Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

THE WEF FALLS FLAT IN DAVOS

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 26, 2023

The WEF has lost integrity and faces a future of obscurity due to its tone deaf agendas they’ve attempted to force upon humanity. In addition, its leader Klaus Schwab is facing an internal mutiny for his inability to let go of the reins.

DOCTORS DOWN UNDER MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COVID VAX INJURIES

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 26, 2023

An underreported story of great significance as a top Australian medical society has just given notice to its doctors that they aren’t covered for damages from the Covid shots.

January 29, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

FDA corruption and the global biosecurity system

A past-present-future of how the medical establishment has been used as a tool to get us to where we are today

By Meryl Nass | January 28, 2023

Not sure I want to wade into the Jordon Trishtan Walker story. But he is a good starting point for me to collect my thoughts about everything that is happening today and what it means and where it came from and where it is going.

  1. Mr. Walker thought he was on a date and was trying to impress his date. He did not know actual details about what he was talking about. He seemed to lack a moral compass—but that sort of omission appears to be extremely common these days.
  2. Mr. Walker is the 2023 version of a Valley Girl, which means his success in society is an enigma to those of us who are older and befuddled/appalled by what passes for popular culture and competence these days. See #4 below.
  3. The Boston Consulting Group, one of the world’s largest business consulting corporations, where Senator Mitt Romney, the RINO from Utah or was it Massachusetts cut his teeth is not the type of place where morals fit well.
  4. Believe it or not, here is how the Boston Consulting Group advertises for employees:

    Beyond conventional culture

    A diverse workforce with a combination of unique backgrounds and cultures, we’re united by our common purpose and values, curious minds, keen intellect, and powerful motivation to make a difference. If you’re ready to use your instincts and imagination to drive meaningful action, then come unlock your potential and join our global community.

    Missing from the job description: knowledge and hard work. Mr. Jordon Walker was using his imagination while looking for action and he got it, but not the kind he was looking for. He will probably have to change his identity to ever get another job. I feel kind of sorry for him.

  5. We all know that Pfizer has paid the largest single Pharma fine in history, but practically every large pharma company has paid billions of dollars in civil and criminal penalties. This is proof that a moral compass does not lead to success and is probably a hindrance when working for big Pharma.
  6. Pharma can’t sell anything without FDA’s okay. Not a single lot of a drug or vaccine can be shipped out unless it has an FDA stamp of approval. Not a single human test can be started until FDA gives the go-ahead.
  7. However, FDA obeys its masters elsewhere in government. FDA has made countless decisions that make no scientific, legal or moral sense. Sometimes we can see the strings: meetings by FDA officials with Congressional bigwigs on the FDA appropriations committees to favor certain products (Sen. Menendez and an orthopedic device come to mind, but I don’t think FDA finally approved it). Then there is the problem of industry user fees, aka “pay to play.” 75% of the money FDA uses to regulate drugs comes from user fees. FDA approves a much higher percentage of drug candidates now, compared to the days before user fees were adopted in the 1990s.
  8. Sometimes a product gets approved or authorized that is made by a company that is owned by a large donor to the political party in power. For example, major donor Ron Perelman got the Obama administration to pay a huge markup for a drug for smallpox that may not work.
  9. Then the Biden administration got the drug (now renamed Tpoxx and licensed in 2018 for smallpoxapproved by FDA on May 19, 2022 for i.v. use too, once the Biden administration decided moneypox was to be designated a big problem that required billions in purchases of drugs and vaccines.
  10. A phase 3 clinical trial of Tpoxx for monkeypox was launched in September 2022. This is a clever way to get the government to pay for the clinical trials needed for full approval of Mr. Perelman’s drug. Call an emergency. Just like with COVID.

    “We currently lack efficacy data that would help us understand how well this drug may mitigate painful monkeypox symptoms and prevent serious outcomes,” NIAID director Anthony Fauci, M.D., said in a release. “This clinical trial was designed to answer those important questions.”

    At the same time, FDA asked doctors to be judicious with its use, because

    “the rapidly evolving monkeypox virus is only one mutation away from rendering Tpoxx ineffective. Recent studies of monkeypox reveal that it has “several genetic pathways” to evade Typoxx, which has a “low barrier to viral resistance,” the CDC said.

  11. So we know that FDA is used to channel profits for political gain and does not always act in the public’s best interest. But was it also used to poison Americans on an industrial scale? Or was that Pfizer? Or was that DOD? Clearly we’ve been poisoned. But by whom and why?
  12. What is not entirely clear is the mechanics of how it was done. Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova have the best bead on this. During the Obama administration a huge industry of global biosecurity was built—before then it was all about US biosecurity. Suddenly we needed global biosecurity, and we needed to build biosecurity networks with China and the rest of the world. This is why France helped China create its first Biosafety Level 4 lab. Whee! Now labs everywhere could collaborate on biodefense and creating bioweapons to be sure we could defend against them. Or at least that was the theory that EcoHealth Alliance put forward. And that was the theory DOD, NIH, NSF, USAID and others funded using your tax dollars.
  13. During the Obama administration a new contracting method was created: the Other Transactional Authority. This is the underpinning of how all the vaccines could be contracted and paid for outside the FDA regulatory system, using DOD logisticians and DOD contractors. (I am getting all this info from Watt and Latypova and have not dived into the documents myself, but it fits with what Whitney Webb and other have dug up and makes perfect sense given what I know of DOD and anthrax vaccine.)
  14. As long as the vaccines were mislabeled PROTOTYPES FDA did not need to worry its pretty head about them. Criminal Janet Woodcock, former head of CDER and former Acting FDA Director was put in place as the liaison between Operation Warp Speed/DOD and the FDA. As prototypes they were not real vaccines.
  15. Under the Emergency Use Authorization law 360-bbb-3, the shots (now identified as “covered countermeasures” with covered meaning no liability) did not need to meet any formal standard for safety or efficacy. FDA (in this case, the seasoned FDA criminal Janet Woodcock, MD [think oxycontin for only one example] and Stephen Hahn, MD, who was probably put in place as FDA Commissioner by Alex Azar because he lacked government experience and had no idea what was happening) simply needed to guess that their benefit would exceed their risk. As long as the proper lingo for an emergency had been declared by Secretaries Azar, later Becerra (both of whom were lawyers without medical or scientific training) the EUAs could roll out.
  16. The only problem for the evil mofos was that under EUA the vaccines had to be voluntary. So we saw lotteries, cheeseburgers, donuts, college tuition and various other bribes accompany them. In fact, you were a chump if you didn’t get a prize with your shot.
  17. By August 2021 there weren’t enough takers. But we (some of us) also knew by that time the vaccines did not prevent spread. Recall that Kathrin Jansen PhD, the top vaccine official for Pfizer, had admitted on December 10, 2020 to the VRBPAC that the vaccine had not prevented spread in primates. I provided the link for her admission in my blog a couple of years ago.
  18. How many takers did they need? Why did they want to get everyone vaccinated? Why did the US government, helmed by caricature Biden, need to take peoples’ jobs and educations if they were not vaccinated? Why did so many other countries carry out similar evil plans? The leaders may have been ignorantly following orders. But didn’t they have a responsibility to ask WHY?
  19. So, knowing that it was against the law to do so, Biden et al. imposed mandates. This was illegal because the vaccines were not licensed. So on August 23, 2021 the FDA complied/caved/happily acceded—I don’t know which—to killing Americans with a product that by then was known to be a killer. (FDA has databases on over 100. They issued Comirnaty a license, followed later by Moderna. Later FDA killed off the J and J vaccine. It isn’t clear if this was because it was actually worse or whether it was to clear the runway for the mRNA platform.
  20. I suspect that Marion Gruber and Philip Krause, top vaccine officials at FDA, were fired because they would not go along with this, while the feckless Peter Marks had no qualms about issuing a fake license. See the the article this past week in Epoch Times about FOIA’d emails of Peter Marks at that time, where he said he would handle Gruber and Krause.
  21. Fake you say? Yes, fake because after the license was issued, only EUA product was used. Because had licensed product been used, FDA could have gotten in trouble and so could Pfizer—because the vaccine had not met the standards for licensure, AND a licensed product had liability attached—it lost that magical liability waiver given to EUA products that were thought to be voluntary. The USG created a massive fraud on the public, making people believe they were getting a “safe and effective” licensed product when they were not.
  22. Not only that, but both the Trump administration and the Biden administration (as did the EU and other nations) contracted for about ten or more doses per person of these concoctions, including hundreds of millions of doses, maybe billions, for which they signed contracts after knowing they did not work and were killing people.
  23. I just read something by John Leake, who blogs with Peter McCullough, that I think puts the issue of who is responsible in a nutshell.

    [I]t seems to me that it’s of limited utility to draw sharp distinctions between the DoD and companies like Pfizer and Moderna. Like Krupp and I.G. Farben during the Third Reich, these companies are bound to U.S. government institutions like the DoD, DARPA, NIH, HHS, and BARDA in an arrangement that strongly resembles Fascist Corporatism.

