Connect with us

Spread & Containment

Looking for Last Minutes Deals – Oppenheimer’s 3 “Strong Buy” Stocks

Oppenheimer: These 3 "Strong Buy" Stocks Have Over 50% Upside Potential

Published

on

This article was originally published by TipRanks.

Despite COVID-19’s devastating impact on the economy, Oppenheimer’s Chief Investment Strategist John Stoltzfus remains overweight on U.S. equities, and is more bullish on cyclical sectors versus defensive sectors. As for the legitimate concerns about the virus’ re-emergence, Stolzfus argues investors should “consider the reopening setbacks as just that and not something that is permanent.” "In the past week along with legitimate concerns about the recent resurgences of Covid-19 stateside and abroad there was also a resurgence of the “life will never be the same” kind of worry creeping into the theme du jour. We don’t attribute much value to the latter worry as collaborative efforts by scientists across the globe continue at record pace to pursue vaccines to stem the spread of the virus as well as drugs of greater efficacy to treat those who have fallen ill to it," Stoltzfus noted. Applying Stolzfus’ take to its recommendations, Oppenheimer is pounding the table on three stocks in particular. Noting that all three have solid long-term growth prospects, the firm’s analysts believe each has at least 50% upside potential. After running the tickers through TipRanks’ database, it’s clear the rest of the Street is in agreement, with each earning a “Strong Buy” consensus rating. NuCana PLC (NCNA) Using its ProTide technology, NuCana is working on transforming some of the most widely prescribed chemotherapy agents and nucleoside analogs into more effective and safer medicines. Given its potential to address the key limitations of other therapies, Oppenheimer has high hopes for this healthcare name. Representing the firm, 5-star analyst Leland Gershell points out that nucleoside analogs are commonly used treatments for viral infections and many cancers, but “cellular resistance mechanisms that impede drug entry and activation, as well as enhance breakdown and toxicity, hamper the fuller realization of their therapeutic potential.” NCNA’s technology, on the other hand, uses a prodrug strategy exemplified by Gilead’s HIV and HCV programs to address these issues. NCNA’s lead asset, Acelarin, is in Phase 3 development for front-line biliary tract cancer after the therapy combined with cisplatin demonstrated a superior clinical efficacy signal compared to gemcitabine, the current standard-of-care. “These combinations are being compared head-to-head in a recently initiated Phase 3 in front-line disease, and interim efficacy analyses expected 2022-23 could enable this orphan indication's first approval,” Gershell commented. "We assign a 50% probability of success for Acelarinin biliary tract cancer, assume 35% peak penetration of the target ~18K patient annual incidence, with peak 2028 sales of ~$319M." Adding to the good news, investors could get an update on NUC-3373, NuCana’s second product in clinical development, in the second half of 2020. NUC-3373 is an optimized active metabolite of 5- fluorouracil which is moving towards a registrational Phase 2/3 trial in early-line colorectal cancer Looking at the available data, compared to 5-FU, NUC-3373 was able to generate significantly more anti-cancer activity, required a lower infusion time and had a better tolerability profile. On top of this, a Phase 1b multiple combination therapy trial in advanced colorectal cancer showed the candidate might benefit patients that are refractory to 5-FU, a claim Gershell believes could be validated by the 2H20 results. The implication? Gershell stated, “With 5-FU a standard treatment component for a wide range of cancers, NUC-3373's key advantages position it to become the preferred alternative among the 500,000 U.S. individuals who receive 5-FU annually. Beyond colorectal cancer, NCNA has indicated interest in exploring NUC-3373 in other malignancies treated with 5- FU (e.g., gastric, esophageal cancer).” To this end, Gershell rates NCNA an Outperform (i.e. Buy) along with a $20 price target. Shares could appreciate by 295%, should the analyst’s thesis play out in the coming months. (To watch Gershell’s track record, click here) It’s not often that the analysts all agree on a stock, so when it does happen, take note. NCNA’s Strong Buy consensus rating is based on a unanimous 4 Buys. The stock’s $17 average price target suggests a 236% upside from the current share price of $5.08. (See NCNA stock analysis on TipRanks)
