Thursday, December 23, 2021

Delicensing Doctors for ‘Harmful Misinformation’/ AAPS

Delicensing Doctors for ‘Harmful Misinformation’ 

By Jane M. Orient, M.D.

In addition to being subjected to various forms of censorship, for the first time in living memory American doctors are getting threat letters from licensure boards warning them against distributing “harmful misinformation.” Medical boards in 12 states have disciplined doctors because of this allegation. While it is claimed that there’s an epidemic of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the warnings don’t spell out what that means.

We don’t have an epidemic of patients dying because doctors told them to refuse treatment or to drink Clorox or aquarium cleaner.

In fact, no patients need to have suffered any harm at all for the medical board to investigate a doctor’s no-longer-free speech. All it takes is an anonymous complaint

Pharmacists who were converted into the overseers of physicians’ prescribing practices will complain that a doctor had prescribed ivermectin for COVID-19.

Or an employer might complain that a doctor supported a worker’s request for a medical exemption that wasn’t on the CDC’s list of acceptable reasons.

Or the doctor might have spoken at a political meeting at which mask mandates were being challenged.

Or a patient might complain that a doctor wasn’t wearing a mask in his private consulting room, even when no COVID-19 patients were anywhere near and the doctor had demonstrated immunity.

Or a pathologist might have stated publicly that his busy lab was seeing a higher percentage of cancers in vaccinated patients.

“Harmful misinformation” appears to mean anything that contradicts or asks questions or raises doubt about the dogma that “vaccines are safe and effective,” or suggests a treatment not endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and their corporate sponsors.

One source of the allegedly “harmful misinformation” is a database created and maintained by the CDC, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Anybody can enter a suspected vaccine adverse reaction, and the public can access it. So, “it can be abused by people trying to sow fear,” write Shayla Love and Anna Merlan in VICE News. One person filed a fraudulent report, promptly removed, claiming that an influenza vaccination had turned him into the “Incredible Hulk.”

Flawed as it is, VAERS is the best CDC has to offer for looking for “danger signals.” Of course, correlation doesn’t prove causality. As Lindy McGee from Texas Children’s Hospital correctly pointed out, “I can report if I get hit by a truck after I’ve gotten a vaccine and that would be reported as associated with a vaccine. It does not make any implication of causality.” However, there is a double standard. If you get hit by a truck, but test positive for COVID-19, the hospital will get paid for counting you as a COVID death.

Adverse reports to VAERS are many times higher for COVID-19 vaccines than for all other vaccines combined since the database was established in 1988. The website clearly states: “Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.” So, presumably most of the approximately 20,000 reports of death concern people who really did die soon after getting the jab, most within a few days. It could be 20,000 coincidences, but the count is not “misinformation.”

Love and Merlan call the compilers of VAERS information at “dumpster divers.” Matt Motta of Oklahoma State University and Dominik Stecuła of Colorado State University refer to that January article favorably in their Aug 25 essay that says VAERS is only good for researching “vaccine hesitancy.” They don’t mention that the featured VAERS death count of 329 from Jan 22, 2021, has steadily increased.

Also viewed as “misinformation” is the opinion of physicians and researchers that hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other “repurposed” drugs are beneficial in COVID-19, as shown in more than 1,000 studies. Reports of dying patients who recovered when hospitals were legally forced to step aside and allow off-protocol treatment are ignored.

The safe option for doctors is to promote the jab or keep silent, and not to suggest anything different from what Anthony Fauci approves. By silencing doctors who are ethical professionals, one opens the gates for the reckless charlatans.

Recall that in Orwell’s Newspeak, the meaning of words is inverted. The Ministry of Love is in charge of torture; the Ministry of Plenty, of starvation; and the Ministry of Truth, of propaganda.

Is the Minitrue defining “misinformation” today?


Anonymous said...

Q] Is the Minitrue defining “misinformation” today?

A] Leading medical journals and scientists and MDs and researchers are doing "just fine" all on their own -- spreading insanity, I believe, is correct terminology.

How does one square the following ---- in same pre-print? ----
1] VE = ZERO for Omicron; and calling for
2] "In light of the exponential rise in Omicron cases, these findings
highlight the need for massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations" ??

Published Dec. 23, 2021, titled "Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study"

This is how authors explained VE = less than zero:

"The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and
unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals."

In addition, this Dec. 23 pre-print included nothing on the fact that Omicron, unlike previous mutations/strains/whatevers. . .. on fact that Omicron is neither deadly nor severe in its symptoms.

Why call for vaccination against Omicron? This paper is silent on this --- this is not science. THIS IS INSANITY.

The study calculates Vaccine Effectiveness as follows for Pfizer and Moderna shots, stratified by how long after fully vaxxed
by: >days after fully vaxxed<; >#cases<; >VE<; >confidence interval<

1-30 days 14 VE=55.2% (23.5; 73.7) | 4 VE=36.7% (-69.9; 76.4)
31-60 days 32 16.1% (-20.8; 41.7) | 8 30.0% (-41.3; 65.4)
61-90 days 145 9.8% (-10.0; 26.1) | 48 4.2% (-30.8; 29.8)
91-150 days 2,851 -76.5% (-95.3;-59.5)|393 -39.3 (-61.6;-20.0)


This paper states: "VE against Omicron was 55.2% initially following primary BNT162b2 vaccination, but waned quickly thereafter." This is not how VE is measured! I had a loly pop for breakfast, I as good the first 25 minutes, but after than I was hungry. That is what this is saying. Does a meal carry you to the next meal? If not, that is Meal Failure. Here we have Science Failure pretending to measure Vaccine Failure.

"Although estimated with less precision, VE against Omicron after primary mRNA-1273 vaccination similarly indicated a rapid decline in protection."

This study aimed to compare "the rate of infections in unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals with a two-dose BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series."

The results are Vaccine Failure; the conclusion is "Omicron decreases quickly over time with booster vaccination offering a significant increase in protection. In light of the exponential rise in Omicron cases, these findings highlight the need for massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations"


Anonymous said...

Red China's Money has bought a lot of Influence in USA, Sad!
Using their Censorship Playbook!

These U.S. Governors Are Named On Chinese Communist Party Membership List.

Not talking just sympathizers or money-grubbing-soul-selling turncoats… actual members of the CCP.