in his career seen things such as these suggests he might not be dealing with a human coronavirus at all, since one would expect coronaviruses to behave somewhat similar to each other.
1.3 He admits of the possibility of "something as preposterous as deliberate widespread release in certain targeted cities and areas." This admission opens the door wide open for the possibility that what he called "covid" might be something drastically different from what you called 'Covid", based on what the rest of the world experienced.
2. Dr. Kory made 2 key statements which exposed enormous flaws in his thinking, which could have been used to demolish his argument, namely "we see hundreds of thousands of cases a year" (said to contrast covid with the flu), and, "all the transmission and dying" from covid (said to refute the idea that covid was bacterial pneumonia). The question is, were there more cases of covid than of the flu (in a normal year)? Did covid really transmit any more successfully than the cold or the flu does? (Assuming all 3 transmit), and, did Covid really kill that many more than the flu does in a normal year. Other than in NYC and Italy, my research answers "No!" to all 3 questions, thereby showing that Dr. Kory's position is faulted, and either his perception of events was skewed by his attention to the media and the CDC (which he admits to believing) or he was looking at something that was not "covid."
This is a lively, spirited and informative debate. Given the importance of the subject inquiry and the (current) lack of perfect diagnostic accuracy in respiratory medicine, I am hoping that cooperative investigation prevails among all interested parties. Confirmation bias, theoretical and other biases are known stumbling blocks but if we work together, we can nail the perps. That's what I'd like to see happen. Thanks to all the investigators.
I keep playing Devil’s Advocate with myself on my “early spread” hypothesis.
Regarding all the evidence I’ve found that ILI was “widespread” and “severe” in almost every state in America before the Wuhan outbreak, I guess someone could say, “So what?” It’s just a coincidence a lot more people became sick with Covid/ILI symptoms a couple of weeks or months before official Covid.
I agree with everyone that the PCR tests are the key to the fraudulent pandemic. But much of my “early spread” hypothesis puts great weight on the large numbers of people I’ve found who had early Covid symptoms and were shown to test positive with ANTIBODY tests.
My question: Are ALL of these positive AB results bogus? We should throw them all out as “false positives” (probably due to “cross reactivity.”)
If this is the case, then the antibody tests are a fraud as well … and I thought antibody tests had been used for decades and were pretty easy to produce and were, largely, considered accurate.
Still, if all these results are “false positives” and all these people didn’t have early Covid based on these results, we have another great Scientific Scandal: The damn antibody tests are a fraud and, I guess, always have been.
Or: Can we trust later positive antibody tests but should throw out early positive antibody tests?
For my “early spread” hypothesis to be rejected, we have to ignore tens of millions of people who had Covid symptoms and we have to conclude every single positive antibody test was bogus and wrong.
I also wonder what would have happened if tens of millions of people had been given PCR tests in February 2020. That is, despite all their flaws and the 40-plus CTs, I think these tests would have been producing millions of positive results if they’d been given earlier. So, per my hypothesis, officials intentionally delayed the roll-out of the PCR tests until AFTER the lockdowns. IMO this was another way to conceal evidence of “early spread.”
… Calling the early AB positives “junk results” that shouldn’t be trusted was another way to conceal evidence of early spread, per my early-spread-cover-up theory.
Great article Martin Neil, particularly identifying Kory’s "protect the mRNA technology at all costs" Deep State playbook is AZT all over again. Remember in Sweden at January 2023 Covid Conference, Kory and Cole shut down a conversation on the dangers of nanoparticles. Is it because all mRNA shots have nanoparticles, and if they are dangerous, the Deep State needs lie about it until the WHO/UN/Deep State get absolute information control after the WHO/UN agreements are approved? 1/3
"The severity, morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 must be re-emphasized to all, both young and old, as it spares neither. To avoid a catastrophic repeat of the initial surge, we recommend a population-wide intervention — a significant increase in the use of N95 masks — that might allow for a safer reopening of the U.S economy."
----
👍
"To avoid a catastrophic repeat of the initial surge..."
Falling back on "my long experience as a doctor" is not tenable after the last few years have taught so many of us painful lessons about the reliability of doctors.
Appreciate the charitable writing here. Seems like you guys want to actually get to the bottom of this issue
I previous wrote two rebuttals to Kory when he insisted the Midazolam Murders weren't possible (he seemed to be bridging towards my points but never formally addressed me):
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/a-rebuttal-to-dr-pierre-kory (Part 1)
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/a-rebuttal-to-dr-pierre-kory-part (Part 2)
Most of his points made use of unevidenced anecdotes, personal first hand claims, and misleading conflations, such as confusing emergency care services in ICU ('ventilators') with non-emergency care homes. There's more but you can read my rebuttals.
