Sen. Ron Johnson Accuses Public Health Agencies of ‘Appalling Lack of Transparency’ on COVID Vaccines
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 27, 2023
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) accused federal public health agencies of displaying an “appalling” lack of transparency with the American public during the pandemic, depriving them of “the benefit of informed consent.”
In a letter sent Oct. 25 to the heads of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, Johnson said that even now, “As new and alarming information continues to come to light, federal health agencies continue to stonewall and gaslight Congress and the public.”
The lawmaker pointed to an FDA-funded study published this month that identified a potential safety signal linking mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to seizures in children ages 2-5.
Johnson questioned whether the CDC was aware of these findings last month when it recommended everyone 6 months of age and older be vaccinated to protect against COVID-19 this fall and winter.
Johnson said the leaders of these agencies — Xavier Becerra, Dr. Robert Califf, Dr. Mandy Cohen, and Lawrence Tabak, D.D.S., Ph.D. — have failed in their duty to be transparent with Americans regarding what they knew about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
As a result, they “have not even come close to ensuring that doctors can provide informed consent on a new gene therapy masquerading as a ‘vaccine’ that was rushed to market without adequate safety or efficacy testing,” he said.
The Wisconsin senator has been a vocal critic of the federal COVID-19 response and an outspoken advocate for people injured by the vaccine. In 2022, he led a roundtable discussion with doctors and scientists to shed light on what was known so far about the vaccines.
Johnson has also accused the CDC of colluding with Twitter to censor his own social media posts about the vaccines.
In his letter, the lawmaker wrote that the agencies’ refusal to respond to the “vast majority” of his questions and information requests “only heightens [his] level of suspicion.”
He listed over a dozen letters he sent requesting information on the COVID-19 vaccines that the agencies “have failed to adequately address.”
These included requests for data about vaccine lots linked to high rates of adverse events, information suppression on social media and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program.
The CDC and FDA also failed to fulfill Johnson’s requests for their adverse events surveillance data and their analyses of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, database.
Children’s Health Defense also is suing the FDA to respond to its Freedom of Information Act requests to make that same data available.
Johnson listed 11 other outstanding requests he made regarding the other aspects of the pandemic.
But these make up only a partial list of over 60 public letters Johnson said he has sent to government agencies concerning various aspects of the pandemic.
“It is well past time for U.S public health agencies to be transparent,” he said.
Johnson requested the agencies respond by Nov. 8 to questions about what they knew about the risks COVID-19 vaccines posed to children, when they knew it and how they plan to address those issues.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
FDA ties with Gates Foundation
Maryanne Demasi, reports | October 4, 2023
In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Under the MOU, the two entities agreed to share information to “facilitate the development of innovative products, including medical countermeasures,” such as diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics to combat disease transmission during a pandemic.
The FDA has MOUs with many academic and non-profit organisations, but few have as much to gain as Bill Gates, who has invested billions into pandemic countermeasures.
Experts are concerned the Gates Foundation could have undue influence over the FDA’s regulatory decisions of these countermeasures.
David Gortler, an ex-senior adviser to the FDA commissioner between 2019 and 2021, says he is “suspicious” of the MOU.
“If the Gates Foundation establishes an MOU with a regulator on a product they want to develop, it seems like it would be a conflict of interest. What if every other drug company did the exact same thing as the Gates Foundation?” he says.
David Gortler, former senior advisor to FDA commissioner 2019-2021
Gortler, now a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington DC, explained that normally, meetings between developers and regulators are supposed to be an official part of the public record and subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.
“However, an MOU such as this can circumvent the usual requirements for the transparency of official communications,” says Gortler. “This way their communications can be kept secret.”
David Bell, a former medical officer for the World Health Organisation (WHO) who now works as a public health physician and biotech consultant, agrees that the MOU has potential to corrupt the regulatory process.
“The narrative is that philanthropic foundations can only be good, because they’re making vaccines and saving thousands of lives, so we need to cut the red-tape and help the FDA get stuff done quickly otherwise children will die,” says Bell. “But in reality, it has potential to corrupt the whole system.”
David Bell, physician and biotech consultant
Bell adds, “Speaking generally, close relationships between regulators and developers raise inevitable risks that shortcuts and favours will break down the rigorousness of the product review, putting the public at risk.”
Revolving door
The FDA has been roundly criticised for its “revolving door.” Ten of the past 11 FDA commissioners left the agency and secured roles with pharmaceutical companies they once regulated.
Similarly, the Gates Foundation hired high-ranking members of the FDA, who bring with them intimate knowledge of the regulatory process.
For example, Murray Lumpkin had a 24-year career at the FDA, serving as senior advisor to the FDA commissioner and representative for global issues. Now, he is deputy director of regulatory affairs at the Gates Foundation, and signatory on the MOU.
And Margaret Hamburg, who served as FDA commissioner between 2009 and 2015, is now on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Gates Foundation.
Murray Lumpkin, deputy director regulatory affairs, Gates Foundation; Margaret Hamburg, scientific advisory board, Gates Foundation
Bell has no doubt that these appointments were strategic to “game the system” saying, “If I worked at the Gates Foundation, I would certainly hire somebody like Murray Lumpkin.”
The only way to fix the revolving door problem Bell says, is to have a ‘non-compete clause’ in their contracts.
“It might be that FDA employees cannot work for the people they’ve regulated for at least 10 years. There are places that have those rules – private companies have agreements that you can’t work for a rival,” said Bell.
The FDA dismissed questions about the potential for conflicts of interest, or the lack of transparency over its communications with the Gates Foundation. In a statement, the FDA said:
FDA regulatory decision making is science-based. Former FDA officials do not impact regulatory decisions. FDA only collaborates with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation under the MOU as described.
Gates has billions at stake
Gates boasted about receiving a 20-to-1 return on his $10 billion investment into the “financing and delivery” of medicines and vaccines.
“It’s the best investment I’ve ever made,” he wrote in The Wall Street Journal. “Decades ago, these investments weren’t sure bets, but today, they almost always pay off in a big way.”
In Sept 2019, just prior to the pandemic, SEC filings showed the foundation purchased over 1 million shares for $18.10/share. By Nov 2021, the foundation dumped most of the stock for an average of $300/share.
Investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel reported the foundation pocketed approximately $260 million in profit – more than 15 times its original investment – most of it untaxed because it was invested through the foundation.
In his recent book, “How to Prevent the Next Pandemic,” Gates warns that future pandemics are the biggest threat to humankind and that survival depends on global pandemic preparedness strategies, firmly positioning himself at the centre of shaping the agenda.