Milestone Pharmaceuticals (MIST) Hoping to address the unmet needs of patients, Milestone Pharmaceuticals develops therapies for the acute treatment of arrhythmias and other cardiac conditions. Even though the company experienced a setback related to one of its therapies in March, Oppenheimer believes it is back on track. 5-star analyst Leland Gershell, who also covers NCNA, acknowledges that there was some uncertainty following NODE-301's primary endpoint miss in March. However, he argues “MIST has emerged from constructive FDA discussions on track to complete etripamil's development in paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) without the need to run a new trial, a solid positive to expectations.” Although NODE-301 wasn’t able to meet the original primary endpoint of time to conversion (TTC), statistical analysis demonstrated that the therapy showed efficacy earlier on when evaluated over shorter periods. Therefore, the FDA agreed to a new statistical analysis plan that defines the primary endpoint as TTC at 30 minutes, so NODE-301 was technically successful. What does this change mean for MIST? Gershell noted, “NODE-301's original five-hour primary analysis period provided time for a sufficient number of placebo subjects to experience spontaneous resolutions, precluding the ability to show a difference. The use of a 30-minute window as the primary assessment retains etripamil nasal spray's value proposition to avoid/reduce emergency department visits, and bodes well for RAPID success.” Originally, the RAPID study (formerly NODE-301B) was set to include 170 participants who had been randomized into the double-blind, event-driven trial but had not experienced an SVT event upon reaching the target event number. Now, the trial will continue until 180 total events have been witnessed, and MIST will re-open enrollment in 2H20 with 1:1 randomization. With top-line data slated for release in late 2021/early 2022, the data readout could reflect a major catalyst. When it comes to its cash position, MIST boasted $102 million as of March 31, with the $25 million private placement by lead shareholder RTW supporting its operations into Q2 2022. This capital was provided in exchange for about 6.66 million pre-funded stock warrants. According to Gershell, this means MIST should have enough funding to reach key catalysts. All of the above makes it clear why Gershell is now standing with the bulls. In addition to upgrading the rating to Outperform, he put an $18 price target on the stock. This brings the upside potential to 117%. Judging by the consensus breakdown, other analysts also like what they’re seeing. 3 Buys and a single Hold add up to a Strong Buy consensus rating. Based on the $13.25 average price target, the upside potential lands at 59%. (See MIST stock analysis on TipRanks)
InterDigital (IDCC) Counting tech industry titans like Apple, Samsung, LG and Huawei as customers, InterDigital is one of the top R&D companies in the world. With it boasting 32,000 patents, applications in wireless and video technologies and a broad international footprint, Oppenheimer thinks now is the time to get on board. Analyst Ian Zaffino tells clients that IDCC’s product portfolio gives it “significant earnings power.” Expounding on this, he stated, “Its patents are integrated into the major wireless standards and comprise ~6% of all 5G patents, including ones that cover signal power control... Roughly 93% of revenues come from fixed-fee payments, which create a predictable and recurring revenue stream.” Additionally, the company has a history of IP enforcement. Speaking to its efforts on this front, IDCC signed agreements with Samsung in 2014, Apple in 2016 and LG Electronics in 2017. It should be noted that the tech name recently renewed its license with Huawei, which could open the door for licensing deals with other handset makers, in Zaffino’s opinion. Currently, there are five Chinese manufacturers, including Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, Lenovo and TCL, as well as a group of smaller players that use IDCC’s technology without a license. “Over the next several years, we believe the company can ink deals with each one. If we assume each large manufacturer represents ~$30 million-$40 million of annual revenues, IDCC has the potential to generate revenues of ~$500 million and EPS of ~$6,” Zaffino explained. Representing another positive, IDCC recently acquired Technicolor, a move that could pay off big time. According to Zaffino, revenues here would most likely come from “major television manufacturers, including Samsung and LG, who already have relationships with IDCC on the wireless side.” The company also has an opportunity in the IoT space. Everything that IDCC has going for it prompted Zaffino to rate the stock an Outperform (i.e. Buy). The cherry on top? His $90 price target implies a 53% upside from current levels. (To watch Zaffino’s track record, click here) Other analysts back Zaffino’s take. 3 Buys and no Holds or Sells have been assigned in the last three months, so the word on the Street is that IDCC is a Strong Buy. The $94.67 average price target puts the upside potential at 60%. (See InterDigital stock analysis on TipRanks)
To find good ideas for stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks’ Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks’ equity insights. The post Oppenheimer: These 3 "Strong Buy" Stocks Have Over 50% Upside Potential appeared first on TipRanks Financial Blog.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Sylvester researchers, collaborators call for greater investment in bereavement care

