RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/so_the_cdc_knew_all_along_about_those_780_000_side_effects_to_its_covid_vaccine_as_it_was_assuring_us_it_was_safe.html

Does anyone in “public service” ever get busted for lying to the public?

It would seem not, based on a report that the Centers for Disease Control covered up 780,000 reports of significant side effects, such as seizures, tinnitius, and facial paralysis, from the COVID vaccine it was foisting onto the often hesitant public, oilily assuring that it was “safe and effective,” and anyone questioning that was an “anti-vaxxer.”

According to Epoch Times, as seen on The Jewish Voice:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released previously hidden reports of facial paralysis and other adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.

The 780,000 reports were received shortly after the COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out and show that people experienced a wide range of post-vaccination problems, including heart inflammation, miscarriages, and seizures.

“Loss of consciousness and seizure immediately following injection. Went to ER by ambulance,” one person reported.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new-study-pours-cold-water-on-the-medias-maternal-mortality-hyperventilating/

Welcome back to Forgotten Fact Checks, a weekly column produced by National Review’s News Desk. This week, we compare the results of a recent study on maternal mortality with the available media reporting on the topic, look at an absurd headline from The Independent, and cover more media misses.

New Study Upends Prevailing Narratives on U.S. Maternal Mortality

Dr. Ingrid Skop, an ob-gyn and vice president and director of medical affairs for the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, regularly has women in her office who have read news reports on the so-called maternal health-care crisis in the U.S., which is said to have the highest rate of maternal mortality of any high-income country.

“What I tell [them] is that we have had troubles with our data, and we’ve put some systems in place that have helped to detect more deaths. When it looks like the rates are rising, it is probably because we are doing a better job of detecting as opposed to actually having more deaths,” she said, adding “the good news is the death that you’re worried about, a catastrophic event at the time of birth, those rates are improving dramatically.”

“You do not need to be afraid of childbirth,” she said.

So she wasn’t surprised by a new study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology last month that found the national U.S. maternal mortality rate is much lower than has been reported by the CDC, which has reported a rate of 32.9 deaths per 100,000 births.

The new study instead finds a rate of 10.4 deaths per 100,000 births and also shows a rate that remained largely stable between 1999 and 2021.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/mass-general-brighams-misguided-drug-policy

A self-described libertarian friend once described to me the feeling she had when it was time to leave the hospital with her newborn baby. She remembered looking at the nurse and thinking, “You’re just going to let me take this thing home? I have no idea what I’m doing.” Even those of us who are very skeptical of government intervention know instinctively that a lot can go wrong with an infant. They might not be eating enough. They might catch a virus. They might be injured by a well-meaning toddler.

The constant attention required of new parents is hard enough when you’re sober. Now imagine trying to do it when you’re high—or suffering withdrawal. Surely, if any parent needs a nurse or doctor to check up on them before taking a baby home, it is parents using drugs. But a new policy enacted at Mass General Brigham in Boston last week will discourage medical professionals from reporting mothers who test positive for illegal substances to the state’s child welfare agency.

Why would the hospital system adopt such a policy? You guessed it: to avoid perpetuating “systemic racism.” Representatives of the Mass General Brigham administration’s “United Against Racism” initiative found that “Black pregnant people are more likely to be drug tested and to be reported to child welfare systems than white pregnant people.” As a result, the hospital will “update policies that automatically trigger mandatory filings with child welfare agencies when a pregnant individual is engaged in treatment for substance use disorder, absent any other concerns for potential abuse or neglect.”

Let’s start from the top. Racial disparities are not prima facie evidence of racism. Black children are three times as likely to die from maltreatment as white children, so it is not unreasonable to assume that they are at higher risk. It’s also not unreasonable to assume that black mothers would get reported to child protective services more often than white mothers.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-wokeness-in-medicine/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=third

Last year, I wrote for the magazine about the “rampant politicization of health care.” Thanks to greater government involvement in medicine, the ties between academia and the practice of medicine, and other pressures (with George Floyd’s death serving as a special catalyst), medical-school curricula, professional medical associations, and other aspects of the field increasingly reflect and transmit left-wing ideology. Take a look at some med-school curricula:

The Harvard Medical School course “Caring for Patients with Diverse Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities, and Sex Development” promises that “clinical exposure and education will focus on serving gender and sexual minority people across the lifespan, from infants to older adults.” An Indiana University Medical School “Sex and Gender Primer” for first-year students stresses that sex and gender “fall along a continuum, rather than being binary constructs,” and provides instruction on the use of “inclusive terminology.” A June 2020 letter from medical-school faculty at the University of California, San Diego, referred to the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery and committed to creating “a curriculum which addresses the part we play in righting these systemic injustices” and using “these tragic events to strengthen our resolve.” One survey found that 39 of America’s 50 most prestigious medical schools contained some element of mandatory critical-race-theory training in their curricula.

