California Doctors Lose Medical Licenses for Questioning Vaccines?

California Doctors Lose Medical Licenses for Questioning Vaccines?

Written by Michael Ehline on . Posted in Uncategorized.

This article exposes California’s continued efforts to create the very sort of Big Pharma “medical dictatorship” founding father, and only physician, Benjamin Rush warned us about. I am Michael Ehline. My children lost their grandmother to thrombosis (a known side effect of Moderna and Pfizer Covid-19 jabs) within a few days of receiving her so-called “booster” shot. Her doctor said it was “safe and effective.” My wife and her mother’s grandkids disagree. I will not rest until we receive justice. I am a Texas and California personal injury attorney.

I am an inactive US Marine and have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I specialize in civil rights law as well as appellate practice and procedure. My strong suit is American Common Law history.

Barrington Declaration Scientists Exposing Truth Is Not “Fringe”

I take strong exception to our politicians labeling scientists exposing mRNA gene therapy’s deadly dangers as “anti-vax.” This is precisely what for-profit media and others receiving large amounts of ad money from companies like Pfizer and Moderna have done in response to a growing “side effects” death toll. Our government agencies, as well as the head of the NIH, calling over one thousand physicians, one of whom is a Nobel Laureate, “fringe scientists” is false, misleading, and defamatory. (Read the Barrington Declaration.) This remains an effort leading all the way to and from the White House and Sacramento in an obvious attempt to discredit doctors/scientists not receiving royalties or funding from Pharma!

For example, Robert Kennedy and his entire family are vaccinated, yet their concerns over mRNA make them “anti-vax.” Most families I represent also took all their vaccines, including kids who developed autism. Rest assured, any papers or ranking news stories are on platforms paid for in some way, shape, or form by Pharma. This article addresses AB 2098, which defines COVID-19 “misinformation” as medical advice “contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus,” though it does not specify how to describe such a consensus.

Big Pharma Defined

“Big Pharma” or “Pharma,” as used in this article, describes the largest multinational pharmaceutical companies, ancillary insurance companies, and support networks that dominate the global pharmaceutical industry. These companies and supporting “charitable” non-profits are characterized by their extensive financial resources, significant research and development capabilities, and wide-ranging marketing and distribution networks.

Big Pharma encompasses pharmaceutical corporations that produce and market many prescription drugs, including brand-name medications, generics, and specialty drugs. Antagonists of Big Pharma raised concerns about high drug prices, aggressive marketing practices, and the influence over politicians and healthcare industry policies.

The Heated mRNA “Vaccine” Rollout

At issue here is the rushed, deceptive rollout of the Covid-19 mRNA “vaccines” and the many lies our government and the press told us. (e.g., “safe and effective.”) Below, I will expose a revolving door, pay later scheme between California legislators, physicians, billion-dollar corporations, Silicon Valley, and others in the political class that has cost many families money and lives.

The culmination of this unholy alliance was the passage of a law right out of the old Soviet Union model, AB 2098, as codified in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2270. AB 2098 was designed to punish patients and doctors who disagree with the legacy news media and Silicon Valley narrative that the experimental mRNA vaccine is “safe and effective” by “scientific” “consensus.”

Ultimately, a federal judge finally said what I had been saying all along. In his 30-page opinion, Senior U.S. District Judge William Shubb determined the defendants in the case — California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and California Medical and Osteopathic Boards — provided “no evidence that ‘scientific consensus’ has any established technical meaning,” and that the law provides “no clarity” on the meaning of the word “misinformation.”

Is Ivermectin a Threat to Pharma Profits?

Pharma stood to lose a lot of money, as many California physicians were pushing Ivermectin (heavily used in El Salvador, India, and Brazil to treat Covid-19 symptoms in HUMANS), healthy diets, and exercise as a means to reduce symptoms and develop “natural immunity.”

According to statements he made on a Joe Rogan podcast, presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, Pharma, and its political allies stood to lose $200 billion-plus dollars if the government was forced to recognize a relatively cheap, safe drug (Ivermectin) could help the body heal itself.

Why Did The Government and Press Falsely Claim Ivermectin For Humans is a “Horse Dewormer”?

Immediately, the FDA, CDC, and other government employees benefitting from Pharma funding or future board jobs started attacking Ivermectin as a “horse dewormer.” (conflated EQVALAN, a horse dewormer drug, with a different human formulation in use since 1987.) The FDA and CDC heads (many of whom get cushy jobs with pharma when they leave government) proclaimed that alternative treatments are “Russian,” “disinformation,” and “anti-vax.” So-called health experts (Ex: multi-millionaire Dr. Peter Hotez) conflated human doctors writing prescriptions for human use of Ivermectin with people using veterinarian horse Ivermectin, which is a much stronger dosage for a … HORSE.

