Monday, February 28, 2022

California weighs punishing doctors for challenging 'contemporary scientific consensus' on COVID/ Just the News

Assembly bill promotes long-outdated information about COVID deaths in unvaccinated vs. vaccinated, however, rather than updated Omicron variant figures.

Disagreement with the "contemporary scientific consensus" on COVID-19 issues could be deemed "unprofessional conduct" for California doctors.

Democratic Assemblyman Evan Low's AB 2098 "may" be the subject of a March 17 hearing in the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions, where it was referred last week, according to the legislative history.

The bill, which was cowritten by five other California Assembly and Senate members, goes beyond regulating how California doctors can treat their own patients. It opens their statements about COVID — public or private — to review by the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, with possible sanctions to follow.

"Existing law requires the applicable board to take action against any licensed physician and surgeon who is charged with unprofessional conduct," according to the legislative counsel's summary, and the bill would "designate the dissemination or promotion of misinformation or disinformation" about COVID as "unprofessional conduct," without specifying what's prohibited.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is seeking legislative funding for a related effort: a statewide department "dedicated to disseminating accurate scientific information, and countering false claims" about COVID, CBS 8 reported last week. The state is also airing "myth buster" commercials in 250 markets.

Several state medical boards are considering or actively investigating doctors for their claims about hot-button COVID issues, particularly around vaccines and alternate treatments.

Perhaps most prominent is pathologist Ryan Cole, who practices in both Idaho and Washington state and has allegedly prescribed ivermectin. A leader in America's Frontline Doctors, which challenges COVID orthodoxy, Cole was targeted by the Idaho Medical Association after he was appointed to a regional health board, though only Washington state has confirmed an investigation.

Maine went further in the case of internist Meryl Nass, who started her career as a biowarfare researcher. The state's Board of Licensure in Medicine not only suspended Nass' license to practice but ordered a neuropsychological evaluation of her. Some of Nass' claims have since been echoed by the CDC, including the higher risk of heart inflammation following two-dose vaccines and broad protection from natural immunity.

AB 2098 claims it's just adding teeth to a resolution passed by the California Assembly last fall that deems health misinformation "a public health crisis." 

HR 74 called on the state to curb "the spread of falsehoods," particularly those that lead people to decline COVID vaccines, reject "public health measures relating to masking or physical distancing," and use "unproven treatments."

The preamble to the new bill, however, promotes information that is long outdated.

"Data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that unvaccinated individuals are at a risk of dying from COVID-19 that is 11 times greater than those who are fully vaccinated," it says, referring to last summer's Delta variant wave without identifying the time period. 

Even then the death disparity between the two populations was narrowing, with vaccine efficacy plummeting the most for Americans 65 and older, the British Medical Journal reported. 

The CDC at the time was actively avoiding data collection on mild breakthrough infections among vaccinated people. It recently came under fire for hiding even more granular data, with an unnamed federal official telling The New York Times the agency feared the data "might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective."

AB 2098 is primarily concerned with statements about the "safety and efficacy" of COVID vaccines, but is written so vaguely it could ban dissemination of ongoing scientific research.

The South African doctor who discovered Omicron in November, Angelique Coetzee, said she faced physically debilitating international pressure to characterize the milder variant as more severe than the country's physicians were observing.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla admitted in January its two-dose vaccine had hit a brick wall with Omicron, with "very limited protection if any," while its booster only provided "reasonable protection" against hospitalization and death.

The California bill specifies "unprofessional conduct" as promoting false or misleading information about "the nature and risks" of the novel coronavirus, its prevention and treatment, as well as the "development, safety, and efficacy" of the vaccines. 

Medical boards shall consider four factors, but the bill text doesn't say all must be confirmed. They will examine whether the doctor "deviated from the applicable standard of care" and "intended to mislead or acted with malicious intent."

Then they will judge whether the result was "an individual declining opportunities for COVID-19 prevention or treatment that was not justified by the individual's medical history or condition" and whether the purported disinformation "was contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus to an extent where its dissemination constitutes gross negligence by the licensee."

