Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Truth Seeker's avatar

Thanks so much for all you are doing, Dr. Kory. If only we had more fighters like you in the medical field. This statement from your piece jumped out at me: " I am sure there are more than a couple of California doctors (or maybe not) whose opinions conflict with the captured Federal health agencies but are instead supported by academies of scientists and health agencies in other countries.". There don't seem to be many. My physician husband is now retired, practiced medicine in California for many decades, and is appalled at what has happened to medicine. Why did no doctors step up to object to this bill? Where were there no white coat demonstrations in Sacramento? Probably because this bill won't change a thing for them. Instead, most of the docs are STILL pushing the shot, none will prescribe therapeutics, and many collected the grants offered by the state to do so. First it was $55,000 to push the shot, now they are giving grants to the pediatricians to push it on our kids. Lots of us will be signing up for your tele-health services. We certainly don't trust the doctors around here. Thank you and God bless you.

Expand full comment
Laurence Behney, M.D.'s avatar

In the Helsinki Accords, to which the U.S. is a signatory nation, is included a lengthy guideline from the WMA on the ethical performance of clinical trials on human subjects. The last section of this guideline is section 37, which states:  "In the treatment of an individual patient, where proven interventions do not exist or other known interventions have been ineffective, the physician, after seeking expert advice, with informed consent from the patient or a legally authorised representative, may use an unproven intervention if in the physician’s judgement it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering. This intervention should subsequently be made the object of research, designed to evaluate its safety and efficacy. In all cases, new information must be recorded and, where appropriate, made publicly available."

In the absence of any other available therapeutic intervention, it is incumbent on every physician to use any reasonable intervention and considering the fact that in the Spring of 2020, ivermectin was found to reduce mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in a peer-reviewed study in the esteemed medical journal Chest, this would be reasonable justification for the defense of any physician in any U.S. court. This is an international agreement ratified by the U.S. government and conflicts with this new Californian law.

Expand full comment
25 more comments...

No posts