Excellent article, impressive investigative work, and thought-provoking questions!
I just finished listening to the Jimmy Dore and Kory podcast on Rumble, which led to the termination of Mark’s YouTube video from five years ago due to a brief reference. The video included a one-second clip of Dr. Kory, where he dismisses the fentanyl epidemic, noting its absence globally during Spring 2020, when NYC reported 26% of COVID deaths in people under 65. This statistic, both unique and unreplicated since then, seems almost comical.
Regarding Dr. Kory’s comments, I believe they are part of a psychological operation. His assertion that ‘fentanyl has been around for 10 years’ seems like a diversion, and the rest of the podcast appears to divert attention to the topic of vaccine criticism.
This pattern seems recurring among figures like Malone, Bret, and Kory. Initially vocal about ‘worst-case scenarios,’ they now predominantly focus on criticizing vaccines.
Despite the WHO’s declarations, these influencers seem to have played a role in persuading small businesses to shut down and parents to keep children out of school in the name of saving lives, all leading to an inevitable solution: vaccination as a path back to normalcy; But, people who were hesitant to get vaccinated felt pressured, a fact Dr. Kory is aware of. He knows he wasn’t directly responsible for this coercion, so he participates in podcasts as if his conscience is clear. However, I wonder if he harbors any guilt about the outcomes, especially if his initial claims turned out to be untrue.
This appears to be a classic case of a ‘limited hangout’ strategy.
Re: his comments on the Jimmy Dore show yesterday, Dr. Kory said:
"To me, it’s all about temporal association….I’ve heard people - I’ve heard like mass media, journalists trying to come up with alternative explanations [for excess deaths among younger adults], you know, like “The Opioid Epidemic.” Yeah we unleashed fentanyl on the streets in 2021. It’s been around for ten years. We know the opioids are a big cause of deaths among young people. But these were not drug deaths, they were not COVID deaths. Lot of ‘em were unexpected.” (Jan 22, 2024)
Questions for Dr. Kory:
1) Who unleashed fentanyl on the streets? When? How?
2) What's been around for ten years? Fentanyl? Been around how?
3) How do you know the excess isn't drug deaths and the drug deaths are not additive? ANY opioid death is a problem, as people who lost loved ones to drugs will tell you.
4) Related: You've said multiple times over the past 3+ years that you saw young people dying of COVID in an NYC hospital. I assume you are telling the truth about what you saw and that it concerns you deeply, even now. So when Mr. Dore was citing statistics about the average age of a COVID death, why didn't you interject and tell him what you saw in New York? Wasn't that an opportunity to call for an investigation?
It’s remarkable how Dr. Kory, even in recent podcasts, continues to emphasize the use of invasive ventilators for COVID-19 patients for up to two weeks. This approach is extraordinary, considering that even survivors of severe motorcycle accidents are typically on ventilators for only 1-3 days. The most extreme cases might require a month-long ventilation, after which patients often need years to relearn basic functions.
Given his experience in hospitals with patients already on ventilators, it’s curious why Dr. Kory hasn’t discussed the initial decision-making process behind this treatment. One wonders if he’s bound by a non-disclosure agreement, which, if true, he wouldn’t be able to confirm.
His response to Dore regarding the 10-year-old drug fentanyl was inadequate. Arguing that its invention a decade ago doesn’t necessarily mean it couldn’t become more unmanageable over time, especially considering its status as a potent street drug. Given his New York roots, Dr. Kory is likely aware of the issues of poverty and substance abuse that plague the city.
Moreover, the promotion of Ivermectin (IVM), Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and Vitamin D by the ‘Dark Horse’ group seems like a strategy for medical freedom advocates. They appear to be leading a charge that even pharmaceutical companies anticipated, fearing public backlash. Consequently, these ‘Worst Case Scenario’ proponents, including Dr. Kory, seem to be receiving increased attention and promotion, including podcast appearances, as a way to sympathize with the public’s reluctance to vaccinate.
If you’re in the hospital and sedated, they have to put you on a ventilator. This is also why they want to get you awake and off of the ventilator as quickly as possible. Ventilators damage people’s lungs. This is a known problem. The hospital doesn’t/didn’t want the liability that comes with keeping someone on a ventilator for any amount of time longer than is absolutely necessary.
Similarly, ventilators are normally used for patients that can’t breath on their own. Such as being sedated, or in a coma. This is common knowledge in the medical field. It’s even mentioned in this article from AP referenced on the CBS News website from April 9, 2020.
Mechanical ventilators push oxygen into patients whose lungs are failing. Using the machines involves sedating a patient and sticking a tube into the throat. Deaths in such sick patients are common, no matter the reason they need the breathing help.
Generally speaking, 40 percent to 50 percent of patients with severe respiratory distress die while on ventilators, experts say. But 80 percent or more of coronavirus patients placed on the machines in New York City have died, state and city officials say.
“We know that mechanical ventilation is not benign,” said Dr. Eddy Fan, an expert on respiratory treatment at Toronto General Hospital. “One of the most important findings in the last few decades is that medical ventilation can worsen lung injury — so we have to be careful how we use it.”
The risks of using a ventilator are known, so I’m not sure why anyone would be pushing the use of ventilators for people who have low oxygen stats, but are still awake and breathing. They normally put those people on oxygen.
The honest truth is that if COVID-19, the Flu, a bad cold, or anything respiratory results in being someone being hospitalized, that person is most likely already circling the drain.
We have respiratory infections all throughout out lives, and it’s normally not an issue -- unless there are multiple other factors involved. This is what the COVID-19 death stats show as well [for what they’re worth]. The people who might have actually died from what is known as COVID-19 -- nearly all had multiple comorbidities. Large amounts of kids dying in hospital from COVID-19 is not reflected in the statistics anywhere.
Remember they even backed off of the six-foot distancing requirement for children. Why? Because children weren’t dying from COVID-19.
So it's six feet, wear a mask, wash your hands... Unless we have to get kids back to school within the remaining 42 days of Biden's first 100 days in office. The end of Biden's first 100 days lands on April 30, 2021.
