Why Do Doctors Give Up On Patients?

Exploring the Psychology Behind the Greatest Medical Disaster in History.

•In medicine, doctors will often assume there is nothing that can be done for their patients and then shift the blame to the patient (e.g., sorry you should have gotten vaccinated).

•I believe this lack of creativity is a product of the training doctors receive and a need to reinforce the mythology Modern Medicine rests upon (that it is the medical savior of the world).

•Since many of the existing (for-profit) treatments are unsafe and ineffective, it hence is critical for the medical industry to prevent doctors from looking into better alternatives.

•All of this was laid bare during COVID-19, where we saw the medical profession refuse to go against the orthodoxy, not treat a fairly manageable condition, and instead persecute those who were able to provide safe and effective treatments for COVID-19 (which competed with the vaccines).

•In this article, we will provide some documented examples of this mentality, review the psychology that gives rise to that abhorrent behavior, and cover some of what I found to be the safest and most effective treatments for COVID-19 (most of which did not require a prescription or doctor to obtain).

In a recent article about the vast online conspiracy the pharmaceutical industry orchestrated to conceal the push of the COVID vaccines upon the world, I showed how “experts” around the world were hired to relentlessly promote the vaccine online and either de-platform or de-license anyone who questioned the official narrative. In order to ensure I accurately portrayed what happened, I in turn had to watch a lot of videos of both the foot soldiers for this campaign and testimonies of those who were harmed by them to ensure they matched up.

Many of those videos were quite cruel as the goal of this campaign was essentially to instigate the general public to become enraged at anyone who tried to challenge the vaccine narrative (e.g., by promoting effective ways to treat COVID-19 which hence eliminated the need for the vaccines). In turn, we frequently saw postings like this:

Note: the “logic” behind this post was that the COVID vaccine (which is 100% safe) can prevent one from getting COVID-19 and hence long COVID, so anyone who encouraged people to not vaccinate was responsible for individuals getting long COVID. Since the vaccines frequently cause a chronic syndrome which gets labeled as “long COVID” the logic behind this posting is absurd, but since propaganda typically appeals on the basis of emotion rather than fact, that didn’t really matter.

As I watched all the videos, one really jumped out at me, and gnawed at me to the point I eventually felt compelled to talk to the doctor in it (who was part of the UN’s initiative “Project Halo” which relentlessly harassed COVID vaccine-skeptics until the Epoch Times exposed them and they closed up shop).

Note: I cropped this video (which is still posted by Team Halo) so the doctor’s face was not visible. This is because I do not want to make this about him—I saw many other physicians do what he is doing here. If you know who this is, please do not mention his name in the comments.

The transcription of the above (UN promoted) video is as follows:

Hello. Canadian physician here. When I say misinformation kills, I'm not just exaggerating. Most of the cases I see are in patients, and therefore, I can't break confidentiality to talk to you, but unfortunately, it has touched my own family.

I have an aunt and uncle that are extremely into wellness therapy and very anti, what they call, Western and allopathic medicine. They're extremely anti COVID-19 vaccine and actually tried to get all my other aunts and uncles not to get vaccinated, and about half of them still are unvaccinated. They even went as far as denying the existence of COVID or saying that it was just the flu. Thanks to the efforts and misinformation spreaders such as Pierre Kory, they also decided to take Ivermectin as prophylaxis instead of getting the vaccine.

Unfortunately, my uncle caught COVID-19 about 5 days ago and started to get very sick with lots of coughs. So they actually called me in a panic to figure out what to do. During that call, there was no point in harassing about the vaccine. I did answer a couple questions they had and then gave him some advice on how to manage his symptoms and what warning signs to look for to go to the hospital. Unfortunately, he deteriorated about 48 hours after that phone call and went to the emergency room with an oxygen saturation of 50%.