In October 2019, the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum hosted Event 201, which gathered government agencies, social media companies and national security organisations to war game a “fictional” global pandemic.
October 2019, Gates and WEF fund Event 201 to simulate a global pandemic response
The key recommendations from the event were that such a crisis would require the deployment of new vaccines, surveillance and control of information and human behaviours, by orchestrating the co-operation and co-ordination of key industries, national governments, and international institutions.
Several weeks later when the covid-19 pandemic emerged, many aspects of this ‘hypothetical scenario’ became a chilling reality.
The Gates Foundation, which holds shares in a range of drug companies including Merck, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson, is now credited with wielding significant influence over the direction of the global response to the pandemic, saying its goal is to “vaccinate the entire world” with a covid-19 vaccine.
Global dominance
The Gates Foundation has poured millions into funding NGOs, media, and international agencies, earning Gates significant political clout.
Financial contributions to the media have garnered Gates favourable news coverage, boasting on the foundation’s website it committed almost $3.5 million to The Guardian in 2020 – 2023.
The UK medicines regulator – the MHRA – disclosed it took approximately $3 million in funding from the Gates Foundation in 2022, which would span across several financial years.
Presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr labelled Gates “the most powerful man in public health” because he managed to steer the WHO’s pandemic strategy to focus primarily on vaccination.
Kennedy said in an interview that the WHO “begs and rolls over” for Gates’ funding, which now makes up over 88% of the total amount of the WHO’s donations by philanthropic foundations.
Robert F Kennedy Jr, Presidential Candidate
“I think [Gates] believes that he is somehow ordained divinely to bring salvation to the world through technology,” said Kenney. “He believes the only path to good health is inside a syringe.”
The Gates Foundation’s CEO Mark Suzman responded to concerns that the foundation has “disproportionate sway in setting national and global agendas, without any formal accountability to voters or international bodies.”
“It’s true that between our dollars, voice, and convening power, we have access and influence that many others do not,” admitted Suzman in his 2023 annual letter .
“But make no mistake – where there’s a solution that can improve livelihoods and save lives, we’ll advocate persistently for it. We won’t stop using our influence, along with our monetary commitments, to find solutions,” he wrote.
FDA rush to approve killer ‘vaccines’ but reject life-saving allergy treatment
By Roger Watson | TCW Defending Freedom | September 25, 2023
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), quick to approve an experimental and untested Covid-19 ‘vaccine’, is now stalling over approval of a new device that could save the lives of people who go into anaphylactic shock.
Anaphylactic shock, or anaphylaxis, is an extreme immune system reaction to an allergy which leads to a massive release of chemicals around the body, principally histamine, in an effort to deal with an allergen. This reaction of the body is, in fact, an overreaction and the response leads to difficulties with breathing and sudden and dramatic drop in blood pressure (shock). If untreated it can be fatal.
One of the first lines of treatment for anaphylaxis is an EpiPen which can be carried by those who know they have allergies. It is a device containing the drug noradrenaline (called norepinephrine in the US) that counteracts the shock induced by anaphylaxis. However, an EpiPen requires the injection of noradrenaline intramuscularly. This is invasive and if the person is unable to administer the drug others can be reluctant, either not knowing how to use the device or being afraid to. Also, the drug has to get from the musculature to the bloodstream to be effective. This can take five to ten minutes during which time the person may die.
How much better if noradrenaline could be administered more directly into the bloodstream. Manufacturing a device to do this intravenously, far less expecting anyone other than a medic, nurse or paramedic to have the expertise to do this in an emergency, is a tall order. But drugs can be administered rapidly into the bloodstream nasally and a company, ARS Pharmaceuticals, has developed an injection-free device for administering noradrenaline nasally in the form of an epinephrine nasal spray.
What’s not to like, you may think. Well, the FDA don’t like it and have withheld approval pending further testing. The FDA objections are based on the need for further clinical data in people with anaphylaxis due to the fear that it may fail to work.
It is, surely, heartening that the FDA has the best interests of potential anaphylaxis sufferers at heart. If only they had had the same concern on 2021 when they approved the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines. It has been exposed in these pages from the start of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout that these were ‘experimental’ medications and had not been tested adequately before approval. Well, they have been tested now and the outcome is clear: they were completely unnecessary; they do not work; and they are extremely dangerous leading to injury and death. They undoubtedly have played a large part in the level of excess deaths observed in recent years.
According to UK government figures, the overall fatality rate from Covid-19 (always a disputed figure due to the difficulty in distinguishing ‘with Covid’ from ‘from Covid’) is 0.1 per cent. The estimated fatality rate from anaphylaxis – made uncertain by the fact that many suspected cases are dead before being found – is between 0.7 and 2 per cent. Recent England hospital Covid-19 admissions are approximately 3,000 per month at the latest available figures. The annual rate of hospitalisation in England for anaphylaxis in 2022-23 was 26,000; at approximately 2,000 monthly, the same order of magnitude as the Covid-19 admissions.
Bearing in mind that it is not easy to distinguish Covid-19 from other respiratory infections but that anaphylaxis is unmistakable and more fatal and, assuming a similar situation in the US, the recent FDA decision regarding nasally administered noradrenaline for anaphylaxis in the light of their unseemly haste over Covid-19 vaccinations is hard to understand. Could political and financial pressured be involved? Surely not!
New Warnings Show DNA Contamination and Persistence of Spike Protein in COVID Vaccine Recipients
Regulatory Agencies Are Ignoring Science Which Continues to Paint a Troublesome Picture
BY JEFFEREY JAXEN | SEPTEMBER 25, 2023
On August 31, 2023, roughly two weeks before the latest COVID booster recommendation by FDA/CDC/ACIP, independent researchers published an online, open-access analysis announcing “… it is possible to distinguish, by tryptic digestion, followed by mass spectrometry analysis, synthetic Spike proteins originated from the translation of the mRNA vaccines from natural Spike circulating in biological fluids.”
In other words, the researchers devised a method to determine how long the synthetic spike protein created by mRNA vaccines was present in the human body of vaccinated individuals.
This was a big deal. Their approach represents the first proteomic detection of recombinant Spike in vaccinated subjects. How long did they find it lasted?
They write, “The specific PP-Spike fragment was found in 50% of the biological samples analyzed, and its presence was independent of the SARS CoV-2 IgG antibody titer. The minimum and maximum time at which PP-Spike was detected after vaccination was 69 and 187 days, respectively.” Below is a chart from their study comparing the detection of the spike protein in the body of vaccinated and “after infection non vaccinated.”
