Sorry, altho Steve Kirsch may be a boy wonder in IT and $, and initially been altruistic his opinions and commentary on many aspects of COVID have no credibility in the vast house of everyday medical care.
Sorry, altho Steve Kirsch may be a boy wonder in IT and $, and initially been altruistic his opinions and commentary on many aspects of COVID have no credibility in the vast house of everyday medical care.
"credibility in the vast house of everyday medical care?" That is code for SOC. Standard of care. Which is code for do not stray from the conventional dogma. Medicine only advances with challenges to the common "wisdom." The point of this entire blog and exercise is opening a scientific debate and discussion that has been systematically banned.
This should not be an ad homonum exercise. I spent many years not only as a clinician, but also as a state regulator of MD licenses, and as a hospital bioethics consultant stretching and challenging standards of care to benefit patients. The issue is not challenging conventional dogma, but improving care and outcomes. Unfortunately in 2020 this took place in the face of a challenging tsunami of confusion and failure.
I said nothing about whether or not Kirsch is credible. I said that they wouldn't let him speak at MIT, even in the building named for him. They could have insisted on someone with a different view point being there to challenge him.
You don't have to consider Kirsch credible to listen to the interviews of nurses about what was happening in the hospitals in 2020.
Kirsch aside, the "vast house of everyday medical care" was corrupted during Covid evidently because of money, ego and a struggle for power.
Mimi, all or much of what you are saying about vent use is correct but your Kirsch facts are a little off. If I remember correctly. he donated $2 million to MIT and got an auditorium named after him. No chance a building would get named after you for only $2 million. As for his speech in the auditorium bearing his name, he made an effort to get someone to debate him but failed. Many of us have tried and failed to get anyone to debate us. I challenged 16 pediatricians who had come out publicly in favor of childhood vaccine mandates but they all declined. I challenged Dr. Paul Offit to debate me on origins of the virus and the number who actually died FRON COVID after he made claims that I found preposterous. He didn't even respond which led to an amusing exchange in the comment sections under his posts which was not very complimentary of Dr. Offit. Unfortunately, there was no way around it and I'm sure it will continue.
Yes, they named an auditorium after Kirsch for his $2.5 million donation.
I like Kirsch but I follow him a lot less than I used to because despite his good intentions, sometimes he jumps to conclusions without sufficient evidence.
I was following the story with Kirsch and as I posted under another comment, MIT told him at first to go elsewhere. He made them look ridiculous so they had to relent. MIT could have provided somebody to debate him if they had wanted to but they probably wanted to avoid further embarrassment.
---correction
SomeChick corrected me. The MIT students were the ones who managed to give Kirsch the opportunity to speak.
The harms - even deaths - caused by Kirsh, Atlas, Redfield, Gold Kennedy and others are well documented. In 2020 the politics and programs dealing with COVID were often wrong and wrong headed (and continue to be in my opinion). I am also well aware of major "corrupt" and money grubbing or legally protective dysfunctional behavior by hospitals but I cannot believe hospital medical personnel were so conspiratorially selfish. AND if they existed they were but a small number among the thousands of nurses, doc, resp therapists, and aides who gave selflessly in 2020 at substantial personal risk while the system failed them.
How exactly did Kirsh, Atlas, Redfield, Gold or Kennedy cause deaths? Seems to me if you're going to make such an accusation, you should provide your evidence.
Dr. Gordon, how did Scott Atlas cause harms and even deaths? I am just now completing a book in which I ranked figures from the COVID era based on their understanding, contribution to death caused by the policies they supported, etc. Dr. Atlas fared very well. As far as I could find, he made only two counterproductive errors in judgement.
You'd be surprised about what seems to have been going on. The government was handing out cash and plenty of people jumped through their hoops to get it. This isn't anything new but Covid has brought things out into the open.
Some of the best doctors lost their licenses for talking about what was wrong with the way Covid was being handled. In California, a law was passed to silence doctors if they spread disinformation. In that environment, who could blame anyone if they went along with the corruption. Few people were willing to speak out because they were afraid of losing their job. That's not due to conspiracy, that's due to being threatened. And since the threats were coming from the government and the hospitals, that's a lot of people, selfless or not.
Here's something from a substack author. He is nameless but says he is an MD:
"This corrupt protocol in turn played a large part in why the USA had such a high death count from COVID-19 and many doctors could see that once their patients went through it. However, while physicians who followed FauciтАЩs protocol faced no consequences for all the patients who died, whenever physicians tried to use alternative approaches to treat COVID-19, they were heavily penalized for doing so."
"This was at least in part because the hospitals were financially incentivized to utilize FauciтАЩs protocol (it paid up to approximately 50,000 per patient) whereas much of that money would have disappeared were an alternative protocol to have been used which quickly got the patient out of the hospital or saved their life. As a result, the physicians who prioritized the lives of their patients were targeted by hospital administrators (e.g., Paul Marik, one of the most respected experts in critical care medicine lost his ability to practice to medicine)."
Sorry, altho Steve Kirsch may be a boy wonder in IT and $, and initially been altruistic his opinions and commentary on many aspects of COVID have no credibility in the vast house of everyday medical care.
See the link- it is a news article that has nothing to do with Kirsh.
"credibility in the vast house of everyday medical care?" That is code for SOC. Standard of care. Which is code for do not stray from the conventional dogma. Medicine only advances with challenges to the common "wisdom." The point of this entire blog and exercise is opening a scientific debate and discussion that has been systematically banned.
50 years of medical practice has taught me this.
This should not be an ad homonum exercise. I spent many years not only as a clinician, but also as a state regulator of MD licenses, and as a hospital bioethics consultant stretching and challenging standards of care to benefit patients. The issue is not challenging conventional dogma, but improving care and outcomes. Unfortunately in 2020 this took place in the face of a challenging tsunami of confusion and failure.
I said nothing about whether or not Kirsch is credible. I said that they wouldn't let him speak at MIT, even in the building named for him. They could have insisted on someone with a different view point being there to challenge him.
You don't have to consider Kirsch credible to listen to the interviews of nurses about what was happening in the hospitals in 2020.
Kirsch aside, the "vast house of everyday medical care" was corrupted during Covid evidently because of money, ego and a struggle for power.
Mimi, all or much of what you are saying about vent use is correct but your Kirsch facts are a little off. If I remember correctly. he donated $2 million to MIT and got an auditorium named after him. No chance a building would get named after you for only $2 million. As for his speech in the auditorium bearing his name, he made an effort to get someone to debate him but failed. Many of us have tried and failed to get anyone to debate us. I challenged 16 pediatricians who had come out publicly in favor of childhood vaccine mandates but they all declined. I challenged Dr. Paul Offit to debate me on origins of the virus and the number who actually died FRON COVID after he made claims that I found preposterous. He didn't even respond which led to an amusing exchange in the comment sections under his posts which was not very complimentary of Dr. Offit. Unfortunately, there was no way around it and I'm sure it will continue.
Yes, they named an auditorium after Kirsch for his $2.5 million donation.
I like Kirsch but I follow him a lot less than I used to because despite his good intentions, sometimes he jumps to conclusions without sufficient evidence.
But I appreciated this:
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/the-single-most-important-interview?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=548354&post_id=140209506&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=3e2pu&triedRedirect=true
I was following the story with Kirsch and as I posted under another comment, MIT told him at first to go elsewhere. He made them look ridiculous so they had to relent. MIT could have provided somebody to debate him if they had wanted to but they probably wanted to avoid further embarrassment.
---correction
SomeChick corrected me. The MIT students were the ones who managed to give Kirsch the opportunity to speak.
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/mit-does-not-want-to-entertain-the
The harms - even deaths - caused by Kirsh, Atlas, Redfield, Gold Kennedy and others are well documented. In 2020 the politics and programs dealing with COVID were often wrong and wrong headed (and continue to be in my opinion). I am also well aware of major "corrupt" and money grubbing or legally protective dysfunctional behavior by hospitals but I cannot believe hospital medical personnel were so conspiratorially selfish. AND if they existed they were but a small number among the thousands of nurses, doc, resp therapists, and aides who gave selflessly in 2020 at substantial personal risk while the system failed them.
How exactly did Kirsh, Atlas, Redfield, Gold or Kennedy cause deaths? Seems to me if you're going to make such an accusation, you should provide your evidence.
Dr. Gordon, how did Scott Atlas cause harms and even deaths? I am just now completing a book in which I ranked figures from the COVID era based on their understanding, contribution to death caused by the policies they supported, etc. Dr. Atlas fared very well. As far as I could find, he made only two counterproductive errors in judgement.
How did Redfield get on your list?
You'd be surprised about what seems to have been going on. The government was handing out cash and plenty of people jumped through their hoops to get it. This isn't anything new but Covid has brought things out into the open.
Some of the best doctors lost their licenses for talking about what was wrong with the way Covid was being handled. In California, a law was passed to silence doctors if they spread disinformation. In that environment, who could blame anyone if they went along with the corruption. Few people were willing to speak out because they were afraid of losing their job. That's not due to conspiracy, that's due to being threatened. And since the threats were coming from the government and the hospitals, that's a lot of people, selfless or not.
Here's something from a substack author. He is nameless but says he is an MD:
"This corrupt protocol in turn played a large part in why the USA had such a high death count from COVID-19 and many doctors could see that once their patients went through it. However, while physicians who followed FauciтАЩs protocol faced no consequences for all the patients who died, whenever physicians tried to use alternative approaches to treat COVID-19, they were heavily penalized for doing so."
"This was at least in part because the hospitals were financially incentivized to utilize FauciтАЩs protocol (it paid up to approximately 50,000 per patient) whereas much of that money would have disappeared were an alternative protocol to have been used which quickly got the patient out of the hospital or saved their life. As a result, the physicians who prioritized the lives of their patients were targeted by hospital administrators (e.g., Paul Marik, one of the most respected experts in critical care medicine lost his ability to practice to medicine)."
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-wont-doctors-innovate-14f?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=748806&post_id=138497839&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=3e2pu&triedRedirect=true