Furthermore, if it's OK for kids to be (3) feet apart, then why push the vaccine, for those least effected?
“This approach is extraordinary, considering that even survivors of severe motorcycle accidents are typically on ventilators for only 1-3 days.” All patients are different.
I worked ER/ trauma for years. I never once put a motorcycle accident on a ventilator. Until you clear the head injury, sedatives are a no-no. Most motorcycle accidents result in either roadkill, may be a fracture, but mostly road rash.
I agree that I should have said something to correct the idea that it was only old people dying, it did cross my mind, but there was a flow to the interview that I did not think it an important enough data point to interrupt. Largely because with omicron there is little mortality associated for most people and especially young people..
“This pattern seems recurring among figures like Malone, Bret, and Kory. Initially vocal about ‘worst-case scenarios,’ they now predominantly focus on criticizing vaccines.”
I agree with this consensus. There is another supposed mfm “doctor” named Ana Mihalcea who criticizes the vaccine and makes wild claims (nanotech, etc), but won’t schedule or give out information unless you are vaccinated. It appears most of the mfm is a controlled organization in one way or another.
Ana regurgitates issues about the C19 transfections that Dr. Carrie Madej reported years ago. Dr. Madej have been warning us since 2020 about the deadly transfections, interesting that the crypto bros don't fund them as they do with the boys who hijacked the MFM.
Kory, Malone, Urso, Kirsch, Kennedy and the DNC all use the same PR guy, an evil genius. Their messaging is very tight and controlled.
Thank you for mentioning the reason behind the deletion of Mark’s main YT channel, I wasn't aware of what caused it. Both Mark and JJ Couey have been thorns on the sides of these Progressives who have hijacked a mostly Conservative MFM.
The one and only Trevor FitzGibbon. He also represents McCullough - so the public spats are all theater. Their messaging is controlled and tight by the evil genius who now controls RFK Jr.'s "Independent" political campaign. Tony Lyons, CHD's publisher, is also in the mix.
Keep up the great work Jessica! I think, for many of our leaders in the health freedom movement, if the narrative of some sort of pandemic is questioned, their place on the pecking order is lowered. Plus, many really think the only way to nail Fauci & his cohorts is to prove that GOF is an existential threat. I think your work & the work of the HART group is showing that, even if there was a released "deadly" virus that "spread" worldwide, it was pretty much of a nothingburger.
This is great work examining the early details of the origin story of the covid narrative. These are all excellent questions that I would be very interested to hear the answers to. Dr. Kory was remarkably ready to generalize his limited NYC experience for congressional testimony and everything he said fit with what ended up all over the news except for maybe early treatment. I would also like to know how many other doctors were brought in like this and did any others testify?
It seems that a theory you are considering is that he was brought in for a staged show created by carefully selecting very sick patients. That would certainly be easier to achieve than tens of thousands of actual deaths.
After this phase of supposed NYC mortality, the mass media was the most important driver of the pandemic. The power of the media messaging in creating the impression of overwhelmed or potentially overwhelmed hospitals for months, even in the minds of hospital workers who were NOT overwhelmed, is truly stunning. That is the power of the big lie, where it is too difficult to believe that a lie could be so boldly opposite of reality.
The turnaround time between Dr. Kory's first day in an NYC ICU and his appearance as a witness before a Senate committee is pretty remarkable. I think Senator Johnson has some questions to answer as well.
Yes, part of a broader theory I've arrived at is that the federal government activated the equivalent of a bomb/chemical attack live-exercise simulation that staged sudden spread of a deadly agent & convinced the world a disaster emergency existed.
This is not to say there weren't a considerable number of deaths. I believe there were. but that the daily ACM curve is not representing a real-time event, possibly in multiple ways. My best guess right now for the number of deaths that could be moved or fabricated is between 4,000-10,000
Regarding Sen. Johnson and hearings more generally, I don't follow all the related hearings closely enough to be absolutely sure, but I do get the feeling that there are guardrails in place. For instance, did they ever talk to Ralph Baric, who is into the government for more than 100 million dollars of research funds. Maybe he could explain the December vaccine candidate shipped to him.
They never summon anyone from DTRA (Malone's favorite government partner and Ukraine bio lab operator and they funded Ecohealth for large amounts.) They never dredged the CIA for whomever Fauci met with or who invited him for a secret visit. We just see Fauci again and again with the same performative theatrics which are reported on as some sort of bold progress every time.
They did manage to drag up some people from Ft. Detrick, who were allowed to talk about how their work to prevent more dangerous pandemics required more funding and how covid was a great example of that.
"My best guess right now for the number of deaths that could be moved or fabricated is between 4,000-10,000"
My grave fear is you're going to uncover something as dark as the Midazolam murders in the UK.
For some reason, I don't think those death figures are strictly fabricated. I think psychologically we wish they were. At "best" maybe reclassified. But those hospitals could never have treated 17,000 in that time. And it's a similar figure to the Midazolam murders, so I think they used a similar M.O.
Have you eyeballed Cuomo's carehome deaths? Does his carehome deaths timing line up with the hospital deaths? Because he almost lost his job over their deaths, but I never saw a corresponding spike in relation, from what I could recall.
there's no need to "spread a deadly agent", how come you don't see that? i understand people like JJ are trying to convince good researchers like yourself otherwise (think why, has something to do with his career and all) but it's a totally unsubstantiated distraction that has no purpose (or ground in reality) but to prolong the agenda. an agent without smell, color or a lingering chemical signature that spares children, dogs and politicians, really? the sequences are all computer generated nonsense that don't require any kind of physical attack.
What you're doing is invaluable, will be invaluable if answers are given. To ensure we don't go through "this" again, we have to know what "this" really was. I have the feeling the can of worms you are opening leads to a vast ocean of deception, not just covid scam. Thank you.
Now that some time has passed, engaging in conversations and addressing questions like these would be valuable. I hope the doctor recognizes the value of this and responds. Thank you for putting this together. It's excellent work.
Jessica, the work of you and your colleagues is so spot on, professional, and spoken like true scientists. I am so thoroughly impressed when your pointing out the problem of differential diagnostics and the steps to good research. The thorough coverage of so many areas, is inspiring and admirable. Congratulations at never giving up, and for being brave to challenge. This was riveting work both the first article, response, rebuttal. Exciting to be intellectually stimulated in a way I have not felt since graduate school. Wow! Hope that we are not all
Jessica, This write up and the links were riveting. This is the first time I have been intellectually stimulated with a feeling excitement since graduate school critiquing research papers. I am so impressed with the highest-quality level of your and your colleagues. So many call outs e.g., differential diagnostics and steps to do research. Thank you Thank you Thank you for your courage, admirable brilliance and tenacity!
Thank you, Jessica. Great work on this. I appreciate your taking the humble, respectful approach towards Kory that, to my mind, he probably doesn't deserve. If he responds I'm sure it will be by way of deception, shifting goal posts, and generally just avoiding short, concise answers to your questions. Should you get lucky enough to engage him in face-to-face discussion may I respectfully suggest that you contain your questions to very specific questioning, trying to avoid allowing any roundabout, longwinded answers saying nothing? I think Kory is in many ways key to exposing this fifth column since he played such a prominent role in it and was, admittedly, a pretty good actor (he certainly fooled me, anyway).
It's hard for people to come to terms with the fact that just about every single one of their alt-health celebrity "heroes" were pushing some form of the pandemic narrative, need for lockdowns, masks, remedisivir, vaccines, "protection of the elderly" and many of the other lies that went with the Covid Con.
Many of these "celebrity dissidents" are trying to back out through various modes of dissembling and linguistic manipulations.
None of these people should have been listened to in the first place and certainly should not be listened to now or ever again no matter how many mea culpas they offer.
All that is needed from them is their first hand testimony, an apology and then departure from the stage.
The likes of McCullough, Malone, RFK, Kory, Rose, Kirsch, Bhattacharya, Ioannidis, Martin, Cole, Nass and that entire cast of characters have been flat wrong on just about everything and certainly the most fundamental items.
They have done nothing but disorient and mislead people.
The damage they have done, while not as great as those like Gates, Fauci, Drosten et al, who are directly responsible for this colossal racketeering operation, is quite significant and lasting.
Agreed but I'm wondering why you have included Ioannidis here? Admittedly I haven't read much of what he has written or said after his initial, early statements about the low infection fatality rate which as I remember helped dispel the fear
mongering based upon Neil Fergusson's ridiculous computer models.
John Ioannidis testified at the same Senate Roundtable as Pierre Kory
"Shelter-in-place and lockdown orders were justified initially, when announcements declared a new, contagious virus with 3.4% fatality rate and no asymptomatic infections."
"While lockdowns were justified initially, their perpetuation may risk many lives."
I read Ionnadis’ testimony. While it’s true that he was cautiously supportive of some measures that we now know were harmful (Remdesivir, eg), he was definitely opposing lockdowns and did not give vaccines a definite endorsement. And he makes the point clearly that the young and healthy have little risk from Covid and that the 3.4% infection fatality rate was incorrect. In sum, I think he was trying to make an honest assessment given how little was known at that early stage. That said, a discussion with Ionnadis might be very interesting!
The challenge with the "lockdown" statements he made is that his belief at the time was that "lockdowns" are justified if the fatality rate is high enough.
I don't know what he's said about mass illegal quarantines of healthy people lately, but the values and assumptions behind his May 6, 2020 statement are inconsistent with my convictions about freedom of movement and other fundamental rights.
I read his testimony for a second time, Jessica, and I retract what I said about his position on lockdowns. He did, in fact as you said, state that he supported them for high mortality rates of Covid. That was a mistaken idea on two accounts: 1) because of what it means in terms of denial of freedom and 2) lockdown policy increased the rate of transmission of Covid as far as could be determined.
Because those experts endorsed (were fooled into?) the idea that a novel risk-additive pathogen was spreading -- and were already largely uncritical of other shots & vaccines or pandemic narratives -- they effectively had to endorse the COVID shot. As far as I know, Ioannidis has not revisited his own assumptions/beliefs about spread, or corrected his endorsement of reactive lockdown, mask mandates, COVID shot deployment, etc.
"Why did he push the jabs against a disease he knew wasn't a serious threat for most people?"
I think this was a crucial question for both Ioannidis and Bhattacharya. I just watched the Bhattacharya Cornell video that Allen kindly linked below. JB spends virtually the entire video clearly making a strong case for: 1) the fact that C19 was not a serious fatal threat for virtually anybody under the age of 70; 2) that lockdowns did not work in general and were harmful especially for the non-laptop working class; 3) that school closures were extremely harmful.
Disconnect #1: after making the above points he went on to describe the extremely strict lockdowns in Australia as "successful", based on the evidence that because the Australia population was shown to be almost C19 "virgin", by virtue of negative serum antibody studies, the spread of C19 could be prevented by extreme lockdowns. This was obviously fallacious by his own previous data, not to mention the important issue of totalitarian infringements on liberty.
Disconnect #2: he never discusses the issue of C19 vaxx harm. This omission is crucial as it leaves out the most important "cost" of the cost/benefit analysis, while concentrating on other important, but lesser harms, imo. Remember, in the classic Hoover Insitute JB interview in which he states unequivocally that the vaxx is "safe and effective". I can only consider that a baldfaced lie by an individual who otherwise exhibits normal, if not above normal intelligence and grasp of data.
Here is Bhattacharya and Ioannidis advocating for masks, lockdowns and social distancing.
The title of the piece below should have disqualified him from being considered knowledgeable about any of this. But it gets worse- this sentence below is mind numbing stupidity.
"A better understanding of asymptomatic transmission will help us evaluate strategies to manage the impact of COVID-19 on both our economy and our health care system. A large asymptomatic population is associated with a high risk of community spread and could require a conscious shift from containment to mitigation induced by behavior changes."