The FDA and CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) didn’t care and approved the new COVID booster anyway calling for yearly boosters ‘like the flu shot.’
The mRNA vaccine technology used against a circulating coronavirus is a new, never-before-used approach and method. Proper safety testing and an understanding of what happens when you repeatedly inject billions is unknown. Why the approval? Well because it was an emergency we were told… we just didn’t have time. You understand right?
Yet, with the newly updated booster announced by the CDC for 6 months and older, with no exceptions we are still aggressively injecting. Why? America is the outlier with its cavalier approach to experimenting on its population as new warnings appear almost weekly from this injectable tech platform.
The CDC states mRNA vaccines use mRNA created in a laboratory to teach our cells how to make a protein that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. The Covid vaccine’s one and only purpose is to create that spike protein. It has only one job.
Do you think regulators or the pharmaceutical companies making the shots cared to understand what else that spike did after it was created or how long it persisted?
Pfizer’s Nonclinical overview submitted to FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, a document which doctors had to sue the agency in court to obtain, states:
“The protein encoded by the RNA in BNT162b2 is expected to be proteolytically degraded like other endogenous proteins… Therefore, no RNA or protein metabolism or excretion studies will be conducted.”
In other words, we aren’t going to bother looking because one can’t find what one doesn’t search for.
Two years later, public assertions like the one from The Infectious Disease Society of America still regularly repeated estimates that the spike proteins generated by COVID-19 vaccines last up to a few weeks.
The flashing warning of public health ignorance and medical neglect carried all the way to CDC’s ACIP meeting in 2022, two years into the most aggressive vaccine campaign in world history when Professor of Pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital Dr. Pablo Sanchez asked the therapeutic head of Moderna’s respiratory vaccine division the following question:
“I’ve asked this before and I just don’t have a clear idea about how long the spike protein the messenger RNA in our bodies produce… how long has it been detected in patient serum or tissues or even in animal studies? Do you know how long it may persist in blood or serum or tissues?”
To this question, Rituparna Das, Moderna’s Therapeutic Area Head of Respiratory Vaccines and the company’s ACIP lead answered:
“The spike protein, ah, availability I believe is on the order of days, but, like less than a week. But I will confirm that with our tox [toxicology] folks as well.”
No one knew for sure, not even the injectable product’s manufacturer, and more importantly, no one cared to know.
Yet the spike continued to turn up as the culprit in more pathogenic insults to humanity. In 2023, researchers reporting circulating spike protein detected in post–COVID-19 mRNA vaccines myocarditis stated:
“A notable finding was that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein, unbound by antibodies, were detected in the plasma of individuals with post vaccine myocarditis, whereas no free spike was detected in asymptomatic vaccinated control subjects”
The CDC/ACIP response was that the benefits outweigh the risks… simplistic, insulting, and lacking transparency talking down to the people being targeted by this novel shot.
The authors of the August 2023 suggested that the spike protein may be integrating into the human cells. A similar, and in ways more detailed, warning was just given by well-respected cancer genomics researcher at the University of South Carolina Phillip Buckhaults, Ph.D. during his recent testimony in front of the South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Committee which he stated, among other things, that:
- The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is contaminated with the plasmid DNA vector that was used as the template for in vitro transcription reaction.
- This DNA could cause rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest.
- The DNA can and likely will integrate into the genomes of transfected cells.
- There is a very real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells, which could cause sustained autoimmune attacks towards that tissue.
- There is also a theoretical risk of future cancer, depending on the piece of DNA and site of integration.
The CDC’s website states the following outdated and scientifically lazy explanation, at best, of what happens to human DNA after being injected with COVID-19 shots.
According to Professor Buckhaults, this is just not true… at all.
Two further points raised by Professor Buckhaults were first, that the plasmid DNA contamination was not present in the material used in Pfizer’s initial vaccine trials for regulatory approval. It was only after approval and rapid scale-up of manufacturing did the company used questionable, scientifically reckless techniques which led to the contamination. Second, Professor Buckhalut’s lab, a world leader in this type of research, estimates that each vaccination contains about 200 billion pieces of plasmid DNA encapsulated in the lipid nanoparticle.
We know it is now a basic technique to find the synthetic spike in vaccinated individuals. Perhaps even more troubling, it’s basic genetic research to find out if the plasmid DNA is integrating into and forever changing the DNA/genetics of vaccinated individuals yet health agencies and labs just don’t seem to want to look.
With the CDC clearly not willing to do even the most basic steps to regain the public trust lost, as new director Cohen claimed was her main goal, the public must back away further from an apparently rogue government body. As prominent scientists and doctors denounce the agency and its products, we have hit breakaway speeds into historically uncharted territory as public health agencies, once a fixture running in the background of America, have become a cyclic, menacing threat with each new booster rollout campaign.
Florida Surgeon-General Snubs FDA ‘COVID Boosters-For-All’ Guidance
“Not A Good Decision For Young People”
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | September 15, 2023
Uttering words that would have seen you excommunicated from ‘good’ society, ostracized to an island of racists, bigots, and vaccine-deniers; Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo said in a statement that the vaccines “are not backed by clinical evidence, but blind faith alone with ZERO regard for widespread immunity.”
In guidance (pdf) to patients and doctors, the Florida Department of Health added:
“Based on the high rate of global immunity and currently available data, the state surgeon general recommends against the COVID-19 booster for individuals under 65. Individuals 65 and older should discuss this information with their health care provider, including potential concerns outlined in this guidance.”
This directly contradicts guidance from The White House (everyone get up to date) and the CDC and FDA (endorsing the new jabs for anyone over 6 months old):
“We continue to live in a world where the CDC and the [Food and Drug Administration], when it comes to COVID at least, are just beating their own path in a direction that’s inexplicable in terms of thinking about data and in thinking about common sense,” Ladapo said.
And three years into this flu season, Ladalpo highlights ‘herd immunity’ among most of America:
“With the amount of immunity that’s in the community – with virtually every walking human being having some degree of immunity, and with the questions we have about safety and about effectiveness, especially about safety, my judgment is that it’s not a good decision for young people and for people who are not at high risk at this point in the pandemic,” he said.
Florida Governor DeSantis agreed:
“I will not stand by and let the FDA and CDC use healthy Floridians as guinea pigs for new booster shots that have not been proven to be safe or effective,”
In March, the CDC and FDA sent a letter to Ladapo, warning that he was fueling vaccine hesitancy and harming Florida’s seniors.
Ladalpo is not alone in his scepticism.
“Pushing a new COVID vaccine without human-outcomes data makes a mockery of the scientific method and our regulatory process,” Drs. Marty Makary and Tracy Beth Hoeg said in an op-ed.
