Archive for the ‘Viruses’ Category

CDC Did Not Put COVID Shots On Childhood Schedule – But it Ain’t Over

**UPDATE**

Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, told The Epoch Times in an email that if the COVID-19 vaccines weren’t added to the schedule this week, they likely would be in the future.

There has not been one vaccine that has been produced by the pharmaceutical industry and licensed for children in the U.S. that has not been eventually recommended by federal health officials for children and placed on the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule,” she said.

The article also states that while the CDC sought to distance itself from mandates, some jurisdictions adopt virtually all CDC guidelines as mandates. Similarly to how virtually all medical doctors/clinics adopt antiquated, unscientific CDC/IDSA Lyme guidelines.  CDC “guidelines” ARE essentially mandates.

https://merylnass.substack.com/p/cdc-did-not-put-the-covid-vaccines?

CDC did not put the COVID vaccines on the childhood schedule today

What happens tomorrow? My liveblog with some useful additions

CDC did something strange today: they added COVID to the Vaccines for Children program, which is a federal entitlement program that pays for vaccines for kids who don’t have other insurance. But it was not necessary to do this yet, as CDC cannot buy EUA vaccines. The COVID vaccines (as well as monoclonal antibodies, some other drugs, PCR and rapid tests) are unlicensed experimental products. EUA vaccines cannot be sold. The government buys them and your taxes pay for them.

CDC spends about 5 billion dollars a year to buy vaccines on the childhood schedule for kids on medicaid or without insurance from the manufacturers. Here is the price list.

So the vote today meant that once the COVID vaccines are sold commercially, they will be included in the Vaccines for Children program. At some time that was unspecified.

There was no clear explanation why this vote was held today, when CDC is jumping the gun. Did the CDC switch out a vote on adding COVID vaccines to the childhood schedule for a different vote at the last minute?

The CDC briefer, Jeanne Santoli, who was trying to explain why the members were voting on this, gave a very short and non-explanatory talk. I just timed her and it lasted all of 3 minutes. It was totally unlike the presentations by other briefers. Jose Romero, who is the Director of CDC’s National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, followed her and said this is not about the childhood schedule. You can listen to them and read the slides at 6 hours 31 minutes and draw your own conclusions.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the VFC vote was a last-minute plug-in and that CDC cancelled a vote on adding the COVID vaccines to the childhood schedule, which would cause them to be required for most American kids to attend school. The midterms are coming, after all. And people are watching.

Below is my live blog.

merylnass: It is October 19, 2022 and the CDC has scheduled a 2 day meeting of its advisory committee. However, CDC has been cagey about what they plan to change in the childhood schedule.

merylnass: There is a large vaccine lineup to be discussed:chikungunya, pneumococcal vaccines, flu vaccines, meningococcal vaccines, RSV vaccines, monkeypox vaccines and dengue vaccine.

merylnass: I had to give it a couple of extra clicks to get the show to start at https://video.ibm.com/channel/VWBXKBR8af4

merylnass: Does anyone have any memory of when the CDC or ACIP responded to comments at any time in the past? CHD encouraged comments regarding the authorization of COVID vaccines for the youngest kids–I think about 40,000 comments were sent. CDC was silent. Crickets. No response.

merylnass: Dr. Nirav Shah, the head of the Maine CDC, a smart narrative pusher, has now joined the ACIP. Dr. Kevin Ault is now gone–did he criticize the vaccines for COVID?

merylnass: Katherine Paling, Cybil Cinneas, Camille Kotton, Sarah Long, Nirav Shah,Matt Daley, Oliver Brooks, Lynn Bhata RN, Jamie Lehrer, Wilbur Chen, Keipp Talbot, Beth Bell, Ms. Veronica McNally, Dr. Sanchez, Grace Lee.

merylnass: These are the voting members. Now they go through the ex officio, nonvoting members.

merylnass: The CMS and FDA members are MIA. That is odd. Office of ID and HIV_AIDS policy is also missing—he came late. Sean O’Leary is an ex officio and he also made a comment to the last meeting, strongly in favor of covid vax for kids.

No AMA rep. Normally that would be Dr. Sandra Fryhofer. She came late. Stinchfield also made a comment last time–I’d wager the CDC asked its ex officios to weigh in and give it some support last time. Society for adolescent medicine is also missing. It is odd that so many are missing, especially the FDA member who might be needed for the discussions.

merylnass: There are several pneumococcal vaccines and clarification for which should be used when is needed. Pfizer and Merck have 2 each for adults.

merylnass: The numbers in the names refer to the number of strains aka serotypes of pneumococcal bacteria included in each vaccine. In general, the more serotypes, the more cost.

merylnass: I will again note that CDC has a 100 million dollar media center but it seems to use a $20 dollar setup for the ACIP meetings, which are chock full of delays, disconnections, and now a ten minute break. We never see the faces of the speakers and there is no livestreaming.

merylnass: The break appears to be due to difficulty connecting the speaker. These glitches may serve to cover up deliberate glitches when someone is saying something the CDC does not want the public to hear.

merylnass: Pablo Sanchez has arrived and the system is back up. Sandra Fryhofer is here too.

merylnass: No one has acknowledged any conflicts of interest

merylnass: Anyone else finding the sound keeps cutting off?

merylnass: Best I can tell, in the silence, this will be a presentation of modelling and therefore another example of how CDC hates to use real data

merylnass: Rochelle, what’s up with the $100 million media center? Suggest you try Zoom.

merylnass: Finally I refreshed the page and learned I have missed a bunch

merylnass: The guesstimate is that it costs a lot of money to save a single year of life–hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who pays the costs? Whose life is saved? If you save a 70 year old for 10 years, it might cost $4 million. Did the money come from another program or is it from moneyprinting that will debase the currency and cause inflation?

merylnass: And most of the benefits are speculative.

merylnass: How much is a life worth? In other places $100K/year or $127K/yr have been suggested. So using these models, the vaccine is too expensive given the benefits.

merylnass: Maine’s Dr. Shah is the first questioner. They can’t find slide 12. how can that be?

merylnass: Did anyone hear how long the vaccine lasts? Why do these people get so many different pneumococcal vaccines?

merylnass: No one understands this comparison, which is all modelling anyway.

merylnass: As western civilization ends, the science becomes unintelligible

merylnass: Let’s move on to something else and maybe some of the members will be able to understand that one.

merylnass: Note that PCV 23 is the OLDEST vaccine. Its efficacy was called into question at least 15 years ago, and it causes significant inflammation when given. You would think that the broadest spectrum vaccine would be the most beneficial, but all these other vaccines have been created because PCV23 is not that good. Instead of replacing it, they just keep adding more kinds.

merylnass: Now the slide show fails again. CDC is such a clown show. The Keystone Cops. 13,000 employees. A 15 billion per year budget.

merylnass: The evidence to recommendations part of the discussion is the BS part, in which all sorts of fluffy considerations are thrown together to conclude whatever CDC wants the committee to conclude. Note that her slide was based on “claims data” so you cannot check the database and make sure what she is telling you is accurate

merylnass: Invasive pneumococcal disease numbers come from CDC, but there is no reference where we can look up the data and see how it was derived.

merylnass: Now she admits they used estimates for some of the numbers.

merylnass: When PCV13 vaccine was introduced, there was no reduction in disease, and in fact a slight increase.

merylnass: Pfizer study admits the new serotypes in PCV20 only account for 3-4% of cases–not a great benefit, especially when Pfizer is telling you.

merylnass: Not sure that data gathered during the pandemic is that accurate, when people would do anything to stay out of the hospital.

merylnass: The newer vaccines “are expected” to do better than the old PCV23–wait, what? The conjugate vaccines have been available for decades and are very expensive. They still don’t know how well they work?

merylnass: Note: no PCV20 efficacy or effectiveness data

merylnass: Gee whiz, we are looking at antibodies 1 month post vax. Means nothing. And the data must suck, because they provide no numbers for us to evaluate. This is a travesty: believe what I say, as I won’t show you the data.

merylnass: Now we look at anticipated benefits, since we don’t have data to tell us the benefits. Even so, the benefits predicted are slim. They never tell us how the workgroup voted when there is questionable benefit. Then, anticipating no side effects, you might as well add this new 20 valent vaccine since of course all vaccines bring tremendous benefits and no adverse events

merylnass: Maybe the fact they were already vaccinated with older vaccines has something to do with benefit? Pfizer surveyed medical providers and they liked the vaccine, but liked it least for adults who are healthy and already had 2 different PCV vaccines.

merylnass: GIGO again. Complex assumptions that vary between models for the Pfizer and Merck vaccines, thus of limited value.

merylnass: Still quite expensive to gain years of life for people in their 70s and up–up to half a million per year to gain a bit more life–and this is based on modelling that is entirely unreliable.

merylnass: Now she fails to show how the work group voted–but I can assume they were not favorable

merylnass: The Affordable Care Act was a giveaway to vaccine mfrs. Once the vaccine is recommended by this committee, insurance is required to cover the cost 100%–no copay or deductible–by one year after the recommendation is made. This is how Obama was able to claim he was all in on prevention. Note that this allowed vaccine prices to skyrocket.

merylnass: Now they give Merck a special dispensation to weigh in!!! What did that cost Merck?

merylnass: He asks them to remember that the oldest PCV23 vaccine works, and “remains a good option.” In other words, you don’t have great data for the PCV20, and our old vaccine works (but maybe it works, unclear about that) so use us not Pfizer.

merylnass: One thing these members hate is complexity and this PCV20 vaccine addition will make a complicated schedule even more complicated.

merylnass: Dr. Brook says maybe vaccinating the kids will help the adults (and then you won’t need to vaccinate the adults, since that appears to be what happened when the Prevnar vaccines rolled out.

merylnass: Dr. Long: this is difficult stuff. The work group rarely settled on a single answer, and we were a problematic group. What they should have concluded is that there is not enough benefit to go with the new vaccine, and can revisit the issue after the vaccine is used in the population, probably by the immunocompromised, and then see how much benefit and risk it conveys.

merylnass: Dr. Shah from Maine points out the issue of having to stock so many similar vaccines. It means the clinics throw more away; it costs the clinics more; the staff make more mistakes.

merylnass: Grace Lee likes the new vaccine for the immunocompromised for 12,000 Americans. But the mfrs will not produce vaccines for such a small population and will rely on general use, once recommended.

merylnass: Helen Keipp Talbot points out that the models ignore post-hospital disability and this would make the vaccines more useful.

merylnass: Sarah Long points out that the PCV7 in kids helped adults, but the PCV13, which came out later, did not–so the PCV20 may not either. I like her.

merylnass: I suspect the cost of the PCV20, based on Prevnar costs, is likely to be $250-300 per dose.

merylnass: The last speaker implies they should approve it now cause it takes a year to get the insurers to cover it, so let’s get ahead of that

merylnass: This speaker says they should put pressure on Pharma for rational pricing. Duh. Lowered price could make cost-effectiveness better.

merylnass: Kudos to the pharmacist who represents a national organization for pointing out pharmacists generally do not have access to the medical record and cannot necessarily make good decisions and provide good advice to patients

merylnass: Current speaker said she got the PCV20 and insurance would not pay and she was charged $247 for a dose out of pocket–because it was not recommended by ACIP for a year, I guess.

merylnass: Be aware how arbitrary the decisions this committee will make will be, based on little more than speculation

merylnass: The staff are asked to provide cleaner questions for a vote. Because the members are confused by what is being asked of them. Dr. Kobayashi wants to clarify. It seems there are never too many vaccines and never too many permutations for how they can be used.

merylnass: I am avoiding all this minutiae about changes to existing recommendations. But note the vagueness of the adverse event information. You don’t learn what they are. And you get a meaningless statement that most of the reactions were mild or moderate and not severe. Well, that is true of every vaccine I know of. It conveys no information. It hides relevant information. It fills in the space where real data about adverse events should be specified with their rates, but are not.

merylnass: Ten minute break till 11:35. We are already nearly an hour behind.

merylnass: Chikungunya vaccine now. Votes on the pneumococcal vaccines later.

merylnass: No chik vaccine has ever been licensed, but I am aware of attempts to make one for probably 30 years. Which may mean there are intrinsic problems with making a vaccine for this condition.

merylnass: The US government’s DOD has long been interested in this virus, though there were no US outbreaks until 2013.

merylnass: Aedes aegypti and albopictus daytime dusk-dawn mosquitos carry it, but there can be vertical transmission, needlestick, and even airborne in labs.

merylnass: Note that we are not told how frequent the serious complications may be. Not good in pregnancy, it seems. Usually it lasts 7-10 days but there is occasional prolonged symptomatology

merylnass: It seems the studies are not very helpful. Bug repellants are the preventive.

merylnass: Valneva and Emergent BioSolutions, the crooked anthrax vaccine mfr that threw away the ingredients for 400 million doses of cOVID vaccines due to contamination is developing one vaccine–stay away from it. They also now own a cholera and a typhoid vaccine. Their typhoid vaccine made one of my patients fairly ill 2 years ago.

merylnass: There is also a Merck and an Indian candidate vaccine, both sponsored by CEPI (started by Bill Gates)

merylnass: It seems there is an interesting business plan: bring a tropical disease to the US that was never seen there before, then bring in a new vaccine for the disease. This has happened with Dengue and Dengvaxia

merylnass: They say that human challenge studies can be justified. This new unethical way of studying a vaccine is apparently now joining the ranks of acceptable clinical science.

merylnass: It looks like the Animal Rule is being invoked to get the Valneva version licensed under accelerated approval. Dr. Chen asks who is really at risk of a complicated course?

merylnass: Remember that less than 100 Americans per year get this infection, though the numbers could rise. Dr. Hills sounds stressed, as if she does not want to answer, probably due to lack of data. Though mother-fetus transmission can be devastating.

merylnass: Dr. Brooks asks how outbreaks get started–especially in the US, when the disease is so rare?

merylnass: She dodges the question of how it gets to a place where it has not previously been seen.

merylnass: Dr. Dubischar from Valneva now presents on their candidate vaccine. It is live with a genetic deletion of 60 amino acids in one protein.

merylnass: Neutralizing antibodies–human sera injected into monkeys who were then challenged with the real virus. The injected primates had no fever and most lacked live replicating virus. Some did have virus but lower titers. Valneva believes they have identified a dose that will provide sterilizing immunity, i.e., no virus growing in patients after vaccination and exposure.

merylnass: Some monkeys did grow virus, which is what is telling Valneva how large a dose to use to prevent virus in the vaccinated and exposed.

merylnass: Medium dose (3 x 10 to the 4th) viral particles is being used.

merylnass: They were allowed to skip Phase 2 by assuming that the booster dose acted as a challenge study.

merylnass: Solicited adverse events were only collected for 10 days–nice work if you can get it! Great way to avoid finding serious side effects. Vaccinees followed up to 6 months for unsolicited side effects.

merylnass: Odd that neutralizing antibodies were identical in those over and under 65 years.

merylnass: The immunogenicity seems remarkable, with antibodies in over 96% at 6 months. The side effect profiles are not good however.

merylnass: 50% had systemic AEs, some severe fevers

merylnass: 17% of recipients got joint pain vs 5% in placebo. In 3,000 subjects, one case of SIADH occurred 10 days after his shot. One developed muscle pain requiring a 5 day hospitalization. Serious AEs in 1 in 1500 recipients–but more may have been overlooked because of the short duration of active surveillance.

merylnass: 73% had any AE. Seems like you will be better off accepting a very low risk of getting chikungunya than taking a chance with this vaccine.