One of the saddest parts, some of the paramedics were gathering him up to take him to the hospital. My aunt was actually instructing them to make sure that nobody in the hospital administered him the COVID-19 vaccine. That was the entire thing she was worried about while they were taking him away gasping for air. He deteriorated in less than 12 hours and unfortunately passed away from severe COVID nineteen yesterday

If he'd been vaccinated, instead of taking Ivermectin, the data shows us that he would still be with us today. Now I have to work with my other aunts and uncles to see if they are willing to get vaccinated and answer their questions. Unfortunately, she is still not at the point yet where she is willing to even discuss the COVID-19 vaccine, and that's fine because she's grieving right now. But hopefully, once she gets over the shock of what's happened, she'll be open to have further discussion and get vaccinated herself. So please, do not spread misinformation on social media. It causes real harm, and it has killed my uncle. He also died alone because she was still isolated because of exposure to COVID-19. I hope this helps.

Note: because of the bolded parts, I later texted Pierre Kory to tell him he’d killed this guy’s uncle.

After I saw this, my immediate thought was “why didn’t you do anything besides tell your uncle to take Tylenol/Ibuprofen?” After sitting it on a bit more, I decided to reach out to him as a fellow human being and ask him what was going through his heart when all of this happened (along with asking why he didn’t do anything and why he accused Kory of killing his uncle).

He immediately accused me of being an unscrupulous individual who misrepresenting what he said about Kory (which he then backtracked on once I quoted the above transcript) and then stated the following:

Hi - my uncle is none of your business. I did not "give up on my uncle" who lives in a completely different province and I spoke with him on the phone and tried to encourage him to seek care. It is quite astounding you would presume to know anything about my family.

I also do not have a license in the province he was in. It would be inappropriate for me to try and prescribe medications to him (and I literally cannot). I encouraged him to seek care. Supplements have ZERO evidence of efficacy and they were already taking them [facepalm emoji].

Also, when he was dying in the hospital, he had already made his wishes clear to me. I respect his autonomy. I did not call him further because I wanted his daughter to have a chance to speak with him, which is much more important then telling me again he is not interested.

After which he blocked me.

The Travel Nurse

When the pandemic hit New York, the hospitals rapidly became overloaded and a call was put out from healthcare workers from other parts of the country to come and help. One travel nurse from Florida answered that call and ended up at one of the hospitals with the highest COVID death tolls in the nation. Once there, she realized something was very wrong, as the patients were being neglected and being subject to protocols that almost always resulted in deaths.

After I watched this (now almost forgotten interview), one part jumped out at me—the start and end of the following 4 minute clip:

In it, the doctor she recorded states that even though he knows almost everyone is going to die, he is not willing to use any unsanctioned COVID-19 treatment. I share this to highlight that the Canadian doctor was not at all unique (rather I would argue this recorded doctor was far worse).

Note: by March 2020, there was already ample evidence every therapy the nurse mentioned in this video treated COVID-19 (e.g., I used all of them at the same time this video was filmed on people I knew). Given that both me and her were able to figure this out, it is remarkable no doctor at her hospital was able to. Even more remarkably, at the time this was happening, I attempted to get my friends working at the NY hospitals (who already were willing to listen to me since I had been the only person who had correctly predicted COVID-19 would hit New York and turn into disaster) to try those therapies, but none of them were willing to (or for the awake ones who were, able to get permission from their hospitals to).

Thinking Outside the Box

If you look at the previous examples, (assuming the accounts are true) there are two ways to interpret the doctor’s actions:

•They were so psychologically invested in their way of doing things (e.g., for political reasons) they simply would not consider anything that challenged their investment.

•They had a very narrow perceptual filter which made them incapable of seeing things that were immediately obvious to outsiders.

Henceforth, I will focus on the latter answer.

The Merits of Standard Medical Approaches

One of the easiest ways to understand the world is to see everything as black or white and refuse to consider anything that lies between those spectrums.