  24. What we are dealing with is a criminal conspiracy that includes DOD, Department of Justice, DHS, DHHS (FDA, CDC,NIH and other subagencies), all the 17 intel agencies, the White House and selected corporations. They have been working together for decades. Pharma commits crimes, and DOJ gives them a plea bargain, no one goes to jail, and they get to do it again. Some of the fines go to DOJ’s favorite charities.
  25. Our whole federal government has become a Potemkin village, allegedly carrying out its duties, but in fact carrying out the plans of some higher entity. Tony Fauci is a brilliant example of this, channeling billions of dollars to favored products, companies, universities and scientists while killing their competitors.
  26. And the federal agencies use subcontractors to avoid transparency, provide more means to gain extraordinary wealth, and waste more of the peoples’ money.
  27. I think that the medical enterprise was hijacked as a means to take over the world, because someone realized it could be used this way. First, it sucks up 20% of GDP, so there is a great deal of money that might be siphoned off. Second, it was a means to gain a lot of surveillance material, with online medical records. Third, it and doctors were trusted. Americans were convinced they had the best healthcare in the world, and it is only in the past 5-10 years that they realized this was far from true. Fourth, vaccines had a shiny patina. People believed in them. And for the 25 years that I have been closely observing vaccines, the federal government, and industry, have put unbelievable effort into shoring up the elusive “vaccine confidence” and demonizing “vaccine hesitancy.” A few examples:https://vaccineconfident.pharmacist.com/

    All over the world, peoples’ beliefs about vaccination have been put under a microscope, in order to pitch the most effective messages to them. It’s about loving your child. Caring about your community. Not being stupid. Not being a redneck, a racist, a science denier, someone who deserves to be shunned by society, someone who deserves to be moved to a camp for the safety of the rest of us, someone who should be held down and vaccinated for the good of the tribe.

  28. See how they used propaganda so skillfully that much of society were convinced the unvaccinated should be treated like prisoners?
  29. Looking back, I do not think this happened by accident, nor do I think a couple hundred billion in Pharma profits with kickbacks to politicians explains it. I think this was all part of a strategic plan put in place decades ago. I remember when CDC was using the “Knowledge Attitudes Beliefs” model for investigating how to cope with anthrax vaccine refusals 25 years ago.
  30. I think the ability of the government to inject us with a liquid of their choice, one that cannot be fully identified by the end-user, is the best way to explain what has been happening. mRNA vaccines, because they degrade quickly, can never be fully characterized, and this leaves open the possibility that the mfr/govt or whoever is really in charge can include some mRNA in the vaccine that has a specific purpose without us knowing it. Without us ever being able to prove it. mRNA can have specific purposes, turning genes on and off, affecting our risk of cancer, possibly giving us cancer or other diseases. We don’t know, and with the RNA vaccine platform, we will never be able to know.
  31. Now the government, in cahoots with pharma, is developing flu and RSV mRNA vaccines. Maybe all of them will be made of mRNA. What can we trust right now? Why should we trust the FDA to do the right thing by us for any product it regulates?
  32. But vaccines are only a part of the problem. There is the vaccine passport—which is still a “thing” in much of Europe, even now that we know the darn things are worse than useless. The goal of ultimate control is still with us.
  33. As the governments begin to relinquish the COVID vaccines, they will try to regain our trust. Or alternatively they will double down on totalitarian control.
  34. They will create more bogeymen from which they promise to save us. They know how to turn up the dial on fear. How many will fall prey to it yet again?
  35. How many diseases do they have in the hopper, ready to release? There must be many, but most will be duds. You see, viruses mutate. Bacteria too. And what happens to them, once they are released, is not predictable. Until you see what a virus does in a population, even the best scientist cannot predict where and how it will mutate, because that is a function of the human-virus interaction.
  36. And they virtually always mutate to be less virulent, though perhaps more infectious. Most will mutate into duds.
  37. COVID showed us that we had more useful drugs in the pantry (repurposed drugs) than we expected. If there is no Fauci, Walensky and Woodcock to suppress them next time, it won’t be so scary.
  38. It won’t be just viruses. They have done a good job of threatening nuclear war. But historically, the US has been the reckless cop on the block, not Putin. They can destroy our ability to access oil and natural gas. They can reduce the food supply. The can despoil the air and water.
  39. We all need to get a grip, and protect ourselves from propaganda, and stop the destruction of what we need to survive. Everyone needs to learn how to distinguish fact from spin. Start practicing as you read a news article, or watch TV. Which part of the story is fact? Which is spin/opinion/designed to make you believe something?
  40. Once enough of us recognize what is going on, we can make a big enough stink and stop much of it. I think we can, if we are smart and work together. There are 8 billion of us, after all, and just some thousands of them. We need to educate their minions to come over to our side. Let’s create ourselves as the warriors we were put on this planet to be at this time in history.

January 28, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Statement From Medical Professionals & Scientists Supporting Parental Rights and Medical Freedom

Brownstone Institute | January 22, 2023

This letter has been signed by Dr. Rachel Corbett, Dr. George Fareed, Dr. Melanie Gisler, Dr. Brian Hooker, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Katarina Lindley, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Liz Mumper, Dr. Meryl Nass, Dr. David Rasnick, Dr. Richard Urso and hundreds more physicians, scientists and medical professionals.

The original authors are Michael Kane and Meryl Nass, M.D., and it is being distributed by Children’s Health Defense. Medical and scientific professionals can sign the letter, which is a basic statement of principles that should be at the core of medicines but which have sidelined or violated since the beginning of the crisis.


Executive Summary

  1. There is no scientific rationale for continuing any COVID-19 mandates in 2023 and beyond.
  2. Mask and vaccine exemptions must be offered at the discretion of the physician and patient as opposed to one-size-fits-all government edicts.
  3. Parental rights and decisions must be preserved to ensure the health and well-being of their children.
  4. The ability of medical professionals to speak freely to their patients and the public must not be compromised.

Informed consent is the basis of medical ethics. Shared decision-making is a model of the patient-physician relationship that is considered the most desirable by both the US and UK government health establishments. Patients want to make their own medical decisions, and they have the legal right to do so. They expect their physicians to share knowledge with their patients to inform the best choices.

The corollary to informed consent is that medical decisions ought to be made by individual patients based on their individual situation and personal best interest. ‘One-size-fits-all’ medicine is incongruent with these principles. It denies informed consent and personal autonomy.

During the last three years, we have experienced unprecedented interference with the doctor-patient relationship by the government. Considerable financial incentives were paid to medical industries and medical providers to offer certain treatments and to refuse others.

When financial incentives did not achieve universal vaccination, mandates were imposed. One way this was done was by requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare workers whose employers received Medicare payments after we had learned that vaccinations did not protect patients or coworkers from infection.

Grants to school districts were conditioned on mask mandates in schools. These newly imposed incentives, and punishments for noncompliance, fly in the face of long-established medical ethics, especially informed consent and shared decision-making. They must end.

COVID-19 Mandates

There is general agreement that all available COVID-19 vaccines fail to prevent viral transmission and only briefly reduce cases. After several months, people who are vaccinated become more susceptible to COVID-19 infections than the unvaccinated. Therefore, mandates for COVID-19 vaccines are scientifically and logically indefensible.

In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) adapted its guidelines for managing COVID-19, quietly suggesting that both vaccinated and unvaccinated Americans should be treated identically with respect to isolation, quarantining and testing. Yet the CDC continues to exhort Americans to receive more COVID-19 vaccine booster doses and supports federally imposed vaccine mandates.

Essentially everyone in our country has been exposed to COVID-19 by now, and nearly everyone has been infected at least once. We can anticipate that the US will continue to face evolving COVID-19 variants, but we can also anticipate that COVID-19’s severity will keep weakening over time.

Yet patients and doctors are still not permitted to choose the COVID-19 therapies best suited to each patient. Mandates must end, and patients and doctors must reassert their human and legal rights to determine the medical care each patient receives.

Vaccine and Mask Exemptions

Patients are individuals. They experience different risks from vaccinations and may have medical or psychological issues that preclude safe masking. Pretending that these differences don’t exist is denying reality. Historically, doctors were able to issue waivers for masks and vaccinations, as they were considered to have the best knowledge and judgment to issue such waivers.

Although every state by law accepts that doctors can issue medical waivers for vaccines and masks, many health and education departments have started nullifying these waivers, superseding physician authority. States have also been investigating and punishing doctors for issuing medical waivers. It appears that federal and state governments want to make themselves the arbiters of these medical decisions. This must not stand.

Parental Rights

States decide on the age of consent, and until that age is reached, parents are wholly responsible for their children, with a few limited exceptions. But during the past two years, we have seen a dangerous trend. State requirements that parents must consent to vaccinations given to their underage children are being ignored in multiple jurisdictions. This happened in Washington, DC, for children ages 11 and older by order of the Mayor and City Council. The law they passed kept the fact that their children had a medical procedure secret from the parents. While Congress, which oversees the law in the District of Columbia, could have said no, it instead failed to act. A lawsuit challenging this law was won in November 2021, so the law no longer stands in DC.

