By  Peter Doshi

Three U.S. medical certifying boards have warned doctors they risk losing their certification and license if they spread COVID vaccine misinformation, but the boards offered no clear definition of “misinformation.”

Three U.S. medical certifying boards have warned doctors that they risk losing their certification and license if they spread COVID vaccine misinformation.

Internists, family doctors and pediatricians received an email on Sept. 9 that quoted a warning from the Federation of State Medical Boards in July which read:

“Providing misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine contradicts physicians’ ethical and professional responsibilities, and therefore may subject a physician to disciplinary actions, including suspension or revocation of their medical licence.”

Richard Baron, president and chief executive of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), told The BMJ that the move was an attempt to establish a standard of care.

“As standard setting organizations, we thought it was important to be on record, in a public way, to make clear that putting out flagrant misinformation is unethical and dangerous during a pandemic.” Baron said that the statement has been well received — “4 to 1 positive.”

But community physicians contacted by The BMJ thought differently.

“When I got that email I thought I’d better not put anything on social media about vaccines,” said Shveta Raju, a community physician in the Atlanta, Georgia, area, who has treated COVID patients and led the vaccination effort at her outpatient clinic.

“The email was sent more as a veiled threat to keep doctors on the official, established narrative, and that’s what I find chilling,” said a pediatrician who pseudonymously blogs under the name Elizabeth Bennett.

“Pandemic or no, there is a problem with having an ill-defined concept of misinformation that’s tied to public health messaging that hasn’t been consistent. How are physicians supposed to figure out what is misinformation when public health messaging swings so wildly?” Bennett asked.

Undefined offense

Baron said that the statement was also intended to signal the certifying boards’ support for physicians “trying to do the right thing.”

“We wanted to support that group and say ‘hey, we do have a standard of care here and you are doing the right thing when you uphold it,’” he said.

Raju responded, “If that was their intent, they should have defined misinformation. By leaving it undefined, the message was that we can’t talk about this at all.” She said that physicians are, by and large, a conservative group. “If they’re not sure what can be deemed misinformation, physicians would rather be quiet.”

Bennett concurred: “The thing I find most alarming is that they don’t define misinformation, but if they strip you of your board certification, you would lose your means of earning a living.”

Doctors spreading misinformation?

Official and social media company efforts to target “vaccine misinformation” predate the pandemic. But the new statement from ABIM, the American Board of Family Medicine, and the American Board of Pediatrics is one of several recent statements putting doctors in the spotlight for the first time.

In Canada, warnings about physician information began earlier, when in April the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario declared that physicians “have a professional responsibility not to communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing, and anti-lockdown statements or promote unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19.”

The Canadian statement triggered an outcry, leading to a clarification that the statement was “not intended to stifle a healthy public debate about how best to address aspects of the pandemic.”

But concerns continued. In June, a Canadian member of parliament held a press conference on censorship of Canadian clinicians and scientists. YouTube removed the video of the meeting.

The BMJ asked ABIM about the size of the problem of board certified physicians spreading misinformation. “We don’t have a sense of numbers of physicians spreading misinformation,” Baron said. “We’re at the beginning.” He believed it was only a “small number of doctors.”

The medical boards opted to send the statement to all doctors, he said, because focusing on just the offending individuals would “miss the impact they’re having because of how much their voices are being amplified.”

As an example of “unprofessional or unethical behaviour,” Baron cited the case of a Florida doctor offering medical exemptions from mask wearing for $50 (£37; €43).

Personalized medicine — or one-size-fits-all?

The BMJ asked whether physicians expressing doubt about the need for booster doses or vaccination of patients with natural immunity — two matters that have been the subject of debate and changing official guidance — would qualify as misinformation.

“I don’t think we have concerns with doctors wrestling with areas where the science is unclear,” Baron said, “but there is no debate about whether people should get a primary vaccination series.”

Raju worries about the impact on personalized care. “The job of physicians is to take guidelines and apply them to the patient in front of them.” But now “physicians are basically being told that when it comes to COVID vaccines it’s one-size-fits-all.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaccine-misinformation-medical-license-u-s-boards-warn-physicians/

By  Children’s Health Defense Team

Consumer watchdog groups accuse the FDA of having evolved from a “hard-charging tiger of an agency” a century ago, to a “pliant pussycat” today.

Regulatory agencies, says Encyclopedia Britannica, are a uniquely American institution. Though conceptualized as mere advisory bodies at the time of their emergence in the late 19th century, federal regulatory agencies have since acquired comprehensive legislative powers and even quasi-judicial powers — exercising “social control through rulemaking” with “almost no supervision by other branches of government.”

As legal scholars tamely explain, “unique pressures and influences … invariably push [regulators’] actions, and their decisions on policy questions, in a direction favored by regulated firms.”

This phenomenon, known as regulatory capture, has become the norm — not least because lucrative “revolving door” jobs generally await tractable regulators once they exit their government posts.

In the crowded field of captured agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is one of the standouts. FDA gets 45% of its budget from the pharmaceutical industry, and fast-tracks more than 50% of the drugs it approves.

Consumer watchdog groups accuse the FDA of having evolved from a “hard-charging tiger of an agency” a century ago, to a “pliant pussycat” today.

FDA states that drug recalls are initiated either “by FDA request” or “on a company’s own initiative.” According to the consumer website Drugwatch, however, FDA “can only recommend” but not force a recall.

Vaccine recalls, too, are “almost always initiated voluntarily by the vaccine manufacturer.” In 1976, public outcry forced the government to pull the plug on a dangerous swine flu vaccine after just 10 weeks, but only after 40 million Americans had received it.

Although manufacturers do withdraw dangerous drugs, vaccines and consumer products from the market from time to time (sometimes after FDA has obligingly looked the other way for decades), many observers believe such recalls represent the tip of the iceberg — a placatory bone thrown to persuade the public that the nation has a functional oversight system.

Is the FDA at least scrupulous about which drugs and vaccines it lets out of the starting gate?

As a long line of drug fiascoes suggests, the clear answer is no — experimental COVID vaccines are the latest example.

The still timely tale of thalidomide

Thalidomide never received FDA approval, but the saga illustrates how, even 60 years ago, the FDA had already cast its lot with industry.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-regulatory-capture-revolving-door-jobs/

Jessica Berg Wilson, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mother from Washington, was a healthy and vibrant woman, according to her family who said she passed away suddenly on Sept. 7. A family member said doctors diagnosed her with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

VITT is a rare, and sometimes fatal, blood-clotting condition triggered by COVID vaccines.

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Tom Wilson, Jessica’s husband, and Thomas Ivancie, her uncle, said Twitter’s fact-checkers — who have never spoken with their family to verify Jessica’s story — affixed “misleading” and “misinformation” labels to her obituary.

Because of the Twitter labels, people couldn’t interact with Jessica’s obituary, or share the story.

On Sept. 2, Jessica went to a Seattle pharmacy to get her COVID vaccine and was told she would be receiving the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) shot. Jessica had no underlying health conditions, her husband said.

Jessica was “vehemently opposed” to taking the vaccine, “considering her stay-at-home mom status, state of good health and young age in conjunction with the known and unknown risk of an unproven vaccine,” Wilson said.

But Jessica was pressured to get the vaccine due to a vaccine mandate at their child’s school requiring “room moms” who wished to serve in the classroom be fully vaccinated.

In an email to The Defender, Ivancie said Jessica immediately became ill after receiving J&J’s vaccine, and went to the emergency room at UW Medical Center.

“Jessica explained she had been vaccinated and was suffering various severe symptoms,” Ivancie said. “Attending doctors kept her isolated for hours, insisted on giving her a COVID test and sent her home. They did not pursue any other protocol, even though Jessica protested.”

“Once at home, Jessica fell into a coma and was taken by ambulance to UW Medical Center in Seattle, where doctors diagnosed her with VITT,” Ivancie explained. “A team of doctors worked to relieve pressure on Jessica’s brain, but ultimately, it was too late.”

As a young mother, Jessica was a dedicated listener to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “RFK, Jr. The Defender” podcast. She was well-informed about COVID vaccines and adamantly opposed to getting the injections, Ivancie said.

In Ivancie’s eulogy he said:

“Jessica died as a direct result of an experimental vaccine — a vaccine that she vehemently opposed taking. Jessica felt coerced. She felt robbed of her ability to choose. Her ability to say ‘no’ — to say no to a medical procedure she did not want — was taken from her.”

Her obituary said:

“During the last weeks of her life, the world turned dark with heavy-handed vaccine mandates. Local and state governments were determined to strip away her right to consult her wisdom and enjoy her freedom.

“Her passion to be actively involved in her children’s education — which included being a room mom in her child’s classroom — was, once again, blocked by government mandate.”

“Due to coercive pressure from the Seattle Catholic grade school and the Archdiocese of Seattle, she relented to taking the injection,” Ivancie said.

Ivancie said Jessica “was informed she could not enter her daughters’ school campus for any reason unless vaccinated, and as a dutiful mother, Jessica wanted to be able to take her children to school and volunteer there as needed. Thus, under duress, she relented and took the vaccine.”

[…]

Exclusive: Healthy Young Mother Dies of Vaccine-Induced Blood Clot. Then Twitter Censors Her Obituary.

A paper published Sept. 30, in Eurosurveillance showed COVID spread rapidly by a fully vaccinated patient to fully vaccinated staff, patients and family members — despite a 96% vaccination rate and use of full personal protective equipment. Five patients died and nine had severe cases.

A paper published Sept. 30 in Eurosurveillance raises questions about the legitimacy of “vaccine-generated herd immunity.”

The study cites a COVID outbreak which spread rapidly among hospital staff at an Israeli Medical Center — despite a 96% vaccination rate, use of N-95 surgical masks by patients and full personal protective equipment worn by providers.

The calculated rate of infection among all exposed patients and staff was 10.6% (16/151) for staff and 23.7% (23/97) for patients, in a population with a 96.2% vaccination rate (238 vaccinated/248 exposed individuals).

The paper noted several transmissions likely occurred between two individuals both wearing surgical masks, and in one instance using full PPE, including N-95 mask, face shield, gown and gloves.

Of the 42 cases diagnosed in the outbreak, 38 were fully vaccinated with two doses of Pfizer and BioNTech’s Comirnaty vaccine, one had received only one vaccination and three were unvaccinated.

Of the infected, 23 were patients and 19 were staff members. The staff all recovered quickly. However, eight vaccinated patients became severely ill, six became critically ill and five of the critically ill died. The two unvaccinated patients tracked had mild COVID cases.

The authors concluded:

“This communication … challenges the assumption that high universal vaccination rates will lead to herd immunity and prevent COVID-19 outbreaks … In the outbreak described here, 96.2% of the exposed population was vaccinated. Infection advanced rapidly (many cases became symptomatic within 2 days of exposure), and viral load was high.”

According to the paper, the outbreak originated from a fully vaccinated haemodialysis patient in his/her 70s who was admitted with fever and cough and placed in a room with three other patients.

The patient had not been tested for SARS-CoV-2 on admission day, because his/her symptoms were mistaken for a possible bloodstream infection exacerbating congestive heart failure.

To determine the source of the outbreak, researchers conducted phylogenetic analysis on the whole-genome SARS-CoV-2 sequences that were available for 12 cases in the outbreak, including staff and patients from Wards A, B and C and dialysis departments.

All were infected with the Delta variant and epidemiologically and phylogenetically connected to the same outbreak, except for one case. That case and three staff members were not considered part of the outbreak.

“This is a very interesting paper and it is scientifically very sound,” said Dr. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University.

“The breakthrough rate of 96.2% of the vaccinated population shows that in this instance, the vaccine was virtually useless in preventing transmission,” Hooker said. “It should also be noted the two reported cases among unvaccinated patients were mild, whereas six of the vaccinated patients died.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-outbreak-vaccinated-patient-herd-immunity-theory/