For example, when you bring up the dangers of an existing vaccination with a doctor, one of the common dismissals you will get is:

Vaccines are the greatest medical invention in human history, and if it weren’t for them, we’d still have disasters like polio or smallpox. How can you doubt what they’ve done for humanity?

This argument in turn has two problems:

1. Just because the smallpox and polio vaccines were “good” does not mean all other vaccines are “good” too.

2. The smallpox and polio vaccines actually had a lot of problems, and our current worship of them is largely due to a fabricated mythology about them.

Note: I detailed how the smallpox vaccine had a very high rate of severe injury and caused rather than prevented smallpox here.

Nonetheless, people tend to take this perspective with Standard Medicine (give or take everything in it is good, or give or take everything in it is bad). However, I would instead argue that you can group all modern medical treatments onto this scale:

5: Works very well, minimal side effects, often life saving and essential.
4: Gives a good enough result, has minimal side effects (or significant ones, but they are hard to recognize), and is often helpful and sometimes necessary.
3: Gives a less than satisfactory result, has some significant side effects, sometimes needed.
2: Gives a less than satisfactory result, often only temporarily works, and has significant side effects.
1: Rarely gives a meaningful improvement, and frequently causes significant or severe complications.

The essential issue with modern medical practice is that the “standard” approaches in the clinical guidelines each doctor follows mix each of these categories. Because of this, you can focus on the 5s (e.g., I have multiple relatives who owe their lives to a gifted surgeon) and assume everything sanctioned medical practice must be incredible, or you can focus on the 1s and assume all Western medicine is completely unredeemable.

In my case, from fairly early on, I could see which approach was a “1,” a “2,” a “3,” a “4,” or a “5,” and I hence focused my effort on identifying alternatives for the poorer approaches. One of the disconcerting experiences for me, however, was how rare this mindset was, as people would instead get stuck in black-and-white thinking and not be willing to see anything else.

Medical Models

Since the body is so incredibly complex, functionally interacting with it requires creating a model to simplify what’s going on so that an approach can be identified that is likely to get the person better. In turn, many different medical models have been created throughout the ages, and some (e.g., Chinese medicine) have persisted since they consistently got results and had a circle of circumstances surrounding them which caused them to become widely adopted.

In turn, from a young age, I came to realize that most medical conditions typically had many different ways they could be treated, especially once you started looking into other models. Unfortunately, I found most people tended to be very rigid and unwilling to ever consider any model besides the one they knew, and as a result, patients typically had to keep on seeing different practitioners until they happened to find the person who had a model that fit their needs well enough to get them well.

Note: one example of this is that most medical specialists tend to treat the same illnesses in different ways. For example, neurologists and rheumatologists approach illnesses differently, and I’ve talked to countless Lyme patients who found they got completely different (but consistent) pieces of advice on what to do depending on which specialist they saw. Likewise, in the integrative medicine (or functional medicine) field, those doctors will specifically have a specific box of therapies they use for every patient they see, and in some cases they help, but in many cases they aren’t the right approach and the patients eventually move on to a new doctor.

This modeling question becomes particularly challenging because the same “root cause” (e.g., a Lyme infection or a COVID vaccine injury) can cause very different symptoms in each patient they afflict. Because of this, it is often quite hard to see the underlying cause of a patient’s illness (unless you are already familiar with how that ailment can manifest itself in the body) and it is instead much easier to focus on the superficial symptoms the patient is exhibiting or dismiss the presence of an underlying disorder within them.
Note: a key reason why these disorders are so variable is because they will typically cause symptoms in the pre-existing “weak” points of a person’s system, and since those weak points vary so much from person to person, the exact symptoms vary immensely. Because of this, to identify the underlying issue, it’s often much more important to focus on the general character of the symptoms a patient has rather than what those specific symptoms are.

