Thursday, December 8, 2022

Another case on the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers beaten down

A federal judge in Louisiana on Dec. 2 declined a case brought by 14 states challenging the Biden administration's rule that requires COVID-19 vaccination for eligible staff at healthcare facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

In November 2021, CMS announced that healthcare facilities that receive federal funding must ensure workers are vaccinated against the virus, while allowing for medical or religious exemptions. That same month, a coalition of 12 states, led by Montana, sued the Biden administration, arguing that the rule is at odds with the "anti-commandeering doctrine" in the U.S. Constitution, which states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Louisiana, was initially brought by Montana, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia. Kentucky and Ohio joined the lawsuit shortly after.

According to the Courthouse News Service, the federal judge in Louisiana found the states' contention that they will experience increased enforcement costs from the CMS rule is "conclusory and entitled to no weight."

A spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen's office told Becker's the states have 60 days to file an appeal and are considering next steps following the Dec. 2 order.

A CMS spokesperson told Becker's that CMS is aware of the federal court decision and does not comment on matters involving litigation.

A coalition of 22 states — led by Mr. Knudsen — also filed a petition in November asking CMS to withdraw the vaccine rule.

Tuesday, November 29, 2022

End the Vaccine Mandates The time has come for the Biden administration to follow the science/ City Journal

One year ago, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued an interim final rule requiring 15 types of health-care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding to ensure that their more than 10 million employees were vaccinated against Covid-19. This was one of multiple Biden administration mandates covering, in addition to medical workers, private employees at large firms (the OSHA mandate covering 84 million workers), federal contractors (one-fifth of the national workforce), 3.5 million federal employees, and Head Start employees, contractors, and volunteers. The administration designed these mandates to force American workers to choose between vaccination or their jobs. Federal courts have enjoined all of them except for the medical-worker one, which the Supreme Court allowed to continue. The administration withdrew the OSHA rule for private employees after the Court found that it exceeded OSHA’s statutory authority to address workplace hazards.

Now a coalition of 22 states, led by Montana attorney general Austin Knudsen, has made a convincing case for repealing the medical-worker vaccine mandate. The states, relying on a section of the Administrative Procedure Act that gives “an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule,” have filed a petition seeking repeal with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and CMS (the part of HHS with primary responsibility for overseeing the Medicare program and the federal role in the Medicaid program).

Many of these states had previously challenged the rule as part of two separate lawsuits—one led by Missouri and the other by Louisiana. District courts in Missouri and Louisiana each found the rule defective and preliminarily enjoined enforcement. The government applied for an emergency stay of those injunctions, and the Supreme Court consolidated the two separate cases. A 5–4 Court majority concluded that the statute gave the HHS secretary authority “to promulgate, as a condition of a facility’s participation in the programs, such ‘requirements as [he] finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services in the institution.’” That authority would include measures to prevent transmission of communicable diseases and infections within those facilities.

The Court stayed the two district court injunctions, thereby allowing enforcement of the mandate while litigation to resolve the cases moved through the lower courts. That litigation continues in the district courts. In doing so, the Court relied on a finding by the HHS secretary that “a COVID–19 vaccine mandate will substantially reduce the likelihood that healthcare workers will contract the virus and transmit it to their patients.”

The new petition rehashes several legal arguments that, regardless of their merits, were made to and rejected by the narrow Supreme Court majority. But the petition is more effective in arguing that changed scientific circumstances undermine the HHS secretary’s justification that vaccinating staff protects patients. It claims that the medical evidence supporting the mandate was weak when the rule was issued and has become even less convincing as newer, more transmissible variants have become the predominant circulating viruses.

The rationale for imposing the mandate was that vaccines would protect medical workers from becoming infected and that, even if they were infected, vaccines would make them less likely to transmit the virus to residents and patients at medical facilities. But the initial vaccine trials were primarily focused on determining whether the vaccines protected against symptomatic Covid-19 infection, not against all transmission. They did not account for post-vaccination, mild, or asymptomatic infections, nor did they study secondary transmission.

In addition, the trials were conducted before the advent of newer, more transmissible viruses. By August 2021, nearly all U.S. cases were the newer Delta variant, which was associated with diminished effectiveness of vaccines against infection and illness, leading to increased numbers of breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people and onward transmission to others.

Furthermore, it has long been apparent that protection against infection, regardless of the variant, wanes with time after vaccination. By six to 12 months post-vaccination, protection against infection is half or less of the protection in the first one to two months.

The Delta variant remained prevalent in November 2021 when CMS issued the vaccine mandate but was on the way to being supplanted by the far more transmissible Omicron and its subvariants. By December, Omicron was predominant and led to a rapid rise in daily case numbers in the U.S., even among the vaccinated. And the CDC had already acknowledged over the summer of 2021 that “[a]nyone with Omicron infection, regardless of vaccination status or whether or not they have symptoms, can spread the virus to others.”

By the time the Supreme Court issued its January 2022 decision allowing the vaccine mandate to be imposed, the vaccines had little or no effectiveness in limiting Covid infection and onward transmission.

The government does not dispute the vaccines’ waning effectiveness. In a September 2022 hearing before the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (sitting en banc) that dealt with the federal employee mandate, the administration’s attorney said that when the mandate was issued last year, vaccines were thought to be effective against Covid-19 transmission and would protect employees from getting infected. “The fact is that the science has changed,” he conceded. “There are new variants and that particular rationale is somewhat eroded, but there are still significant rationales at play here in terms of preventing serious illness for federal employees, which has a clear nexus to the federal workplace in terms of productivity and efficiency.”

While protecting employees themselves from serious illness may or may not suffice for the purposes of a federal employee mandate (the Fifth Circuit has not ruled yet), it does not satisfy the statutory authority cited by the Supreme Court in upholding the medical-worker mandate to issue requirements “necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services in the institution.”

While I would hope that medical workers get vaccinated to protect themselves from serious Covid illness, it is now hard to justify forcing them to do so in the name of patient protection. More effective infection-control measures are now being utilized in medical facilities.

Continuing a vaccine mandate on pain of employment termination risks worsening nationwide medical staffing shortages. Hospital systems across the nation are experiencing shortages of physicians, nurses, technicians, respiratory therapists, and other hard-to-fill jobs. On average, 25 percent of the nation’s nursing homes report insufficient numbers of nurses and aides, and in many states the percentage is higher. Twenty-four states report that 30 percent or more of their facilities lack adequate staffing, and the top four states (Alaska, Minnesota, Maine, and Wyoming) exceed 60 percent.

Moreover, continuing a nationwide mandate ignores the fact that state and local governments—which historically and under the Constitution’s principles of federalism have been the locus of public health decision-making—are better able to assess local conditions and determine the most appropriate policies for limiting disease transmission in their facilities. Similarly, private institutions can and have imposed mitigation measures, including vaccine mandates, for their facilities when conditions warranted them.

The time has come for HHS and the Biden administration to follow the science and retract all vaccine mandates still being adjudicated in various federal courts. The federal government’s legal authority to impose any of them has always been dubious, and now there is no longer any scientific or medical justification for such autocratic and potentially counterproductive measures.

Wednesday, November 23, 2022

CHD meeting in Brussels, with speakers Mary Holland, Catherine Austin Fitts, Orsolya Gyorrfy, Wolfgang Wodarg, Sucharit Bhakdi, Michael Palmer and me

 My talk lasts 16 minutes, is last, and starts at 3 hrs. 44 minutes.

White House allocates $475 million to medical centers to push bivalent boosters, when they don't work and do maim.

The US government continues to bribe medical institutions to force vaccines on hapless patients.  When will the courts finally judge this to be a crime, given what we already know about the shots?  What is wrong with Congress that it allows taxpayer money to be spent this way?  Congress approved $4.5 trillion to be spent on the 'pandemic response' by last December and what has it gotten us?

$5 billion was spent on the rotten bivalent boosters, and for what? They don't work, and they do maim.  Now $475 million is going to health centers, where the administrators will require the shots to be pushed on every patient who walks through the door, presumably as a condition of the grant.  And this is happening as one medical center after another is looking at going under, since patients no longer want their help.  Hospitals that made tons of money when the federal gravy was flowing are now in the red.  The Cleveland Clinic for example, lost over a billion dollars in the first half of 2022.  They will be looking for more federal largesse, and if it is conditioned upon vaccinating the hordes, so be it.

As Catherine Austin Fitts often says, we are the ones paying for the noose being slipped around our necks.

White House renews COVID-19 vaccination push: 3 updates

The White House aims to reinvigorate national COVID-19 vaccination efforts through a six-week campaign announced Nov. 22. 

The vaccination campaign will focus on seniors, communities hit hardest by COVID-19 and those living in rural areas. The White House has also allocated $350 million for community health centers and $125 million for community-based organizations to help increase the pace of vaccinations. 

The White House is also tapping the healthcare workforce to encourage vaccinations for older Americans. On Nov. 21, a group of the nation's leading medical societies — including the American Medical Association and American Academy of Family Physicians — encouraged members "to use every interaction with patients as an opportunity to make strong vaccine recommendations."  

Vaccination efforts have lagged nationwide since updated boosters were made available in September. Only 11.3 percent of people ages 5 and up have received the omicron-tweaked booster, according to CDC estimates

Three more updates on COVID-19 vaccines: 

1. New bivalent boosters are effective at preventing severe COVID-19 and offer a modest increase in protection compared to past monovalent boosters, according to the first real-world data available on the shot's efficacy, which the CDC published Nov. 22. Protection from the bivalent doses — which contain genetic material from the original coronavirus strain and BA.4/BA.5 — also increased with time due to waning immunity of the original monovalent doses, the CDC said. 

2. Anthony Fauci, MD, urged Americans to get vaccinated during his final White House COVID-19 briefing Nov. 22. He is slated to leave his role as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in December. 

"So, my message and my final message — may be the final message I give you from this podium — is that: Please, for your own safety, for that of your family, get your updated COVID-19 shot as soon as you're eligible to protect yourself, your family, and your community," he said. 

3. Updated boosters will offer "some protection, but not the optimal protection" against omicron subvariants BQ.1.1 and XBB, according to Dr. Fauci. Despite the spread of these subvariants, which are capable of evading immunity from vaccines, Dr. Fauci said he does not anticipate a winter surge of the same magnitude as last year's.

"We're hoping that [with] a combination of people who've been infected and boosted and vaccinated, or people who've been vaccinated and boosted and not infected, that there's enough community protection that we're not going to see a repeat of what we saw last year at this time," he said.

Monkeypox name change due to Biden administration--not African nations--to "reduce stigma and racism." New cases down to 5% of the new case rate in August

The Biden administration pushed the WHO to change the name of monkeypox to reduce racism.  Hello?  Are we stigmatizing monkeys?

The World Health Organization will rename monkeypox "MPOX" in an effort to destigmatize the virus amid growing pressure from senior Biden administration officials, Politico reported Nov. 22. The name change could be announced as early as Nov. 22. 

The WHO announced the possible name change over the summer to reduce stigma and racism surrounding the virus. 

According to Politico, the Biden administration was concerned the stigma surrounding the virus's name was negatively impacting the vaccination campaign that started over the summer. 

The U.S. has recorded nearly 30,000 infections of MPOX, according to the CDC. But with the availability of vaccinations, cases have fallen from a high of more than 400 cases per day over the summer to fewer than 20 cases per day nationally.

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

The social media-USG collusion censorship case moves forward: Jen Psaki also will have to testify

Judge Doughty was the judge who first ruled on October 21 that Psaki and Dr. Anthony Fauci must testify for the lawsuit.

"After finding documentation of a collusive relationship between the Biden administration and social media companies to censor free speech, we immediately filed a motion to get these officials under oath," Schmitt said after the October ruling.

"It is high time we shine a light on this censorship enterprise and force these officials to come clean to the American people, and this ruling will allow us to do just that," he added. "We’ll keep pressing for the truth."

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley opined that there was evidence to support the contentions made in the lawsuit.

"The concern for free speech advocates is that there is a type of censorship by surrogate, that Democratic leaders and other groups have used social media to silence opposing voices, and you've had a number of people who’ve been banned on social media or had tweets taken down that have been proven correct," Turley said.

"The government is not allowed to do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly," the legal scholar said about possible collusion between the government and social media companies.

In July, the Biden administration was forced to turn over emails related to censorship social media as a part of the lawsuit. Critics said the emails proved that the White House participated in a campaign to shut down free speech.

Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki lost a battle in court after a federal judge ordered her to testify about the White House's role in censorship on social media.

Judge Terry Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana issued the decision on Monday.

Doughty denied a motion by Psaki's attorney's asking to block a court order for her testimony and said there was public interest in "determining whether First Amendment free speech rights have been suppressed."

The lawsuit was filed by Republican Attorneys General Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana on the basis that high-ranking officials in the Biden administration had censored free speech on social media platforms "under the guise of combating misinformation."

Judge Doughty was the judge who first ruled on October 21 that Psaki and Dr. Anthony Fauci must testify for the lawsuit.

"After finding documentation of a collusive relationship between the Biden administration and social media companies to censor free speech, we immediately filed a motion to get these officials under oath," Schmitt said after the October ruling.

"It is high time we shine a light on this censorship enterprise and force these officials to come clean to the American people, and this ruling will allow us to do just that," he added. "We’ll keep pressing for the truth."

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley opined that there was evidence to support the contentions made in the lawsuit.

"The concern for free speech advocates is that there is a type of censorship by surrogate, that Democratic leaders and other groups have used social media to silence opposing voices, and you've had a number of people who’ve been banned on social media or had tweets taken down that have been proven correct," Turley said.

"The government is not allowed to do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly," the legal scholar said about possible collusion between the government and social media companies.

In July, the Biden administration was forced to turn over emails related to censorship social media as a part of the lawsuit. Critics said the emails proved that the White House participated in a campaign to shut down free speech.

Thursday, November 3, 2022

Kangaroo Kourt: Kristina Borjesson featured an hour of my hearing, demonstrating what a bizarre prosecution it is.

In this first hour of the second day of hearings held by the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine in the matter of their suspension of Dr. Meryl Nass’s medical license, Dr. Nass, under questioning by her lawyer, describes a Kafkaesque series of events that led to her being charged with incompetence, fraud and various other unethical activities related to her treatment of three covid patients, and to the suspension of her license.

During her testimony, Dr. Nass reveals that the three patients had no complaints about their treatment and will be testifying on her behalf before the Board. This and other information revealed in this hour raises serious questions about the integrity of both the Board of Licensure in Medicine and the hearings.


James Corbett and I sounded off about the state of the world and what to do about it


Interview with Nadya Swart of BizNews, Nov. 1


Podcast on BizNews Radio: 

Monday, October 31, 2022

How is it possible that Rochelle believes in the sausage when she oversees the sausage-making machinery?


For Immediate Release  
Monday, October 31, 2022
(404) 639-3286                
Update on CDC Director and COVID-19
CDC Director Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky experienced mild symptoms from her recent COVID-19 infection, completed a course of Paxlovid, and, after a period of isolation, tested negative for the virus. On Sunday, Dr. Walensky began to develop mild symptoms and has again tested positive. Consistent with CDC guidelines, she is isolating at home and will participate in her planned meetings virtually.
UPDATE Nov 3, 2022:
Coffee and Covid suggest that Rochelle really had a recurrent case of COVID because it absolved her from having to answer questions about the rise in all-cause mortality, SADS and vaccine injuries.  

I also protected her from having to answer questions about how CDC's public health data sausage machine was under repair, and how now that it is functioning again, the death reports are really low and really screwy, according to the Ethical Skeptic.

It looks like the finger in the dyke method won't hold up much longer at CDC.

Saturday, October 22, 2022

The effort to sneak in WHO sovereignty over nations with pandemic planning, vax passports, masks, lockdowns, Pandemic Treaty and International Health Regulations amendments continues unabated

EU Sets Out Commitment to Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, Mask Mandates and “Legally Binding” Global Pandemic Treaty

The European Union has set out its commitment to the continued use of lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine passports and other restrictions this winter to control the spread of COVID-19, and also to the creation of a “legally binding” global pandemic treaty with a “reinforced WHO at its centre”.

The document, published on September 2nd and titled “EU response to COVID-19: preparing for autumn and winter 2023“, was prepared by the EU Commission (the EU executive) and sent to the EU Parliament. It reveals how much in thrall to the new biosecurity orthodoxy the EU leadership is and bodes ill for the future management of contagious disease in the bloc and globally.

On lockdowns and other restrictions, it proposes a framework of “key indicators to assess when deciding on reintroducing non-pharmaceutical measures”. These indicators include severe disease and hospital occupancy data.

It suggests mask mandates as a “first option to limit community transmission”, giving a preference for FFP2 masks.

[Face mask] use in closed public spaces, including public transport, can be a first option to limit community transmission. Recent evidence shows that FFP2 face masks, which are readily available in the EU/EEA, have a stronger protective effect than medical masks or cloth masks in the community. Member States are therefore strongly encouraged to consider their use in specific settings.

The document recommends the pre-emptive imposition of work-from-home and gathering limits before any rise in infections to try to avoid the “need for more disruptive ones such as lock downs, closing businesses and schools, stay-at-home recommendations and travel restrictions”. It stresses the need for “political commitment” to make lockdowns and other measures work.

Other measures such as working from home or limiting the size of mass gatherings have proved effective to limit transmission of the virus. When implemented ahead of increases in cases, these measures can avoid the need for more disruptive ones such as lock downs, closing businesses and schools, stay-at-home recommendations and travel restrictions. Political commitment and community engagement are key for the success and the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical measures.

The one welcome aspect of the document was the clear statement to avoid disrupting children’s education and lives any further, though even here school closures were not ruled out.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the lives of children and adolescents affecting their everyday routines, education, health, development and overall well-being. It is therefore important to keep in mind the negative impacts of school disruptions on the health and development of children. The implementation of measures at schools should be aimed to be kept at a minimum and the further loss of learning should be prevented.

The document discourages travel restrictions (freedom of travel and the elimination of internal borders is an article of faith for the EU). However, it recommends use of the EU Digital Covid Certificate (i.e., vaccine passport, though it also recognises natural immunity) where travel restrictions are required, boasting about how widely used it is.

Member States can make use of the EU Digital Covid Certificate in case the epidemiological situation this autumn and winter makes it necessary for countries to temporarily reintroduce travel restrictions. The EU Digital Covid Certificate Regulation, which has been extended until June 2023, provides the necessary framework to manage the impact of restrictions on free movement and to facilitate travel. It ensures that citizens can benefit from interoperable and mutually accepted certificates of COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery. In principle, holders of valid EU Digital Covid Certificates should not be subject to any additional restrictions when travelling within the EU.

The EU Digital Covid Certificate has been a major success in providing the public with a tool that is accepted and trusted across the EU (and in several third countries) and in avoiding fragmentation of multiple national systems. As of August 1st 2022, 75 countries and territories from across five continents are connected to the EU Digital Certificate system (30 EU/EEA Member States and 45 non-EU countries and territories), and several more countries have expressed interest in joining the gateway or are already engaged in technical discussions with the Commission. This makes the EU Digital Covid Certificate a global standard.

The EU Digital COVID Certificate system is sufficiently flexible to adapt to the evolution of the COVID-19 response. Possible adaptations to the validity period of certificates issued for the first booster may become necessary in light of further scientific evidence and the evolution of the pandemic.

What this fails to mention, of course, is any rationale for the passes. What’s the point of restricting the travel of the unvaccinated (or not-sufficiently-vaccinated) when the vaccinated are no less likely to spread the disease? This key question is entirely unaddressed.

On vaccination, it provides 15 “objectives”, “priorities” and “actions” for COVID-19 vaccination strategies. These include the “priority” of encouraging take-up of the original vaccine (that’s right, for the extinct Covid strains) among all eligible children and adolescents, and an action point of making sure GPs are spending enough of their time vaccinating people (don’t they have anything else to do?). It suggests administering boosters as often as every three months and implies they are little use after six months. It also encourages governments to counter “misinformation” in the media to ensure “clear, consistent and evidence-based messaging demonstrating the continued safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines”. It links worries about vaccine safety with “anti-Western and anti-EU narratives” and with websites which also go off-narrative on the Ukraine war. The vaccine action points include (emphasis mine):

  • Continue national COVID-19 vaccination strategies using the currently available vaccines to reduce hospitalisations, severe disease and death.
  • Close vaccination coverage gaps. Improving vaccine uptake of the primary vaccination course and first booster dose among eligible individuals, including eligible children and adolescents according to national vaccination schedules, remains a priority. This is of particular importance for population groups at higher risk of severe outcomes and for countries with lower vaccination rates.
  • Maintain sufficient vaccination capacities, either by reactivating vaccination centres or by using other resources, such as general practitioners.
  • Prioritise the administration of an additional booster dose (second or subsequent) for specific population groups: people aged 60 years and over and individuals of any age at risk of severe disease (e.g. individuals with underlying comorbidities, immunocompromised individuals and pregnant women). The boosting of healthcare workers and long-term care facility personnel should also be considered. Subsequent boosters could be administered as early as three months after the previous one, and priority should be given to people who received their last booster more than six months ago.
  • Closely monitor the effectiveness and safety of the [new and] adapted vaccines once widespread rollout commences. If needed, national vaccination strategies should be adapted when more evidence on the performance of these vaccines becomes available.
  • Implement and, if possible, coordinate effective communication initiatives and strategies to promote uptake of additional vaccine doses, and promote completion of the primary series by those who have not yet done so. Clear information should be provided around the rationale for recommendations, and the benefits of the primary course and boosters for different population groups, including for those who already had the disease.
  • Ensure that capacity is in place to regularly update public communication strategy, based on epidemiological developments, changes in the public’s perceptions and attitudes of the ongoing pandemic and COVID-19 vaccination, including the capacity to monitor and swiftly respond to false or misleading information.
  • Increase vaccine confidence by monitoring and addressing the public’s questions and concerns, explaining the science behind the recommendations and debunking mis- and disinformation in the mainstream media and on social media. Clear, consistent, and evidence-based messaging demonstrating the continued safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines is key. Target hard-to-reach population groups through tailored communication and draw on health professionals and community leaders as trusted sources of information.
  • Address the political dimension of vaccine hesitancy and disinformation campaigns linked to anti-Western and anti-EU narratives. Particular challenges include channels where disinformation is circulating in relation to other crises, especially the Russian military aggression against Ukraine.

The document emphatically reinforces the EU’s commitment to a new “legally binding” pandemic treaty with a “reinforced WHO at its centre” and commits over half a billion euros (equivalently dollars and pounds) to making it happen.

Lastly, the EU believes it is vitally important to build on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and to strengthen the global health architecture – with a reinforced WHO at its centre. The EU is determined to be a driving force in the negotiations on a new, legally binding, international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and on targeted amendments to strengthen the International Health Regulations 2005. These complementary processes are a priority for the EU and provide a historic opportunity to find multilateral solutions to common challenges, based on the principles of collective solidarity, equity, fairness, inclusiveness and enhanced transparency. Moreover, the new Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF) for Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, to which Team Europe has already pledged at least €588 million, will provide funding to support pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, including the implementation of the amended International Health Regulations and the new international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

The document also trails a forthcoming “EU global health strategy” which “will provide the political framework with priorities, governance and tools, enabling the EU to speak with one influential voice and making the most of Team Europe’s capacity to protect and promote health globally”.

This is a very disturbing document. For those of us who still hold to the evidence-based pandemic strategies of pre-2020, premised only on mitigating impacts by expanding emergency healthcare capacity and finding safe and effective treatments, and not imposing intrusive, harmful and unproven methods of trying to prevent the spread of a disease that is anyway harmless to most people, this all bodes ill indeed for the current direction of travel.

Friday, October 21, 2022

Here are my live blogs for the CDC's ACIP meeting of Oct. 19-20

October 19


 October 20

I was asked to post the URLs to watch Day 1 of my med board hearing (and the Oct. 25 hearing day)

Both URLs below will get you to the hearing.  Thanks for watching and supporting me.  Day 2 starts at 9 am on October 25 and I will post the livestream location as soon as I can.  This is a public hearing so it may be viewed by the public.

The same CHD URL will be used on Tuesday 25th for Day 2 of my hearing

Thursday, October 20, 2022

This is what the Board of Licensure in Medicine said about me

Here is the claim in a nutshell.  The order of Immediate Suspension stated,  

"The Board concludes that the continued ability of Dr. Nass to practice as a physician in the State of Maine constitutes an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of the public who might receive her medical services, and that it is necessary to immediately suspend her ability to practice medicine in order to adequately respond to this risk."

This is what a letter to the Editor published today said about my ability as a physician:

Dear Editor:

I would like to express my support for Dr. Meryl Nass and her quest for the reinstatement of her medical license. She is a highly regarded internist who truly understands the “big picture.” She has treated both my sister and me successfully for complex issues unnoticed by our primary caregivers. She also literally saved my elderly father’s life. He was misdiagnosed with renal disease, causing heart failure. He was hospitalized and appeared to be going downhill fast. Because it was the weekend, his primary doctor was not available. The on-duty hospitalist, Dr. Nass, immediately recognized the real problem as something different and prescribed an alternate treatment with positive results. My father quickly rebounded and went on to live for several more years.

I believe Dr. Nass’s focus on COVID treatment and skepticism of the vaccine-only orthodoxy has played out to be well founded. Her suspension was little more than political theatre and I hope for her reinstatement and vindication when clearer heads prevail. Good luck, Dr. Nass.

Tom Marinke


CDC: The old vaccine does not work. Get new bivalent booster. It might.

"Vaccine effectiveness against latest variants declined to 29% at 4 months after third dose"

[At the CDC's advisory committee meeting yesterday and today, not a word was said about how the new bivalent booster was working.  That is not good news for people who volunteered to be the first homo sapiens to receive the injections.--Nass]

A photo of vials of Comirnaty and the Moderna COVID vaccines.

A monovalent mRNA booster dose offered "limited" protection against COVID-related hospitalizations from the currently circulating Omicron variants, a CDC analysis found, likely due to the waning effects of the vaccines and potentially more immune evasion with BA.4/BA.5.

In immunocompetent adults, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalization with three doses of mRNA vaccine dropped from 69% (95% CI 62-74) during the BA.1/BA.2 period to 31% (95% CI 7-49) during BA.4/BA.5, reported Diya Surie, MD, of CDC's COVID-19 Emergency Response Team, and colleagues.


CDC's advisory committee on immunization practices will vote at 1:20 pm today to put the covid vaccines on the childhood schedule. Expect a unanimous yes vote

The committee members were presented with CDC’s fait accompli today by hearing a very bland presentation of the “edits” to the childhood, adolescent and adult immunization schedules.

Buried among dozens of “edits” was the inclusion of COVID-19 vaccines to the childhood and adolescent schedules, which is to be rolled out in February. But was posted to CDC’s website on October 17, 2022, before the ACIP’s approval.

When the CDC briefer, a strongly accented Dr. Wodi, was asked how CDC could add an EUA (unlicensed) vaccine to the schedule, she said something like, “We checked with OGC [Office of General Counsel] and they said it was okay.” And that was that. No legal justification. No moral or ethical justification. And definitely no medical or scientific justification.

In fact, yesterday the Director of of CDC’s Immunization Division, Dr. Jose Romero, said that CDC was not putting the COVID vaccines on the childhood schedule (yet). He said that at 3 pm yesterday. But by 9 am today that was exactly what CDC revealed it was doing. His “YET” lasted for all of 18 hours. Or one might more correctly say he was a lying SOB and I don’t mean short of breath.

AND they are getting prepared to recommend monoclonal antibodies for all children under 8 months of age at a future meeting, as well as recommending RSV vaccines.

This is regulatory agencies and their advisory committees gone amuck. Time for the people to stop consenting. Now there is no question whether these are public health professionals carefully considering decisions for 334,000,000 people. They are careerists who love vaccines and are blind to the consequences of their actions. Blind is putting it charitably.

Yesterday, Jose Romero, who is the Director of CDC’s National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, said this is not about the childhood schedule. You can listen to Drs. Santoli and Romero and read the slides at 6 hours 31 minutes and draw your own conclusions.

My live blog for yesterday and today is here:

At 1:25 pm, the committee voted unanimously 15-0 to put the COVID vaccines on the childhood schedule.

Tuesday, October 18, 2022

2 weeks after the Nordstream pipeline sabotage, 2 undersea warfare experts get awards. Bad timing?

They work for a "nonprofit" govt contractor associated with JHU and one of Ms. Blodgett's specialties is undersea mine warfare.  No, I don't think they had anything to do with Nordstream.  But isn't it funny how anything can be a nonprofit these days?  

BTW, this "nonprofit" made our esteemed Director of National Intelligence a Senior Fellow in 2018.

October 12, 2022

Johns Hopkins APL Experts Recognized by Undersea Warfare Community

Jon Berry

Jon Berry

Credit: Johns Hopkins APL

Lisa Blodgett

Lisa Blodgett

Credit: Johns Hopkins APL

Berry, Blodgett Honored for Critical Leadership, Technical Contributions

Jon Berry and Lisa Blodgett of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, were honored recently at the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) 2022 Undersea Warfare Fall Conference, held at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in New London, Connecticut. Berry, APL’s Anti-Submarine Warfare program area manager, was awarded the Bronze medal, and Blodgett, head of APL’s Force Projection Sector (FPS), received the Vice Adm. Charles E. Weakley Award.

As the winner of NDIA’s Undersea Warfare Bronze medal, Berry was recognized for outstanding individual achievement in science or engineering in the field of undersea warfare. Berry’s experience includes active and passive acoustics, sonar system design and development, sonar performance modeling and test planning and execution. He currently leads development and evaluation of active capability across submarines, surface ships and surveillance platforms.

“Jon’s leadership in the undersea warfare community, and specific notable contributions in active acoustic technology development, make this a well-deserved honor,” said APL Sea Control Mission Area Executive Christopher Watkins. “He leads a dedicated cross-organizational working group to drive the future of active sonar capability across the fleet.”

Berry began his APL career more than 30 years ago as a systems engineer and has extensive experience on low frequency active (LFA) and compact low frequency active (CLFA) systems for U.S. Navy surveillance, delivering critical analysis to support development of towed-array sensor systems and LFA and CLFA programs. As program area manager for Anti-Submarine Warfare at APL, Berry guides a diverse portfolio of anti-submarine warfare efforts spanning exploratory science and technology through platform acquisition and modernization.

The Vice Adm. Charles E. Weakley Award is given annually by the Undersea Warfare Division to a distinguished individual for meritorious service and noteworthy contributions to effective government and industry communication in the field of undersea warfare. Blodgett is the second APL leader to receive the award since its inception in 1974.

“Lisa is innovative in every endeavor she leads,” said APL Director Ralph Semmel. “We are thrilled that she is being acknowledged by the technical community for her dedication and contributions to our nation’s defense.”

As the head of FPS, Blodgett oversees three mission areas focused on ensuring warfighter success. She has more than 30 years of experience in undersea warfare, including submarine warfare, anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare and the strategic deterrence mission of the SSBN force. As an expert in digital signal processing and passive sonar, she helped develop the capability to evaluate operational sonar systems in the Navy’s Advanced Processing Build/Acoustic Rapid COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) Insertion efforts.

“It’s an honor to contribute to the advancement of our nation’s defense,” said Blodgett. “These critical contributions benefit our service members, citizens and the country. I look forward to continuing this important work.”

Blodgett co-chairs the Submarine Technology Symposium and serves on the NDIA Undersea Warfare Division advisory council and Naval Submarine League board of directors. She is also member of the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group and chairs the Nuclear Command Control and Communications Task Force. She served on the Defense Science Board Task Force for Next-Generation Unmanned Undersea Systems and also served on the Submarine Superiority Technical Advisory Group. Before becoming sector head in 2015, Blodgett led APL’s Sea Control Mission Area.

Media contact: Katie Kerrigan, 240-761-9046,

The Applied Physics Laboratory, a not-for-profit division of The Johns Hopkins University, meets critical national challenges through the innovative application of science and technology. For more information, visit