Free-Flowing Money to Corrupt the Doctor-Patient Relationship by Incentivizing Vaccinations

How to corrupt the doctor-patient relationship: Quietly pay doctors to recommend vaccinations. What better way to convince doctors to downplay vaccination side-effects, most recently with the COVID vaccinations. I would prefer that my doctor not be paid anything by anyone, so that I am getting the doctor's free and unbiased judgment regarding treatment the doctor recommends. Excerpt:

Fake?

The AP attacked the claim that doctors receive $400 bonuses reaching some $40,000 per year, for getting those 39 vaccines into a baby on time. Yet, while determining the claim to be “false,” they clarify that their objection is just that it's not one price scheme for the entire nation.

CLAIM: Blue Cross Blue Shield pays doctors a $40,000 bonus for administering childhood immunizations to at least 100 patients under 2 years old and an $80,000 bonus for vaccinating 200 children.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association is a national federation of more than three dozen locally operated companies, and doesn’t offer such an incentive across the board . . . [Emphases added].

The AP went on to say that the $400 bonus and 63% benchmark are in fact the exact figures for the incentives offered in Michigan.

The document that blog post referred to was a 2016 edition of a Performance Recognition Program specifically for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Blue Care Network of Michigan. In a table titled “Quality Incentive Measures,” the program lays out that doctors who meet 63% of their plan goal for childhood immunizations receive a $400 payout. [Emphasis added].

The only real correction offered by the AP was that the doctors were not as successful as assumed in getting all those shots in the babies' arms. The payouts in 2016, in Michigan, topped out at $9,600. At $400 each, that translates to just 24 fully vaccinated babies.

One more excerpt, this time focusing Robert Malone's article on incentives paid to to doctors to incentivize the COVID jabs:

Dr. Robert Malone, an inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, revealed a similar, but even more rewarding, incentive program that was quietly provided to physicians to push mRNA injections. The program provides physicians with some $380,000 annually based on an average of 1,800 unique patient visits per year per medical practice...

The only way insurance companies could profit from more vaccinations would be if the government reimbursed them more than the combined costs to the insurance companies of purchasing the vaccinations and paying the bonuses. Dr. Malone confirms that this is exactly the case with COVID vaccines, as the money, which originates with the federal government, covers the costs of the vaccinations, the physicians' bonuses and the profit of the insurance companies. It is, therefore, tax dollars that are being passed from the government to the insurance companies to the doctors:

Continue ReadingFree-Flowing Money to Corrupt the Doctor-Patient Relationship by Incentivizing Vaccinations

About Political Factions

It distresses me that so many educated people embrace tribal politics, regardless of what tribe affiliate with. The Founders of the U.S. rightfully feared that factions would be our undoing as a country. For many people, it's as though the Enlightenment never occurred. Sarah Pruitt offers the historical background:

Today, it may seem impossible to imagine the U.S. government without its two leading political parties, Democrats and Republicans. But in 1787, when delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to hash out the foundations of their new government, they entirely omitted political parties from the new nation’s founding document.

This was no accident. The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.

Continue ReadingAbout Political Factions

“Rumors” as the Newest Censorship Tool

If you read this NYT article, you will immediately see an incredibly severe attack of lack of curiosity. An Irish riot was caused by "rumors" that three Irish children and an Irish woman were wounded by an Algerian migrant wielding a knife. An excerpt from this NYT article:

Soon after three children and a woman were wounded in a knife attack outside a Dublin school on Thursday, rumors about the perpetrator’s nationality began to proliferate online.

The Garda Síochána, the Irish police force, declined to comment on the background of the suspect, who was taken into custody after being tackled to the ground by bystanders. The police said only that he is a man in his 50s.

The NYT repeatedly discusses the "rumors" and "unconfirmed reports" without answering a simple obvious question: Was the attacker an Algerian migrant? This information would seemingly be simple to figure out and it is central to the story that a "riot" ensued and included people carrying banners reading "Irish Lives Matters." The NYT bluntly claims that these protestors were part of "anti-immigration and far-right groups."

Again, was the assailant an Algerian migrant? Also, what is the basis for calling the protestors "anti-immigration" and "far right"? Are they truly opposed to all immigration? On what basis are the on the "right" (and see this recent post on the myth of left and right politics).

Until the NYT takes the time to answer whether the assailant is an Algerian migrant, how can the NYT conclude that this idea is a "rumor." Mike Benz has the answer: Calling real facts and real concerns "rumors" is the most recent tactic for censorship. The bad people in this story are the Irish people concerned with safety. They need to be censored:

What is the long term solution for the very real problem that Irish people are concerned about immigration policies that lead to violence? Those Irish people need to be censored. The Irish Government is not wasting any time to enact emergency legislation:

The Washington Post used a similar tactic, as skewered by this tweet:

Continue Reading“Rumors” as the Newest Censorship Tool

Corporate/Government Propaganda: A Tutorial

Robert Malone cites the work of Paul D. Thacker, who describes how powerful entities such as corporations and governments deceive us through propaganda. It was a technique developed by cigarette companies and it has been used ever since, including by COVID grifters. Here's an excerpt:

In December 1953, the CEOs of America’s leading tobacco companies cast aside competitive rancor and gathered at New York City’s Plaza Hotel to confront a menace to their incredibly profitable industry. An emergent body of science published in elite medical journals cast doubt on the safety of cigarettes and threatened to destroy a half-century of corporate success. Joining them at the Plaza was John W. Hill, the president of America’s top public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton. Hill would later prove a decisive savior.

Hill had closely studied Edward Bernays, whose work on propaganda in the 1920s and 1930s laid the foundation of modern public relations and defined common techniques to manipulate popular opinion. Hill understood that any traditional campaign would fail to sway society, which perceived advertising as little more than corporate propaganda. Effective public relations required comprehensive off-stage management of the media. At its best, it left no fingerprints.

Instead of ignoring or denigrating new data that found tobacco dangerous, Hill proposed the opposite: embrace science, trumpet new data, and demand more, not less research. By calling for more research, which they would then fund, tobacco companies could harness academic scientists in a battle to confront a major scientific controversy and amplify skeptical views of the relationship between tobacco and disease. Such a scheme would let companies shroud themselves in doubt and uncertainty—core principles of the scientific process, in which every answer leads to new questions.

Hill & Knowlton’s campaign for the five largest US tobacco companies corrupted science and medicine for decades to follow, laying the foundation for financial conflicts of interest in science, as other industries mimicked tobacco’s techniques to protect their own products from government bans and regulations—later, from consumer lawsuits. While tactics have varied over time, the core strategy has changed little since tobacco wrote the playbook, providing a menu of techniques now employed across industries.

Continue ReadingCorporate/Government Propaganda: A Tutorial