Why Dr. Pierre Kory should be charged under 18 USC 1001.

Doctor Pierre Kory compared death rates of Hospitalized COVID positive patients who did not take Ivermectin to Non-hospitalized COVID positive patients who took Ivermectin in his testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Dr. Kory framed this data in a manner to suggest that Ivermectin prevents COVID death. While it is true that Ivermectin has medical benefits to patients that were described as “COVID positive,” (whether these people were infected with a novel coronavirus or not), it is also true that COVID patients are systematically killed by deliberate medical malpractice in hospitals, and that this is a fact that Dr. Kory endeavored to conceal from the Senate Committee.

Let’s say there are 4 groups.

• (A) Non-hospitalized COVID positive patients who took Ivermectin.

• (B) Non-hospitalized COVID positive patients who who did not take Ivermectin.

• (C) Hospitalized COVID positive patients who took Ivermectin.

• (D) Hospitalized COVID positive patients who did not take Ivermectin.

In his testimony to the Senate Committee on December 08, 2020, Dr. Kory compared the death rates of (A) Non-hospitalized COVID positive patients who took Ivermectin to (D) Hospitalized COVID positive patients who did not take Ivermectin. I agree that D is greater than A. Much greater.

HIGH DEATH RATES OF HOSPITALIZED COVID PATIENTS UNDER DR. KORY’S CARE

Here Dr. Kory talks about the high death rates of patients under his care. These are (D) Hospitalized COVID positive patients who did not take Ivermectin.

I’m a lung specialist. I’m an ICU specialist. I’ve cared for more dying COVID patients than anyone can imagine. They are dying because they can’t breathe. They can’t breathe! They’re on high-flow oxygen delivery devices. They’re on non-invasive ventilators, and/or they’re sedated and paralyzed and attached to mechanical ventilators that breathe for them. And I watch them every day. They die. …

By the time they get to me in the ICU, they’re already dying. They’re almost impossible to recover. Early treatment is key.

There is simply no excuse for death rates as high as the ones Dr. Kory alludes to. About all of his ventilated patients died, according to Dr. Kory himself. Similarly, Northwell Health in New York also reported an 88% death rate in April 22, 2020 of their ventilated patients. Dr. Kory co-authored a paper with Paul Mayo of Northwell Health on July 6, 2020. Beth Israel Medical Center also reported a very high death rate of ventilated patients in the March-April period of 2020. Dr. Kory reported that he worked at Beth Israel’s ICU beginning around May 2020.

Dr. Kory could not possibly have been unaware that there were inexcusably high death rates associated with the protocols uses against COVID patients, and further had to be aware that the treatment methods that he and his colleagues used in hospitals against an alleged novel coronavirus were the cause of those deaths, not the alleged virus.

Based on an informal review of multiple case studies reported by American Frontline Nurses, Former Feds Group, Death by Hospital Protocol and other sources, “COVID” patients would have been “already dying” before they reached Dr. Kory in his ICU because these patients were given the poison Remdesivir, which causes organ failure, before being transferred to the ICU. Remdesivir was the standard of care for hospitalized COVID patients who were unvaccinated. Dr. Kory should have been aware that Remdesivir was causing organ failure.

Misdiagnosis of bacterial pneumonia as viral pneumonia is another major factor in “COVID” deaths. Patients who initially presented with bacterial pneumonia were denied antibiotics if they also had a postive “COVID” test, and were instead given Remdesivir. Later these patients were ventilated and intubated, which worsened their bacterial pneumonia greatly. Dr. Kory defended the practice of denying antibiotics to “COVID” patients and administering high doses of opioids (1, 2).

Both the poisonous nature of Remdesivir and the frequent misdiagnosis of untreated bacterial pneumonia are factors in his patient’s deaths that Dr. Kory should have been well aware of. Doctor Kory should have also been aware that the treatment methods he used with opioids, tranquilizers and ventilators would only increase the death rates of these patients after they came to him in the ICU.

There is substantial reason to believe that Dr. Kory willfully and materially misrepresented the cause of death of his patients to the Senate. This is a criminal offense under 18 USC 1001.

Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

IVERMECTIN HAS MEDICAL BENEFIT IN NON-HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

Below, Dr. Kory presents evidence to Senator Ron Paul on clinical trials of Ivermectin. Here Dr. Kory compares (A) Non-hospitalized COVID positive patients who took Ivermectin, to (B) Non-hospitalized COVID positive patients who who did not take Ivermectin.

