RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-8-12-on-the-causes-of-racial-health-disparities-in-the-united-states

Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has a much-linked article in the current (Summer 2022) issue of the City Journal with the title “The Corruption of Medicine.” The subject matter has substantial overlap with a Manhattan Contrarian post from last November with the title “The Progressive Neo-Racist Cancer Has Completely Destroyed The AMA.”

Mac Donald’s piece goes deeply into what she calls “two related hypotheses” that have recently come to dominate the medical profession:

Medical education, medical research, and standards of competence have been upended by two related hypotheses: that systemic racism is responsible both for [1] racial disparities in the demographics of the medical profession and for [2] racial disparities in health outcomes.

For today, I’m going to focus on the second hypothesis, that “systemic racism” in the U.S. medical system is responsible for “racial disparities in health outcomes.” Is this hypothesis remotely plausible?

According to Mac Donald’s piece, not only is this second hypothesis deemed plausible, but among the elites of the medical profession it is seen as so clearly true that it is required to be accepted a priori, and no questioning of the hypothesis is allowed.

For a statement of the official views of the AMA, Mac Donald refers us to a truly bizarre document issued by that group last October with the title “Organizational Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity.” (OSP) Mac Donald describes the document as “indistinguishable from a black studies department’s mission statement,” and “a thicket of social-justice maxims.” Here are a few choice quotes that Mac Donald takes from the document to give you an idea what it is about:

[P]hysicians must “confront inequities and dismantle white supremacy, racism, and other forms of exclusion and structured oppression, as well as embed racial justice and advance equity within and across all aspects of health systems.” The country needs to pivot “from euphemisms to explicit conversations about power, racism, gender and class oppression, forms of discrimination and exclusion.”

The rest of the document (it is 86 pages long) is more and more and yet more of same. Here is an excerpt from the OSP giving the official explanation of the reasons for different health outcomes between and among groups (found on page 12 of the document):

https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/09/monkey-business-on-monkeypox/

Monkeypox has America’s public health establishment in a bit of an awkward spot. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra last Thursday labeled monkeypox a public health emergency. “We’re prepared to take our response to the next level in addressing this virus, and we urge every American to take monkeypox seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” he said. 

Sounds, well, serious. But in reality, monkeypox so far has not proven to be a virus that can strike anyone at any time. Since May 18, the United States has confirmed just over 7,100 monkeypox cases, with the vast majority of those cases occuring among men who have sex with men. There are only about 10 known pediatric cases globally. 

Compounding the confused messaging is the tenor of the public awareness campaign. In late July, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of World Health Organization, suggested that homosexual men might consider “for the moment, reducing your number of sexual partners, reconsidering sex with new partners.” The CDC on Friday similarly updated its guidance regarding monkeypox, suggesting to gay men: “Limit your number of sex partners to reduce your likelihood of exposure.” It also warned that, “spaces like back rooms, saunas, sex clubs, or private and public sex parties . . . are more likely to spread monkeypox.” 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/08/transgender_surgery_or_female_genital_mutilation__are_they_different.html

In 2012, The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution urging countries to ban the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), calling it an “irreparable and irreversible abuse.” The resolution was considered a major step forward in protecting women and girls.  FGM has been recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. Sweden was the first Western country to outlaw FGM, followed in 1985 by the UK. In the United States it became illegal in 1997, and in the same year the WHO issued a joint statement with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) against the practice. Moreover, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation called for abolishing the practice. 

Fast forward and it would appear that the new wave of transgenderism among youth is reminiscent of FGM practices. But while the leftwing establishment rightly condemns female genital mutilation, it praises transgenderism as “gender-affirming” and an act of courage.

Some key facts about female genital mutilation include:

The partial or total removal of external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
The practice has no health benefits for girls and women.
FGM is mostly carried out on young girls between infancy and age 15.
FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women.
There is evidence suggesting greater involvement of health care providers in the practice. This is known as medicalization.