However, in Philadelphia, PA, San Francisco, CA and Kings County, WA, the local health officers issued guidelines in early 2021 allowing local medical providers to vaccinate children as young as age 12 without parental permission, which still stand.

This is a dangerous usurpation of parental rights by local public health authorities. It also violates state and federal law. Furthermore, there has been a recent accompanying trend by ‘medico-legal’ professionals to assert in published journal articles that 12-year-olds have the maturity to decide on their own medical procedures.

Most states don’t allow children to consent to use tanning salons or get tattoos below the age of consent. To bypass parents and allow underage children to decide what gets injected into them is inconsistent with state laws, medical ethics, common sense, and optimal medical care of children. It needs to end.

Free Speech for Medical Professionals

An attack on the free speech of doctors and medical scientists is being waged across America today. While controversy is inherent in scientific advancement, and scientific knowledge continuously evolves, disagreement with the federal public health recommendations has led to draconian censorship and suppression. Doctors have been investigated, lost their specialty board certifications, and even lost their medical licenses for speaking out publicly against federal guidelines.

Yet no health authority is infallible, and the COVID-19 pandemic proved this. In fact, both the World Health Organization (WHO), NIH and CDC changed their COVID-19 policies, guidelines, and recommendations numerous times throughout the pandemic.

The suppression of medical professionals’ speech is illegal, according to the First Amendment and state statutes, and must immediately end.

This letter continues to be signed by medical professionals and scientists around the world. View the growing list of signatures.

January 28, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

53-Year-Old Woman Details Aftermath of COVID Vaccine Injury

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 24, 2023

Julie Gamble had a fulfilling life: a stable career, the freedom to travel, and three children and one grandbaby to cherish.

But that life was disrupted in the spring and summer of 2021 when Gamble developed severe adverse reactions after getting the two-shot COVID-19 vaccine primary series — which resulted in her losing her job.

Gamble, now 53, spoke to The Defender about the vaccine injuries she sustained, the symptoms and challenges she is still experiencing, the ongoing difficulties finding doctors willing to treat her and classify her symptoms as vaccine-related, and the supportive role online groups for vaccine-injured individuals have had in her life.

The Defender reviewed documentation and photographic evidence verifying Gamble’s claims prior to publishing her story.

‘I felt really, really tired … anesthetic tired’

Gamble, who lives in Ontario, Canada, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on May 17, 2021. For the second dose, she received the Moderna vaccine on July 18, 2021.

Her symptoms appeared almost immediately after the first dose, she said:

“I came home and I was really, really tired. It felt like an anesthetic tired, it didn’t feel like a ‘regular’ tired.

“I had developed a rash all over my body. I was itchy and my eyelids swelled up. I recall the bottoms of my feet being extremely itchy, more so than anywhere else, and I was sweating profusely. I started getting Charley horses in my calves. So, of course I was drinking a lot of water. I recall losing my vision in my right eye.”

Variations of the symptoms lasted for about a week after her first dose. She called a pharmacist who told her to take an antihistamine and, “if my tongue started to swell up, go to the ER.”

Soon afterward, Gamble developed other symptoms, including weakness in her ankles and a fluctuating heart rate.

“I also recall I was wearing my Fitbit. I’d walk into work, and I’d check my heart rate and sometimes it was at 140 and then it would drop down to regular, about 70 beats per minute. I’d be sitting down and I felt a little odd and I’d look at my Fitbit and my heart rate would shoot right up and then it would come right back down. And I stopped wearing it because I assumed my Fitbit was broken.”

The leg cramps kept getting worse, but Gamble attributed them to dehydration because where she worked “was quite hot, and so that’s what I thought was happening.”

‘I felt guilted’ into getting second dose

Gamble said her reactions to the Pfizer shot made her “leery” of getting a second dose — even her pharmacist recommended against it, she said.

“I spoke to the pharmacist about it, and I told him what had happened to me and about my muscles cramping up,” Gamble said. Her pharmacist recommended she see an immunologist before he would administer the second shot.

However, the doctor Gamble saw was far less sympathetic, she said:

“I didn’t have a family doctor, so I went down to the hospital thinking the receptionist or somebody would just book me an appointment with an immunologist.

“Instead, they put me in a waiting room. I saw a doctor and he told me right from the get-go he was not going to give me an exemption, he wasn’t going to give me an appointment with an immunologist. He told me to take an antihistamine and I would be fine.”

A combination of “nudging” from her doctor and Canada’s strict COVID-19-related restrictions led Gamble to go ahead with the second dose — especially after her doctor lectured her about “being a good citizen and not killing people,” she said.

“So, I felt guilted into it, and I knew I couldn’t leave Canada unless I was fully vaccinated.”

Gamble’s pharmacist was uncomfortable administering the second dose but proceeded on the doctor’s recommendation. Though Gamble didn’t develop a rash this time, she did experience fatigue and blurry vision again.

“I felt like, okay, I’m going to sleep this off. And once again, after about three days I started to feel a little bit better. But then I started dropping things all over the place. At first, I just kind of thought it was weird.

“But then I noticed my sense of perception was off. I’d go to open a door and where I thought the door was, my hand would be two inches away from the door. I started having brain zaps. I still tried to work, and so I was at work, and I tried to write a report and I could barely hold my pen. My hands were cramping up.”

Gamble also noticed slurred speech and changes in her ability to swallow food. “At that point, I decided obviously I can’t go to work. And I noticed muscles were starting to atrophy between my pinky finger and my ring finger.”

A neurologist at her local hospital, the London Health Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, “looked at my hands and said, ‘There’s something going on here.’” He admitted her for the night.

However, in the morning, another doctor dismissed her concerns, telling her she was ‘bending my arms too much.” She then made an appointment with a doctor she had seen during a previous adverse reaction to medication. But by that point, her condition had deteriorated further.

“I was losing the muscles rapidly,” Gamble said. “Within two months, I went from having normal-looking hands to completely skeleton-looking hands. The muscles in my arms started to atrophy, [and] in my feet behind my kneecaps. I could really feel it. My balance was off. My blood pressure was low.”

Trying to get a diagnosis ‘has been hell’

During one of several hospital visits, Gamble said doctors were particularly dishonest to her.

“One of the doctors said to me that some people are getting Guillain-Barré syndrome and he was going to check me for that. So, he gave me blood work.” But Gamble later learned that’s not even the right test for Guillain-Barré.

“They have to do it with a spinal tap,” she said. “I kind of feel like every doctor I saw had a reason to try to make up something different other than it was the vaccine.”

Gamble is still having trouble finding a doctor willing and able to treat her — and medication that will be effective and not cause further adverse reactions.

Meanwhile, she is dealing with multiple health-related challenges. “Just trying to get to the bottom of what is going on has been hell,” she said.

She has since found a family doctor who prescribed prednisone, but Gamble said she had a “horrible” reaction to it. “My hands turned blue, my tongue turned blue, I was getting brain zaps. I was passing out and my husband took me to the hospital.”

Doctors then told Gamble she had Raynaud’s disease, but “I don’t have that because [the symptoms were] on both sides of my hands and on my tongue,” she said.

She added:

“They sent me home like that. I tried to get help at one point, and I couldn’t get help. My husband, I guess I got a message out to him, but it was all gibberish. He came home thinking I’d had a stroke. He took me to the hospital; they did a CT scan, and everything came back normal. Apparently, my blood work comes back normal.”

Canada’s healthcare system, in conjunction with the country’s COVID-19-related restrictions, has made it challenging to even get treatment, Gamble said.

“I’m just trying to figure out what happened and am trying to get medical care,” Gamble said, “but I’m just hitting roadblocks everywhere. I figured maybe I could start physiotherapy, but in Canada you have to be 16 and under, or 65 and over, in order to qualify for free physiotherapy.”

Gamble said the pressure on doctors to look the other way when it comes to potential vaccine injury cases, and “a whole lot of doctor drama,” has been “frustrating.”

A neuromuscular doctor who previously worked at the London Health Sciences Centre confided in Gamble that she “got in trouble” with the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada for writing COVID-19 vaccination exemptions. “And so, her hands are tied, pretty much,” Gamble said.

Meanwhile, Gamble’s symptoms continue to evolve, and doctors continue to reject the possibility that the vaccines are to blame. Recently, her tongue started “turning white and swelling up” and her ears became “really itchy and scabby.”

“My doctor thought this must be an allergy, so I went and I saw an immunologist,” she said. “But as soon as I showed him my hands and said, ‘vaccine,’ he told me he wasn’t interested in that. He was only interested in things that put you in instant anaphylactic shock.”

Gamble asked for a second appointment, during which it was noted that her heart rate had dropped to between 44 and 52 beats per minute. Doctors suggested she was experiencing a reaction to the prednisone.

Gamble asked to be tested for an allergy to polyethylene glycol, or PEG, because it’s unusual to have a reaction to prednisone, she said.

However, the response she got from her doctor was similar to the “gaslighting” reported by others who experienced vaccine injuries.

“The second doctor tested me and I said to him, since I’ve had this vaccine, I’m not doing well with certain foods or medications,” said Gamble. “And I talked to him about the muscle wasting, and he looked at my hands and he said he didn’t see it, which is ridiculous because it’s so obvious.”

