In the first half of this series (which must be read to fully understand this second half) I reviewed how those in power always seek to censor information for their own benefit, and how big business will always seek to take every step necessary to monopolize their markets. Much of the COVID-19 disaster is a direct result of those parties (some of whom had previously been criminally charged for antitrust violations) working diligently to monopolize the truth in the years leading up to COVID-19 and their actions have left us in a dramatically different information landscape than what we had just a few years ago.
Pierre Kory’s Medical MusingsOne of the most draconian measures to come out of COVID-19 is on the verge of being signed into law, and the purpose of this article is to bring public awareness to the context behind this deceptive law. If you are in the vicinity of Sacramento today, please consider attending the rally that is being held to protest against it.
Antitrust Violations Return To Silicon Valley
Many of the key players in Big Tech became heavily invested in the pharmaceutical industry shortly before COVID-19, particularly Google and Facebook, the two companies who directly and through their subsidiaries (e.g. Youtube and Instagram) control most of the traffic on the internet. Google for instance has heavily invested in health care, with investments in pharmaceutical companies (including one that both tested the COVID-19 vaccines and profited off COVID-19 testing), vaccines, medical devices, and purchasing massive amounts of private health care data. Facebook has also focused on obtaining biometric data, soliciting pharmaceutical advertisers, and making its platform as amenable to them as possible.
It should thus come as no surprise that these companies aggressively censored any type of “misinformation” that threatened their investments throughout the pandemic, including subjects, such as COVID-19 originating from a lab leak or the vaccines not preventing COVID-19 transmission (which are no longer considered to be “fake news”).
 |
Note: This is why, although I strongly disagree with the perspective, I permit discussions on viruses like COVID-19 not existing.
This censorship was especially concerning in two areas:
•Non-standard treatments of COVID (e.g. I still remember Youtube deleting a recording of a presentation that was given to the NIH on trial data of IV Vitamin C for COVID-19).
•Any references to vaccine injury. I remember multiple groups with hundreds of thousands of members (where individuals were receiving helpful advice for their injury) being deleted. This trend continues to the present day:
 |
Many other parties like England’s “professional” news network also gleefully got on this trend and tried their best to banish these groups and “protect” us from harmful misinformation.
I try not to make forceful claims in my writing, but in this case, I’ll make an exception. These actions by Silicon Valley were responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and seriously injured many more. They also almost certainly were in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and should be prosecuted accordingly.
In late 2020, I was seated on an Amtrak next to a BLM activist. At some point in our conversation Facebook came up and I have never forgotten her words: “If you use their platforms, they will turn them against you.”
The California Experience
Note: Much of this section was covered in more detail in The Politics of Medical Gaslighting.
I will be the first to admit everyone in my part of the Midwest loves to make fun of California. I on the other hand feel what happened there was really sad, as over the last two decades many great characteristics and achievements of this State an enormous amount of work was put into developing have been systematically dismantled by poor political leadership.
For one reason or another (likely due to its proximity to Silicon Valley), California was chosen to be the spearhead for pushing through many of the oligarch’s goals for the nation, particularly those aligning with the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Overall, this is best illustrated by having watched the left go from being committed opponents of multinational corporations and Big Pharma to sycophants who worshiped them.
 |
Controversial or divisive political and social issues that split apart a demographic or population group (e.g. abortion or transgender policies) are known as “wedge issues,” and normally attract so much attention that critical policy issues most of the electorate would agree upon never can enter the political discourse (e.g. the unprecedented wealth disparities created by the COVID-19 lockdowns).
Before 2016, the vaccine safety activists I worked with felt that one of the best strategies they had was to make vaccination become a polarized wedge issue so that a discussion could be forced on the overwhelming evidence of harm behind the practice. Likewise, they also repeatedly shared industry documents that stated the pharmaceutical companies wanted to do everything they possibly could to prevent vaccination from becoming a wedge issue and having to debate the evidence or alienate half of their customer base.
Then, at the end of 2015, a small measles outbreak occurred in California. 131 people were infected (plus a few more than seven other states), quite a few developed measles-like symptoms from an emergency vaccination campaign, a few were hospitalized, and no one died. However, this outbreak was treated with hysteria by the national media and was seized upon by Richard Pan, a militant pediatrician to mandate vaccination for all children in California through SB277.
SB277 provoked mass political protest (many parents in California have vaccine-injured children and actively protested against mandates). After a divisive debate at the Capitol, the governor eventually signed the bill and stated in his signing message that SB277 had been amended to recognize that a variety of potential contraindications to immunization existed and the individual discretion of the child’s physician must be respected if the physician believes an exemption was appropriate.
After SB277 was legalized, a push to mandate vaccinations emerged throughout the country. In each state, I watched the same process play out. A massive grassroots protest greeted the state legislatures, the legislature remarked that they had never had this much public opposition to a bill before, and in every single case, the legislators voted down party lines: all Democrats unilaterally supported the mandates and all Republicans eventually listened to their constituents and opposed it (Colorado was the closest as the Republicans had a narrow majority in the Senate which defeated the bill). I also remember in one state (this was either in California or Colorado) one of the members of our group witnessed a pharmaceutical lobbyist typing messages on her laptop the Democratic legislators then repeated verbatim during a public hearing on the proposed law.
All of this showed me something had fundamentally changed, and the party I grew up supporting was now working in lockstep with the pharmaceutical industry. The polarization on this issue further increased when Donald Trump ran for president and when challenged at a debate, did not back down from his position that there were safety issues with vaccination (I also know through a direct source that his youngest son has high-functioning autism that developed from a vaccination).
When SB277 passed, the demand for vaccine exemptions predictably increased. This was used by the architect of SB277 to argue that the increase in exemptions meant that those exemptions were without a doubt fraudulent (e.g. this 2019 investigation publicized all of the “unjustified” exemptions that doctors in San Diego had written).
This “emergency” birthed SB276, which was met by massive public protest as it was pushed through the legislature and eventually signed by Gavin Newsom two months before the start of COVID-19. This bill revoked the right of a physician to issue a medical exemption and allowed the medical board to make an example out of any physician who did (e.g. I know one California doctor who stuck their neck out for vaccine-injured children and subsequently had to leave the state to go into hiding).
Numerous physicians lost their licenses, including a friend of a friend who was near the end of his career and had only written one exemption. Following this, California then began taking the steps to revoke thousands of exemptions that had already been on file for students. For example, a 92-page list was provided to each school listing every physician who had ever been disciplined by the medical board (approximately eight percent of the doctors in California), something that frequently happens to anyone who practices integrative medicine or writes an exemption, and stated any exemption written by any of these doctors was null and void.
I spoke with one Southern California physician who has a significant number of vaccine-injured patients in their practice. They said that presently, if you write more than 4 exemptions per year you are investigated and that most of their colleagues have stopped writing them because they do not want to be investigated for writing “inappropriate exemptions.”
One of the major issues is that the criteria of what constitutes an “appropriate exemption” are so strict that exemptions are only provided when a child has already experienced a "severe" reaction to a specific vaccine that is also acknowledged either by the manufacturer or the CDC (most reactions are not deemed “severe”) and only apply to the specific vaccine that caused the reaction. Similarly, I know multiple adults who had documented life-threatening anaphylactic reactions (with chronic complications) to either an mRNA vaccine or to PEG (an ingredient in the mRNA lipid nanoparticles), and in each case, they were still required to be spike protein vaccinated and simply instructed to get a different brand next time.
Presently there is a great deal of variability in how CA schools handle the requirements (the state requires at least a 95% immunization rate for their students, although the 95% figure is completely arbitrary). Some try to work with the parents, while others attempt to strong-arm every parent to get a 100% vaccination rate and due to the ambiguity in the law, those schools can get away with misinterpreting the law to reject exemptions as they please (parents have almost no recourse against this). Further complicating the process, once a child enters 7th grade, their previous exemption is voided and a new one must be written (leaving many who had previously been able to get an exemption in limbo), and if one transfers (which parents often do to escape the requirements of an overzealous school) a new exemption is often required.
Presently, a few options still exist for parents in California. The first is to have a physician who does not have a California license and hence cannot be targeted by the board write the exemption; this is understandably unfair to those who cannot afford to travel out of state. The second is to leave the public school system (this is likewise extremely unfair to those who can’t home school or afford private schooling). The third is to leave the state entirely (once an option unavailable to many but that nonetheless resulted in quite a few moves to Idaho) and the fourth is to file an Individual Educational Plan, which is enshrined by the ADA and designed to help students with disabilities navigate the educational system. Thus, while you cannot “be exempted from vaccination,” if you became disabled as a result of a childhood vaccination (which is sadly quite common in my colleague’s practice), that can place you in a class where immunization requirements are not enforced.
Not surprisingly, all of this had a chilling effect on California physicians writing medical exemptions for the spike protein vaccines. For example, I have now heard of cases where someone nearly died from a COVID vaccination in California, and no one including the doctor who took care of them in the ICU is willing to take the risk of writing a medical exemption for the booster.
My colleagues outside of California are disgusted with this fear of writing essential medical exemptions and have cited examples of where they did the right thing and successfully stood up to the illegal conduct of their medical boards. However, I do understand the position the California doctors are in and the climate of physician intimidation that has been created against them.
All in all, when you consider the previous governor signing statement to SB-277 and the compromise that had been agreed to in 2016, it shows just how relentless and disingenuous the vaccine zealots are.
The Decade of Vaccines
At the time all of this was going on, Sherry Tenpenny warned us that this was simply the opening salvo in the WHO’s and Bill Gates’s decade of vaccines plan, and mandatory adult vaccinations were on the horizon. At the time she said this, I naïvely believed something like that could never happen, and it was not until COVID-19 started emerging in Wuhan that I recognized the gravity of the situation we were in.
Later, I learned through Peter Breggin (all of this is detailed in Chapter 15 of his book) that Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum between 2014 to 2016 had developed a framework for pushing through emergency vaccines that could bypass the regulatory process in the event of a health “emergency.” Their framework provided lavish fiscal incentives for vaccine financers and positioned unaccountable organizations like the WHO, Gates foundation, or the World Economic Forum as the directors of a future pandemic response, thereby usurping the normal legislative process that should prevent these egregious public health abuses from being conducted.
On January 13, 2017, the FDA released extremely detailed regulations for obtaining emergency use authorizations that were almost certainly developed in tandem with Bill Gates, and five days later, Gates publicly announced his plan to the world. Not surprisingly, it was endorsed by a few pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer Moderna and J&J. When Operation Warp Speed was finally conducted in 2020, it not surprisingly precisely matched the disastrous framework originally developed by Gates.
Shortly before COVID-19, on October 18, 2019, Event 201, a simulation exercise modeling the release of a dangerous SARS virus from China that was funded by the Gates Foundation was held at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. At the start of COVID-19, I read through their entire program and over the course of 2020 was astounded to see how each part of the exercise subsequently played out on the world stage. As you might expect, a key component of the simulation was enacting mass censorship to address the inevitable concerns that would arise from an experimental vaccine that had a less than adequate safety profile.
Silencing Vaccine Hesitancy
To further illustrates how coordinated this entire process was, at the start of 2019, the WHO declared vaccine hesitancy to be one of the top threats to Global Health, a decision that I believe likely set the stage for Silicon Valley to begin developing their algorithms for mass censorship of any vaccine skepticism.
In July of 2021, corporate America began mandating the vaccine for its employees and in August, the FDA approved Pfizer’s vaccine. Shortly after in September, it was mandated for healthcare workers in California, and in October for children wishing to attend school (additionally, Biden mandated it on the nation in November). Having already successfully eliminated the ability to attend school without an exemption and the ability of a doctor with a California medical license to write an exemption, many previously politically apathetic parents and physicians realized how much of a problem this posed and began to openly speak out against the practice.
Many within the public health community also certainly recognized that the significant toxicity profile of the vaccinations would lead to public outcry against their use. One of the initial moves to preempt this was the Federation of State Medical Boards warning physicians their licenses could be in jeopardy if they spoke out against the vaccines. I was aghast at this policy and attempted to contact their president through a mutual contact, but was informed that given his military and public health background (like Richard Pan he had received an M.P.H. from Harvard) it was probably a lost cause to change his mind—Public Health trains you to use vaccines for every problem you encounter and to view every single health issue in the world as a result of not enough people being vaccinated (this is why they so relentlessly push to get every last person jabbed and why they always ignore the actual health needs of their communities in that narrow-minded focus on vaccination).
California in turn decided to once again up the ante. Their first law, designed to “protect” children from their vaccine-hesitant parents, sought to allow children to “consent” to vaccination without parental permission. Significant protest met this proposed law (as similar policies have previously led to children being forced to vaccinate and then suffering significant injuries) and it was eventually withdrawn.
California’s pending law AB2098 which seeks to criminalize any doctor “spreading COVID-19 misinformation” has numerous grave constitutional issues with its board interference in the doctor-patient relationship and even pro-medical industry groups have voiced their opposition. For this reason, Gavin Newsom has so far refrained from signing it (although he may do so in the next few days).
I was originally inspired to write essay this after I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about the proposed law. It lamented the dangers of misinformation, lauded the enforcement actions that were being taken against physicians who spread misinformation, and disparaged the state medical boards that were protecting physicians who utilized early treatment options for COVID-19, concluding with the Orwellian statement:
She dismissed the idea that barring doctors from spreading falsehoods about COVID would restrict their right to free speech.
“That is not a concern to any well-meaning physician practicing evidence-based medicine,” Yasmin said. “We take an oath to do no harm and to protect our patients. Central to that is a commitment to not spread false information.”
Two quotations within the article caught my eye:
“A North Dakota law, for example, lets doctors prescribe the anti-parasitic ivermectin, which has sent many people to poison control centers after false claims went viral about its powers as COVID cure.”
“Without scientific backing, then-President Trump promoted the drug [hydroxychloroquine] for use with COVID, and some doctors scooped it up for that purpose, even though it was found to be dangerous for those infected with the coronavirus.”
In the case of the ivermectin story, the poison control story was fake news that never happened (and later was admitted as such). In the case of the hydroxychloroquine story, the news article she referenced (from an organization that has received Gates Foundation “sponsorship”) directly cited the retracted Surgisphere study. It should also be noted that if an effective treatment existed for COVID-19, that would have destroyed the COVID-19 vaccine market and the massive investment Gates made in them.
In many ways, this article highlights the entire problem with “misinformation.” The author lied or at the very least could not be bothered to do the most basic fact check (click the link and see the bold “retracted” written all over the paper) while simultaneously staking out the moral high ground of espousing nothing but the truth. Additionally, since her position matches the prevailing industry narrative, she will never be forced to hold any accountability for the consequences of her false statements.
Keeping that in mind, let us now review a few quotations from AB2098 (it is short so I would suggest reading the entire bill):
In House Resolution No. 74 of the 2021–22 Regular Session, the California State Assembly declared health misinformation to be a public health crisis, and urged the State of California to commit to appropriately combating health misinformation and curbing the spread of falsehoods that threaten the health and safety of Californians.
This is a regurgitation of the talking points they have been repeatedly put forward to establish a decade of vaccines.
It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate 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.
In other words, anything that opposes the decade of vaccines agenda is unprofessional conduct.
“Disseminate” means the conveyance of information from the licensee to a patient under the licensee’s care in the form of treatment or advice.
As you might imagine, there are numerous constitutional issues with this line.
“Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.
Hopefully this article has illustrated why the standard put forth by this line is incredibly arbitrary and highly detrimental to the healthcare of all Americans.
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.
Curiously, many data sets like these (along with direct testimonies I have received from whistleblowers) show that the vaccinated, and particularly the boosted are more likely to die from COVID-19 than the unvaccinated, which makes it essentially impossible for an 11-fold reduction in death to have actually resulted from vaccination. This and the following quotation both suggest the “facts” the California Legislature used to justify the urgent need to unconstitutionally censor physicians are actually “misinformation.”
The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the vaccines continue to undergo intensive safety monitoring by the CDC.
The basis for this claim is the CDC’s assertion that they are intensively monitoring for vaccine safety signals. Unfortunately, given the countless pieces of evidence of harm the CDC has officially been notified of and the lack of action by the agency, one must conclude that if the CDC is monitoring for safety signals, it is not acting upon them. The CDC also has now admitted the agency gave false information on their COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring, has apologized for withholding information from the public, and it has come to light that it is not assessing deaths suspected to be linked to vaccination. Similarly, it was recently revealed the FDA is refusing to release the autopsy results of individuals who died after vaccination, likely on account of these autopsies consistently indicting the vaccines.
In summary, I would argue these quotations constitute outright lying (disinformation) by the California legislature. Were the circumstances not so grave, it would almost be comical that a law outlawing “misinformation” was itself full of it.
Conclusion:
Looking back on everything, it now makes sense why vaccine hesitancy was transformed into a wedge issue. Because of how dangerous the COVID-19 vaccinations were and how unprecedented it was to mandate adult vaccinations, the only way that could've been accomplished was if half of the country supported it in order for their side to "win."
In 2008, an immensely controversial proposition outlawing gay marriage was allowed to go onto the California ballot. I believe this happened because everyone thought it would fail and therefore support the cause of gay marriage, but due to the conservative Latin American community in the state, the proposition unexpectedly passed. A year later the California Supreme Court then struck down the law on the basis of it being unconstitutional. I have thought about those events for a while because the specific ruling the Court used to appeal proposition 8 also applies to the law on Newsom’s desk that censors physicians. I am thus quite curious to see how California’s courts will behave if the law is passed (I believe the current Supreme Court would strike it down, but I am unsure if an appeal would ever make it that far).
A part of me is also hopeful that if this law is enacted, it will backfire on the medical-industrial complex as each physician who aggressively pushes the vaccines on their patients while insisting it is 100% safe and effect (and then gaslights them whenever an injury occurs) is technically guilty of spreading medical misinformation (even though to some degree the law’s wording protects them). It is important to keep in mind that the medical boards are legally required to act upon each complaint they receive from the public, so if a deluge of complaints were to be filed against vaccine pushing physicians, there would be an immediate shockwave felt throughout the medical community (any board complaint is a major challenge for a physician to deal with).
I hope this article has provided you with some insights into how catastrophic profiteering campaigns are conducted on the American people. I thank you for taking the time to review this article and to share with the appropriate parties (e.g. on Gab or GETTR). If there is anything you believe I got wrong or omitted please let me know so that I can revise the article.
Source: The Forgotten Side of Medicine
No comments:
Post a Comment