MIAMI, FLORIDA (March 15, 2024) – The public health toll from bereavement is well-documented in the medical literature, with bereaved persons at greater…

Published

on

MIAMI, FLORIDA (March 15, 2024) – The public health toll from bereavement is well-documented in the medical literature, with bereaved persons at greater risk for many adverse outcomes, including mental health challenges, decreased quality of life, health care neglect, cancer, heart disease, suicide, and death. Now, in a paper published in The Lancet Public Health, researchers sound a clarion call for greater investment, at both the community and institutional level, in establishing support for grief-related suffering.

Credit: Photo courtesy of Memorial Sloan Kettering Comprehensive Cancer Center

MIAMI, FLORIDA (March 15, 2024) – The public health toll from bereavement is well-documented in the medical literature, with bereaved persons at greater risk for many adverse outcomes, including mental health challenges, decreased quality of life, health care neglect, cancer, heart disease, suicide, and death. Now, in a paper published in The Lancet Public Health, researchers sound a clarion call for greater investment, at both the community and institutional level, in establishing support for grief-related suffering.

The authors emphasized that increased mortality worldwide caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, suicide, drug overdose, homicide, armed conflict, and terrorism have accelerated the urgency for national- and global-level frameworks to strengthen the provision of sustainable and accessible bereavement care. Unfortunately, current national and global investment in bereavement support services is woefully inadequate to address this growing public health crisis, said researchers with Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and collaborating organizations.  

They proposed a model for transitional care that involves firmly establishing bereavement support services within healthcare organizations to ensure continuity of family-centered care while bolstering community-based support through development of “compassionate communities” and a grief-informed workforce. The model highlights the responsibility of the health system to build bridges to the community that can help grievers feel held as they transition.   

The Center for the Advancement of Bereavement Care at Sylvester is advocating for precisely this model of transitional care. Wendy G. Lichtenthal, PhD, FT, FAPOS, who is Founding Director of the new Center and associate professor of public health sciences at the Miller School, noted, “We need a paradigm shift in how healthcare professionals, institutions, and systems view bereavement care. Sylvester is leading the way by investing in the establishment of this Center, which is the first to focus on bringing the transitional bereavement care model to life.”

What further distinguishes the Center is its roots in bereavement science, advancing care approaches that are both grounded in research and community-engaged.  

The authors focused on palliative care, which strives to provide a holistic approach to minimize suffering for seriously ill patients and their families, as one area where improvements are critically needed. They referenced groundbreaking reports of the Lancet Commissions on the value of global access to palliative care and pain relief that highlighted the “undeniable need for improved bereavement care delivery infrastructure.” One of those reports acknowledged that bereavement has been overlooked and called for reprioritizing social determinants of death, dying, and grief.

“Palliative care should culminate with bereavement care, both in theory and in practice,” explained Lichtenthal, who is the article’s corresponding author. “Yet, bereavement care often is under-resourced and beset with access inequities.”

Transitional bereavement care model

So, how do health systems and communities prioritize bereavement services to ensure that no bereaved individual goes without needed support? The transitional bereavement care model offers a roadmap.

“We must reposition bereavement care from an afterthought to a public health priority. Transitional bereavement care is necessary to bridge the gap in offerings between healthcare organizations and community-based bereavement services,” Lichtenthal said. “Our model calls for health systems to shore up the quality and availability of their offerings, but also recognizes that resources for bereavement care within a given healthcare institution are finite, emphasizing the need to help build communities’ capacity to support grievers.”

Key to the model, she added, is the bolstering of community-based support through development of “compassionate communities” and “upskilling” of professional services to assist those with more substantial bereavement-support needs.

The model contains these pillars:

  • Preventive bereavement care –healthcare teams engage in bereavement-conscious practices, and compassionate communities are mindful of the emotional and practical needs of dying patients’ families.
  • Ownership of bereavement care – institutions provide bereavement education for staff, risk screenings for families, outreach and counseling or grief support. Communities establish bereavement centers and “champions” to provide bereavement care at workplaces, schools, places of worship or care facilities.
  • Resource allocation for bereavement care – dedicated personnel offer universal outreach, and bereaved stakeholders provide input to identify community barriers and needed resources.
  • Upskilling of support providers – Bereavement education is integrated into training programs for health professionals, and institutions offer dedicated grief specialists. Communities have trained, accessible bereavement specialists who provide support and are educated in how to best support bereaved individuals, increasing their grief literacy.
  • Evidence-based care – bereavement care is evidence-based and features effective grief assessments, interventions, and training programs. Compassionate communities remain mindful of bereavement care needs.

Lichtenthal said the new Center will strive to materialize these pillars and aims to serve as a global model for other health organizations. She hopes the paper’s recommendations “will cultivate a bereavement-conscious and grief-informed workforce as well as grief-literate, compassionate communities and health systems that prioritize bereavement as a vital part of ethical healthcare.”

“This paper is calling for healthcare institutions to respond to their duty to care for the family beyond patients’ deaths. By investing in the creation of the Center for the Advancement of Bereavement Care, Sylvester is answering this call,” Lichtenthal said.

Follow @SylvesterCancer on X for the latest news on Sylvester’s research and care.

# # #

Article Title: Investing in bereavement care as a public health priority

DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00030-6

Authors: The complete list of authors is included in the paper.

Funding: The authors received funding from the National Cancer Institute (P30 CA240139 Nimer) and P30 CA008748 Vickers).

Disclosures: The authors declared no competing interests.

# # #


Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Separating Information From Disinformation: Threats From The AI Revolution

Separating Information From Disinformation: Threats From The AI Revolution

Authored by Per Bylund via The Mises Institute,

Artificial intelligence…

Published

on

Separating Information From Disinformation: Threats From The AI Revolution

Authored by Per Bylund via The Mises Institute,

Artificial intelligence (AI) cannot distinguish fact from fiction. It also isn’t creative or can create novel content but repeats, repackages, and reformulates what has already been said (but perhaps in new ways).

I am sure someone will disagree with the latter, perhaps pointing to the fact that AI can clearly generate, for example, new songs and lyrics. I agree with this, but it misses the point. AI produces a “new” song lyric only by drawing from the data of previous song lyrics and then uses that information (the inductively uncovered patterns in it) to generate what to us appears to be a new song (and may very well be one). However, there is no artistry in it, no creativity. It’s only a structural rehashing of what exists.

Of course, we can debate to what extent humans can think truly novel thoughts and whether human learning may be based solely or primarily on mimicry. However, even if we would—for the sake of argument—agree that all we know and do is mere reproduction, humans have limited capacity to remember exactly and will make errors. We also fill in gaps with what subjectively (not objectively) makes sense to us (Rorschach test, anyone?). Even in this very limited scenario, which I disagree with, humans generate novelty beyond what AI is able to do.

Both the inability to distinguish fact from fiction and the inductive tether to existent data patterns are problems that can be alleviated programmatically—but are open for manipulation.

Manipulation and Propaganda

When Google launched its Gemini AI in February, it immediately became clear that the AI had a woke agenda. Among other things, the AI pushed woke diversity ideals into every conceivable response and, among other things, refused to show images of white people (including when asked to produce images of the Founding Fathers).

Tech guru and Silicon Valley investor Marc Andreessen summarized it on X (formerly Twitter): “I know it’s hard to believe, but Big Tech AI generates the output it does because it is precisely executing the specific ideological, radical, biased agenda of its creators. The apparently bizarre output is 100% intended. It is working as designed.”

There is indeed a design to these AIs beyond the basic categorization and generation engines. The responses are not perfectly inductive or generative. In part, this is necessary in order to make the AI useful: filters and rules are applied to make sure that the responses that the AI generates are appropriate, fit with user expectations, and are accurate and respectful. Given the legal situation, creators of AI must also make sure that the AI does not, for example, violate intellectual property laws or engage in hate speech. AI is also designed (directed) so that it does not go haywire or offend its users (remember Tay?).

However, because such filters are applied and the “behavior” of the AI is already directed, it is easy to take it a little further. After all, when is a response too offensive versus offensive but within the limits of allowable discourse? It is a fine and difficult line that must be specified programmatically.

It also opens the possibility for steering the generated responses beyond mere quality assurance. With filters already in place, it is easy to make the AI make statements of a specific type or that nudges the user in a certain direction (in terms of selected facts, interpretations, and worldviews). It can also be used to give the AI an agenda, as Andreessen suggests, such as making it relentlessly woke.

Thus, AI can be used as an effective propaganda tool, which both the corporations creating them and the governments and agencies regulating them have recognized.

Misinformation and Error

States have long refused to admit that they benefit from and use propaganda to steer and control their subjects. This is in part because they want to maintain a veneer of legitimacy as democratic governments that govern based on (rather than shape) people’s opinions. Propaganda has a bad ring to it; it’s a means of control.

However, the state’s enemies—both domestic and foreign—are said to understand the power of propaganda and do not hesitate to use it to cause chaos in our otherwise untainted democratic society. The government must save us from such manipulation, they claim. Of course, rarely does it stop at mere defense. We saw this clearly during the covid pandemic, in which the government together with social media companies in effect outlawed expressing opinions that were not the official line (see Murthy v. Missouri).

AI is just as easy to manipulate for propaganda purposes as social media algorithms but with the added bonus that it isn’t only people’s opinions and that users tend to trust that what the AI reports is true. As we saw in the previous article on the AI revolution, this is not a valid assumption, but it is nevertheless a widely held view.

If the AI then can be instructed to not comment on certain things that the creators (or regulators) do not want people to see or learn, then it is effectively “memory holed.” This type of “unwanted” information will not spread as people will not be exposed to it—such as showing only diverse representations of the Founding Fathers (as Google’s Gemini) or presenting, for example, only Keynesian macroeconomic truths to make it appear like there is no other perspective. People don’t know what they don’t know.

Of course, nothing is to say that what is presented to the user is true. In fact, the AI itself cannot distinguish fact from truth but only generates responses according to direction and only based on whatever the AI has been fed. This leaves plenty of scope for the misrepresentation of the truth and can make the world believe outright lies. AI, therefore, can easily be used to impose control, whether it is upon a state, the subjects under its rule, or even a foreign power.

The Real Threat of AI

What, then, is the real threat of AI? As we saw in the first article, large language models will not (cannot) evolve into artificial general intelligence as there is nothing about inductive sifting through large troves of (humanly) created information that will give rise to consciousness. To be frank, we haven’t even figured out what consciousness is, so to think that we will create it (or that it will somehow emerge from algorithms discovering statistical language correlations in existing texts) is quite hyperbolic. Artificial general intelligence is still hypothetical.

As we saw in the second article, there is also no economic threat from AI. It will not make humans economically superfluous and cause mass unemployment. AI is productive capital, which therefore has value to the extent that it serves consumers by contributing to the satisfaction of their wants. Misused AI is as valuable as a misused factory—it will tend to its scrap value. However, this doesn’t mean that AI will have no impact on the economy. It will, and already has, but it is not as big in the short-term as some fear, and it is likely bigger in the long-term than we expect.

No, the real threat is AI’s impact on information. This is in part because induction is an inappropriate source of knowledge—truth and fact are not a matter of frequency or statistical probabilities. The evidence and theories of Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei would get weeded out as improbable (false) by an AI trained on all the (best and brightest) writings on geocentrism at the time. There is no progress and no learning of new truths if we trust only historical theories and presentations of fact.

However, this problem can probably be overcome by clever programming (meaning implementing rules—and fact-based limitations—to the induction problem), at least to some extent. The greater problem is the corruption of what AI presents: the misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation that its creators and administrators, as well as governments and pressure groups, direct it to create as a means of controlling or steering public opinion or knowledge.

This is the real danger that the now-famous open letter, signed by Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, and others, pointed to:

“Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilization?”

Other than the economically illiterate reference to “automat[ing] away all the jobs,” the warning is well-taken. AI will not Terminator-like start to hate us and attempt to exterminate mankind. It will not make us all into biological batteries, as in The Matrix. However, it will—especially when corrupted—misinform and mislead us, create chaos, and potentially make our lives “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/15/2024 - 06:30

Read More

Continue Reading

International

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded…

Published

on

'Excess Mortality Skyrocketed': Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack 'Criminal' COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded experimental vaccines were hastily developed for a virus which primarily killed the old and fat (and those with other obvious comorbidities), and an aggressive, global campaign to coerce billions into injecting them ensued.

Then there were the lockdowns - with some countries (New Zealand, for example) building internment camps for those who tested positive for Covid-19, and others such as China welding entire apartment buildings shut to trap people inside.

It was an egregious and unnecessary response to a virus that, while highly virulent, was survivable by the vast majority of the general population.

Oh, and the vaccines, which governments are still pushing, didn't work as advertised to the point where health officials changed the definition of "vaccine" multiple times.

Tucker Carlson recently sat down with Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist and vocal critic of vaccines. The two had a wide-ranging discussion, which included vaccine safety and efficacy, excess mortality, demographic impacts of the virus, big pharma, and the professional price Kory has paid for speaking out.

Keep reading below, or if you have roughly 50 minutes, watch it in its entirety for free on X:

"Do we have any real sense of what the cost, the physical cost to the country and world has been of those vaccines?" Carlson asked, kicking off the interview.

"I do think we have some understanding of the cost. I mean, I think, you know, you're aware of the work of of Ed Dowd, who's put together a team and looked, analytically at a lot of the epidemiologic data," Kory replied. "I mean, time with that vaccination rollout is when all of the numbers started going sideways, the excess mortality started to skyrocket."

When asked "what kind of death toll are we looking at?", Kory responded "...in 2023 alone, in the first nine months, we had what's called an excess mortality of 158,000 Americans," adding "But this is in 2023. I mean, we've  had Omicron now for two years, which is a mild variant. Not that many go to the hospital."

'Safe and Effective'

Tucker also asked Kory why the people who claimed the vaccine were "safe and effective" aren't being held criminally liable for abetting the "killing of all these Americans," to which Kory replied: "It’s my kind of belief, looking back, that [safe and effective] was a predetermined conclusion. There was no data to support that, but it was agreed upon that it would be presented as safe and effective."

