Legal Updates (USA)
Ministry of Truth Redux, Ivermectin lawsuit
Well, the last month or so spent watching the Kabuki theater of corporate media-Washington DC Uniparty machinations has certainly been “interesting”. “Interesting” as in the curse “may you live in interesting times”. We have seen remarkably unified and coordinated corporate media virtue signaling regarding Ukraine fall off as the underlying truths of this surrogate foreign adventure are revealed and as Biden administration polling continues to sink. In what may be a first in recent memory, the Military-Industrial complex tail seems to have failed to wag the dog. Raytheon should probably sue Pfizer for poisoning the well.
And then we have the curious case of a surge of coordinated multichannel fearporn concerning a Monkeypox outbreak (not the first in recent US History), which was triggered by a massive gay pride Rave party in the Canary Islands (“Maspalomas Gay Pride”) that took place from May 05 to May 15, 2022. Suffice to say, this initiative also seems to be losing steam, perhaps in part due to the curiously large number of mutations found in this particular Monkeypox variant, combined with its low pathogenicity. Various memes are springing up referencing the story of the shepherd that repeatedly cried “Wolf”. At this point in time, the CDC and White House continue to raise the alarm, warning of community spread. However, in an unusual concession to reality, the CDC is also clearly signaling that airborne transmission of MonkeyPox is not a real threat. Of course inconvenient scientific facts have not stopped CDC mask mandates in the past. Per CNBC:
“This is not COVID,” Dr. Jennifer McQuiston, a CDC official, said.
“Respiratory spread is not the predominant worry. It is contact and intimate contact in the current outbreak setting and population.”
So, there is that to be thankful for. As my friend JP Sears likes to say in his “news” broadcasts, “Moving On…”
Then we have the US Department of Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board (aka Ministry of Truth), a profoundly Orwellian creation within the same agency which previously defined the distribution of “mis- dis- and mal-information” by American Citizens exercising the First Amendment of the US Constitution to be an act of domestic terrorism. This sad chapter in American history was previously detailed here. The recent “temporary” demise of that twisted bureaucratic logic, proposed to be headed up by the profoundly unqualified social media songbird Nina Jankowicz (Ms.?- approved pronoun not known at publication time), was mourned by none other than Pravda on the Potomac, ergo the old media propaganda outlet previously known as The Washington Post. Pravda deeply regrets the temporary “pause” of this “Disinformation Board”, while blaming far-right Republicans for objecting to a clear First Amendment breach by the federal bureaucracy. For some reason, setting up and funding an office in the Department of Homeland Security designed to identify, single out and retaliate against citizens guilty of causing the general populace to become concerned about the actions of the Bureaucracy, so that such miscreants can be labeled domestic terrorists with all of the associated benefits, was not to the liking of that corporate-government propaganda outlet. Cheeky bastards, those far-right radicals!
Unfortunately, the WaPo copy regurgitators did not get the memo that they were supposed to use the new focus group-tested label “Ultra-MAGA”, rather than “far right”, for those who think that the US Constitution should be obeyed by the Bureaucracy. The problem being, of course, that when the Democratic party has been captured and jerked far, far from the political center of the country by the truly far left, almost everyone (including free speech advocate Elon Musk) looks far right. Or at least the 60+% of the electorate that is not buying what the Biden regime is trying to sell them. The solution to which Biden/Democratic party problem will apparently be found by relabeling people who believe in following the law as “Ultra-MAGA” rather than “far right”.
But like a vampire that stays alive by drinking the lifeblood of the first amendment, this monster refuses to die. This is either an attempted rebirth of the DHS initiative within the HHS, or was this bill intended to serve as the HHS partner to the DHS vampire? Why can you never find a good wooden stake when you need it?
During the ides of March, 2022, the Honorable Senator Christopher Murphy (D/Uniparty-CT), working together with his colleague Senator Lujan, introduced Senate Bill S.3737, the “Promoting Public Health Information Act”. Why do they always name these sorts of things the opposite of what they are intended to do? If the US Senate were to pass a truth in labeling act for their bills, this gem should be titled the “Promoting Public Health Censorship and Propaganda by Committee Act”. These two gentlemen propose that their collective work product (that was sarcasm) be enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress, and that it be funded to the tune of 45 million (borrowed) US Dollars per year for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2027. Working the math, 45 million x 5 years would be… $225 million. Now most regular people know that $225 million US Dollars will go a pretty long way to solving many different short-term problems. For example, that sum would buy a heck of a lot of baby formula. Or diesel fuel. Or fertilizer. But Mr. Murphy and Mr. Lujan think that it is more important that the US Government borrows and then spends $225M on a committee tasked with “Promoting Public Health Information”. Let’s take a moment to see how these gentlemen propose to achieve that which the CDC is already funded to do, but which apparently is unable to achieve to the satisfaction of Mr. Murphy and Mr. Lujan. For example, just recently we learned that the CDC and HHS has spent about $1,000M on a massive media buy with an added spritzer of propaganda, coercion, defamation and social media censorship to promote vaccine uptake and mandate compliance (as revealed in response to a Blaze media Freedom of Information Act filing).
Clearly, what is needed is an additional $225M worth of more bureaucracy in the form of an advisory committee over the next five years to further the cause. The logic apparently being that if you cannot get full compliance with the arbitrary, capricious and illegal public health mandates which HHS and the CDC attempted to impose on US Citizens since Mr. Biden swore an oath to protect the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, then an additional $225M worth of advice and political cover should do the trick.
So, what do they propose to purchase for $225M over five years? Basically, a censorship and propaganda advisory committee (cleverly designed so that the Bureaucracy and Secretary HHS can avoid any blame for forthcoming recommendations), together with various experts appointed by the Bureaucracy and Secretary HHS. Those who have watched the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices or the FDA Vaccines Advisory Committee over the past couple of years know how this game works. Frankly, as an expert in writing and reviewing Federal HHS contract proposals, I think that this will likely require far more than $45M/year. These sorts of initiatives tend to take on a self-perpetuating and ever-expanding life of their own. Read for yourself below, while keeping in mind the pretzel logic and Orwellian language distortions which we have all been unintentionally trained by HHS to recognize over the last couple of years:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Promoting Public Health Information Act”.
SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HEALTH COMMUNICATION.
Section 319F of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d–6) is amended—
(1) in subsection (b), to read as follows:
“(b) Public Health Information And Communications Advisory Committee.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish an advisory committee to be known as the Public Health Information and Communications Advisory Committee (referred to in this subsection as the ‘Advisory Committee’).
“(2) DUTIES.—The Advisory Committee shall make recommendations to the Secretary and report on—
“(A) critical aspects of communication and dissemination of scientific and evidence-based public health information during public health emergencies, including—
“(i) the role and impact of misinformation on the response to such public health emergencies;
“(ii) the role of risk communication before and during such public health emergencies; and
“(iii) other relevant factors, as the Secretary determines appropriate;
“(B) information from academic institutions, community-based organizations, and other nongovernmental organizations related to evidence-based or evidence-informed strategies and best practices to effectively communicate and disseminate such information; and
“(C) strategies to improve communication and dissemination of scientific and evidence-based public health information to the public, and, as appropriate, to address misinformation during public health emergencies, including strategies to—
“(i) identify the most effective methods for the dissemination of information during a public health emergency;
“(ii) determine best practices and communicate information to populations that may be impacted by such misinformation; and
“(iii) adapt approaches for the dissemination of information, as appropriate, to address emerging trends related to misinformation.
“(3) COMPOSITION.—The Advisory Committee shall be composed of—
“(A) appropriate Federal officials, appointed by the Secretary, who shall serve as nonvoting members; and
“(B) individuals, appointed by the Secretary, with expertise in public health, medicine, communications, related technology, psychology, national security, and other areas, as the Secretary determines appropriate, who shall serve as voting members.
“(4) DISSEMINATION.—The Secretary shall review the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and, not later than 180 days after receipt of the report under paragraph (2), shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report describing any actions planned by the Secretary related to the communication and dissemination of scientific and evidence-based public health information, including addressing misinformation, as appropriate.
“(5) TERMINATION.—The Advisory Committee shall terminate 4 years after the date of enactment of the Promoting Public Health Information Act.”;
(2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g);
(3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
“(f) Educational Initiatives.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall award assistance for the development of evidence-based initiatives to promote fact-based public health and medical science information to the public and educate the public on how to identify misinformation, disinformation, and credible information.
“(2) CONSULTATION.—In developing the initiatives under this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with—
“(A) the Public Health Information and Communications Advisory Committee established under subsection (b);
“(B) experts in the fields of public health and medicine, communication, technology, behavioral science, and other relevant disciplines as appropriate; and
“(C) relevant Federal agencies, as appropriate.
“(3) REQUIREMENTS.—The initiatives established under this subsection shall—
“(A) be an evidence-based or evidence-informed media and public engagement initiative that includes partnerships with national and local organizations;
“(B) ensure that official scientific and public health guidance is accessible and communicated effectively to the public with specific focus on populations that are underserved or with low health literacy; and
“(C) ensure that activities are tailored towards subgroups that are being targeted for health misinformation and disinformation, or are especially susceptible to health misinformation and disinformation, in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner.”; and
(4) by adding at the end of subsection (g), as so redesignated, the following:
“(3) FUNDING FOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES.—There are authorized to be appropriated $45,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2027 for purposes of carrying out subsections (b) and (f).”.
After reading this, all I can say is “buyer beware”. Please call up your Senators and Congressional representatives and let them know what you think of this piece of work.
As for myself, I think that Senate Bill S.3737 deserves a quick trip to the dustbin of history, and Senators Murphy and Lujan should be reminded during their next election cycle they have also sworn to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and should heed that oath.
As for Senators Murphy and Lujan, they would be well served to remember that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Their little $225M five-year committee could easily become weaponized against them (and the hidden sponsors of this bill whose interests they serve) if and when the opposition gains the upper hand. Sometimes legislative discretion can be the better part of valor. They should just say “no”, while reminding their disappointed masters of this wisdom. Just think, by dropping this proposal, they could claim to have saved federal taxpayers (in other words you and me) $225M + interest! Sounds like a win-win to me.
Doctors Sue FDA Over Unlawful Attempts to Prohibit Ivermectin Use
For Immediate Release: June 2, 2022
Galveston, TX – Today, a group of doctors filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, and Robert M. Califf in his official capacity as Commissioner of Food and Drugs, over the FDA’s unlawful attempts to prohibit the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
The plaintiffs, Drs. Robert L. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden, and Paul E. Marik argue the FDA acted outside of its authority and illegally interfered with their ability to practice medicine by directing the public, including health professionals and patients, to not use ivermectin, a drug that has received full FDA approval for human use.
Dr. Mary Bowden responded to today’s filing, stating:
“Since the pandemic began, I have had one mission - help my patients. I provided access to testing when testing was hard to find. I provided treatment when other doctors told my patients to stay home. I have kept over 3,900 patients out of the hospital, but it hasn’t been easy. Sadly, fighting the system has been a much bigger challenge than fighting the disease. Despite my excellent track record treating COVID patients, the FDA’s smear campaign against ivermectin continues to be a daily hurdle to overcome. I am fighting back - the public needs to understand what the FDA has done is illegal, and I hope this suit will prevent them from continuing to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship.”
“If doctors are freed to treat patients according to their best judgment and unprejudiced evaluation of the medical literature, many thousands more deaths and serious disabilities will be averted,” said Dr. Robert Apter. “Pronouncements from the FDA against the use of ivermectin have been the basis for disciplinary actions against doctors, interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, and have had a severe chilling effect on the use of life-saving medication for a deadly disease.”
Dr. Paul Marik commented
“The FDA’s public statements on ivermectin have been misleading and raised unwarranted concern over a critical drug in preventing and treating COVID-19. The agency felt compelled to use language to discourage any discourse and interest in using ivermectin as a front-line treatment of COVID-19. To do this is to ignore both statutory limits on the FDA’s authority and the significant body of scientific evidence from peer-reviewed research, over 80 medical trials, and results from ivermectin’s use in medical settings worldwide, showing the safe and effective use of the drug in fighting COVID-19,”
The full complaint can be viewed here.
Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.