merylnass: Why is the ACIP looking at these vaccines before they are licensed? This makes sure there is a lot less data and less give and take because they don’t have the info that would have been presented to FDA.

merylnass: While pregnant women are the ones who would potentially get the most benefit, the company is clearly scared to death to test the vaccine in them, as it is a live vaccine and will likely cause intrauterine infection.

merylnass: 0.3% had joint pain severe enough to interfere with daily activities. Mean duration 8 days.

merylnass: Dr. Sanchez asked about the joint pains–any arthritis? And pregnancy?

merylnass: OOps. She had to admit women did get pregnant during the study and they had miscarriages and normal births and she claims it was what would be expected generally. If so, she would have presented those data as evidence of safety. The fact that she failed to present them initially suggests there is a potential problem. Dr. Sanchez asked if the fetus got infected? She says we didn’t look. That is the clincher.

merylnass: Now the speaker was instructed by a committee member to do pregnancy studies in monkeys.

merylnass: Now CDC presents again on the vax. 100 of 462 subjects were dropped due to protocol deviations–this is a high dropout rate.

merylnass: Most stopped coming back. Hmmm.

merylnass: 2% had a severe adverse event. That is VERY HIGH, especially when the placebo group only had 0.1%

merylnass: 2% of the subjects had joint pain for over 15 days. Sounds like we are normalizing prolonged side effects from vaccines now

merylnass: The data have only had a preliminary review–so why is this being presented to ACIP when it seems there is no good reason to license this, as there is almost no chikungunya disease in the US and the side effect profile is poor; furthermore, there were no data presented to convince us the disease is a serious problem.

merylnass: Except in pregnancy, for whom the vaccine is probably too dangerous.

merylnass: Someone asked about simultaneous live virus vaccines being given. I will say that in literature 20 years ago, giving lives vaccines together was said to reduce the immunity induced.

merylnass: So it was NOT RECOMMENDED to give live vaccines together. But that was when there was still a modicum of real science. I am not surprised Valneva refused to answer.

merylnass: Hills from CDC also refused to take up the question.

merylnass: Severe immunocompromise will be a contraindication to this vaccine

merylnass: What a cluster. A dangerous vaccine for which limited data are made available for what is usually a minor disease that almost does not exist in the US.

merylnass: Break till 1:30

merylnass: Next up, COVID VACCINES

merylnass: From a 2007 Senate report headed by Tom Coburn https://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cdc_off_center.pdf

CDC’s $106 million Thomas R. Harkin Global Communications (and Visitor) CenterCDC’s new $109.8 million Arlen Specter Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center has $10 million in furniture • CDC’s $200,000 fitness center includes $30,000 saunas and rotating light shows • CDC’s new Hawaii office announced by Hawaii Senator who oversees CDC funds

merylnass: No wonder they don’t manage to do competent reviews of vaccines; they are spending too much time in the saunas or at the Hawaii office. Remember that these amounts are 2006 dollars

merylnass: Announcement: TODAY the Novavax was approved by FDA for use as a booster in addition to an initial vaccine for adults. Despite the ACIP meeting today,the members were not asked to approve this rollout, and Rochelle Walensky has already approved it for adults. Strange omission.

merylnass: The lesson is that the fed agencies are in a RUSH to get all this investigational garbage into arms as fast as possible before the entire program explodes.

merylnass: 7 days ago the FDA granted an authorization for moderna and Pfizer boosters for kids 5 years and up.

merylnass: Ellington slipped and just said “pregnant women” and then slipped in the word people a few words later.

merylnass: The data being presented here come from a BMJ article published in 2020–when there were much more severe variants and much fewer treatments available, so it is not surprising that pregnant WOMEN had significantly worse morbidity and mortality than non-pregnant women. Pregnancy itself turns down the immune system

merylnass: While the intent of the presentation is to scare us regarding 1-6 month old babies, in fact COVID was present in only 0.5% of babies who died over the pandemic.

merylnass: This presentation uses CDC’s VSD data to assess risk of vaccination in pregnancy from the earlier vaccines. This database in earlier studies never showed a problem with the mRNA vaccines. Finally it did so re myocarditis, but has failed to find any other problems. I suspect there is a crooked method of analysis. CDC never lets us know how these numbers were derived, how they adjust them and how they analyze the raw data.

merylnass: As expected, these data claim you supposedly actually benefit slightly in terms of miscarriage from the vaccine.

merylnass: And they are assiduously studying the data and stay tuned for more happy news

merylnass: I have screenshot all the people involved in these studies for future reference so we can get them discussing these studies with their hands on a bible

merylnass: The V-safe data shows less than half the expected miscarriages in vaccinated moms. Do you believe these data? Of course not–it is impossible to have such low rates. That proves there is a problem with the study.

merylnass: Furthermore, the claim is being made that comparing vaccinated pregnant women to vaccinated pregnant women who got covid, the covid patients did not have a worse fetal outcome. How likely is that?

merylnass: Now Fleming-Dutra presents and gives the commercial that everyone should stay up to date with the vaccine and pregnant and breastfeeding women should especially get it. What? Her data claim the vaccine worked wonderfully for Delta. But here is some DOD contractor data on Delta in the vaccinated elders—about 10% benefit

merylnass: Now the bivalent commercial. But they will show no bivalent data.

merylnass: Note that almost every presenter is from CDC and they have had a team work on the presentations so every word has been crafted. That is probably why you aren’t allowed to see the presenters, because they are reading their script.

merylnass: These data on omicron and delta carefully avoid any numbers after 4 months post vaccination, when efficacy goes to zero and worse

merylnass: But other charts that followed people to 6 months and beyond show how useless they become, and then worse than useless.

merylnass: I am going to post this speaker’s diagram on efficacy on my substack during the next break, so you can see how different the longer-term results are, and how the vaccine didn’t work well for delta either.

merylnass: No infant protection when pregnant women were vaccinated before 20 weeks!!!!

merylnass: This woman is working hard to get up the CDC ladder by throwing all women and children under the bus.

merylnass: Thanks Dr. Sanchez for asking about monoclonal antibodies in pregnancy. The briefer does not answer the question, turning it into a vaccine question. Someone else says we have not been collecting data on the use of other therapies.

merylnass: No one wants to talk about the monoclonal antibodies in pregnancy, which is relevant to my legal case, as the state has claimed I should have used monoclonals in a pregnant woman.

merylnass: But they (the vaccines) are experimental while the drugs I used are fully licensed and effective.

merylnass: More missing data for Sarah Long’s question.

merylnass: Some of the CDC people on MISC could not be here today. Let me point out that these slackers are working from home, and they could have been available for questions had CDC wanted them available.

merylnass: Sarah Long asks about what symptoms the hospitalized, covid-infected babies had…and 3 different CDC briefers refused to answer. Is that because they only had sniffles and were hospitalized for something else? Were they asymptomatic and tested positive incidentally?

merylnass: Great, someone points out that 77% of women are not vaxxed, though this telephone survey data says they are. In the data I have seen, about 1/3 of pregnant women took a covid shot, not 3/4. In this survey, CDC phones people and asks if they are vaccinated–and many people simply tell CDC they are vaxxed when they are not. If memory serves, once CDC used this NHANES survey to estimate that more Americans had gotten a flu shot than the number of flu shots that had been manufactured distributed in the US.

merylnass: The above paragraph is about pregnant women and now the members are saying “I find these data sketchy!”

merylnass: Fleming-Dutra: vaccine was less effective with omicron. She did not answer the question asked, which was what is the ideal time to vaccinate in pregnancy. I saw a slide go by that said the baby got no benefit during the first 20 weeks. Now these CDC apparatchiks want women to get 1 vaccination during the first 20 weeks and another dose during the second half of the pregnancy. I do not have a name for these evil doctors.