Visualizing the invisible: The effect of asymptomatic transmission on the outbreak dynamics of COVID-19
Mathias Peirlincka , Kevin Linkaa , Francisco Sahli Costabalb , Jay Bhattacharya , Eran Bendavidc , John P.A. Ioannidis, , Ellen Kuhla,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University School of Engineering, Stanford, CA, United States b Department of Mechanical and Metallurgical Engineering and Institute for Biological and Medical Engineering, Schools of Engineering, Biology and Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile c Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States d Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States Received 23 June 2020; received in revised form 28 August 2020; accepted 31 August 2020 Available online 8 September 2020
5. Conclusions
"The rapid and devastating development of the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many open questions about its outbreak dynamics and unsuccessful outbreak control. From an outbreak management standpoint – in the absence of effective vaccination and treatment – the two most successful strategies in controlling an infectious disease are isolating infectious individuals and tracing and quarantining their contacts. Both critically rely on a rapid identification of infections, typically through clinical symptoms. Recent antibody prevalence studies could explain why these strategies have largely failed in containing the COVID-19 pandemic: Increasing evidence suggests that the number of unreported asymptomatic cases could outnumber the reported symptomatic cases by an order of magnitude or more. Mathematical modeling, in conjunction with reported symptomatic case data, antibody seroprevalence studies, and machine learning allows us to infer, in real time, the epidemiology characteristics of COVID-19. We can now visualize the invisible asymptomatic population, estimate its role in disease transmission, and quantify the confidence in these predictions. A better understanding of asymptomatic transmission will help us evaluate strategies to manage the impact of COVID-19 on both our economy and our health care system. A large asymptomatic population is associated with a high risk of community spread and could require a conscious shift from containment to mitigation induced by behavior changes. Our study suggests that, until vaccination and treatment become available, increasing population awareness, encouraging increased hygiene, mandating the use of face masks, restricting travel, and promoting physical distancing could be the most successful strategies to manage the impact of COVID-19 on both our economy and our health care system."
Thanks for providing that paper, Allen. Definitely not much fun to try to wade through and I don't pretend to understand much of it, especially the section with the differential equations. However, I at least could understand that the authors had no idea of whether the asymptomatic, infected population was actually infectious at all, and then decided to make assumptions that they were and proceeded to base their data on three different arbitrary periods of asymptomatic being infectious. Which, of course, is very helpful if someone with power is interested in modifying human behavior in the direction of masks for all (even if they don't actually modify viral transmission at all), lockdowns, social distancing, restrictions on group sizes, etc. One interesting fact comes to light here, though, in my opinion. Reference #4 is the famous paper by Ioannidis and Bhattacharya (I actually previously did not realize Ioannidis was a co-author on that paper) in which they sampled a portion of the Santa Clara population for Covid antibodies. The results indicated a probably much greater portion of the population having already undergone Covid infection, presumably asymptomatically or minimaly symptomatic than was being touted by the media or by Fergusson's computer modeling. It wasn't clear in that April 4 study what actually constituted a "case", but it appeared to be defined as a symptomatic patient. The implication was clearly that Covid19, defined as a respiratory virus, was not nearly as virulent as was being reported in the mainstream media. Having established that, two months later they were advocating all of the above totalitarian measures.
Funny you put it that way- I said the following to someone one week ago re: B Weinstein's latest BS session with Carlson.
"I have to move a fence. Take some posts out that are sunk 2-feet deep and concreted in and then move the entire 50 feet of back fence 25 feet further back from the current location. Not kidding.
I will then have to dig new holes to sink the posts and build the relocated back fence. This is hard manual labor- no machines.
Could you ask Bret W if he could come over and help- he seems always shovel ready to dig another hole for himself, maybe he could help a brother? Hahahaha."
If you really want to get angry listen to Bhattacharya at Cornell U as he heaps praise on Cornell's 'response to Covid." I have it if you want it.
BTW Cornell's response consisted of mandating vaccines to students and staff (needle rape) firing employees who refused the vaxx, locking students out of their dorms if they weren't up to date with their C19 swab tests, threatening foreign exchange students with withdrawal from the school if they didn't comply with mandates (meaning deportation), mandating everyone wear masks in and outdoors and many other wonderful acts of tyranny.
Bhattacharya considered all of this a "measured approach."
Your research is superb. I have found some of the mfm doctors lack of response to questions, and some of their actions throughout this to be confounding - even though some of them may be very well-intentioned.
Excellent article, impressive investigative work, and thought-provoking questions!
I just finished listening to the Jimmy Dore and Kory podcast on Rumble, which led to the termination of Mark’s YouTube video from five years ago due to a brief reference. The video included a one-second clip of Dr. Kory, where he dismisses the fentanyl epidemic, noting its absence globally during Spring 2020, when NYC reported 26% of COVID deaths in people under 65. This statistic, both unique and unreplicated since then, seems almost comical.
Regarding Dr. Kory’s comments, I believe they are part of a psychological operation. His assertion that ‘fentanyl has been around for 10 years’ seems like a diversion, and the rest of the podcast appears to divert attention to the topic of vaccine criticism.
This pattern seems recurring among figures like Malone, Bret, and Kory. Initially vocal about ‘worst-case scenarios,’ they now predominantly focus on criticizing vaccines.
Despite the WHO’s declarations, these influencers seem to have played a role in persuading small businesses to shut down and parents to keep children out of school in the name of saving lives, all leading to an inevitable solution: vaccination as a path back to normalcy; But, people who were hesitant to get vaccinated felt pressured, a fact Dr. Kory is aware of. He knows he wasn’t directly responsible for this coercion, so he participates in podcasts as if his conscience is clear. However, I wonder if he harbors any guilt about the outcomes, especially if his initial claims turned out to be untrue.
This appears to be a classic case of a ‘limited hangout’ strategy.
Thanks, Tim.
Re: his comments on the Jimmy Dore show yesterday, Dr. Kory said:
"To me, it’s all about temporal association….I’ve heard people - I’ve heard like mass media, journalists trying to come up with alternative explanations [for excess deaths among younger adults], you know, like “The Opioid Epidemic.” Yeah we unleashed fentanyl on the streets in 2021. It’s been around for ten years. We know the opioids are a big cause of deaths among young people. But these were not drug deaths, they were not COVID deaths. Lot of ‘em were unexpected.” (Jan 22, 2024)
Questions for Dr. Kory:
1) Who unleashed fentanyl on the streets? When? How?