Unfortunately, more examples of this general trend abound. In City Journal, Ian Kingsbury, director of research at Do No Harm (which specializes in documenting and fighting the politicization in medicine), describes one: The New England Journal of Medicine is denying that there could be any biological basis for the greater risk black women have for preeclampsia, a dangerous pregnancy complication involving high blood pressure.

The higher risk must, instead, be the fault of “the stress imposed by structural and individual racism.” It correctly observes that black females born in the U.S. are likelier to have preeclampsia than black women born elsewhere, and that those in the latter group who have lived here ten years or more are likelier to have it than those who have lived here for fewer years. But these differences have plausible explanations. They’re just not one that the newly politicized medical field wants to hear: genetics and behavior.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-whos-power-grab

The response to Covid was the greatest mistake in the history of the public-health profession, but the officials responsible for it are determined to do even worse. With the support of the Biden administration, the World Health Organization (WHO) is seeking unprecedented powers to impose its policies on the United States and the rest of the world during the next pandemic.

It was bad enough that America and other countries voluntarily followed WHO bureaucrats’ disastrous pandemic advice instead of heeding the scientists who had presciently warned, long before 2020, that lockdowns, school closures, and mandates for masks and vaccines would be futile, destructive, and unethical. It was bad enough that U.S. officials and the corporate media parroted the WHO’s false claims and ludicrous praise of China’s response. But now the WHO wants new authority to make its bureaucrats’ whims mandatory—and to censor those who disagree with their version of “the science.” 

The WHO hopes to begin this power grab in May at its annual assembly in Geneva, where members will vote on proposed changes in international health regulations and a new treaty governing pandemics. Pamela Hamamoto, the State Department official representing the U.S. in negotiations, has already declared that America is committed to signing a pandemic treaty that will “build a stronger global health architecture,” which is precisely what we don’t need. 

If we learned anything from the pandemic, it was the folly of entrusting narrow-minded public-health officials with wide-ranging powers. The countries that fared best, like Sweden, were the ones that ignored the advice of the WHO, and the U.S. states that fared best, like Florida, were the ones that defied the White House Coronavirus Task Force and the Centers for Disease Control. This wasn’t a new lesson. Previous research had shown that giving national leaders new powers to respond to a natural disaster typically leads to more fatalities and economic damage.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/03/the_new_racism_is_poisoning_america.html

The idea that past racism can be undone with more racism is ludicrous.  Affirmative action, established in the 1960s, emphasized equality of opportunity.  But it has transmogrified — through the politics of DEI, sexual orientation, and gender identity — into a new form of racism emphasizing equality of outcome.

Unconstitutional quotas deny college admissions and government jobs to whites and non-black, non-Latino, non-Native groups.  The worst is the recent invasion of healthcare by DEI-driven policies.  Belonging to a DEI-privileged group outweighs need.  White patients may have to wait longer than blacks or Hispanics for cardiac care or kidney transplants.  All in the name of “health equity” and righting past wrongs done to those groups.

This column will examine four recent lawsuits—among the many—against such policies. It will also show how a retribution-focused movement to embed racial preferences in medical treatment has gained traction over the last few years in the healthcare industry.

The first case is from Montana, where in 1991, the 52nd legislature enacted and codified House Bill 424 (originally House Joint Resolution 28) as Montana § 2-15-108, MCA. The law aimed to “take positive action to attain gender balance and proportional representation of minorities” in state boards, commissions, committees, and councils. Bias was alleged to cause the imbalance.

In September 2023, two vacancies opened for the 12-member Board of Medical Examiners, but the governor has been unable to make appointments since the appointments must adhere to DEI.  Do No Harm, an organization representing physicians and healthcare workers countering DEI in medicine, has filed a suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Montana (Helena Division), saying Montana § 2-15-108 violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/fda_takes_down_its_propaganda_demonizing_ivermectin_as_a_treatment_for_covid.html

We will never know how many Covid sufferers died because they shunned treatment with ivermectin, but at least the FDA has stopped spreading the lie (aka, disinformation) that the medicine is for animals, not humans.

(source: FDA tweet via American Greatness)

This retreat is taking place because:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reportedly settled a lawsuit brought by three doctors who who accused the health regulator of interfering with their ability to practice medicine and prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID.

But the FDA is not conceding that ivermectin is a safe and effective treatment for Covid. To do so would invalidate the emergency use authorization for the mRNA drug incorrectly called a vaccine.  Bypassing the normal tests for new drugs with an emergency use authorization requires that there be no effective alternative therapy.

Via The Epoch Times:

Within 21 days, the FDA will remove another page titled, “why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19,” according to the settlement announcement, which was filed with federal court in southern Texas.

The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals,” the page currently states. It also says that data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, despite how some studies it cites show ivermectin is effective against the illness.

The FDA in the settlement is also agreeing to delete multiple social media posts that came out strongly against ivermectin, including one that stated: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

In exchange, doctors who sued the agency are dismissing their claims, the filing states. (snip)

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/03/state_of_american_health_care.html

Once the envy of the world, American medical care continues to be infected with Leftist woke ideology with abysmal and terrifying outcomes.

Under the term “health equity” the only parameter that matters appears to be a person’s melanin level, not his need for timely medical treatment.

Consequently:

More than 10 million nonblack Americans with chronic kidney disease may have seen their treatments or transplants delayed because of policy changes enacted after 2020.  Some of those patients now face greater risk of death because national transplant organizations have embraced racial activism.

Patients of all races deserve a formula that accurately estimates their individual kidney function, not one that favors one racial group at the expense of others. 

Then there is the Advil Pain Equity Project to end “systemic pain racism.”  It should be noted that Advil is owned by Pfizer. In fact, as explained in FortuneWell,

According to a study, three out of four Black people believe there is bias in how their pain is diagnosed. Now Advil, a popular pain relief brand, is aiming to address inequity in pain diagnosis and treatment with the Advil Pain Equity Project.

As part of the multiyear project, Advil is awarding grants to the Morehouse School of Medicine and BLKHLTH, an Atlanta-based nonprofit, to support the development of patient resources and a course for medical school students to address pain equity both in and outside of medical facilities.

Dare one ponder the possibility that this is merely “a plan to sell $50 million more in pills to Black people – disguised as a fight to end ‘pain racism?’”

On the other hand, keynote speaker at the 2023 Social Justice Awards sponsored by Institutional Diversity & Equity (ID&E), “author, physician, and thought leader Dr. Uche Blackstock, founder of Advancing Health Equity, is committed to dismantling racism in health care and closing the gap in racial health inequities.” 

Consequently, in 2024, is the American patient caught between the greed of pharmaceutical companies and the vise of leftwing social justice activists?  And this does not even begin to analyze the spiraling health care costs that have long confounded Americans.

Moreover, faith in American medicine has certainly been tarnished by the treatment afforded those health care workers who dared to question the federal government’s edicts concerning the mRNA Covid-19 “vaccines.” 

Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo declared that “COVID-19 vaccines are not appropriate for use in human beings” and called for a complete halt of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.  Ladapo issued this warning “based on overwhelming evidence that the COVID-19 shots that Pfizer and Moderna assured us were ‘safe’ are contaminated with plasmid DNA.” 

Consider the fact that the government continues to purposefully censor truthful information. In fact, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, the psychiatrist who challenged the University of California Irvine Vaccine Mandates was fired for this.  It has led to what is being called the most important free speech case in a generation known as Missouri v. Biden (Murthy v. Missouri).

In 2023 Kheriaty asserted that “[a]lthough this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/03/19/long-tyranny-a-greater-threat-than-long-covid/

The policy response to the coronavirus outbreak was as deadly as the disease.

Not to downplay the damage done by COVID, but we’re still dealing with a far worse disease and will be for some time. It has no medical name but if it did, we’d call it the tyrannococcus.

From the top we acknowledge that the novel coronavirus killed millions around the world. This is not a statistic but a procession of tragedies, and they happened despite the policy responses from those who claimed to be our guardians. Now, four years later, the experts are telling us to treat the disease similar to the way we treat the flu. The much-feared “long COVID appears to manifest as a post-viral syndrome indistinguishable from seasonal influenza and other respiratory illnesses,” says Medical Xpress.

Yet the damage wrought by governments, spread by the tyrannococcus machine, will continue well beyond 2024. “We will be dealing with the harm done for decades,” says Martin Kulldorf, the biostatistician and infectious-disease epidemiologist who was fired from his Harvard faculty position because he objected to COVID vaccine mandates.

Rather than respond in any sort of reasonable way, elected and unelected officials acted as tyrants, closing businesses, restricting our freedom to move about, limiting the number of people who could gather in private homes, requiring mask use and mandating vaccinations. “There was very little oversight or limitation on the powers conferred to” the agencies that made those decisions, says the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. They simply gave themselves power they should have never wielded.