merylnass: They can still surprise me by how awful their suggestions are and how they just keep getting worse. Now the ACOG rep is calling them “pregnant individuals.” She is an obstetrician and she does not know the gender of her patients?

merylnass: Sara Oliver, oh no. 6month-4 year olds had the highest hospitalization rate she says. But a previous speaker said the 0-6 month olds had the highest rate. How fun that they cannot keep the lies straight.

merylnass: Sara fails to tell us where these data come from and what all the numbers were. She claims incorrectly that myocarditis is 1.8-5.6x higher after infection than after the shot.

merylnass: Sara says we are just discussing the current recommendations. Is she saying they are not going to put the vaxxes on the childhood schedule? Who knows what the forked tongue doctors of the Centers for Dissimulation, Craftiness and Prevarication really mean

merylnass: She is reminding us to give boosters to all kids aged 5 and up

merylnass: For immunocompromised kids, they want 3 initial doses. May I point out that although the CDC encourages mix and match mRNA vaccines, a very important study from 4 Nordic countries showed that by giving a Moderna after a Pfizer in children, you increased the likelihood of myocarditis by a factor of two compared to giving both doses of Moderna. Furthermore, many countries in Europe do not allow you to give the Moderna vaccine to children and younger adults because of this. So CDC should never have encouraged mixing the vaccines. Here is some info I put together in August about this:

 In 7 European countries, people below certain ages were not recommended to get Moderna shots, but as of June babies as young as 6 months can get Moderna injections.

Sweden—not under 30 https://www.wilx.com/2021/10/07/some-european-countries-suspend-moderna-shots-those-30-under/

Norway—not under 30 ”

Denmark—not under 18 ”

Finland—not under 30–https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/08/nordic-countries-are-restricting-the-use-of-modernas-covid-vaccine.html

Iceland:  “Iceland is using the vaccine almost exclusively as a booster for those 60 years and older, and advising men aged 18-39 against receiving Moderna’s vaccine (here).” https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-europe-moderna/fact-check-some-european-countries-halted-moderna-covid-19-vaccines-for-young-people-idUSL1N2RE22K

Germany —not under 30. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-france-restrict-modernas-covid-vaccine-for-under-30s-over-rare-heart-risk-despite-surging-cases/

France—not under 30. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-france-restrict-modernas-covid-vaccine-for-under-30s-over-rare-heart-risk-despite-surging-cases/

merylnass: Now she says that incorporating covid vaxxes in the immunization schedule and the vaccines for children program (govt paid) is a step toward including them into a regular routine schedule, which will happen once the vaccines are commercially sold, and can have the 75 cent excise tax added that is necessary to be placed on the childhood schedule.

merylnass: Jeanne Santoli notes the youngest kids got authorized 120 days ago. It appears this is getting the vaccines ready to become normal products for kids that are not EUA products. Commercialized. At that point vaccines can be ordered through the VFC, which is a govt program that supplies free vaccines for about 55% of US children. In other words, what the USG is doing si worming the vaccines slowly into the childhood schedule by taking baby steps toward that, and this is one baby step.

merylnass: A member is asking for clarity on whether this is going to put it on the schedule and mandate it. Jose Romero says they are not putting it on the childhood schedule yet.

merylnass: But now he is backpedalling–“CDC does not make state recommendations for vaccines”–yet CDC knows that many states have adopted the CDC recs as their own.

merylnass: A good question: will the vaccine still be part of the CICP or moved to the VICP? Melinda Wharton says the vaccines stay in the CICP.

merylnass: Things are ahead of schedule!

merylnass: Comments. I love David Wiseman, who point out that CDC is recommending use in pregnancy that is much broader than the manufacturers’ own claims.

merylnass: I noticed when the ex-officio members were listed today that 2 (TWO) of them had been commenters in favor of the vaccine program at a recent ACIP meeting (Stinchfield and Sean O’Leary). Isn’t it remarkable that an ex officio member of the ACIP had to grab a slot at the public comment time to laud the vaccines? Was CDC desperate to fill those slots in order to keep those of us with a different opinion out?

merylnass: The current speaker, a father, is great. COVID is not a childhood disease. It does not affect transmission. The benefit wanes quickly and new variants evade them. He calls out the multiple fraudulent efforts to fool us about the disease and the vaccine.

merylnass: Thayer Phillips is a spokesperson for ‘seniors speak out.’ Does CDC fund this organization? “Now is the time we must prepare ourselves to protect those most vulnerable.”

merylnass: He is boosting for the new expensive PCV vaccines for elders–which are currently available but will cost ya.

merylnass: Now we have a similar spokesperson from another older person organization. He too is a PCV booster. Maybe one was paid by Merck and the other by Pfizer. Now the National Grange is represented and it too is here to boost the new PCV vaccines. Incredible. I guess at $247 per dose the mfrs can afford to purchase lots of elders to lecture to CDC, and fill up spots that might otherwise go to discussing COVID vaccines.

merylnass: There were only 6 speakers. Now we go to the PCV vote and the VFC vote.

merylnass: Finally we get to see some faces as they vote and 2 female members of the ACIP are masked. 15 yeses zero nos for the vaccines for children vote, which as I said is only a baby step toward the childhood mandates.

merylnass: Now for the totally confusing PCV votes, because there are 3 adult PCV vaccines and another one coming soon, and they all have a different collection of serotypes…so how and when do you mix an match them, when there is very little data to inform us about the answer?

merylnass: And the answer is that it probably does not matter and most likely most of the members would not be able to explain what precisely they are voting on right now. So I predict you will get unanimous yeses on all 3 questions.

merylnass: You know what? I think that none of our CHD watchers care about the outcome. Maybe we can all simply shut down this meeting before we are all braindead. I told you no one understood these votes.

merylnass: I forgot, they have to talk about polio vaccines too, and that might be important. WHO just collected several billion dollars over the past few days to roll out a new polio program.

merylnass: They decided not to vote! CDC will have to make the questions simpler and clearer–or if CDC doesn’t want to do that, they will have to figure it out later.

merylnass: Polio vaccine: 1961-1999 used primarily live vaccine. In 2000 ACIP switched to inactivated vaccine because all polio cases were due to vaccine in the US.

merylnass: Numerous vaccine strain outbreaks are being detected.

merylnass: While only ‘wild type’ type 1 polio appears in the world, other types of polio exist due to vaccine strains 2 and 3.

merylnass: What is not being said is that it has long been known that some people shed the poliovirus after the injection for a lifetime.

merylnass: So there will be polio virus in wastewater over much of the world.

merylnass: Polio is shed in the stool.

merylnass: Interestingly, fractional injected polio vaccine at 20% the normal dose, given intradermally, is being used in some countries outside the US.

merylnass: This must be where some bright bulb got the idea to dilute the monkeypox vaccine.

merylnass: What I need to emphasize is that the NYC case does not mean much, nor does the wastewater analysis showing polio in multiple water systems. Because there has probably been vaccine strain polio in wastewater for many years, and probably many people have been exposed over the years. But only about 1 in 1000 people exposed actually develops a case of polio.

merylnass: It is probably more important to keep kids out of dirty water, and avoid contamination of drinking water, which can happen when sewer lines rupture, etc.

merylnass: Dr. Sanchez asks about earlier data on wastewater. The CDC person says we are following some guidelines that tell us only to look at water around cases. DUH. Don’t look don’t tell, right? Of course they do have this data, because we found from COVID that Europeans were able to test water from the past year for evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in the year before the pandemic started.

merylnass: They kept wastewater samples. But CDC does not want to go there and admit that polio is being shed in multiple locations.

merylnass: Dooling said they tested water in CT and NJ and the water tested was negative.

merylnass: Well, for once the CDC did not tell everyone to run out and get a polio booster! Maybe there is a shortage. BTW, the injected vaccine used in the US is not nearly as effective as the live vaccine that can revert to virulence. I guess they don’t want people to get boosted and then come down with polio, showing the vaccine did not work as well as claimed.

merylnass: Till 8:30 am tomorrow. G’nite.

___________________

https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/what-will-happen-if-acip-does-recommend?

What Will Happen if ACIP Does Recommend the COVID-19 Vaccines for Children

This is a brief note of my speculative but informed expectation.

The states determine mandates, not the school.

A full ACIP recommendation for any pediatric vaccine carries the power of law under mandates in those states not smart enough to have or retain their philosophical exemptions.

That means that adults who will never take the boosters are going to have to enforce 2-3 COVID-19 shots per year in children and teens.

Never.

States will reinstate, or instate philosophical exemptions before that happens. This one will backfire and lead to more exemptions across the board.

That’s my prediction. I hope I’m right, but I could be wrong. What do you think?

__________________

**Comment**

All 50 states have different vaccine exemptions – but some don’t have any.  The three include: medical, religious, and philosophical or personal belief objections.  Go here to learn of the exemptions in your state.  Thankfully, Wisconsin has all three.

ACTION NEEDED: CDC Advisory Meeting Today

Scientists Find Antibodies That Neutralize All COVID Strains

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/10/13/antibodies-neutralize-all-covid

Scientists Find Antibodies That Neutralize All COVID Strains

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked

Story at-a-glance

  • Two antibodies have been uncovered that are so effective at neutralizing COVID-19 — and all of its variants — that they believe the antibodies could serve as an “effective substitute for vaccines”
  • The antibodies — TAU-1109 and TAU-2310 — bind to a different area of the spike protein than other antibodies, one that doesn’t undergo many mutations
  • TAU-1109 is 92% effective at neutralizing the omicron strain and 90% effective at neutralizing the delta strain
  • TAU-2310 has an efficacy rate of 84% at neutralizing omicron and a 97% efficacy rate against the delta variant
  • The researchers believe that with effective antibody treatment, “we will not have to provide booster doses to the entire population every time there is a new variant”

Researchers at Tel Aviv University revealed two antibodies that are so effective at neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 — and all of its variants — that they believe the antibodies could serve as an “effective substitute for vaccines.”1 One of the glaring failures surrounding COVID-19 shots is their lack of effectiveness against emerging COVID-19 strains.

By choosing the spike protein on which to base COVID-19 shots, scientists picked a protein that not only was known to be toxic to humans but was not the part of the virus that prompted the best immune response.

Spike protein mutates rapidly, which essentially destroys virtually any protection that the shot provides shortly after it’s given. The end result is a seemingly never-ending series of annual shots and boosters, which can only offer rapidly waning protection. If the Israeli researchers’ findings are verified and the antibodies turn out to be as effective as suspected, it could eliminate COVID-19 booster shots entirely.2

Previous Antibody Treatments Had Mixed Results

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized multiple monoclonal antibody (mAb) cocktails for the treatment of COVID-19. However, as variants emerged, their effectiveness varied, with some becoming ineffective and others retaining their activity.

“This indicates that some antibodies elicited by infection are more variation-sensitive than others, and that antibody breadth of specificity, and not only potency, should be considered,” the researchers, from the department of clinical microbiology and immunology at Tel Aviv University’s Sackler Faculty of Medicine,3 wrote in the journal Communications Biology.4

For instance, in January 2022, the FDA limited the use of two monoclonal antibody treatments — bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which are administered together, and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) — to patients infected with a variant known to be susceptible to them.5 The two antibody treatments mentioned had lost much of their effectiveness against the omicron variant, leading to the usage restriction in people infected with omicron.

On the other hand, in February 2022, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a monoclonal antibody treatment known as bebtelovimab, which retained activity against the omicron variant.6 According to the FDA:7

“Bebtelovimab works by binding to the spike protein of the virus that causes COVID-19, similar to other monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized for the treatment of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and shown a benefit in reducing the risk of hospitalization or death.”

The way the antibodies bind to the spike protein may hold the key to their ultimate effectiveness against various strains. In previous research conducted in October 2020, lead study author Natalia Freund and colleagues isolated nine antibodies from people who recovered from the original COVID-19 strain in Israel. Freund stated in a news release:8

“In the previous study, we showed that the various antibodies that are formed in response to infection with the original virus are directed against different sites of the virus. The most effective antibodies were those that bound to the virus’s ‘spike’ protein, in the same place where the spike binds the cellular receptor ACE2.

Of course, we were not the only ones to isolate these antibodies, and the global health system made extensive use of them until the arrival of the different variants of the coronavirus, which in fact rendered most of those antibodies useless.”

Two Antibodies Neutralize All COVID-19 Strains

The featured study picks up where the October 2020 study left off, revealing two antibodies — TAU-1109 and TAU-2310 — that bind to a different area of the spike protein — one that doesn’t undergo many mutations — making them capable of neutralizing all known strains of COVID-19. According to Freund:9

“In the current study, we proved that two other antibodies, TAU-1109 and TAU-2310, which bind the viral spike protein in a different area from the region where most of the antibodies were concentrated until now (and were therefore less effective in neutralizing the original strain) are actually very effective in neutralizing the Delta and Omicron variants.”

Specifically, they found TAU-1109 is 92% effective at neutralizing the omicron strain and 90% effective at neutralizing the delta strain. TAU-2310 has an efficacy rate of 84% at neutralizing omicron and a 97% efficacy rate against the delta variant.10 The study was conducted in collaboration with the University of California at San Diego, where the two antibodies were sent for additional testing against live viruses in laboratory cultures.

The antibodies were also tested against pseudoviruses at Bar-Ilan University in the Galilee. “The results were identical and equally encouraging in both tests,” according to a news release.11 What’s interesting is that the mutating virus may have played a part in making the two antibodies so effective. Freund explained:12

“The infectivity of the virus increased with each variant because each time, it changed the amino acid sequence of the part of the spike protein that binds to the ACE2 receptor, thereby increasing its infectivity and at the same time evading the natural antibodies that were created following vaccinations.

In contrast, the antibodies TAU-1109 and TAU-2310 don’t bind to the ACE2 receptor binding site, but to another region of the spike protein – an area of the viral spike that for some reason does not undergo many mutations – and they are therefore effective in neutralizing more viral variants. These findings emerged as we tested all the known COVID strains to date.”

COVID Booster Shots Are Not the Answer

Freund believes that the antibodies are so effective they could ultimately replace COVID-19 booster shots. This is welcome news, as most protection gained from COVID-19 shots, including boosters, doesn’t last.

One study funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention involved data from 10 states collected from August 26, 2021, to January 22, 2022, periods during which both the delta and omicron variants were circulating.13 Within two months of the second COVID-19 shot, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits related to COVID-19 was at 69%. This dropped to 37% after five months post-shot.

The low effectiveness five months after the initial shot series is what prompted officials to recommend a booster dose — and the third shot “boosted” effectiveness to 87%. This boost was short-lived, however. Within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) visits decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.14

Rather than admitting defeat, health officials are planning to hand out even more doses of their embarrassingly ineffective boosters with new so-called “updated” shots. On August 31, 2022, the FDA amended the EUAs of Moderna and Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots to authorize bivalent formulations to be used as booster doses at least two months after a previous booster or primary serious of the shots.

“The bivalent vaccines, which we will also refer to as “updated boosters,” contain two messenger RNA (mRNA) components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 and the other one in common between the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages of the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2,” the FDA stated.15

In addition to the strong possibility that protection against COVID-19 will once again rapidly disappear following the booster, there’s a real risk of serious adverse events from repeatedly artificially inflating antibodies in your body via repeated booster shots.

This tricks your body into thinking it’s always infected with COVID-19, a condition that can only lead to a “death zone,” accelerating the development of autoimmune conditions such as Parkinson’s, Kawasaki disease and multiple sclerosis, according to tech leader and COVID analyst Marc Girardot, who urged a retreat from the COVID shot “death zone” before it’s too late.16

With Antibody Treatment ‘We Will Not Have to’ Use ‘Boosters’

There may be a light at the end of the tunnel, as Freund is confident the “cross-neutralizing capabilities of antibodies naturally elicited during wild type SARS-CoV-2 infection” may end up providing an alternative to booster shots. She stated:17

“For reasons we still don’t yet fully understand, the level of antibodies against COVID-19 declines significantly after three months, which is why we see people getting infected again and again, even after being vaccinated three times.

In our view, targeted treatment with antibodies and their delivery to the body in high concentrations can serve as an effective substitute for repeated boosters, especially for at-risk populations and those with weakened immune systems.

COVID-19 infection can cause serious illness, and we know that providing antibodies in the first days following infection can stop the spread of the virus. It is therefore possible that by using effective antibody treatment, we will not have to provide booster doses to the entire population every time there is a new variant.”

Natural Immunity Is Key

This is encouraging, though not exactly surprising considering what’s known about natural immunity — the type earned by recovering from infection. A 2022 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)18 is just one example of research showing natural COVID-19 immunity is not only effective but lasts longer than the immunity that’s acquired from COVID-19 shots.19

What’s more, prior COVID-19 infection — i.e., natural immunity — offered better protection against symptomatic omicron infection more than one year later than three doses of COVID-19 shots did after one month.

To put it into numbers, a graph in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that previous infection was 54.9% effective against symptomatic omicron infection after more than 12 months, while three doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot were only 44.7% effective a month later. The same held true for three doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 shot, which were only 41.2 % effective after one month, compared to 53.5% effectiveness for natural immunity more than a year later.20

Another one of the most talked-about reports showing the superiority of natural immunity involved data presented July 17, 2021, to the Israeli Health Ministry, which revealed that, of more than 7,700 COVID-19 cases reported, only 72 occurred in people who had previously had COVID-19 — a rate of less than 1%. In contrast, more than 3,000 cases — or approximately 40% — occurred in people who had received a COVID-19 shot.21

In other words, those who were vaccinated were nearly 700% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those who had natural immunity from a prior infection.22

Why is there a good chance you haven’t heard about this news? Repeated booster shots equate to ongoing dollar signs for Big Pharma and the health agencies and officials it controls. So it remains to be seen whether an antibody treatment that targets every COVID-19 variant effectively will ever see the light of day in hospitals and outpatient clinics.

For more:

Record Numbers of Tick-borne Diseases in Maine This Year

https://www.lymedisease.org/tick-borne-diseases-in-maine/

Record numbers of tick-borne diseases in Maine this year

Sept. 30, 2022

Maine is on track to break records for several tick-borne diseases this year.

In a news release this week, the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 1,900 cases of Lyme disease so far in 2022. This compares to about 1,500 last year.

The agency also recorded nearly 700 cases of anaplasmosis, over 160 cases of babesiosis, 10 cases of hard tick relapsing fever and four cases of Powassan encephalitis.

“This is a record high for Powassan encephalitis cases,” the agency said. “Maine is also on track to break records for anaplasmosis, babesiosis and Lyme disease cases this year.”

For more:

The Powerful Mob Behind State Medical Boards & Lawsuits Reveal Orwellian ‘Disinfo’ Campaign

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/10/15/a-powerful-mob-behind-state-medical-boards

The Powerful Mob Behind State Medical Boards

Analysis by Tessa Lena

Story at-a-glance

  • The Federation of State Medical Boards is a very influential private nonprofit whose official mission is vaguely defined as “representing the state medical and osteopathic regulatory boards”
  • Through their influence and their significant lobbying efforts, they act as a force for censoring and punishing physicians who don’t toe the official party line
  • Since 1990s, FSMB has been attacking “alternative” medicine practitioners
  • This organization is said to have significantly contributed to the problem of opioid crisis
  • Recently, FSMB was exposed by a Dr. Bruce Dooley, an American doctor in New Zealand

https://rumble.com/v1lbjvd-the-dark-truth-of-americas-federation-of-state-medical-boards.html  Video Here (Approx. 1 Hour 30 Min)

Dr. Bruce Dooley, an American Doctor in New Zealand

Recently, Bruce Dooley, an American doctor in New Zealand, exposed the role of the Federation of State Medical Boards — an influential American NGO — in shaping not just American but also international health policy in favor of Big Pharma, all under the guise of “protecting” patients’ rights.

Using Censorship and Mob Tactics to Protect Big Pharma

You might have heard that last year, the Federation pushed for harsh censorship and persecution of independently-thinking physicians. In July 2021, it released the following statement:

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not.

They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession and puts all patients at risk.”

Taking a cue from FSMB, in September 2021, the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), and the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) issued a statement of support of FSMB’s position, while hinting that “misinformation” really meant any medical opinion that did not support the pharma-friendly establishment views.

Then in April 2022, FSMB released another statement whose Orwellian hypocrisy is in a league of its own. This is how it started:

“Truthful and accurate information is central to the provision of quality medical care. It is instrumental for obtaining informed consent from patients and supports the trust that patients hold in the medical profession.

Honesty, truthfulness and transparency are virtues that society expects of all health professionals, and they are traits that are indispensable to physicians carrying out their professional responsibilities and interacting with patients and the public.

False information is harmful and dangerous to patients, and to the public trust in the medical profession, especially when licensed physicians disseminate misinformation or disinformation about a disease or illness, including its prevention, management or treatment …”

“Physicians must remain objective and impartial in the delivery of information and in selecting or curating information that is deemed relevant to patient care and public health. If a treatment is recommended over alternatives, the recommendation must be based in scientific evidence, rather than opinion or motives that do not benefit the patient’s health or that of the public.”

Good words, right? However, here is the conclusion they drew:

“While respect for patient autonomy is an essential component of the physician-patient relationship, neither the patient’s autonomy, nor the physician’s professional autonomy, is absolute. Only reasonable [by whose standards?] requests on the part of the patient should be granted, and only scientifically justified [again, by whose standards?] treatment options should be recommended by the physician.”

They also used their original language and stated, again, that physicians who spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation risk “disciplinary action, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license.” So much for honesty, scientific integrity, and informed consent!

And just a few days ago, on September 24, 2022, the President and CEO of FSMB, Humayun Chaudhry, delivered a talk at a plenary session at the ABMS Conference 2022 on the topic of “Misinformation in Health Care: The Implications for Professionalism and the Public Trust.” Follow the science, sigh. Do as I say and not as I do?

In the meanwhile, in California, the alarming Assembly Bill 2098 was passed by the California Senate on August 29 2022 and is now awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature. The bill is seeking to “designate the dissemination of misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or “COVID-19,” as unprofessional conduct.”

Upside-Down Language

Upside-down language is a technique that “hacks” our instincts in order to trick us into acting against our best interests.

“Upside-down language is treacherous because in the natural world, the method of “disguising as a friend in order to catch prey” is strictly a hunting technique — but today, the power holders apply it across the board, to the entire population. Which then, if we think about it honestly, makes it clear what kind of relationship we’ve been having with the Machine.”

The Federation of State Medical Boards has perfected this method to a fascinating degree. They seems to be loyal to the prestigious goal of protecting the interests of the owners of the pharmaceutical industry — but they are wrapping their pro-Big-Pharma campaigns in the warm and fuzzy language about protecting the rights and the safety of the patient. For shame …

Who Is FSMB, Anyway?

FSMB is a private organization with a nonprofit status whose official mission is very vaguely defined as “representing the state medical and osteopathic regulatory boards – commonly referred to as state medical boards – within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia.”

In their own words, it “supports its member boards as they fulfill their mandate of protecting the public’s health, safety and welfare through the proper licensing, disciplining, and regulation of physicians and, in most jurisdictions, other health care professionals.”