Since I see this diagnostic error (being blind to complexity) being made so frequently, I’ve put a lot of thought into why this consistently happens, and I eventually concluded it was another reflection of the human mind’s need for control. Specifically, acknowledging complex illnesses exist and are difficult to fully predict requires one to let go of their certainty over what is going on and that they can’t necessarily control or predict where it will go.

Adopting that state of mind has never bothered me (rather I like it since it adds a layer of richness and depth to life which makes it much more meaningful to experience) but I find most people hate it, especially those who are already psychologically deeply invested in their current approach (e.g., it takes a lot of work to become a doctor and at that point, it’s a pretty bitter pill to swallow that many of the approaches you use or promote are “1’s” or “2’s”).

Note: the key point of this section is that I am very comfortable switching to a different medical model when it is clear to me the one I am currently using will not yield a satisfactory result for a patient—and sadly, this is fairly unusual because it goes against how doctors are trained.

The Allopathic Toolbox

Modern (standard) medicine is fairly unique, as out of the existing medical systems, it is one of the only ones that does not believe in an innate healing capacity of the body (e.g., “health”). Since many issues (especially chronic ones) essentially require a doctor to “cultivate” the body’s health, this puts Standard medicine in the position where it just can’t treat a lot of illnesses that come its way.

Instead, the primary therapeutic modalities it utilizes are pharmaceuticals and surgeries. In the case of pharmaceutical drugs, since most of them function by suppressing the function of a protein within the body (which is typically an enzyme), they typically:

•Yield temporary effects that disappear once the pharmaceutical is stopped.

•Yield decreasing effects as the body develops a resistance to them (hence requiring higher doses of the drugs).

•Create a wide range of side effects either because the protein has a variety of other essential functions within the body or because other proteins with a similar structure to the target protein are also affected by the drug.

Because of this, the entire history of Standard medicine is characterized by doctors only having the option to use fairly unsafe and only marginally effective drugs to treat the conditions they came across. In turn, this led to many patients being severely injured by those drugs, and by the early 1900s, the public had largely lost interest in this approach of medicine (e.g., in America, they turned toward Chiropractic, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, and Osteopathy). This in turn was “reversed” by some very business savvy doctors and a few oligarchs (e.g., John D. Rockefeller) monopolizing the practice of medicine through using channels such as the mass media and paying off federal regulatory bodies to advance their interests.
Note: that early history is discussed in more detail here.

In turn, it created a climate where:
•Doctors became heavily invested in the superiority of standard medicine over every other form of medicine (e.g., the four competing schools which existed in the early 1900s).
•Doctors had to accept the fact that many diseases were incurable, when in reality, they were only “incurable” within their model of medicine.
• Doctors had to come up with rationalizations to justify the inevitable toxicity of many of their approaches.

Note: one of the best proofs I’ve seen against the current model was a study where a group of elderly patients had some of their unnecessary drugs discontinued (2.8 on average). Beyond no side effects happening from this, it more than halved their death rate (over the course of a year, 21% of them died, compared to 45% of the randomized patients who stayed on their drugs).

In a previous article, I discussed the tragic tendency of doctors to aggressively push unsafe pharmaceuticals or vaccines on their patients (e.g., many of them get quite upset with patients who won’t comply with those orders), a story you commonly hear from patients who were permanently disabled by a pharmaceutical they did not want to get, but ultimately submitted to their doctor's orders. In that article, I explored the various explanations for this (e.g., doctors often receive significant financial bonuses to push these medications on their patients).

The conclusion I ultimately reached when I explored that subject (and consulted with many colleagues) was that the reaction one often sees from a doctor towards a patient who did not want their prescription was akin to the response one sees when their core identity is attacked. This in turn makes sense when you consider how much effort one has to invest in becoming a doctor and the fact that often, all that really allows one to do is “write prescriptions.”

Note: although I generally do not like pharmaceuticals and typically avoid using them, there are quite a few I consider to be very safe, effective, and useful.

