FDA is now warning about misinformation spreaders

The federal government continues to try and fool the public into thinking misinformation is a dire problem and a crime. Misinformation is whatever the government does not want you to know.

Here the FDA has a new one minute video about misinformation and rumor control. Clearly, the feds are getting nervous that their cons on the people are being recognized.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/rumor-control

They also have created posters to explain the following in language even a 3d grader can understand:

• The science changes.

• It evolves.

• But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t trust the science.

• Your “trusted sources” are government agencies.

As Jacinda Ardern told New Zealand when she was its Prime Minister: “We will continue to be your single source of truth” in a chilling 55 second clip on misinformation. For her services to the WEF (of course, she was a Young Global Leader) Jacinda was made a Dame yesterday. Yes, quite a dame, who single-handedly destroyed a great country and handed it over to her globalist masters. For that she gets 2 fellowships at Harvard. One of her predecessor NZ PMs, Helen Clark, continues to deliver as an apologist for the globalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Clark

On 9 July 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) appointed Clark as co-chair of a panel reviewing the WHO's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the response of governments to the outbreak. The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPR) examined how the outbreak occurred and how future pandemics can be prevented.

Below is the 1984 version of the FDA’s new misinformation policy poster.

So now I will give you some important truth from a trusted source, the British Medical Journal aka BMJ, which I discussed on Friday during my talk to the Better Way conference.

In 1992 the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was passed by Congress, allowing FDA to charge manufacturers to regulate their products, and it has been all downhill from there, in terms of the respect FDA has had on the world stage. From being considered the world’s pre-eminent drugs regulator, as it was before 1992, it is now considered a shell of its former self: a rogue agency for hire.

65% of the funds used by FDA to evaluate whether a new chemical entity can be licensed as a safe and effective drug come from industry fees. (42% of the funds used by FDA to approve biologics, which include vaccines, come from industry.) In the UK, Europe, Australia and Japan even a higher percentage of the money used to approve drugs comes from industry.

Furthermore, in the USA, 4 pathways have been developed to ‘expedite’ the approval of new drugs and vaccines. Most drugs given the right to use these pathways (68% of all drugs seeking US approval manage to squeak through as providing some type of unmet need). The vast majority of these drug reviews are conducted as a 6 month review. At the end of 6 months, FDA must give the manufacturer a yes or no answer as to whether it will issue a license. Whether or not it has managed to review all the submission, or even half of the submission by the manufacturer, it must give the manufacturer a yes or no answer re licensure. Usually that answer is yes, as the pressure from above to do so is enormous. Of course, a higher percentage of drugs approved through an accelerated pathway are later taken off the market, compared to drugs approved the regular way.

The FDA has a scheme that allows it to license almost anything, and that scheme is simply creative writing of the label. The label is a legal document that explains what is known about the drug, its risks, its benefits, and how it should be used. FDA is very crafty as it works with the manufacturer to withhold information and provide skewed information on its labels. It can also include dire warnings on the label, which through broad disclosure absolve the manufacturer and the FDA from liability regarding dreaded adverse effects. FDA officials have been open about the fact that they can license anything as long as the label is written properly.

Manufacturers are well aware they can get virtually anything through the FDA—and have known so practically forever. In the book Hooked: Ethics, the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry by Howard Brody, MD (2007), Harry Loynd, the president of pharma firm Parke Davis from 1951-1967 is quoted as saying, “If we put horse manure in a capsule, we could sell it to 95% of these doctors.”

So if you are looking to avoid misinformation, the FDA is the last place you might go to for truth, honesty, ethics and consideration of the public’s welfare.

And here is an Op-Ed that ran in the BMJ 3 weeks ago saying the same thing:

In fact, knowledgeable professionals were so appalled by what they learned about the FDA (especially after PDUFA) a huge body of literature sprang up about the unethical process of drug regulation, some of which I provided at my talk to the Better Way Conference last Friday. Below are some of the best books on the subject.

So, if you want to avoid believing misinformation about drug, vaccine and device regulation, I suggest you take a look at these books, or the many other reports and reviews of the subject. Perhaps Congress needs to stop authorizing funds for the PR departments of our federal ‘public health’ agencies?

Dr. Jeremy Faust denied during expert testimony against me (under oath) that his substack 'Inside Medicine' was supported by the CDC. Here is the article in which he claims it IS supported by CDC

Below is a screenshot clearly showing Dr. Faustus’ claim he is supported by CDC, which he denied under oath. Below that is a link to his whole article.

To the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine: your expert witness is confused as to how much he earns, whether he is Editor-in-Chief of Medpage Today, and whether or not the CDC supports his substack. If he cannot provide us the actual facts, how valid do think his opinions might be?