After I published the articles, an account become particularly aggressive towards my point-by-point rebuttals in the comment sections. It was not named Kory, but the doggedness of the account was such one could argue it seemed to have some sort of personal stake. An alt? Who knows, but in all my time of writing rebuttals, I rarely see extremely passionate commentators trying to act as the 'authority of the other author'.
The fact you appear to be experiencing what can only be described as bad faith arguments, might have something to do with the fact Dr Kory has a personal vested interest in defending the government narrative. See, in his "rebuttals" to the Midazolam Murders, he admits he was part of the medical staff who administered Midazolam to ventilated patients.
So naturally, he's not going to want to acknowledge government policies resulted in death, because to do so, would be to also implicate himself.
Wow, what a novelty! A group of knowledgeable people expressing their opinions and welcoming debate! Something sorely lacking in the last 4 years indeed!
Dr Kory is one of the “Good Guys” (as are y’all), but he has his weak areas like everyone else. I hope that he takes a dispassionate look at your response and does some re-evaluation. Sometimes it is an issue of competing priorities -- you can’t take all of your suppositions down to the root all at the same time, or you would get overwhelmed.
Well, although it was heavy going and there was a lot I really didn't follow, I was one of those who DID read through both your original article, Pierre Kory's response and your response to his. And reading his, even as a layman I was struck by a number of the contradictions you mention. His seeming faith in PCR tests, the stories of "superspreaders" and the CDC took me aback; as did his seemingly casual references to "venting" patients, as if blithly unaware of that procedure's incidence of iatrogenesis. My own "gut-feeling" is that, as you suggest, his idée fixes must be the result of his own quite peculiar experience of the pandemic panic/pandemonium, leading to confirmation bias, but also, generally, due to "professional deformation" (the moulding of one's ideas by one's profession). Because of this, incredibly he still seems quite willing to accept much of the original covidist dogma. I find this curious and regretful, as Dr Kory proved his courage and ability to question by his championing of Ivermectin/early treatments. For that reason, I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. Amid all the division currently being so successfully inflicted on "the resistants" I believe we need to give "confirmation bias" to the ideas that unite us!
Let's say you hire a private investigator to look into a recent and sudden spate of illness and death in your community. Nothing noticeable has changed whatsoever in your community so everyone is puzzled and alarmed by what is happening and what is causing these deaths.
The investigator comes back unable to find anything, after weeks of looking into the matter, has found no concrete evidence himself, and declares that what has beset the community is an invisible submicroscopic particle floating through the air.
What would you do? Accept this at face value? Fire the guy and hire someone else? Keep looking for other more tangible explanations?
The above is a true story- with only an embellished wrinkle- that illustrates the madness of looking for an invisible particle floating through the air to explain that which has already been explained at length and with concrete evidence by many people.
I tried searching for this to attribute it, but I can't find whose substack article it was quoted in. Basically, the idea is that every year seasonally our lungs are colonized by a mix of microorganisms. Due to seasonally induced changes, these often manifest as flu like symptoms. Traditionally, medicine prefers to view the symptoms of this flu like illness as caused by a single dominant pathogen.
If, instead, the symptoms are are result of a mixed colony, then the presence of some novel virus may or may not cause a deviation in symptoms from other typical flu like illness. It just isn't that important as it is added to the milieu.
The problem starts with the view that any cluster of flu-like symptoms should be attributed to a single cause. That is useful for diagnostics, testing, and treatment, but may not reflect what is actually going on. Hence the mish-mash of overlapping symptoms being attributed to multiple causes and the veteran doctor's assertion that he can just tell based on a nebulous constellation of symptoms. Of course a doctor has to settle on a course of treatment, which causes them to select a causal agent as that determines the course of treatment!
The bottom line then becomes that without the PCR testing, whether there was a new coronavirus circulating or not, there would not have been a pandemic. Instead, doctors would have said "the flu is worse this season." The difference with 2020 was narrative rather than something empiric. Neither can we completely rule out that there was a novel virus, just that it did not cause a unique and highly specific signature in the mix of seasonal respiratory symptoms even if it perturbed the constellation of symptoms doctors were looking at.
I'll need to read all these articles more closely when I have a bit of time, but at first glance, I'm reminded of the movie, _Blow Up_, in which a possibly-incriminating photograph is repeatedly enlarged, revealing at first some details, but ultimately only photographic grain. Sometimes, the closer you look, the less you see.
Maybe that won't be the case here.
”Happy Hypoxemia" was never anything more than a known failure rate in the pulse oximeters coupled with confirmation bias and pernicious insentive structures (yes, couples sometimes come in 3s )
https://open.substack.com/pub/blastedreality/p/a-missing-piece-of-the-iatrogenesis?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=re52
Having read all articles, it is my opinion that Dr. Kory has made the better defense thus far. As I find that regrettable, allow me to add a few comments.
1. Dr. Kory made several key admissions which could have been capitalized upon better. For instance,
1.1 He admits: "I cannot explain why certain hot spots became medical disaster zones while other areas or countries, apparently not far away geographically did not exhibit such manifestations." This is an enormous problem to Dr. Kory's position, and gave a lot of room for comment.
1.2 He admits of several novel features, such as "reproducibility of this constellation of symptoms," "ICU’s full of patients with the same disease," and, "a disease which spread so rapidly and widely," among others. However, the fact that he has never in his career seen things such as these suggests he might not be dealing with a human coronavirus at all, since one would expect coronaviruses to behave somewhat similar to each other.
1.3 He admits of the possibility of "something as preposterous as deliberate widespread release in certain targeted cities and areas." This admission opens the door wide open for the possibility that what he called "covid" might be something drastically different from what you called 'Covid", based on what the rest of the world experienced.
2. Dr. Kory made 2 key statements which exposed enormous flaws in his thinking, which could have been used to demolish his argument, namely "we see hundreds of thousands of cases a year" (said to contrast covid with the flu), and, "all the transmission and dying" from covid (said to refute the idea that covid was bacterial pneumonia). The question is, were there more cases of covid than of the flu (in a normal year)? Did covid really transmit any more successfully than the cold or the flu does? (Assuming all 3 transmit), and, did Covid really kill that many more than the flu does in a normal year. Other than in NYC and Italy, my research answers "No!" to all 3 questions, thereby showing that Dr. Kory's position is faulted, and either his perception of events was skewed by his attention to the media and the CDC (which he admits to believing) or he was looking at something that was not "covid."
This is a lively, spirited and informative debate. Given the importance of the subject inquiry and the (current) lack of perfect diagnostic accuracy in respiratory medicine, I am hoping that cooperative investigation prevails among all interested parties. Confirmation bias, theoretical and other biases are known stumbling blocks but if we work together, we can nail the perps. That's what I'd like to see happen. Thanks to all the investigators.
I keep playing Devil’s Advocate with myself on my “early spread” hypothesis.
Regarding all the evidence I’ve found that ILI was “widespread” and “severe” in almost every state in America before the Wuhan outbreak, I guess someone could say, “So what?” It’s just a coincidence a lot more people became sick with Covid/ILI symptoms a couple of weeks or months before official Covid.
I agree with everyone that the PCR tests are the key to the fraudulent pandemic. But much of my “early spread” hypothesis puts great weight on the large numbers of people I’ve found who had early Covid symptoms and were shown to test positive with ANTIBODY tests.
My question: Are ALL of these positive AB results bogus? We should throw them all out as “false positives” (probably due to “cross reactivity.”)
If this is the case, then the antibody tests are a fraud as well … and I thought antibody tests had been used for decades and were pretty easy to produce and were, largely, considered accurate.
Still, if all these results are “false positives” and all these people didn’t have early Covid based on these results, we have another great Scientific Scandal: The damn antibody tests are a fraud and, I guess, always have been.
Or: Can we trust later positive antibody tests but should throw out early positive antibody tests?
For my “early spread” hypothesis to be rejected, we have to ignore tens of millions of people who had Covid symptoms and we have to conclude every single positive antibody test was bogus and wrong.
I also wonder what would have happened if tens of millions of people had been given PCR tests in February 2020. That is, despite all their flaws and the 40-plus CTs, I think these tests would have been producing millions of positive results if they’d been given earlier. So, per my hypothesis, officials intentionally delayed the roll-out of the PCR tests until AFTER the lockdowns. IMO this was another way to conceal evidence of “early spread.”
… Calling the early AB positives “junk results” that shouldn’t be trusted was another way to conceal evidence of early spread, per my early-spread-cover-up theory.
Thank you for your diligence in pursuing the truth
Great article Martin Neil, particularly identifying Kory’s "protect the mRNA technology at all costs" Deep State playbook is AZT all over again. Remember in Sweden at January 2023 Covid Conference, Kory and Cole shut down a conversation on the dangers of nanoparticles. Is it because all mRNA shots have nanoparticles, and if they are dangerous, the Deep State needs lie about it until the WHO/UN/Deep State get absolute information control after the WHO/UN agreements are approved? 1/3
"The severity, morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 must be re-emphasized to all, both young and old, as it spares neither. To avoid a catastrophic repeat of the initial surge, we recommend a population-wide intervention — a significant increase in the use of N95 masks — that might allow for a safer reopening of the U.S economy."
----
👍
"To avoid a catastrophic repeat of the initial surge..."
(Which only hebbbened in one city in the US)
Guess who?
BUT IVM GOOD!
::Warehouse of Hammers cheers wildly.::