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/08/05/say-whatever-happened-to-that-new-covid-surge-everyone-was-just-freaking-about/

As recently as two weeks ago, the big story of the day was the coming surge of a new, highly infectious COVID variant, called BA.5. The Biden administration warned about it. Los Angeles county considered renewing its indoor mask mandate. The head of the World Health Organization said that “new waves of the virus demonstrate again that the Covid-19 [pandemic] is nowhere near over.”

Look at some of the headlines:

“BA.5 Will Cause ‘Even Greater Surge,’ Warns UCSF’s Wachter of Highly Infectious COVID Subvariant,” KQED, July 6
“The BA.5 COVID Surge Is Here,” New York Magazine, July 8
“Los Angeles could reinstate mask mandates as COVID cases rise,” CBS News, July 8
“As new COVID variants surge, White House urges caution, pushes boosters,” Boston Globe, July 12
“Experts rue simple steps not taken before latest COVID surge,” ABC News, July 13
“The ‘worst variant’ is here,” CNN, July 14

Well, the data from the Centers for Disease Control show that the number of new infections has remained pretty flat since late May and is now trending downward. In, fact, the rate of new infections appears to have topped out right when the media were playing up the coming “surge.”

CDC data show that the seven-day moving average for new cases peaked at 129,823 on July 17. It had fallen to 119,034 by Aug. 2.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/08/the_covid_vaccine_scam.html

Why were they so hellbent in trying to get every single person on the planet “vaccinated” when Drs. Fauci and Birx knew from the beginning that the “vaccines” were deeply problematic?

“Emergency Use Authorization” (EUA) came into prominence with the “Right to Try” law.  This law was another way for patients who had been diagnosed with life-threatening diseases, who had tried all approved treatment options and who were unable to participate in a clinical trial, to access certain unapproved treatments. 

What is the difference between FDA Approval and Emergency Use Authorization?

“FDA Approval” from the Food and Drug Administration is an independent, scientifically reviewed approval for medical products, drugs and vaccines.  Approval is based on substantial clinical data and evidence, the product is deemed safe, effective and able to be produced within federal quality standards.  Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism used by the FDA to facilitate making products available quickly during a public health emergency, when there is no other adequate and approved medical product available. 

Sen. Kamala Harris of California said during a vice presidential debate that she does not trust the Trump Administration’s push to rush a coronavirus vaccine into production.  When she was asked if Americans should take a vaccine, she responded with, “If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it.  Absolutely.  But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it.  I’m not taking it.”

What is the difference between an EUA “vaccine” under President Trump and the same one under President Biden?  One was available and the other became mandatory.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/schumercare-and-cancer-patients-joe-manchin-chuck-schumer-drug-pricing-deal-richard-gonzalez-abbvie-11659464967?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

Much of the damage from the Schumer-Manchin drug pricing deal won’t become visible for years. But people who understand the industry can already foresee it, and one example is fewer treatment options for desperately ill cancer patients.

The mooted bill would empower the secretary of Health and Human Services to “negotiate” Medicare drug prices. “They have full latitude to basically decide whatever price they want the drug to be,” AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez said Friday on an earnings call. “It’s not a negotiation. We should just call it what it is. It’s price controls.”

Here’s how it would work: The HHS secretary would select 10 to 20 of the top Medicare spending drugs each year. Drug makers that don’t accept the government’s price would get hit with a 95% penalty on their sales. Small-molecule drugs would get a nine-year reprieve starting when the Food and Drug Administration grants approval.

This latter stipulation is intended to soften the blow to innovation, but it could result in patients waiting longer for potentially life-saving treatments. Take experimental cancer treatments, which regulators typically require that drug makers test first on patients who haven’t benefited from existing treatments.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2022/08/02/the-morning-briefing-tulsi-gabbard-is-so-close-to-being-cool-n1617527

Former congresswoman from Hawaii and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard blasted the Biden administration for promoting puberty blockers for children, which the FDA recently acknowledged can have devastating health impacts on children.

“The FDA made a disturbing, but not at all surprising announcement just a few days ago about children’s health,” Gabbard declared in a video posted to Twitter. “Now, if you haven’t heard about it, or, if you missed it, it is because the mainstream media and the Biden-Harris administration have been completely silent on it. This warning that the FDA issued was basically saying that puberty blockers can cause serious health risks for our kids. Unfortunately, at almost the exact same time the FDA issued this warning, Biden-Harris administration officials were making public statements actively promoting the use of puberty blockers and irreversible surgeries for kids.”

“Now, let’s be clear: this administration is dangerously promoting child abuse,” she added.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/david-solway-2/2022/08/02/canada-the-country-of-the-long-wait-n1617827

A few days ago my wife and I brought her mother, who was suffering from a serious leg infection, to the local ER. We were worried about the possibility of gangrene, which an acquaintance some years back had contracted under similar circumstances, resulting in the amputation of his leg. As expected, the ER was jam-packed, and it soon became clear that my mother-in-law would have to wait at least six and even twelve hours before she could be seen. No triage had been performed to determine rank of urgency. Meanwhile, a youngish man in a wheelchair, doubled over and clutching his chest, was bitterly complaining that he had suffered a heart attack. But he too would have to wait before being attended to — assuming he would still be alive by then.

This is publicly funded “single-payer” Medicare, the pride of the Canadian medical system, though in reality, an institutional atrocity equaled only, perhaps, by the British National Health Service (NHS). Even our doctors are suffering, six having died suddenly within a period of days, apparently following the mandated fourth jab (though the likely cause of death was strenuously and predictably denied by hospital administrations). What are they waiting for, we might ask, to recognize the folly of failed medical policy? After all, the Grim Reaper is no slouch.

Pre-COVID, a hospital was a place where you went to wait. During COVID, a hospital was a place where you went to die. Post-COVID, a hospital is a place, or so it seems, where first you wait and then you die, a phenomenon clinically accentuated in the Canadian system. But whatever the outcome, the long wait is the prerequisite for treatment or responsiveness in this country, not only in medicine, as we will see, but in any domain or department of national life and practice. The medical analogy holds throughout.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/08/the_corruption_of_the_world_health_organization_who_.html

Abir Ballan, author of the June 2022 piece titled “The WHO Review and Why it Matters to You? has documented the corruption by WHO/global leaders and governments concerning Covid treatment.

In essence, Ballan’s findings are a call to action to “reassess the WHO’s candidacy as an authoritative global public health organization” and the necessary actions needed to “safeguard” people’s “health sovereignty.”

With the unending mismanagement of Covid treatment and the WHO’s influence on so many countries, it is a critical call to action.

Ballan ponders the following:

·Did the World Health Organization follow public health principles when recommending the global Covid-19 response?
Was the WHO-recommended response to Covid-19 in line with the WHO’s own constitution and its own pandemic preparedness plans?
Was the WHO guided by science or by private corporate interests?

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/07/25/fda-violated-own-safety-and-efficacy-standards-in-approving-covid-19-vaccines-for-children/

The FDA recently authorized Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccines for children as young as six months. Troublingly, the evidence the FDA used for those decisions violates at least three safety and efficacy standards from earlier FDA publications about Covid-19 vaccines:

In 2021, the FDA warned that “antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from Covid-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a Covid-19 vaccination.” Yet, antibody tests are the main evidence the FDA cited when approving these vaccines for young children.
In 2021, the FDA declared, “We know from our vast experience with other pediatric vaccines that children are not small adults,” and thus, a “comprehensive evaluation of clinical trial data” is necessary to “support of the safety and effectiveness” of vaccines before they are “used in a younger pediatric population.” Yet, the FDA used small studies with narrow data and claimed these vaccines are effective and safe for children by extrapolating from studies done on adults.
In 2021, the FDA wrote that “the primary study objective” is that the vaccines are at least 30% effective with 95% confidence in preventing Covid-19. Yet, none of the studies on young children met this threshold, and some were negative, meaning that the vaccine could increase the chances of catching Covid-19.