Inside Medicine

 

https://insidemedicine.substack.com/p/the-cdc-shows-up-to-debunk-the-washington

Why Countries Must Leave the World Health Organization. *Excellent* summary of important information.

 I just found out that Dr. Mercola ran a long piece on my efforts (and others') to call attention to the WHO takeover yesterday, and the funky One Health concept.

Meryl Nass

Jun 6, 2023

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/05/why-countries-must-leave-who.aspx

PDF hyperlink in event above link becomes rendered non-functional (includes graphics but omits the 4 videos):

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2023/June/PDF/why-countries-must-leave-who-pdf.pdf

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

June 05, 2023

https://odysee.com/@Voorwaarheid:1/2023-05-22-One-World-One-Health-Met-Dr.-Meryl-Nass:e

Above is my 44 minute interview on One Health, COVID origins, and defeating the globalist agenda to achieve hegemony over the world, with Willem Engel. Dr. Mercola embedded it but I could not. He has included 4 videos and several additional graphics at his site—so please read this article there if you can. If not, read the denuded version below.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

·       Countries that treasure individual freedom and respect bodily autonomy have only one choice: Exit the World Health Organization

·       One Health is the culmination of a grand global plan that places human health, animal health, environmental concerns, food, travel, housing and everything else under a single umbrella, and the WHO is being set up as the central decision-maker and overseer of it all

·       One Health is based on the premise that a broad range of aspects of life and the environment can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause harm. The One Health agenda includes medicine, food and agriculture, communications, economics, civil society, global trade and commerce, research, noncommunicable disease, mental health, land use, disease surveillance and much more

·       Behind the scenes, One Health partnerships have already been formed in countries around the world. The One Health network was built and expanded in the U.S. primarily by cutting public health funding. One Health then stepped in with funding but, of course, recipients of One Health grants had to embrace the concept and push it out to others

·       One Health is also baked into the proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), which the World Health Assembly (WHA) is scheduled to vote on in May 2024. This is how the WHO will gain the authority to dictate how we live our lives

Countries that treasure individual freedom and respect bodily autonomy have only one choice: Exit the World Health Organization. It is now beyond clear that the WHO intends to eliminate both of those, and then some, through an international program called One Health, formally adopted by the WHO and the G20 health ministers in 2017.¹

The term “One Health” was first coined by EcoHealth Alliance,² the group that subcontracted risky gain-of-function research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), the lab from which SARS-CoV-2 emerged.

In hindsight, it’s easy to see that the globalists’ plan to concentrate power has been in the works for decades, and the playbook is always the same: “Give us more power so we can protect you and keep you safe.” Alas, every time we give them more power, we find ourselves both less safe and less free.

What Is One Health?

In the video above, Dr. Meryl Nass explains the implications of One Health. In short, our entire way of life, our freedom, our quality of life — indeed, our very humanity, are now at stake.

One Health is basically the culmination of a grand global plan that places human health, animal health, environmental concerns, food, travel, housing and everything else under a single umbrella, and the WHO is being set up as the central decision-maker and overseer of it all.

As explained by Nass, the One Health concept was initially based on the concept that veterinarians and doctors stood a better chance of combating zoonotic diseases — infections that jump species from animal to human — by working together. While that’s a reasonable idea, the concept was hijacked by globalists who saw that it could be used to gain power and control over the whole world.

The One Health agenda is based on the premise that a broad range of aspects of life and the environment can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause harm.

The graphic above illustrates some of the areas that fall within the scope of One Health.

But that’s not all. According to a One Health Commission document, One Health also includes:³

Communications

Economics

Civil society

Global trade, commerce and security

Public policy and regulation

Research

Noncommunicable diseases (basically human medicine as a whole)

Mental health

Agricultural land use (which involves forcing farmers off their land)

Disaster preparedness and response

Disease surveillance

The “human-animal bond” (the relationship with our pets) and much more

The WHO Will Have Power to Dictate Every Facet of Our Lives

If the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty is enacted, the WHO will have unilateral power to make decisions about all of these areas, and its dictates will supersede and overrule any and all local, , and federal laws.

For example, under One Health, the WHO will be able to declare climate change as a health emergency and implement climate lockdowns to address it. It will be able to restrict local and international travel under the guise of environmental and/or human health, implement a vaccine passport requirement as a biosecurity measure, radically alter diets around the world in the name of animal welfare and environmental protection, and much more.

One Health is also baked into the proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR). This is how the WHO will gain the authority to dictate how we live our lives.

As noted by Nass, “they’re basically trying to lasso everything in the world under One Health.” Meanwhile, One Health “lacks a conceptual system, real world evidence and a method for being implemented and evaluated,” she notes.

The One Health joint plan of action itself is pure word salad. It tells us nothing, really, other than it’s about forming a global coalition to “drive change” and transform life at the “global, regional and country level” under the guise of “health.”

The One Health Network Has Already Been Built

Behind the scenes, One Health partnerships have already been formed in countries around the world. According to Nass, the One Health network was built and expanded in the U.S. primarily by cutting public health funding. One Health then stepped in with funding but, of course, recipients of One Health grants had to embrace the concept and push it out to others.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), nongovernmental organizations, and universities are all disbursing funds to expand the One Health network in the U.S. “Advancement of a One Health approach” is even included in the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).⁴

The One Health concept is also creeping into the school system, where students are being taught the importance of “responsible citizenship,” “cultural sensitivity,” and “global mindedness.” The same tactics are used to build this network in other countries as well.

One Health Is Baked Into IHR Amendments

Importantly, as explained by Nass,⁵ One Health is also baked into the proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), which the World Health Assembly (WHA) is scheduled to vote on in May 2024. This is how the WHO will gain the authority to dictate how we live our lives.

“So, people need to be aware that this is coming, it’s a runaway train and we have to do what we can to stop it — which we can do by pulling out of the WHO,” Nass says.

As noted by Nass, in the U.S., a small group of national legislators are introducing House^6,7 and Senate bills^8,9,10 to require Senate supermajority approval of the WHO treaty before it’s signed.

In the U.K., conservative MPs are also warning ministers of an “ambition evident … for the WHO to transition from an advisory organization to a controlling international authority,” and are urging the Foreign Office to block efforts to “intrude materially into the U.K.’s ability to make its own rules and control its own budgets.”¹¹

Andrew Mitchell, the minister of the Foreign Officer, has vowed to “block any law that prevents the U.K. from setting its own health policy,” but he also stressed that the U.K. is “supportive of the pandemic treaty currently being negotiated by national governments,”¹² and that treaty, as it’s currently written, completely eliminates member states sovereignty.

People in other countries also need to educate their legislators about the dangers of One Health, the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty under consideration and call on them to protect their nations against this stealth takeover.

So, to summarize, One Health is a global project to centralize power with the WHO so that it will have the authority to control every aspect of human life, across the world, without regard for national sovereignty or human rights. Any number of countermeasures, including those used during the COVID pandemic, can then be deployed to combat things like climate change, loss of biodiversity, noncommunicable diseases, pollution, hunger, poverty, and so on.

Overblown Warnings of Doom and Other Tactics

In a May 25, 2023, Substack article, Nass highlights the three elements used repeatedly to push what is ultimately a global takeover agenda:¹³

1. An overblown warning about impending doom

2. A totally inaccurate description of the cause

3. A vague solution that benefits the globalists at the expense of the population at large

These were used during the COVID pandemic. They’re also being used to push the false idea that antibiotic resistance is caused by global warming, and therefore requires a more comprehensive approach — a One Health approach.

Nass cites a February 2023 report by the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) titled “Bracing for Superbugs: Strengthening Environmental Action in the One Health Response to Antimicrobial Resistance.”¹⁴

UNEP is one of the four international agencies that are pushing the One Health agenda globally and, according to this report, the fact that nations are already addressing antibiotic resistance is not enough.

Instead, nations must all work together using a singular, coordinated approach that includes “environmental-related plans such as national chemical pollution and waste management programs, national biodiversity and climate change planning.”

Countries must also come up with “innovative financial incentives and schemes” to pay for the proposed action plan and “guarantee sustainable funding.” UNEP also calls for “science-policy interfaces,” the prioritization of interventions, and the strengthening of surveillance systems. They also stress that all strategies employed must “utilize the One Health approach while addressing financial/business, climate, and cultural contexts.”

Does anyone else see how problematic that can become? To raise just one example, overuse of antibiotics in food production is at the root of the problem, yet any strategy to address it must take stakeholders’ financial and business concerns into account. At the end of the day, it becomes all about protecting and promoting the interests of certain “stakeholders,” which are primarily NGOs and private businesses. As noted by Nass:¹⁵

“Antimicrobial resistance is so simple. Bacteria develop mutations that allow them to evade antibiotics, and their new genes are often contained in small plasmids that can be excreted by the cell and shared with other bacteria ...

Until this present moment, the FDA, CDC, and the WHO all knew that antimicrobial resistance was due primarily to the use of antibiotics in livestock feed, because it increased the rate of growth; 75% of antibiotics by weight are used for this purpose globally.

And people consume these antibiotics when they eat the meat, or the farmed fish, or the chickens. But now we must believe that antibiotic resistance is an environmental problem, which can only be solved by using the ... One Health approach.”

‘Climate-Aggravated Outbreak Threats’ Being Pushed

If climate lockdowns and the like sound unbelievable, start paying attention to what you read in the news. For example, PR Newswire¹⁶ recently announced a partnership between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation aimed at “genomic surveillance, adoption of data tools for pathogen detection, and assessment of climate-aggravated outbreak threats.”

More and more, we’re seeing “pandemic threats” being tied to things like climate change, so that the first can be used to justify drastic action on the second. As reported by PR Newswire:¹⁷

“The Rockefeller Foundation and the World Health Organization (WHO) have announced a new partnership to strengthen the WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence.

As part of the collaboration, the Foundation is investing US $5M in partners working with WHO to cultivate global networks for pathogen detection and strengthen pandemic preparedness capabilities, including broadening surveillance for diseases worsened by rising temperatures and extreme weather.”

October 2022 Pandemic Simulation

                                                  Screenshot 13-minute video

There’s also no doubt that we’ll be faced with additional pandemics, because the pandemic threat is what drives the push for global centralization of power. The globalists who practiced what was to become the global COVID response have also told us there will be more pandemics, and at this point, it would be foolish not to believe them. So, what might the next pandemic be, and when might it strike?

October 23, 2022, the WHO, Johns Hopkins University and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation cohosted a tabletop exercise dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,” involving a novel (and supposedly fictional) infection called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25), which primarily affects children and teens.

                                              Screenshot from Next Pandemic video above

These are the same groups that ran Event 201, which turned out to be a pandemic simulation for COVID. According to the Catastrophic Contagion simulation, SEERS-25 — an enterovirus like the polio virus — will originate in Brazil in 2025.

                                      Screenshot from Next Pandemic video above

Fictional news reports featured in the simulation reported 1 billion cases worldwide and some 20 million deaths, including 15 million children, plus millions more left permanently paralyzed from the infection. Based on this exercise, we can assume (unless additional pandemic exercises are carried out) that the next pandemic will target children and young people.

This would be a logical progression, from a totalitarian perspective, considering people are typically willing to do just about anything to keep their children safe.

COVID showed them that most people were willing to sacrifice even their most basic freedoms “to save grandma.” So, what won’t they willingly give up if it comes down to “saving children”? The globalists intend to take our human rights and civil liberties away from us, and to be successful in that endeavor, they will need all the help and cooperation they can get.

                                           2:11 AM · May 24, 2023

Dr. Abdullah Assiri, co-chair of the WHO’s Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) recently stated¹⁸ that the world “requires a different level of legal mandates” to address future pandemics, and that “actions that may restrict individual liberties” is a priority.

Who Is Making Decisions on Our Behalf?

                                 8:01 PM May 24, 2023

Clearly, the idea that unelected and unaccountable globalists are trying to strip away individual freedoms and implement a totalitarian system of global top-down control is not a loony “conspiracy theory.” It’s a plain fact, and we, the public, have NO say in this.

In the video above, author, researcher, activist and natural health advocate James Roguski¹⁹ explains the World Health Assembly’s (WHA) role in the WHO’s takeover. Part of what makes it so difficult to stop this power grab is because the WHA is the body that will vote on the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty, but the public is not allowed to know who, from their country, is part of the WHA.

Roguski tried filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get a list of the U.S. delegates and was told there’s no such list. So, we can’t know who the WHA delegates are until they’ve signed in at the meeting and cast their vote on our behalf.

Needless to say, this means we cannot contact them beforehand to tell them how we think they should vote on a given issue. That said, Roguski was able to determine that Xavier Becerra, U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services, is the U.S. lead delegate.

Past the Point of No Return, All Freedom Will Be Lost

It’s now beyond imperative that people understand where we’re headed, and that the COVID measures weren’t just responses to a given pandemic, but rather were 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 and how all of these various programs, treaties, partnerships, and agendas work together. They’re all part of the same scheme, which is to implement a One World totalitarian technocratic government under which humans have no intrinsic value.

Call on Congress to Withdraw US From the WHO

While the U.S. House and Senate have introduced identical bills to thwart the WHO’s power grab through the proposed pandemic treaty, that still might not protect us if President Biden signs it, because the treaty is specifically written to circumvent the Senate-approval process.²⁰

(emphasis added)  A far more effective strategy would be for Congress to withhold its annual contributions to the WHO, and then withdraw the U.S. from the WHO altogether. I believe it may be worth supporting all these strategies. So, please, contact your representatives and urge them to:

• Support the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act

• Withhold funding for the WHO

• Support U.S. withdrawal from the WHO

We also need to protect our nation against the IHR amendments. To that end, the World Council for Health has launched a global #StopTheWHO campaign. Here’s how you can get involved:²¹

Speak — Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos

Act — Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices and cases and similar campaigns

Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health

Explore activist toolboxes such as: World Council for Health Stop the Who Campaign and stopthewho.com

Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR

Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments (if you can identify them)

Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose power grabs

Sources and References

^1, 2 Global Health Now September 28, 2017

³ Stop Vax Passports Task Force webinar on One Health, 52:20

⁴ Odysee.com May 22, 2023, 21:15

⁵ Odysee.com May 22, 2023, 22:48

⁶ Tiffany.house.gov March 7, 2023

⁷ No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act House Bill Full Text

⁸ Congress.gov S.4343 — No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act

⁹ Congress.gov S.444 — No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act

¹⁰ Govtrack.us S.4343 — No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act

^11, 12 The Telegraph May 25, 2023

^13, 15 Meryl Nass Substack May 25, 2023

¹⁴ Bracing for Superbugs: Strengthening Environmental Action in the One Health Response to Antimicrobial Resistance

^16, 17 PR Newswire May 23, 2023

¹⁸ Bernie’s Tweets May 24, 2023

¹⁹ James Roguski Substack

²⁰ Epoch Times February 21, 2023

²¹ RW Malone Substack May 17, 2022

Big News!

First, I got about 250 new subscribers since my last post (not even 24 hours ago) on my case and the suppression of doctors, and 34 new paid subscribers—more than for any one post previously. I am now over 25,000 subscribers and I am tremendously grateful to everyone for reading and spreading the information I share out to the world!

Second, your support has now confirmed that I need to (and can) start a new organization to combat the WHO and UN power grabs. Its purpose will be to serve as an umbrella group: a source of reliable information on the WHO and UN documents and plans as they are released. I already received a grant and have hired a lawyer who has UN experience and knows how to interpret amendments, treaties and similar documents. James Roguski is a partner. Our purpose will be to assist freedom groups around the world to get the information they need as soon as it is available, and to work with them to craft effective actions together.

I hope to also craft model legislation that can help groups in different countries work with lawmakers to stop the WHO and UN from their attempts to wrest sovereignty, legally, from our nations. While it seems most of the leaders are already committed to selling off their populations to the globalist agenda and presumably a one world government, at least whenever the WHO Director-General or the UN Secretary-General see fit to declare an emergency, the people around the world don’t want this. So what we need is to get enough people to understand what is transpiring and take simple actions, like alerting their lawmakers and not letting up.

The organization does not have a name yet. It will not be a 501c3 in the US, because then it would need to stay away from trying to create and support changes to the law. We will operate on a small budget because we are highly committed people who see this as the most important thing to do right now, as we also fight the Great Reset and the planned destruction of our institutions, food supply, small businesses, family farms, etc. Several of us, including myself, have committed to work for free. More info will be coming. Stay tuned.

More on my case, the law on misinformation, and why other doctors don't challenge their medical boards

Including the misdirection, sloppiness and impaired memory of Dr. Faust, the part-time ER doctor and pundit/ expert witness

The fifth day of my board hearing was May 30, 7.5 months after it began and 16.5 months since I was suspended for charges that the board dropped prior to litigation. No one can remember the details from the beginning, and my attorneys and I have to spend countless hours recapping the previous proceedings as we prepare for each new hearing day. The board hired two expert witnesses to opine against me, and now each has been examined and cross examined. None of the charges against me stood up to scrutiny—not a single one. Neither of the experts provided internally consistent testimony. No one has shown that I did even one thing wrong. Why are we still going forward with these hearings?

Dr. Faust claimed that, only 5 years after becoming board certified in Emergency Medicine (did he fail his boards before that or fail to take them after completing his residency?) his fee of $500/hr was less than he earned at this other jobs. As an ER doctor I would expect him to earn about $150-$200/hr. What would he earn as an editor and writer for MedPage? As the director of a Chorus in Boston? In March, he simply couldn’t say, claiming he did not know what he earned at any of his jobs because he had not done his taxes yet. In May, his taxes should have been done, but he claimed they were not, and he still did not know what he earned at his various jobs. My supposition is that he blatantly lied, and that he does not earn more than $500/hour at any of his real jobs. He had to lie about not knowing what he earns at his other jobs in order to cover his initial lie that $500/hr was less than he earned elsewhere. This hired gun assuredly knows what he earns. Who doesn’t? Why did he lie about this? My guess is that, like Fauci, lying comes naturally, it rolls off the tongue, and it has not tripped him up heretofore. But under oath, in a big case, it can and did trip him up.

