Medical Tyranny

[TomKat]

A New Zealand doctor, Samantha Bailey, exposes virology fraud and germ theory. Alsoi mentioned is that polio virus found inn a New York City sewer resulted in a declaration of emergency.

54zNRu6DBhjP

[onawah]

ALERT! Total Collapse Of The Medical System Now Underway—A Mass Exodus Begins!
Lisa Haven
496K subscribers
3K
32,749 views
Nov 19, 2022

(Not much mention is made of the Plandemic and the depopulation agenda and how much all that is responsible for the crisis in the medical system, but no doubt this video would have been censored if it had been.
Presumably much more real whistleblower info is shared in the paid membership platform, but this intro at least brings some attention to how serious the problem has become. )

uiVNdEGQVNE

[onawah]

FDA Declares Homeopathy Illegal
By ANH-USA
On 12/08/2022
Take action: https://anh-usa.org/fda-declares-homeopathy-illegal/

"The homeopathic drugs you rely on have been declared illegal by the FDA, meaning the agency can wipe them off the market whenever they wish. We must fight back. Action Alert!

This is the beginning of the end for homeopathy unless we do something about it. The FDA has completed their overhaul of homeopathy regulation, and it is as we feared: in the FDA’s view, all homeopathic products are illegal. This interpretation gives the agency the power to remove any homeopathic medicine it wants to, whenever it wants to. We must convey consumer outrage to Congress and the FDA if we want to save homeopathy.

Homeopathic drugs will not all disappear overnight. The FDA will probably adopt a similar playbook as the one they’re using to eliminate compounded medications, employing a strategy of “death by a thousand cuts.” Slowly but surely the agency will target and eliminate homeopathic medicines one by one until it is impossible for companies to stay in business. Clearing the market in one fell swoop would create headlines; picking off medicines one by one over time allows the agency to accomplish the same goal without drawing as much attention or generating as much outrage.

Why is the FDA doing this? The agency, in attacking homeopathy, is working, once again, to protect the bottom line of drug-makers. One of the most popular uses for homeopathic medicines is for allergies. But consider that the market for Zyrtec, one of the most popular antihistamine drugs, was valued at $1.675 billion in 2021; the market for antihistamine nasal sprays is just under $2 billion. The same applies to other conditions. There’s good evidence, for example, to suggest homeopathy is effective for rheumatoid arthritis and pain management. The market for rheumatoid arthritis drugs and pain management drugs is $60 billion and $73 billion, respectively. Homeopathy cuts into these massive profits. Big Pharma and the FDA, which gets its funding from Big Pharma, want to eliminate this competition.

The FDA says it will focus on a few product categories for enforcement: those with safety concerns, products with routes of administration other than oral or topical, products to treat “serious or life-threatening conditions,” products for vulnerable populations, and products with “significant” quality issues.

We noted previously that the agency went after injectable homeopathic medicines. This means that homeopathic mistletoe for injection is on the chopping block, a safe cancer therapy that has been used for years. Studies show that mistletoe can improve symptoms and quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and radiotherapy side effects, including in pancreatic, lung, colorectal, and breast cancers.

OTC homeopathic medicines for cold and flu, teething, allergies, and other less serious conditions that can resolve spontaneously with or without treatment are likely safe for the time being. But the FDA also notes unequivocally that, although they outline a risk-based approach, no homeopathic medicines are safe. The agency states: “However, this guidance is intended to provide notice that any homeopathic drug product that is being marketed illegally is subject to FDA enforcement action at any time [emphasis added].”

Earlier this month, we reported that the FDA was preparing to release the final version of their terrible guidance document setting forth the agency’s approach to regulating homeopathic drugs. Substantively, the final version is unchanged from the draft. The guidance declares that all homeopathic drugs are illegal because:

Any homeopathic drug that has not been considered “generally recognized as safe and effective” (GRAS/E) is considered a new drug;
FDA has not determined that any homeopathic drugs are GRAS/E;
A new drug cannot be marketed unless it goes through the FDA’s approval process;
No homeopathic drugs have gone through FDA approval.
The FDA is, and has been, out of control. It approves dangerous, expensive drugs that don’t work, and works to eliminate your access to natural alternatives to those dangerous, ineffective, and expensive drugs. The FDA doesn’t even want you learning about the benefits of natural products, lest you are persuaded to opt for medicines that are not FDA-approved drugs.

Homeopathy is used by almost 7 million Americans, who the FDA apparently thinks are not equipped to make their own healthcare choices. We need to register consumer outrage by flooding the public docket with comments demanding that access to homeopathic products—which are overwhelmingly safe—be retained.

Action Alert! Post a comment to the public docket urging continued access to homeopathic products and send a similar message to Congress. Please send your message immediately."
Here: https://anh-usa.org/fda-declares-homeopathy-illegal/

[Anu Raman]

They can't profit off of you if you are not sick.

They will go after anything which impedes ANY vaccination clause. Of course, this will not get mentioned.

They want you using their drugs, but can't have you taking homeopathic "drugs".

I am not surprised at all, if they start inserting hidden ingredients in their "approved drugs"; they probably already do.

I despise the FDA and the CDC.

[onawah]

COVID Amnesty Could Lead America to Medical Tyranny: Dr. Aaron Kheriaty [Part 1]
Crossroads Joshua Philipp
December 8, 2022 CROSSROADSViews 24.8K
https://www.theepochtimes.com/covid-amnesty-could-lead-america-to-medical-tyranny-dr-aaron-kheriaty-part-1_4909855.html

9USFiKnzS9aM

"The Atlantic recently released an article titled “Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty” that called for forgiveness from the public for any perceived missteps in the public health establishment’s handling of the COVID pandemic. In this episode, we speak with Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, former director of the medical ethics program at the University of California–Irvine and author of the book “The New Abnormal.” Kheriaty believes that reconciliation is obtainable, but only under certain circumstances. He also makes some alarming ties between the Third Reich’s use of emergency executive powers and those currently being used in the United States by both political parties. He explains how if we’re not careful, we can easily go down a path that leads to an unrecognizable United States, something that COVID has given us a sneak peek into with several examples of tyrannical governmental overreach."

December 15, 2022 CROSSROADSViews 17.6K

America Risks Falling Under the Control of a Biomedical Security State: Dr. Aaron Kheriaty [Part 2]
Crossroads Joshua Philipp
December 15, 2022 CROSSROADSViews 17.6K

https://rumble.com/v20tk2e-america-risks-falling-under-the-control-of-a-biomedical-security-state-dr.-.html

"We continue our discussion with Dr. Aaron Kheriaty about the calls for a COVID-19 amnesty, and where the world risks heading if people are not held accountable for bad policies. Kheriaty is the former director of the medical ethics program at University of California–Irvine and author of the book “The New Abnormal.” We speak about the history of similar medical policies, including the use of eugenics and their ties to current globalist ideologies, and the threats of mandatory vaccinations, and we look at where technocratic agendas using COVID-19 risk taking the world."
v1y7f5a

[onawah]

New Laws Allow Pharma to Make All Decisions for Patients
by Dr. Joseph Mercola=
February 04, 2023

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/02/04/new-laws-allow-pharma-make-decisions-patients.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230204_HL2&cid=DM1339999&bid=1712223189

5bxyDwfNKSM

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The 2023 omnibus appropriations bill includes 19 lines that could give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the power to ban off-label use of approved medications
If the little-noticed provision is passed, doctors’ ability to freely treat patients, and patients’ ability to use all available treatments after making an informed decision, will be lost
The amendment puts the FDA, and by proxy Big Pharma, at the helm of powerful health care decisions that should be made on an individual, personalized level between a patient and their health care provider
In California, law AB 2098, which went into effect January 1, 2023, gives the state power to take away doctors’ medical licenses if they spread “misinformation” that goes against the standard COVID-19 rhetoric
The trend to allow a Pharma-controlled government to silence your doctor and dictate basic components of your medical care is not confined to the U.S. — it’s happening globally

In the U.S., 1 in 5 prescriptions is written for an off-label use.1 While sometimes this allows medications to be overused or misused, it also protects doctors' ability to freely treat patients, and patients' ability to use all available treatments after making an informed decision.

That 20% of medications are used off-label also indicates "a degree of freedom physicians currently have that will be foreclosed," notes English comedian and actor Russell Brand,2 if a little-noticed provision in the omnibus spending bill is passed. "Literally, this will mean that your doctor will not be able to do what's best for you because they'll work for Big Pharma now," Brand says.3

19 Lines in 4,155-Page Bill Could Change Practice of Medicine
The 2023 omnibus appropriations bill — a 4,155-page tome involving $1.7 trillion in spending — includes 19 lines that could give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the power to ban off-label use of approved medications. In a commentary for The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Joel Zinberg wrote:4

"Physicians routinely prescribe drugs and employ medical devices that are approved and labeled by the Food and Drug Administration for a particular use. Yet sometimes physicians discern other beneficial uses for these technologies, which they prescribe for their patients without specific official sanction.

The new legislation amends the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, to give the FDA the authority to ban some of these off-label uses of otherwise approved products. This unwarranted intrusion into the physician-patient relationship threatens to undermine medical innovation and patient care."

FDA Wants Power to Regulate Practice of Medicine
"The new provision was enacted at the FDA's urging," Zinberg says,5 in response to a 2021 legal ruling that limited the FDA's power to meddle with the practice of medicine. In March 2020, the FDA banned the use of electric shock devices for particular uses, namely to treat patients engaging in self-harm or aggressive behaviors that could harm others.

The devices are FDA approved, and while the FDA banned their use for certain contexts, it still allowed them to be used for smoking addiction and other purposes.6 This led to a lawsuit — Judge Rotenberg Education Center v. FDA — in which the Judge Rotenberg Education Center, a school for people with severe behavioral and intellectual conditions, sued the FDA over the ban.

The court ruled in the school's favor, stating that the FDA's ban violated federal law because it interfered with health care practitioners' authority to practice medicine. As it stands, the FDA does not have the power to ban medical devices for a particular use.

The school's attorney, Mike Flammia, who also represented students' parents in favor of the device's use, told CNN the decision "protects what all of us cherish, and that is the ability to go to our doctor and have our doctor decide what is the best treatment."7

As it stands, Section 360f of the FDCA8 only gives the FDA authority to ban a medical device if it poses "an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury." It can ban the device outright, but it can't pick and choose when it can and can't be used.

"Barring a practitioner from prescribing or using an otherwise approved device for a specific off-label indication would violate another FDCA section, which bars the FDA from regulating the 'practice of medicine,'" Zinberg says.9 The FDA is trying to change that.

Pharma — Not Your Doctor — Would Dictate Medical Decisions
The omnibus amendment would change Section 360f so that the FDA could ban a medical device if it poses an unreasonable risk for "one or more intended uses" while leaving it approved for others. "Since the new provision lets the FDA skirt the ban on interfering with the practice of medicine by banning devices for particular uses, the agency will likely claim this as a precedent allowing it to ban off-label uses of drugs as well," according to Zinberg.10

This puts the FDA, and by proxy Big Pharma, at the helm of powerful health care decisions that should be made on an individual, personalized level between a patient and their health care provider.

Remember that in 1992, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was created, which allows the FDA to collect fees from the drug industry. "With the act, the FDA moved from a fully taxpayer funded entity to one supplemented by industry money," a BMJ article written by investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi explains.11

Now, significant portions of regulatory agencies' budgets come from the pharmaceutical industry that these agencies are supposed to regulate. In 1993, after PDUFA was passed, the FDA collected about $29 million in net PDUFA fees. This increased 30-fold — to $884 million — by 2016.12

It's also revealing that at the FDA, 9 out of 10 of its former commissioners between 2006 and 2019 went on to work for pharmaceutical companies.13 As Brand noted:14

"What they're looking for is a crafty, sly, insidious way to be able to intercede in your relationship with your physician. And as usual, it's for your 'safety' and for your 'benefit' … Why would you want Big Pharma and a regulatory body that they fund interfering in your relationship with your doctor about your health?

Have they not found enough ways to extract revenue from you, to put your health second, to put your well-being way, way behind their profits and their list of priorities? Why is the bias moving even further in that direction? … This is not about medicine. This is about licensing. This is about profits, patents, the ability to extract revenue."

Patients Suffer When Pharma's in Control
During the pandemic, it became clear how patients suffer when health agencies are allowed to dictate what medications doctors are allowed to prescribe to their patients. Ivermectin — a generic medication that doctors had success treating COVID-19 with early on — was quickly vilified, as were the doctors who attempted to prescribe it for COVID-19 patients.

In his book, "The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the COVID Pandemic," Dr. Pierre Kory details Big Pharma's suppression of this drug when it was found to work against COVID-19. When he and colleagues first spoke out about the drug's potential, however, he was naïve. He said during our 2022 interview:15

"I worked a lot and I got deeply expert on ivermectin. But what happened in the next few months is that everything started going sideways, and I could not figure it out. I saw hit pieces … The thing is, I didn't know. I didn't know that what I was really doing — bringing forth data supporting the efficacy of a generic drug — that is poking the bear.

And when I say poking the bear, what is anathema to the pharmaceutical industry and their whole business model is they cannot have generic off-patent drugs become standard of care. It obliterates the market for their pricing new pills.

I didn't know I was stepping into a war. In the history of pharma, I don't think any single medicine threatened as many [drug] markets and campaigns. The only other medicine that did that was hydroxychloroquine, but they already killed hydroxychloroquine in 2020.

I was coming out now with ivermectin, and it threatened hundreds of billions of dollars in perpetuity for these insanely lethal vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir — all of the markets for their novel new pills to enter. I mean, I don't think any medicine has ever threatened that much of a market."

'A Problem for Many Reasons'
If the FDA is allowed to ban medications for certain uses, we'll see more of what happened with ivermectin. It's a "problem for many reasons," Zinberg explains:16

"The statute gives the FDA the power, without any public input, to prevent patients' access to off-label therapies even though their physicians and their patients have found the treatments to be beneficial or even essential.

… Allowing the FDA to ban certain off-label uses will impair clinical progress. Off-label use enables physicians to assess their patients' unique circumstances and use their own evolving scientific knowledge in deciding to try approved products for new indications.

If the treatment proves useful, formal studies are performed and published. If enough evidence accumulates, the treatment becomes the standard of care, even if the manufacturer didn't submit the product for a separate, lengthy and costly FDA review.

… Substituting regulators' wisdom for the cost-benefit judgment of physicians and their patients will discourage attempts to use approved products in new and beneficial ways and deprive patients of valuable treatments. Congress should reconsider this ill-advised legislation."

California Law Also Shackles Doctors' Freedoms
In California, regulators are also interfering with the practice of medicine. Law AB 2098, which was signed into law September 30, 202217 and went into effect January 1, 2023,18 gives the state power to take away doctors' medical licenses if they spread "misinformation" that goes against the standard COVID-19 rhetoric.

Specifically, those who "disseminate or promote misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines" could be "disciplined," which includes loss of their medical license.19

It's akin to putting shackles on their wrists, forcing them to conform to a narrative intent on pushing dangerous gene therapies and ineffective medications. It's also a potential warning of darker things to come.

What constitutes "misinformation" or "disinformation" worthy of taking away a person's medical license? It's anyone's guess, really, but doctors afraid of being punished are likely to steer clear of anything that could possibly fit under this definition — to the detriment of their patients.

Bill 2098 itself is packed with misinformation and ignores the scientific truths about COVID-19,20 such as the fact that prior infection with COVID-19 results in natural immunity — immunity that's superior to that achieved via a COVID-19 shot.21

The bill, if it passes, will stop doctors from practicing medicine the way they deem best for the individual patient. It will also stop dissent — even when dissent is necessary and beneficial, and coming from people with expertise. And that's precisely the point.22 In December 2022, Physicians for Informed Consent sued the state of California, arguing that AB 2098 violates the U.S. Constitution.

According to a news release, "The lawsuit argues that the State has weaponized the vague phrase 'misinformation,' thereby unconstitutionally targeting physicians who publicly disagree with the government's public health edicts on COVID-19."23

This Shift Isn't Just for the US
It's important to note that the trend to let a Pharma-controlled government silence your doctor and dictate basic components of your medical care is not confined to the U.S. — it's happening globally.

Proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), for instance, aim to erase the concepts of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms from the equation.24 The first principle in Article 3 of the 2005 IHR states that health regulations shall be implemented "with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons." The amendment strikes that sentence.

Instead, international health regulations will be based on "principles of equity, inclusivity and coherence" only. This means they can force you to undergo whatever medical intervention they deem to be in the best interest of the collective.

Individuals won't matter. Human dignity will not be taken into consideration. Human rights will not be taken into consideration, and neither will the concept that human beings have fundamental freedoms that cannot be infringed. Autonomy over your body will be eliminated. You'll have no right to make personal health decisions.

While it may start slowly, such as with Pharma's quiet move to ban off-label usage of medications for certain uses, it will soon expand, chipping away at your sovereignty until it's gone. This is why it's imperative to share this knowledge and support measures that protect our human rights and individual freedoms."

Sources and References
1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 16 The Wall Street Journal Jauary 12, 2023
2 YouTube, Russell Brand January 23, 2023, 5:30
3 YouTube, Russell Brand January 23, 2023, 2:08
6, 7 CNN July 16, 2021
8 GovInfo 21 U.S.C. 360f - Banned devices
11, 12 BMJ 2022;377:o1538
13 YouTube, John Campbell, WHO, YouTube and funding November 7, 2022, 9:15
14 YouTube, Russell Brand January 23, 2023, 3:45-5:40
15 Bitchute, Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Pierre Kory, The War on Ivermectin October 5, 2022
17 FastDemocracy AP 2098
18 Spectrum News November 26, 2022
19, 20, 22 Common Sense April 12, 2022
21 N Engl J Med 2022; 387:21-34 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2203965
23 GlobeNewswire December 7, 2022
24 James Roguski Substack December 16, 2022

[onawah]

The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
February 05, 2023
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/02/05/biomedical-security-state.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230205_HL2&cid=DM1340544&bid=1712987247

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
In his book, “The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State,” Dr. Aaron Kheriaty details how the COVID pandemic paved the way for the implementation of a totalitarian one world government, where human rights and freedoms will no longer exist
September 30, 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 2098, which was set to take effect January 1, 2023.
It prohibits doctors from providing COVID-19 treatment or advice that includes false information, and/or contradicts “contemporary scientific consensus,” and/or is “contrary to the standard of care.”
A doctor found to violate this law is guilty of “unprofessional conduct” and can face disciplinary action, including having his or her medical license revoked
Together with four other California-based doctors — Tracy Hoeg, Ram Duriseti, Pete Mazolewski and Azadeh Khatibi — Kheriaty filed a lawsuit against Newsom and other officials, including the president and members of the Medical Board of California, to block this law
Another lawsuit, filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Dr. LeTrinh Hoang and Physicians for Informed Consent, is also seeking to get AB 2098 tossed out.
December 7, 2022, attorneys for the CHD filed a motion for preliminary injunction while its legal challenge makes its way through the courts.
January 26, 2023, Senior U.S. District Judge William Shubb granted the CHD’s preliminary injunction
Kheriaty is also a plaintiff in the Missouri v. Biden case, filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, in which they argue that the Biden administration is colluding with Big Tech to illegally censor Americans.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., — two authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, an early critique of lockdowns and school closures — have also joined the case

In the video above, I interview Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, author of "The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State." Kheriaty is a medical doctor and psychiatrist and worked as a professor in the School of Medicine at the University of California Irvine for 15 years before getting fired for his objections to mandatory COVID shots.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Abnormal-Biomedical-Security-State/dp/1684513855

He also directs the Bioethics and American Democracy Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and is a senior scholar and fellow of the Brownstone Institute.

"As ethics program director and ethics community chair, I was involved in basically all of the pandemic policy drafting, right up until the vaccine mandate," Kheriaty says.

"Our committee at the Office of the President had done the ventilator triage policy, the vaccine allocation policy. But when it came to the vaccine mandate, it came down from on high and there was no discussion debate. Our committee was not involved in drafting the policy.

I was very concerned about the lack of open discussion and debate. Because of all the sensitive policies that we had developed during the pandemic, this one I thought was going to be the most ethically controversial, problematic and the most publicly fraught.

So, I was puzzled by the fact that we didn't really have a conversation about it. I published a piece in The Wall Street Journal last year, arguing that vaccine mandates are unethical based on the principle of informed consent, which I teach to all the medical students every year.

This is the principle that an adult of sound mind has the right to decide: what medications or interventions to accept or decline, and they have the right to make this decision on behalf of their children who are not yet old enough to give consent.

I was very concerned that vaccine mandates were just tossing this principle overboard under the guise of, 'We're in emergency and so the regular rules don't apply.' I think it's precisely in wartime and crises that it's all the more important to stand fast and hold onto our ethical principles, because those are the times where we're most tempted to abandon them. And when you do that, you can often invite disaster."

Doctors Were Bullied Into Not Writing Medical Exemptions
Despite a number of efforts, the university refused to engage in a debate, and instead put the mandatory COVID jab policy in place. As students started to be steamrolled, many reached out to him for help. They'd day things like, "I'm not a religious person, and so, in good conscience, I don't want to submit a dishonest religious exemption, but I have other moral or ethical concerns about this vaccine."

Others were unable to get an appropriate medical exemption. The reason they couldn't get one was because the California Medical Board sent a letter threatening to revoke the medical license of any physician who wrote "inappropriate exemptions." They, of course, never defined what was appropriate or inappropriate, but it had the intended effect. Doctors were incredibly hesitant to write medical exemptions at all, for fear of the repercussions.

"I remember one patient of mine, a young man who went to his rheumatologist and this doctor told him, 'Given your autoimmune condition, given what I've seen of the vaccine data so far, I recommend that you don't get the vaccine because I think you're young and otherwise healthy. You're not at high risk of COVID, but the vaccine could exacerbate your autoimmune condition.'

The patient then turned to him and said, 'OK, can you write me a medical exemption because there's a mandate at my place of employment?' The same doctor that just recommended against the vaccine said, 'No, I'm sorry, I can't do that because I might lose my medical license.' So this was the, in my view, intolerable situation that we found ourselves in 2021.

I just couldn't imagine trying to teach the principle of informed consent, which I do in the second lecture, or talking with them about integrity and moral courage, standing up and doing the right thing even though you're at the bottom of the hospital hierarchy as a medical student.

I couldn't imagine having those conversations if I had seen something being rolled out that I knew was wrong, that I knew was harming people. I could see my colleagues, nurses and other very good professionals in the hospital getting fired, having their jobs threatened by this [mandate]. If I hadn't stood up and done something, I just don't think I would have woken up with a clear conscience."

Kheriaty Fired After Legal Challenge
Kheriaty ended up filing a lawsuit in federal court, challenging the vaccine mandate. He argued on behalf of people with natural immunity because, strategically, he thought that was an argument that stood on solid ground legally. The university responded by first placing him on investigatory leave, followed by unpaid suspension. Two months after the lawsuit was filed, they fired him. Kheriaty ended up opening a private practice, and so far has fared well.

"I have been able to provide for my family and get, almost, back to the point where I was before in terms of earnings. But it's much more hand to mouth now. I don't know how things are going to look year to year. I'm not a salaried employee anymore, but I've been able to cobble together various sources of support, including the book I wrote …

I've been able to replicate my clinical work. I'm able to see my patients in my private practice. I'm able to do my research, writing and speaking. The Ethics and Public Policy Center in D.C., the Brownstone Institute and the Zephyr Institute have offered me a bit of support to keep that work going.

The one thing I haven't really been able to replicate, at least not in the same way, is the teaching and supervision of medical students and residents, which I really enjoyed … That was hard to walk away from, but when I mention that, other people have told me, 'Yes, but you're teaching now, you're just teaching on a different and maybe even on a bigger scale,' because my case got quite a bit of attention.

My social media profile expanded and I've been given lots of opportunities this year to speak on podcasts to larger audiences, to speak at conferences, and I've met some extraordinary people in the medical freedom movement. So I have new colleagues and new friends that are really remarkable and amazing people that I feel a strong connection and solidarity with, because we're all trying to pull the cart in the same direction.

We're all concerned about what's happened to science and medicine during the pandemic — or I should say what's happened over the last several decades that really fully manifested during the pandemic.

So, it's been exciting to be a part of that, to be able to testify at the U.S. Senate, at the California Senate, to get involved in some other legal cases that have to do with physicians' free speech rights and preserving the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, so that outside governmental intrusions don't undermine it.

The work I've done this year has been really tremendously rewarding, and I'm grateful for that, so I have no regrets. And even without all those things, there's nothing better than waking up with a clear conscience, knowing that I tried to do the right thing and that I didn't compromise my convictions out of convenience."

Preserving the Freedom of Speech for Physicians
One of the legal cases Kheriaty has gotten involved with is trying to block a new California law from taking effect. September 30, 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 2098, which was set to take effect January 1, 2023.

AB 2098 prohibits doctors from providing COVID-19 treatment or advice to a patient when that treatment or advice includes false information, and/or contradicts "contemporary scientific consensus," and/or is "contrary to the standard of care."

A doctor found to violate this law is guilty of "unprofessional conduct" and can face disciplinary action, including having his or her medical license revoked. As noted by Kheriaty:

"This, to my mind, obviously undermines the core element that has to be the centerpiece of medicine, which the trust that the patient has in their physician …

I don't know of anyone who would want to ask their physician a question … and not have their physician give them an honest answer based on his or her actual medical judgment and reading of the scientific literature. A physician with a gag order is not a physician that you can trust."

So, together with four other California-based doctors — Tracy Hoeg, Ram Duriseti, Pete Mazolewski and Azadeh Khatibi — Kheriaty filed a lawsuit against Newsom and other officials, including the president and members of the Medical Board of California, to block this law.1

"I think everyone wants their physician to be able to say what they think … and not just be reading from a script that the government gave them," Kheriaty says.

"So, this lawsuit challenges this unjust law in federal court, again on the basis of a constitutional claim that this, No. 1, infringes on the rights of free speech of the physician and, No. 2, is also a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Rights of Physicians …

We have a constitutional right that's been established by the court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment to have laws that are sufficiently clear that a person can know whether or not they're in violation of the law, so that you don't have this looming thing in the background that you're always wondering, 'Am I OK or am I not OK?' So, I'm cautiously optimistic that we will prevail in court."

Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction
Another lawsuit, filed by Children's Health Defense (CHD), Dr. LeTrinh Hoang and Physicians for Informed Consent, is also seeking to get the law tossed out. December 7, 2022, attorneys for the CHD filed a motion for preliminary injunction while its legal challenge makes its way through the courts.2

January 26, 2023, Senior U.S. District Judge William Shubb granted the CHD's preliminary injunction.3,4 According to Shubb, the defendants had failed to provide evidence that "scientific consensus" has any "established technical meaning," and that the law provides "no clarity" on the meaning of the word "misinformation." As noted by Shubb:5

"Who determines whether a consensus exists to begin with? If a consensus does exist, among whom must the consensus exist (for example practicing physicians, or professional organizations, or medical researchers, or public health officials, or perhaps a combination)?

In which geographic area must the consensus exist (California, or the United States, or the world)? What level of agreement constitutes a consensus (perhaps a plurality, or a majority, or a supermajority)? How recently in time must the consensus have been established to be considered 'contemporary'?

And what source or sources should physicians consult to determine what the consensus is at any given time (perhaps peer-reviewed scientific articles, or clinical guidelines from professional organizations, or public health recommendations)?

The statute provides no means of understanding to what 'scientific consensus' refers … Because the term 'scientific consensus' is so ill-defined, physician plaintiffs are unable to determine if their intended conduct contradicts the scientific consensus, and accordingly 'what is prohibited by the law' …

Vague statutes are particularly objectionable when they 'involve sensitive areas of First Amendment freedoms' because 'they operate to inhibit the exercise of those freedoms.'"

As reported by the CHD:6

"Judge Shubb's ruling prevents enforcement of AB 2098 pending resolution of the lawsuit. According to lead counsel Rick Jaffe, 'Judge Shubb looked at the law and correctly determined that the COVID misinformation was unconstitutionally vague, in large part because the plaintiffs in both cases showed there is no 'current scientific consensus,' given the fast-changing pace of the pandemic.'

'The case will now proceed on two tracks,' Jaffe said, adding: 'The parties will continue to litigate the case before Judge Shubb and we will be filing a motion for summary judgment in the not-too-distant future.

But because we won, and because a judge in the Central District of California denied a similar challenge to AB 2098, the attorney general will certainly appeal and argue that the central district judge was right. So, there is much more to come.'"

Kheriaty Is Also Suing the White House
Kheriaty is also a plaintiff in the Missouri v. Biden case, filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, in which they argue that the Biden administration is colluding with Big Tech to illegally censor Americans. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., — two authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, an early critique of lockdowns and school closures — have also joined the case.

"There's been a lot of attention in recent weeks on the Twitter files, where we're looking under the hood at that social media company and seeing, for example, a relationship with the FBI, where the FBI is basically telling Twitter what to do and what to censor and which accounts to shut down," Kheriaty says.

"Arguably, the social media companies can do this as private entities … but inarguably, no one doubts that the federal government cannot censor Americans. That's a clear free speech First Amendment violation. And the federal government cannot … pressure other entities into doing its bidding as a long arm of its censorship regime.

We're hoping, first of all, to uncover exactly what's going on with this collusion, and the materials that we have so far in discovery in this case have clearly shown that not only is this happening, but it's happening on a vaster scale than we suspected when we first filed the lawsuit. At least 17 different federal agencies have been involved in this censorship regime.

So I think that case is going to receive increasing attention in the new year as it proceeds and as more and more information comes out from other investigative reporters on what's been going on …"

During his deposition for this case, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, had what Kheriaty calls "wildly implausible memory lapses." He said "I don't know" 174 times. "If he were to be honest … he's probably worried that it would implicate him in ways that are problematic," Kheriaty says.

Propaganda in the COVID Era
I've previously interviewed psychologist Mattias Desmet about the role of mass formation in the government's ability to infringe on our human rights and freedoms. Kheriaty agrees that the mass formation mechanism has been part of the problem, but it's not the only one.

"I don't think mass formation is the only mechanism at work in terms of accounting for our COVID response. In addition to that theory, which I mentioned in my book, I take a look at the more deliberate employment and deployment of fear through propaganda.

And, through other subtle and not so subtle mechanisms of coercion that were operating during the pandemic — [I look at] financial incentives and power dynamics that also help to account for what happened to us and why so many people went along with it.

The control of the flow of information has been extremely important during the pandemic. I think without the government's partnering with private entities in these vast censorship enterprises, we would not have adopted policies like lockdowns and school closures. We would've had much more pushback against policies like vaccine mandates than we saw.

When you lock people down at home and so they're isolated behind screens, forced to interact with one another only through this medium, they can't have quiet face-to-face conversations at the watercooler, then you control the flow of information that they're getting through the control of social media, the control of mainstream media.

And then [when] you deploy very sophisticated high-level propaganda techniques — wartime propaganda techniques — and you deliberately deploy fear as a mechanism of control, then you create conditions where people go along with manifestly unjust policies, and not only are not troubled by that, but actually believe that they're doing good.

These things are framed as duties of a good citizen. And people who challenge these policies are immediately branded with, 'You only care about money. You don't care about not killing grandma,' this sort of thing.

This desire to be a good person, this desire to be seen as among the virtuous because I've done what I'm told to do and I've done what it looks like everyone else is wanting to do or being told to do, this is a very powerful tonic that has proven to be very effective over the last three years."

Why We Must Understand the Big Picture
October 23, 2022, Gates, Johns Hopkins and the World Health Organization cohosted yet another tabletop exercise dubbed "Catastrophic Contagion," involving a novel pathogen called "severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025" (SEERS-25), which primarily affects children and teens.

When asked if he believes COVID-19 was a kind of fine-tuning of a process the globalist cabal intends to deploy in the future during another pandemic, he replies:

"Monkeypox never took hold as the next crisis but, yes, I think we've adopted a new model of governance and this is what I argue in "The New Abnormal" — that even though a lot of these individual policies have been rolled back, some of the problematic policies that we've mentioned, the whole infrastructure for lockdowns, for digital surveillance through vaccine passport-type technology and through digital track and trace technology, this infrastructure has been put in place.

It's still in place and it's just waiting for the next declared public health crisis. This new model of governance involves unprecedented level of control over people's lives, their movements, their speech, their freedom of association, and it requires that we jump from one declared crisis to the next to keep this state of emergency going, so that certain people can maintain power … and continue to advance their aims.

In Chapter 3 of the book, I talk about what some of the next steps are in the rollout of what I call a biosecurity or biomedical security paradigm — things like digital IDs tied to biometric data like your iris scan, your face ID, your fingerprint; eventually, data from wearables or implantable devices on your vital signs and your moment-to-moment health status or emotional status.

Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will be the financial arm of that monitoring, surveilling and controlling apparatus, so there's going to be another declared public health crisis. You see an attempt to reframe other issues from racism to climate change as public health issues.

People in positions of power have floated serious proposals to do rolling lockdowns to deal with the climate crisis, for example, or the energy crisis in Europe, so we're going to see something.

Whether it's a computer virus or an enterovirus, a gastrointestinal bug that disproportionately impacts children — because children were largely spared from COVID and not enough parents vaccinated their children in the eyes of the biosecurity paradigm elites — I don't know.

I don't know exactly what issue is going to be the one that takes hold, but there will be another declared public health crisis, sometime in the next two to three years, with attempts not only to revive COVID era policies and mechanisms of control, but to advance additional pieces in that regime. Of that, I have absolutely no doubt.

One of the reasons I wrote the book … [was] to look toward the future and to ask, 'OK, how is this apparatus, this biomedical security apparatus going to be deployed down the road, and what are the next steps in that process?'

[I ask this ]so that we can realize that if we don't start standing up for certain freedoms, if we don't draw lines and say, 'These are rights that should never be relinquished, even during an emergency or a declared crisis,' if we don't start doing that, and if we're not aware of what the next steps in this process are going to be and how they're going to be sold to us, then we're going to find ourselves caught off guard once again.

In a crisis where there's fear and uncertainty, we're not going to be able to think clearly. We're going to lose our heads again and we're going to wake up in a year or two or three and wonder, 'How did we get here?

What happened to us?' and I don't want to see that happen again. We've already relinquished enough of our freedoms, we've already endured the enormous collateral harms of our disastrous pandemic policies, and to my view, we can't go down that road again in another few years."

Looking Ahead
In the epilogue of the book, titled "Seattle 2030," Kheriaty imagines what life might be like seven years from now, if we don't change course.

"What I do in the first half of the epilogue is try to give the reader a sense of how some of these new technologies and measures are going to be sold to the public, so the first couple of pages of the epilogue don't seem dystopian …

It's only once you get about halfway through that you start seeing, 'OK, there are some flies in the ointment, and there's people in this society under this regime who are not benefiting, who are excluded by the social credit system and other mechanisms of social and financial control.'

There are certainly health problems that are not being solved by twice-a-year mRNA injections, and probably being exacerbated by this model of treating human beings as though we're hardware that needs software updates in the form of gene therapies.

Hopefully, by the end of the epilogue, the reader wakes up and recognizes, 'Oh, my goodness, this is not the kind of society that I want to live in. This is certainly not the kind of society that I want my children or my grandchildren to grow up in.'

I didn't invent any new technologies to describe in the epilogue … [I say] 'A few years from now, if certain things that are readily available are adopted on a mass scale and deployed in particular ways, this is what your life is going to look like. Is this the kind of life that you want to lead?'

So, it's an attempt to bring together the future-oriented gaze of the book and help people really get a firm and concrete grasp of what's coming down the pike if we don't stand up and resist."

Is There a Way to Resist CBDC Implementation?
I believe the implementation of CBDCs will be instrumental in the coming control scheme, because once the globalist cabal has direct access to your money, you become far easier to control. And, the way it's looking right now, CBDCs are inevitable. The question is, how do we opt out of the system?

"This is a really hard problem and it's a really important question," Kheriaty says. "I think we have to learn how to opt out of the system and develop, whether it's a parallel economy or parallel medical institutions, that truly are independent.

We have to do that right now, and we have to develop those things soon, because if we collectively get into an opt-in situation with digital IDs and CBDCs, then resistance to that system will be almost impossible …

I think we need to start thinking small and local, and to develop strong face-to-face communities of communication, interaction, mutual support and exchange. The currency works because of a communal agreement that when I give you this piece of paper, it's going to be worth something.

It's a mutual agreement that we're going to use this mechanism of exchange, and this mechanism of measuring market value is how currency becomes currency.

So, [as a] collective [we need to say] 'No, we're not going to go cashless.' If as a collective, we say, 'No, we're not going to transition all of our assets into a centrally controlled digital currency,' we'll halt the process of that becoming the default or the only game in town.

Beyond that, I wish I could tell you what the answer looks like and what these parallel economies are going to look like. I don't know the answer to that, and part of the reason I don't know the answer is because that's not how novel solutions develop. Novel solutions don't develop from a couple of perceptive or intelligent people figuring it all out.

They require the collective wisdom of a lot of people trying things, some of which don't work and some of which work. They require people at the local level asking, 'What are the needs of the population here close to home?' which may look very different from the needs of a population in a different setting or in a different context."

Past the Point of No Return, All Freedom Will Be Lost
Kheriaty goes on to explain why getting out of the control system — once CBDCs are fully implemented and society has gone cashless — will be near-impossible:

"CBDCs need to be distinguished from decentralized digital currencies like Bitcoin. The feds are issuing a digital dollar, and if that digital currency is adopted to the point where we've gone entirely cashless, then we're in a situation in which you can be locked out of your ability to engage in financial transactions if you don't comply or if you don't behave.

And, as I explain in the book, if you have a digital dollar in your digital wallet, it's not actually the same as a dollar bill in your real wallet. The reason for that is, let's say the government gives you $1,000 tax rebate in the form of a digital dollar. They may even sweeten the deal saying, 'We'll give you a $1,000 check in your bank account or we will give you $1,200 in the form of a digital dollar,' right?

'Oh, OK, I'll take the digital dollar. That's a no brainer. It's more money.' Well, two to three years from now, once we've gone cashless, that digital dollar can be programmed to have conditions attached to it.

In other words, the government can say, 'Here's your tax rebate, but you got to spend this $1,200 sometime in the next nine months, and if you don't, then it's going to turn into $600. And if you don't spend it in the next six months after that, it's going to disappear.'

So what you have in your digital wallet is not actually like cash. Cash doesn't just disappear. It doesn't have an expiration date on it. The government can also say, 'You have to spend it on these favored industries.'

Or, 'You can't spend it on these disfavored industries. You can't give a donation or contribution to support Dr. McCullough's podcast because he's a disinformation spreader,' or, 'You have to spend it on green energy,' or whatever.

Once this is tied to a digital ID, the government will be able to track all of your financial transactions using this digital currency. It will be able to nudge you and punish you in the ways that I have described.

If you try to opt out of that system, basically you're not going to be able to engage in financial transactions, or you're going to find yourself in some parallel economy that involves bartering chickens or something like that — very primitive kind of economic transactions — because all of the banks and all of society's mainstream institutions are going to rely on this digital system of productivity and exchange and currency to engage in all transactions.

So, once the system is in place, it's going to be very hard to resist because an algorithm in the sky or a person can push a button and, look, you can no longer buy gasoline. You can no longer purchase things online unless you get your booster shot or unless you do what the public health authorities are telling you to do.

So it's a system of near total surveillance and control that would've made the totalitarian dictators of the past salivate. Hitler or Stalin could only have dreamed of this level of intrusive surveillance and minute control over the movements and the behavior of the populations that they were governing."

More Information
I completely agree with Kheriaty's notion that it is imperative that people understand where we're headed — that the COVID measures weren't just responses to a given pandemic, but rather laid the foundation for a totalitarian one world government, where human rights and freedoms will no longer exist.

This is likely the biggest challenge mankind has ever faced as a collective, and it requires strong collective resistance. In order for that resistance to occur, however, people must understand what's going on. So, to learn more, be sure to pick up a copy of Kheriaty's book, "The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State," and share it with friends and family."

Sources and References
1 ZeroHedge January 26, 2023
2 The Defender December 7, 2022
3, 5 US District Court Eastern District of California Case 2:22-cv-02147-WBS-AC
4, 6 The Defender January 26, 2023

r25xns7jOkJw/

[Delight]

Medical tyranny plows through no matter how people speak up. It seems the idea is that we will be attacked and discredited personally and that will make us stop? Will it?


EXCLUSIVE - Andrew Bridgen Member of Parliament is interviewed by John Mappin

Andrew Bridgen explains in depth the deep parliamentary injustice to which he has been subject as a sitting elected member of the UK Parliament, and lays out the facts concerning vaccine harms and vaccine deaths caused by lethal toxic injections, in what is now the medical crime of the century.

The data concerning vaccine harms was known to the government weeks ago. Why has the vaccine not been withdrawn and why has the Government not called for an independent investigation and full enquiry?

Listen to Andrew, make up your own mind.

Follow us on:
CAMELOT CASTLE TV NETWORK - FREEDOM IS THE GRAIL (@TvCamelot) · Twitter
https://twitter.com/TvCamelot

DP-7k31i5jY

[onawah]

Health Care Staff Shortages a “National Emergency”
by Natasha Hobley
Published February 19, 2023
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2023/02/health-care-staff-shortages-a-national-emergency/

"Hospitals and other health care facilities in the United States are suffering a workforce shortage, a crisis that was brewing before the COVID-19 pandemic but has only been amplified since then. The American Hospital Association (AHA) calls the shortages a “national emergency” and, although it is most acute in the nursing field, the effects are present throughout the entire medical system continuum from lab workers to paramedics.1

During the first two months of the pandemic in 2020, an estimated 1.5 million health care jobs were lost due to the government temporarily closing clinics and other non-emergency health services. Three years later, many of those jobs have returned but the employment rate remains below pre-pandemic levels.1

Shortages Cause Shortages, Increased Wait Times and Risk of Medical Errors
According to the ECRI Institute, a non-profit patient safety organization, people are having to endure longer wait times even when seeking medical care in life threatening emergencies or are turned away entirely. Along with urgent care centers1, hospitals throughout the country have been forced to shut down labor and delivery units altogether due to staffing shortages.2 3

With fewer clinicians working, doctors and other medical staff are forced to be responsible for larger numbers of patients, which contributes to further burnout and raising risks of medical error. Medical errors are already estimated to be the third leading cause of death in the United States.4 According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the number of bloodstream infections stemming from a catheter increased 28 percent in the second quarter of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.1

A USA Today survey conducted in February 2022 found that more than a quarter of 1,100 health care workers said they were likely to leave the medical field in the near future due to the pandemic.1

Health Care Worker Vaccine Mandates Heighten Crisis
In addition to burnout and low morale, factors such as COVID and other vaccine mandates, plus sharp rises in labor costs, have also contributed to the staffing crisis. While there is no specific way to determine the exact number of health care workers who left their profession due to vaccine mandates, many reviews suggest that nurses have some of the highest “vaccine hesitancy” rates. The refusal rate among nurses was 23.4 percent in 2020 and 18.3 percent in 2021.5

“As a practical matter, (vaccine mandate policies) may result in exacerbating the severe workforce shortage problem that currently exist,” AHA president and CEO Rick Pollack said.5

However, burnout rates and staffing shortages predate 2020 and many blame it on the shift toward medical care that has become more about business than patient care.

Medical Care as Business Model Drives Job Dissatisfaction
Jimmy Turner, MD writes that despite years of training, there is a lack of autonomy in his specialty contributing to widespread workforce dissatisfaction.6

An analysis published in Surgical Neurology International states that health care today is losing its primary focus on patients due to clinical practice guidelines that make practicing medicine more like a business model. “There is less and less incentive for quality custom care, as doctors have little voice left in this system,” write authors Ramsis Ghaly and Nebojsa Nick Knezevic. They ask, “Where did ‘patient first’ and ‘do no harm’ go in medicine?”6

Ghaly and Knezevic point out that these factors are side effects of the increasingly blurred ethical lines between medicine and the many industries and institutions that influence it, including the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies, and government. Their analysis goes on to discuss that the first step is to liberate the physicians from business constraints and restore the autonomy of medical providers.

They maintain that, at the expense of the American people, government, big pharma, and insurance have put themselves at the forefront of medicine where doctors and patients used to be. This model, which has harmed patients for decades, is now catching up with the health care workforce, whose medical workers are limited in how they treat their own patients. Ghaly and Knezevic write:

The so-called not-for-profit hospitals and health-care systems have become huge centers of profit making while delivering the worst outcomes in health care in decades. They are the bottlenecks of progress and, in an effort to protect their outdated and expensive delivery systems, they have resorted to stifling any competition or innovation that is considered threatening.6

Pharmaceutical Industry Influence on Medical Care
According to Ghaly and Knezevic, pharmaceutical companies are key stake holders in the health care ecosystem and are too often endangering the public good by placing constraints on doctors and medical workers to adhere to the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm” and place the “patient first.” Coupled with the recognition that drug companies have largely taken over clinical research, the result is decades of individuals who entered the medical field to change lives only to find that their work is largely controlled by big business models.

The so-called not-for-profit hospitals and health-care systems have become huge centers of profit making while delivering the worst outcomes in health care in decades. They are the bottlenecks of progress and, in an effort to protect their outdated and expensive delivery systems, they have resorted to stifling any competition or innovation that is considered threatening.6 "

References
1 Johnson S. Staff shortages choking U.S. health care system. U.S. News & World Report July 28, 2022.
2 Bellavance M. Rumford hospital maternity unit to close at end of March. News Center Maine Feb. 2, 2023.
3 Forney T, Anwer S. Staffing shortage amid COVID surge shuts down labor and delivery unit at Holy Cross Health. Local10 Jan. 3, 2022.
4 Sipherd R. The third-leading cause of death in US most doctors don’t want you to know about. CNBC Feb. 22, 2018.
5 Muoio D. How many employees have hospitals lost to vaccine mandates? Here are the numbers so far. Fierce Healthcare Feb. 22, 2022.
6 Ghaly R, Knezevic NN. What happened to “patient first” and “do no harm” medical principles? Surg Neurol Int Aug. 29, 2018.

***************
(The shortage in home health care workers is critical as well.
I live in a 35 unit complex of low income seniors and disabled, and the tenants are constantly in need of PCAs and CNAs who will come to their homes and help with personal care, chores that the tenants can no longer do for themselves, etc.
The agencies that hire and help to train the workers and match them to the agencies' clients are more and more short -handed on home health care workers as well as office staff.
These services were originally designed to help keep people living at home instead of in assisted living and nursing homes, or constantly in and out of hospitals, but all those options are shrinking.
I would not be that surprised if more government-sponsored euthanasia clinics began to appear in the US, following Trudeau's example.

[onawah]

NIH's Secret $350M Royalties CASH COW Exposes Agency's BIG PHARMA Collusion: Analysis
3/8/23
The Hill
1.56M subscribers
61,849 views

"Author of "Owning the Sun: A People’s History of Monopoly Medicine from Aspirin to Covid-19 Vaccines,” Alexander Zaitchik weighs in on third-party payments that the National Institutes of Health have allegedly received from Pfizer. "

7yabbZrGxsc

[Mari]

Allopathic: treat the symptom. Holistic: treat the cause.

50569

[onawah]

The One Health Agenda With James Corbett
3/11/23
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/the-one-health-agenda-with-james-corbett/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=salsa&utm_campaign=chdtv&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=698ed2da-0f95-44bd-950a-993b2150d1eb

(Video at the link)

"James Corbett and Meryl Nass, M.D. return to “Good Morning CHD” to discuss the latest updates on the WHO’s IHR proposed amendments + Zero Draft Pandemic treaty, highlighting the latest meetings that took place from February 20 - 24, and laying particular emphasis on the proposed “One Health Approach” — a broad new landscape of interconnected and interdependent relationships with humans, animals and the environment. Touted as an ‘non-colonial’ solution to the current ‘anthropocentric’ view on the ecosystem, the proposed solutions are anything but holistic. New fast tracked mRNA products for livestock raise concerns of equity for animal rights, considering no adverse events reporting system structure for animals currently exists. As the reality of global vaccine passports draws nearer, is the “One Health Approach” really a "One Hell" power grab for all living beings and plants on earth, and will world domination of public health will now be sold to the public under the guise of “anti-colonialism”? Watch this episode featuring the movement’s most fascinating duo on CHD.TV to find out!"
References:

HR Working Group Feb 20-24, 2023 — Second Meeting Of The Working Group On Amendments To The International Health Regulations (2005)

World Health Organization Pushes For Global Vaccine Passports

Fourth Meeting Of The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) For A WHO Instrument On Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness And Response

WHO Moves Forward With Plans To Target “Misinformation” “Infodemics” Through International Pandemic Treaty

World Health Organization Pushes For Global Vaccine Passports

The Future Of Livestock Vaccines

Court Takes Half-Step Toward Animals Suing

MRNA Vaccines For Livestock? - Questions For Corbett #097

Corbett Report — CRISPR

Upton Sinclair’s ‘The Jungle’ — The Corbett Report

The Proposed Amendments To The International Health Regulations: An Analysis

Intergovernmental Negotiating Body On Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness And Response Parallel Session 6

Working Group Breakdown

Proposed Amendments

2023 NDAA [Signed December 2022]

Bill Gates — How To Prevent The Next Pandemic

One Health Basics - CDC

CDC's One Health Office: What We Do

One Health Joint Plan Of Action Launched And Presented By WHO And The Quadripartite Partners

One Health Joint Plan Of Action Launched To Address Health Threats To Humans, Animals, Plants And Environment

One Health High Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) And The Quadripartite

[onawah]

Why Are Doctors Quitting? This Physician Says They Are Demoralized
Amanpour and Company
341K subscribers
340,792 views
Feb 20, 2023

"America's doctors are leaving the profession in growing numbers, creating a crisis in the U.S. healthcare system. Some 117,000 physicians left the field in 2021, and one in five doctors say they will soon do so. In a recent op-ed for The New York Times, political anthropologist and physician Dr. Eric Reinhart explained fatal flaws in the country’s health system that led to this worrying trend. He shares with Michel Martin some potential solutions.

Originally aired on February 20, 2023."

_CxGhEuXcG8

(Perhaps the saddest thing about this is that it leaves us with many of the practicing doctors who are less ethical and less aware of what's wrong with the healthcare system. I've had to change doctors 4 times in the past several years.)

[Vicus]

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitonAX-vcjOPw1I41xs5Uhk8oJhlUg177KugadGuQUS4JKNEVPDT_FAwMP-QNx5sLEMHhJH2TQ2rKTi4fiK-aWGuSDQKAkNhGte_iNcZgRc_p9mCnxW8omLKE60Tl3d_AhBxZy2-by-qmCtuUC6nF6trvk_r0Ds-Z79s9lApOVQMio0a28MUA/s600/march_memes00034.jpg

[onawah]

FDA Makes Narcan Available Over the Counter
Dr. Joseph Mercola
April 13, 2023
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/04/13/fda-makes-naloxone-over-the-counter.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230413&cid=DM1381336&bid=1771733695

EmpFwqbQiL4

"In the video above, Joe Rogan interviews journalist Mariana van Zeller, who in 2009 shone a bright light on the drug abuse epidemic with her online documentary series "The OxyContin Express."1,2

Largely thanks to her reporting, Florida ended up implementing an opioid database so that people can no longer visit multiple doctors and then receive and fill multiple prescriptions. While it has not completely solved the problem, this database has at least reduced the amount of abuse taking place.

Zeller's husband was also the cinematographer for the 20022 documentary "American Pain," which details the rise and fall of Chris and Jeff George, identical twins caught trafficking more than 500 million dollars' worth of opioid pills through a tiny "pill mill" in a Florida strip mall.

No Justice for Victims
While the two brothers ended up serving prison terms, no pharmaceutical executive has ever been sent to prison for their role in the drug epidemic they intentionally created and promoted. Meanwhile, as Zeller notes — and has witnessed first-hand — entire communities have been devastated and destroyed by addiction.

PR companies that aided and abetted drug companies in their deception also have yet to pay a price. The Publicis Groupe, for example, is accused of placing illegal advertisements for OxyContin in the electronic medical records of patients and creating training materials for Purdue Pharma sales reps on how to combat doctors' objections to the drugs.

Publicis also developed strategies to counter opioid guidelines issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and created "patient stories" to "humanize" the OxyContin brand and counter negative press about addiction risks.

As detailed in "Dr. Mercola's Attackers Sued for Role in 'Crime of the Century'," Massachusetts attorney general sued Publicis Health in May 2021 for its role in fueling the opioid crisis. The case is still ongoing.

Criminals Let Off the Hook
Purdue Pharma was also sued for their role in creating the opioid epidemic. The company pleaded guilty to criminal charges in October 2020 and reached a settlement with the federal government totaling $8.3 billion.

But the owners and operators of Purdue, the Sackler family, all got off scot-free, even though they were personally in charge of the company's deadly decisions. In previous articles, I've detailed how Purdue's false advertising spawned the opioid crisis.3

To recap, a single paragraph in a 1980 letter to the editor4,5 — NOT a study — in The New England Journal of Medicine, which stated that narcotic addiction in patients with no history of addiction was very rare, became the basis of a fraudulent drug marketing campaign that has since led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

Purdue Pharma used this letter to the editor as the basis for its claim that opioid addiction affects less than 1% of patients treated with the drugs. In reality, opioids have a very high rate of addiction and have not been proven effective for long-term use.6

Purdue isn't the only opioid maker whose executives have been spared accountability. In July 2021, Johnson & Johnson and three drug distributors — AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson — agreed to pay a combined settlement of $26 billion for their roles in the opioid epidemic. They too got a sweetheart of a deal, as the $26 billion settlement amounts to just 4% of the four companies' annual revenue, and none of the decisionmakers went to jail.

Conflicts of Interest Allowed the Opioid Crisis to Grow
Even the American Medical Association (AMA), one of the largest medical lobbying groups in the U.S., has contributed to the opioid crisis by fostering cozy relationships with Big Pharma.

Richard Sackler, who served as the president of Purdue Pharma, was a member of the AMA Foundation's board of directors from 1998 to 2004, and the AMA's pain management training program was developed by a team with close ties to the industry.

Dr. Roneet Lev, chief medical officer to the Office of National Drug Control Policy from 2018 to 2020, who looked through the AMA's training modules, called it "'How to Create an Addict' education." I discussed these and many other details in "The AMA's Contribution to the Opioid Epidemic."

In 2019, the BMJ7,8 also highlighted how conflicts of interest within the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) — which advises the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on opioid policies — may have played a role in the opioid crisis. Seven of the 15 academics serving on the NASEM panel that advised the FDA on opioid prescribing guidelines had ties to industry. On top of that, NASEM itself accepted $14 million from the Sackler family.

FDA Makes Narcan Available Over the Counter
March 29, 2023, the FDA announced it will soon make naloxone (brand name Narcan) — a drug that reverses the fatal effects of an opioid overdose — available over the counter without a prescription. As reported by NPR:9

"Today's action paves the way for the life-saving medication to reverse an opioid overdose to be sold directly to consumers in places like drug stores, convenience stores, grocery stores and gas stations, as well as online,' the FDA said in a statement.10

Emergent BioSolutions, the drug company that produces Narcan, said on Wednesday that it hoped to make the nasal spray available on store shelves and at online retailers by late summer …

The FDA approval comes as the U.S. continues to see a staggering number of opioid-related deaths, driven in large part by the spread of synthetic opioids such as illicit fentanyl."

If anything, this is a testament to just how bad the U.S. drug problem has become. In 2021 alone, 16.95 million doses of Narcan were distributed in the U.S.,11 although it's not known how many of those doses were administered. But whatever that number, it wasn't enough.

According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data,12 there were 81,692 fatal opioid-related overdoses in the 12-month period ending in April 2022, up from 76,383 the year before. Other statistics show opioids are a factor in 7 out of every 10 overdose deaths.13 As noted by The New York Times:14

"According to reports by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2021, bystanders were present at 46% of fatal opioid overdoses. If they had been carrying naloxone and knew how to use it, lives could have been saved."

How to Use Narcan
Making Narcan more widely available may indeed help save the lives of some of those who have been unlucky enough to get sucked into addiction. In a March 29, 2023, article, The New York Times detailed how to use the drug15 in case of an opioid (including oxycodone, heroin and fentanyl) overdose. First, you'll need to determine whether the person has overdosed on opioids. Symptoms of an opioid overdose include:

Slowed breathing, gurgling or no breathing
Pupils narrowed to a pinpoint
Blue or purple lips and/or fingernails
Clammy skin
Cannot be roused by shaking and shouting
The drug works by displacing opioid molecules from the opioid receptors in the brain, so it won't work if the person has overdosed on a non-opiate drug. It won't make matters worse, however, so when in doubt, use it.

The OTC Narcan box contains two nasal sprays with plungers, each containing 4 mg of naloxone. Do not prime the plunger as this will release the contents. Wait until you're ready to administer the dose.

Get the Narcan ready, then tilt the person's head backward and insert the spray tip into one nostril until both of your fingers are touching the nose. Push the plunger down to administer the dose.
Call emergency services (911 in the U.S.) after you've given the first dose, as every second counts.
Next, roll the person onto their side. Place one of their hands under their head and bend the leg that is on top at the knee to prevent them from rolling over. Narcan can trigger acute withdrawal symptoms, including vomiting, so make sure the airways are kept clear to avoid choking.
If the person has not regained consciousness after two to three minutes, repeat the process and administer the second dose into the other nostril.
Stay with them until emergency services arrive.
OTC Narcan Does Nothing to Address the Problem
While OTC Narcan may indeed reduce the number of lethal overdoses, it does nothing to address the underlying problem, which is the ease with which people can access opioids. Opioids were initially approved for breakthrough cancer pain only, and there's a solid argument to be made for banning opioids for all other uses, especially considering they provide no better pain relief than over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).16

A combination of 200 mg of ibuprofen and 500 mg of acetaminophen is more effective than opioids.
According to Cochrane Reviews,17 a combination of 200 mg of ibuprofen and 500 mg of acetaminophen is one of the strongest pain reliever combos available and is more effective than opioids.

Research18 published in 2018 also found that opioids (including morphine, Vicodin, oxycodone and fentanyl) fail to control moderate to severe pain any better than over-the-counter drugs such as acetaminophen, ibuprofen and naproxen.

Insurance companies should also stop favoring opioids when it comes to reimbursement. As noted in the American College of Physicians' guideline for acute, subacute and chronic low back pain,19 heat, massage, acupuncture or chiropractic adjustments should be used as first-line treatments. When drugs are desired, NSAIDs or muscle relaxants should be used.

Alas, while clinical practice guidelines call for nonpharmacological intervention for back pain, most insurance plans don't pay for such treatments. They do pay for opioids, though. Other situations in which opioids are inappropriately prescribed, and massively so, are for tonsillectomies and wisdom teeth extractions. This too needs to stop.

Dentists wrote a staggering 18.1 million prescriptions for opioids in 2017 alone,20 and research has shown that 6.9% of those who received an opioid prescription from their dentist were still using opioids between three and 12 months later.21,22 In comparison, among those who did not get an initial opioid prescription, only 0.1% sought an opioid prescription in the 12 months that followed.

Drug Industry Is Again the Primary Beneficiary
It's telling that rather than banning opioids, the FDA instead opts for a route that will benefit the very industry that created the problem. First, they deceived us about opioids' addictiveness and created a market that didn't exist by bribing doctors into prescribing it for all sorts of pain. Then, they created a drug "solution" for the drug problem they intentionally created, and the FDA is A-OK with that. It's an absolute racket.

By making Narcan available over the counter, the FDA is primarily setting drug companies up for even greater profits. Eventually, other naloxone products may become OTC as well.

But even if they don't, what's clear is that the drug industry made billions of dollars creating this drug addiction problem and is also raking in profits from anti-overdose treatments. And they want to be hailed as saviors for doing so to boot. If there were any justice, the companies that sell opioids would be forced to hand out anti-overdose meds for free.

Drug Industry Uses Fear to Extract Greater Profits
Instead, drug companies see anti-overdose medications as another cash cow. Naloxone has been off patent since 1985, so companies are coming up with all sorts of "new and improved" and/or higher-dose versions that can be patented and sold for a premium.

The problem is, few if any of these updated drugs are any better than the original generic one. Many don't realize this, however, which means many schools, police departments and local public health agencies end up wasting their resources on higher-priced drugs.

The drug industry is even cashing in on the fact that government refuses to lift a finger to address the influx of fentanyl over our wide-open border. As reported by STAT News, they're using the fear of fentanyl, which is far stronger than other opioids, to sell higher-priced high-dose versions of naloxone:23

"At first glance, the race to create stronger, more advanced overdose-reversal tools seems like a win-win: a case study in American pharmaceutical companies saving countless lives and turning a profit along the way.

A new STAT examination, however, captures a far different reality: One in which pharmaceutical companies have used the opioid crisis, and the nation's fear of fentanyl, to aggressively market high-cost naloxone products that divert resources away from cheaper forms of the lifesaving medication.

These expensive new products, according to researchers, harm-reduction groups, doctors, and pharmaceutical industry experts, don't fill a legitimate public health need. Instead, they serve largely as an excuse to charge exorbitant prices for a medication that has been off patent for nearly 40 years …

[C]ompanies … have brought to market a glut of high-dose, mechanically complex naloxone products — all of which sell for far higher prices than their generic counterparts. Advocates say there's a simple reason why: No company has held patent exclusivity over naloxone since 1985, and there's little money to be made selling low-cost generic versions …

The contrast, experts say, highlights a fundamental mismatch between public health needs and profit motives. And it demonstrates, too, how the fear of fentanyl, the ultra-potent synthetic opioid, has allowed companies to push the narrative that standard doses are no longer enough …

Drug companies' behavior in the naloxone market mirrors a longstanding pharmaceutical industry practice: protecting profit margins by continually offering medications in new — and therefore, patentable — formulations and delivery mechanisms …

Amid the climate of fentanyl-driven fear, drug companies have worked to advance the narrative that only super-sized naloxone doses can reverse a fentanyl overdose."

No Need for High-Dose Versions in Most Cases
Many drug abuse experts and researchers agree that the standard 4 mg naloxone dose is sufficient for most cases, and using high-dose versions in all instances is a waste of resources. Several studies have also confirmed this.

For example, a 2019 study24 that looked at the amount of naloxone required to reverse opioid overdoses outside of medical practice found no increase in the dosages used between 2013 and 2016, even though the prevalence of fentanyl overdoses increased in that time. A 2020 review25 that analyzed ER admission records from 2017 and 2018 came to the same conclusion, stating:

"Our findings refute the notion that high potency synthetic opioids like illicitly manufactured fentanyl require increased doses of naloxone to successfully treat an overdose. There were no significant differences in the dose of naloxone required to treat opioid overdose patients with UDS [urine drug screen] evidence of exposure to fentanyl, opiates, or both."

Giving a larger-than-typical dose also has drawbacks worth considering. Since it displaces the opioid from the opioid receptors in your brain, it will cause very acute withdrawal symptoms, and an excessive dose could make those symptoms far more debilitating than necessary.

As noted by STAT News,26 "withdrawal symptoms can be so agonizing that they are driven to again use illicit substances, like fentanyl, sometimes leading to a repeat overdose."

OTC Narcan May Result in Higher Prices
STAT News also points out that OTC Narcan may end up costing you more than before, even though affordability is a major part of the availability equation:27

"The FDA's approval this week of Narcan as an over-the-counter drug is a milestone. But it is not as large a victory as it may seem. For one, naloxone products are already available to most Americans via a loophole known as a 'standing order' — in essence, a blanket prescription written by a state or local health official.

Thanks to coupons and discounts, naloxone is often entirely free to individuals who seek it out, especially if they have health insurance. Strangely, the FDA granting over-the-counter status for Narcan may make cost more of a barrier for individual buyers …

Most insurance plans typically only cover prescription medications — meaning that individuals looking to buy naloxone at a pharmacy may soon be forced to pay dramatically more."

Struggling With Opioid Addiction? Please Seek Help
Regardless of the brand of opioid, it's important to realize they are extremely addictive drugs and not meant for long-term use for nonfatal conditions. Chemically, opioids are similar to heroin, so if you wouldn't consider shooting up heroin for a toothache or backache, seriously reconsider taking an opioid to relieve this type of pain.

If you've been on an opioid for more than two months, or if you find yourself taking a higher dosage or taking the drug more often than you initially did, you may be addicted. Resources where you can find help include:"

- Sources and References
1 The Oxycontin Express
2 NPR March 2, 2011
3 The Atlantic June 2, 2017
4 NEJM 1980; 302(2): 123 (PDF)
5 STAT News May 31, 2017
6 Medscape September 28, 2015
7 BMJ 2019;366:l5321
8 BMJ 2019;366:l5273
9 NPR March 29, 2023
10 FDA March 29, 2023
11 Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, Naloxone Economic View March 2023
12 CDC Provisional Drug Overdose Deaths 12 Mos Ending April 2022
13 NCDAS Drug Overdose Death Rates
14, 15 The New York Times March 29, 2023 (Archived)
16 JADA July 2016; 147(7): 530-533
17 MNDental.org NSAIDs Are Stronger Pain Medications Than Opioids
18 JAMA March 6, 2018;319(9):872-882
19 AAFP.org Low Back Pain Clinical Practice Guideline
20 ADA.org May 25, 2019
21 JAMA Internal Medicine 2019;179(2):145-15
22 Stanford Medicine December 3, 2018
23, 26, 27 STAT News March 28, 2023
24 Substance Abuse 2019; 40(1): 52-55
25 Journal of Medical Toxicology January 2020; 16(1): 41-48
28 Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration

[onawah]

They are Coming for Your Doctors
Tyranny Through Weaponized Bureaucracy | Dr. Scott Jensen | EP 349
Jordan B Peterson
6.79M subscribers
449,532 views
Apr 17, 2023
The Dr. Jordan B. Peterson Podcast

"Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Dr. Scott Jensen walk through his accomplished professional life in family medicine, as well as his successful run as a Minnesota senator, all before having his reputation in both fields dismantled for what may be purely political reasons. Six investigations across nearly five years and numerous allegations without cohesion, proof, or relation have amounted to nothing, save for the clarification of Dr. Jensen's newest goal: to take on the medical board that had no justification for its actions. Given the parallels between Dr. Jensen and Dr. Peterson’s experiences, this interview was not only inevitable but paramount.

Dr. Scott Jensen has practiced family medicine in Carver County, Minnesota, for 35 years. Jensen then served in the Minnesota Senate (2017-2021) and was vice-chair of the Health and Human Services Committee, as well as the Republican Governor candidate in the 2022 election.

He has served many organizations as a board member or chair including the Waconia School Board, numerous Rotary and Lions clubs, several Chambers of Commerce, and bank boards. He is an avid pilot and writer, publishing his first book in 2015, “Relationship Matters” and his second book, “We’ve Been Played” in 2022. In 2001, he founded Catalyst Medical Clinic which now has offices located in Watertown and Chaska."

0YRMajzRKU8

[onawah]

How to Save Your Life and Those You Love When Hospitalized
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
May 07, 2023
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/05/07/bartlett-and-crawford-consent-form.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230507_HL2&cid=DM1394594&bid=1793478645

PuL4IH29lX38/

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford have founded an organization to address the forced treatments patients receive when they’re hospitalized for COVID-19, but the same strategy can be used to protect yourself against other medical hazards as well
The Caregivers and Consent document they created is an “advance decision” document.
So, the moment you enter the hospital, the hospital staff know what they can and cannot do to you; they are legally required to respect your current care decisions.
And unlike an Advance Directive (which only kicks in when you are incapacitated) the Caregivers and Consent document goes into effect immediately
It’s important to complete and notarize your Caregivers and Consent document BEFORE you ever need to go to the hospital
Make sure you send the completed, signed and notarized document to the CEO of the hospital in two ways: (1) via a professional courier (one that specializes in delivering legal documents); and (2) via the Postal system with certified mail, return receipt requested.
The CEO is responsible for all legal business relating to the hospital, including the medical records, so the CEO, not your attending physician, is the one whose responsibility it is to get your consent document entered into your electronic medical record
Make at least 10 copies of the signed, notarized document and keep one copy on your person, in case you ever have an accident or acute illness requiring hospitalization.
Also provide copies to the attending physician and nurse once hospitalized
Also, should you become hospitalized (and therefore unable to personally send the document to the CEO), designate a family member or friend to send your Caregivers and Consent document on your behalf.
Additional recommendations to ensure your safety are included
In this interview, Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford detail how you can protect yourself from one of the top contributors to premature death, namely conventional hospital care.
The key here is to understand what the dangers are and take proactive measures to guard yourself and your family from them.

Nearly 10 years ago, I interviewed Dr. Andrew Saul, author of “Hospitals and Health: Your Orthomolecular Guide to a Shorter, Safer Hospital Stay,” in which he details how to minimize your risk of being a victim of a medical error.

First and foremost, Saul recommended making sure you have a patient advocate, someone who can speak on your behalf if you’re incapacitated and make sure you’re receiving the correct medication and treatment. During COVID, however, family or friends were not allowed into the hospital, and patients were routinely bullied into treatments they did not want or consent to.

The good news is, Bartlett and Crawford have developed a legal document that, when served to the hospital in the proper way, can ensure that your medical wishes are honored. By eliminating any confusion about your consent (or denial of consent), this document can literally save your life.

Why ProtocolKills.com Was Created
Bartlett and Crawford have founded an organization to address the lethal and, in many cases, forced treatments patients receive when they’re hospitalized for COVID-19, but the same strategy can be used to protect yourself against other medical hazards as well. Crawford explains:

“I created a website called ProtocolKills.com. This came after I was in the hospital with COVID. In the process of going to the hospital, I was denied informed consent and was completely unaware of some of the things they were doing to me. I was given five rounds of remdesivir, which nearly took my life, and I did not even know that I was being poisoned at the time ...

During that time in the hospital, I went from thinking I was going to go home after I got oxygen to actually feeling like that I was going to die. I was almost certain I was going to die after being given just the first dose of remdesivir ...

[And then there was] the constant push for the vaccine in the hospital, the harassment for not getting vaxxed, and the fact that I was given medication without my knowledge at all, which led me to start the website to not only inform people about what was going on, but [as] a platform to allow other victims who were not as fortunate as me.

Many of them, the majority of them, did not make it out alive. So, it's a platform for them to share their story. We have over 250 stories on there about what they faced in the hospital. We really wanted to get this information out there to the public, but we also wanted to give a solution, not just to scare people. And that's where I ended up meeting Laura.”

National Hospital Hostage Hotline to the Rescue
Bartlett continues:

“Before I met Greta at the beginning of COVID, in early 2020, I started helping my brother, Dr. Richard Bartlett, who had a protocol utilizing inhaled budesonide steroid as part of his protocol to treat COVID early. We also found it very effective once people were in the hospital to help reverse [the infectious process] and also the scarring and the inflammation of the lungs.

There are instances where it even helped people who were on ventilators as long as 30 days come off the ventilator and go home. So, I was helping him get that message out in early 2020. I'm not a doctor. I'm not a nurse. I'm just somebody who could help get that known around the world. My background is in media PR ...

In the process, people who knew my brother, knew me, started reaching out to both of us with stories that they were in the hospital and they were having a hard time getting the doctor to respect their right to informed consent. It was an overwhelming number of instances where people just felt like they were being bullied or coerced, that their right to try budesonide, for instance, was just dismissed.

And it was almost as if informed consent didn't exist. But in fact, it never went away. Even during the COVID shielding for hospitals, informed consent between the doctor and the patient never went away. You always had the right to informed consent.

So that's where my work started. In the process, since there were so many people reaching out for help, I thought, ‘Well, why doesn't somebody come up with a way for people to quickly access some information of what their rights are and their patient rights?’

So, I started a nationwide hotline, called the Hospital Hostage Hotline [call or text 888-c19-emergency, or 888-219-3637]. It's still in effect. I still get calls from all over the country. And I've been able to help people who went in even for non-COVID reasons like a urinary tract infection that was [also] diagnosed as COVID, and they were being pushed towards a protocol and told they couldn't leave the hospital.

They needed to know they could, that they always had the right to leave AMA — Against Medical Advice — if that's what they chose. They also have the right to either consent or not consent to things and it should be respected. I realized that one of the biggest tools for getting that informed consent notice to the doctor was not to just verbally say it, but to have it in writing. These aren't my original ideas.

I actually had a hospital insider reach out ... somebody who had been in the system and knew how to navigate the system at a high level in administration, give me some tips and tools on how to navigate the hospital system to make sure that informed consent was not only documented and delivered effectively to get into the electronic medical record, but also, what their basic patient rights were and how to advocate for them.”

You Have the Right to Leave
One drawback of signing an AMA is that insurance won’t pay for your treatment. That threat will often keep patients in the hospital because they’ll have to pay out of pocket. So, it can be used against you.

“Profit has been a big factor in a lot of suffering,” Bartlett says. “Patients were afraid to leave because they were told, like in the instance of a gentleman that I was helping in New Jersey who went in for a urinary tract infection.

He was an elderly man. This was early 2020. They quickly tested him for COVID and started him on that road towards a ventilator. And they told him flat out, ‘If you leave, none of this will be covered by insurance.’ So that was a big factor.”

Hospitals may also misinform you about your AMA rights, as we’ve seen repeatedly during COVID. More often than not, the hospital’s reluctance to release a patient has to do with protecting its revenues. Bartlett offers the following story to illustrate:

“Somebody that I was helping advocate for said the doctor actually said to them, ‘You cannot leave.’ This person was 15 or 16 days into their COVID diagnosis and they were feeling better. They were likely not COVID positive ...

That's where the name of the hotline came from. They actually felt like hostages. That's what they were reporting to me. ‘I feel like I'm held prisoner.’ But in fact, they always had the right to leave a hospital whenever they chose to. It's not up to the doctor when they can leave. They have to make that medical choice for themselves, whether or not they feel like they can leave.”

A Novel Consent Document That Can Save Your Life
(See Rumble video at the end of this post)

Patients clearly need a way to put themselves back in the driver’s seat, and the novel medical consent document Bartlett and Crawford created, available on OurPatientRights.com, is the most powerful way I’ve seen so far to do that. As explained by Bartlett:

“What we learned from this whole ordeal over the last couple of years is that there was a need for a novel document that did not exist, to our knowledge, that covers your written consent. A document that documents your current consent, not an advance directive that kicks in after you're incapacitated.

Before you go into the hospital, write down your consent wishes so that everybody involved in your care within the hospital will have eyes on it because it's put into your electronic medical record. It's notarized. It's signed before you go in. That's the key. So do it while you have full capacity.

It's a novel strategy. I'm so grateful to the hospital insider who saw the problem and helped us navigate the system, so that we have an insider's perspective on how to do this to keep people safe.”

As noted by Crawford, while COVID-19 may seem like a distant memory, people are still being hospitalized and diagnosed with COVID, and are being held hostage by a hostile medical system seemingly intent on milking them for all their worth, until death, if need be.

This is where filing a written medical consent form can help save your life. No doctor can override your written decision (consent) declining certain medications or treatments. Verbal communication is not enough. It must be in writing, notarized and delivered in a manner that formally serves the hospital and puts their physicians on notice.

General Consent Vs. Specific Consent
As explained by Bartlett, when you enter a hospital, you must sign a general consent authorization form. This is basically a contract between you and the hospital. Since you have bodily autonomy, they need your consent before they can do anything to you.

Typically, the general consent form authorizes hospital staff to test, treat and care for you in whatever way they see fit — and when a patient signs the general consent authorization, physicians feel justified that they can implement a hospital protocol without further explaining the risks, benefits or alternatives of that protocol to the patient.

Now, if you’re well enough to read the entire document, and see something in there that you don’t agree with, you can strike the sentence or paragraph and initial it, to indicate that you do not consent to that specific detail. However, that still doesn’t offer you much protection.

What you need is a much more specific document where you detail the types of treatments you consent to and the ones you don’t. You need to carve out a niche from the general consent form that specifies exactly what you do (and do not) consent to. And you need to be clear. Fortunately, the Caregivers and Consent document carves out that niche to communicate clearly to all physicians your exact consent wishes.

“You need a written consent document that, in addition to just the general consent, is a contract between you and the doctor, so he knows, he's put on notice, what it is that you absolutely do not consent to. For instance, a COVID injection, if that's your wishes,” Bartlett explains.

“They have a code of ethics, the American Medical Association guidance to physicians, per the ethics opinion 2.1.1, that when the patient surrogate has provided specific written consent, the consent form should be included in the record. This is key. Write it down. You don’t need an attorney. You don't need any fancy training. You don't need to be a doctor, don't need to be a nurse.

You can write it down, and then, when you deliver it in our specific way — and it's very important how you deliver it — it gets put into the electronic medical record for everybody to see. Now you've got receipts, that if you do something against consent, it's intentional. OK?

So, here's the website you can find a template for that. It's called OurPatientRights.com. What you'll see there are two PDF documents. [On one of the PDFs there are two pages.] One is the actual template, the other one is instructions on how to deliver it. And you can edit the document by the way. You can write your own. It's just a template. But there's also very specific instructions on how you are going to deliver this so it's not disregarded.

Here's what you're going to see in the document. ‘I [your name] advise all physicians, nurses, and other caregivers that this Caregivers and Consent document reflects my current wishes for my care and are carefully planned and intentional wishes.’ That's very important because it's current. It's not going to kick in when I'm incapacitated.”

Your Written Consent Must Be Respected
Advance medical directives don’t kick in until or unless you’re incapacitated, so that’s another completely different kind of document reflecting current consent wishes. What Bartlett and Crawford have created is an “advance decision” document. So, the moment you enter the hospital, they know what they can and cannot do to you. And, they are legally required to respect your written directives. The following section of the document reads:

"Receipt of this Caregivers and Consent document by the hospital serves as notice that I will report to the Medical Board any physician who violates my carefully planned and intentional wishes that are based upon my deeply held religious and spiritual beliefs and are delineated within this Caregivers and Consent document."

This puts the doctor on notice. This isn't a threat. It’s merely a factual statement that if anyone goes against your wishes, they’re intentionally disregarding your consent. Once it’s in your electronic medical record, they can’t say they didn’t know that you did not consent to a specific test, drug, vaccine or procedure. So, ignoring your written consent is then actually a criminal offense akin to assault and battery. It’s also medical malpractice.

“Let me tell you, there are good physicians and they are clamoring for something like this,” Bartlett says. “They are thankful there is something they can use to push back against administration and say, ‘I'm not going to violate this person's written consent. I'm not going to do this to this person ...’

With these documents, if you are blatantly refusing to honor a patient's wishes and religious beliefs, and you're doing it against these documented legal forms, then you risk losing your license altogether as a physician and never working in medicine again ...

But you need it in writing ... and it needs to be served in a very specific way. You need to do this before you ever go to the hospital. Have it handy in case you get yourself into a predicament, like a multi-car pileup on the highway and an ambulance transports you to the hospital. The time to have this done is before there's a problem.”

The document also specifies that "All items in this Caregivers and Consent document shall remain in effect unless I choose to revoke in writing; no one else may alter or amend this Caregivers and Consent document." So there can be no misunderstanding. Your doctor or nurse cannot claim you gave implied consent because you mumbled something incoherent in your sleep. In other words, if you didn’t change your consent wishes in writing, you didn’t change your consent wishes. Period.

What’s in the Caregivers and Consent Document Template
As mentioned, you can customize your Caregivers and Consent document any way you like. But to give people a starting point, the template, available on OurPatientRights.com, includes things like:

“I do not consent to the use of medications without my being informed of each medication’s risks, benefits and alternatives before they are ordered. Only after that information is communicated shall I choose to either grant consent or to not grant consent for each and every medication that is ordered.”
“I do not consent to receiving any vaccine or booster for COVID-19 or COVID-19 variant.”
“I do not consent to receiving the seasonal flu vaccine.”
“I request and consent to the use of 1 mg of budesonide via nebulizer every 4 to 6 hours for COVID-19 or COVID-19 variant diagnosis with respiratory issues.”
If you want to, you could change the verbiage to state that you do not consent to ANY vaccine. If you have allergies, add that to the list. Personally, I would recommend adding the following dietary notice:

“I do not consent to receiving ANY processed food, such as high-fructose corn syrup or seed oils. The only acceptable oil for me is butter, ghee, beef tallow or coconut oil. Acceptable forms of protein would be eggs, lamb, bison, beef or non-farmed seafood; but they must not be prepared with seed oils. If the hospital is unable to provide this food for me, my family or friends will bring it for me.
Additionally, I do not consent to not being able to take my normal supplements while in the hospital.”
I would strongly recommend that you integrate this additional clause because it's a stealth form of abuse. These kinds of foods can only impair your effort to get well, no matter what your problem is. You may also want to add a notice saying you do not consent to receive blood donations from COVID-19 vaccinated donors, and that all blood donations must be from donors confirmed to have not received any COVID-19 vaccines.

Important: Follow Proper Procedure!
As mentioned multiple times in this interview, it’s crucial to follow the proper procedure. Here’s a summary of the necessary steps:

1.Complete your customized and personalized Caregivers and Consent form BEFORE you ever need to go to the hospital.

2.Get the form notarized. Make sure you sign the form in front of the notary.

3.Send the completed, signed, notarized form to the CEO of the hospital in two ways: (1) via a professional courier (one that specializes in delivering legal documents); and (2) via the Postal system with certified mail, return receipt requested.

The CEO is responsible for all legal business relating to the hospital, including the medical records, so the CEO, not your attending physician, is the one whose responsibility it is to get your consent forms entered into your electronic medical record.

4.Make at least 10 copies of the signed, notarized form and keep one copy on your person or in your wallet or purse, and another in the glove compartment of your car, in case you ever have an accident. Also provide copies to family or friends. If you happen to be hospitalized before you’ve had the chance to send the documents, have one of them follow the delivery procedure outlined on the General Instructions form.

5.Once you’re hospitalized, you or one of your contacts will give one copy to your attending physician and another to your nurse, and inform them that this document is already in your electronic medical record, or that the hospital will be served the documents shortly. Distribute additional copies to other care providers as needed.

6.Also, upon hospitalization, request to see your electronic medical record to make sure your Caregivers and Consent form has been entered. It is your right to see your electronic medical record, and it’s available through an online portal, so don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Also routinely check your medical record (or have your patient advocate do it for you) to make sure your wishes are being followed and that you’re not being given something you’ve denied consent for.

Crawford notes:

“What we've experienced using these documents is a complete change in the attending physician, from being aggressive and maybe trying to push you, to being very helpful and efficient. Once they receive these documents, they just do a 180. As a matter of fact, one patient's brother told me he's getting treated better than he's ever been treated at a hospital before.”

Again, having this document in your medical record virtually guarantees that they cannot harm you by doing something you don’t agree with. Of course, some psychopath might ignore your directives, but they’ll have to pay a hefty price, as they’re guaranteed to lose a malpractice suit and be stripped of their medical license. The legal consequences are so severe that the person doing it would have to be beyond irrational.

Keep in mind that while you can request and consent to certain treatments, such as ivermectin, for example, this document CANNOT force your doctor or hospital to use that treatment. They can still refuse to administer something you’ve consented to.

They cannot, however, administer something that you’ve declined consent for. The ace up your sleeve at that point is that you can still sign out AMA (against medical advice), get out alive, and seek desired treatment elsewhere. Getting out alive is the key goal.

More Information
Again, here are the three resources created by Bartlett and Crawford:

ProtocolKills.com ---https://www.protocolkills.com/ --- Here you can find a hospital protocol for COVID, information about remdesivir, patient rights information, alternative health care options and patient testimonies
OurPatientRights.com --- https://www.protocolkills.com/patient-document ---Here you can download the template for the Caregivers and Consent document and general instructions
Hospital Hostage Hotline https://us3.campaign-archive.com/?u=f02f670a42d7f3cd19e82c10d&id=01d526d4a3 ---Call or text 888-c19-emergency, or 888-219-3637
In closing, please share this information with everyone you know. Bring it to your church, synagogue and local community groups. Everyone needs to know they can secure their patient right to informed consent and how to do it so that their wishes cannot be ignored. This is the most effective way to empower yourself when it comes to your medical care. So please, help spread the word.

Here you can find a hospital protocol for COVID, information about remdesivir, patient rights information, alternative health care options and patient testimonies
OurPatientRights.com — Here you can download the template for the Caregivers and Consent document and general instructions
Hospital Hostage Hotline — Call or text 888-c19-emergency, or 888-219-3637
In closing, please share this information with everyone you know. Bring it to your church, synagogue and local community groups. Everyone needs to know they can secure their patient right to informed consent and how to do it so that their wishes cannot be ignored. This is the most effective way to empower yourself when it comes to your medical care. So please, help spread the word."



v1wrr3l/?pub=ijro7

[onawah]

"Eastern Medicine"

I had to have a medical appointment today, much as I did not want to.
I have to see a doctor at least once a year in order to keep my Medicare/Medicaid active.
I'm 74 but I haven't had a cold or flu in about 10 years, or any other condition requiring medical attention other than a twisted ankle once about 2 years ago.
(And it was probably at least 10 years before that that I was ill, but just with a cold or flu.)
I eat mostly organic, lots of fresh fruits and vegies, some organic dairy, very little meat, and I use aloe vera in daily smoothies along with Spirulina, Maca, and other very healthy supplements which have been recommended and/or approved by various doctors and health consultants that I've seen over the past 20 years or so.
But all the good doctors seem to have either retired, quit or moved elsewhere, and the Nurse Practitioner I had to see today refused to sign off on a list of natural supplements that I take regularly for prevention, saying that she doesn't practice "Eastern Medicine".
I asked her if she really considers natural vitamins and supplements to be "Eastern Medicine" and she was quite emphatic about it. :facepalm:
I live in a HUD-assisted complex for low income seniors and disabled, and the reason I need a doctor or NP to sign off on the list is so that I can submit it to HUD (The Housing Authority, a government agency) along with receipts for the approved supplements etc. that I have purchased over the last 12 months, as they will make deductions from my rent accordingly, making it much more affordable on my Social Security Retirement, which is my sole income.
It just goes to show again, even aside from the murderous vaccine agenda, what a state of Medical Tyranny the US government has succumbed to already, courtesy of Big Pharma, the WHO, etc.

[onawah]

SELLING SICKNESS: THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AND DISEASE BRANDING | Big Pharma Documentary
FilmIsNow Movies & Trailers
1.49M subscribers
24,136 views
May 14, 2023

"To sell a cure, first you need to sell the disease. According to some research, pharmaceutical companies are medicalising normal conditions, like the menopause, promoting non-existent diseases, and transforming mild problems into serious conditions that need treatment.

Twenty years ago, few people worried about their cholesterol level. Today, thanks to the pharmaceutical companies, high cholesterol levels are recognized as a major health problem and two of the best-selling drugs are statin reducers. Disease branding can destigmatize shameful problems, transforming incontinence into an ‘overactive bladder’, and encouraging people to seek treatment. But it can also put healthy people at risk, leading to them taking medicines with potentially dangerous side effects."

wOKAa_gaYFM

[onawah]

Press Conference on Surrender of US Sovereignty to the World Health Organization
NTD
1.34M subscribers
4,724 views 5/17/23

(It takes a couple of minutes before they adjust the microphone, so it's hard to hear at first.)

CDl3mJwxaq0

[onawah]

More about the Anti-WHO Press Conference
JAMES ROGUSKI
MAY 17, 2023
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/sovereignty-coalition-press-conference

Sovereignty Coalition Press Conference
"A number of members of Congress held a brief press conference today in Washington DC in support of #ExitTheWHO and to raise awareness about the actions of the World Health Organization.

Click here to exit the WHO (not just for those in the US: https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/exit-the-who

28XdmkXH_-A
On January 9, 2023, Congressman Andy Biggs from the 5th District in Arizona submitted House Resolution 79 (The WHO Withdrawal Act).
When I began this effort, there were only 7 co-sponsors.

CURRENT STATUS: Representative Biggs has been joined by 34 co-sponsors, so we still need 218-35 = 183 more co-sponsors.
The proposed legislation is very simple.
H.R. 79 would stop all United States funding of the World Health Organization and it would also repeal the Act of June 14, 1948 that got the United States into the WHO and would begin the one year process to enable the United States to #ExitTheWHO.
CLICK HERE TO READ H.R. 79: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/79/text?s=4&r=1&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR79%22%5D%7D

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F72c386e3-9202-4443-9d54-fa8defd0a26d_2702x3609.jpeg

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F23cd13f1-1449-48c6-942f-697cc8ee8188_969x1254.jpeg

MUCH MUCH MORE HERE: https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/exit-the-who
and HERE: https://standforhealthfreedom.com/

v2f9x3a/?pub=ijro7

[onawah]

W.H.O. Do You Think You Are?
JAMES ROGUSKI
MAY 20, 2023
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/who-do-you-think-you-are?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Admin Edit 2023-05-22 @13:18GMT: video now embedded here - Tintin Q :thumbsup:

https://avalonlibrary.net/WHO%20Do%20You%20Think%20You%20Are%97An%20Expos%E9%20of%20the%20World%20Health%20Organisation--May%2019%202023.mp4

"I was honored to participate in an exposé of the World Health Organization along with Catherine Austin Fitts, Wolfgang Wodard, David Bell, Sylvia Behrendt, Philipp Kruse and Meryl Nass.
Please watch the video below…
(Skip the first 8 minutes and 30 seconds)
https://boxcast.tv/view-embed/who-do-you-think-you-are---exposing-the-globalists-who-scheme--may-19th--9am-pt--12pm-et-amqxwbgthppxojcudk6w

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fcf939e8b-e8ff-49f3-836e-6177a4afea4a_2184x3247.jpeg

http://https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fcf939e8b-e8ff-49f3-836e-6177a4afea4a_2184x3247.jpeg

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7a9418a4-27a5-493d-aee1-68ae972f155c_2480x3159.jpeg

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F649e5637-f48e-4ad0-a362-37bc6fac5115_2480x2960.jpeg

The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.

If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.

JamesRoguski.com

JamesRoguski.substack.com/about

JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive

310-619-3055

All content is free to all readers.

All support is deeply appreciated."

(Roguski also has written many other exposing articles about the WHO here: https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/the-proposed-amendments-to-the-international-a99?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email )

[Delight]

There are two sides to a reign of tyrrany. There is the "tyrant" (person but more likely a "group") and then there is the "population". If the population cooperates with tyrany, it is so much easier to reign. Carrots and sticks and poisoning the group (mentally, emotionally, physically)so they are immobilized looks like a comprehensive plan.

The worst forms of torture have been deliberately committed by those we should trust. It is SO TERRIBLE that we are stunned INTO SUBMISSION.

Venom, COVID, and Neanderthal Genes: Conversation with Dr. Tau Braun
A delightful conversation and a non-sensationalist take.
TESSA LENA
APR 30, 2023 (https://tessa.substack.com/p/dr-tau-braun)

Dr. Tau Braun - The Spike Protein Functions as a Neurological TRANQUILIZER

v2lt04w/?pub=mpxgj

[onawah]

Justice For Medicine/Hearings in Ontario

Justice For Medicine/6/13/23
JAMES ROGUSKI
JUN 12, 2023
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/justice-for-medicine?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

"Please send an email to tribunal@opsdt.ca (College of Physicians) to get links to view the hearings that begin on Tuesday June 13, 2023.
IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED:
DrTrozzi.org

PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW TO ATTEND THE HEARINGS VIRTUALLY
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Trozzi.
The 7-day hearing begins on Tuesday, June 13 at 9:00 am EDT
ON Monday July 17, 2023 --Final Legal Arguments

Send an email to tribunal@opsdt.ca to request links to view the hearings online.
You will need to request a separate link each day of the hearings.
They will make it very tedious with hopes that no one will attend the virtual meetings.

'Dear College of Physicians,
Please send me whatever link(s) are needed to enable me to view the hearings regarding the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Trozzi.'

Dr. Mark Trozzi will be challenging the College's flagrant disregard of the need to establish reasonable and probable grounds before initiating an investigation and, most importantly, he will be defending the right to speak freely in all matters of public concern, as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.'

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7d595cda-bab1-4d91-9654-f8fdd5f5fc06_444x339.png Dr. Trozzi


In the course of his defence, he will make Canadian legal history by advancing a new basis for the defence of freedom of expression under the Charter.

Dr. Mark Trozzi, a former Ontario emergency department doctor and teacher has been instrumental in raising the awareness of Canadians and people worldwide by speaking truth to power.

Dr. Mark Trozzi has been a beacon of hope in crazy times. Being one of the earliest doctors to speak out on COVID, he pre-emptively went on leave from his teaching and hospital job so that they could not pressure him into silence. He wanted to be able to research first-hand one of the biggest coverups in our history.

Even though he wasn't practicing, the College of Physicians and Surgeons still came after him, and he is now forced to defend himself.

The College finally came for his licence, when only a few months ago, he stepped in to see patients at the practice of Dr. Crystal Luchkiw, another brave physician who had her licence pulled for speaking her mind about COVID-19. As Dr. Luchkiw's patients were without a doctor, Dr. Trozzi and Dr. Chris Shoemaker volunteered to see her patients to keep the practice open.

The day they started, and for no reason other than perhaps spite, the College pulled Dr. Trozzi's licence the very same day. He wasn't lecturing on COVID-19, he wasn't giving vaccine exemptions, and he wasn't spreading “misinformation” (i.e. the truth) on social media. He was simply doing what doctors do best: treating patients who desperately needed a doctor. For this they pulled his licence - something they could have done months before for his supposed "COVID Crimes" but instead they chose the very day he was helping Dr. Luchkiw's vulnerable patients.

Since Dr. Luchkiw's practice has shut down, several of her patients have died, at least one by suicide.

Dr. Trozzi plans to keep fighting these baseless charges all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary.

Most recently, in no small part through his tireless efforts, Canadians can now access medical care through The Wellness Company in Canada.

As Dr. Mark Trozzi has functioned internationally on everyone's behalf -- let's ALL of us send him our grateful thanks and make his hearing/persecution an international affair!

In other words, let us show the tribunal that Dr. Trozzi is too big for them to chew on without serious consequences.
The hearings begin at 9am Eastern (6am Pacific) on Tuesday morning, June 13, 2023.
There will be some fireworks!

PLEASE ATTEND THE HEARINGS
Send an email to tribunal@opsdt.ca to request links to view the hearings.

ADDITIONAL CASES:
Much is at stake for these doctors and their patients, and indeed, all Canadians and everyone on Earth.
The doctors below are also fighting for the fundamental rights that define a free and democratic society:
The right to make sound medical choices without state interference based on the principle informed consent;

The right to freedom of expression in all matters, and particularly in those relating to medicine and public health;

The right to be free from state investigations and prosecutions that are not founded on reasonable and probable grounds ("probable cause");

Dr. Crystal Luchkiw
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9ee3ba82-fc94-447c-b5ce-538f58993ef7_741x1111.jpeg

Dr. Crystal Luchkiw is a family and palliative care physician from Barrie, Ontario. Prior to the pandemic, she was a highly respected family physician with a reputation for providing compassionate care based on a commitment to excellence and the principles of informed consent and “do no harm.” She held a teaching appointment in palliative care at the Royal Victoria Regional Hospital and much of her practice was devoted to caring for the elderly.

During the pandemic response, she witnessed an extreme deviation from the fundamental principles of ethical medical practice. This caused serious harm to her patients, particularly those suffering from mental health issues and approaching end-of-life. In response, Dr. Luchkiw increased her critical scrutiny of scientific literature and questioned whether public health measures were properly balancing the public good with patient welfare.

In speaking out about the increasing harms to her patients and the public-at-large, she was targeted by hospital administrators and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. As a result, the College suspended her licence in March of 2022 and deprived her 1,700 patients of medical care during a physician shortage, while also cancelling their prescriptions, scheduled tests and appointments with specialists. Since her suspension, Dr. Luchkiw has pursued legal action against the College for investigating and prosecuting her without legal justification and infringing her constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Patrick Phillips, MD
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff11ea327-a4f3-4c3f-a0b4-b8355544a999_474x474.jpeg

Patrick Phillips, MD, is an emergency and family physician from Englehart, Ontario. Through the course of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdowns, his patients suffered harms due to draconian public health measures.

After witnessing everything from missed cancer screenings resulting in terminal cancer diagnoses to a surge in childhood suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, Dr. Phillips could not stand by silently. In spite of an edict from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, ordering doctors to remain silent on vaccine adverse events and the harms of lockdowns, he openly discussed the suffering he was witnessing first-hand; he also provided cutting-edge information about alternative Covid-19 treatments. As well, he frequently participated in freedom rallies, including the Truckers' Convoy in Ottawa.

In reprisal, the College suspended his licence and has been seeking its revocation by means of a discipline hearing. Recently, Dr. Phillips entered a plea of no contest in his case, in part, so that resources can be devoted to the defence of first principles in the Luchkiw and Trozzi cases. However, in doing so, he has preserved the right to re-apply for his licence should the College Tribunal or the Ontario courts render a judgment in favour of his colleagues. Dr. Phillips remains committed to evidence-based medicine, the principles of informed consent and “do no harm,” and the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You can follow him on Twitter: @DrP_MD


JusticeForMedicine.com
Justice for Medicine is seeking public support to defend our doctors and their patients because their fate is intimately bound to the enjoyment of the rights and liberties guaranteed to everyone under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Justice For Medicine website provides a meeting place where everyone can get insider updates on the latest developments in our continuing defence efforts. It will also provide cutting-edge information combating the one-sided narrative around COVID-19 favoured by Western governments and mainstream media. This includes access to the latest articles, speeches and alt-media interviews featuring the doctors and their professional allies in Canada and around the world.

Please watch Dr. Trozzi's hearing this week - and support him financially if you are able. The multiple days of hearings will be very costly.

Thank you so much to those who have already donated, it has meant so much.

Michael Alexander
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5d52678c-011b-4733-a61a-b0355823ba59_322x322.jpeg

You can reach Michael Alexander at info@JusticeForMedicine.com

by James Roguski
The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.

If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.

JamesRoguski.com

JamesRoguski.substack.com/about

JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive

310-619-3055

All content is free to all readers.

All support is deeply appreciated.

James Roguski’s newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber."

[Bo Atkinson]

This link goes to a video:


https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/guilty-of-saving-lives-dr-meryl-nass-tarred--feathered-as-hearings-conclude--more/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=chdtv&utm_id=20230920

EPISODE 252
SEP 20, 2023

Guilty of Saving Lives: Dr. Meryl Nass ‘Tarred + Feathered’ as Hearings Conclude + More

Thinking, rational people have always been skeptical of unreasonable bureaucrats, and many Mainers are suspicious of cooperate medical cultism, (Maine is where all of this is occurring).

[onawah]

Shocking expose from Dr. Ardis of rampant malpractice--Fauci, NIH, CDC, etc. I think he puts to rest in this video the whole argument as to whether there is a COVID virus or not, starting at 1 hour 12 minutes intoi the video.
Though to get the whole explanation, you need to start at the beginning.

THE ANTIDOTE | THE EXPLOSIVE TRUTH, ORIGIN AND ANTIDOTE FOR C-19
September 28, 2023
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/the-antidote-the-explosive-truth-origin-and-antidote-for-covid-19-share-everywhere/

(Hopefully there will be a transcript for this conversation, because it's well worth knowing what Ardis has to say, even if you don't have 2&1/2 hours to listen.)

""Watch this explosive interview with Dr Bryan Ardis and Jason Shurka exposing the truth, origin, and unexpected antidote for C19 that ravaged the world.
Dr Bryan Ardis is a renowned doctor and researcher who has been at the forefront of uncovering the origins of C19 and finding ways to counter its effects. Despite facing resistance from major pharmaceutical companies, Dr Ardis remains steadfast in his mission to unearth the truth.
Jason Shurka has been closely monitoring Dr Ardis’s progress over the past year and supports his efforts to disseminate this vital information to a global audience. This interview serves to bring his valuable insights to the forefront."

v3jbpg5/?pub=ijro7

[onawah]

California Quietly Repeals Law to Censor Doctors
Drbeen Medical Lectures
633K subscribers
10/5/23

(Hyperlinks not embedded here)
"According to the legal firm HLLI: Governor Newsom and the California State legislature have conceded defeat and repealed AB 2098, a California state law that restricted doctors’ First Amendment free speech rights by threatening disciplinary action against their license for discussing with patients anything about COVID-19 that the State views as “disinformation” or “misinformation.” "

URL list from Thursday, Oct. 5 2023 15:25 PM

My previous talks about this law:
https://www.youtube.com/live/KF4_EyFQ...
https://www.youtube.com/live/CZ03vz7p...


Bill Text - AB-2098 Physicians and surgeons: unprofessional conduct.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...

(1) Azadeh Khatibi, MD, MS, MPH on X: "And with a stroke of a pen, AB2098, California's COVID medical censorship law, has been quietly repealed by the very same people who had ridiculously wanted it in place. For a year-and-a-half now, I’ve spoken out against this law. Ultimately, I and others sued @GavinNewsom and… https://t.co/iAL5UQtReo" / X
https://twitter.com/azadehkhatibi/sta...

HLLI Claims Victory with Repeal of California COVID-19 “Disinformation” Statute – Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
https://hlli.org/hlli-claims-victory-...

California COVID-19 misinformation law repealed | Credentialing Resource Center
https://credentialingresourcecenter.c...

California Repeals COVID Misinformation Law, Bowing to Legal Pressure - Liberty Justice Center
https://libertyjusticecenter.org/news...

California's COVID-19 misinformation law is dead
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com...

California Misinfo Law Is Dead | MedPage Today
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-...

California law aiming to curb COVID misinformation blocked by judge | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/business/heal...

Doctors who deliver COVID falsehoods no longer committing ‘misconduct’
https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/ar...

Newsom repeals CA law that ‘censored’ doctors giving COVID-19 care | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/us/newsom-rep...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUoqeD9n8uI

[onawah]

How Big Pharma Bought the Federal Government
Analysis by A Midwestern Doctor
October 07, 2023
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/10/07/how-big-pharma-bought-the-federal-government.aspx

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here.)

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2023/October/PDF/how-big-pharma-bought-the-federal-government-pdf.pdf

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The gross malfeasance observed throughout COVID-19 has opened many people’s eyes to the immense corruption within our government
This corruption has been gradually growing over decades, and at this point numerous well-established mechanisms exist for the pharmaceutical industry to buy out federal employees, guideline committees, and regulatory agencies
Much of that corruption has been directly orchestrated by Anthony Fauci, a man who is directly responsible for making the American government no longer serve its people — while being paid handsomely for doing so
Addressing the root causes of this corruption is vital for the future of our nation and necessary to prevent something even worse than what we witnessed throughout COVID-19 from being enacted in the future

For a society to function, it requires a collective trust in the society’s institutions. One of the most challenging things for many to come to terms with throughout COVID-19 has been how each institution we trusted to protect us instead pushed a variety of unjustifiable policies and then refused to stop pushing them even as public protest broke out against the harm those policies were creating. I would argue what we saw throughout the pandemic was ultimately a consequence of two things:

Medicine is one of the United State’s most lucrative industries (the amount we spend on it has steadily increased each year).
The practice of medicine is controlled by regulatory bodies who grant monopolies to any party which can complete the arduous tasks needed to earn their seal of approval.
Because of this, an immense incentive exists to buy out the regulators, so unscrupulously spending large amounts of money to earn a coveted spot in the medical marketplace has become a routine business practice for the pharmaceutical industry.

In turn, as time has moved forward, and the medical industry has continued to grow (e.g., in 2021, 4.3 trillion dollars went to healthcare, amounting to 18.3% of all spending in the USA), the corruption that sustains it has proliferated throughout our institutions.

Because of the wanton disregard for the science we saw throughout COVID-19, much of the public now believes our institutions are throughly corrupt. However, what is much less understood is the anatomy of that corruption and how deeply it has entwined itself within the Federal government.

Tightening the Thumbscrews
A common pattern I repeatedly witness is a new institution being created by strongly investing in creating the idealized version of it, then once that ideal version has earned the public’s trust and everyone becomes invested in its new way of doing things (to the point they can’t return to how things were before), the screws are gradually tightened on the institution. Once this happens, those who work within the institution often become willing to compromise on their values and ethics.

For example, a college education was originally considered a specialized path for those genuinely interested in scholarly pursuits. However, after it became a way for individuals to dodge being drafted into the Vietnam War, many more began pursuing it, which made the Federal Government’s willingness to provide unconditional loans to anyone wishing to pursue a college education give birth to an enormous industry which rapidly inflated the costs of a college tuition.

This, in turn, increasingly incentivized colleges to prioritize growth and to retain their failing students so those students would continue paying tuition.

In parallel to this, the job of a college professor radically changed; previously they were in short supply now a glut of them exists in the marketplace, especially since the growth-focused mentality of higher education has eliminated the previous stipulation that professors needed to be selected on the basis of their academic merit.

Because of this, there are many professors (often with PhD’s) who have a low enough salary they need food stamps to make their ends meet and hence cannot do anything which challenges their employers.

For example, I’ve talked to numerous professors who have stated that they have been forced by their administration to disregard cheating from their students (so they would continue to pay tuition) and a cottage industry now exists for professors to make money on the side by writing papers (e.g., a thesis) for students seeking a degree.

Note: One of the best compilations I saw of the increasing corruption within the educational sector came from a blog by an anonymous college professor. A few years ago he passed away from a grossly mismanaged testicular cancer, so the final posts on it focus on medicine rather than education.

As you might imagine, this issue has also seeped into the medical field as medical schools make a lot of money. In turn, as the years have gone by, colleagues have shared increasingly concerning instances of cheating being swept under the rug or them being pressured by the administration to find ways to pass students who should have otherwise failed.

Likewise, since the position of a professor (and often a graduate student) is so dependent on the papers they publish, they are incentivized to fabricate data so their paper can be published and many studies have shown this fraud has become a widespread issue within the scientific literature.

One of the most overt examples we saw of this came from the recent discovery that immediately after the leak occurred at the Wuhan lab (which Fauci had funded), he panicked and then contacted a group of respected virologists to request they produce a paper to prove COVID-19 could not have come from a lab. The virologists, in turn, did just that, and Fauci repeatedly used their paper to debunk the lab leak hypothesis.

Shortly after, the lead author had a 9.8 million dollar research grant from the NIH approved (which Fauci held the final say on) — which that author lied to Congress about, and later leaked chat messages emerged showing the paper’s authors also lied to the world as they themselves believed the virus had come from a lab.

Note: This paper also formed the basis for Big Tech aggressively censoring anyone who suggested a lab leak had occurred. Had the lab leak hypothesis have been allowed to enter the public discourse, Fauci likely would not have been allowed to direct the response to the pandemic he himself was responsible for creating (especially given that in response to public outcry over previous leaks of dangerous pathogens, Obama had effectively banned Fauci’s research).

Most recently, it was revealed Fauci also covertly met with the CIA when they were deliberating if SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. The CIA in turn publicly announced the lab leak could not be proven, (which amongst other things required bribing the team responsible for the CIA’s assessment).

Another noteworthy example occurred after the vaccines had hit the market and many recipients began developing complex neurological illnesses from them. Some of those individuals (e.g., the clinical trial participants) contacted the NIH for help and were enrolled in a study to evaluate and treat their concerning disorders.

According to one participant (Brianne Dressen), the NIH was initially very interested in helping them (and learned from the FDA that it was aware of other clinical trial participants who had been injured), but once it became clear neurological injuries were a frequent complication of the vaccine, the NIH appears to have decided its best move was to try and bury everything and hence ghost the people it was evaluating for the neurological illnesses.

Thus the NIH publicly denied there was any evidence neurological vaccine injuries were occurring and repeatedly pushed back the date they’d promised Dressen and others to publish the study evaluating them. Had that study been published on time, it would have greatly helped many of the patients suffering neurological injuries that “couldn’t exist” because there was no peer-reviewed literature substantiating those injuries or more importantly guidelines on how to treat them.

In short, I’d argue that the debasement of our educational system has rippled out into the entire society as we depend on its graduates to turn the gears of everything (e.g., by appropriately conducting scientific research), and if we have incompetent or dishonest personnel occupy these positions, the institutions they staff decay as well.

Note: This issue was significantly worsened by Obama’s decision to prioritize academic qualifications rather than real world experience in the federal hiring process. Similarly, most of his senior officials had a degree from an Ivy League college.

Revenue Shortfalls
One of the primary ways the thumbscrews have been tightened throughout the society has been by gradually impoverishing everyone except the working class (most recently, from 2020 to 2021, billionaires went from owning slightly over 2% of the global household wealth to 3.5% of it.). Because of this, almost every institution we depend upon is underfunded and thus willing to consider unethical sources of funding.

For instance, industry often “donates” large amounts of money to schools in return for favorable research being pursued there, and then may threaten to withhold those donations unless an unrelated professor within the college stops performing research that is critical of the industry.

Within the federal government, this impoverishment comes through budgets being slashed and agencies inevitably looking to the private sector for funding. In turn, something similar to what is observed in the educational sector happens, although the scale of it is often far worse.

For example, in 1983, Congress authorized the CDC to accept gifts “made unconditionally…for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.” Then in 1992, Congress established The National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention so that CDC could obtain additional funding for its work, or put differently, created a third party for passing tainted money to the CDC.

The CDC Foundation has been accused of egregious conduct since its inception and has received nearly 1 billion dollars from corporate “donors.” The potential for the foundation enabling corruption in turn has been criticized by many, including by a scathing editorial in one of the world’s top medical journals. Many examples of its corruption are documented within this 2019 letter to the CDC. They include:

•Being paid by a pesticide industry firm to conduct a study to prove the safety of two pesticides.

•During the years 2010-15, Coca-Cola contributed more than 1 million dollars to the CDC Foundation. In return, the CDC offered numerous services including collaborative meetings and advice from a top CDC staffer on how to lobby the World Health Organization to curtail the WHO’s initiative to reduce global consumption of added sugars — which is really something given that the CDC has been tasked with fighting obesity.

•Taking money from Roche to push Tamiflu (which the CDC continues to do to this day), an ineffective and harmful flu treatment which was approved off of data that was kept secret from the public.

Note: As of 2019, the CDC also owned 57 vaccine patents and recently spent $4.9 of its $12.0 billion-dollar annual budget buying and distributing vaccines. This may help to explain why the CDC always recommends every vaccine regardless of the evidence arguing against of doing so or how much opposition they receive from the public (and sometimes even their advisors).

Members of Congress have even formally complained about the payments to the CDC foundation (as have anonymous whistleblowers within the CDC). In short, the conflicts of interest with the CDC foundation are immense and help to explain why the CDC always pushes corrupt and harmful policies (e.g., many of the profiteers who benefitted immensely from the COVID-19 vaccination campaign had previously given the CDC millions).

Note: Many other agencies within the federal government, including the CIA and the NIH, have their own foundations that were also created by Congress to allow them to access corporate bribes donations that are not subject to legal oversight such as freedom of information act requests).

Not surprisingly, many of the directors of these foundations, like their peers in government, often follow the revolving door and end up in high-paying executive roles at major pharmaceutical companies after leaving the foundations.

The pernicious influence of industry cash can also be seen at the FDA. On October 29, 1992, in response to public concerns that no AIDS treatments were getting to market (which was a result of Fauci deliberately blocking all of them to clear the way for the deadly and ineffective AZT), Congress and then George Bush Sr. signed into law the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which authorized the FDA to take money from the drug makers it approved drugs for.

As a result of this act, drug approval times were shortened (going from 29 months in 1987 to 10 months in 2018), and the percentage of drugs that were approved the first time an approval was requested dramatically increased. Conversely, prior to the act, 21% of medications were removed from the market or had new black box warnings added to them.

After the act, this figure increased to 27% as a result of factors such as senior FDA officials overturning its scientists’ recommendations, and the evidence required for a medication approval being lowered.

As a result of these changes, user fees now comprise a significant portion of the FDA’s budget (e.g., 46% in 2022, and approximately of the 65% of that allotted for regulating drugs used in humans) — which not surprisingly has had an increasingly corrupting influence on the FDA’s drug approval process.

One of the best illustrations of this can be seen with the current FDA commissioner Robert Califf, who in 2009, was considered to be too close to the industry to nominate to the position, yet in 2021 was appointed to it, and ever since gaining control of the FDA has advanced the interests of his industry.

For example shortly after the backdoor approval of a controversial Alzheimer’s drug, Califf was a keynote speaker at the annual pharmaceutical industry conference which emphasized the incredible investment opportunities offered by the new Alzheimer’s and obesity drugs (which the agency was also pushing through).

Furthermore in addition to being overtly compensated by the industry for supporting its interests (e.g., Califf had taken a lot of money from Big Pharma), a revolving door also exists to pay them off after the fact. Consider for instance that the second official appointed by Trump to head the FDA, Scott Gottleib is now on Pfizer’s board.

Likewise, Stephan Hahn the commissioner who was in charge of the FDA for the entirety of Operation Warp Speed (and as Peter Navarro showed, against the president’s orders, actively sabotaged affordable and effective treatments for COVID-19) Hahn is now an executive for the venture capital firm that launched Moderna (and thus owns a significant portion of it).

Note: This issue exists beyond the healthcare sector — for instance Lloyd Austin was first a four-star general under Obama, then left to become a board member for Raytheon, and then left that position to become Biden’s Secretary of Defense. Since becoming in charge of our military, one of the worst wars in modern history has broken out, which coincidently required a massive amount of weaponry to be purchased from defense contractors like Raytheon.

All of this has effectively created a “pay-to-play” situation, where it’s almost impossible to get a drug approved unless you have a lot of money and as a result, therapies that put people before profits have a very difficult time getting through.

This was best shown throughout COVID-19 where numerous teams were unable to receive an EUA (or sometimes even permission to conduct American trials) for safe therapies that had strong evidence they were effective in treating COVID-19, while awful but highly lucrative therapies (e.g., Remdesivir, Paxlovid and Molnupiravir) sailed through the approval process.

Given that the Prescription Drug User Fee Act was originally created during the AIDS crisis to help expedite emergency therapies being approved to treat novel diseases, its noteworthy the exact opposite ultimately happened.

Note: I was heavily involved with one team which attempted to secure an EUA, and it was depressing how high a standard we were held to compared to Pfizer.

Likewise, a big part of why Steve Kirsch originally got involved with the vaccine issue was because he provided a wealth of evidence and funded the original clinical trial that demonstrated an already FDA approved drug was a highly effective treatment for COVID-19 but was stonewalled in receiving an EUA from the FDA (which Kirsch was told from an insider also sabotaged Fluvoxamine making it into the NIH’s COVID treatment guidelines).

Guideline Committees
One of the classic tactics propagandists and marketers use to manipulate the public is to have an “independent” party (especially a trustable one) endorse the sponsor’s position. Because of this, you frequently find that a variety of nice sounding third parties (e.g., many of those which advocate for helping patients with specific medical conditions) are taking money from corporate sponsors and ultimately advance positions that to serve their sponsor’s interests.

A common way this technique is utilized is by delegating important policy decisions to impartial committees of qualified experts. That way, the conclusions they come to are perceived to be objective truth, rather than the work of a corrupt bureaucrat — even though in reality the corrupt bureaucrat calls the shots by deciding who ends up on the committee.

For example, in COVID-19, much of the death that happened was the result of no effective treatments existing for COVID-19, and instead only dangerous ones like remdesivir being permitted — which seems odd given that the evidence for remdesivir was appalling, whereas the evidence for many of the other treatments was phenomenal.

Let’s in turn consider the evidence and cost of each approved treatment for COVID-19 (the EUA list can be found here, the NIH treatment guidelines here).
https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2023/September/pooled-effects.jpg

Note: A few newer (and expensive) currently approved treatments for COVID-19 are not included in the above list. Many of the discontinued therapies were the monoclonal antibodies (which effectively treated COVID-19). The FDA discontinued them because they no longer matched the circulating variants of COVID-19 — yet simultaneously this decision was not applied to the vaccines.

I feel this decision was a shame since numerous people reported those monoclonals (which matched the vaccine spike protein) often were very helpful in treating vaccine injuries, but after the EUA was withdrawn, the entire supply was disposed of (minus a bit like what my colleague intercepted when this happened).

From looking at this list, it seems clear the primary determinant of if a treatment ended up in the guidelines was if it did not treat the infection (instead only providing symptomatic management — which was often dangerous) or if it was a lucrative product someone was making money off of. In short, our regulators appeared to be focused on protecting the market rather than the American people.

Interestingly, when the NIH committee which created the COVID-19 treatment guidelines was looked into, it was discovered that most of them had taken money from Gilead (remdesivir’s manufacturer). Furthermore, example this article discusses how Fauci chose to appoint one of his longtime associates (pictured below) to chair that committee.

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2023/September/fauci-longtime-associates.jpg

Note: According to a recent government investigation, the NIH spent approximately 162 million dollars developing remdesivir.

Likewise, the official Fauci appointed to chair the committee which monitored the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines while they were being tested was a board member of Gilead and numerous members of the FDA committee which horrendously voted to approve the vaccine for children had previously worked for Pfizer.

Note: The best argument I have seen in defense of the government hiring experts who are taking money from the company whose drug they are evaluating is that so many experts are being paid off now it’s extremely challenging to find academically qualified individuals for these committees who do not also have significant conflicts of interest.

This is one illustration of how the pervasive corruption in academia (which increases as funds become in short supply) has rippled out into the broader society.

Sadly, COVID was not the first time a corrupt committee’s guidelines have had massive consequences for the world. Consider this example from chapter 7 of Doctoring Data:

“The National Cholesterol Education Programme (NCEP) has been tasked by the NIH to develop guidelines [everyone uses] for treating cholesterol levels. Excluding the chair (who was by law prohibited from having financial conflicts of interest), the other 8 members on average were on the payroll of 6 statin manufacturers.

In 2004, NCEP reviewed 5 large statin trials and recommended: “Aggressive LDL lowering for high-risk patients [primary prevention] with lifestyle changes and statins.”

In 2005 a Canadian division of the Cochrane Collaboration [who were not paid off] reviewed 5 large statin trials (3 were the same as NCEP’s, while the other 2 had also reached a positive conclusion for statin therapy). That assessment instead concluded: “Statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary prevention trials.””

Note: Statins are widely considered to be one of the most dangerous and ineffective drugs on the market.

When deciding on approving a new drug, the FDA seeks the advice of an outside advisory panel about half of the time (typically for more controversial or less understood drugs).

In those cases, the FDA is more likely than not to agree with that panel — one study evaluating 416 decisions made between 1997 and 2012 found the FDA followed the advice of its panel 84% of the time, and when the FDA overruled its panel, 61% of those decisions were to have a drug rejected by the committee nonetheless be approved. Some of the more noteworthy recent over-rulings included:

•Approving an extremely expensive Alzheimer’s drug which did not work but did frequently cause brain bleeding and swelling (which could be fatal). That drug was unanimously rejected by the advisory committee, and when the FDA still chose to approve it, three members of that panel permanently resigned from their advisory capacity.

•A CDC advisory panel voted in favor of giving the booster six months after the second shot to those over 65, and for those with health factors that put them at risk for a severe COVID-19 infection, but against recommending it to workers who were more likely to come in contact with COVID.

The CDC overruled that final decision and advised it for everyone (which in turn resulted in it being mandated for much of the American population since many use the CDC’s “voluntary” guidelines to craft their policies).

Note: Around the same time the CDC overruled its committee, the FDA also overruled its advisory committee’s decision to not approve boosters for the general population which coincided with the resignation of two senior FDA officials in its vaccine division — one of whom joined a vaccine non-profit and the other who became a board member for a biotech company.

Royalty Payments
In 1980, the Bayh–Dole Act was passed, which gave researchers (whose research was funded by taxpayer money) and their universities the patent and royalty rights to any drug they developed. The act was intended to help facilitate discoveries making it to the marketplace (which was a valid point since things moved very slowly when the Federal Government retained control of those patents), but at the time many worried it would corrupt the national research apparatus.

Not long after, as detailed within Chapter 7 of The Real Anthony Fauci, Fauci entered the scene and began transforming our national research apparatus into a pharmaceutical production pipeline. For example to quote a 2021 interview with RFK Jr:

“Between 2009 and 2016, there were hundreds of drugs approved by FDA. Virtually all of them came out of [Fauci’s NIH pharmaceutical production pipeline].”

Note: RFK Jr. recently estimated that Fauci’s agency owns 2,200 drug patents, many of which have been lucratively licensed to pharmaceutical manufacturers. Similar conflicts of interest also exist for the NIH and CDC (which may help to explain why the CDC always recommends every vaccine).

This transformation was greatly accelerated by Fauci’s maneuvers during the AIDS crisis (creating a hysteria about the disease, blocking all effective treatments for it from coming to market and making the deadly AZT be approved and then become the standard of care) which allowed him to get his agency, the NIAID, a massive discretionary budget, a global influence over scientific research and international health policy, and a large influence over the FDA and CDC.

In effect, Fauci gained control over the national research apparatus (which amongst other things was why he was able to destroy the careers of scientists like Peter Duesberg who challenged him as he could cut off their access to the grants every career scientist depends upon and make many reluctant to hire those who had crossed him). To create his pipeline Fauci did the following:

He assembled a network of clinical investigators (PIs) around the country who would test these drugs, often in a highly unethical manner.
He concealed the financial conflicts of interest from the trial participants (who likely would not have consented if they’d known they were guinea pigs for an investment).
He worked diligently to conceal the money everyone was making from the royalties on those drugs.
He used the money this pipeline brought in from the pharmaceutical industry to gradually buy out our regulators so they would push along his dangerous and unproven drugs.
Note: Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady is the nation’s chief bioethicist. Throughout her tenure, she has used her position to successfully lobby for Fauci’s policies (e.g., all of horrendous ones we saw throughout COVID-19) to be deemed “ethical.”

In short, Fauci made the Bayh–Dole Act become something far worse than its harshest critics had imagined. To quote Vera Sharav, a Holocaust survivor who has runs a non-profit directed at investigating unethical human experimentation and spent years investigating the NIAID’s conduct:

“Beginning around 1990, clinical trials became the profit center for the medical community. The insurance industry and HMOs were squeezing doctors so that it became hard to make big money practicing medicine. The most ambitious doctors left patient care and gravitated toward clinical trials.

Everybody involved was making money except the subjects of the human experiments. At the center of everything was NIH and NIAID. While people were not paying attention, the agency quietly became the partner of the industry.”

RFK Jr. aptly summarizes the immense scope of Fauci’s enterprise:

Between 2010 and 2016, every single drug that won approval from the FDA — 210 different pharmaceuticals — originated, at least in part, from research funded by the NIH.

At the time all of this happened, the pharmaceutical industry had far less control over the media as it was only in 1997 that directly advertising pharmaceutical products became legal in the United States.

This resulted in an ever increasing amount of advertising dollars coming from the pharmaceutical industry which in turn allowed the industry to be able to leverage media companies into never airing content critical of the industry — best illustrated by the fact in 1976, a far less dangerous (but still dangerous) experimental vaccine was recklessly deployed on America and after a significant number of people were injured, candid admissions of this were seen on mainstream news networks, something which is not allowed in today’s much more corrupt media climate.

4bOHYZhL0WQ

Note: Outside of the United States, direct pharmaceutical advertising remains illegal in most countries (New Zealand is the only other country that fully allows it — while Canada partially allows it).

As a result, in the past, the press was much more willing to criticize Fauci’s conduct. For example, this is what the BBC’s investigator from it’s 2004 “Guinea Pig Kids” documentary shared about one of Fauci’s experiments which forced many of the participants to take the medications against their consent:

“I found the mass grave at Gate of Heaven cemetery in Hawthorne, New York, I couldn’t believe my eyes. It was a very large pit with AstroTurf thrown over it, which you could actually lift up. Under it one could see dozens of plain wooden coffins, haphazardly stacked. There may have been 100 of them. I learned there was more than one child’s body in each.

Around the pit was a semi-circle of several large tombstones on which upward of one thousand children’s names had been engraved. I wrote down every name. I’m still wondering who the rest of those kids were. As far as I know, nobody has ever asked Dr. Fauci that haunting question.

I remember the teddy bears and hearts in piles around the pit and I recall the flies buzzing around. The job of recording all those names took all day. NIAID, New York, and all the hospital PIs were stonewalling us.

We couldn’t get any accurate estimate of the number of children who died in the NIAID experiments, or who they were. I went to check the gravestone names against death certificates at the NYC Department of Health, which you could still do at that time.

BBC wanted to match these coffins to the names of children who were known to have been at ICC. It was a very slow, byzantine project with tremendous institutional resistance, but we did turn up a few names.

This story ran in the NY Post, believe it or not. But one after the other, every media outlet that touched this story got cold feet. Even then, the medical cartel had this power to kill this kind of story. Dr. Fauci has built his career on that attitude. Nobody even asks him a follow- up question.

NIAID’s narrative, at that time, was that these children were among the doomed as they ‘had AIDS,’ so supposedly they were all going to die anyway. When people died, in large numbers, gruesome deaths, NIAID’s medical researchers called it ‘lessons learned.’”

Note: Another lucrative HIV drug, Nevirapine was pushed through by Fauci and his AIDS branch DAIDS. When it was unethically tested in Africa on mothers and their children to prevent HIV transmission, thousands of adverse events occurred (including dozens of deaths), which Fauci hid from the FDA.

Later when similar injuries occurred within the United States, Jonathan Fishbein, MD (who in 2003 was hired to oversee DAIDS’s research) tried to bring attention to these serious research violations. This resulted in Fauci firing Fishbein from DAIDS, and after a lengthy whistleblower investigation was conducted by Congress, it instituted an annual cap of 150,000 dollars on the royalties each government scientist could receive each year for the drugs they helped developed.

In addition to the BBC, other media companies were also willing to criticize Fauci. For example:

“According to a 2005 exposé by the Associated Press, “In all, 916 current and former NIH researchers are receiving royalty payments for drugs and other inventions they developed while working for the government.” That investigation concluded that scientists and administrators at the National Institutes of Health flagrantly disregard ethical and legal requirements of financial disclosure.

Five years ago Donna Shalala, then Secretary of the Health and Human Services, issued federal requirements (2000) of financial disclosure requiring NIH scientists to disclose their financial interest in experimental treatments on informed consent documents reviewed by patients being recruited as test subjects.

According to the Associated Press, NIH administrators did not even consider implementing the 5 year old federal requirement until AP filed a Freedom of Information request last week.”

Note: Between 1997 to 2005, Fauci and his deputy H. Clifford Lane (another of the chairs of the COVID-19 treatment committee) had each received $45,072.82 in royalties for an experimental AIDS treatment they invented and spent a lot of tax payer money testing (e.g., $36 million on one experiment), often in an unethical fashion (e.g., they repeatedly failed to disclose their conflicts of interest to trial participants).

Sadly, by the time COVID happened, the pharmaceutical production pipeline was so well established that dissenting narratives simply could not see the light of day. Because of this, Fauci continually received fawning admiration throughout the (pharmaceutically sponsored) media — the most depressing of which was probably this segment:

9sJ-d33a-FA

More importantly, Fauci was never called out on his lies, his responsibility for creating COVID-19 or the innumerable ways he contradicted himself throughout the pandemic. Rather, he was allowed to direct the pandemic response through non-sensical proclamations that only benefitted his sponsors.

Because of the embarrassment that was created through the 2005 AP investigation, the NIH pledged to become more transparent with royalty payments and disclose financial conflicts of interest for patients recruited into their trials. In 2021, almost twenty years later, the watchdog organization Open the Books (with the help of Judicial Watch) attempted to replicate the AP’s FOIA investigation.

They found not surprisingly, the NIH had failed to uphold its commitment and instead had become much more secretive about its activity since 2005 (e.g., in addition to not voluntarily disclosing the pharmaceutical payments, it refused to honor legally required FOIA requests). Although much was concealed they eventually found:

1.Over 56,000 royalty payments (from third parties) totaling over 325 million dollars were paid to 2400 NIH scientists.

2.Many of these payments came from foreign companies (e.g., a questionable Russian company and a Chinese company that worked closely with the Wuhan lab) or vaccine companies (e.g., for the disastrous HPV vaccine).

3.Some of the royalty payment recipients had also received massive grants from the NIH.

4.Many of the parties paying the royalty payments had also received much larger grants from the NIH (for context the NIH gave out 30 billion dollars in grants in 2022).

5.The most prominent figures in the NIH (who decided where those grants were directed) also received a disproportionately higher number of royalty payments. For example:

Fauci received 37 payments between 2010-2021
Francis Collins (the NIH director between 2009-2021) received 21 payments between 2010-2021
Fauci’s deputy Clifford Lane received 8 payments
Douglas Lowy who has occupied various leadership roles at the National Cancer Institute (e.g., he’s been the acting director since 2015) received 192 payments since 2009
Unfortunately, the NIH has still refused to disclose exactly how much each of their employees has received from the royalty payments.

Fortunately, with the help of Congress, Adam Andrzejewski was eventually able to obtain Fauci’s financial disclosures and discover how much he and his wife made during the pandemic response (which Fauci’s recently released calendar shows he was directing behind the scenes with all the key players long before COVID-19 was officially acknowledged):

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2023/September/fauci-household-net-worth-tracker.jpg

Note: Fauci is the highest paid federal employee, while is wife is one of the highest (she makes more than the vice president). He is also presently slated to receive a retirement pension of over $350,000.00 a year — which is also the largest federal pension in history.

Sadly, this excellent journalism resulted in Andrzejewski (who had previously earned the position of a senior policy contributor) being fired by Forbes — which again shows how much influence the pharmaceutical industry has over the media.

The GAO Investigation
One of the more honest departments within the Federal Government is the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an agency that serves as Congress’s watchdog and frequently uncovers other branches of the government deliberately concealing their misdeeds (e.g., this occurred when the GAO was assigned to investigate the military’s disastrous experimental anthrax vaccination program).

As part of the COVID-19 relief bills, the GAO was assigned to investigate the four agencies directly responsible for crafting the COVID-19 response (the FDA, CDC, NIH and ASPR) and attempted to answer a relatively simple question. Did political interference prevent employees within those departments from following policies in accordance with the existing scientific evidence?

After conducting interviews with employees in each agency, the GAO found many had observed this happen and a few at the CDC and FDA went further to state that: “they felt that the potential political interference they observed resulted in the alteration or suppression of scientific findings.”

When the GAO asked why the federal employees failed to report these actions, they cited the following reasons:

They feared retaliation.
They thought their leadership was already aware of those issues.
They were unsure how to report issues as no existing policies or procedures existed for making those reports.

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2023/September/elements-of-scientific-integrity-related-procedures-and-training.jpg

Note: Not having procedures in place to report misconduct is unusual as most large organizations have them and they are often required by the government to (e.g., medicare requires all hospitals receiving its payments to have a way for employees to report fraud).

When the GAO asked the leadership of those agencies why these necessary policies and procedures were not in place, the only explanation they received was that no reports of political interference had been made so there was no need to have a formalized reporting system for it.

In turn, I would argue this line of reasoning is not that different from the agencies habitually refusing to honor their promises to be transparent with the bribes they are receiving from the pharmaceutical industry.

For example, did you know that Moderna’s vaccine was developed by NIH scientists and that the NIH spent 1.4 billion dollars to help Moderna develop and test its vaccine?

Once I learned this I was relatively sure the vaccine would be approved by the FDA regardless of the red flags that emerged — and despite all the issues that have come to light since that time (along with the fact the vaccine barely works now) those agencies are still trying to push booster after booster for it onto the market.

In my eyes, one of the most important takeaways from the GAO’s investigation is that there are a lot of good people in these agencies who want to do the right thing, but they are often prevented from doing so because corrupt officials have been appointed to lead these agencies — something which RFK Jr. has also repeatedly found to be the case in his years of litigating against the federal government and the sentiment echoed by many of the personnel in these agencies (e.g., the previously mentioned CDC employees).

Conclusion
One of the most common strategies power hungry individuals use to control the masses is to rigidly establish pyramidal hierarchies within the society and then take control of the very top of each of those institutions.

For example, the premier medical journals have been established as the arbiters of “scientific truth,” and as the years have gone by, they’ve marched more and more in lockstep with Big Pharma — so as you might guess both the journals themselves and their editors receive a lot of money from the pharmaceutical industry.

This helps to explain why all of them (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) refused to publish anything critical of the COVID vaccines or remdesivir. Likewise, as Pierre Kory details within the War on Ivermectin, they refused to publish all the data showing affordable off-patent drugs worked much better than any of the lucrative products being rushed out for the COVID boondoggle.

In this article, I’ve attempted to show how there has been an increasing tide of corruption within the agencies we have long trusted to look out for our health. This corruption has now metastasized to the point we saw entire government march in lockstep throughout the pandemic in support of the irrational, unscientific and disastrous policies that were implemented throughout COVID-19. In many ways, I feel like we are well on the path to this scene from the iconic movie Idiocracy:

l8NJRRnnatw

As much as I’d like to blame the government for the disaster we are witnessing, I think much of it is also a reflection of the culture. For example, Big Pharma and the medical device industry spends a lot of money grooming doctors (now about 20 billion a year) — including over 2500 doctors who’ve received more than half a million dollars from the industry and 700 who’ve received over a million. Remember, that money is only spent because it works.

All of this I believe is representative of a cycle societies throughout history have been observed to follow:

Many factors in turn account for the cyclical nature of things; for example, as the times change, the society’s institutions are no longer suited to meet the needs of current era.

Likewise, when everything works well, citizens often take that for granted and lose the motivation to actively participate in making the society work, which allows the rot in the society’s institutions to fester, whereas once things become bad enough, they become motivated to become active participants in turning things around.

One of the major factors that goes hand in hand with this cycle is the level of corruption, as once it passes a certain point, the institutions society depends upon prioritize serving whoever is bribing them rather than the society — which rapidly leads to things falling apart. As I have tried to illustrate in this article, we are presently in a period of institutional breakdown which has gone hand in hand with the ever-growing corruption throughout our society.

At this point, there are now more and more indications the egregiousness of that corruption (especially given how far things went throughout COVID-19), has now begun to open the public’s eyes to the pervasive corruption within our society and that it’s reached the point it is now threatening the stability of the United States.

In turn, my hope is that this recognition will create the political will to halt the institutional decline our nation is facing — because if it doesn’t, the decline will continue worsen (history has countless examples of the innumerable atrocious things which occur during major institutional declines) and we will likely experience an even greater shock than what was seen during the pandemic.

A Note From Dr. Mercola About the Author
A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I'm grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD's work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack."

[onawah]

Google, Microsoft, Facebook Among Tech Giants Illegally Harvesting Private Health Information
10/20/23
By Mike Capuzzo
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/google-microsoft-facebook-harvest-private-health-information/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20231020

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads//tech-giant-harvest-private-health-feature-800x417.jpg

"Google, Microsoft, Facebook, TikTok and the majority of medical and healthcare websites illegally harvest and sell private health information despite a federal crackdown on the practice, according to a new cybersecurity report by Feroot Security.

The report, by Toronto-based cybersecurity firm Feroot Security, analyzed hundreds of healthcare websites and found that more than 86% are collecting private data and transferring it to advertisers, marketers and Big Tech social media companies without user consent and in violation of privacy laws.

As patients or consumers browse their favorite or trusted medical websites or sign in to hospital portals to access their private health records, invisible bits of HTML code — called “tracking pixels” — embedded on the websites harvest private information, such as whether patients have cancer, erectile dysfunction or are behind on their hospital bill.

The information is repackaged and sold for a variety of uses, including to companies that target individual users with internet ads, according to the report.

The risk of having personal data scraped is particularly high on log-in and registration pages where internet users supply troves of information, unaware it is being hijacked and sold. More than 73% of log-in and registration pages have invisible trackers that pirate personal health information, the study found.

Approximately 15% of the tracking pixels analyzed by Feroot record users’ keystrokes, harvesting social security numbers, usernames and passwords, credit card and banking information, and an infinite variety of personal health data, including medical diagnosis and treatment.

The study showed that “Google is the absolute dominant collector” of data. Ninety-two percent of the websites loaded on the Google search engine contained data-harvesting technology across wide sectors of the U.S. economy including healthcare and telehealth, banking and financial services, airlines, e-commerce, and the federal and state governments.

The number two offender was Microsoft with 50.4% of websites on its platform hiding tracking tools, with Facebook next at 50.2% percent and TikTok at 7.41% percent and growing fast.

Google, as the driver of its parent Alphabet, the world’s fourth largest company, is often called “the most powerful company in the world.” It counts on advertising, a lifeblood of the global digital economy, for 80% of its revenue.

Microsoft and Facebook “round up the Top 3” of companies that systematically breach data, the report said.

Representatives of Google, Microsoft, and Facebook denied their companies used tracking pixels to harvest personal data.

Website owners are responsible for controlling data collection, a Google spokesperson said. Google policy prohibits Google Analytics and advertising customers, including for example hospital or telehealth websites, from collecting health data in violation of the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). It’s up to the websites to determine “whether they are HIPAA-regulated entities and what their obligations are under HIPAA,” Google policy says.

Personal health data collected by a tracker or third party without a user’s consent is a violation of HIPAA, said Feroot CEO Ivan Tsarynny.

Big Tech companies “do have policies that talk about protecting health info,” Tsarynny said. But “the real-world application of these policies is a different story.”

Feroot’s study comes as “concern grows regarding data mining companies using pixels/trackers that load into browsers from websites to collect privacy and sensitive user data,” the report stated.

“Compliance regulators and government authorities are increasingly stepping in with bans, restrictions, and executive orders to curb them.”

Eighteen major hospital systems were sued this year for sharing patients’ sensitive health data with Google, Facebook and other tech giants in violation of privacy laws, according to Becker’s Hospital Review.

They include prominent academic medical centers such as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the University of Chicago Medical Center, the University of Iowa Medical Center, Chicago-based Northwestern Memorial Hospital and the University of California San Francisco Medical Center.

Prompted by growing concerns over data theft and the article, “‘Out of Control’: Dozens of Telehealth Startups Sent Sensitive Health Information to Big Tech Companies,” Feroot launched an investigation “to ascertain the exact magnitude and pervasiveness of social media pixels/trackers collecting and transferring personal, sensitive, and private data using pixels or trackers.”

The security platform Feroot sells to companies “made it possible to get detailed facts regarding active client-side e-skimming,” the company said.

Feroot collected data on pixels/trackers during an eight-week period in January and February.

The company said it examined more than 3,675 organizations with unique websites in seven economic sectors. It studied 108,836 unique web pages, including especially vulnerable login, registration and credit card processing pages, 227 trackers and 7 million data transfers.

Key findings from ‘Beware of Pixels & Trackers’:

Pixel trackers are “common and abundant” — an average of 13.16 pixels/trackers were found per website, “with Google, Microsoft, Meta (owner of Facebook), ByteDance (owner of TikTok), and Adobe being some of the most common.”
“Mission-critical” webpages, such as log-in or registration pages, increase the risk of exposing private information. An average of 5.96% of websites had pixels/trackers on webpages reading user input forms containing privacy or sensitive data.
Pixel trackers transfer data to foreign locations around the globe — “about 5% of the data transferred by pixels/trackers loaded from US-based websites is sent outside the US.”

Pixel trackers collect and transfer data without first obtaining the explicit consent of visitors.
Pixels and trackers are loading from domains banned by the U.S. government and various U.S. states and even from some of those same governments, including Russia and China. Data obtained by Russian and Chinese websites is a security risk from surveillance and spying.
Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram) and TikTok, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, were “particularly worrisome” for privacy invasion and surveillance risks. Thirty-four U.S. states, both Republican and Democratic-controlled, have banned the use of TikTok on government devices. Montana in May banned the app on all personal devices.
TikTok is often present whether or not the TikTok app is deleted. TikTok pixels/trackers can still “load into webpages handling mission-critical user data and can collect and transfer it.”
GoodRX case highlights corporate deceit around data-sharing

While corporations face losing profit and reputation from data breaches or fines for causing them, individuals face a potentially catastrophic loss of privacy when major health websites harvest and sell their information, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

In February, the FTC fined popular discount drug and telehealth site GoodRx for “failing to report its unauthorized disclosure of consumer health data to Facebook, Google, and other companies.”

The action to “bar GoodRx from sharing consumers’ sensitive health information for advertising” was the FTC’s first enforcement action under its Health Breach Notification Rule.

“Digital health companies and mobile apps should not cash in on consumers’ extremely sensitive and personally identifiable health information,” FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Samuel Levine said in a news release after the settlement. “The FTC is serving notice that it will use all of its legal authority to protect American consumers’ sensitive data from misuse and illegal exploitation.”

The FTC enforcement against GoodRx revealed a particularly egregious, yet not uncommon, example of how corporate health and medical websites betray patient trust and manipulate patient data, the FTC said.

According to the FTC’s complaint, GoodRx violated the law by improperly sharing sensitive personal health information since at least 2017, though it promised otherwise.

The company “deceptively promised its users that it would never share personal health information with advertisers or other third parties,” the FTC charged, and deceptively displayed a seal at the bottom of its telehealth services homepage “falsely suggesting to consumers that it complied with … HIPAA.”

In reality, the FTC complaint said, GoodRx “monetized its users’ personal health information, and used data it shared with Facebook to target GoodRx’s own users with personalized health- and medication-specific advertisements on Facebook and Instagram.”

For example, GoodRx in August 2019 made lists of its users “who had purchased particular medications such as those used to treat heart disease and blood pressure, and uploaded their email addresses, phone numbers, and mobile advertising IDs to Facebook so it could identify their profiles,” according to the complaint.

“GoodRx then used that information to target these users with health-related advertisements.”

People who accessed GoodRx coupons to purchase, for instance, Viagra would see ads for erectile dysfunction medication on their Facebook or Instagram page ads, the FTC says.

“Similarly, people who had used GoodRx’s telehealth services to get treatment for sexually transmitted diseases would get ads for STD testing services.”

GoodRx disclosed to Facebook the medication purchase data it receives from pharmacy benefit managers and also used the data to target ads.

By using Facebook’s ad targeting platform, the FTC said, “GoodRx designed campaigns that targeted customers with ads based on their health information. For example, if a customer had revealed a possible erectile dysfunction issue to GoodRx, they might have seen an ad on Facebook like Exhibit A in the FTC complaint.”

Source: Federal Trade Commission complaint
In February, California-based GoodRx, a $2.1 billion company, paid a $1.5 million civil penalty to the FTC to settle the complaint and denied any wrongdoing.

Howard Danzig, founder and president of Employers Committed to Control Health Insurance Costs, said “fining GoodRx just $1.5 million dollars is not even a slap on the wrist. While many employers are so vigilant about respecting the guidelines of the HIPAA privacy laws, large tech companies basically get a pass.”

“How about major penalties for Facebook, Google and any others who were the beneficiaries of this information?” he wrote on his LinkedIn page with almost 9,000 followers.

“How about determining whether or not there were any criminal violations that should be pursued against the individuals who actually collaborated to do this? How about ‘REPARATIONS’ from the companies involved to the people and customers whose privacy was breached?”

The data breach occurred for “advertising purposes,” he noted. “How far afield can this really be taken and how far afield has it been taken?”"

[onawah]

The Genetic Conspiracy: DNA Tests Are Sold to Highest Bidder
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
November 07, 2023
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/11/07/dna-tests-are-sold-to-highest-bidder.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20231107_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1488191&rid=1958871420

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2023/November/PDF/dna-tests-are-sold-to-highest-bidder-pdf.pdf

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) will pay 23andMe $20 million to extend its five-year contract to mine the company’s consumer DNA data for another year
The drugmaker is searching for hints about genes that might be at the root of disease. 23andMe will get royalties on any drugs developed
23andMe also recently launched a new DNA-sequencing service called Total Health, which sequences your entire exome, the protein-coding part of your genome, which is thought to be responsible for most disease-causing genes. The move is another step in 23andMe’s plan to transform itself into a full-fledged health care company that also treats patients
23andMe acquired a telehealth and drug-delivery startup called Lemonaid Health in 2021. Lemonaid doctors are being trained by 23andMe on how to interpret DNA results and provide tailored health advice
23andMe’s concept of “health care” is all about expanding the use of drugs by getting people on them earlier, before they even have symptoms, based solely on genetic risk factors

Do you know who has access to your genetic data? If you've used a DNA testing company like 23andMe, chances are your genetic data is in the hands of insurance companies and drug companies. It may also be in the hands of hackers. Either way, your DNA could be used against you.

GlaxoSmithKline Extends Data Mining Contract With 23andMe
As reported by Bloomberg,1 GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) will pay 23andMe $20 million to extend its five-year contract to mine the company's consumer DNA data for another year:

"The idea for drugmakers is to comb the data for hints about genetic pathways that might be at the root of disease, which could significantly speed up the long, slow process of drug development.

GSK and 23andMe have already taken one potential medication to clinical trials: a cancer drug that works to block CD96, a protein that helps modulate the body's immune responses.

It entered that testing phase in four years, compared to an industry average of about seven years. Overall, the partnership between GSK and 23andMe has produced more than 50 new drug targets ...

The new agreement changes some components of the collaboration. Any discoveries GSK makes with the 23andMe data will now be solely owned by the British pharmaceutical giant, while the genetic-testing company will be eligible for royalties on some projects. In the past, the two companies pursued new drug targets jointly."

In case this wasn't obvious, YOU pay to have your DNA tested, and then 23andMe sells the mining rights of those data, and makes royalties on new drugs. Quite the profit model, having customers pay for their own exploitation. And GSK isn't the only drug company mining your data. The deal is nonexclusive, so any number of other companies may be mining your genetic data as well.

23andMe Seeks to Transform Into a Health Care Company
23andMe also recently launched a new DNA-sequencing service called Total Health, which sequences your entire exome, the protein-coding part of your genome, which is thought to be responsible for most disease-causing genes. While their basic DNA test for health and ancestry has a price tag of $229,2 this expanded test will set you back $1,188 — per year.3

The move is another step in 23andMe's plan to transform itself into a full-fledged health care company that also treats patients. With this goal in mind, 23andMe acquired a telehealth and drug-delivery startup called Lemonaid Health in 2021.4 Lemonaid doctors are reportedly being trained by 23andMe on how to interpret DNA results and provide tailored health advice. According to Bloomberg:5

"Total Health is designed to pinpoint genes 23andMe views as 'actionable' — those that some combination of lifestyle changes and medication can affect.

The list includes the more than 80 genes the American College of Medical Genetics consider actionable, including those for cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease and neurological disorders ...

Someone who finds out they're at risk for early heart disease would want to closely monitor their cholesterol levels and consider going on cholesterol-lowering drugs as soon as those levels become unsafe, said [vice president for genomic health at 23andMe, Noura] Abul-Husn, giving an example of how the information can be used ...

The Total Health package's biannual blood tests give customers a look at more than 50 biomarkers, helping them track progress in managing risks identified by sequencing. Clinicians will provide patients with personalized risk assessments and preventive health plans, along with an annual virtual visit and ongoing messaging ...

Genetic Predisposition — A Tactic to Increase Drug Sales
This is an excellent example of why Americans are so mired in chronic illness, and why genetic testing, as it currently stands, will do nothing to ameliorate the situation.

If you have genetic risk factors for early heart disease, the last thing you want to do is go on cholesterol-lowering drugs as they destroy heart tissue and act as mitochondrial toxins,6,7 Statins also raise your risk of diabetes and dementia.

Unfortunately, if you do an online search for "statins damage heart" or something similar, the first page or two of results will be articles "debunking" claims that they can harm your heart. This is Big Tech censorship at work, and it's only going to get worse from here. You have to dig deeper into the search results to actually find what you're looking for. Eventually, you may not find it at all.

23andMe's concept of 'health care' is all about expanding the use of drugs by getting people on them earlier, before they even have symptoms, based solely on genetic risk factors.
The point here is that cholesterol has little to do with the development of heart disease, so the entire premise of this kind of "prevention" is flawed from the get-go. Basically, 23andMe's concept of "health care" is all about expanding the use of drugs by getting people on them earlier, before they even have symptoms, based solely on genetic risk factors.

Your Genetic Data Can Be Used Against You in Many Ways
Adding insult to injury, your genetic data may be sold to insurance companies that may then charge you extra for a "preexisting condition" you don't actually have but might potentially develop in the future. Life insurance companies may also charge you more, or decline coverage altogether. As reported in a September 7, 2023, article in The Conversation:8

"In Australia, life insurance companies can legally use the results of genetic tests to discriminate. They can decline to provide life insurance coverage, increase the cost of premiums, or place exclusions on an individual's cover ...

This week, a number of federal parliamentarians argued for a ban on genetic discrimination by life insurance companies ... The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 prohibits discrimination on a number of different bases, including genetic risk factors.

However, there is a specific carve-out in the Act that allows life insurers to discriminate in ways other entities are prohibited from doing. This means companies providing insurance for death, income protection, and disability can discriminate on the basis of genetic risk of disease.

Other companies that provide risk-rated insurance (where insurers assess an individual's risk factors and change coverage or premiums based on this risk) can also use genetic test results to discriminate. This includes travel insurance."

23andMe, the Google of Gene-Based Medicine
As noted in a November 2013 article by Scientific American,9 23andMe poses a unique threat to the public that few ever discuss. While sold as a medical device, its true function is that of a massive information-gathering operation, just like Google turned out to be.

While it took a while, it's now become crystal clear that Google is using all that personal data gathered from users to control and suppress information that doesn't benefit its advertisers. Will 23andMe end up being a repeat of Google's bait and switch? As reported by Scientific American:10

"Although 23andMe admits that it will share aggregate information about users genomes to third parties, it adamantly insists that it will not sell your personal genetic information without your explicit consent. We've heard that one before ...

Even though 23andMe currently asks permission to use your genetic information for scientific research, the company has explicitly stated that its database-sifting scientific work 'does not constitute research on human subjects,' meaning that it is not subject to the rules and regulations that are supposed to protect experimental subjects' privacy and welfare.

Those of us who have not volunteered to be a part of the grand experiment have even less protection. Even if 23andMe keeps your genome confidential against hackers, corporate takeovers, and the temptations of filthy lucre forever and ever, there is plenty of evidence that there is no such thing as an 'anonymous' genome anymore.

It is possible to use the internet to identify the owner of a snippet of genetic information and it is getting easier day by day. While the FDA concentrates on the question of whether 23andMe's kit is a safe and effective medical device, it is failing to address the real issue: what 23andMe should be allowed to do with the data it collects.

For 23andMe's Personal Genome Service is much more than a medical device; it is a one-way portal into a world where corporations have access to the innermost contents of your cells and where insurers and pharmaceutical firms and marketers might know more about your body than you know yourself.

And as 23andMe warns on its website, 'Genetic Information that you share with others could be used against your interests. You should be careful about sharing your Genetic Information with others.' Present company excepted, of course."

For the record, that warning no longer exists on 23andMe's website. In the end, we may well see DNA testing companies like 23andMe share everyone's genetic data with insurance companies, which in turn may force you into pharmaceutical solutions for problems you don't yet have.

The CIA Connection
Interestingly, the connection between Google and 23andMe is closer than you might think. 23andMe cofounder Anne Wojcicki was married to Google founder Sergey Brin for eight years and the couple have two children together. They divorced in 2015.

Wojcicki's sister, Susan Wojcicki, was one of Google's first employees. In 2006, she convinced Google to acquire YouTube and served as YouTube's CEO from 2014 until 2023. She's now an adviser to Google and its parent company Alphabet.11,12

As reported by Quartz magazine, Google came about largely thanks to research grants for mass surveillance technologies from the CIA and NSA.13

Similarly, Wojcicki was finally able to take 23andMe public after raising more than $1 billion in funding from, among others, Google, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson and Sequoia Capital,14,15 the latter of which is also heavily invested in artificial intelligence and has drawn scrutiny from Washington for having "significant operations" in China that might benefit the Chinese military.16

Google — probably the biggest spy machine ever built — the CIA, NSA, Big Pharma and a Chinese-linked AI investment firm. These are all either directly invested in, or linked to through investments, a company (23andMe) that is harvesting the genetic code from millions of Americans. Does that really sound like a good idea?

You don't need predictive AI to figure out that the beneficiaries of 23andMe's data will be the drug industry and the intelligence agencies that are working to further the transhumanist and technocratic goals and ambitions of the globalist deep state.

Data Breaches Are Inevitable, and Have Already Occurred
Data breaches and hacks are becoming ever more prevalent, and 23andMe is not immune to that threat. In fact, in late October 2023, the company notified customers that a breach into its "DNA relatives" databank had occurred. As reported by Reuters:17

"Genetics testing company 23andMe ... sent emails to several customers to inform them of a breach into the 'DNA Relatives' feature that allowed them to compare ancestry information with users worldwide ...

Since news of the hack, many customers have expressed worries their ethnicity and other sensitive information could be used against them if leaked."

While that might sound paranoid, Thor Benson, in a June 2020 IEEE Spectrum article18 argued that "DNA databases in the U.S. and China are tools of racial oppression," and that "What is initially presented as a public good can easily be used for evil ends."

Your DNA Could Be Used to Pin a Crime on You
Benson's article focuses not on the use of DNA in medicine but rather its use in law enforcement. DNA samples are routinely collected when you're arrested, and that DNA database is then used during other crime investigations.

But DNA samples are also collected from victims of crime, and in late 2021, a California rape victim was charged with an unrelated crime based solely on the DNA from her rape kit sample, taken five years earlier. Public outcry ensued, and once the district attorney learned of the source of the DNA, the charges against her were dropped. As reported by Mission Local:19

"Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must obtain a warrant or written permission from a court to lawfully seize evidence. And, in this case, 'It's very clear that they're not consenting to their DNA being collected to use five, 10, 15 years later on in a law enforcement investigation,' [district attorney Chesa] Boudin said."

California lawmakers have also approved a bill to prohibit the use of DNA collected from victims for any other purpose than to identify the perpetrator of the crime against them.20

Now, if DNA samples from victims can later be used to tie them to another crime, how do you think DNA samples voluntarily handed over to a DNA testing company may be used? Anyone can essentially be framed for any crime.

DNA Can Be Used Against Dissidents of All Stripes
Going back to Benson's article:21

"A report that was published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in mid-June claims that China is operating the 'world's largest police-run DNA database' as part of its powerful surveillance state.

Chinese authorities have collected DNA samples from possibly as many as 70 million men since 2017, and the total database is believed to contain as many as 140 million profiles. The country hopes to collect DNA from all of its male citizens, as it argues men are most likely to commit crimes.

DNA is reportedly often collected during what are represented as free physicals, and it's also being collected from children at schools. There are reports of Chinese citizens being threatened with punishment by government officials if they refuse to give a DNA sample.

Much of the DNA that's been collected has been from Uighur Muslims that have been oppressed by the Chinese government and infamously forced into concentration camps in the Xinjiang province ...

James Leibold, a nonresident senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and one of the authors of the report on China's DNA database, tells Spectrum that he is worried that China building up and utilizing this database could normalize this type of behavior.

'Global norms around genomic data are currently in a state of flux. China is the only country in the world conducting mass harvesting of DNA data outside a major criminal investigation,' Leibold says. 'It's the only forensic DNA database in the world to contain troves of samples from innocent civilians.'

Leibold says ethnic minorities like the Uighurs aren't the only ones threatened by this mass DNA collection. He says the database could be used against dissidents and any other people who the government sees as a threat ...

'We know the Chinese police have planted evidence in the past, and now it is conceivable that they could use planted DNA to convict 'enemies of the state.'"

In this post-COVID era, you can replace "China" with most Western countries, and "Uighur Muslims" with "anti-vaxxers," whom intelligence agencies have declared "a national security threat." "

- Sources and References
1, 3 Bloomberg October 30, 2023
2 23andme.com
4, 5 Bloomberg October 25, 2023 (Archived)
6 Expert Rev Clin Pharmacology March 2015; 8(2): 189-199
7 The Permanente Journal December 1, 2019
8 Conversation September 7, 2023
9, 10 Scientific American November 27, 2013
11 Forbes Susan Wojcicki Bio
12, 14 Business Insider February 18, 2023
13 Quartz December 8, 2017
15 The Guardian February 9, 2021
16 Financial Times October 18, 2023
17 Reuters October 24, 2023
18, 21 IEEE Spectrum June 30, 2020
19 Missioion Local February 14, 2022
20 NPR September 13, 2022

[onawah]

Flatline: America's Hospital Crisis | NEW Documentary
The Epoch Times Documentaries
Nov-10-2023
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/flatline-5519424?utm_source=Goodevening&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=gv-2023-11-12&est=WOLMZ6LC%2FmjXVFbDQBe7ZBdbl8KYjgU0l9IM0mlXi61GGFmtO9kBQB47UGs%3D?utm_source=ref_share&utm_campaign=copy

(Video at the link)

"America is in a health care crisis that is hurting millions of Americans across the country. More than 200 hospitals nationwide, mostly in rural areas, closed in less than 20 years [1]. Over the next few years, more than 600 rural hospitals—nearly 30 percent of rural hospitals nationwide—are in financial distress and at risk of closing [2].
When hospitals close, people do not just lose the ability to access critical health care, the ripple effects reach far and wide, with many people losing jobs and local communities left in disarray. Life expectancy goes down while unemployment, crime, poverty, and death rates soar.
“Flatline: America’s Hospital Crisis” is an Epoch Original Documentary that reveals the devastating situation of the hospital closures across the country, examining the root causes and the major players of this health care epidemic and its impact on the local communities.
Directed by award-winning investigative journalist, TV broadcaster, and radio host Steve Gruber, the film focuses on the people and the personal stories of what it’s like for local communities to lose hospitals. Through the real-life stories of local residents, former hospital executives, former hospital workers, police officers, a retired judge, and interviews with health care experts and a hospital association executive, “Flatline” tells the story of “America’s Hospital Crisis” up-close and personal.
The voices of these residents in rural towns are loud and clear, America is facing a national emergency when it comes to health care that needs immediate attention even though it hasn’t received much media coverage to-date. The reality is that more hospitals will close and more lives will be lost if this crisis goes unresolved. This is critical information that every American needs to know and get prepared for, not just when you need to call 911. Longer travel times to hospitals may mean the difference of life or death.
But as this documentary explores, there are possible solutions and all hope is not lost."

References:
[1] The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research
[2] Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform Report

[Lunesoleil]

They can't profit off of you if you are not sick.


How can we trust medicine today after the two-year period of C O V I D ... you have to be crazy to still believe in it...

:wizard:

[onawah]

Medical Journals Publishing Tens of Thousands of Fake Scientific Papers
The Vaccine Reaction
by Carolyn Hendler, JD
November 26, 2023
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2023/11/medical-journals-publishing-tens-of-thousands-of-fake-scientific-papers/

(Medical Tyranny via obfuscation of the facts, leading to confusion, misinformation and malpractice, all in line with the ultimate goal of depopulation.)

"Medical journals are increasingly riddled with fake scientific papers put out by “paper mills”—profit-oriented organizations that produce and sell fabricated manuscripts or ones containing manipulated scientific data. In the past year, approximately 70,000 (1.5 – 2 percent) of published scientific papers were generated by paper mills. It is estimated that, over the last two decades, paper mills may have churned out as many as 400,000 papers.1

Newly developed software is able to detect whether a paper was generated by a paper mill to a good degree of certainty by comparing an open index of research papers to works previously produced by paper mills. An estimated three percent of biology and medicine papers closely resembled paper mill works, according to an unpublished analysis shared with Nature. The paper mill papers tend to follow a specific template and only change an image or a few words in the text. Adam Day, developer of the software called Paper Mill Alarm admits that there is no way to know if all of the articles flagged are generated by paper mills.2

A report by the Committee on Publication Ethics released in June 2022 confirms Day’s findings. The report, which looked at six publishers, found that two percent of papers submitted to journals may have come from paper mills and for some journals, the number may be as high as 40 percent.3

Other researchers looked at the email address of the submitted paper to see if it is affiliated with a hospital in China, where the fake paper problem is known to be rampant. It is also a red flag when the email address is not affiliated with an academic institution or a hospital.4

The increasing number of scientific papers being retracted supports these alarming findings. The Retraction Watch Database found that in 2022 more than 4,600 scientific papers were retracted by journals. By comparison, in 2002 journals retracted only 119 papers.5

“Publish or Perish” Policy Leading to Increase in Fake Scientific Papers
A recent report in a medRxiv pre-print published in May showed that as many as 34 percent of 5,000 neuroscience papers and 24 percent of medical papers published in 2020 were plagiarized or false.6

Bernhard Sabel, psychologist and neuroscientist at the University of Magdeburg in Germany and lead author of the report explained:

'Scientists are often judged by the number of papers they publish, and that is quite common practice everywhere around the world. And all this pressure creates anxiety and fear to not being promoted, to lose the job and so on. And so the best way to solve that, given they have no capacity to do the research, is, as if you’re buying a T-shirt in the shop, you can buy a paper for it to be published in the scientific journal.'7

Universities can be active participants in perpetuating the problem of fake papers being published. Students are often required to publish as a prerequisite to obtaining a masters or doctorate degree. Professors can earn academic promotions when they are listed as co-authors on published papers, while universities obtain money from research grants based on published papers. All of these incentives can encourage the proliferation of fake scientific papers by researchers eager to advance their careers at universities.8

The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, which represents 120 publishers, is working on an effort called Integrity Hub to create new ways to detect false papers churned out by paper mills.9

Joris van Rossum, Integrity Hub’s product director, said:

'We want to think about engaging with institutions on how to take away perhaps some of the [professional] incentives which can have these detrimental effects.'10

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist who studies fraudulent papers at the University of Oxford, said:

'Paper mills have made a fortune by basically attacking a system that has had no idea how to cope with this stuff.'11 "

References:
1 Van Noorden R. How big is science’s fake-paper problem? Nature Nov. 6, 2023.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Retraction Watch. Nearing 5,000 retractions: A review of 2022. Dec. 27, 2022.
6 Brainard J. Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common. Science May 9, 2023.
7 Rascoe A. Fake studies in academic journals may be more common than previously thought. NPR May 14, 2023.
8 Alexander H. How fake science is infiltrating scientific journals. The Sydney Morning Herald Jan. 5, 2022.
9 Ibid.
10 Brainard J. Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common. Science May 9, 2023.
11 Ibid.