Physicians told The Epoch Times the potential law threatens to chill ongoing scientific debate. 

Newport Beach's Jeff Barke has long challenged the state's supposed evidence for mask and vaccine mandates and argued against school closures but not the vaccines themselves. The "consensus" requirement violates the scientific process, which is "about sharing and debating ideas,” Barke said. 

Los Angeles psychiatrist Mark McDonald, who claims most of what he's written about COVID online has been flagged as misinformation or removed, told the publication he would sue the state if it tried to sanction him for his views. 

"I think when you stand up and you don't give an inch, in most cases, the bullies are actually cowards, and they will collapse," he said.

Assemblyman Low's office didn't respond to Just the News questions about whether the bill could punish physicians who are ahead of the curve on debatable issues such as the lab-leak hypothesis, efficacy of cloth masks and post-vaccination heart inflammation.

Think carefully about accepting the concept of vaccine passports

The article below was first published 3 months ago but remains relevant.  It is important to keep the possibility in mind that the primary purpose of the vaccine program and mandates is to create a reason for the so-called vaccine passport.  And that the vaccine passport is the veneer, hiding its critical importance as the means by which we will be controlled, exactly as people are already controlled in China.  It will house our social credit score, all relevant information about us, our finances, the places we are allowed to go, the employers permitted to hire us, and the schools our children are allowed to attend.  It will provide our location 24/7.

Right now, as you are reading this, under the guise of enhancing your safety, the U.S. federal government is in discussions with multinational corporations and employers of citizens to create a more efficient process for you to register your vaccine compliance.

You may know their conversation under the terminology of a COVID passport. The current goal is to make a system for you to show your authorized work status; which, as you know, is based on your obedience to a mandated vaccine.

Beta tests are being conducted in various nations, each with different perspectives and constitutional limitations based on pesky archaic rules and laws that govern freedom. For the western, or for lack of a better word ‘democratic‘ outlook, Australia is leading the way with their technological system of vaccination check points and registered state/national vaccination status tied to your registration identification.

The checkpoints are essentially gateways where QR codes are being scanned from the cell phones of the compliant vaccinated citizen. Yes comrades, there’s an App for that.

Currently the vaccine status scans are registered by happy compliance workers, greeters at the entry to the business or venue. Indeed, the WalMart greeter has a new gadget to scan your phone prior to allowing you custody of a shopping cart.

In restaurants, the host or hostess has a similar compliance scanner to check you in prior to seating or reservation confirmation.

It’s simple and fun. You pull up your QR code on your cell phone (aka portable transponder and registration device), using the registration App, and your phone is scanned delivering a green check response to confirm your correct vaccination status and authorized entry.

The Australian government, at both a federal and state level, is working closely with Big Tech companies (thirsting for the national contract) to evaluate the best universal process that can be deployed nationwide.

As noted by all six Premiers in the states down under, hardware (scanners) and software (registration) systems are all being tested to find the most comprehensive/convenient portable units to settle upon. Meanwhile in the U.S., cities like Los Angeles and New York await the beta test conclusion before deploying their own version of the same process.

Then again… “For those in the privileged class allowed to shop, take note of Covid signs which encourage cashless transactions under the guise of ‘health’. Messaging around cards being ‘safer’ will increase until the Treasury tries to remove cash entirely, almost certainly with public approval.”

Wait, now we are squinting at that familar image on the horizon because we know those who control things have been talking about a cashless society for quite a while.

We also know that data is considered a major commodity all by itself. Why do you think every system you encounter in the modern era requires your phone number even when you are not registering for anything. It, meaning you, us, are all getting linked into this modern registration system that is defining our status. We also know that system operators buy and sell our registered status amid various retail and technology systems.

Yeah, that opaque shadow is getting a little clearer now.

Perhaps you attempt to purchase dog food and get denied entry into Pet Smart because you didn’t renew the car registration.  Or perhaps you are blocked from entry because you forgot to change the oil on the leased vehicle you drive and Toyota has this weird agreement with some retail consortium.   You head to the oil change place that conveniently pops up in the citizen compliance App –it’s only two blocks away– they clear the alert after they do the oil and you are gateway compliant again.

Missed your booster shot? We’re sorry citizen, your bank account is frozen until your compliance is restored… please proceed to the nearest vaccination office as displayed conveniently on your cell phone screen to open access to all further gates (checkpoints)…. tap to continue…

Sunday, February 27, 2022

The CDC Discovers Actual Public Health/ Brownstone Institute

I am really taken with Jeffrey Tucker, founder of the Brownstone Institute.  He hits the nail on the head, over and over.  In the article below, he somehow got hold of a PR memo written to help the Democratic Party deal with its terrible polling numbers by claiming victory over COVID.  The story ends as CDC changed its mask guidance the very next day.  Coincidence?  Probably not.  Beware the changing narrative.  Is misinformation the old narrative or the new one?

One day I’m reading an internal memo commissioned by the Democratic Party to provide advice to dealing with Covid policy. The next day I’m reading headlines about how the CDC has drastically altered its advice on how to deal with Covid. 

Is there a relationship? At this point, only the hopelessly naive would think otherwise. 

Let’s look at the memo produced by Impact Research. Some excerpts: 

  • Democrats have a tremendous opportunity to claim an incredible, historic success – they vaccinated hundreds of millions of people, prevented the economy from going into freefall, kept small businesses from going under, and got people back to work safely. Because of President Biden and Democrats, we CAN safely return to life feeling much more normal – and they should claim that proudly.
  • Six in ten Americans describe themselves as “worn out” by the pandemic. The more we talk about the threat of COVID and onerously restrict people’s lives because of it, the more we turn them against us and show them we’re out of touch with their daily realities.
  • [I]t means recognizing that the threat of COVID is no longer what it was even a year ago and therefore should not be treated as such – shutdowns, masks, and lockdowns were meant to save lives when there was not yet a vaccine that could do that. Voters know we now have the tools in the toolkit to be responsible in combatting and living with COVID – vaccines and boosters to minimize illness, and masks and social distancing around vulnerable groups.
  • They think the virus is here to stay, and 83% say the pandemic will be over when it’s a mild illness like the flu rather than COVID being completely gone, and 55% prefer that COVID should be treated as an endemic disease. And that’s what most Americans are dealing with—a disease with fatality rates like the flu—because most of us took the personal responsibility to protect ourselves and our families by getting vaccinated. 
  • Stop talking about restrictions and the unknown future ahead. If we focus on how bad things still are and how much worse they could get, we set Democrats up as failures unable to navigate us through this. When 99% of Americans can get vaccinated, we cause more harm than we prevent with voters by going into our third year talking about restrictions. And, if Democrats continue to hold a posture that prioritizes COVID precautions over learning how to live in a world where COVID exists, but does not dominate, they risk paying dearly for it in November.

A few points. There is no strong evidence that “shutdowns, masks, and lockdowns” saved lives which is perhaps why the memo backs away slightly from the claim with the words “meant to.” Good intentions, but ruined lives.

This memo is not epidemiology but politics, most strongly illustrated by the idea that polling should make the difference as to whether a pathogen is pandemic or endemic. The constant incantation of “vaccines” here has nothing to do with the known data: they have nowhere stopped infection or spread, a point which the memo obscures with the line about how they “minimize illness.” They minimize serious outcomes for some strains so long as they last. 

From a policy point of view, there are two main features that stand out: Covid is here to stay and “most people in the US will eventually get COVID-19” (thereby hinting at the reality that vaccines are not effective in the way that Biden/Fauci/Walensky promised) and therefore the focus should be on protecting the vulnerable. 

There is nothing new about this. It was always true! You can shout “Omicron” all day but it was also true with Alpha and Delta as well. The virus should have been treated rationally the entire time and policies that have wrecked public health should have been off the table from 2020. The memo writers did not cite the Great Barrington Declaration but they might as well have. 

As for how the Democrats somehow prevented an economic freefall, the worst economic outcomes are very clearly in Democratic-controlled states that retained restrictions for nearly two years in some places, including keeping schools closed. There is a reason for the mass migration that this has inspired. 