Dr. Faust coauthored an article with Rochelle Walensky, the current CDC Director, in the year before she took on that job, in 2020. Faust further claimed he has advised the U.N. and CDC (unpaid) and he wrote in his Inside Medicine substack words close to the following, “Inside Medicine is supported by the CDC, but I would much rather be supported by you.” (I have a hard copy of this at home, but am in Bath, England at the Better Way Conference, starting later today and have no paperwork with me.) However, on March 2 under cross-examination Faust denied receving any CDC funds for Inside Medicine and denied receiving support from the CDC. When I went back to look for the exact quote online it seems to have been removed by Dr. Faust.

On January 10, 2022 Dr. Faust sent an email to Kenji Saito (who was on the Board staff and is both a doctor and a lawyer) which said, "I have done a handful of evaluations for medical-legal cases."  Yet Faust told the Board in our hearing on March 2 that this was his first expert witness case. Which statement is true?

Let me be super clear about the 2 ‘forest plots’ I sent to the Board when they asked me for evidence that HCQ and IVM were effective treatments for COVID. This is what they look like today, below (with more papers added in the interim; I have the originals at home.)

Ivermectin studies are found at https://c19ivm.org/meta.html. This is a detailed website with many different graphs and charts. However, it is not hard to discover what Dr. Faust missed, when he claimed the studies were cherry-picked: these are ALL the studies of early treatment. It says so right at the bottom, bolded. There are other grahs of late treatment studies and other things. While claiming he looked at this graph and website, he missed the crucial information of what these studies were. he alo missed many pages of detailed methodology which were found later in the website. Dr. Faust claimed there was no discussion of methodology. The $20,000 plus the Board paid for his 40+ hour review and report did not buy much of value. Only 8 of the papers listed here showed HCQ was of negative benefit, while the 30 others showed benefit. Mean benefit over multiple endpoints was 62% while the relative risk was 38%. This means that if you received HCQ early, you were only 38% as likely as an untreated person to reach a negative endpoint like hospitalization, viral persistence or death.

HCQ studies can be found at https://c19hcq.org/meta.html#fig_fp. The results are very similar. There are only 3 negative studies and 14 positive studies. In order to claim that the medical literature found against both drugs, Faust had to find a way to dismiss over 75% of the studies—which he did by claiming that according to the Faust criteria, they were not up to snuff, and so therefore he was entitled to pretend they did not exist. Unlike the forest plot criteria or the Risch criteria for how studies were selected for inclusion in a plot, or selected for good quality, the Faust criteria were (necessarily) unwritten.

This is especially important because Faust said that I should lose my medical license due to my inability to interpret the medical literature. Were this criterion applied to Faust, I fear his own license would be revoked.

Now let’s look at Dr. Faust a bit more. While he implied he was not the Editor-in-Chief of MedPage (calling himself only a contractor in March under cross-examination and claiming on May 30 that while Editor-in-Chief was his title, he implied it was not his real job) Faust proudly calls himself Editor-In-Chief of MedPage on his LinkedIn page.

And he advertises for medico-legal consulting on his LinkedIn. Someone should explain to him that being clear, consistent and honest are necessary for expert witnesses, even in Board proceedings.

Below Dr. Faust reveals that his snide, nasty remarks are not confined to the witness stand, as he snarkily comments on Alan Dershowitz and Trumps’ White House doctor Ronny Jackson, now a member of the House of Representatives from Texas.

I found this one (below) to be Dr. Faust’s most unpleasant tweet of all, which was associated with video taken on a plane of passengers clapping when the end of the mask mandate was announced: “Imagine celebrating the deaths of a small number of kids so that you don’t have to wear a mask on a plane.” The Daily Mail picked it up. Did he think masks worked for the wearer? If so, wear them. Did he think COVID was killing kids? Instead of looking at the CDC’s uninterpretable data, which lumps everyone with a positive COVID test (asymptomatic or not) as a COVID case, he could have looked at countries in western Europe or Israel, where healthy kids were not dying from COVID. In fact, not a single person aged 18-49 who was previously healthy died from COVID in Israel, population 9 million. (Data are from Israeli Ministry of Health’s available information.)

Dr. Faust wrote a letter to the editor of the BMJ, published March 20, 2020, at the start of the pandemic.  This is board exhibit 233.  He ended the letter noting the "importance of aggressive, early mitigation to minimize spread of infection."  Yet Dr. Faust told us that I, Dr. Nass, was wrong for providing early drug treatment, while he failed to provide such treatment.  Isn't this contradictory? 

Faust’s own publication, MedPage Today, ran an article urging that medical boards should not punish physicians who perform illegal abortions in states that ended abortion.  I think it further claimed that boards that investigate physicians who perform illegal abortions are being weaponized and/or politicized. (In other words, how dare they investigate this crime?) Yet he apparently feels that boards who prosecute physicians like me for misinformation (which is free speech according to the First Amendment) and who committed no crime should have their licenses revoked. Faust apparently failed to notice the bias inherent in this position, when he was asked by my attorney about whether he could serve as an unbiased witness.

To recap my case: the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine voted unanimously to suspend my medical license on January 11, 2022 for spreading misinformation despite no patient complaints and without a hearing, because I was an alleged danger to the patients of Maine for warning them about the dangers of COVID vaccines and treating them for COVID with antiviral drugs that worked.

It is now 16 months later, and any doubts that the so-called COVID vaccines are safe and effective have been allayed: they are neither. Prescribing antivirals off label is admitted by all to have been legal. My speech regarding important medical products is protected by the First Amendment, and the cowards that suspended my license for misinformation were unwilling to actually bring a case against me for it. So they then concocted a new set of claims about my incompetence, despite no allegations claiming any failures in my care—ever. Now all these secondary, bogus allegations that were litigated in lieu of the original charges have all been shot down, shown to be incorrect, fanciful hot air. Similar to what comes out of Dr. Faust’s mouth when sound emerges.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has advised Congress that the charge of ‘misinformation’ will not stand. The Supreme Court has only upheld the charge of misinformation when fraud, perjury or defamation were involved, according to the CRS. As I have said before, the USG and its proxies are still trying to create a crime where one does not exist: misinformation and/or disinformation. They continue to assert it is a crime, but they do not dare to bring a case to court. Yet the collusion of government and media has led most people to believe that misinformation is a real crime—and it is held over many peoples’ heads to keep them in line. This is government by lies and innuendo. We must end it.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12180 A snippet is below.

But the bottom line in the prosecution of doctors for upholding their oaths and trying to protect their patients with honest care, undeterred by harmful government edicts, is:

a) the price of admission to a courtroom, and

b) the price to a doctor’s career, even if he or she wins their case.

It is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend myself against defamatory, career-ending charges that are entirely without substance. CHD has supported my defense, otherwise I too would have had to shut up and accept the loss of my career. The black mark on my record can never be erased, even if I win. Were I to seek employment or a license in another jurisdiction, the black mark of an immediate suspension will follow me forever.

The Board staff are dragging this out forever in what appears to me to be an attempt to run up the costs of my defense. That is how the game is played when you are losing: you delay delay delay and you bleed the other side.

You can see why few doctors willingly challenge these charges, and instead try to keep their heads down and find a way to keep practicing.

You can see why the Boards want to keep their ridiculous processes secret, in which they can behave in as arbitrary and capricious a manner as they like, negotiating sealed agreements with physicians under attack. (One example of board lawlessness was Dr. Gleaton, the sleepy board chair, telling me it was against the law to record the meeting where the Board first heard about my case and suspended me. I had no lawyer, and I was not allowed to speak, and no transcript was made. This violated Administrative Law, but she did not care so long as I had no one there to guide me. Luckily, I recorded it anyway, since my recorder was already on, and I did not believe her. A second example is the board suspending my license without a hearing, when there are statutory requirements for such an immediate suspension, and my case did not meet them.)

So you can see why the doctors who publish the c19study.com website with the forest plots, and many other practicing doctors who challenge the system, keep their names hidden or write under pseudonyms. Doctors and nurses live in a climate of fear. Winning my case, and countersuing the Board, is only the first step in turning this around. And we must, if we want the practice of medicine to be a sacred mission in which only the doctor and the patient are in the room together, trying to do the best for only that patient. Pharma, the insurance companies, the government and its boards, and the W.H.O. need to be tossed out of the exam room, for good. I’m working on it.

During the June 10, 2021 VRBPAC meeting, CDC continued to hide the myocarditis signal. This is yet more evidence to go after the regulators at CDC and FDA for covering it up.

Here is a collection of CDC staffer Dr. Tom Shimabukuro's slides from that meeting, and I elaborate on what they mean.

The CDC’s Dr. Shimabukuro gave a talk on June 10, 2021 to FDA’s vaccine advisory committee (VRBPAC) discussing preliminary safety data from V-safe, VAERS and VSD. So preliminary it did not agree with what we have learned later. Let’s look at what he said, knowing that by June 10 the regulatory agencies knew a lot more than they were disclosing.

https://www.fda.gov/media/150054/download

Let’s start with his chart on myocarditis cases by age, observed vs expected, after Dose 2. The data were collected through May 31, 2021. There were only 2 cases in 12-15 year olds because there was not enough time for that age group to get their second shot: it was authorized for them on May 10, and they had to wait 3 weeks for the second dose. Three weeks later was May 31, the data cut-off. So there should have been NO myocarditis reports from the 12-15 year age group, because not enough time had elapsed for them to legally receive a second dose. Yet his chart claims 134,000 2nd doses had been administered by May 31. Hmmm.