2) What's been around for ten years? Fentanyl? Been around how?
3) How do you know the excess isn't drug deaths and the drug deaths are not additive? ANY opioid death is a problem, as people who lost loved ones to drugs will tell you.
4) Related: You've said multiple times over the past 3+ years that you saw young people dying of COVID in an NYC hospital. I assume you are telling the truth about what you saw and that it concerns you deeply, even now. So when Mr. Dore was citing statistics about the average age of a COVID death, why didn't you interject and tell him what you saw in New York? Wasn't that an opportunity to call for an investigation?
It’s remarkable how Dr. Kory, even in recent podcasts, continues to emphasize the use of invasive ventilators for COVID-19 patients for up to two weeks. This approach is extraordinary, considering that even survivors of severe motorcycle accidents are typically on ventilators for only 1-3 days. The most extreme cases might require a month-long ventilation, after which patients often need years to relearn basic functions.
Given his experience in hospitals with patients already on ventilators, it’s curious why Dr. Kory hasn’t discussed the initial decision-making process behind this treatment. One wonders if he’s bound by a non-disclosure agreement, which, if true, he wouldn’t be able to confirm.
His response to Dore regarding the 10-year-old drug fentanyl was inadequate. Arguing that its invention a decade ago doesn’t necessarily mean it couldn’t become more unmanageable over time, especially considering its status as a potent street drug. Given his New York roots, Dr. Kory is likely aware of the issues of poverty and substance abuse that plague the city.
Moreover, the promotion of Ivermectin (IVM), Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and Vitamin D by the ‘Dark Horse’ group seems like a strategy for medical freedom advocates. They appear to be leading a charge that even pharmaceutical companies anticipated, fearing public backlash. Consequently, these ‘Worst Case Scenario’ proponents, including Dr. Kory, seem to be receiving increased attention and promotion, including podcast appearances, as a way to sympathize with the public’s reluctance to vaccinate.
You two are correct, something is not right here.
If you’re in the hospital and sedated, they have to put you on a ventilator. This is also why they want to get you awake and off of the ventilator as quickly as possible. Ventilators damage people’s lungs. This is a known problem. The hospital doesn’t/didn’t want the liability that comes with keeping someone on a ventilator for any amount of time longer than is absolutely necessary.
Similarly, ventilators are normally used for patients that can’t breath on their own. Such as being sedated, or in a coma. This is common knowledge in the medical field. It’s even mentioned in this article from AP referenced on the CBS News website from April 9, 2020.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/why-some-doctors-are-moving-away-ventilators-virus-patients-n1179986
Mechanical ventilators push oxygen into patients whose lungs are failing. Using the machines involves sedating a patient and sticking a tube into the throat. Deaths in such sick patients are common, no matter the reason they need the breathing help.
Generally speaking, 40 percent to 50 percent of patients with severe respiratory distress die while on ventilators, experts say. But 80 percent or more of coronavirus patients placed on the machines in New York City have died, state and city officials say.
“We know that mechanical ventilation is not benign,” said Dr. Eddy Fan, an expert on respiratory treatment at Toronto General Hospital. “One of the most important findings in the last few decades is that medical ventilation can worsen lung injury — so we have to be careful how we use it.”
The risks of using a ventilator are known, so I’m not sure why anyone would be pushing the use of ventilators for people who have low oxygen stats, but are still awake and breathing. They normally put those people on oxygen.
The honest truth is that if COVID-19, the Flu, a bad cold, or anything respiratory results in being someone being hospitalized, that person is most likely already circling the drain.
We have respiratory infections all throughout out lives, and it’s normally not an issue -- unless there are multiple other factors involved. This is what the COVID-19 death stats show as well [for what they’re worth]. The people who might have actually died from what is known as COVID-19 -- nearly all had multiple comorbidities. Large amounts of kids dying in hospital from COVID-19 is not reflected in the statistics anywhere.
Remember they even backed off of the six-foot distancing requirement for children. Why? Because children weren’t dying from COVID-19.
https://ogre.substack.com/p/children-and-mrna-vaccines-trust
So it's six feet, wear a mask, wash your hands... Unless we have to get kids back to school within the remaining 42 days of Biden's first 100 days in office. The end of Biden's first 100 days lands on April 30, 2021.
Furthermore, if it's OK for kids to be (3) feet apart, then why push the vaccine, for those least effected?
“This approach is extraordinary, considering that even survivors of severe motorcycle accidents are typically on ventilators for only 1-3 days.” All patients are different.
He said typically
I worked ER/ trauma for years. I never once put a motorcycle accident on a ventilator. Until you clear the head injury, sedatives are a no-no. Most motorcycle accidents result in either roadkill, may be a fracture, but mostly road rash.
I agree that I should have said something to correct the idea that it was only old people dying, it did cross my mind, but there was a flow to the interview that I did not think it an important enough data point to interrupt. Largely because with omicron there is little mortality associated for most people and especially young people..
No such thing as Omicron.
Why do you persist with such demonstrable lies?
“This pattern seems recurring among figures like Malone, Bret, and Kory. Initially vocal about ‘worst-case scenarios,’ they now predominantly focus on criticizing vaccines.”
I agree with this consensus. There is another supposed mfm “doctor” named Ana Mihalcea who criticizes the vaccine and makes wild claims (nanotech, etc), but won’t schedule or give out information unless you are vaccinated. It appears most of the mfm is a controlled organization in one way or another.
Ana regurgitates issues about the C19 transfections that Dr. Carrie Madej reported years ago. Dr. Madej have been warning us since 2020 about the deadly transfections, interesting that the crypto bros don't fund them as they do with the boys who hijacked the MFM.
Kory, Malone, Urso, Kirsch, Kennedy and the DNC all use the same PR guy, an evil genius. Their messaging is very tight and controlled.