If we are looking for thriving economies, look to the states that never closed up or opened earliest: South Dakota, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and so on. So none of this is remotely true but, hey, this is politics, right?, so it doesn’t have to be true. 

The real problem that the Democrats need to solve is revealed in this chart:

Now, let us consider the dramatic turnaround at the CDC that came out the very next day. The full PDF is embedded below. 

Here are the talking points handed to the director. It’s not just about masking, which is being relaxed. The CDC says there needs to be a dramatic shift away from endless monitoring of cases that are overwhelmingly mild and instead focus only on actual sickness that lands people in the hospital and threatens life. We need to stop obsessing about cases and start looking mainly at “medically significant disease.” The focus should be on “protecting the most vulnerable.” 

This makes all of us want to say, shout, scream: THANK YOU! 

In order to justify this change, the CDC posts four sets of charts on Covid prevalence during episodes of the pandemic. The last chart illustrates the point that an exclusive focus on controlling the spread is utterly preposterous at this point. Under the old protocols, the whole country should be back in lockdown. It’s unimaginable what attempting this now would cause. 

To be sure, all of this is enormously frustrating for those of us engaged in this battle for two years. Instead of focusing on getting sick people well, the CDC experimented with wild guidelines that imagined some kind of society-wide solution that seemed designed to crush the virus while vast amounts of social and economic activity were shut down by law. This necessitated a crushing of freedoms, including of travel, association, commerce, religion, and, eventually even speech. 

The CDC nowhere admits this much less apologizes for it. Two years in, the CDC seems to have rediscovered the traditional practice of public health, and has justified this new wisdom based on changed conditions, while never even bothering to claim that its previous measures and guidelines achieved anything along the way. 

We’ve seen a massive collapse in public health, economic vitality, and essential rights, while closing schools and wrecking education and so much more, all in the name of virus control, even as the evidence is now overwhelming that the entire enterprise was not only a distraction from what should have happened (therapeutics and protecting the vulnerable) but also an astonishing failure. 

Why the change? It had to happen at some point. The entire machinery of lockdowns and mandates were destined to fail. As to the timing of the reversal, it’s hard to resist the speculation that it is entirely political. See the memo above. 

Still, there is a worrisome aspect to the CDC’s announcement. They reserve the right to do it all over again. “We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.

No one should be satisfied with a politically motivated change in the messaging. We need fundamental regime change so make sure that nothing like this can ever happen again.

Police (LOTS) march with protesters in Paris

Saturday Night Live on the masks, the vacccines, the COVID schtick. 5 minutes. I loved it.

As someone said on Twitter (who I was not allowed to retweet) the Overton window has expanded.  We can start to make sense of what has been done these past 23 months.

Vaccine Passports. If the vaccine does not work against the omicron variants, there is no reason to be vaccinated. Simple. But the vaccine passports are moving ahead nonetheless

The WHO will shortly convene nations and tech companies to work on an international standard for the so-called health passports, according to Politico:


The World Health Organization will convene member states and leaders of Covid-19 immunization credential technology groups to recognize different vaccine certificates across nations and regions, a top Vaccination Credential Initiative official told POLITICO’s Ben Leonard. 

The WHO is bringing together the groups to develop a “trust framework” that would allow countries to verify whether vaccine credentials are legitimate, said Brian Anderson, chief digital health physician at MITRE and a co-founder of the VCI.

However, The Conversation puts the issue more bluntly:

"Vaccine passports can be used for surveillance under the guise of public health measures." 

"... Should vaccine passports become mandatory, it is crucial for the public to distinguish between how these documents can be used to ensure public health and how they may violate an individual’s privacy and threaten their security. While details on vaccine passports may vary in different jurisdictions, we should be asking what kind of data is being collected. How and where will the data be stored? How will data be encrypted and protected from misuse or crime?

... The Chinese app also has a GPS-tracking function, which sends users’ location and an identification code to the police. The app uses colour coding — red, yellow and green — to indicate a person’s status, and whether they are qualified to enter public areas. Some people’s health code turned yellow or red without a seemingly apparent reason, implying the potential for Chinese authorities use the pretext of public health policy to restrict people’s activities.