Doctors received veiled threats from state medical boards and the AMA (also funded heavily by Pharma) not to prescribe Ivermectin, and it became impossible to find Ivermectin at a US pharmacy as a result. CNN attacked Ivermectin [which was usually no longer available from a now terrified doctor] as a “right-wing conspiracy” to give patients horse dewormer. As a result, people started looking to get it from veterinarians, furthering the big lie.

Miraculously any and all scientists and doctors who disagreed with politicians about Ivermectin, NOT receiving campaign funds from Pharma, had their social media accounts banned and were slapped with clearly misleading “fact check labels.” If a medical doctor disagreed with Anthony Fauci or suggested the disease started at a lab in Wuhan, China, which Fauci helped fund, they were outed publicly as “fringe,” “anti-vax,” and public enemy number one.

Musk Confirms FBI, CDC, FDA, and Other Agencies Initiated Mass Social Media Bannings?

Americans were told people like Joe Rogan, who refused to inject experimental mRNA into his body, as “crazies” and even “Russian” allies [that was proven to be a campaign directed by the Biden Admin with help from the federal government, according to Elon Musk’s Twitter Files]

“The tenth installment was published on December 26, 2022, by David Zweig, which alleges that the U.S. government was involved in moderating COVID-19 content on Twitter.” (See the Twitter Files.)

Miraculously, as more and more previously buried studies showed Ivermectin to be helpful in certain instances of Covid, the government pretended like they never tried to prevent doctors from prescribing Ivermectin and paid for fact-checkers verified the FDA never did anything wrong, of course.

From Social Media Demonetization to Loss of Medical Licensure?

Once the cat was out of the bag about this [not so] hidden censorship, Facebook and Instagram admitted fact-check labels are [partisan democrat funders and donors] “opinions.” Under threat of State Actor civil rights lawsuits, they reduced their state action-based bannings and censorship of alternative treatment discussions. Then, AB 2098 popped up on California’s First Amendment radar. Let’s look at this Maoist-style legislation through the lens of medical speech first.

What is Medical Free Speech Under the First Amendment?

Medical free speech, like any form of speech, is generally protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. (right to freedom of speech). Applying First Amendment rights can vary in different legal contexts and situations with doctors and lawyers.

With medical speech, specific considerations and limitations may come into play. For example, the government can regulate the practice of medicine to ensure public health and safety, just as it can regulate lawyer commercial speech. This creates an ethical dilemma and a resultant series of tests for courts to apply, as restrictions on medical speech might pose a serious risk to patients or the public.

Doctors Must Be Truthful and Not Misleading?

Unlike police and politicians interacting directly [legally allowed to tell Covid lies], doctors and lawyers are held to a higher standard. One key aspect of medical speech is doctors need to be truthful and non-misleading. The supermajority democrat government in CA can regulate or restrict medical speech if it involves false or deceptive claims. This could harm patients or the public. Examples include promoting a fraudulent cure for a disease or spreading misinformation about a treatment that could be subject to regulation. For example, Pfizer has been convicted of multiple felonies for being deceptive and misleading about its drugs and potential side effects. Why would a politician receiving money from Pharma launch the investigation? Think of how many more convictions there would be if they were not paying lawmakers off.

Although regulations may be in place to ensure that medical professionals maintain appropriate standards of professional conduct or engage in harmful or unethical practices, they are often regulated by politicians and others who are deeply in bed with Big Pharma. The regulations here are state-level and looked upon by Big Pharma as highly helpful in maximizing profits by quelling certain specific types of medical speech or practices related to mRNA gene therapy. (aka Covid-19 vaccines).

They are also experts at pushing other potential laws and media narratives designed to discredit experts in their field with differing opinions.

FUN FACT: California law will already punish doctors in egregious instances of lying to their patients or providing “subpar” medical advice as the required standard. The latest effort to label doctors as purveyors of misinformation and disinformation seems to be a gift to Big Pharma as tribute payment for keeping the lid on things.

AB 2098 Throwing a Wrench Into The Hippocratic Oath?

As will be discussed, California’s single-party, supermajority politicians, in some cases, have long pushed the concept that if the “majority” emotionally thinks something is true, that has now become the “standard of care” for all cases. But then, in other cases, the exception becomes the rule, such as the need to indoctrinate all K-12 public school children in same-sex activities and “gender-affirming care” without informing parents.