Thank you for mentioning the reason behind the deletion of Mark’s main YT channel, I wasn't aware of what caused it. Both Mark and JJ Couey have been thorns on the sides of these Progressives who have hijacked a mostly Conservative MFM.
Who is that PR guy?
The one and only Trevor FitzGibbon. He also represents McCullough - so the public spats are all theater. Their messaging is controlled and tight by the evil genius who now controls RFK Jr.'s "Independent" political campaign. Tony Lyons, CHD's publisher, is also in the mix.
Thanks for that.
Does FitzGibbon also represent Kory?
So "dissident truth tellers" need a PR agent?
Got it.
Keep up the great work Jessica! I think, for many of our leaders in the health freedom movement, if the narrative of some sort of pandemic is questioned, their place on the pecking order is lowered. Plus, many really think the only way to nail Fauci & his cohorts is to prove that GOF is an existential threat. I think your work & the work of the HART group is showing that, even if there was a released "deadly" virus that "spread" worldwide, it was pretty much of a nothingburger.
This is great work examining the early details of the origin story of the covid narrative. These are all excellent questions that I would be very interested to hear the answers to. Dr. Kory was remarkably ready to generalize his limited NYC experience for congressional testimony and everything he said fit with what ended up all over the news except for maybe early treatment. I would also like to know how many other doctors were brought in like this and did any others testify?
It seems that a theory you are considering is that he was brought in for a staged show created by carefully selecting very sick patients. That would certainly be easier to achieve than tens of thousands of actual deaths.
After this phase of supposed NYC mortality, the mass media was the most important driver of the pandemic. The power of the media messaging in creating the impression of overwhelmed or potentially overwhelmed hospitals for months, even in the minds of hospital workers who were NOT overwhelmed, is truly stunning. That is the power of the big lie, where it is too difficult to believe that a lie could be so boldly opposite of reality.
Thanks
The turnaround time between Dr. Kory's first day in an NYC ICU and his appearance as a witness before a Senate committee is pretty remarkable. I think Senator Johnson has some questions to answer as well.
Yes, part of a broader theory I've arrived at is that the federal government activated the equivalent of a bomb/chemical attack live-exercise simulation that staged sudden spread of a deadly agent & convinced the world a disaster emergency existed.
This is not to say there weren't a considerable number of deaths. I believe there were. but that the daily ACM curve is not representing a real-time event, possibly in multiple ways. My best guess right now for the number of deaths that could be moved or fabricated is between 4,000-10,000
Arrives late April, in the Hearing May 6th, no new cases by end of May.
Regarding Sen. Johnson and hearings more generally, I don't follow all the related hearings closely enough to be absolutely sure, but I do get the feeling that there are guardrails in place. For instance, did they ever talk to Ralph Baric, who is into the government for more than 100 million dollars of research funds. Maybe he could explain the December vaccine candidate shipped to him.
They never summon anyone from DTRA (Malone's favorite government partner and Ukraine bio lab operator and they funded Ecohealth for large amounts.) They never dredged the CIA for whomever Fauci met with or who invited him for a secret visit. We just see Fauci again and again with the same performative theatrics which are reported on as some sort of bold progress every time.
They did manage to drag up some people from Ft. Detrick, who were allowed to talk about how their work to prevent more dangerous pandemics required more funding and how covid was a great example of that.
Yeah I'll bet they didn't talk what happened there in August 2019 though.
JJ is lying to you about these people and hiding tons of information from you (on purpose):
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2fTgjQNNobyZV3eYKJ4Djg?si=di5CGTHRRCK9cSIAEKXlMQ
Stop spamming or you will be blocked.
Thanks.
"My best guess right now for the number of deaths that could be moved or fabricated is between 4,000-10,000"
My grave fear is you're going to uncover something as dark as the Midazolam murders in the UK.
For some reason, I don't think those death figures are strictly fabricated. I think psychologically we wish they were. At "best" maybe reclassified. But those hospitals could never have treated 17,000 in that time. And it's a similar figure to the Midazolam murders, so I think they used a similar M.O.
Have you eyeballed Cuomo's carehome deaths? Does his carehome deaths timing line up with the hospital deaths? Because he almost lost his job over their deaths, but I never saw a corresponding spike in relation, from what I could recall.
I don't think strictly fabricated either and have said so elsewhere. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/where-is-the-proof-that-over-37000
The claim about the number of hospital deaths in the timeframe defies credulity. There's just no way they handled that many bodies.
Midazolam murder numbers in UK are for a whole country, no?
I addressed the care home topic here: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/new-york-city-spring-2020-emergency
there's no need to "spread a deadly agent", how come you don't see that? i understand people like JJ are trying to convince good researchers like yourself otherwise (think why, has something to do with his career and all) but it's a totally unsubstantiated distraction that has no purpose (or ground in reality) but to prolong the agenda. an agent without smell, color or a lingering chemical signature that spares children, dogs and politicians, really? the sequences are all computer generated nonsense that don't require any kind of physical attack.
I hope he will respond - great write-up, great questions. Everything hinges on NYC. We should know the truth.
What you're doing is invaluable, will be invaluable if answers are given. To ensure we don't go through "this" again, we have to know what "this" really was. I have the feeling the can of worms you are opening leads to a vast ocean of deception, not just covid scam. Thank you.
I have that feeling too...
You're welcome
Now that some time has passed, engaging in conversations and addressing questions like these would be valuable. I hope the doctor recognizes the value of this and responds. Thank you for putting this together. It's excellent work.
Thank you and you're welcome.
It's in the best interests of society and posterity for the truth to be disclosed sooner rather than later.
Excellent questions, whether he responds or not. Keep going.
Keep seeing actors from Wisconsin involved. Isn't that a church of scientology hang out?
I’m not sure about the Scientology aspect, but UW is also home to a virus lab that has focused on influenza viruses in recent years.
Clusters of vaping illness cases I mentioned in the post are another Wisconsin connection.
Wow!
Jessica, the work of you and your colleagues is so spot on, professional, and spoken like true scientists. I am so thoroughly impressed when your pointing out the problem of differential diagnostics and the steps to good research. The thorough coverage of so many areas, is inspiring and admirable. Congratulations at never giving up, and for being brave to challenge. This was riveting work both the first article, response, rebuttal. Exciting to be intellectually stimulated in a way I have not felt since graduate school. Wow! Hope that we are not all
Jessica, This write up and the links were riveting. This is the first time I have been intellectually stimulated with a feeling excitement since graduate school critiquing research papers. I am so impressed with the highest-quality level of your and your colleagues. So many call outs e.g., differential diagnostics and steps to do research. Thank you Thank you Thank you for your courage, admirable brilliance and tenacity!
Thank you, Jessica. Great work on this. I appreciate your taking the humble, respectful approach towards Kory that, to my mind, he probably doesn't deserve. If he responds I'm sure it will be by way of deception, shifting goal posts, and generally just avoiding short, concise answers to your questions. Should you get lucky enough to engage him in face-to-face discussion may I respectfully suggest that you contain your questions to very specific questioning, trying to avoid allowing any roundabout, longwinded answers saying nothing? I think Kory is in many ways key to exposing this fifth column since he played such a prominent role in it and was, admittedly, a pretty good actor (he certainly fooled me, anyway).
Fascinating.
Excellent questions. If it was a simulation, do you have any theories as to why?
Kory is a fraud from top to bottom and his involvement as a medical expert in the George Floyd civil case beggars belief.
Very disappointed to see Dr. Kory having co-written an article pushing masks. I would like to see how he would react now if asked about this.
It's hard for people to come to terms with the fact that just about every single one of their alt-health celebrity "heroes" were pushing some form of the pandemic narrative, need for lockdowns, masks, remedisivir, vaccines, "protection of the elderly" and many of the other lies that went with the Covid Con.
Many of these "celebrity dissidents" are trying to back out through various modes of dissembling and linguistic manipulations.
None of these people should have been listened to in the first place and certainly should not be listened to now or ever again no matter how many mea culpas they offer.
All that is needed from them is their first hand testimony, an apology and then departure from the stage.
The likes of McCullough, Malone, RFK, Kory, Rose, Kirsch, Bhattacharya, Ioannidis, Martin, Cole, Nass and that entire cast of characters have been flat wrong on just about everything and certainly the most fundamental items.
They have done nothing but disorient and mislead people.
The damage they have done, while not as great as those like Gates, Fauci, Drosten et al, who are directly responsible for this colossal racketeering operation, is quite significant and lasting.
Agreed but I'm wondering why you have included Ioannidis here? Admittedly I haven't read much of what he has written or said after his initial, early statements about the low infection fatality rate which as I remember helped dispel the fear
mongering based upon Neil Fergusson's ridiculous computer models.
John Ioannidis testified at the same Senate Roundtable as Pierre Kory
"Shelter-in-place and lockdown orders were justified initially, when announcements declared a new, contagious virus with 3.4% fatality rate and no asymptomatic infections."
"While lockdowns were justified initially, their perpetuation may risk many lives."
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Ioannidis-2020-05-06.pdf
I read Ionnadis’ testimony. While it’s true that he was cautiously supportive of some measures that we now know were harmful (Remdesivir, eg), he was definitely opposing lockdowns and did not give vaccines a definite endorsement. And he makes the point clearly that the young and healthy have little risk from Covid and that the 3.4% infection fatality rate was incorrect. In sum, I think he was trying to make an honest assessment given how little was known at that early stage. That said, a discussion with Ionnadis might be very interesting!
The challenge with the "lockdown" statements he made is that his belief at the time was that "lockdowns" are justified if the fatality rate is high enough.
I don't know what he's said about mass illegal quarantines of healthy people lately, but the values and assumptions behind his May 6, 2020 statement are inconsistent with my convictions about freedom of movement and other fundamental rights.
I read his testimony for a second time, Jessica, and I retract what I said about his position on lockdowns. He did, in fact as you said, state that he supported them for high mortality rates of Covid. That was a mistaken idea on two accounts: 1) because of what it means in terms of denial of freedom and 2) lockdown policy increased the rate of transmission of Covid as far as could be determined.
Ioannidis did endorse the vaccines...
Why did he push the jabs against a disease he knew wasn’t a serious threat for most people?
So many of these so-called ‘experts’ clung to the blessed vaccine narrative…
See my emails to Ioannidis:
- John Ioannidis urges Australia to "push for vaccination very fast..." Why? 17 September 2021: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/john-ioannidis-urges-australia-to-_push-for-vaccination-very-fast..._-why_.pdf
- COVID-19 vaccination in Australia and John Ioannidis' advice, 1 October 2021: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/covid-19-vaccination-in-australia-and-john-ioannidis-advice-1.pdf
Because those experts endorsed (were fooled into?) the idea that a novel risk-additive pathogen was spreading -- and were already largely uncritical of other shots & vaccines or pandemic narratives -- they effectively had to endorse the COVID shot. As far as I know, Ioannidis has not revisited his own assumptions/beliefs about spread, or corrected his endorsement of reactive lockdown, mask mandates, COVID shot deployment, etc.
"Why did he push the jabs against a disease he knew wasn't a serious threat for most people?"
I think this was a crucial question for both Ioannidis and Bhattacharya. I just watched the Bhattacharya Cornell video that Allen kindly linked below. JB spends virtually the entire video clearly making a strong case for: 1) the fact that C19 was not a serious fatal threat for virtually anybody under the age of 70; 2) that lockdowns did not work in general and were harmful especially for the non-laptop working class; 3) that school closures were extremely harmful.
Disconnect #1: after making the above points he went on to describe the extremely strict lockdowns in Australia as "successful", based on the evidence that because the Australia population was shown to be almost C19 "virgin", by virtue of negative serum antibody studies, the spread of C19 could be prevented by extreme lockdowns. This was obviously fallacious by his own previous data, not to mention the important issue of totalitarian infringements on liberty.
Disconnect #2: he never discusses the issue of C19 vaxx harm. This omission is crucial as it leaves out the most important "cost" of the cost/benefit analysis, while concentrating on other important, but lesser harms, imo. Remember, in the classic Hoover Insitute JB interview in which he states unequivocally that the vaxx is "safe and effective". I can only consider that a baldfaced lie by an individual who otherwise exhibits normal, if not above normal intelligence and grasp of data.
I'm not sure what you mean by "how little was known at that early stage."
What was not known?
Early stage of what?
Oh yeah, they always seem to claim to not know much, but in reality they ignored data in favor of their fantasy.
Wow.
Here is Bhattacharya and Ioannidis advocating for masks, lockdowns and social distancing.
The title of the piece below should have disqualified him from being considered knowledgeable about any of this. But it gets worse- this sentence below is mind numbing stupidity.
"A better understanding of asymptomatic transmission will help us evaluate strategies to manage the impact of COVID-19 on both our economy and our health care system. A large asymptomatic population is associated with a high risk of community spread and could require a conscious shift from containment to mitigation induced by behavior changes."
http://biomechanics.stanford.edu/paper/CMAME20.pdf
Visualizing the invisible: The effect of asymptomatic transmission on the outbreak dynamics of COVID-19
Mathias Peirlincka , Kevin Linkaa , Francisco Sahli Costabalb , Jay Bhattacharya , Eran Bendavidc , John P.A. Ioannidis, , Ellen Kuhla,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University School of Engineering, Stanford, CA, United States b Department of Mechanical and Metallurgical Engineering and Institute for Biological and Medical Engineering, Schools of Engineering, Biology and Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile c Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States d Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States Received 23 June 2020; received in revised form 28 August 2020; accepted 31 August 2020 Available online 8 September 2020
5. Conclusions
"The rapid and devastating development of the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many open questions about its outbreak dynamics and unsuccessful outbreak control. From an outbreak management standpoint – in the absence of effective vaccination and treatment – the two most successful strategies in controlling an infectious disease are isolating infectious individuals and tracing and quarantining their contacts. Both critically rely on a rapid identification of infections, typically through clinical symptoms. Recent antibody prevalence studies could explain why these strategies have largely failed in containing the COVID-19 pandemic: Increasing evidence suggests that the number of unreported asymptomatic cases could outnumber the reported symptomatic cases by an order of magnitude or more. Mathematical modeling, in conjunction with reported symptomatic case data, antibody seroprevalence studies, and machine learning allows us to infer, in real time, the epidemiology characteristics of COVID-19. We can now visualize the invisible asymptomatic population, estimate its role in disease transmission, and quantify the confidence in these predictions. A better understanding of asymptomatic transmission will help us evaluate strategies to manage the impact of COVID-19 on both our economy and our health care system. A large asymptomatic population is associated with a high risk of community spread and could require a conscious shift from containment to mitigation induced by behavior changes. Our study suggests that, until vaccination and treatment become available, increasing population awareness, encouraging increased hygiene, mandating the use of face masks, restricting travel, and promoting physical distancing could be the most successful strategies to manage the impact of COVID-19 on both our economy and our health care system."
Thanks for providing that paper, Allen. Definitely not much fun to try to wade through and I don't pretend to understand much of it, especially the section with the differential equations. However, I at least could understand that the authors had no idea of whether the asymptomatic, infected population was actually infectious at all, and then decided to make assumptions that they were and proceeded to base their data on three different arbitrary periods of asymptomatic being infectious. Which, of course, is very helpful if someone with power is interested in modifying human behavior in the direction of masks for all (even if they don't actually modify viral transmission at all), lockdowns, social distancing, restrictions on group sizes, etc. One interesting fact comes to light here, though, in my opinion. Reference #4 is the famous paper by Ioannidis and Bhattacharya (I actually previously did not realize Ioannidis was a co-author on that paper) in which they sampled a portion of the Santa Clara population for Covid antibodies. The results indicated a probably much greater portion of the population having already undergone Covid infection, presumably asymptomatically or minimaly symptomatic than was being touted by the media or by Fergusson's computer modeling. It wasn't clear in that April 4 study what actually constituted a "case", but it appeared to be defined as a symptomatic patient. The implication was clearly that Covid19, defined as a respiratory virus, was not nearly as virulent as was being reported in the mainstream media. Having established that, two months later they were advocating all of the above totalitarian measures.
Can't fix stupid.
Seriously... I have seen more and more high ranked people in their fields just keep digging into bullshit, thinking they hit gold.
Funny you put it that way- I said the following to someone one week ago re: B Weinstein's latest BS session with Carlson.
"I have to move a fence. Take some posts out that are sunk 2-feet deep and concreted in and then move the entire 50 feet of back fence 25 feet further back from the current location. Not kidding.
I will then have to dig new holes to sink the posts and build the relocated back fence. This is hard manual labor- no machines.
Could you ask Bret W if he could come over and help- he seems always shovel ready to dig another hole for himself, maybe he could help a brother? Hahahaha."
His hands don't show it.
Also, he talks like he's a upper class man.
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/the-horse-dewormer-pr-campaign-and/comment/48079845
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/the-horse-dewormer-pr-campaign-and/comment/48079338
WTF? So disappointing...
If you really want to get angry listen to Bhattacharya at Cornell U as he heaps praise on Cornell's 'response to Covid." I have it if you want it.
BTW Cornell's response consisted of mandating vaccines to students and staff (needle rape) firing employees who refused the vaxx, locking students out of their dorms if they weren't up to date with their C19 swab tests, threatening foreign exchange students with withdrawal from the school if they didn't comply with mandates (meaning deportation), mandating everyone wear masks in and outdoors and many other wonderful acts of tyranny.
Bhattacharya considered all of this a "measured approach."
I'd like that reference, Allen, if you don't mind. Bhattacharya is looking more and more like a rabid wolf in sheep's clothing.
Your research is superb. I have found some of the mfm doctors lack of response to questions, and some of their actions throughout this to be confounding - even though some of them may be very well-intentioned.
I wonder if he will comment; my guess is that he won’t. I would like answers to the well thought out questions you have posed.
Thanks
I want the truth, whatever it is, and I believe Pierre Kory could help.