Guidelines and Learned Helplessness

Since the practice of medicine is complex and many of a doctor's patients have a high risk of something very bad happening to them (e.g., death) there has been a long term push to improve and standardize the practice of medicine.

This has essentially been accomplished by creating clinical practice guidelines (e.g., algorithms) everyone is expected to follow and creating a variety of intertwined incentives to support them (e.g., insurance reimbursements are tied to complying with them, and doctors can be sued if they do not follow them).

In turn, there has been a gradual sanctification of these guidelines, and in each successive generation of doctors, they become more and more rigid over them, only wanting to do what the guidelines say. Unfortunately, this often does not benefit patients as:

•Those guidelines are often made by "experts "who are taking money from industry, and inevitably produce guidelines which support their sponsors (e.g. in this article, I detailed how that was done with the COVID-19 therapeutics and the existing guidelines for statin usage).

•The guidelines encourage doctors not to think outside of the box, or consider other options, which may be more beneficial to the patient. Conversely, this benefits the corporate medical system, which does not want doctors who question what they are told.

One of the major challenges every single week doctor faces in medicine is seeing patient cases where it's very clear the approach that's being used is unlikely a benefit the patient, but their hands are tied, and they cannot provide an alternative superior approach since that "goes against the guidelines "or "goes against the hospital procedures."

Conventionally, this dilemma is addressed by the mantra “we did everything we could do" and encouraging everyone to accept a state of learned helplessness, where the poor outcome achieved by a “1” or “2” therapy is accepted as the best that can be done.

Conversely, like many of my colleagues, I have had many situations where I worked with hospitalized patients and I was prohibited from being able to do the therapy that I knew would have prevented the bad outcome they ultimately had. In turn, over the years, I have heard of many cases where a patient or a healthcare worker snuck a therapy to a hospitalized patient who then "miraculously "recovered, despite being expected to die (or have some other bad outcome, like being stuck in the hospital for months before being discharged with permanent disability).
Note: while many of these cases exist, I'm not actually sure what should be done here. If hospitals routinely allowed patients or family members to decide what treatments were done, it would inevitably result in many harmful and ineffective treatments being administered within hospitals. That said, there are some striking cases, such as the 80 lawsuits lawyer Ralph Lorigo filed for a patient undergoing the standard COVID protocols (and was expected to die) for them to be given ivermectin. Of those 80 lawsuits, in 40 the judge sided with the family, and in 40 with the hospital (initially the lawsuits were successful, but as they mounted, the hospitals banded together to develop an effective apparatus to dismiss further lawsuits). Of the 40 cases where ivermectin was given, 38 of the 40 patients survived. Of the 40 cases where the hospitals were allowed to withhold ivermectin, 2 of the 40 patients survived. In essence, this means suing a hospital was one of the most effective medical interventions in history.

However, while this learned helplessness exists, it normally partly disappears when the doctor is directly affected by it (either because they are receiving the “1” or “2” or someone dear to them is). To illustrate, I frequently hear of doctors asking colleagues for advice on what to do about a cancer because the oncologist’s plan is less than satisfactory, and likewise, surveys often show they will decline the end of life care they provide to patients (e.g., this recent one found 88.3% would decline it). In turn, I specifically cited the Canadian doctor, because while they had political differences, this was a family member and hence someone they should care about.

Note: when I discussed this article with Dr. Kory, he took exception to my title (the statement that doctors give up on their patients) and said “I think the actual issue is that doctors blindly trust their guidelines because they assume they are the best available information rather than investigating and scrutinizing the guidelines. I guess you could say it’s like they all get spoon fed and think all the food is real food so they aren’t motivated to look for more food.”

COVID-19

In December 2019, through anonymous message boards on the Internet, I became aware of the virus that was breaking out in Wuhan, and realized that it was almost certainly going to turn into a global disaster. This was because the reports I was hearing were very different from any previous pandemic. I had come across, and because the media rather than hyping it up (which it always does for diseases, which turn out to be entirely inconsequential), was downplaying the outbreak, and insisting nothing was going to happen—even by the time it had spread to Europe.

