• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I'm not confused. I quoted McBell, but the post ended up attributing his words to you.

I'm aware that you have nothing more that ad hominemns and slurs. You don't have to be an epidemiologist to recognise poisoning.
And all you apparently have to add to the conversation are discredited studies, non-peer reviewed pre-print articles and bogus, unverifiable claims.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
In a landmark case, an appellate court judge has ruled that physicians threatened by credentialing boards for speaking out against Covid policies and abortion have sufficient standing in court.

 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In a landmark case, an appellate court judge has ruled that physicians threatened by credentialing boards for speaking out against Covid policies and abortion have sufficient standing in court.


I get the strong impression that all you are doing is spamming since so many of your links necessitate payments, such as with the above.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
I get the strong impression that all you are doing is spamming since so many of your links necessitate payments, such as with the above.
You don't know what you are talking about, the full article was freely available. Here it is:


Court: Doctors Threatened For Questioning The Covid Regime Can Sue Tyrannical Credentialing Boards​

BY: ASHLEY BATEMAN
JULY 08, 2024
6 MIN READ

The ruling is a huge win for patients seeking medical freedom and for doctors who questioned the government’s Covid narratives.

n a landmark case, an appellate court judge has ruled that physicians threatened by credentialing boards for speaking out against Covid policies and abortion have sufficient standing in court.

A year after the case was dismissed by a district court, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) Educational Foundation filed an appeal for the right to sue the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American Board of Family Medicine, and the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for “coordinated” attempts to “censor and chill the speech of physicians,” especially those “who spoke critically of positions taken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, lockdowns, mask mandates, Covid vaccination, and abortion.”



A district court judge had ruled AAPS lacked standing and denied AAPS’s attempt to amend the claim. But in a decision filed June 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed the dismissal, and the case has now been remanded to a lower court for discovery and potentially a full trial.

Censorship, Threats

“The AAPS Educational Foundation brought the case because of a series of physicians who were being threatened with loss of their board certification because they had made comments that were either critical of the Covid vaccines or that advocated for early treatment with repurposed drugs,” Jane Orient, AAPS executive director, told me. “Particularly bad were the three defendants of the internal board who were also engaged in threatening physicians who supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade or had anything to say about abortion and its side effects.”

The claimants also identified unlawful actions taken by Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board.

“The DGB was devoted to seeking out and finding ‘disinformation,’ ‘malinformation,’ and, or pressuring people, including those on specialty boards and social media companies, to take action,” Orient said.


The government has since disbanded the board and claims no responsibility for its actions, but AAPS wants the government held accountable. “They can just disperse the function over their agencies or just move and start one up again,” Orient said.

Physicians were specifically threatened based on their public comments, hearing testimonies, press comments, and letters to the editor, Orient said. Doctors were also targeted for prescribing perfectly legal medications that went against the narrative.

Ongoing Attacks

Attacks by these credentialing boards continue, the suit reads, as they label “dissenting views as misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation” and threaten to revoke the certification of “otherwise qualified physicians who express such views.”

A professor of medicine and an academic physician for over three decades, Dr. Peter McCullough moved into independent practice two years ago when he was effectively forced out of academic practice.


One of the first physicians to publish an at-home treatment protocol for Covid-19 in 2020 in the peer-reviewed literature, McCullough played a critical role in developing a worldwide standard and treatment guide for AAPS.

But after ABIM instituted a Covid-19 misinformation policy in 2021, the board retroactively accused McCullough of misinformation based on a March 2021 Texas Senate testimony when he began to publicly question the safety, efficacy, and durability of the vaccine.

“They came out with the policy with no teaching modules, no updates, without equal protection, without any type of due process and they accused me of ‘spreading misinformation,’” McCullough told me. “I then provided documentation and evidence [to the board] supporting all of my points. The board had a closed meeting, and said that nothing I put in my response document had convinced them.” McCullough said he was given 10 days to appeal the process; he did. Since the fall of 2022, his case has been in a very prolonged appeal process.

“I was very productive, I was previously one of the most published persons in my field of cardiorenal medicine, and I have become one of the most published in Covid-19,” McCullough said. “I was released from two jobs at a major medical center officially for no reason.”

‘Viewpoint-Based Censorship‘​

The case against the specialty boards is crucial for physicians’ freedom of practice. Most practice in hospitals and are involved in multiple insurance panels requiring credentials from boards like ABIM.

“These boards virtually have a monopoly on physicians to earn a living from their profession,” Orient said. “They may have a medical license and private practice, but insurance companies will not reimburse for their practices, or the hospital will boot them off the staff [if they aren’t credentialed]. So it’s a very powerful disincentive for physicians to go against the narrative.”

Before 2021, censorship of this magnitude was unheard of, Orient said. “Doctors could always freely discuss things. They could always criticize, and they might have someone complain or criticize them. But this is just the specialty board attacking them, no patient complaints. Richard Baron, former head of ABIM, instigated many of the letters that went to physicians,” Orient stated. He had all kinds of conflicts of interests with medical companies getting money from Pfizer and Moderna.” (ABIM did not respond to a request for a comment from Baron.)

“To this day, ABIM maintains this posture that they can essentially convict anyone of spreading misinformation,” McCullough said. “They have used vague terms like consensus-driven statements and give no definitions of ‘information’ versus ‘misinformation.’”

High-profile attorney Andrew Schlafly litigated on behalf of AAPS.

“Viewpoint-based censorship of freedom of speech is one of the most important issues today, and essential to the future of both our country and the ability of patients to obtain quality medical care,” Schlafly told me. “It is vital that we restore freedom of speech and end improper interference with it. Physicians must be able to speak candidly about issues of public concern without fear of retaliation.”

Matters of Public Concern

Years later, government controls on information continue. In an opinion reached just last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government’s right to control Covid information on social media.

Schlafly and AAPS are still confident their case could set a new precedent in medicine.

A win could revert the deferential treatment historically shown to these boards and hospitals in the courts, Orient said. “Maybe some of these boards would understand that they are not considered infallible authorities and they could conceivably be held accountable.”

“More freedom of speech, not less, is essential to a future of quality medical care and a prosperous country,” Schlafly said. “It is very harmful to patients and everyone else when entities retaliate against physicians based on their comments about matters of public concern. All of us should work tirelessly to protect and promote freedom of speech without censorship based on viewpoints.”



Ashley Bateman is a policy writer for The Heartland Institute and blogger for Ascension Press. Her work has been featured in The Washington Times, The Daily Caller, The New York Post, The American Thinker and numerous other publications. She previously worked as an adjunct scholar for The Lexington Institute and as editor, writer and photographer for The Warner Weekly, a publication for the American military community in Bamberg, Germany. Ashley is a board member at a Catholic homeschool cooperative in Virginia. She homeschools her four incredible children along with her brilliant engineer/scientist husband.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
More than a hundred years ago, Rudolf Steiner wrote the following about vaccines:

"In the future, we will eliminate the soul with medicine. Under the pretext of a 'healthy point of view', there will be a vaccine by which the human body will be treated as soon as possible directly at birth, so that the human being cannot develop the thought of the existence of soul and Spirit.

To materialistic doctors, will be entrusted with the task of removing the soul of humanity. As today, people are vaccinated against this disease or that disease, so in the future, children will be vaccinated with a substance that can be produced precisely in such a way that people, thanks to this vaccination, will be immune to being subjected to the "madness" of spiritual life. He would be extremely smart, but he would not develop a conscience, and that is the true goal of some materialistic circles.

With such a vaccine, you can easily make the etheric body loose in the physical body. Once the etheric body is detached, the relationship between the universe and the etheric body would become extremely unstable, and man would become an automaton, for the physical body of man must be polished on this Earth by spiritual will. So, the vaccine becomes a kind of arymanique force; man can no longer get rid of a given materialistic feeling. He becomes materialistic of constitution and can no longer rise to the spiritual."
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
In a landmark case, an appellate court judge has ruled that physicians threatened by credentialing boards for speaking out against Covid policies and abortion have sufficient standing in court.

You do know that his ruling is nothing more than allowing the original case to actually go to court, right?

That this is NOT a ruling on the original case.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Here it is:

Opinions are like rectums: everyone has at least one.

My point is that we well know from international studies that the vaccines worked to lower the covid death rate-- period. They also have worked with many other maladies as well. But if one doesn't want to accept the overwhelming research, that's their choice.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
You did not answer the question.
Wrong, my question identified the salient issue.

Leaked audio of former president of Australian Medical Association Prof. Kerryn Phelps

"Apparently there have been 144,000 adverse reaction reports but that's a drop in the ocean compared to the actual adverse reactions that there are because a lot of them aren't being reported because certainly in the early days they weren't being recognised"
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Free access to the article is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.
I finally got access into it on my 2nd try but not my first.
The article is an opinion piece from a right-wing soure, not a scientific one. I go by the objective science sources that are peer reviewed.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province:

"For those vaccinated with two doses, the loss of life expectancy (RMTL) in 739 days is 1.37 (CI 95 = 1.27–1.48; p < 0.0001) times that of the unvaccinated. This means that the subjects vaccinated with two doses lost 37% of life expectancy compared to the unvaccinated population during the follow-up considered."

Not actually what it says, in fact if the vaccine risk was extrapolated to the typical 82 year life span in this province, it would amount to 3.5 months hardly 37% the difference in all cause mortality was about 3 days from expectation.
It was significant in a statistical sense, but causally still largely unknown.
It also still compares very favorably to the 20% death rate for the unvaccinated.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
The pushback against the 'safe and effective vaccine' continues:

Why does anyone care what she thinks? She has no idea what she's talking about most of the time, about anything.

I'd rather ask the scientists. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Pogo

Well-Known Member
The pushback against the 'safe and effective vaccine' continues:

And while Martin is demonstrably irrelevant, MTG doesn't even rise to the level of considerable.
o_O:p:D:eek::oops::rolleyes:
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The pushback against the 'safe and effective vaccine' continues:


The minute I believe anything Greene says is the minute I've slipped into Fantasyland.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member

The Accord has since garnered 811 medical doctor signatories, 2,102 other medical professional signatories, 867 scientists and academic signatories and 22,501 concerned citizen signatories, totaling 26,281 signatories as of the writing of this article. (infowars)
 
Top