The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) issued a statement in April 2022,1 Advocating for legislation that would result in disciplinary action and possibly put a physician’s medical license at risk of sharing research information with their patients or prescribing FDA-approved medications.
A physician’s medical licensure is regulated by each state’s state medical board. Until March 2020, doctors had some freedom to prescribe medication and treatment. In the end, an analysis was made of whether patients were receiving safe care, which is generally judged based on the expected outcome and the actual outcome.
That all changed when the medical establishment prepared to face an unknown virus that the public was told could kill millions.2 Some doctors from the AMA, CDC, and general experts waited to tell them how to treat patients. Others, such as Dr. Paul Marek, Vladimir Zelenko (who passed away in June 2022) and Pierre Curie began using drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for other conditions.
Patients began recovering successfully without hospitalization, which made the medical establishment stand up and take notice – but not in a good way. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that doctors were improperly prescribing drugs used as rodents for worms that kill patients.3And the4
The latest recommendations from the FSMB suggest that medical boards and state legislators take the extra step of disciplining all physicians who fall outside the established standard of care for COVID-19, which has been far worse than treatments developed by the COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, the front-line organization,5 Zelenko6 and others.
Doctors who spread ‘misleading information’ may have their license revoked.
defender7 It stated that the FSMB has taken a stand against what the FSMB calls “the dissemination of misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.” In a press release published on July 29, 2021,8 The Medical Emergency Management Authority warned doctors they could face “disciplinary action by state medical boards, including suspension or revocation of their medical license.” The most significant is the following statement:
“They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share factual, scientifically based and consensus-based information in order to improve public health.”
While physicians who speak truthfully about vaccinology are described as “disinformation” and may face disciplinary action, the “consensus” will never be a consensus of physicians who treat patients, but those powerful few who have assumed a supervisory role and who focus is political policy and a future agenda, It is not patient care.
Lest you think this recommendation has no teeth, California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office would penalize doctors who share “misinformation” about COVID-19 vaccines and treatments with their patients.9
While the decision to remove a physician’s license found to be in violation of the law will rest with the state medical board, the law itself will remain consistent with the FSMB’s goals, as detailed in a statement issued in April 2022,10 Which advocates for nationwide laws that would discipline and punish physicians by state medical boards:
“…the adoption of a specific policy on misinformation is encouraged in light of the increasing prevalence of misinformation spread by clinicians in this ongoing epidemic and the resulting harm.”
Following the July 2021 press release, the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine issued a joint statement11 They supported the FSMB’s position and warned physicians accredited by their boards that spreading misinformation could lead the board to revoke their certification.
Although this press release did not identify disinformation or misinformation, the longer document released in April 2022 began with a strong statement that “honest and accurate information is essential to providing quality medical care…Honesty, honesty, and transparency are virtues that society expects all health professionals to expect from society.” .”
Unfortunately for the community, it is clear that the FSMB has set the reality of a vaccine according to its own standards and that these standards do not include the transparent information provided by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS),12 which are regulated and managed by the CDC and the FDA.13
Because the standard of truth is not exact, the definition may be fluid and can change as deemed appropriate by the FSMB, AMA, or other national health organizations. As the defender14 Critics of aggressive disinformation and disinformation policy recommendations write to the FSMB wondering where the FSMB derives its power.
Who supports FSMB?
The FSMB is the self-proclaimed “Voice of State Medical Boards”.15th The organization began in 1912 as an annual gathering of state council executives. They had no permanent headquarters or staff and since then their strength and number have grown,16 Partly by providing a range of services to the orthopedic and medical boards, including policy documentation and accreditation services.
In May 1994, the FSMB collaborated with the US Department of Health and Human Services to create another medical body, the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA). In other words, it was the collaboration between two US-based organizations that resulted in an international medical regulatory agency.
In August 2022, a New Zealand psychiatrist, Dr. Emmanuel Garcia, expressed concern about Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in a paper published in Global Research. In it, Garcia concluded:17
Looking back at the years since the dramatic emergence of the COVID pandemic, the near-total shutdown of the world, the massive upward transfer of wealth from the middle and poor classes, the global imposition of an insufficiently tested so-called vaccine, and the severe suppression of critical early treatment, one cannot help but be He concludes that there is indeed an agenda that goes beyond health and well-being.
The FSMB and IAMRA have demonstrated through their actions that they are tools whose mission is to advance this agenda, and that this agenda is anti-medical and inhumane.”
The defender also points to historical evidence published in MedPage Today18 Demonstrating that Big Pharma is transferring money to the FSMB to certify that opioid painkillers are safe. The FSMB wrote and distributed a book to 700,000 medical practitioners with guidelines for a model policy for treating patients with chronic pain with opioid analgesics.
Production and distribution of the book was funded in part by Purdue Pharmaceuticals. The second edition was published in July 2012, which included CME activity.19 Recent activities have prompted scientists and clinicians to ask many questions, some of which were shared by Dr.
Her medical license was suspended in January 2022 for “spreading misleading information”. She believes there are many questions raised by the FSMB’s actions, and outlined several in an email to The Defender:20
- Why might a nonprofit with no regulatory authority suddenly decide it’s important to get rid of the First Amendment, the Nuremberg Act, and other legal dogmas to push for punishment for doctors who fail to tell the government’s story and use COVID-19 treatments that the government doesn’t want them to use?
- Why does the FSMB monitor states and gather information in their attempts to investigate and/or punish physicians for carrying out their duty to act as educated mediators for their patients?
- Why did the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the American Pediatric Society push for identical policies in mid-2021 that would destroy physician independence, when physicians are, one would think, clients?
- Why did the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists push for experimental vaccines during all stages of pregnancy?
Another group wants to restrict your access to information
Restricting your access to information controls what you see and hear and therefore what you think and how you act. Disguised as a regulatory name that evokes feelings of protection, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) spends most of the time doing the exact opposite.
Founder and current CEO of the Foundation Imran Ahmed,21 He founded the group in Britain and currently lives in Washington, DC, where he has influential access to some of the country’s most influential intellectual institutions and politicians.
His focus has shifted to censoring information that he calls “disinformation,” however he defines it. She appeared on the anti-vaccination misinformation page as a charismatic man who leads people down a dark path to destruction, because according to his logic, most people cannot read and think for themselves.
Law aimed at protecting children online may do the opposite
The Advisory Council on Human Rights, and Ahmed in particular,22 They applaud new California legislation that is said to protect children’s safety online. Newsom signed this legislation into law on September 15, 2022.23 It imposes strict standards on websites that children are likely to view. It is promoted as a thorn in Big Tech’s side because it outlines how companies can collect and use children’s personal data.
CNN used the example of blocking geolocation tracking for children and requiring websites to adhere to the highest privacy protections when children use the site. Nicole Gill is the CEO of Accountable Tech, which has been highly critical of big tech platforms. She told CNN Business:24
“This new law will upend the status quo and take real steps to stop the spread of online surveillance, profiling, and manipulation of children. It will also serve as a transformative model for states and other countries, so that every child is protected from abuse and exploitation by the big tech companies — not just those Those in California.”
The law also changes the expectations of companies, which previously required action only when the company had “actual knowledge” that children were using the website and the new law requires protection when children “potentially” access the service.
While interesting in theory, in practice it likely means websites will have to scan users’ faces to determine age – which is itself a variant of “tracking you” and violating your privacy. This must necessarily happen with every use since most family computers are shared between children and adults.
Scanned biodata of all children and adults can be stored and preserved by websites and Big Tech, giving these entities greater access and control than they have now.
The CCDH also strongly supports the UK Cyber Safety Act,25 It is another link scheme to remove freedom of expression. The bill has been heavily criticized by civil rights organizations, which acknowledge that it grants unprecedented oversight power to the Secretary of State and the Communications Office with limited parliamentary or judicial oversight.
The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a free-market think tank founded in 1955, described the Internet Security Bill as “unsafe”.26 Among other things, it outlines the broad range of powers granted by law, raising important issues for freedom of expression, privacy and innovation. It is worth noting that the Advisory Council on Human Rights supports and encourages two strong legislation that will ultimately censor speech and negatively affect your privacy.
Discussion about this post