This was incredibly unprecedented, and hence to me, suggested the “Deep State” was fully aware of what was going to happen. In turn, I inferred a decision was made to cover up what was happening either so there would be time to prepare for it hitting America or so that it could be allowed to spread as far as possible, and hence would be impossible to stop it from turning into a national disaster which upended the 2020 election.

If one studies the past history of pandemics (e.g., HIV), a clear pattern emerges:
•Initially, the disease is viewed as something incredibly dangerous we are helpless against and must be in terror of. Because of this, fairly draconian policies are justified (e.g., isolating everyone from each other).
•Next, a variety of existing therapies are found that effectively treat the disease and make it manageable, but rather than being accepted, healthcare authorities constantly attack them to protect the market for the therapeutics that are in the pipeline.
•A variety of lucrative but unsafe therapeutics will enter the market and be heavily promoted by the healthcare authorities, but in most cases actually make the disease worse rather than better.

As a result, there was a small number of physicians who relentlessly tried to find ways to cure COVID with therapeutic options, while the majority of physicians e.g., the doctor in the undercover video above refused to consider anything that was not within the existing practice guidelines and accepted many of their patients hence dying. Sadly, rather than “help” these therapeutic doctors, the medical system did everything it could to sabotage them. For instance:
•The pharmaceutical mob I discussed in the previous article got them banned from the internet and delicensed.
•Numerous fraudulent studies were authored and widely promoted which demonstrated that off-patent (non-commercializable) therapies for COVID-19 were unsafe and ineffective.
•Governments and healthcare authorities worldwide have prohibited the use of those therapies and punished physicians who nonetheless chose to use them.
•The stockpiles and production of these therapies repeatedly were “suspiciously” sabotaged.
•The media relentlessly attacked their use.

Note: for the first year of the pandemic, I participated in a clinician group that had over 100,000 doctors from across the world discussing what to do about COVID. What I found remarkable about it was that the doctors were desperate for a way to treat COVID, and continually requesting or sharing the newest guidelines some healthcare authority had concocted, but simultaneously, they were incredibly hostile towards considering anything that was not supported by the existing orthodoxy.

As best as I can gather, this was the situation that "radicalized" Peter McCullough as he was in disbelief at the psychosis he had seen take over the medical field and that there was so little interest within his profession in doing anything beyond following the existing guidelines (e.g., few wanted to find a way to actually treat COVID-19).

Because of this, he has given many talks about the work he did to create rational treatment guidelines for COVID-19 and the incredible degree of pushback he received for promoting them. Of those, I believe his appearance on Joe Rogan was one of his best and shined a light on what really happened:

Note: an important point McCullough raised with Rogan was that doctors weren’t used to dealing with conditions which could kill them, so as a result, their focus shifted to protecting themselves (e.g., getting PPE) rather than on treating the patients.

Near the end of the pandemic, I also came across one of the compelling lectures I’d seen on the subject:

In it, a South African doctor (Dr. Shankara Chetty) discusses his approach to treating COVID-19 (which was consistently successful for thousands of patients). Essentially, he figured out that COVID-19 had two different phases, a minor illness, and in certain cases, a severe illness that emerged on the 8th day and was an allergic reaction to spike protein from the virus. In turn, he was able to treat over 7000 patients by recognizing COVID-19 was a biphasic illness, and treating the allergy when it emerged. Despite his remarkable success, there was no interest in adopting his approach (e.g., there was remarkable resistance to simply using intravenous or oral steroids to treat COVID-19) and like many others, Dr. Chetty’s approach to treating COVID-19 became a forgotten side of medicine.

In turn, if you look at the current COVID-19 guidelines from the NIH, almost every option listed is just a new proprietary medication (most of which don’t actually work very well).