”The FSMB serves as a national voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, data, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best practices.”

What does it mean? Like I said in my earlier Substack, “in what capacity, and by what authority, does this influential group represent and support state medical boards?” Who knows.

To add more detail from the Alliance for Natural Health, they are a “private 501(c)(6) trade association that purports to represent the seventy state medical and osteopathic boards of the US and its territories, and cosponsors the United States Medical Licensing Examination.

It is tremendously powerful: whatever it suggests in terms of medical care policies are often adopted by the state medical boards. A private trade association with no public funding, transparency, or accountability arguably has the power to interpret state medical law and grant or revoke medical licenses!”

History of FSMB

FSMB was created in 1912, on the tail of the 1910 Flexner report that was commissioned by the Rockefeller interests and used to “consolidate” the American (and then international) medical industry “under the boot of the likes of the Rockefellers.” The sources of FSMB’s funding seem to be veiled in secrecy, short of the publicly available information on the nonprofit directory Guidestar. Dr. Paul Martin Kempen provided some more insight into the FSMB and wrote:

“Despite the implications of its name, the Federation of State Medical Boards, Inc. (FSMB … is not a governmental authority. None of these entities have official legislative or regulatory power afforded by any federal or state government. FSMB, however, uses its contacts and influence with state medical boards (SMBs) to advance its corporate products. This may be called ‘crony capitalism.’”

FSMB’s Lobbying

According to ProPublica, the list of agencies it lobbies since 2010 includes the following:

“U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, Centers For Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Centers For Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Food & Drug Administration (FDA), Health & Human Services – Dept of (HHS), Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Agency for Health Care Policy & Research, Office of Natl Drug Control Policy (NDCP), Veterans Affairs – Dept of (VA), White House Office, Defense – Dept of (DOD), Natl Institutes of Health (NIH), Executive Office of the President (EOP), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Government Accountability Office (GAO), Justice – Dept of (DOJ), Defense – Dept of (DOD), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Homeland Security – Dept of (DHS), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Office of the Vice President of the United States, Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP), Indian Health Service, Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Transportation – Dept of (DOT), Education – Dept of, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).”

And here is a partial list of bills:

partial list of bills

It is worth noting that they also seem to be on a mission to attack hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Case in point: two bills that they list on their website as their key “advocacy” issues:

bills

On a side note, here is a comprehensive article by Dr. Meryl Nass about the attack on hydroxychloroquine, and here is another, also comprehensive, article by Dr. Pierre Kory about the attack on ivermectin. Both are worth checking out!

FSMB’s Role in the Opioid Crisis

In her recent Substack, Dr. Colleen Huber described the lawsuit of the brave pediatrician, Dr. Paul Thomas, and his Amended Complaint that “goes into detail about the nefarious acts of this outfit, and its attempts to throw the kitchen sink and all the dishes in it against doctors who question the vaccine narrative.”

Here is a quote from Dr. Thomas’ Amended Complaint in which he details the direct involvement of the Federation of State Medical Boards in the creation of the opioid crisis:

128. The Federation of State Medical Boards (“Federation”) is a secretive, private, and powerful organization located in Texas. The Federation is not transparent and is unaccountable to the public. The Federation claims to represent the state medical boards in the United States and support them. In fact, the Federation wields an enormous about of power over the practice of medicine in all 50 States.

129. The Federation is funded and controlled by big pharmaceutical companies. According to poll data, Big Pharma is the least trusted industry. The Federation serves to whitewash Big Pharma’s narrative and control the state medical boards to the benefit of Big Pharma. The Federation does the bidding of Big Pharma. For example, the Federation played a major role in the disastrous opiate crisis.

130. Led by Purdue Pharma, the maker of Oxycontin, opiate manufacturers gave almost $2 million to the Federation. During the time this money was pouring in, the Federation wrote new guidelines for opiate prescribing, in which it explained that what looked like addiction was not really addiction.

The guidelines included this statement: “Millions of Americans suffer from debilitating pain – a condition that, for some, can be relieved through the use of opioids.”

131. The Federation pressured medical boards to adopt the new guidelines. It created continuing medical education courses to teach doctors to prescribe more opioids to their patents. It sought to reassure doctors that following the new guidelines would reduce the likelihood of disciplinary action. Indeed, the Federation encouraged state medical boards to discipline doctors for the undertreatment of pain.

132. The Federation also promoted a book titled “Responsible Opioid Prescribing” based on its guidelines designed to encourage the broad use of opioids for non-terminal patients. The Federation encouraged the overprescribing and worsening of the opioid addiction. A four-fold increase in prescribing opioids was associated with a four-fold increase in opioid related overdose deaths.

133. The Federation was a primary purveyor of misinformation about opiates that caused a man-made epidemic of addition and death. The opioid epidemic was caused by an industry-funded campaign to encourage opioid prescribing in which the Federation had a prominent role.

134. The Federation promotes whatever is in the interests of Big Pharma. It is part of the cartel of entities that banded to together to falsely assert that the COVID-19 vaccines were safe, effective, and necessary. It labels as “misinformation” anything that would create public hesitancy in taking a vaccine, including childhood or COVID vaccines.

To the Federation, “misinformation” about vaccines represents any statement or scientific evidence that differs from the prevailing narrative of stakeholders who most stand to profit from vaccines. The Federation encourages state boards to discipline any doctor who shares information contrary to the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies.

135. The Federation has undue influence over the discipline of doctors by the state medical boards. It publishes the Guide to Medical Regulation in the United States. Guidance on physician discipline from the Federation become de facto requirements to state medical boards. The Federation publishes a quarterly journal titled “Journal of Medical Regulation.”

More detail from a 2012 article published by the Alliance for Natural Health: “the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today reported [in February 2012] that the FSMB asked for $100,000 from Big Pharma to help create and distribute the organization’s new policy on pain medication to their 700,000 practicing doctors. The federation won’t say how much money it received from industry, but estimated that it will cost $3.1 million for its campaign.”

“And what is this campaign? To get the word out about ‘safe’ use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic pain! That’s right, FSMB’s new policy favors the use of opioids for long-term pain management, despite an epidemic of painkiller abuse and addiction (not to mention the terrible crime rates that accompany it) — and a lack of scientific support for this use of the drugs.”

“If you think drug manufacturers might be pleased to contribute to such a campaign, you would be right. The University of Wisconsin, with funding from Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, developed a continuing education course for doctors based on the FSMB’s manual.

This is the drug company that in 2007 paid $600 million in fines in settlement of a guilty plea for having misled doctors and patients when it claimed that the drug was less likely to be abused than traditional narcotics.”

Safe and effective, and by that they seemingly meant, “lucrative and addictive!”

War on Natural Medicine

According to the same 2012 overview by the Alliance for Natural Health:

“It seems that the FSMB was infiltrated in the late 1990s by the so-called “quackbuster” contingent — people openly hostile to complementary and alternative medicine. At the 1996 annual meeting of the FSMB in Chicago, there was a radical shift from a focus on health fraud as defined by the federal government (overbilling, un-bundling, and kickbacks) to another definition of health fraud: alternative medical care.

It seems a concerted effort to label innovation in health care — and especially any natural treatment that competes with an emphasis on drugs and surgery as the ideal for modern medicine — as mere ‘quackery.’”

“Since then, the FSMB has challenged integrative medicine as being outside the “standard of care,” defining the term to suit its own purposes; in this, the organization mirrors and amplifies the American Medical Association’s antipathy toward integrative medicine.

Because practicing outside the standard of care is grounds for a state medical board to revoke a doctor’s license, the attempt to exclude CAM therapies from the standard of care is a major threat to consumers’ access to integrative doctors.”

“If we used to be puzzled about the FSMB’s motives in attacking integrative medicine, this latest move has made it clear that a good part of it may just be about the money. Last Tuesday the article was published in 2012], the Senate Finance Committee launched an investigation into the close ties between pharmaceutical companies, the FSMB, and “nonprofit pain groups” like the American Pain Foundation.

The Foundation received 90 percent of its $5 million in funding in 2010 from the drug and medical device industry, and its guides for patients, journalists, and policymakers downplay the risks associated with opioid painkillers while exaggerating the benefits from the drugs.

Tuesday morning, two senators from the Finance Committee sent letters to the American Pain Foundation and four other pain nonprofits, three drug companies, and the FSMB, expressing concern about their relationship with each other. Tuesday evening, the Foundation announced that it would “cease to exist, effective immediately.” Coincidence?”

Earlier 1995, FSMB established a “Special Committee on Health Care Fraud” and issued a document that lamented the fact that people were taking their money to alternative health practitioners. In 1999, the committee’s name was changed to the “Special Committee on Questionable and Deceptive Health Care Practices.”

In 2000, the committee appears to have been replaced by the “Special Committee for the Study of Unconventional Health Care Practices (Complementary and Alternative Medicine).”

The 1995 Committee document below was eventually deleted from the FBSM website but an archived version is still available. In April 1997, FSMB’s governing body accepted this Report as policy. Quote:

“It has been estimated that up to $100 billion is lost to health care fraud in the United States annually.1 Medical interventions that do not conform to prevailing scientific standards are becoming increasingly popular. It is estimated that in 1990, Americans made 425 million visits to providers of “unconventional” medicine, exceeding the number of visits to all U.S. primary care physicians, at a cost of approximately $13.7 billion.

It may be recognized that some alternative therapies may be beneficial and therefore warrant further investigation and possible integration into mainstream medical practice. However, because of the lack of reliable scientific evidence and clinical validation, safety has not been established for most of these modalities.”

Their 2002 document elaborates on the extended definition of “harm” that can come from their competitors — but not a peep about the harm that comes from their donors and sponsors. Here is how they estimate potential harm caused my “alternative” medicine:

  • Economic harm, which results in monetary loss but presents no health hazard;
  • Indirect harm, which results in a delay of appropriate treatment, or in unreasonable expectations that discourage patients and their families from accepting and dealing effectively with their medical conditions;
  • Direct harm, which results in adverse patient outcome

Greed and Arrogance: A Deadly Combo

As they say, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Thus, today’s lamentable state of affairs is a combination of deliberate top-down racketeering with the purpose of getting rid of economic competition — and sincere ideological arrogance of people on the ground. Just one look at some of these old commercials makes it clear.

I would like to end this story with a 1947 DDT commercial. Shut your eyes and ears. Don’t think. Anything that comes from the Big Corporate Father is safe and effective!

About the Author

To find more of Tessa Lena’s work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.

__________________

**Comment**

In case you believe this to be over the top, please know it’s happened before. 

Organized medicine spent nearly a century and unknown millions trying to discredit and destroy chiropractic.  Today the vestiges of suppression are still found that ignore the body of peer-reviewed research supporting chiropractic care.

In short, in 1976, Chester Wilk, D.C. and four other chiropractors (one later dropped out) filed suit against the AMA and codefendants such as the American Hospital Association, the American College of Surgeons, the American College of Physicians, and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals for conspiring to destroy chiropractic.

In 1987, a federal appellate court judge ruled that the AMA had engaged in a “lengthy, systematic, successful and unlawful boycott” designed to restrict cooperation between MDs and chiropractors designed to eliminate the profession of chiropractic as a competitor in the US health care system.

  • The AMA offered a patient care defense; however, data from Workman’s Compensation Bureau studies served to validate chiropractic care. Specifically, studies comparing chiropractic care to care by a medical physician were presented which showed that chiropractors were “twice as effective as medical physicians, for comparable injuries, in returning injured workers to work at every level of injury severity.”

  • The settlement of the suit included an injunctive order in which the AMA was instructed to cease its efforts to restrict the professional association of chiropractors and AMA members. The AMA was also ordered to notify its 275,000 members of the court’s injunction. In addition, the American Hospital Association (AHA) sent out 440,000 separate notices to inform hospitals across the United States that the AHA has no objection to allowing chiropractic care in hospitals.

  • Since the court findings and conclusions were released, a growing number of medical doctors, hospitals, and health care organizations in the United States have begun including the services of chiropractors.  Source

Monopolizing medicine has been going on for decades but has become extremely overt during the COVID ‘plandemic’.  The FSMB and public health have become monolithic monsters.  If the corrupt public health monopoly isn’t broken soon, independent doctors will become extinct which will spell doom for Lyme/MSIDS patients and other patients who don’t fit into an allopathic four-cornered box.  Mainstream doctors have become little more than puppets who don’t actually practice medicine, but simply follow orders from a tyrannical task master.  Three medical boards are currently being sued for threatening doctors who are critical of official positions on COVID policy.  The outcome should concern everyone, but particularly Lyme/MSIDS patients who are forced to go outside mainstream medicine to get real help.

These independent doctors are our life-line and must be protected.

__________________

https://greenmedinfo.com/blog/breaking-orwellian-disinfo-campaign-revealed-major-lawsuits-culprits-still-admit-

BREAKING: Orwellian ‘Disinfo’ Campaign Revealed in Major Lawsuits; Culprits Still Admit ZERO Fault

Monday, October 17th 2022

Written By:  Sayer Ji, Founder

This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2022

Dozens of federal officials, along with senior social media executives, are finally being held accountable for colluding to suppress both the Constitutional and medical rights of US citizens. Could the as-of-yet unidentified ‘shadowy, foreign money group’ actors behind organizations such as the Center for Countering Digital Hate be next?

On March 21, 2021, a shadowy foreign group calling itself the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), published a document titled, “THE DISINFORMATION DOZEN: Why platforms must act on twelve leading online anti-vaxxers,” claiming that only 12 individuals are responsible for the majority of the anti-vaccine content online, namely, the document stated: “Just twelve anti-vaxxers are responsible for almost two-thirds of anti-vaccine content circulating on social media platforms.” 

Since then, not only have thousands of news articles republished CCDH’s accusations, and used their document as justification to publicly defame, vilify and deplatform these individuals – including the White House press secretary, the U.S. Surgeon General, the President of the US, and 14 State Attorney Generalsbut Facebook openly refuted CCDH’s statistics, both publicly in a statement given by their VP of Content Policy Monika Bickert on August 18th, and privately in an HHS email to a FB executive on August 8, 2021, proving them to be without any basis in fact. 

Despite this, no apology or correction has been issued by CCDH, nor have any of hundreds of media outlets published a retraction of their defamatory statements. Furthermore, government officials who accused myself, and the other named individuals and organizations of egregious acts, including violence, have not issued any statement reflective of the new evidence that has been provided.

To the contrary, Homeland Security has issued National Terrorism Advisory System bulletins indicating that anyone who openly questions COVID vaccine safety or efficacy may now be classifed as a domestic terrorist. Until the origin lies, defamation, and depravation of rights we experience are openly addressed and remedied, many millions more Americans will likely face similar treatment, which may include warrantless surveillance, unjustified censorship, and perhaps more egregious sactions such as debanking (which I have personnally experienced since being targeted via Paypal and Venmo).

The good news, however, is that two new lawsuits are now shedding light on the actual disinformation agents behind the campaign to defame US citizens, such as myself, for exercising our First Amendment rights, and the right to informed consent. These include dozens of federal officials and senior social media employees who colluded, behind the scenes, to suppress the free speech of US citizens in such a way that it directly violated their access to information required for informed consent – a medical ethical principle established as a direct result of the Nuremburg trials in an international effort to prevent future medical atrociticies from ever happening again.

(See link for the evidence the lawsuits have brought forth)

An update on the lawsuit reveals that states are seeking to depose Fauci and other officials in the Big Tech-Government censorship case.