California Thinks If You Disagree With Pharma Companies Who Donate Money To Them, Your Doctor is an “Anti-Vaxer”?

It appears so. In the case at bar, a partisan committee has decided that all physicians agree, or at least a consensus agrees, that mRNA injections are “safe and effective” and that other treatments, off-label or not, are not safe or effective unless a cherry-picked study they like says so. If you disagree with them, you are spreading inaccurate information, aka “Covid falsehoods” about Covid vaccines.

How AB 2098 Destroys the Hippocratic Oath

Like something out of a George Orwell novel, AB 2098 vaguely and ambiguously bars doctors “from providing ‘treatment or advice’ ‘to a patient’ ‘related to COVID-19’ if treatment or advice includes:

(1) ‘false information’ (2) ‘that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus’ (3) ‘contrary to the standard of care.’

If a doctor dares offer treatments against this “ill-defined” “consensus,” the doctor can be found guilty of “unprofessional conduct” [by the California Medical Association and its allies at the State Medical Board or osteopathic medical board gnerally] and “face disciplinary action.” This is something federal health officials who typically get jobs working for pharma or research grants after they leave the government have pushed for years. Once companies like Pfizer and Moderna have defacto control over state medical boards (many are packed with far-left, activist lawyers who are not doctors), they, in effect, control the Hippocratic Oath and its interpretation.

The Hippocratic Oath is a historical, ethical code that originated in ancient Greece and is traditionally associated with the practice of medicine. It is attributed to the Greek physician Hippocrates, often considered the father of Western medicine. While the oath has subtle differences across various cultures, the fundamental principles have stayed consistent.

It serves as a broad, open guideline for medical professionals to exercise personal judgment as follows:

  1. Beneficence is a commitment to act in the patient’s best interest and promote well-being.
  2. Non-maleficence: A pledge to do no harm and avoid actions that may cause harm or suffering to the patient. If, as a doctor, you think the government is trying to spread misinformation, you have a duty to explain to your patient why you distrust certain medical examiners. You must have related discussions to keep your medical license despite weakened public confidence and potential legal challenges.
  3. Patient autonomy: Respecting the patient’s right to make their own decisions about their healthcare and involving them in the decision-making process. Licensed physicians discussing emerging ideas such as the off-label use of drugs like Oxychloriquine and Ivermectin is a discipline doctors must have at their disposal to create a narrowly tailored treatment regimen for their patient care and autonomy.
  4. Confidentiality: Safeguarding patient information and maintaining privacy is part and parcel of a healthy treatment regime. Allowing the government to make each patient into a “whistleblower” against a doctor, always fearful of being ejected for spreading false information, makes it impossible for a physician to talk about subsequent risks versus benefits in treatment effects.
  5. Integrity: Practicing medicine with honesty, professionalism, and ethical conduct will be made impossible due to the chilling effect, as anything Gavin Newsom or Pharma doesn’t like could constitute misinformation.
  6. Avoidance of conflicts of interest: Prioritizing the patient’s welfare over personal gain or external influences is the most significant open wound he has seen since the so-called Coronavirus vaccines. As will be discussed, two of the doctors who co-drafted and pushed AB 2098 received some form of compensation from large for-profit corporations, including Pfizer, who stand to continue making huge profits with rapidly evolving COVID-19 injections.
  7. Collaboration: Recognizing the importance of partnering with other healthcare professionals to benefit the patient. Of course, when lawyers on the take from Pharma run the med boards, working in partnership means being forced to accept science as dictated by billion-dollar corporations rather than true consensus. With this law, doctors can not effectively talk with colleagues or share data, which would be “bad for business.”

The Hippocratic Oath serves as a moral compass for physicians, guiding them to prioritize their patients’ well-being and best interests while upholding ethical standards in their practice. However, potential laws and this particular bill’s criteria can make state officials on the take decide what it is and isn’t inaccurate information. Failure to go along with “Big Brother” and you could face discipline or expulsion if it’s related to information about Covid-19 vaccines, even with a high degree of confidence the Covid-19 vaccine is NOT safe and effective.

Enter California’s Partisan “Vaccine Work Group”

The all-Democrat “Vaccine Work Group,” aka “Woke” Group (all of whom received financial benefits from Pharma (see below), pushed AB 2098 through California’s legislative process, and Governor Newsom signed it. In effect, the Vaccine Work Group codified that anyone who disagrees with the people PAYING them is a “fringe minority,” not following the “consensus, or [still undefinded] “standard of care.”