Note: the one proprietary therapy that was developed for COVID-19 which did work were the monoclonal antibodies. Sadly, access to these medications were quite limited (often people who needed them could not get them, and in some places like New York, they decided to ration them based on one’s race). Sadder still, after it became recognized that the monoclonal antibodies were effective in treating vaccine injuries (as they bound the spike proteins in the patient’s body), the Biden Administration banned them and caused the people carrying them to throw them away since they were no longer legal. This move in turn was justified under the logic that the circulating strains of COVID-19 no longer matched those antibody products—yet this same logic was never applied to the (mandated) vaccine..

My Experiences of COVID-19

Because what I watched emerge at the end of 2019 was so outside what I typically saw transpire, it took me about a month to come to terms with the fact the nightmare was becoming a reality and wasn’t going to go away. At the end of the year, I’d had a vision of everything which was going to come to pass, and at that time, it was clear to me that it was critical for me to find a way to treat COVID-19 as quickly as possible, as if I did not it was very likely numerous people I cared about (and less likely myself) would die over the next year.

Additionally, I felt unless some type of awareness could be brought on effective ways for treating COVID-19, it was very likely:
•We’d go through a variety of disastrous policies (e.g., China’s lockdowns).
•A variety of disastrous therapeutics for it would enter the market.

Note: starting in February 2020, I was one of the first people in the country who wore (fitted N-95) masks at my hospital and when I traveled. My logic for doing, so was that while I did not like doing this at all, I did not want to risk catching COVID before I knew how to treat it.

In turn, I spent a lot of time looking at every possible option for treating COVID (which included reading books about what happened a hundred years ago with the 1918 influenza), and since there was very little COVID in my community, once the pandemic hit, I arranged my work schedule so I could travel as needed and repeatedly visited people I knew who became severely ill and as a result, while numerous people I knew died (including a very sweet but conventional doctor I worked with), no one in my circle did.

From this, I gradually discovered two key points:

1. There were many effective ways to treat COVID-19. However, telling patients to take Tylenol until they needed to be hospitalized was not one of them.

2. Regardless of what you did, it was critical to start it early in the illness.

Keep these two points in mind as you read the Canadian doctor’s testimony:

Unfortunately, my uncle caught COVID-19 about 5 days ago and started to get very sick with lots of coughs. So they actually called me in a panic to figure out what to do. During that call, there was no point in harassing about the vaccine. I did answer a couple questions they had and then gave him some advice on how to manage his symptoms and what warning signs to look for to go to the hospital. Unfortunately, he deteriorated about 48 hours after that phone call and went to the emergency room with an oxygen saturation of 50%.

Given that this testimony was published in September of 2021, I would argue that those two points should have been well known, and it was very likely something bad would happen if nothing was done.

So much could be said about this time period, but I believe it’s best summarized by a comparison between the WHO’s 2019 guidelines for dealing with a respiratory pandemic and what was actually done:

Along with an investigation by the WHO which found the more countries did what the WHO told them to handle the pandemic (e.g., spending lots of money), the more people died:

Note: these incriminating results prompted the WHO to investigate themselves, and as you might guess, they failed to hold themselves accountable for the greatest public health failure in history.

Treating COVID-19 on a Shoe-String Budget

In my process of treating COVID-19, I frequently had to travel across the country (e.g., go to states where I did not have licenses) and before long realized there could be serious professional repercussions for prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.
Note: nitazoxanide was often extremely helpful (and is especially helpful now) but it was not subject to the same political pressures as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine was, something I believe was in part due to it costing over 10 times as much as those drugs did.

Because of this, I had to come up with a variety of creative ways to treat COVID-19 when the normal resources you’d expect to be there were not available. In the final part of this article I will share some of the over the counter approaches I used, many of which I’ve never seen written about anywhere else, and some of which I am still in disbelief our healthcare authorities never widely promoted (periodic sinus rinsing or prophylactically taking vitamin D3).