Dr. Ryan Cole’s Contract Cancelled by Select Health
(Editors Note) The issue addressed in this letter is that it appears the insurance contract between select health and Dr. Ryan Cole was severed without cause.
Subject: Select Health Cancellation of Cole Diagnostic Contract
To: Director of Insurance Dean Cameron
I hesitate to contact you informally regarding an issue that I believe to be egregious and outrageous. If before answering me, you believe a more appropriate and official chain of communication is required I respectfully request that you point me in that direction. Thank you.
Please feel free to share this e-mail with anyone that you think may be helpful. I trust your judgement in this regard.
I am extremely concerned about the State of Idaho’s coercive actions in trying to limit the practice of Dr. Ryan Cole and his LLC. Cole Diagnostics. Dr. Cole is a Board-Certified Clinical Pathologist from the Mayo Clinic with a special certification in virology. He is an Air Force Academy Graduate who served his country prior to pursuing a career in Medicine. There is not physician in the State of Idaho who in my opinion has stronger clinical and academic credentials.
Dr. Cole has disagreed publicly with many of the mitigation strategies put forward over the last 20 months by The Governor’s Advisory Board and several of the District Health Boards. He is not alone in voicing his concerns regarding these policies. World renowned physician, clinicians, scientists, and public health specialists have voiced the same concerns as we have moved forward in prescribing strategies for confronting the Covid pandemics. Dr.’s Scott Atlas and Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford. Dr. Marty Makary from The John’s Hopkins, Dr. Paul Marek—a Nobel finalist for his work on cytokine storm in viral infections at Eastern Virginia Medical School and over 50,000 physicians and scientists who have signed onto the Great Barrington Project’s recommendations regarding Covid mitigation and treatment — including myself and over 100 Idaho physicians should not be considered supporting “fringe. Faux or fake science”
Actions have been filed at the State Board of Medicine against Dr. Cole — 8 in number at last count, none of which are from patients, but rather from medical directors at Al’s/Luke’s, a CEO at Luke’s, and other physicians. None of the physicians or administrators filing the complaints has the bona fides or credentials that Dr. Cole possess.
In short Dr. Cole presents a scientific opinion and clinical data that is not consistent with the political narrative of many in the medical community and in government. He does so in a professional manner and backs his opinions with data. I personally and professional am almost in complete agreement with Dr. Cole’s analysis and recommendations.
My wife Lynn and I just received our booster vaccination, but it was with the complete understanding of the indications, risks, and therapeutic alternatives that were available to us. These are the exact words used in the “informed consent” documents that have been used by physicians since Nuremberg and that have been followed by Dr. Cole.
I do not believe Dr. Cole has not violated a “standard of care” or “a standard of medical practice”. Many of the people voicing such opinions are not physicians. Opinions in newspapers have been voiced by former Attorney General Jim Jones and by the CEO at St. Luke’s stating that the Medical Practices Act and Professional Practices Acts that exist today in Idaho Code, can be read to include situations beyond the doctor patient relationship, even though the existing Law is very specific in this regard. If the law needs to be changed then the legislature should change it, not a hospital CEO or a retired Attorney General writing an Op-Ed. The irony about their position would be if what they desire to be true — written opinions can be practicing medicine, then both are practicing medicine without a license even as they publicly opine.
A difference in “scientific based medical opinions” is nothing new and is in fact the norm. The only difference in this case is that the State has a vested interest in their position and so do the carriers and hospital networks. The only “radical” in this regard is the State using their coercive power against a private citizen and practitioner in a way that will severely impact his business and livelihood.
I look forward to your considered response,
Respectfully,
John Livingston MD FACS