Instead, the doctor “kind of wondered if it was psychosomatic,” said Gamble. She responded with, “no, I’ve had the nerve conduction studies done. It’s proven that my muscles are wasting.”

Gamble also saw a spine surgeon “who said she believes it’s a back injury.”

But one doctor Gamble saw later — a rheumatologist — was willing to draw a connection between her injuries and her vaccination.

“[The] rheumatologist said, ‘I don’t know what the big issue is. This is a vaccine injury.’ And she wrote me a letter to show people that I can’t be boosted.”

‘You kind of lose everything, don’t you?’

Unfortunately, Gamble said, Canada’s COVID-19 regulations restrict the extent to which exemptions are recognized.

Gamble told The Defender :

“I still can’t get a legal exemption, which is kind of important in a way because in Canada you can be refused a job. So, if I get better and I’m hoping I can go find employment again, they have the right to tell me that they’re not going to hire me because I’m not up to date on my booster. Or even traveling to another country — it’s up to them if they’re going to let me in if I’m not up to date on all this stuff.

“This government doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge the neurological damage. They only — from what I was told — give you an exemption if it’s a PEG allergy or if you have myocarditis, but not for neurological damage.”

As a result, said Gamble, “I’m going in circles here.” She described being told by a doctor that she “just happen[s] to be one of the people who ‘fall through the cracks’” — an obstacle that has also prevented her from collecting employment insurance.

She said:

“I don’t qualify for anything in my own country. And they have a vaccination injury support program, but very few people are getting paid out from that. It has to be ‘severe’ and it has to be permanent, and I don’t know if they’re going to consider this ‘severe,’ but right now I can’t work because I have no muscles left in my hands.”

Gamble did get severance pay, she said, but everything else “has been denied, denied.”

“The government in Canada, they certainly aren’t doing anything for people who are injured by the vaccine,” Gamble said. “So, you kind of lose everything, don’t you? And then you’re put in this category that you never wanted to be a part of.”

Despite these challenges and obstacles, Gamble perseveres, even though she can’t work.

“There are things that I want to do,” she said. “I want to start exercising, but I’m even scared of that because you see these videos [of people who] died suddenly … a lot of people apparently have died while they’ve been playing sports. So that’s a little bit concerning for me, and just in general, just still not knowing what happened to me.”

Online support groups for vaccine-injured individuals ‘a godsend’

In contrast to her experience with most doctors and many friends, who dismissed her condition, Gamble praised the support she’s received from members of online support groups for vaccine-injured individuals.

“It’s been a godsend,” she said. “For the first seven or eight months, I’m on my couch and I’m feeling my muscles wasting and I’m struggling to walk. Anybody that I tried to talk to that didn’t have an injury, they assumed it had to be something else, because they’ve been told that these vaccines are ‘safe and effective.’”

But participation in online groups, such as the Vaccine Injury/Side Effects Support Group on Facebook, has allowed Gamble to interact with “decent” people who “don’t judge” and who have experienced similar symptoms and conditions as her.

“I have found a few women with the exact same injuries that I have,” she said. “It was nice to know that there are other people out there, that you’re not alone. We don’t all share the same symptoms, but we share a lot of similar symptoms, and so I can say, ‘so-and-so tried this, well I’m going to try it.’”

Gamble said she’s not sure the medical system will ever regain her trust. But she had some advice for others experiencing vaccine injuries.

“People need to realize if they get injured by this vaccine, probably medically they’re not going to get a lot of help or [doctors] are going to try to tell them it wasn’t the vaccine.”


Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

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.

January 28, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The War on Doctors and Patients

By Pierre Kory | Brownstone Institute | January 27, 2023

Whenever I republish my newspaper op-eds on this Substack, I tend to introduce them with some comments on “how I really feel,” instead of the more staid language and arguments used in those pieces. In this one, I essentially argued that the new Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government should be ground zero for investigating how the administration is using COVID-19 to wage war on doctors who won’t follow its orthodoxy.

Although I am not under the delusion that its actions will actually result in meaningful changes in public health policy, I felt I should provide some guidance to them in the support we doctors (and thus patients) really need. I highlighted some of the most harmful actions taken to silence and suppress physicians, which would have been absolutely unthinkable a few years ago but now are becoming the norm, what with Clownifornia’s new bill (which just got slapped with an injunction!) threatening doctors’ livelihoods if their speech does not support the dominant consensus, er, I mean “narrative.”

I am doing this while every week new data piles up showing the immense toxicity and lethality and negative effectiveness of the latest vaccines. Yet the Biden administration and its allies in media and medicine only push them harder, inventing batshit crazy narratives to explain their shortcomings. Imagine their gratitude learning about this Canadian physician’s discovery of a “stroke season!”

By now we all understand that these profoundly anti-scientific, unethical positions are driven by an unholy and terrifying alliance of government, the pharmaceutical industry, and media. The evidence is damning in how they have co-opted public health institutions to suppress dissent so they can continue raking in astronomical profits. The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), a nonprofit organization that certifies physicians’ medical licenses, is chief among the once-trusted institutions that has bent the knee.

Last year, the ABIM accused myself, Paul Marik, and Peter McCullough of spreading “misinformation” and threatened our ability to practice medicine, ignoring the ever-widening disconnect between the Biden administration’s statements and the reality on the ground.

A reality which literally amounts to a humanitarian catastrophe with young people dropping dead “unexpectedly” and the best analyses estimating over 500,00 having died directly from the vaccine in the US alone with further millions disabled. And we wonder why restaurants often cannot open or ski mountains can only run half their lifts on even the most bluebird of powder days (of course there are multiple factors leading to this reality, but the vaccine lethality is the only “never mentioned” one).

As an aside, although it is devastating to do so, I think that everyone should read Mark Crispin Miller’s Substack and his daily series entitled “In Memory of Those Who Died Suddenly.” He compiles and presents media reports of human deaths at a frequency and regularity that is difficult to behold (especially for an expert in sudden cardiac death, a subject I studied deeply during my years as an expert in therapeutic hypothermia in post-arrest patients, an event which was distinctly rare in active healthy people outdoors prior to the vaccination campaign).

I feel responsible to read/witness what he is presenting to the world. I am tired of dueling and conflicting medical papers and agency data, cherry-picked or manipulated to support the dominant delusion that these vaccines are benign. When you read Mark’s Substack, you are faced daily with reading about the untimely and sudden ends to the lives of real people, every day, around the world, amidst this terror of a global vaccination campaign.

They are dying “unexpectedly” at enormous rates and falling ill with cancer at enormous rates. He seems to be the only one who is presenting these data in such a human, highly personal way by compiling individual media stories of the sudden ending of human lives at ever younger ages with an unimaginable regularity. Unfortunately, as per the most visited English language media outlet in the world, doctors don’t know why yet and the vaccines are not even mentioned as a possibility in this clown article published in the Daily Mail.

Unrelenting reports of people in largely perfect health, out in society doing routine or pleasurable activities and then dropping dead or unconscious, often being captured on television studio sets, auditorium stages, subway platforms, street surveillance cameras, playgrounds, sporting events, athletic fields, and even broadcaster desks. To date, I am not aware of a single newspaper report (even from tiny local papers) which openly implicates the vaccine as even a possible cause let alone an almost certain one. An unimaginably dystopian nightmare all around us… while society seemingly carries on as normal.

Back to the ABIM: despite its status as a private organization with no statutory authority (insane right?), the ABIM has morphed into an “enforcement” arm of the government, wielding the ability to control certification and the livelihood of doctors, who are subject to career-ending threats for trying to alert the public to all the death and disability resulting from the vaccine campaign. Paul and I are fighting those charges tooth and nail. I am looking forward to soon sharing on this Substack the brilliant response we worked on with our assassin of an FLCCC lawyer, Alan Dumhof. I predict a clown world of a response and will share with you as soon as we get it.

Anyway, here is my Op-Ed:


Two years of one-party rule in Washington are over, and the new Republican House majority must now restore balance through vigorous oversight. The Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is expected to focus on allegations of collusion between social media companies and the Biden administration.

But it should expand its focus to include the government’s use of COVID to wage war against doctors — which continues to this day.

The suppression of doctors’ freedom to advise and treat patients began early in the pandemic. Promising alternative courses of treatment, such as generic drugs like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, were shouted down by false news narratives.

Media companies took their cues from public health agencies, which exaggerated concerns over people using medicines to treat COVID in ways that were not intended and against medical advice. Positive clinical data was ignored.

The next major front in the war on doctors opened up with the vaccine rollout. President Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other public officials promised these novel, rushed vaccines would prevent illness and even transmission.

Biden’s declaration that, “If you get vaccinated, you won’t get COVID” has now been exposed as a lie, but it’s crucial to understand how it came to this.

In the past, broad skepticism would have greeted plans to mass distribute a “safe and effective” vaccine that was developed and approved in just 12 months.

And society would have flatly rejected government mandates that pushed people to get vaccinated or risk losing their jobs and becoming social outcasts. Science and medicine, practiced correctly, should challenge the powers that be, not blindly follow them.

But in our ongoing ordeal, no skepticism has been allowed, no discussion, no options. Those who raised questions or suggested different approaches were smeared as “deniers” or even worse, “anti-vaxxers.”

Even as the public learned more about the virus’s actual threat, the vaccines’ disappointing performance, and the tragic reality of vaccine injuries which began occurring at an unprecedented scale, the political imperative from Biden and Fauci never wavered.

They continued to preach a single-minded focus on the experimental vaccines. More and more vaccine products were rushed through Emergency Use Authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration, resulting in astronomical profits for their manufacturers.

This unholy alliance of government, the pharmaceutical industry and media deprived the public of full and fair advice from the medical community. The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), a nonprofit organization that certifies physicians’ medical licenses, has issued letters to me and my colleagues threatening our ability to practice medicine.

They accused us of spreading “misinformation” — ignoring the huge disconnect between the government’s statements and the medical reality on the ground. Despite their status as a private organization with no statutory authority, the ABIM has morphed into the “enforcement” arm of the government, wielding the ability to control certification and the livelihood of doctors, who are subject to career-ending threats for veering from the government’s narrow and singular approach.

And this month, California’s new law empowering state agencies to disbar medical professionals who deviate from the party line has taken effect. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently called California the “True Freedom State.” The scores of its residents—and its doctors—fleeing for Florida and Texas know better.

A “one-size-fits-all” approach to vaccines, or to any other health issue, is almost never warranted. Here, proponents of vaccine (and of government and Big-Tech coercion and censorship) flatly refuse to consider patient factors, such as age, medical history, and overall health, to determine who needs what treatment.

By virtue of their professional training, doctors must advise patients on available treatments and known risks of any treatment or procedure. By threatening doctors who might provide information different than their preferred worldview, ABIM is disrupting the doctor-patient relationship.

When allowed to practice their craft freely, physicians can prevent societal disaster by focusing on individual patients, informed by clinical experience.

Groups like the ABIM, and public medical officials like Fauci, should support and encourage evidence-based debate and patient-centered care.

Instead, they have suppressed both that debate and treatment approach by persecuting its proponents. This campaign must be stopped, its origins and evolution must be thoroughly documented, and it must never be allowed to recur. Physician autonomy must be restored lest all patients suffer.

Oversight is a core congressional function, and it’s particularly important when the government is under divided party control.

The new Select Subcommittee has a long to-do list, but the people deserve a thorough accounting of the ongoing war on doctors.

Pierre Kory is a Pulmonary and Critical Care Specialist, Teacher/Researcher. He is also the President and Chief Medical Officer of the non-profit organization Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance whose mission is to develop the most effective, evidence/expertise-based COVID-19 treatment protocols.

January 28, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Gates — After Reaping Huge Profits Selling BioNTech Shares — Trashes Effectiveness of COVID Vaccines

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 27, 2023

Bill Gates, long recognized as one of the world’s foremost proponents of vaccines, raised some eyebrows at a recent talk in Australia when he admitted there are “problems” with current COVID-19 vaccines.

Speaking at Australia’s Lowy Institute as part of a talk entitled “Preparing for Global Challenges: In Conversation with Bill Gates,” the Microsoft founder made the following admission:

“We also need to fix the three problems of [COVID-19] vaccines. The current vaccines are not infection-blocking. They’re not broad, so when new variants come up you lose protection, and they have very short duration, particularly in the people who matter, which are old people.”

Such statements came as a surprise to some in light of Gates’ longstanding support of — and investments in — vaccine manufacturers and organizations promoting global vaccination. However, they were the latest in a string of developments in recent weeks that have increasingly called the COVID-19 vaccines, in particular, into question.

‘This is a grift’: Gates’ investments in mRNA vaccines reveal ‘conflict of interest’

Several analysts and commentators were critical of Gates — but not due to disagreement with the statements he made in Australia. Instead, they argued that he had previously heavily invested in mRNA vaccines at the same time he encouraged a global COVID-19 vaccination campaign and supported mandatory vaccination.

Speaking Jan. 25 on The Hill TV’s “Rising,” co-hosts Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave addressed Gates’ statements. Soave initially agreed at face value with Gates’ criticism of current mRNA vaccines, saying:

“He really nails it on the issues that we’re having: the short duration of protection, not a significant discernable impact on the transmission of cases … not a massive benefit for a lot of otherwise healthy and younger people.”

However, Soave — who on Jan. 19 revealed “Facebook files” indicating the CDC significantly influenced content moderation and censorship on the platform pertaining to COVID-19 vaccines — then pointed out Gates’ prior investments that contributed to the development of mRNA vaccine technology.

Soave said, “Bill Gates was a major proponent of mRNA technology … he was an investor in BioNTech, which developed the mRNA vaccine for Pfizer.”

“We were just doing some digging,” continued Soave, “[and] we saw that he sold a lot of those shares at … how much profit was that?”

“10x,” replied Gray. “He invested $55 million in BioNTech back in 2019 and it’s now worth north of $550 million. He sold some stock … at the end of last year, I believe it was, with the share price over $300, which represented a huge gain for him over when he invested.”

Soave then unleashed critical comments directed at Gates:

“Let’s follow that trajectory: [Gates] invests heavily in BioNTech, ‘mRNA vaccines are great, this is the future,’ he talks about the vaccine timeline and how we can develop it faster, ‘we might have to cut some corners on safety’ … All in … sells it … makes a huge amount of money … but now it’s ‘yeah, it’s okay, it could be better, but what we really need is this breath spray.’”

Soave was referring to a statement Gates made during his recent talk in Australia, immediately prior to his remarks regarding the mRNA vaccines, where he said:

“We think we can also have, very early in an epidemic, a thing that you can inhale that will mean that you can’t be infected, a blocker, an inhaled blocker.”

Gray raised the issue of conflicts of interest between individuals such as Gates who hold significant positions with drug and vaccine manufacturers, and the federal government’s spending of large sums of taxpayer money to purchase these products. She said:

“This is a grift. These companies are extracting money, taxpayer money as it were, to pay for medical treatments that are not indicated by medical professionals and are less useful than what we already have.

“At the same time, the Biden administration is opening its doors, revolving doors, to people from these various industries like Jeff Zients, who is the new chief of staff for Joe Biden … who has spent his entire career at the kinds of companies, investing in the kinds of companies, that have been overcharging the government for Medicare and Medicaid payments and exact kinds of overpayments. It is an enormous grift and one that is incredibly common.”

Zients was formerly the Biden administration’s “COVID czar” and publicly pushed for universal vaccination.

Soave then said that Gates’ statements, and the broader issue of conflicts of interest between drug and vaccine proponents and the federal government, give credence to the assertions long made by “anti-vaxxers and the like.” He said:

“For there not to be more interrogation of his conflict of interest here by the mainstream is deeply disturbing, and for people who have been skeptical of this aspect of Pfizer and the drug development around COVID and who have been shot down in the media as kooks, anti-vaxxers and the like, I frankly think that this issue of pharmaceutical corruption and people pushing various interventions, having an investment in profit, should have been an issue that the left was leading on.

“We have to be more transparent about the fact that people who are having input in what the government policy is going to be, what’s going to be required people, the Biden administration tried to require people to get this, shouldn’t it be known at least when there are hundreds of millions of dollars of financial interests at stake for the people advising this? And their tune changes as it follows the money!”

Investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel also had scathing remarks following Gates’ statements in Australia, writing on his blog:

“Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who served as one of the architects of Covid hysteria and had more of an impact than any other individual on the disastrous global pandemic policies, has finally acknowledged that the mRNA shots he’s been promoting for two years are nothing more than expired pharma junk.

“Translation: Gates admits that the shots are impossible to align with rapidly developing variants, they expire in lighting speed, and they don’t stop transmission. And they don’t work for the only at-risk portion of the population.”

Schachtel called this “an incredible reversal from the man who once advertised the shots as the cure to the coronavirus,” drawing upon Gates’ previous statement: “everyone who takes the vaccine is not just protecting themselves but reducing their transmission to other people and allowing society to get back to normal.”

In 2021, Gates described the mRNA vaccines as “magic,” saying they would be a “game changer” in the next five years.

Gates warns about ‘next pandemic,’ praises lockdowns, calls for more pandemic simulations

As reported by the Daily Mail Jan. 23, Gates’ talk in Australia was notable for some additional statements he made.

Gates “called for greater global cooperation using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of how countries could improve on their response if they worked together,” arguing that “political leaders needed to set aside their differences and work together to prepare for the next virus.”

He also praised Australia’s strict lockdown policies, saying:

“Some of the things that stand out are that Australia and about seven other countries did population scale diagnostics early on and had quarantine policies.

“That meant you kept the level of infection low in that first year when there were no vaccines.”

Gates also called for more “pandemic simulations” to assist world leaders in dealing with “future pandemics.” He said:

“The one thing that still hangs in the balance is will we have the global capacity and at the regional and country levels that would mean that when an (infectious disease) threat comes up we act in such a way that it doesn’t go global.

“We need to be doing every five years a comprehensive exercise at both country and regional levels of pandemic preparedness and you need a global group that’s scoring everybody.”

As part of such preparedness, Gates called upon countries to have “standby tools,” including vaccines, in place for the next pandemic:

“So there’s a class that’s got measles in it, a class of flu, a class of coronavirus, and a fourth class, all of which we need to have standby tools, both antivirals and vaccines that can deal with those. It’s very doable. So on the tools front, we can be far more prepared.”

Schachtel noted that Gates was a sponsor of Event 201, a simulation conducted Oct. 18, 2019, which “predicted” a global coronavirus pandemic. One of the sponsors of Event 201 was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF).

The BMGF is a partner of Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance and holds a seat on its board. In turn, Gavi closely collaborates with the ID2020 Alliance, a strong proponent of “vaccine passports,” as previously reported by The Defender. Microsoft and the BMGF are founding members of ID2020.

According to the same report by The Defender, the BMGF in September 2022 pledged $1.27 billion in support of “global health and development projects.”

And as previously reported by The Defender, the BMGF previously committed, in June 2020, $750 million toward the development of the AstraZeneca vaccine at Oxford University, and conditional funding of $150 million to the Serum Institute of India — the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer by number of doses produced and sold.

The Serum Institute also received a $4 million grant from the BMGF in October 2020 to support research and development as part of the COVID-19 response, while in August 2020, the Serum Institute, in partnership with the BMGF and Gavi, agreed to produce up to 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines for low- and middle-income countries.

In a posting on his official blog in December 2020, Gates wrote that his foundation “took on some of the financial risk” for the vaccine, so that if the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was not approved, the Serum Institute wouldn’t “have to take a full loss.”

Gates’ remarks latest in a string of negative press for COVID, mRNA vaccines

Gates’ remarks in Australia — and the attention they received from the press — represent the latest in a series of less-than-flattering media portrayals about COVID-19 and mRNA vaccines in recent weeks.

On Jan. 22, the Wall Street Journal published a highly critical editorial regarding the FDA’s non-disclosure of data pertaining to the efficacy of the COVID-19 bivalent boosters. Allysia Finley, a member of the newspaper’s editorial board, wrote:

“Federal agencies took the unprecedented step of ordering vaccine makers to produce them and recommending them without data supporting their safety or efficacy.”

She also accused vaccine makers of “deceptive advertising.”

On. Jan 13, during a live television appearance on the BBC, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra “truthbombed” the network when he made the “unprompted” suggestion that mRNA vaccines pose a cardiovascular risk.

An undercover video released by Project Veritas released Jan. 25 showed Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer’s director of research and development, strategic operations, admitting the pharmaceutical company is “exploring” mutating COVID-19 “ourselves” via “directed evolution,” to then “preemptively develop new vaccines” against them.

A follow-up video showed Walker assaulting Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe when confronted with the recording of his statements.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on Thursday called for a Congressional investigation against vaccine manufacturers and the COVID-19 vaccine approval process, in response to the Project Veritas revelations.

“Federal health agencies have been captured by Big Pharma and grossly derelict in their duties throughout the pandemic,” said Johnson.

“It’s time for Congress to thoroughly investigate vaccine manufacturers and the entire COVID vaccine approval process,” he added.

And today, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) sent a letter to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla in response to the Project Veritas videos, stating:

“I write in response to troubling reports on Pfizer’s intention to mutate the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) virus through gain-of-function, or ‘directed evolution,’ as detailed by Pfizer Director of Research and Development, Jordan Walker.

“As has been proven time and time again, attempts to mutate a virus, particularly one as potent as COVID, are dangerous. If the claims detailed in the video are true, Pfizer has put its desire for profit over the concern of national and global health and must hold itself accountable.”

Statements made by cartoonist Scott Adams of “Dilbert” fame regarding the COVID-19 vaccines also garnered attention. In a video dated Jan. 22, Adams said, “The anti-vaxxers clearly won, you’re the winners!” due to their distrust of the government and corporations.

And Elon Musk, owner and CEO of Twitter, responding to separate comments made by Adams about the significant prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse events, tweeted: “I had major side effects from my second booster shot. Felt like I was dying for several days. Hopefully, no permanent damage, but I dunno.”

Musk followed up with a second tweet, stating: “And my cousin, who is young & in peak health, had a serious case of myocarditis. Had to go to the hospital.”

Several comments from journalists tweeted in response to Musk’s statements anecdotally referred to increasing numbers of individuals experiencing such COVID-19 vaccine injuries.


Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

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.

January 27, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, War Crimes | , , , | 3 Comments

The Impending US ICD Vaccine Passport and Its Unconstitutionality

By Harvey Risch | Brownstone Institute | January 26, 2023

The CDC recently codified International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes for Covid-19 vaccine status. ICD codes are extensively used in medical records, medical insurance data and health research to classify precisely disease states as well as injuries from exogenous agents such as accidents, medication and medical device injuries, toxic chemicals, etc. Vaccination status is not a disease or an injury state, yet CDC has rationalized creating ICD codes for it. The coding is set to become effective on April 1, 2023.

As described by Dr. Robert Malone, “The ICD classification system is run by the World Health Organization, not the US government.” The vaccine status ICD codes were developed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) some nine months ago, and CDC is implementing them.

The coding scheme, Z28.xxx, includes both vaccination status and possible reasons for the status. However, there does not appear to be a code for “fully vaccinated,” only for various states of “not fully vaccinated.”

  • The code Z28.0 means “immunization not carried out because of contraindication.”  Z28.1 means “immunization not carried out because of patient decision for reasons of belief or group pressure.”
  • Z28.2 means “immunization not carried out because of patient decision for other and unspecified reason.”
  • Z28.8 means “immunization not carried out for other reason” which because of code Z28.2 must refer to reasons not attributable to patient decisions.
  • Finally, Z28.39 means “other underimmunization status,” including “Delinquent immunization status” and “Lapsed immunization schedule status.”

However, a potential contradiction arises because code Z28.310 means “unvaccinated for COVID-19.”

In order to reconcile this, the Z28 codes in the previous paragraph must refer to vaccines other than for Covid-19. The only other Covid-19 code is Z28.311 which means “partially vaccinated for COVID-19,” where “partial” refers to the CDC definition for “fully vaccinated” at the time when the patient visits the health-care provider who records the vaccination status in the medical chart.

It is apparent that the details of reasons for patient choices for vaccine status are not specified in codes for Covid-19 vaccines, but the CDC has some two months to fix this. There are no specific codes yet for “refused to divulge COVID-19 vaccination status” or “unknown COVID-19 vaccination status,” but these codes are likely to be added at some point.

What is the usage for which this information is planned? There is certainly a public health rationale for agencies to be able to monitor population vaccination status. Personal health information is routinely analyzed by public health agencies, insurance companies and health researchers, but in anonymized and grouped formats. The identifiable information is recorded in the databases, however HIPAA and other laws strictly protect identifiable health information and regulate how such information may be used for analyses.

In theory, vaccination status could be no different. Medical records already know your age, gender and race, where you reside, about your obesity, diabetes, your smoking and alcohol usage and your HIV status. Some of this information could be stigmatizing if released publicly, but at present there are no politicized or other circumstances to force unwanted choices on members of the public based on this compiled personal information.

Imagine, however, that one day, government agents are pounding on your door at 6am, telling you that you are required to take smoking cessation medications, under penalty of forced residence in a “smoking-cessation hotel” until you submit to the government’s requirement.

The medications have built-in transmitters that are activated when exposed to stomach acid, so taking them is recorded. After all, 500,000 Americans die every year from smoking-related diseases and their end-of-life medical care is an expense for which the government no longer wants to pay. Your smoking is economically hurting the medical care that grandma needs. Or something.

But Covid-19 and its vaccination are different. The Covid vaccines and their boosters were created under emergency-use authorization (EUA) protocols and are not fully licensed. The Biologics License Application (BLA) versions, e.g., Comirnaty, are not generally available in the US. This licensing chicanery has not gone unnoticed by the American public and a substantial fraction of people find the vaccines controversial.

Many people have seen their multiple-vaccinated friends and relatives get Covid, some multiple times. Many have also seen friends and relatives harmed by the vaccines, and most people know of the incessant daily deaths of healthy athletes, deaths discussed as caused by “coincidence.” People have seen the vaccines touted as solutions to the pandemic, yet utterly fail across the population to suppress transmission of the infection.

And, people have been bombarded with daily narratives for two solid years that the vaccines are “safe and effective” and that they must be taken, and that unvaccinated people are “bad,” “selfish,” demonized as doing damage to society, and should be shunned.

That is, personal vaccination status today is the most stigmatizing personal data of modern times, surpassing having AIDS. As such, any government compilation must be “bulletproof” against hacking and misuse. As well, the government must be trusted to maintain the data for use only as other personal medical data have been used.

Given the two-plus years of massive government propaganda about the vaccines, about their adverse effects, about Covid, about early Covid treatment, and the government collusion with social media companies in suppression of valid dissenting medical and scientific opinions and data, there is no empirical reason to support trusting the government with such sensitive, stigmatizing data.