Such practices indicates a new level of digital mass surveillance in the name of public health. As Human Rights Watch researcher Maya Wang noted, this is “one of those landmarks in the history of the spread of mass surveillance in China.” 

... Vaccine passports can and have been developing into a new tool for mass surveillance and crackdown on its opposition in totalitarian regimes..."

In my opinion, there is only one way to prevent such a system from being abused, and that is to not employ it.  There are no useful COVID vaccines.  Therefore there are no useful vaccine passports.

Might one of the reasons COVID was developed in a lab have been to enable the imposition of vaccine passports ("The better to see you with, my dear," said the Big Bad Wolf) then there is all the more reason to avoid them.

It will be important to watch what the WHO and EU do wrt these passports... both governed by apparent criminals.

Saturday, February 26, 2022

Health Freedom Defense Fund--I've been remiss in not featuring this fabulous organization before

Leslie Manookian, an extremely knowledgeable and brilliant lady who made the film "The Greater Good," has taken on highly strategic litigation to stop the Covidian takeover.  Below she talks about several important recent events.  Consider supporting her organization "Health Freedom Defense."

February 22, 2022

Updated Homeland Security Bulletin Declares War on Critical Thinking

In many quarters, the hypothesis is now being formulated that we are experiencing the end of a world, that of bourgeois democracies founded on rights, parliaments, and the separation of powers, and that this is giving way to a new despotism that, as regards the pervasiveness of control and the cessation of political activity, will be worse than the totalitarianism that we have known before. 

On February 7th, 2022 the Department of Homeland Security issued a new bulletin, defining what it considers to be the “primary terrorism-related threats” to the United States. This directive replaced their previous directive which was set to expire on February 8th. 

Click to read more

Scotland To Halt Publishing COVID Data Based On Vaccination Status

On February 17th, the Glasgow Times reported that Public Health Scotland will no longer publish Covid data based on vaccination status over concerns the data is being misrepresented by “anti-vaxxers”.

This change, of course, comes as a surprise given that Scotland has had remarkably comprehensive and clear Covid-19 data over the past year. 

As can be seen in this graph, Table 15, found on page 47 of the report, the rates of death are notably lower in the unvaccinated. In the four weeks measured from January 4th-February 8th, only 61 out of the 476 deaths were unvaccinated.

Click to read more

An Appeal to Those Who Hurl the “Anti-Vaxxer” Slur - Video

To those of you who call those who question the safety of injections anti-vaxxers and dismiss them as crazies, I’d like to invite you to consider that we’re not anti-anything, we are pro safety, pro-health, pro-freedom – in the same way, we want safe water, food, cars, etc.

Unfortunately, many of us have experienced first or second hand the damage that has been caused by these supposedly safe and efficacious medical interventions. The truth is, we’ve done our research and know that a wise person questions the products made by a company that demands liability protection for those products. 

We’ve done our homework and understand that there’s a revolving door between health agencies and the pharmaceutical industry they are supposed to regulate. 

Click to read more and watch video

Support H.R. 5816, National Informed Consent Exemption (NICE) Act

HFDF commends Rep. Gohmert for introducing the NICE Act and we encourage all of you to show your support as well.

Read the bill text


Check out our brand new website with additional Resources, case information and legal documents for all HFDF lawsuits,  and a Take Action page with HFDF memes and graphics you can share on social media (and more resources in the works!)

California versus Free Speech on COVID/ American Thinker

While I have covered much of the material below, the author puts it together so beautifully I needed to add this to the blog.

By Jim Dillon, M.D.

In July 2021, the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) sent a letter to its component boards:

Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action…  including the suspension or revocation of their medical license… Physicians…  must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information… puts all patients at risk.

This was followed by letters from many state boards to individual physicians carrying the same message. Actions against individual perpetrators, especially those prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, followed, sending a chill through the medical community.  Dr. Meryl Nass in Maine, for example was suspended after “The medical board… received at least two complaints that Nass was spreading misinformation about the virus on her blog and on Twitter.” Misinformation on Twitter? What sacred lamb will be slain next?

Now, a California Assembly Bill, AB 2098, crafts a statute effectuating the ill-considered FSMB warning. It would dramatically curtail free speech for physicians conveying “misinformation” or “disinformation” on COVID-19 and it lays a foundation, under the guise of health and safety, for far broader intrusion of government suppression of First Amendment liberties.

The bill declares promotion of “misinformation” to be unprofessional conduct:

It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate or promote misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

Fauci, Walensky, and gang have misled us about the nature of the virus, a likely gain-of function product of the Wuhan lab; the risks of the virus to children, which are negligible; the prevention of disease by masks; the marginal treatment benefits of  remdesivir and potential utility of multiple alternative compounds; the development of the vaccines, which did not include testing of long-term efficacy and adverse effects; and the declining efficacy and uncertain safety of the vaccines, regarding which the CDC has suppressed important data. It may come as a great surprise, therefore, to learn that Fauci and friends are not the targets of this legislation.

The California bill specifies four factors to be considered by the board in disciplining a licensee. Each warrants comment.

Whether the licensee deviated from the applicable standard of care.

The idea of a “standard of care” has roots in medical malpractice law and refers to the treatment of individual patients within a physician-patient relationship. From the inception of American malpractice litigation, there often were two or more schools of practice, each generating its own standard of care. There were geographic differences in the standard of care (not so much today) and different standards for specialists and general practitioners.  Today there are multiple guidelines for common conditions that are developed at a pace far too slow for use in a rapidly evolving crisis like COVID. The applicable standard for a new disease such as COVID is a moving target; there may be several or, more likely, none at all. The notion of a single standard is fiction. Furthermore, the suppression of alternative views prevents the natural maturation of treatment practices.

Whether the licensee intended to mislead or acted with malicious intent.

Boards will interpret “intended to mislead” as intentional dissemination of false information that is contrary to the “consensus.”  But if the physician believed that the consensus was incorrect, she arguably did not intend to mislead.

Malice is a related issue. The term has different meanings in criminal and civil law, but perhaps no technical meaning at all in the present context. Under the California Civil code section 3294(c)1, describing conditions that would give rise to punitive damages (a very different context), malice is defined as:

…conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

Such a definition would not apply to the average prescriber of alternative treatments.  Malice might, however, be imputed to communications from Fauci et al., since they, and only they, are accused of propagating information they knew to be false.

Whether the misinformation or disinformation was demonstrated to have resulted in an individual declining opportunities for COVID-19 prevention or treatment that was not justified by the individual’s medical history or condition.

Is “an individual” any person who might hear or read the forbidden criticism of the COVID-19 vaccination on a Twitter feed?  Those banned by Twitter can be grateful to that organization for protecting their licenses. 

Because the so-called consensus view recognizes very few exceptions to the jab, presentation of data unfavorable to vaccination to a patient making her decision about treatment could trigger disciplinary action.  Unfortunately, omitting discussion of the downside of treatment nullifies informed consent, confounding a fundamental principle in contemporary medical ethics.

Whether the misinformation or disinformation was contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus to an extent where its dissemination constitutes gross negligence by the licensee.

Is contemporary scientific consensus the opinion of Anthony Fauci along with a handful of experts who receive huge grants at his discretion?  Was it not a “scientific consensus” that concluded that the COVID-19 virus had not come from the Wuhan virology laboratory? Or that masks were not -- no, they were -- no, maybe they were not -- effective barriers to infection?

The term “scientific consensus” gained currency with Al Gore’s propagation of the idea that nearly everyone with a brain agreed with him about the dangers of global warming. Realistically, in the context of quickly advancing science, like the standard of care, there is no consensus.

The California bill, if adopted, will be among the most brazen attacks on free speech in our time. It says that governmentally awarded privileges may be revoked for criticism of government policy. In modern Newspeak, dissent is labeled disinformation. Could a physicist who thinks that global warming is not a threat be denied access to federal grants in particle physics?  Could the government shut down a motorcycle manufacturer who… is a motorcycle manufacturer?  Any idea or practice alleged to pose a risk to public safety is vulnerable to such reasoning.

Several challenges to the bill may be viable. First, the statute is almost certainly unconstitutional, inviting litigation under 42 USC 1983.  Second, its implicit restriction of the circulation of information may be in conflict with the FDA’s post-marketing regulation and surveillance responsibilities, creating a conflict of state and federal law.

The third solution is for physicians to publish their views, perhaps under pseudonyms, through professionals in other states, or through non-physicians not subject to the law in California.

The best solution, however, would be to add a line or to the prefatory legislative intent language that would clarify that the bill is meant for application to that group of physicians -- the proven misinformationists -- who have mendaciously managed the COVID debacle.

Jim Dillon, MD, is a forensic psychiatrist in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Tuesday, February 22, 2022

California: where the most draconian vaccine mandates arise and die

 California Employee COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement Introduced

AB 1993 instructs an employer to require each employee or independent contractor to provide proof of COVID vaccination

By Chris Micheli, February 11, 2022 10:11 am against COVID-19.

But school boards in CA cannot impose COVID vaccine mandates!  That is a very good thing.  They have no medical expertise or authority.  In most states, the legislature is the entity with the legal authority to mandate vaccines.

The mandate for kids to attend school in San Diego has been struck down in a final ruling.

An ICAN-funded lawsuit has struck down the Covid-19 vaccine mandate to attend school in San Diego, California!  This is the first COVID-19 vaccine requirement in the country to be struck down in a final ruling.

ICAN’s lead attorney, Aaron Siri, and his team filed a lawsuit funded by ICAN on behalf of a parent whose child was going to be mandated to receive the Covid-19 vaccine to continue school.  That ICAN lawsuit, S.V. on behalf of J.D. vs San Diego Unified School District, was consolidated with a lawsuit filed by Let Them Choose.  Both plaintiffs moved for a final decision from the Court asking it to find that the Covid-19 vaccine mandate for students was illegal and the Judge, this morning, ruled it was illegal!  Copy of tentative decision can be read here.  The final will be released as soon as possible.

The basis for this decision, that school boards in California do not have the authority to require a Covid-19 vaccine, would apply to all school boards across California that are seeking to mandate a Covid-19 vaccine.  ICAN intends to fund lawsuits against any other school board in California that seeks to mandate a Covid-19 vaccine.

Congratulations to all the parents in San Diego, California and beyond who no longer need to inject their children with a liability-free, novel medical product in order to attend school.   And thank you for your support in making this work possible!  Without you, ICAN’s critical work would not be possible.

The illegal efforts to vaccinate kids without parental consent bulldozes on/ ICAN

The following comes directly from ICAN, the legal arm of Del Bigtree/ Aaron Siri's efforts.  Vaccinating without parental consent is illegal.  

Have you ever heard of VaxTeen?

VaxTeen is an organization that encourages teenagers to receive vaccinations without parental consent.

The group also provides information about state consent laws, vaccine information from the CDC, and guides teenagers on how to get vaccinated and how to talk to “anti-vaxxer parents.”

It provides this information on its website through the lens of appearing like a grass-roots organization.

Looks can be deceiving.

The founder of VaxTeen is a member of the Unity Consortium’s Teen Advisory Council, whose members include Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Sanofi Pasteur.

Another VaxTeen partner, Keep Up the Rates, was launched by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID), whose strategic partners are AstraZeneca, Janssen Therapeutics, Moderna, Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, Bavarian Nordic, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

Yet another VaxTeen partner, Stronger Keep Up the Rates, is a national advocacy campaign whose goal is to “stop the spread of harmful misinformation” and is supported by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, whose sponsors include Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Avantor, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Genentech, Samsung Biologics, and Twist Biopharma.

While VaxTeen seems, on its surface, to be grass-roots, after a bit of digging, it looks like yet another marketing campaign by big pharma.

We encourage you to please consider sharing this expose on your social media posts and forwarding this to any interested parents.