Dr. Kory: In our manuscript, we now have 11 randomized control trials. Every one of those control trials show that in the Ivermectin-treated group, lives are saved. There’s less need for hospitalization. There’s less transmission. Less case count. …

The amount of patients in those randomized trials, the 11 trials, total, nearly 4,000. With over half treated with Ivermectin. … I am presenting a paper today, with more patients treated with Ivermectin, with larger magnitudes of benefit than the Recovery trial. I will maintain that Ivermectin should be the standard of care of this disease based on these data.

Healthy citizens on Ivermectin do not get COVID.

I believe that Ivermectin has numerous medical benefits. I agree with Dr. Kory that the death rates in group (A) should have been lower than in group (B), although I believe that the death rates should have been low in both groups. The question for me is “what did Ivermectin treat?” Many believe that Ivermectin treated the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as alleged by Dr. Kory. Many believe that COVID was a rebranding of influenza and bacterial pneumonia, and that Ivermectin would also work against influenza and bacterial pneumonia. I fall into the latter camp, although it is not material to the topic of whether or not Dr. Kory misrepresented the cause of death of hospitalized “COVID” patients under his care. Dr. Kory has the education and intelligence to know what is actually killing his patients, as he practiced those methods repetitively, and could not avoid the knowledge.

However for the sake of discussion I will expand somewhat on the COVID/ non-COVID debate. Much of the information I report here can be found in A Farewell to Virology Part Two.

“COVID” was a new medical diagnosis based on PCR tests of a genetic sequence uploaded to the NIH database GenBank by China. This sequence was described as a “novel coronavirus,” because the sequence did not closely match other genetic sequences in GenBank at that point.

COVID is defined as a positive PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus sequence. The sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 was generated by computer programs in China from genetic materials of an entire sample of lung fluid taken from a patient who presented with pneumonia. No virus was isolated and sequenced from this patient. A virus has never been isolated and genetically sequenced. The materials used to create the SARS-CoV-2 virus by computer programs in China came from unidentified portions of genetic material that would have included materials of both human and bacterial origin, along with whatever else could have been in the lung fluid sample, such as pollen or some toxin that the patient could have inhaled. Computer programs then chopped up all this material into tiny bits called “contigs” and reassembled the parts that matched into a predetermined template that is a “coronavirus,” and discarded the rest. The template the used to create the coronavirus was also generated in the same manner by computers from unidentified materials, not an isolated virus.

A positive PCR test for “COVID” today could mean that a patient has bacterial pneumonia, as the original sequence could contain portions of bacteria in it. A positive PCR test could also mean that the subject was a human, as the sequence could contain portions of human DNA. A positive test could mean that the subject was a living entitity of some form, as goats and Pawpaw fruit tested positive for COVID in a blind test conducted in Tanzania, and life forms have much in common.

As it is, there is simply no information that can be drawn from a positive or negative COVID PCR test, because no one knows what the molecules are that the PCR tests search for. A positive PCR test means that you have a molecule of unknown type in your body, which may or may not have anything to do with disease. The tests are worthless and meaningless.

Many hospitalized patients who were diagnosed with “COVID” actually presented to hospitals with what would have previously been diagnosed as Influenza or bacterial pneumonia. The only difference in 2020 was that they also had a meaningless positive PCR test for COVID.

If hospitals had done their job as they had in the past, and had treated Influenza and bacterial pneumonia by existing and proven methods they had used in the past, the death rates would have been lower in hospitalized patients than non-hospitalized patients.

DIFFERING TREATMENT METHODS BETWEEN INFLUENZA AND NOVEL CORONAVIRUS

As it was though, hospitals used deadly methods against the rebranded symptoms of Influenza, bacterial pneumonia and other similiar illnesses. Dr. Kory told the Senate that “this is not the flu,” and described the methods used against the novel coronavirus, including the large amount of ICU space devoted to ventilating COVID patients.

“This is not the flu. I’ve been a doctor for a long time. I will tell you from the earliest onset in this country this country in New York. In one major healthcare system that I helped work with, they went from 95 ICU beds in a span of two and half weeks to 350 ICU beds. Gastroenterologists were taking care of dying patients on ventilators. We do not do that with the flu. I have done nothing but take care of COVID patients since the beginning. We have ICUs dedicated to COVID patients on ventilators. That is not what happens with the flu.”

Here again, Dr. Kory materially misrepresents the cause of death of hospitalized COVID patients to the Senate. The cause of death of the hospitalized COVID patients is the use of medical treatments such as ventilators such as opioids, ventilators, and Remdesivir, which create organ failure, sepsis, and other complications. Ultimately these patients are often deliberately overdosed on opioids, a practice that Dr. Kory is familiar with. (3). The yarn Dr. Kory falsely spins to the Senate Committee is that the treatment methods were necessary to combat a deadly virus, that the deadly virus was responsible for the deaths, not his deadly treatement methods, and that the deaths tragically could have been prevented if the patients had only used Ivermectin instead of coming to the hospital.

COVID-POSITIVE PATIENTS WERE BETTER OFF AVOIDING HOSPITALS

Dr. Kory does not compare (B) Non-hospitalized COVID positive patients who who did not take Ivermectin to (D) Hospitalized COVID positive patients who did not take Ivermectin.

COVID-positive people are far better off statistically if they avoid hospitals. That is to say, Dr. Kory violated the first rule in the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.

The treatment methods described by Dr. Kory, along with the methods used in hospitals that he did not describe but should have been aware of before his patients reached him in the ICU, created much higher death rates in COVID-positive people than if the patients had been left alone. The death rate of (B) Non-hospitalized COVID positive patients who who did not take Ivermectin can be found in the studies that Dr. Kory referenced to the Senate Committee. The death rate of (D) Hospitalized COVID positive patients who did not take Ivermectin can be found in Dr. Kory’s treatment records, which should be subpoenaed by Congress and the Department of Justice.

HOSPITALIZED COVID PATIENTS GIVEN IVERMECTIN SURVIVED AT HIGH RATES

Dr. Kory also does not compare (C) Hospitalized COVID positive patients who took Ivermectin to (D) Hospitalized COVID positive patients who did not take Ivermectin.

Dr. Mary Bowden reported that hospitalized COVID patients given Ivermectin under court order survived at a high rate. If those patients were not provided Ivermectin under the court orders, they all died. This defies the assertion of Dr. Kory that “By the time they get to me in the ICU, they’re already dying. They’re almost impossible to recover. Early treatment is key.”

All Dr. Kory had to do was take his patients off the poisons and machines in his ICU and give them Ivermectin. Ivermectin given to hospitalized COVID patients late probably cured their bacterial pneumonia. The method of action of Ivermectin given to hospitalized patients under court order should be investigated.

If Dr. Kory had truthfully reported the reason that hospitalized COVID patients were dying at such high rates, the Senate Committee could have used his testimony to put an end to these practices and challenge the EUA for Remdesivir. Countless lives could have potentially been saved.

REFERENCES

(1). February 26, 2023. A Contrarian Opinion Regarding The Massive Increase In The Use of Sedatives And Opiates In UK Nursing Homes In Early 2020

We weren't trying to “kill” them using such doses, we were trying to save them. In my opinion, the massive doses of sedatives required during that time simply resulted from the widespread insufficient or non-treatment of the underlying lung disease with corticosteroids and anti-coagulants (foreshadowing - it was not from a deficiency of antibiotics).

(2). February 26, 2023. A Contrarian Opinion Regarding The Massive Increase In The Use of Sedatives And Opiates In UK Nursing Homes In Early 2020

The drop in antibiotic use. Yes, I am sure it is because they wanted all their residents to die of secondary bacterial pneumonia. Nonsense. It was a viral induced pneumonia, no antibacterials were indicated in the majority, and so many in care homes died from a viral pneumonia quickly, that I don’t find it that weird that total antibiotic use dropped. “Secondary bacterial pneumonia” certainly occurred, but it was relatively rare, even in the ICU! To suggest that everyone was dying of a secondary bacterial pneumonia (like in 1918 Spanish Flu where a bacterial pneumonia actually was the proximate cause of most deaths) is absurd.

(3). February 26, 2023. A Contrarian Opinion Regarding The Massive Increase In The Use of Sedatives And Opiates In UK Nursing Homes In Early 2020

In my entire career, I was almost always physically present in the patients room during “terminal weans” to support not only the family but also the nurses in giving enough sedation (some young nurses were sometimes too timid with dosing and the patients would experience distress). Again, the goal was to allow the patient to pass comfortably without respiratory distress. This is NOT euthanasia, this is humane care of a patient at the end of their life who is suffering terminal breathlessness. We are not “killing” them, we are simply stopping a medical intervention that is failing at its purpose and doing it in as humane and comforting way possible.