Carlson and Kory then discussed the different segments of the population that experienced vaccine side effects, with Kory noting an "explosion in dying in the youngest and healthiest sectors of society," adding "And why did the employed fare far worse than those that weren't? And this particularly white collar, white collar, more than gray collar, more than blue collar."

Kory also said that Big Pharma is 'terrified' of Vitamin D because it "threatens the disease model." As journalist The Vigilant Fox notes on X, "Vitamin D showed about a 60% effectiveness against the incidence of COVID-19 in randomized control trials," and "showed about 40-50% effectiveness in reducing the incidence of COVID-19 in observational studies."

Professional costs

Kory - while risking professional suicide by speaking out, has undoubtedly helped save countless lives by advocating for alternate treatments such as Ivermectin.

Kory shared his own experiences of job loss and censorship, highlighting the challenges of advocating for a more nuanced understanding of vaccine safety in an environment often resistant to dissenting voices.

"I wrote a book called The War on Ivermectin and the the genesis of that book," he said, adding "Not only is my expertise on Ivermectin and my vast clinical experience, but and I tell the story before, but I got an email, during this journey from a guy named William B Grant, who's a professor out in California, and he wrote to me this email just one day, my life was going totally sideways because our protocols focused on Ivermectin. I was using a lot in my practice, as were tens of thousands of doctors around the world, to really good benefits. And I was getting attacked, hit jobs in the media, and he wrote me this email on and he said, Dear Dr. Kory, what they're doing to Ivermectin, they've been doing to vitamin D for decades..."

"And it's got five tactics. And these are the five tactics that all industries employ when science emerges, that's inconvenient to their interests. And so I'm just going to give you an example. Ivermectin science was extremely inconvenient to the interests of the pharmaceutical industrial complex. I mean, it threatened the vaccine campaign. It threatened vaccine hesitancy, which was public enemy number one. We know that, that everything, all the propaganda censorship was literally going after something called vaccine hesitancy."

Money makes the world go 'round

Carlson then hit on perhaps the most devious aspect of the relationship between drug companies and the medical establishment, and how special interests completely taint science to the point where public distrust of institutions has spiked in recent years.

"I think all of it starts at the level the medical journals," said Kory. "Because once you have something established in the medical journals as a, let's say, a proven fact or a generally accepted consensus, consensus comes out of the journals."

"I have dozens of rejection letters from investigators around the world who did good trials on ivermectin, tried to publish it. No thank you, no thank you, no thank you. And then the ones that do get in all purportedly prove that ivermectin didn't work," Kory continued.

"So and then when you look at the ones that actually got in and this is where like probably my biggest estrangement and why I don't recognize science and don't trust it anymore, is the trials that flew to publication in the top journals in the world were so brazenly manipulated and corrupted in the design and conduct in, many of us wrote about it. But they flew to publication, and then every time they were published, you saw these huge PR campaigns in the media. New York Times, Boston Globe, L.A. times, ivermectin doesn't work. Latest high quality, rigorous study says. I'm sitting here in my office watching these lies just ripple throughout the media sphere based on fraudulent studies published in the top journals. And that's that's that has changed. Now that's why I say I'm estranged and I don't know what to trust anymore."

Vaccine Injuries

Carlson asked Kory about his clinical experience with vaccine injuries.

"So how this is how I divide, this is just kind of my perception of vaccine injury is that when I use the term vaccine injury, I'm usually referring to what I call a single organ problem, like pericarditis, myocarditis, stroke, something like that. An autoimmune disease," he replied.

"What I specialize in my practice, is I treat patients with what we call a long Covid long vaxx. It's the same disease, just different triggers, right? One is triggered by Covid, the other one is triggered by the spike protein from the vaccine. Much more common is long vax. The only real differences between the two conditions is that the vaccinated are, on average, sicker and more disabled than the long Covids, with some pretty prominent exceptions to that."

Watch the entire interview above, and you can support Tucker Carlson's endeavors by joining the Tucker Carlson Network here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/14/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending