Interesting how you go after Dr Wolf’s credentials. She’s not attempting to diagnose anyone. Her concerns are on the mandates and civil rights side. She is working with Bannon’s people on going through the Pfizer trial document dump. I imagine she has plenty of experts in her group of 3500 volunteers including dozens of MDs, attorney and researchers. They just filed their first lawsuit. I am looking forward to them flattening every single person and organization involved in promoting the clot shots.
As to the others...you forgot a few names. Many of those ppl are doing effective early treatment of cv in both vxd and unvxd patients. And treating injury from the clot shots. Drs Marble, Urso, Bowden et al do this in spite of attacks by the star chamber licensing boards. And some treat for free. Imagine having to spend $5000 to get a Court to order a hospital to feed a cv patient who has been given no food or water for a week. That’s the state of modern cv death care. And they can get away with it because of the Prep Act.
I specified Wolf’s credentials as I was replying to a post about about medical doctors. Also several Freepers have assumed she is an MD; same with Steve Kirsch(!).
It is also relevant because she has no background in science and cannot properly oversee this “crowdsourced” project of hers and apparently has not appointed anyone who can. She already failed miserably in the social sciences type of research she previously attempted, and was even called out on egregious errors in her thesis (which also reflects poorly on her alma mater). Her last book was so riddled with errors her publisher had to pulp all copies.
Naomi Wolf and her “crowdsourced project” issued a “report” so full of such ridiculous and glaring errors others (including other vax doomers) called her out on them and one of her “researchers” had to note it on her website.
If she truly has all these MDs on board, they’re either utterly incompetent or not showing up.
One of those who called her out on her errors, was this guy, who provides the Pfizer pages and tables so you can see for yourself:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1559949374381244416.html
For more, see:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4086071/posts?page=200#200
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4086071/posts?page=198#198
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4086071/posts?page=247#247
Dr. Bowden seems to be profiting off her vax doomer stance. Apparently, she announced on Twitter she would not accept any new patients who had received Covid vaccine. Another doctor, outraged at Bowden’s grifter-style website made this video:
https://www.tiktok.com/@mamadoctorjones/video/7027980935702416687
“For the low, low cost of $375, you can get the same PCR COVID test that you would get for free at Walgreens from Dr. Bowden.”
Dr. Urso is an ophthalmologist with Frontline Doctors, and I listed them. Dr. Marble is also affiliated with Frontline Doctors. Perhaps Dr. Marble treats patients for free, and that is very nice of him. His website says: “MYFREEDOCTOR.COM DOES NOT ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE OR PROVIDE ANY OTHER HEALTH SERVICES. NO HEALTHCARE PROVIDER/PATIENT RELATIONSHIP IS CREATED WHEN YOU ACCESS THE SITE OR SERVICES” (Sorry for the all caps, I used copy-paste.).
Also this: “Myfreedoctor.com’s Site provides certain telehealth related information and/or facilitates your access to telemedicine and expert medical services. Myfreedoctor.com is independent of the healthcare providers who will be providing such telemedicine services to you through the Site and Myfreedoctor.com is not liable, in anyway, whatsoever, for such healthcare providers’ acts, omissions or for any content of the communication made by them.”
Link: https://myfreedoctor.com/terms-and-conditions
This is from Time, which is not exactly the most trustworthy of sources, but if even *some* of the claims made in this article are true, it’s quite concerning. And if any are false, why haven’t the Frontline Doctors sued?
How ‘America’s Frontline Doctors’ Sold Access to Bogus COVID-19 Treatments—and Left Patients in the Lurch
“Over the past three months, a TIME investigation found, hundreds of AFLD customers and donors have accused the group of touting a service promising prescriptions for ivermectin, which medical authorities say should not be taken to treat or prevent COVID-19, and failing to deliver after a fee had been paid. Some customers described being charged for consultations that did not happen. Others said they were connected to digital pharmacies that quoted excessive prices of up to $700 for the cheap medication. In more than 3,000 messages reviewed by TIME, dozens of people described their or their family members’ COVID-19 symptoms worsening while they waited for an unproven “wonder drug” that didn’t arrive.”
>>>>>Re your “Imagine having to spend $5000 to get a Court to order a hospital to feed a cv patient who has been given no food or water for a week. That’s the state of modern cv death care. And they can get away with it because of the Prep Act.”<<<<<
That sounds ghastly! I have not heard or read about this. Perhaps you would do me the kindness of providing a link?
“Interesting how you go after Dr Wolf’s credentials. “
Did she mention the Inside Higher Ed article?
“Dozens of mistakes identified in Naomi Wolf’s University of Oxford doctoral thesis raise challenging questions for British graduate education and its examinations process, according to a historian.
“The American feminist’s D.Phil. dissertation has attracted interest in recent years because it was the basis for her 2019 book, Outrages: Censorship and the Criminalisation of Love, which was pulped by her U.S. publisher after she wrongly claimed that Britain had in the Victorian era executed several men for being gay.
“Other factual errors were also spotted in a reissued edition, with several of the men cited as examples of antigay injustice actually having been convicted for sexual offenses against children and animals.
“The mistakes led to questions about how they were missed by Wolf’s supervisor and examiners, but her dissertation remained under embargo for six years after being examined in April 2015.
“It was finally published this month (April 2021) on Oxford’s online research archive, alongside nine pages of corrections that address Wolf’s misreading of criminal records and cite several texts that contradict claims that the mid- to late Victorian period saw an escalation of Britain’s persecution of gay men. But the release does not reveal who examined the thesis.
“Tim Hitchcock, professor of digital history at the University of Sussex, whose digital archive the Old Bailey Online contained the records misunderstood by Wolf, said the episode represented a “failure of supervision and examining.” He suggested that the unnamed examiners may have had backgrounds in English literature rather than legal history.
‘It shows that the British doctoral examining system is not as transparent or rigorous as it should be compared with other countries,’ Hitchcock told Times Higher Education. ‘At some level, a doctorate should require a public examination, but that is not really the case here — I’m not sure U.K. higher education has got this one right.’
“Hitchcock said he was surprised to see the mistakes framed as “minor” corrections. “This looks like tinkering when what was clearly needed was a rethink of how the argument plays out — if your major data source is ill used in this way, the whole argument needs to be rethought,” he said.
“Problems about relying solely on his archive — where descriptions of crimes are often only eight words long — were well-known by historians, who would generally cross-check cases with more extensive parliamentary records, Hitchcock explained.
“But Harry Cocks, an associate professor of history at the University of Nottingham whose work on sexuality in Victorian England is referenced in Wolf’s corrections, told Times Higher Education that the wording of these records was “easy to misinterpret, and many historians have done so.”
“An Oxford spokesman said a thesis is “a product of its time, and factual matters arising after its publication can be addressed separately by its author attaching clarifications or in further works.”
“The university does not have a procedure for editing a thesis once it has been independently examined and deposited with the Bodleian Libraries, unless there is a finding of academic misconduct. Errors of fact do not in themselves amount to academic misconduct,” he said.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/04/29/naomi-wolf-dissertation-prompts-criticism-oxford
Of course maybe Naomi does better research in a field in which she has no training, like medicine.