Tag Archives: FDA

Why doctors are going along with the Fauci Fraud

I recently had a conversation with a reasonably well-informed writer who simply missed the real reasons why most practicing physicians go along with the Fauci Fraud.  As a public service, I will attempt to fill in a few gaps.  But first, I must define the fraud.

There are two basic legs to the fraud.  First is the idea that the Centers for Disease Control is in any way concerned with a mission related to its name.  The failure of the CDC to endorse any treatment that did not emanate from its exalted halls should give us our first glint of clarity.  There are literally millions of physicians around the world, and the great bulk of them truly wish to treat their patients well.  Among those are thousands of researchers, a number far in excess of those at the CDC, the NIH, and other alphabet soup government agencies.  The very idea that outside researchers are incapable of discovering anything useful without the help of the bureaucrats in D.C. is hubris of the highest order.  And it prevents the CDC, the FDA, or any other such agency from considering the idea that maybe, just possibly, there might be intelligent life down here.  Mount Olympus cannot be threatened.

The second leg of the fraud is less visible to the naked eye but much more powerful.  If I wrote this before I retired, I would be called before the Board of my group and told in no uncertain terms to shut up.  I might even be assessed a financial penalty with several zeroes after the one.  That’s a serious impairment of my pursuit of happiness.  The reason for my group’s dislike is more than the fact that I might be an irritant.  They may actually agree with what I have to say.  But they simply cannot afford for me to say it.  That’s right: as a practicing physician in a group, my freedom of speech can become very expensive…to the group.

My group cared for patients of all descriptions, with roughly half of them on Medicare and another batch on Medicaid.  Both programs are ultimately managed by the feds, one of the most humorless groups on the planet.  They write a whole bunch of rules on how you have to document everything you do.  If you didn’t document it correctly, it didn’t happen, and you won’t get paid.  But that’s not the half of it.

Suppose you have one of those patients brought in by the ambulance from under the bridge.  His only clothes are the ones he’s wearing, and he doesn’t have two nickels to rub together.  It’s more than obvious that this surgery for bowel obstruction will be a charity case.  Before Medicare, you’d simply write it off as your good neighbor duty.  Now you don’t get a choice.  CMMS (the actual administrative agency) requires you to send a bill.  Twice.  Or maybe three times.  Whatever it takes to turn the bill into bad debt.  Then you have to send it to a collection agency.  Your only alternative is for your group to bring it up in its Board meeting and declare it a write-off that gets noted in the minutes.

All this rigmarole serves no purpose, and you knew that before you got to this sentence.  But CMMS has a sinister side.  If you do the case for free (which you did before you spent that useless money on billing and collection), CMMS will define that as your “usual and customary” bill for an exploratory laparotomy.  Since your U&C is now zero, you can’t ever bill more than that for an ex lap in the future.

But what does that have to do with ivermectin?  I’m glad you asked.

U&C bills are just one of the hundreds of rules that CMMS enforces.  Another is “Pay for Performance.”  Basically, P-f-P requires you to check a host of boxes when taking care of patients.  If you didn’t get that IV antibiotic in 20 minutes before the incision, you failed P-f-P and may not get paid.  The hospital won’t get paid to take care of the patient if there’s a complication.

So let us suppose that you use ivermectin to treat a COVID patient as he arrives in the hospital.  Ivermectin isn’t on the Medicare/Medicaid approved list of medications for COVID.  Your hospital pharmacy will call you up and give you grief.  After wasting a lot of time getting them to finally let you have it, you’ve had to cancel half of your office day.  The next day, you’ll get a visit from a coder, who will tell you that you didn’t use the approved treatment protocol and put the hospital in jeopardy because you flunked P-f-P.  By the way, that “coder” is the person who “helps” you use the proper ICD (billing) code for whatever the patient has in order for the hospital to make the most money.  But that’s not the worst of it.

Because you flunked P-f-P, that waves a red flag in front of the CMMS bulls, and you’re about to get gored.  They will wonder what other bad things you’ve done.  As soon as they find one, it gets flagged as “Medicare fraud,” and they will bill you for twice what you got paid as a penalty.  Can you guess how many other instances of fraud they’ll find if they look hard?  Do you have to ask why my partners would get upset if I published while I was still in practice?  By the way, CMMS can go two years back as they look for your crimes.  They can ultimately take your house, your car, and your wife’s poodle while they’re at it.

Let’s change the scene.  Suppose you’re in private practice.  You can’t give ivermectin because the feds will key in on it if your patient is on Medicare or Medicaid.  So you decide to take care of him off the books.  He pays you cash, and all is well.  Not!  You now took a private payment for Medicare-covered service.  That will get you barred from seeing another Medicare patient for two years.

Let’s forget all the regulatory traps.  You’re conscientious and try to do the best for your patients.  But you’re busy, and you can’t keep up with the flood of papers on all the various COVID bits.  So you wear a mask, have your patients wear masks, and do a lot of telemedicine.  You keep up on the latest through Medscape and the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reporter.  You should be good?  Not!  MMWR is put out by the CDC, and they won’t say the first good word about HCQ or ivermectin.  Medscape is a little better, but not much.  And all the specialty societies are toeing the line.  Can we guess why?

Any doctor who actually reads the studies, or follows any of the protocols published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, will see a lot of peer pressure to stop.  The financial risks may be extreme.  It takes a spine of steel to stand up to the authoritarian orthodoxy.

[Written by Ted Noel, M.D. who is a retired anesthesiologist/intensivist who posts on social media as DoctorTed. This article was published by AMERICAN THINKER.]

…………………………………………………………………..

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

FDA now wants to eliminate side effect warnings from drug ads in latest collusion with Big Pharma

We don't need to know all those nasty side effects, do we?

We’ve all seen those drug commercials on TV with happy-looking grandparents frolicking in a grassy field with an adorable puppy, living life to the fullest while an announcer talks about how Big Pharma’s latest poison is going to make your life every bit as joyful as theirs. Then comes the obligatory rapid reading of a list of side effects. When the commercial is over, the general impression is a positive one: This drug is going to make your life better, but you might have a few minor problems along the way.

Drug companies are required to tell you their product’s side effects, but they have invested a lot of money in finding ways to present this information in the most positive light possible, and when that approach won’t work, they do their best to deliver it in a forgettable manner. These efforts appear to be paying off because now the FDA is considering scrapping them altogether on the grounds that TV viewers simply don’t listen to the long list of side effects. With this move, it appears the FDA cares not at all about making their collusion with Big Pharma obvious.

In an effort to make the process seem reasoned, health officials proposed a study that will assess whether people actually read the ad warnings. They claim they are worried that critical information is getting lost in the shuffle, causing people to overlook the more serious warnings. Should the study confirm this suspicion, the FDA could scrap the list entirely as they find other ways to “safely” market medication.

In fact, they say that people are more likely to read a medication’s risks on a page-long full summary of safety information than they are to listen to it in the type of brief summary used in a TV ad. Of course, you won’t have that information in your hands in the first place until after you’ve “talked to your doctor” as these commercials suggest and somehow convinced him or her to prescribe you the medication. In other words, you’ve already bought and paid for it by the time you can see the drawbacks, which means you’re more likely to take your chances and simply swallow the meds – and even if you don’t ultimately do that, they’ve already got your money.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, the director of PharmedOut, a project run by Georgetown Medical Center,  believes that allowing drug companies to choose the limited list of side effects they include in ads is highly problematic. She pointed out: “That’s why ads for erectile dysfunction say ‘may cause four-hour erection,’ because that doesn’t sound too bad to most guys! Unlike other side effects such as heart attack.”

FDA lets Big Pharma use tricks to distract you from stated side effects

The U.S. is one of only two countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to place direct-to-consumer TV ads, and Big Pharma has found lots of ways to make the required side effect warnings more palatable. For example, some ads will have one narrator tell viewers about the drug’s benefits and then use a different voice actor to run through the risks using a less engaging voice. Another trick they employ is reading the list of warnings using more complex grammatical structures so it’s not as readily absorbable by viewers. Keeping the voice actor who lists the risks off screen is another common tactic as research shows people absorb more information when they can see a speaker. In addition, they sometimes show distracting images while this list is read so people won’t focus on the words.

The FDA does not approve ads before they are aired, but they claim they will stop ads that violate the law after their release. Their guidelines do not require drug makers to tell people if lifestyle changes like diet and exercise could help improve their condition, nor do they ban ads for medications that pose serious risks. Now the FDA is poised to remove yet another obstacle for drug makers…and make it easier than ever for them to convince people that their poisons are harmless.

 

[From an article by Isabelle Z., published by NATURAL NEWS]

 

…………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized