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….

Myocarditis signal was known in Feb 2021 but FDA and CDC hid it until they got the vaccine authorized for 12-15 year olds in May 2021. Here is the proof.

FDA, CDC and Israeli evidence. Willful misconduct is clearly demonstrated.

https://merylnass.substack.com/p/myocarditis-signal-was-known-in-feb

I was told that the VAERS contractor for CDC and FDA (Oracle had the contract) told the agencies there was a myocarditis adverse event signal in February 2021. This was 2 months after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were authorized. (Myocarditis shows up within 4 days of the second shot over 80% of the time, so it is hard to miss the obvious vaccine connection.) This involved people reporting myocarditis to VAERS before there had been any publicity about the connection. I spoke about this on CHD’s Friday Roundtable program with James Lyons-Weiler on May 19. Here is a tweet of me talking about this issue.

https://twitter.com/ChildrensHD/status/1659635165071548423

Someone just sent me a letter from the Israeli Ministry of Health to other nations’ ministries asking if they too were seeing a myocarditis signal in February 2021.

By April 2021, the Israeli media were all over the story, and it was estimated in Israel that young men had a 25 times elevated risk of myocarditis after the shots. There was a little bit of press in the US also, but somehow the story never got legs.

The CDC and FDA and ? managed to keep the story under wraps, denying any vaccine problems at an advisory committee meeting. Because what did FDA do on May 10, 2021? It authorized the dangerous vaccine for adolescents who FDA knew were at high risk for myocarditis, carefully hiding that data, and failed to disclose it in the Fact Sheet (despite being required to do so in the 2005 Prep Act).

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use

Having then pushed COVID vaccine clinics for kids in a major way, the agencies finally admitted there was a danger signal about 6 weeks later, in late June 2021. Here are the stunning data CDC revealed to its advisory committee.

[There may have been an emergency meeting called by CDC at which the signal was denied. Or maybe that was the late June meeting.]

And the Israelis held off publishing their data in the New England Journal until December of 2021. https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730

I think an adolescent who received the Pfizer or Moderna COVID vaccine in May or June 2021 and developed myocarditis would have a very interesting lawsuit.

RFK, Jr. vs Dr. Vinay Prasad on whether HCQ and Ivermectin actually work

Who wins the debate? How do you analyze questionable data?

https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1655663296081436685

The US Government paid the College of Ob-Gyns over $11 million to force COVID vaccines on unsuspecting pregnant women

What do you call such a heinous crime? How can the conspirators be brought to justice?

Hat tip to Maggie and Jim Thorp for uncovering this.

The US government knew by February 2021 at the latest about the disaster the shot was, especially when used during pregnancy. But it carried on nonetheless. As did its ‘bought’ handmaiden (the ACOG) and so many other ‘bought’ organizations.

Please help crowdsource the investigation into the thousands of other entities that were paid off by the US government to overwhelm us with all kinds of pressure to induce us to be vaccinated with dangerous experimental products. These quid pro quos must be uncovered. This was wanton criminality. Thanks.

Is Sir Doctor Jeremy James Farrar OBE FRCP FRS FMedSci PhD starting his gig as Chief Scientist at the WHO or not? Nothing yet in the news. His official start date was May 8

 https://merylnass.substack.com/p/is-sir-doctor-jeremy-james-farrar

Was Jeremy's Daddy an agent of the British government, too? And surprise! the head of One Health and the Frozen Food theory at WHO has been fired.

Three weeks ago Jeremy was still in line for the job, due to start today. But so far (and it is 3:30 pm in Geneva right now) nothing has been announced regarding him beginning the job.

Five days ago WHO’s head of its COVID origins inquiry to China got canned. You recall Peter Ben Embarek, who said COVID probably came from frozen food, then later said the Chinese made him say that. He was also the head of One Health at the WHO—in other words, he was a tool who did as told. But he may have done other things too. He has been canned for sexual misconduct.

https://www.reuters.com/world/who-dismisses-lead-covid-origins-investigator-sexual-misconduct-2023-05-03/

GENEVA, May 3 (Reuters) - The World Health Organization said on Wednesday that it has dismissed a senior scientist, known for his role as the head of an international mission to China to probe the origins of COVID-19, for sexual misconduct.

The U.N. agency said Peter Ben Embarek, a Danish scientist who previously headed up its 'One Health' initiative on diseases jumping from animals to humans, was removed from his post last year. In a response to Reuters, Ben Embarek said he contested the accusation of harassment and was challenging the sanction.

"Peter Ben Embarek was dismissed last year following findings of sexual misconduct against him that were substantiated by investigations, and corresponding disciplinary process," said WHO spokesperson Marcia Poole.

As recently as 3 weeks ago, Jeremy was set to take up the helm of Chief Scientist at WHO.

https://www.who.int/news/item/17-04-2023-key-leadership-appointments-made-to-drive-who-strategic-direction-and-initiatives

Dr Jeremy Farrar will become WHO’s Chief Scientist as of 8 May 2023. The appointment of Dr Farrar was previously announced in December 2022. In this role Dr Farrar will oversee the Science Division, bringing together the best experts and networks in science and innovation from around the world to guide, develop and deliver high quality health policies and services to the people who need them most. Prior to joining WHO Dr Farrar was Director of the Wellcome Trust. Before joining Wellcome in 2013 Dr Farrar spent 17 years as Director of the Clinical Research Unit at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in Viet Nam where his research interests were in global health with a focus on emerging infectious diseases. Dr Farrar is a clinician researcher with a medical degree and a PhD.

In other words, Jeremy’s broad experiences around the world and in giving grants for ‘performance’ will serve him well as he uses carrots and sticks to bring the 194 ntions of the World Health Assembly into the New World Order by way of the WHO’s Global Bio-Security Agenda. He served as the Fauci of the UK, creating networks of bought scientists who he will now be able to parlay as ‘experts’ for pandemic preparedness and planning.

On Jeremy Farrar, from Wikipedia

Born 1 September 1961 in Singapore, Farrar is the youngest of six children in his family. His father taught English and his mother was a writer and artist. Due to his father's work, he spent his childhood in New Zealand, Cyprus and Libya.^[16]

In 2004, he and his Vietnamese colleague Tran Tinh Hien identified the re-emergence of the deadly bird flu, or H5N1, in humans.

If you are truly an English teacher, you don’t go work in New Zealand, where English is the native language. If you are truly an English teacher, you probably can’t afford to have six children. If you are truly an English teacher, why did you choose highly strategic spots in which to teach, like Singapore, Cyprus and Libya?

Was Farrar ‘s dad in New Zealand when it decided to be a nuclear free zone, refusing to allow nuclear ships to come to port? Or was he there when French military frogmen bombed the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior while at port in New Zealand? The Rainbow Warrior would sail into areas where nuclear tests were being run in the Pacific, daring the French and others to blow them up too. For a while there, little New Zealand had a spine and said no to the big powers. Those days are long gone. What led to such dramatic changes in the political landscape of NZ?

Here the New Zealand government tells its story:

In 1985 New Zealand was basking in its position as leader of the anti-nuclear movement. As a country it had clearly punched above its weight. Then, just before midnight on the evening of 10 July, two explosions ripped through the hull of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior, which was moored at Marsden Wharf in Auckland.

A Portuguese crew member, Fernando Pereira, was killed in the explosions. The Rainbow Warrior had been involved in protests over French nuclear testing in the Pacific. French Secret Service (DGSE) agents were sent to prevent it leaving for another protest campaign at Mururoa Atoll.

Aftermath:

The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act was passed into law, establishing this country as a nuclear and biological weapon-free zone.

The Act was passed in the aftermath of the mid-1980s nuclear ships stand-off between New Zealand and the United States. The nuclear-free movement had its roots in ideas that emerged in the 1960s: a push for an independent, ethical foreign policy which grew out of opposition to the Vietnam War; and environmentalism, which sought to preserve New Zealand as a green unspoilt land.

In 1989, 52 per cent of New Zealanders indicated that they would rather break defence ties than admit nuclear-armed ships to their harbours. By 1990, even the National opposition had signed up to anti-nuclearism.

Rainbow Warrior after the attack

Two DGSE officers, Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart, were arrested on 24 July. Both were charged with murder, pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. The case was a source of considerable embarrassment to the French government. While the attack was on an international organisation rather than New Zealand itself, most New Zealanders did not make such a distinction. The fact that it was committed on New Zealand territory by a supposed friend produced a sense of outrage and a serious deterioration in relations between New Zealand and France.

In September 2006 the agent who placed the bomb was named as Gerard Royal by his brother, Antoine. Their sister, Ségolène Royal, was the Socialist candidate in the 2007 French presidential elections, and won.

While these doings would likely have resulted in plenty of foreign agents trying to ‘turn’ New Zealand, I have to admit they occurred after Jeremy was in his twenties. So I cannot say how NZ may have been strategic for the UK government when he lived there, since I don’t know when that was. But I leave NZ in the story because yesterday I learned that France’s 2007 Prime Ministerial candidate, Segolene Royal, was the sister of the man who placed the bomb on the Rainbow Warrior. Was Segolene yet another agent? Her 30 year partner, Francois Hollande, then did become France’s PM.

Cyprus is part Greek, part Turkish (and they have battled over it) and hosts a large number of extremely wealthy Russians. According to an old Stratfor website:

Cyprus' location makes it an essential part of any security dynamic in the region. Despite its non-member status, it is a critical component of NATO's Mediterranean operations and would play a central role in the event of NATO intervention in the Levant. This is particularly important to France, which has strong ties to Syria and Lebanon. The United Kingdom hosts two sovereign airbases with approximately 8,000 troops in the southern portion of the island. And the U.S. sees Cyprus as critical for maintaining control of Mediterranean waters and securing the presence of the U.S. Navy's Sixth Fleet.

Singapore has perhaps the highest per capita income in the world. According to the Council on Foreign Relations:

Singapore is a global financial and economic hub that sits astride the meeting point of the strategically vital Malacca Strait and the South China Sea. Despite its small size, the island city-state of 6.2 million people is a heavyweight in regional and international affairs.

A close strategic partner of the United States in Southeast Asia, Singapore also maintains a close relationship with China.

Libya is described by the Encyclopedia Britannica. Note Gaddafi’s 42 year reign and his creation of a popular welfare state, believed by many to be a challenge to the US-based idea of how developing countries should be managed.

Libya’s per capita income is among the highest in Africa. Oil revenues remain Libya’s main source of income. At the beginning of the 21st century, oil and natural gas together accounted for almost three-fourths of the national income and nearly all of the country’s export earnings, although they employed less than one-tenth of the labour force. Under Muammar al-Qaddafi (1969–2011), the government exerted strong control over the economy; the petroleum industry was nationalized in the 1970s, and state trade unions and industrial organizations ran most other industries and utilities.

The government long exerted strong control over the economy and attempted to develop agriculture and industry with wealth derived from its huge oil revenues. It also established a welfare state, which provides medical care and education at minimal cost to the people. Although Libya’s long-ruling leader Muammar al-Qaddafi espoused an idiosyncratic political ideology rooted in socioeconomic egalitarianism and direct democracy, Libya in practice remained an authoritarian state, with power concentrated among members of Qaddafi’s inner circle of relatives and security chiefs.

More from Wikipedia

Farrar has been chairing the Scientific Advisory Group of the WHO R&D Blueprint, a global strategy and preparedness plan that allows the rapid activation of research activities during epidemics.^[46] [In this role he managed to scuttle all the promising drugs for COVID, as well as ensure that tests on hydroxychloroquine used high enough doses to kill off any potential benefit, as well as killing more subjects than died when given no treatment at all.—Nass] From 2018 to 2022, he served on the joint World Bank/WHO Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB), co-chaired by Elhadj As Sy and Gro Harlem Brundtland.^[47][48] [Managing the development of the BioSecurity Agenda—Nass] In 2019, he co-chaired a WHO committee evaluating Ebola therapeutics.^{[49][50] [Which failed to impact the 60% death rate from Ebola in the 2019 epidemic—the highest death rate ever.—Nass]}

Farrah has also served on UK governments committees. In May 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, he was appointed to the expert advisory group for the UK Government’s Vaccine Task Force.^[51] He has also served as a member of the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE)…

Views

On 19 February 2020, Farrar, along with 26 other scientists, published as a co-author of the Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19, which declared "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." [This was the DASZAK-ghost-authored Lancet letter—Nass]

Farrar wrote an opinion piece in the Guardian on Dec. 4, 2021 stating he feared not enough was being done to vaccinate people in poor nations against COVID-19. Farrar stated, “The longer this virus continues to spread in largely unvaccinated populations globally, the more likely it is that a variant that can overcome our vaccines and treatments will emerge…. [In other words, he was scaremongering.—Nass]

Jeremy is, according to the WHO, to begin his stint as Chief Scientist today. Do you think 007 (License to Overdose) will manage to save the New World Order and bring in Pandemic Preparedness worldwide as a means of attaining a one world government? Will his cunning, access to Wellcome’s funds and connections, it could happen. But perhaps he will be tasked to work in the background instead; after all, Poisoner in Chief is not a good look on a resume.

 

Measles rears its ugly head again. Here are the data and the real bottom line. #1 Don't worry

A friend wrote about current TV warnings in Maine re measles: “One kid tested positive for measles AFTER being inoculated. Now there are warnings out for anyone who was anywhere near the kid in a variety of locations and times. Talk about building a fear porn extravaganza!”

“The Maine CDC said in the release it is not possible to contract measles from the vaccine.”—WABY TV

But what do the experts say?

Viruses. 2019 Jul 10;11(7):636. doi: 10.3390/v11070636.

Measles Vaccine Virus RNA in Children More Than 100 Days after Vaccination

Jamie McMahon  ^{1   2} , Ian M Mackay  ^{3   4} , Stephen B Lambert  ⁴

Abstract

Measles vaccines have been in use since the 1960s with excellent safety and effectiveness profiles. Limited data are available on detection of measles vaccine virus (MeVV) RNA in human subjects following vaccination. Available evidence suggests MeVV RNA can be identified up to 14 days after vaccination, with detection beyond this rare. In routine diagnostic testing, we used two real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-rPCR) assays targeting M and F genes to identify measles virus (MeV) and MeVV RNA. Confirmatory testing was performed with an N gene RT-rPCR, followed by sequence confirmation of RT-rPCR positives by semi-nested conventional RT-PCR assays targeting portions of the N, H, and L genes. We report detection and confirmation of MeVV RNA from the respiratory tract of 11 children between 100 and 800 days after most recent receipt of measles-containing vaccine. These novel findings emphasize the importance of genotyping all MeV detections and highlight the need for further work to assess whether persistent MeVV RNA represents viable virus and if transmission to close contacts can occur.

Conflict of interest statement

Jamie McMahon—no conflict; Ian M Mackay—no conflict; Stephen B Lambert—SBL is the current Chair of the National Measles and Rubella Elimination Working Party.

What does the CDC say? How Well Does the MMR Vaccine Work?

MMR vaccine is very effective at protecting people against measles, mumps, and rubella, and preventing the complications caused by these diseases. People who receive MMR vaccination according to the U.S. vaccination schedule are usually considered protected for life against measles and rubella. While MMR provides effective protection against mumps for most people, immunity against mumps may decrease over time and some people may no longer be protected against mumps later in life. An additional dose may be needed if you are at risk because of a mumps outbreak.

One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella.

Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps.

MMR is an attenuated (weakened) live virus vaccine. This means that after injection, the viruses cause a harmless infection in the vaccinated person with very few, if any, symptoms before they are eliminated from the body. The person’s immune system fights the infection caused by these weakened viruses, and immunity (the body’s protection from the virus) develops.

Some people who get two doses of MMR vaccine may still get measles, mumps, or rubella if they are exposed to the viruses that cause these diseases.

The [Nass] bottom line:

1. Measles is a live virus vaccine that can reproduce and potentially shed for years from vaccinated individuals.

2. We don’t know how many active US measles cases are due to vaccine strains because the CDC won’t tell us the results of testing, in order to avoid any negative effect on vaccination rates.

3. Vaccination initially leads to 93% protection from 1 dose and 97% protection from 2 doses. Protection wanes over time, yet there are very few measles cases in the US yearly (usually under 100) and most can be traced to a case that came in from overseas.

4. The last time a child died from measles in the US was 2003. He had had a bone marrow transplant and his natural immune system had been deliberately wiped out for the transplant. It was never announced whether his measles case was due to a vaccine strain or not.

5. Don’t worry about measles! It is very rare; if you do get it you will have life-long immunity (unless your immune system is wiped out) and it can be effectively managed.

The entire day (May 3) of the International COVID Summit, and the slides for my presentation

The dozens of presentations lasted for 8 hrs 39 minutes.

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/

While the information presented was not brand new, having dozens of reliable scientists present it, inside the European Parliament, as a complete summary of the COVID disaster was very powerful.

Right at the end attorney Renata Holzeisen, physician Katarina Lindley and I had to reduce our talks to 5 minutes each so we could be out of the room on time.

And on a side note, Sir Dr. Jeremy Farrar (007, License to Overdose) is not currently listed as the WHO’s Chief Scientist on the WHO website. Do you think the puppet-masters decided that the Poisoner-in-Chief had too much baggage to manage the WHO’s attempt at usurping sovereignty over the planet?

So here are the slides for my talk: