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.


Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/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. )

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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-...1_4909855.html


Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/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-r...tate-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."

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v1y7f5a

[onawah]

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

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...bid=1712223189

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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;3771538
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/a...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-.../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


Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DP-7k31i5jY

[onawah]

Health Care Staff Shortages a “National Emergency”
by Natasha Hobley
Published February 19, 2023
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2023/...nal-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. "

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7yabbZrGxsc

[Mari]

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

[onawah]

The One Health Agenda With James Corbett
3/11/23
https://live.childrenshealthdefense....a-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."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_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]