“If public-health officials don’t want a repeat disappointing turnout of Americans who get the COVID booster shot, they should require a proper clinical trial to show the American people the benefit,” they added.
Just 17 percent of Americans received one of the bivalent doses, which were made available in the fall of 2022. The new vaccines replaced the bivalents.
“The CDC is advising the children get these boosters when there’s no evidence that children receive any benefit and clear evidence that they receive harm,” Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the messenger RNA (mRNA) technology the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use, said on EpochTV’s “Crossroads.”
Risks include myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation that can lead to sudden death.
And cue the mainstream media ‘blood on their hands… science-denying’ headlines.
The Case Against Ivermectin to Prevent and Treat COVID-19 Has Been Reversed by the Court
FLCCC Alliance | Brownstone Institute | September 4, 2023
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s ruling that “sovereign immunity” protects the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from any wrongdoing or harm in telling the public to stop taking ivermectin, a safe, well-studied, and proven drug for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
In their opinion, Judges Clement, Elrod, and Willett state, “FDA argues that the Twitter posts are ‘informational statements’ that cannot qualify as rules because they ‘do not ‘direct’ consumers, or anyone else, to do or refrain from doing anything.’ We are not convinced.”
“We are very pleased with this development and extremely proud of our colleagues for taking a stand against a government health agency that is clearly overstepping its authority,” said Pierre Kory, M.D., M.P.A., president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC. “The FDA’s campaign against ivermectin continues to be used as an excuse by hospitals to deny access to a lifesaving treatment and weaponized by medical boards to threaten the licenses of doctors who stray from the mainstream to prescribe a drug that has been proven in controlled trials to safely treat hundreds of thousands of patients around the world.”
The lawsuit, Apter et al v. Dep’t. of Health and Human Services et al, was brought by Robert Apter, MD, Mary Talley Bowden, MD, and FLCCC co-founder, Paul E. Marik, MD, and first filed in the US District Court on June 2, 2022. It stated that the FDA acted outside of its authority and illegally interfered with the doctors’ ability to practice medicine with an aggressive effort to stop the prescribing of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
The case was later dismissed by the court citing that the FDA had “sovereign immunity,” giving the agency absolute protection from any wrongdoing or harm in directing the public, including health professionals and patients, to not use ivermectin, a drug that has received full FDA approval for human use. Earlier this year, Apter et al filed an appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit requesting the Court reverse the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit.
The Court’s reversal was issued yesterday with the ruling, which said “FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise. The Doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s Posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to.”
The ruling goes on to say the “FDA can inform, but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ‘stop’ taking medicine.” And finally, “Even tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond FDA’s statutory authority.”
“The work of the legal team at Boyden Gray has been nothing short of superb,” Kory added. “We are very fortunate to have them on the side of our doctors in this case.”
The Fifth Circuit Court’s ruling can be found here:
The FLCCC filed its amicus brief in support of the lawsuit in February of this year. A copy of the brief can be found here.
About the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
The FLCCC Alliance was organized in March 2020 by a group of highly published, world-renowned critical care physicians and scholars with the academic support of allied physicians from around the world. FLCCC’s goal is to research and develop life-saving protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in all stages of illness including the I-RECOVER protocols for “Long COVID” and Post Vaccine Syndrome. For more information: www.FLCCC.net
Problem-Reaction-Solution
Big Pharma excels in creating customers for life
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | August 31, 2023
For those of us who started pulling uncomfortable threads of ‘hang on a minute, that doesn’t seem quite right’ and kept going, the world is now a strange landscape. When it comes to our health, many of us have had life-long assumptions smashed to smithereens.
The last few years have been a brutal introduction to the harsh realities of the medical industrial complex. Its recent behaviour has completely shattered public trust. Overnight, medical ethics including bodily autonomy and informed consent were tossed out. The dying were unable to see loved ones, blanket DNRs were applied and people were subjected to forced procedures (e.g. PCR testing) or were discriminated against based on their covid vaccination status. Most went along with these inhumane diktats that came from ‘on high’. Is it any wonder that many people would now be reluctant to enter a hospital even where there was a genuine need? There has to be a balance where people regain the confidence to seek care if genuinely needed. Throwing the baby out with the bath water will not lead to fewer excess deaths. Patients rightly want the best available care but in the current system of protocolised medicine, that pathway is far from guaranteed.
What is striking, when spending time amongst those still firmly planted behind the Overton window, is the notion that for any ailment – particularly with advancing age – the answer is always pharmaceutical or surgical interventions rather than lifestyle changes. This is clearly superb for Big Pharma. Less certain, is the benefit for the end user. Blanket approvals of the novel, mRNA injections across all age groups – in spite of total lack of long-term safety data – showed us clearly, in real-time, how money and politics corrupts health regulators. This renders the current system totally defunct. This article in The Epoch Times reports how 65% of drug recommendations by the FDA are approved based on a single study. In the meantime doctors who want to promote lifestyle changes as first line treatment ahead of more dangerous interventions, find themselves increasingly working in a system opposed to them.
Trying to make an informed assessment of risks and benefits becomes almost impossible, once you realise how untrustworthy scientific literature has become. Or perhaps always was. ‘But it says so in the Lancet…’ Hopefully, many have now realised how empty this sentence sounds. Research outcomes are heavily influenced by the desires of those funding them, who just happen to be the ones manufacturing the drugs. This meme, whilst humorous, is worryingly accurate:
From statins to HRT, to proven-to-be-ineffective surgeries, to antidepressants, there is almost zero discussion in modern ‘medicine’ of preventative measures that do not benefit Big Pharma. Diet, exercise, breathing techniques, stress management, ensuring proper balance of micronutrients, enquiring about emotional and relationship causes of ill health. These should be the basic lines of enquiry for any competent physician, long before offering various magic bullets following the luxurious seven minute consultation via Zoom. GPs offering this paltry level of service are complicit in ensuring their own redundancy within a few short years. AI would serve just as well, the human factor having been almost entirely scrubbed out.
Most people with elderly parents know that they often need special plastic containers to house the numerous medications that they take on a daily basis. Often many of these drugs were added in sequence to deal with side effects (or more correctly, ‘effects’) of the medications that were introduced first. This close-to-the-bone satire that has been circulating online really sums it up:
“I took ASPIRIN for the headache caused by the ZYRTEC™ for the hay fever I got from the RELENZA™ for the upset stomach and flu-like symptoms caused by the VIAGRA™ for the erectile dysfunction from the PROPECIA™ for the hair loss caused by the RITALIN™ for my short attention span caused by the SCOPODERM TTS™ for the motion sickness that I got from the LOMOTIL™ for the diarrhoea caused by the XENICAL™ for the weight gain caused by the PAXIL™ for the anxiety that I got from the ZOCOR™ that I’m taking for my high cholesterol, because a good diet and exercise is just too much trouble.”
There seems to be the prevailing belief that human beings can only stay alive with constant interference from the medical profession. But what if the entire system keeps you sick, in order to retain you as a loyal customer to The Firm? What if much of the so-called ‘safety’ data are in fact just as flawed as those used to push the covid ‘vaccines’ in 2020? For those of us who became curious (suspicious?), we felt it might be worth having a retrospective look at other trends in medical diagnostics and treatments.
As it turns out, the more you look, the more you find…
Doing more harm than good?
A deep dive into questionable drugs and surgical practices that are built into standard protocols here in the UK would fill a book. Maybe several books. That is beyond the scope of this article, however here are a few ‘top picks’ to get started:
- Statins: This has been allowed on occasion to seep into mainstream consciousness, but it is still worth reading the book written by Dr Malcolm Kendrick, entitled The Great Cholesterol Con. There is simply no good evidence for the widespread use of statins. The notion that they don’t have harmful effects is also nonsense. A 17-year study on the elderly showed that low serum cholesterol was associated with increased frailty, accelerated mental decline, and early death. This should get any sensible clinician asking questions about what effects deliberately lowering it might have on long-term health. During ward rounds one senior consultant says to his juniors, ‘let’s stop this wonder drug’, scoring it off the prescription list. The juniors ask why he calls it that, to which he replies ‘I wonder what use it is!’
- SSRIs: a growing number of studies show they are less effective than thought. Has this resulted in a decline in prescriptions? Of course not. In fact psychiatry in general is an area that many medics describe as barbaric. The links between gut and brain health are now widely accepted and yet almost no money goes into mainstream R&D in this area. Cures are simply not as profitable as life-long customers.
- HRT: There is evidence for an increased risk of blood clots and stroke as well as an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer in women using HRT. In researching this article and questioning women who had recently started on these drugs, most had not been adequately informed as to any associated risks. Many had no idea what kind of HRT they were even taking. This shows the level of blind faith people still have in a system that, judging by the history of criminal fines paid out, does not have a very good track record, to say the least.
- Angioplasty: For decades, we were led to believe that angioplasties are an effective treatment for not only angina (chest pain) but also served as protection from a heart attack. Now, the evidence seems to point to the procedure being ‘useless’ or even worse than useless. Lifestyle and diet changes are more effective and have the capacity to reverse the progression of coronary heart disease. This hardly seems like rocket science but somehow has taken decades to ‘realise’.
- Childhood Vaccinations: or as we like to call them, The Sacred Cows. Daring to even utter the words that these interventions may carry risks as well as benefits, or pointing out that there are no long-term safety studies using a genuine placebo, seems to create an allergic reaction in even the most sceptical of folks. However, at HART the adage ‘everything is back on the table’ is one we hold dear. Many people who now have the appetite to question The Science™ are quietly murmuring the name of the book Turtles All the Way Down. Perhaps it is worth reading, just to know what the alternative view point is. We do not need protection from theories. We need them to be aired and debated, so we can reach full and informed decisions. No topic should be out of bounds, including this one. Perhaps especially this one.
This list could go on ad infinitum, but instead we will end with a list of suggestions given by various practising medics when asked about drugs or interventions that they question. Once again, we point out that people are individuals. Protocols are not good for individuals. Do your research, take responsibility and remember that The Experts may have their hands tied firmly behind their back by The Money.
List of drugs with questionable efficacy/safety from currently prescribing doctors:
- Dementia drugs: noted poor efficacy, serious side-effects;
- Anticoagulants: should be used more judiciously due to risks of bleeds after falls;
- Bisphosphonates: this drug for osteoporosis has notoriously bad side effects, and shows questionable efficacy;
- Benzodiazepines and other so-called ‘Z’ drugs (zopiclone, eszopiclone, zaleplon and zolpidem): habit forming with evidence of severe side effects such as dementia, infections, respiratory disease exacerbation, pancreatitis, and cancer. They cause severe withdrawal symptoms;
- Gliflozins: the new ‘wonder drugs’ used in diabetes and heart failure. Concerns about kidney damage and they come with no long-term safety profile;
- GLP-1 agonist injectables: originally marketed for diabetes, now being sold as weight loss drugs. Concerns over risks of thyroid and pancreatic cancer and can cause pancreatitis;
- Psychiatric drugs in general. Recommended reading: Toxic Psychiatry by Peter Breggin;
- Antivirals: For example Tamiflu, which is now labelled a ‘fiasco’. The drug caused severe side effects such as hallucinations, self-injury, abnormal behaviour and renal impairment;
- Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs): evidence of major side effects with long-term use, including dementia, chronic kidney disease and increased cancer risk;
- Beta Blockers: evidence that long-term use is not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes, with considerable side effects, such as depression and fatigue;
- Anti-arthritis drugs: Overuse of NSAIDs in particular can cause bleeding, heart attack, stroke, and renal damage.
To quote Aldous Huxley: ‘Medical science is making such remarkable progress that soon none of us will be well’.
The FDA Can Say (and Do) Anything It Wants
For example, they can’t be sued for providing false or dishonest information
By John Droz Jr. | Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues | August 10, 2023
This is an extraordinarily important commentary!
The gist of a current court case that you’ve likely never heard of, is that three heroic doctors are suing the FDA about the loss of their jobs, about their careers being derailed, about the loss of their reputation — all because their professional, scientific opinion as to what was in the best interest of their patients, was different than the political agenda of the FDA. (Here is a bit of background.)
What is at stake here could not be more significant, and it applies across the board to EVERY federal agency. The question is: do federal agencies have the unsupervised right to replace Science with political science? Put another way: can they act dishonestly, incompetently, etc. with essentially no meaningful consequences?
Here is the doctors’ Complaint. Although it was filed a year ago, it is now being appealed this week — and some fascinating audio clips have emerged. There are three judges on a panel, asking the attorney representing the FDA some probing questions.
Five of these short audio clips (3-5 minutes each) are posted here. (The recording of the full proceeding is here.)
IMO some of the key takeaway revelations (so far) are:
1 – The FDA seems to claim that their published warnings are little more than offhand observations. For example, their slamming of Ivermectin was evidently just casual commentary (what the FDA calls “informational”).
Note the title here, on this FDA page which is STILL up! It says “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19”.
Note 1: This is a deceptive headline because that article is mostly saying: a) citizens should not self-medicate, and b) using any veterinary medications can be dangerous. Both of these are legitimate concerns. So, if the FDA was honestly trying to benefit the public their heading should be: “Why You Should Not Self-Medicate Using Veterinary-Grade Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19”. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Note 2: This FDA page has changed quite a bit over time. Here is the 2021 version.
Note 3: The current page makes outright false statements like: “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications.” I’m one of the few people who has taken the time to put together a spreadsheet of ALL the studies on ALL the major COVID early treatment therapies: see it here.
There have now been 99 Ivermectin scientific studies, and the overall early treatment effectiveness is 62%. IVM’s extensive safety record is extraordinary, with adverse effects (e.g., see here) in the ballpark of only one in a million usages!
Now, also on my spreadsheet, compare what the FDA has approved for early treatment of COVID-19 therapy: Paxlovid = 32% effective with these adverse safety issues, and Molnupiravir = 16% effective with these problematic safety issues!
Despite these LARGE benefits of Ivermectin in effectiveness and safety, the FDA continues to say that “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective” for early treatment of COVID-19. This is stunningly inaccurate.
Note 4: Even though the FDA now has access to 99 Ivermectin studies, their statement against Ivermectin is stronger now than when the page originally appeared in 2021! IMO this is what happens when a federal agency feels that there is no meaningful oversight, so effectively they can say anything they want.
2 – The FDA says that Courts have no business in reviewing anything they say or do!
Considering the above facts in #1, it’s obvious why this would be their self-serving position. Listen carefully to the second short audio clip, where the FDA’s attorney appears to say that the FDA’s communication to the public can be knowingly false, dishonest, etc. with no oversight or consequences — even when deaths result!
Regretfully, to date, the courts have played along with this game of charades. For example, the Chevron case is frequently cited by non-aggressive attorneys to say that courts will stay out of determining whether FDA processes, documents, and claims are legal, accurate, honest, warranted, etc.
However, that is an oversimplified opinion. Even the Chevron case states that the FDA’s actions must be “reasonable” — but that is rarely argued. BTW, the case we are discussing here would never have been filed if the doctors’ attorneys bought into the bogus idea that federal agencies have unlimited deference. Kudos to them that they did not accept that absurd argument!
Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but based on the judges’ questions and comments in these clips, it seems to me that this case might eventually upend Chevron. That would be EXTRAORDINARILY beneficial for US citizens, as it would apply to all national policies: from immigration to education, energy to climate change, etc.
3 – The FDA asserts that the only recourse that US citizens have about even egregious errors and deceptions by the FDA is through the “political process.” Astounding!
4 – The FDA indicated that the “political process” means that citizens need to elect a competent and attentive President, whose responsibility it is to see that the FDA acts responsibly — or else. The flip side is that when we do not have such a President, all federal agencies have a four-year time period to wreak whatever political havoc that suits them — again, across the board, and without real consequences to the guilty parties.
5 – The FDA’s attorney implied that there would be no compensation given for inaccurate or knowingly false FDA statements — including those that lead to Americans unnecessarily dying — other than an FDA person may lose their job.
6 – Based on these select audio clips, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans likely died needlessly due to the FDA’s COVID actions and inactions (see here), was not fully addressed. Hopefully, this will be brought up in this trial.
7 – In clip #3, the FDA attorney makes the startling claim that the FDA has the authority to give citizens medical advice! How is that possible when they know nothing of the medical history of any American citizen? Further, once they assert that right, how is a conflict resolved between what the FDA says and what a citizen’s medical provider says? That is one of the major issues in this important case.
8 – In clip #4, the FDA attorney acknowledges that doctors have lost their jobs, etc. due to their scientific conclusions on such matters as Ivermectin, and their science-based actions that they believed were in the best interest of their patients. However, the FDA attorney then stated that no losses, etc. were due to anything the FDA did. (!)
……….
Note that a lot of the bad behavior with the FDA (and CDC) would be reduced if the Medical Establishment refused to play politics and instead supported real Science for the public. Regretfully, that has not happened and the COVID-19 fiasco exposed this ugly underbelly. See my Report on the COVID failings of the Medical Establishment.
In another Report, I compared the FDA’s approval process for Remdesivir to Ivermectin. This appears to show stunning incompetence at the FDA.
I have made this point before, but it’s worth repeating. The war we are engaged in is that powerful Left-wing forces (exterior and from within) are trying to take America down. One of their primary strategies to do this is to replace Science with political science. That is what this case is about, as the FDA is specifically arguing that they have the right to scrap Science and substitute political science — with impunity!
Draw your own conclusions, but to me, this case is like a Molotov cocktail thrown into the Federal Government bureaucracy. Astoundingly, all three branches of our government are complicit with this nonsense.
Some obvious questions that need to be answered and fixed are: 1) How did Congress give pharmaceutical companies such broad protections against self-serving unscientific actions? 2) How did the Executive branch allow agencies like the FDA to be run by parties that they are supposed to regulate? 3) How did our Judicial system allow bad actor agencies to arrange to have no real legal oversight?
Considering that these failings are applicable to multiple federal agencies, is there any question why such things as COVID policies (and energy, and climate, and education, and immigration, and elections, etc., etc.) are a disaster?
Hopefully, this lawsuit will crack open the door to fixing this horrific mess…
……….
PS — What needs to be done now :
1) Competent attorneys should file friend of the court briefs to support this nationally important case. Overturning the Chevron precedent would have extraordinarily positive benefits for almost ALL US citizens.
2) Competent federal legislators should introduce a “Save America” bill (aka Agency Oversight Act). This legislation will rein in ALL federal agencies, by providing timely and meaningful oversight (plus real penalties) to them all.
CDC Now Refusing New COVID Vaccine Adverse Event Reports in Its V-Safe Program
By David Gortler | Brownstone Institute | August 24, 2023
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) V-safe website quietly stopped collecting adverse event reports with no reason or explanation. The V-safe website simply states: “Thank you for your participation. Data collection for COVID-19 vaccines concluded on June 30, 2023.” If you go there today, V-safe directs users to the FDA’s VAERS website for adverse event reporting, even though officials continually derided VAERS as “passive” and “unverified.”
VAERS and V-safe are mutually exclusive safety collection databases operated by the FDA and CDC, respectively. VAERS is an older way of collecting safety data where one can fill out a form online, or manually, or by calling a toll-free number, whereas V-safe is a device “app” which requires online registration. Both VAERS and V-safe collect personal information, lot numbers, dates and associated information, but V-safe was an active collection system geared towards a younger app-using demographic.
Does this mean that the CDC believes that the mRNA Covid-19 injections are so safe, there is no need to monitor adverse event reports any longer? What is the argument against continued monitoring, especially since the V-safe website was already up and paid for?
While CDC’s V-safe was stealthily and abruptly turned off, refusing to accept new safety reports, to this very day the CDC continues to urge everyone ages 6 months and older to stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.
As a drug safety expert, I personally can’t cite another example of any agency or manufacturer halting collection of safety data. It seems even worse because mRNA technology is relatively new with long-term manifestations unknown. On top of this, both manufacturers and the FDA refuse to share the list of ingredients, such as lipid nanoparticles, which could affect individuals differently and take a long time to manifest clinically.
Safety Data Collection Should Never Stop:
Now, contrast that with the fact that the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) will still accept a safety report for a 30-year-old Ford Bronco II. Indeed, this is an oddly specific example, but only because I drove this exact vehicle as a family hand-me-down as a student, through my residency, fellowship, for my tenure as a Yale professor on the mean streets of New Haven and even during my years at the FDA as a medical officer /senior medical analyst.
Like mRNA shots, Bronco IIs are still available on the market and people are still using them up to this very day. My Bronco became an intermittent topic of conversation with friends and FDA colleagues. One day, I was informed by a patrolling security guard at the FDA that it was the oldest car on campus.
I didn’t know much about cars (or mRNA technology) back then, but when a fellow FDA-er informed me that my Bronco II had noteworthy safety problems and that the NHTSA still had their eye on this vehicle (rollover accidents were more common and more fatal) I addressed the problem: I got rid of the reliable relic, even though I really liked it. NHTSA Is still accepting safety reports three decades later.
CDC No longer accepting safety reports despite rapidly increasing safety findings:
Unlike my old Bronco, mRNA injections have only been on the market for about two years, and according to the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, mRNA “vaccines” have been named the primary suspect in over 1.5 million adverse event reports, of which there are >20,000 heart attacks and >27,000 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis just in the USA alone. Worldwide numbers would be greater. According to many references, including an FDA-funded study out of Harvard, VAERS reports represent fewer than 1 percent of vaccine adverse events that actually occur.
Interestingly, the NHTSA link above on my Ford Bronco II only shows: one parts recall, one investigation and 23 complaints, and still features a button in the upper right hand corner for submitting new complaints.
Wikipedia defines an humanitarian crisis or humanitarian disaster as a: “singular event or a series of events that are threatening in terms of health, safety or well-being of a community or large group of people.” Based on VAERS and previous V-safe findings, adverse events from mRNA shots in the USA alone could be considered a humanitarian crisis.
Despite those alarming clinical findings, the CDC has concluded that collecting new safety reports is somehow no longer in the interest of America’s public health. Existing data from the V-safe site showed around 6.5 million adverse events/health impacts out of 10.1 million users, with around 2 million of those people unable to conduct normal activities of daily living or needing medical care, according to a third-party rendering of its findings. In other words, despite mRNA shots still being widely available and the CDC promoting its continued use, it’s “case closed” with regards to collecting new safety reports, under today’s federal public health administration.
Will the CDC opine on the existing data or justify its halting of collecting new safety data? To the best of my knowledge, stopping the collection of public health information doesn’t have a clinical justification or scientific precedence — especially when it comes to an actively marketed product.
In George Orwell’s 1984, characters were told by The Party to “reject the evidence of your eyes and [your] ears.” Now, the CDC isn’t even allowing that evidence to be collected for viewing (and prospective rejecting). It’s a terrible idea for any product, let alone novel mRNA technologies.
Dr. David Gortler, a 2023 Brownstone Fellow, is a pharmacologist, pharmacist, research scientist and a former member of the FDA Senior Executive Leadership Team who served as senior advisor to the FDA Commissioner on matters of: FDA regulatory affairs, drug safety and FDA science policy. He is a former Yale University and Georgetown University didactic professor of pharmacology and biotechnology, with over a decade of academic pedagogy and bench research, as part of his nearly two decades of experience in drug development. He also serves as a scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
U.S. Lawyers Reiterate Claim Ivermectin was never prohibited for treating COVID-19
Attorneys restate claim that FDA merely advised doctors against IVM for dying patients, but did NOT prohibit it.
BY JOHN LEAKE | COURAGEOUS DISCOURSE | AUGUST 14, 2023
Last November, I wrote the following post:
The Epoch Times recently reported an astonishing statement by a U.S. government lawyer in a federal court in Texas, where the FDA is being sued by Dr. Paul Marik of Virginia, Dr. Mary Bowden of Texas, and Dr. Robert Apter of Arizona. The three plaintiffs claim the FDA illegally prohibited them from prescribing the drug to their patients. At a November 1 hearing, U.S. lawyer Isaac Belfer argued for the defendant:
The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”
If Belfer’s assertion is true, it raises a very urgent question: On what legal grounds did hospitals all over the United States refuse to administer ivermectin to severely ill COVID-19 patients, even when patients and their family members begged for the drug to be administered?
If ivermectin was not prohibited by the FDA or any other U.S. medical authority for treating COVID-19, why did Dr. Paul Marik’s hospital prohibit him from administering the drug to his dying patients? Why was Dr. Mary Bowden reported to the Texas Medical Board for disciplinary action when she prescribed it? Why did many pharmacists fear losing their licenses if they filled ivermectin prescriptions for treating COVID-19?
In our book, The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Dr. McCullough and I document numerous instances of hospitals flatly refusing to grant the wishes of dying patients and their family members for ivermectin.
All these patients asked for was to be allowed to try the drug (FDA-approved for River Blindness, Elephantiasis, and Scabies) for COVID-19. The patients and their kin gladly indemnified the hospitals and arranged to have their independent primary care doctors deliver and administer the drug. Nevertheless:
- Hospital administrators absolutely refused to grant this wish.
- Hospital attorneys fought tooth and nail against using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients, doing everything in their power to challenge patient lawsuits and appeal court orders to administer the drug.
- Even when hospital doctors acknowledged that the patients were dying, they insisted it was better to let the disease take its natural course rather than allow patients to try ivermectin.
- Even when patients’ families succeeded in getting a court orders to administer the drug, many hospitals still refused, even at the risk of being held in contempt of court.
Several readers have told us that our chapters covering this shameful scandal— Chapters 38: Begging for the Wonder Drug and Chapter 40: Graduating into Eternity—are horrifying beyond belief.
Now we hear U.S. government lawyers arguing in court that the FDA never prohibited using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients, but merely recommended not using it. This indicates that hospitals had no legal grounds for denying sick patients a drug that could have helped them. How is withholding medicine from a sick man any different from withholding a life ring from a man who has fallen overboard in high seas?
For families who watched their loved ones slip away after being denied the right to try ivermectin, U.S. attorney Isaac Belfer’s statement may be interpreted as declaring open season for lawsuits against hospital administrators and doctors.
After I wrote the above post, I exchanged an e-mail with Dr. Marik in which he expressed profound discouragement about U.S. Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown’s granting of the government’s Motion to Dismiss the case on the grounds of sovereign immunity.
Nevertheless, Dr. Marik and his co-plaintiffs, Robert L. Apter and Mary Talley Bowden, appealed the dismissal and are now being heard before a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Once again, attorneys for the U.S. government are in the hot seat about their mendacious claims about the FDA’s directive to doctors and hospitals against prescribing or administering Ivermectin, either to outpatients or to patients dying in hospital.
Instead of acknowledging the obvious reality that the FDA did indeed DIRECT doctors and hospitals against administering Ivermectin, U.S. attorneys continue to insist that the FDA’s communiques were mere advice.
This preposterous argument not only overlooks the plain language of the FDA’s communiques, it also overlooks the salient fact that numerous doctors (like Paul Marik) were fired from their jobs for administering ivermectin to their dying patients, and the fact that many State Medical Boards revoked doctors’ licenses for doing the same. If these punitive actions taken against doctors were NOT based on the FDA’s directives, on what grounds were they taken?
As was just reported by Just the News columnist Greg Piper:
The 5th Circuit panel seemed skeptical of Civil Division Appellate Attorney Ashley Honold’s argument that the FDA’s “informational statements” against ivermectin, including its conflation of human and animal dosages, were “merely quips” about reported problems after “self-medicating” rather than “prohibit[ing] anyone” from using ivermectin.
Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod cited the phrase “Stop it” in the agency’s viral “You are not a horse” post on X, then known as Twitter. “If you were in English class, they would say that was a command. … That is different than ‘we’re providing helpful information,'” she told Honold.
Readers of this Substack will probably agree with my sentiment that enough is enough of lying and obfuscating U.S. government agency officials and their mercenary lawyers. It’s time for the grown-up, reasonable citizenry of this country to join Marik, Bowden, et al. in suing the pants off the FDA and other U.S. agencies against whom there is a preponderance of evidence that they have unlawfully interfered with the doctor-patient relationship and committed negligent homicide, fraud, and concealment.
Cry havoc and let slip the plaintiffs’ attorneys! Sue the FDA; sue doctors and hospital administrators; and sue the medical boards. Let them pay for the damages they have inflicted on the families of patients who were denied ivermectin until their last breaths. Let them pay for the massive damage and distress they have caused for courageous doctors like Paul Marik and his colleagues who tried to help their patients.
Featured Video
NUMEC: How Israel Stole the Atomic Bomb and killed JFK
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Russian gas sector should not be sanctioned – EU energy chief
RT | August 28, 2014
Russian gas sector should not be subjected to EU sanctions despite the situation in Ukraine, EU Energy Commissioner Gunther Oettinger said Thursday.
“Gas is not a suitable sector for sanctions, as in this case everyone will lose – Russia, Ukraine and the European Union,” RIA Novosti cites Oettinger as saying.
EU Energy Commissioner insisted on a quick resolution of the gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine.
“We need a solution that prevents an escalation between Ukraine and Russia,” he told German broadcaster ARD. “We need Ukraine as a transit country. Ukraine needs gas in winter. In a long and cold winter, Ukraine will not have enough stored gas of its own.”
He also acknowledged that in case Ukraine is left without gas supplies in winter it may steal Russian transit gas on its way to the West.
According to Oettinger by the end of October the European Union should develop a concept that provides each bloc member with warm homes, financing of infrastructure and maintenance of industry for the period from November to March. … Full article
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Aletho News- NUMEC: How Israel Stole the Atomic Bomb and killed JFK
- Sen. Fetterman Claims He is Puzzled Why Americans Protest His Support of Israel’s Decimation of Gaza
- Gaza death toll 40% higher than recorded, Lancet study estimates
- Normalizing expansion: Israel sets its sights on Egypt’s Sinai
- Israeli ministers discuss plot to divide Syria: Report
- Battle for Tech Metals: What Are 17 Rare Earth Elements and What Are They Used For?
- Austrian President creates political chaos as Green ideology fights against reality
- Musk’s X should be banned in Poland during election campaign, says journalist on state-run television
- Meloni: Soros is interfering in democracies, not Musk
- Multipolar world’s tech edge grows, leaves political West trailing behind
- If Americans Knew
- As Gaza’s children freeze, Israel blocks delivery of coats and blankets – Day 460
- NYTimes rejects Quaker ad for calling Israel’s actions “genocide”
- Blinken Declares Genocide in Sudan But Refuses to Acknowledge Genocide in Gaza
- Blood Splattered Madness
- Knesset members urge IDF to destroy Gaza’s food, water and power
- ‘No Civilians’: IDF Soldiers Reveal Killings, Lawlessness in Gaza
- Israel commits atrocities in many shapes and forms – Day 459
- Israel’s Judaization Policy Replaces Arab Towns with Synagogues
- Gaza is Now ‘Hell on Earth’—Exactly as Intended
- Trump shared video criticizing Netanyahu’s ‘obsessive’ push for US-Iran conflict
- No Tricks Zone
- Physicists: Increasing CO2 By 100% Only Reduces Radiative Cooling To Space By An Imperceptible 1%
- Japanese Scientist: The IPCC’s Climate Models Are Fundamentally Flawed, Use False Assumptions
- Cambridge Scientists: Climate Change Is Not The Cause Of Megafauna Extinctions
- Scientists: Greenland July 14°C Warmer With 35% Less CO2 250,000 Years Ago!
- Germany Already Rationing Energy…”Avoid Using Electric Appliances Until After 11 A.M.!
- Central Greenland Was Recently Ice-Free And Covered With Plants When CO2 Was Under 300 ppm
- 2025 Looks Bleak For Germany…Energy The Most Expensive In Europe …Growing Speech Tyranny
- Scientists Report A ‘Striking Global Greening Trend’ Over The Last 42 Years
- Global Coal Consumption Continues To Rise As Multi-Trillion Dollar Green Energy Plans Falter
- New Study Finds 1970s-Present Antarctic Ice Loss Is ‘Unexceptional’ And Not Due To ‘Climate Change’
Aletho News 