There is no reason to believe that the government will not release the status information to insurance companies or other companies doing large business with the American public. Further, there is no recourse should the government actually release such confidential data. Thus, nothing may stop such companies from restricting activities based on the stigmatized data. For example, public travel could be blocked; bank accounts could be blocked; purchasing could be blocked.

The free pursuit of happiness is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence. The government cannot lawfully interfere with normal transactions of everyday life. But private companies working at the government’s behest, with government-supplied personal status information, could very well do it.

As has been seen from the FOIA documents, hundreds of government employees have spent the pandemic years doing exactly this unconstitutional behavior in getting social media companies to suppress Americans’ freedom of speech.

Furthermore, there is now no rational government interest in compiling vaccination status at all. At a time when vaccination was generally thought (incorrectly) to reduce Covid-19 transmission across the population, there might have been a rationale for doing so.

However, on August 11, 2022, the CDC stated publicly that the Covid-19 vaccines do not work as a public health measure to control virus transmission. They said, “Receipt of a primary series alone, in the absence of being up to date with vaccination* through receipt of all recommended booster doses, provides minimal protection against infection and transmission (3,6).” “Being up to date with vaccination provides a transient period of increased protection against infection and transmission after the most recent dose, although protection can wane over time.”

The fact that such benefit is “transient” and wanes implies that after some short period, boosters fail to reduce risk of transmission and thus that vaccine mandates are invalid.

The only government interest in mandating Covid vaccines, and thus in compiling personal information about vaccination status, is that the vaccines reduce transmission. They don’t.

Secondly, the CDC’s August 11th policy guidance does not distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated people in any way for any policy. There is thus no compelling government purpose in defining people as vaccinated or unvaccinated. It would be like the government compiling personal information on hair color, except that hair color is not stigmatizing and vaccination status is extremely stigmatizing.

The government itself—through the CDC—has determined that vaccination status is not of policy importance. There can thus be no compelling interest for the government to forcibly collect this information against the wishes of the population, even were it not stigmatizing. So much more so after the government has spent the last two years publicly demonizing unvaccinated people for their rational and legitimate personal health choices.

Harvey Risch, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a physician and a Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. His main research interests are in cancer etiology, prevention and early diagnosis, and in epidemiologic methods.

January 27, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Israel advocates push ABA to adopt anti-Palestinian definition of antisemitism

The American Bar Association will vote on February 6 whether to promote a newly created definition of antisemitism that has been used “consistently (and nearly exclusively) not to fight antisemitism, but rather to defend Israel and harm Palestinians

This has been done “at the cost of undermining and dangerously chilling fundamental rights of free speech, freedom of assembly and protest, and academic freedom

“The ABA’s embrace of the definition would legitimize this infringement on core democratic rights as well as undermine the ABA’s own ability to engage on issues related to Palestinian rights…”

By Alison Weir | If Americans Knew | January 26, 2023

For 20 years, Israel and its partisans have worked to embed a newly fabricated, Israel-centric definition of antisemitism in governments and institutions around the world. The latest iteration is known as the IHRA definition.

Now there is an effort to push the American Bar Association to promote this definition to “federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments in the United States.”

At its upcoming national meeting (which begins on February 1), delegates will be voting on resolution 514 on Monday, February 6.

Numerous groups have written letters opposing the ABA’s use of this definition, pointing out that it would be used against Palestinian rights, would infringe on freedom of speech, and would interfere with academic freedom.

Israel has a long, thoroughly documented history of violating Palestinian human rights, of an apartheid-like system. and of violent attacks on Gaza and the West Bank. It was founded through a war of ethnic cleansing.

For more information see:

Resolution 514 is co-sponsored by:

Juan Thomas, Chair
Mark Schickman, Senior Advisor
Paula Shapiro, Director
ABA Section on Civil Rights and Social Justice

Hon. Benes Z. Aldana (Ret.), Chair
Skip Harsch, Director
Ann Breen-Greco
ABA Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Twanda Turner-Hawkins, Chair
Selina Thomas, Director
ABA Coalition on Racial and Ethnic Justice

Priya Purandare, Executive Director
Navdeep Singh, Interim Policy Director
Wendy Shiba, Past President, ABA Delegate
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association

James L. Schwartz, Chair
Richard M. Leslie, Chair-Elect
Jack Young, Delegate
Senior Lawyers Division

Marcos Rios, Chair
David Schwartz, Chair-Elect
Michelle Jacobson, Policy Officer
ABA International Law Section

This is what opponents of Palestinian rights enable:

Daily Life in Occupied Palestine from If Americans Knew on Vimeo.

January 27, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | 4 Comments

Who really killed RT France

The French establishment media took on the role of political commissars, making sure the outlet was not allowed to operate

By Matthieu Buge | RT | January 26, 2023

After a year of censorship, RT has now had to officially stop its activities in France. But would the French authorities have made this move without the influence of some prominent French journalists who put aside their ethics for the occasion?

From the very beginning, RT France had been a target of the French authorities and the mainstream media. In a notorious 2017 press conference, Emmanuel Macron, standing next to Vladimir Putin, said RT and Sputnik were “organs of influence and false propaganda.” At the time, RT France had already been working as an online media outlet for some years, and was merely criticized by other media for being financed by Moscow. But the accusations became more and more frequent and harsh as Macron took the lead of the country and RT France was about to launch its channel from studios in Boulogne-Billancourt, outside Paris. In 2018, the work of RT journalists during the Yellow Vest protests was the most exhaustive coverage by any media. This has been widely acknowledged, and the audience of the channel received a considerable boost. The Russian outsider annoyed the establishment media more and more when star television host Frédéric Taddeï started collaborating with RT and stated that it was the only channel that gave him carte blanche in an informational landscape where real debate had totally disappeared.

Although Taddeï is a very knowledgeable man, he forgot to underline that every outlet is in essence propaganda. The word comes from the Latin verb propagare (to spread) and was first used in the denomination of a Vatican department, the Propaganda Fide, dedicated to the propagation of the Catholic faith. Anything written or spoken for an audience is propaganda. Advertising is propaganda. Hollywood is the biggest propaganda machine in the world. Political rallies are propaganda. Even a good debate with friends at the bar is propaganda, as one tries to persuade others to agree with his views and understanding of the world. Taddeï’s show on RT France “Interdit d’interdire” (Forbidden to forbid) had this very open-minded spirit. Its name, though, was perhaps like a rabbit on a boat, a bearer of misfortune.

Four years later, on 27 February 2022, three days after the beginning of Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine, the non-elected president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, declared that RT and Sputnik were to be banned in the European Union. The attack on free speech was unprecedented. But in order to appease the worried journalist unions, the logic of this attack was such: RT France had its license revoked, but its reporters could keep working. RT France went on to appeal the ban to the European Court of Justice. On 27 July the court rejected the appeal, arguing that the ban did not infringe on free speech. Give an artist the right to paint, but not to exhibit his work. Give a baker the right to make bread, but not to sell it. They will then turn to the black market – in RT France’s case, the internet. Its team of remaining journalists kept working in difficult conditions and broadcasting on Odysee.

I personally know most of them and must say that their attitude, in such a context, has been remarkable. They are not tied to Russia. Some of them aren’t even interested in Russia – they simply wanted to tell the French public about French issues, an opportunity they weren’t given by other French-language media. They know that the world is complex and understand the origins of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. While their management struggled (and managed) to keep paying their salaries, they kept on working, in a state of utter uncertainty and job insecurity, knowing that it would be almost impossible to find new jobs as journalists in France. They are young French men and women who dedicated all these years to only one thing: giving French-speaking audiences another point of view. That was apparently too much for their colleagues in the mainstream media.

On 18 January 2023, “the General Directorate of the Treasury decided to freeze RT France’s bank accounts, making it impossible to continue our activity,” said the president of the channel, Xenia Fedorova. What’s interesting about this new development is that it wasn’t so much a push by the French authorities, who for a while have shown an indifference to the idea of free speech. The French authorities knew that RT France was still operating and did not care, believing it had lost its visibility anyway. The establishment media, however, were not going to just let it slide.

It was a sudden shootout. On 6 January, the major left-wing newspaper Libération published an article titled: “Forbidden RT France remains reachable and keeps on producing its Russian propaganda.” On the 14th, one of the country’s top newspapers, Le Monde, published an article on the issue: “The counterattack of pro-Russia media.” Both articles went on to show how RT was still operating, its journalists working, and their reports being broadcast and reachable through VPNs. Then came (for anyone who knows French affairs) the ultimate verdict. On the 16th, the influential journalist Patrick Cohen talked about this issue live on TV. He criticized people who gave interviews to RT France, including a French member of the European parliament who thinks the EU needs to engage in diplomacy and dialogue with Moscow. Commenting with sarcasm on these views, he added: “It is not surprising, but we are talking about a channel which is forbidden to operate.” As said previously, RT France was not forbidden to operate; it only lost its license. Moreover, Cohen was commenting on this issue in front of one of his guests, Nicolas Tenzer, one of the most prominent pro-US figures in France, who once declared that NATO never harassed anyone. Two days later, the Treasury made its move. Cohen is the journalist who in 2013 famously called some guests of Frédéric Taddeï’s talk show “sick-brains”. That was the beginning of the end for Taddeï in the mainstream media. Now, Cohen has again pronounced a ruling on who could and who could not talk. RT France had to share Taddeï’s fate.

Governments’ decisions and interests are one thing. The influence of journalists behaving like political commissars is another. Propaganda is one thing. Enforcing propaganda is another.

January 27, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

The Tragic Consequences of believing Anti-Science

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | January 17, 2023

I try not to write about anyone who has died because if it was my family member I would not want to read any speculations about their death. However, in this case I feel that justice has not been given a chance and therefore it needs highlighting.

The tragic story begins on 10 May 2020. Stephanie Warriner, who had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) attended Toronto hospital because she was struggling to breath.

For 11 days as Danielle Stephanie Warriner lay alone in a hospital bed, her family had no idea where she was, no idea she'd been restrained by guards and no idea she'd never regain consciousness.

This is where the first piece of anti-science takes place. A population whipped up into a frenzy about Covid is on high-alert. They have been convinced that touching a parcel which hasn’t been quarantined for at least 72 hours, is likely to be riddled with the new virus and will cause them to die. Therefore, anyone with a cough is a walking weapon.

Due to Stephanie’s cough she was assumed to be COVID positive – anti-science mistake no.1. She was therefore placed in the Covid ward. Later, after testing it was found that she was in fact negative.

After a night in hospital, Stephanie left the Covid ward to go and get some food. Sitting in the hospital lobby she committed the terrible anti-science crime of wearing her mask around her neck.

Anti-science mistake no.2. People have been told that useless masks will stop people transmitting a virus. There’s no need to go into the science of it but let’s put it this way, an asbestos removal man doesn’t wear a loose piece of cloth to stop him getting lung cancer.

This was in 2020, before vaccines, so people couldn’t release their pent up fear by getting aggressive with the vaccine hesitant. Instead this pressure-release valve was opened up on the maskless.

At 6.38 a.m. a nurse and a security guard approach Stephanie and are seen talking to her. Another security guard and another member of staff are close behind. Remember Stephanie has her mask on her chin so is extremely dangerous, four people are required.

In the video, it seems like the nurse is angrily telling Stephanie something, to which Stephanie stands up, gently pushes the nurse and tries to walk off. The nurse then bundles her against a wall and the security guard assists.

At this point, the CCTV operator turns the camera away from the scene. Moments later, at 6:41, the video captures a motionless Stephanie being wheeled away from the scene by the pair that bundled her into the wall. Her feet drag along the floor showing that she is clearly unconscious.

As CBC News reports, much of this information has been subject to a publication ban until now. The reason being that the case has now been quashed and the Crown won’t appeal.

That’s despite the available video footage, two security staff who testified the accused placed weight on her upper body while she was held chest down, a forensic pathologist who testified Warriner would still be alive had she not been restrained that day — and revelations one of the guards admitted he falsely claimed Warriner threw the first punch.

Toronto criminal lawyer, Frank Addario, said “to see a judge decide to quash a case in this way is rare”. ”It’s not common for a judge to screen out a case before it’s set for trial… The system is set up so after a preliminary inquiry, the cases are generally sent on to trial because the bar to get a case sent on to trial is very low.”

There was no CCTV footage of the incident because the guard in charge of the camera “panicked” and “got really anxious”, so panned away.

The nurse claimed she took Warriner to the wall “as a last resort, after extensive efforts to verbally de-escalate an aggressive patient”. However, the nurse’s supervisor testified that he felt her actions were wrong.

Two eye witnesses said that 125-pound Stephanie was held down by her upper body despite training and policies warning not to. Both guards claimed this was because Stephanie repeatedly assaulted the nurse but during an internal investigation this turned out to be false. The guard said Stephanie punched the nurse’s face and was kicking but after being confronted with footage he sobbed “I’m sorry. I would have never said the things I said in there if I knew there was a video”. Got to love genuine remorse.

A coroner’s report would conclude Warriner died from a brain injury resulting from a lack of oxygen “due to restraint asphyxia following struggle and exertion,” with her underlying lung disease a possible factor.

Disgusting behaviour.

Tragically, Stephanie lost her life because of anti-science. Anti-science, together with fear, made people believe that the world would end if a piece of cloth was not worn on one’s face correctly. It also gave the power-hungry an excuse to target people who were just minding their own business.

And it seems anti-science is playing its part in the justice system as well. Whilst we don’t know all of the facts that made the Judge quash the case, the CBC article hints at this not being normal. The Judge even noted that “there is evidence that death could have been the culmination of the factors he [the forensic pathologist] described”.

Anti-science killed a lot of people over the last few years and this is just one, tragic and specific example of that.

Fortunately, with enough data analysis and push back, the anti-science was shown for what it truly was. Otherwise, tragic stories, such as Stephanie’s, would still be happening today (maybe they still are but hopefully to a lesser extent).

January 26, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 2 Comments

Why Net Zero is nonsense: a briefing document for opponents

By Robin Guenier | TCW Defending Freedom | January 26, 2023

I’m increasingly alarmed at how all the UK’s major political parties are committed to the Net Zero policy. If implemented, it will have appalling consequences for the economy and for most people, few of whom understand the quite simple issues involved. I have therefore put together a ‘briefing document’ which marshals three arguments that I hope may contribute to curtailing the policy before it’s too late.

1. It’s unachievable. Many vehicles and machines (used for example in agriculture, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, mining and construction) and products (eg concrete, steel, plastics, fertiliser, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, paints, adhesives and asphalt) essential to our lives and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives, and there are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. The complex engineering, reliability and cost challenges of establishing a Net Zero grid and the vast scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of material and space are required because the ‘energy density’ of wind and sun is so low) make it most unlikely that the UK could generate sufficient renewable electricity for current needs, let alone for the mandated electric vehicles and heat pumps. In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough technical managers, engineers, electricians, plumbers, mechanics and other tradespeople (probably over a million) to do the many tasks that would be essential to achieve Net Zero.

2. It would be socially and economically disastrous because: (a) the UK’s all-renewable energy project doesn’t include a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun, so millions of people, especially the poor and vulnerable, would be put at serious personal risk (including death) from electricity blackouts; (b) our crippled economy would be tipped deeper into decline by enormous additional costs and energy unavailability, further blighting our poor industrial productivity; (c) China essentially controls the supply of materials (in particular so-called rare earths) needed for renewables, so the UK would increase its already dangerous dependence on it, putting our energy and overall security at serious risk, and (d) the vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables would have appalling environmental and human consequences affecting in particular fragile ecosystems and some of the world’s poorest people – not least as a result of Chinese  human rights abuses.

3. Above all, it’s pointless. Most major non-Western countries – the source of more than 75 per cent of CO2 emissions and home to 84 per cent of humanity – don’t regard emissions reduction as a priority and, either exempt from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing and will continue to increase for the foreseeable future whatever the UK (the source of less than 1 per cent of global emissions) may or may not do. It therefore makes absolutely no sense for Britain to pursue this unachievable and disastrous policy.

January 26, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Judge calls California’s medical misinformation law “nonsense,” blocks it

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 25, 2023

A federal judge questioned the new  law that penalizes doctors for sharing COVID-19 “misinformation.”

The new law, which came into effect on January 1 this year, prohibits doctors from spreading what the state deems to be misinformation to patients, or risk being penalized for “unprofessional conduct,” which could result in their licenses being revoked.

Here’s a summary of the case so far if you’re not up to date.

The law has been challenged through separate lawsuits filed by two organizations and a group of doctors on the grounds of  violations. They filed a motion at the US District Court of Sacramento to hold the law until the cases are concluded.

In a hearing, Senior Judge William Shubb described the law’s definition of misinformation as “nonsense.”

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

“Because AB 2098 [the misinformation law] implicates [plaintiff’s] First Amendment right to receive information, she has standing,” the court wrote.

“Vague statutes are particularly objectionable when they involve sensitive areas of First Amendment freedoms because they operate to inhibit the exercise of those freedoms,” the court added, referring to a 2001 case, California Teachers Association v. State Board of Education.

“When the challenged law implicates First Amendment rights, a facial challenge based on vagueness is appropriate.”

The court granted the plaintiffs a hearing to challenge the law and blocked the enforcement of the law until the case is decided.

The law defines misinformation as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

Shubb noted that “standard of care” is not a new principle, but argued, “contemporary scientific consensus” is.

According to Deputy Attorney General Kristin Liska, who is representing Gov. Gavin Newsom, a medical professional has to violate all three aspects of the definition of misinformation for punishment to be applicable; share misinformation, contradict scientific consensus, and go against the standard of care.

However, she refused to give examples of statements that would fit the definition, saying that it would depend on the circumstances. Shubb then asked how she expects medical professionals to know what would violate the law.

January 26, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 2 Comments