Also remember that there has been a considerable delay between when patients or HCWs provide a report to VAERS, and when it is electronically entered into the system.

In any event, people under age 25 comprised only 8.8% of the second doses received, but were 52.5% of the myocarditis cases reported. On this basis they were about 6 times as likely to report myocarditis as the whole group.

The VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) is a collection of HMOs with 12 million members. CDC pays to access their health records. Of those 12 million enrollees, fully 1/3 of the vaccinated 16-17 year olds did not go back for their second dose. Presumably most had a troublesome adverse reaction.

The below slide is etched in my mind from that meeting. I do not believe it could be accurate. Either the numbers, or the way they were analyzed, is wrong. Dead wrong. This slide claims that people given other vaccines were more likely to get myocarditis than those who got a COVID vaccine. Hello? Not possible. The only other vaccines that commonly cause myocarditis are smallpox ad monkeypox, and neither was being given to civilians at that time.

It claims that all the ‘adverse events of special interest’ which are called the more benign-sounding ‘prespecified outcome events’ below, are unassociated statistically with COVID vaccines, based on what ought to be a robust (and highly vaccinated) 12 million person dataset. Not even one of the adverse events the CDC thought were most likely associated with COVID vaccines had generated a safety signal by May 29, 2021 in the VSD. Or so the CDC claimed.

In the next slide Dr. Shimabukuro says there were only 22 cases of diagnosed myocarditis in 16-39 year old enrollees in the VSD. 18 occurred after the second dose. 14 were in those who received Moderna.

But here is something strange. Even though 11 episodes of myocarditis occurred after the second Moderna dose, there is a claim that the adjusted rate ratio (ARR) is “non-estimable.” Yet Dr. Shimabukuro estimated the ARR for Pfizer’s first dose when there was only 1 myocarditis case. Furthermore, the confidence interval looks sound, starting above 1. I think they did not want us to see the ARR for myocarditis associated with Moderna’s second dose, because it would have been sky-high. (Note that in studies from many countries, the Moderna vaccine is much more strongly associated with myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine. Note also that the DHHS is a patent holder for Moderna’s vax but I do not think it is for Pfizer’s.)

Below it is clear that even by May 29 the second dose caused over 5 times as many myocarditis cases as the first dose. For both brands. And these data have been repeated all over. This cannot be a random event.

Below, I show you how hard the CDC worked to cover its derriere regarding the myocarditis “signal” — I would call it a criminal coverup — regarding the data it was sitting on, and other data it was misrepresenting. On May 27, 2021 CDC updated its guidance regarding myocarditis and pericarditis, according to the slide below. The slide gives you 2 URLS where you can find the educational materials CDC created.

However, neither of those URLs is operative any more. And when I tried to find them on the WayBackMachine, somehow they just were not archived…. So, where is the evidence that CDC warned anyone on May 27 about the risk of myocarditis? Why has it disappeared off the internet?

Did CDC send out an emergency warning to their network, the way they did when two people who obtained ivermectin from a feed store and on the internet required hospitalization for apparent overdoses? No.

The Fact Sheets that substitute for an informed consent, and are required to be given to all vaccine recipients, should have been updated with this warning immediately, according to the Prep Act. It requires that significant known risks be disclosed. I’d call heart damage and the risk of sudden death significant.

Summary: Dr. Shimabukuro did the CDC tap dance in his summary, which goes like this: “Initial safety findings… are consistent with results from pre-authorization clinical trials.” What does that mean? It means, ‘We already knew about this, we are not concerned, nor should you be.’ Tap dance two: this is just preliminary, we are continuing to scour the data, and we will tell you more in 8 days at the scheduled ACIP meeting. (I think it was postponed, however, while the spin doctors worked overtime crafting a new narrative.) The bottom line was ‘nothing to see here.’

And just in case you were not convinced, this is the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring in US history.

And I LOVE the acknowledgements. CDC pretty much always acknowledges the people who contributed to a presentation or to a research project. But here, the people are missing. Only the agency and subagency names are given.

Do you think an executive decision was made to shield the bureaucrats who created this misleading presentation? I wonder if Dr. Shimabukuro has received any monetary awards from CDC recently.

Early in this talk, Dr. Shimabukuro showed the following slide. Think about it. After his presentation went through multiple layers of review, the CDC tools still felt the need to shift any and all blame to poor old Dr. Tom Shimabukuro. Nope. Not their agencies. They didn’t hide anything….