State medical boards, also run mainly by democrats in CA, seemed poised to start taking away medical licenses of any doctor daring to discuss alternative therapies to treating COVID-19 within the medical profession (“disinformation.”). Below, we will prove with PUBLIC RECORDS that Pharma is apparrently paying all of these bureaucrats and lawmakers or has provided them with some financial benefit!! Thankfully, one federal judge (Schubb) changed their biased trajectory after several physicians and a pro-child non-profit (plaintiffs) pointed out that science is fluid and there is rarely a consensus, especially with a new disease like COVID-19.

Letting a politically biased medical board decide the fate of a doctor trying not to harm goes precisely against the oath of a medical professional. In his preemptive order, Shaub sees primary evidence of civil rights violations against patients and physicians in California.

In response, Judge Shubb found, in part, that:

“plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the grounds of their Fourteenth Amendment vagueness challenges.” The ruling in question refers to a legal decision regarding a lawsuit initiated on December 1, 2022. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of the plaintiffs: CHD-California Chapter, Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, and Physicians for Informed Consent. This legal action was prompted by an event that occurred on September 30, 2022, when Governor Newsom of California signed into law Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098). The bill was scheduled to become effective on January 1, 2023.

Judge Shubb’s ruling prevents Newsom’s draconian enforcement of AB 2098 pending the lawsuit’s resolution. According to the plaintiff’s lead counsel Rick Jaffe:

“Judge Shubb looked at the law and correctly determined that the COVID misinformation was unconstitutionally vague, in large part because the plaintiffs in both cases showed there is no ‘current scientific consensus,’ given the fast-changing pace of the pandemic.”

Judge Schubb is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California and a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law.

Why Dr. Benjamin Rush?

Doctor Benjamin Rush was indeed a signer of the Declaration of Independence and participated in the Continental Congress. He played a significant role in the United States early years and made notable contributions in various fields.

In addition to his political involvement, Rush advocated for social reforms and held progressive views for his time. He was an early opponent of slavery and played a role in the abolitionist movement. He published a pamphlet in 1773 titled “An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping,” in which he condemned the institution of slavery and called for its abolition.

Rush was also an outspoken critic of capital punishment, believing it to be inhumane and ineffective as a deterrent. He argued for the improvement of prisons and the adoption of more humane methods of punishment.

He is considered one of the founders of American psychiatry and made significant contributions to the mental health field. He advocated for the humane treatment of individuals with mental illness and promoted the idea that mental disorders were medical conditions rather than moral failings.

Rush – “Medical Dictatorship” versus Medical Freedom

We’ve seen the pendulum swing from the left supporting medical and recreational use of marijuana and then right in favor of forced injections [or face job loss and public shaming] of mRNA “vaccines.” That half of science who disagrees with the CDC, FDA, WHO, or NIH is automatically tarred and feathered as “anti-vax.” With revelations that the very first person to get COVID-19 was a Wuhan lab scientist and that many scientists pushing the experimental vaccines were also getting royalties, everything has been called into question.  It makes people like me wonder if medical freedom had been recognized as a God Granted right, would cancer not have been cured?

Let’s take a look at what Doctor Benjamin Rush Would have said about the above facts.

What Would Benjamin Rush Say About the So-called “Pandemic”

Benjamin Rush strongly advocated for medical freedom and believed it should be enshrined in the Constitution, similar to the right to freedom of religion. He argued that individuals should have the liberty to choose their own medical treatments and practitioners.

Rush reportedly argued that:

“Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship…to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a Republic…. The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom.”

Benjamin Rush warned exactly against the FDA and CDC (revolving door captives to the pharmaceutical and food industries.). Politicians get passes, and commoners get punished as “medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship.” Read what Rush said, and argue with a straight face after reading the rest; that is not what has occurred under the so-called “pandemic.”

Let’s take a Look at the Draconian Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2270

The legislature “declared health misinformation to be a public health crisis” and surprised many physicians with varying opinions on mRNA gene therapy with unwarranted threats to pull their medical licenses.

“AB 2098, codified at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2270, took effect on January 1, 2023. The statute provides that “[i]t shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.” (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2270(a)) (emphasis added).

The statute defines “misinformation” as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” Id. § 2270(b)(4) (emphasis added). The statute defines “disinformation” as “misinformation that the licensee deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead.” Id. § 2270(b)(2) (emphasis added).”

The bill states that in response to these concerns, the Legislature previously “declared health misinformation to be a public health crisis, and urged the State of California to commit to appropriately combating health misinformation and curbing the spread of falsehoods that threaten the health and safety of Californians.” Id. § 1(g). The Legislature also noted that “[t]he Federation of State Medical Boards has released a statement warning that physicians who engage in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation risk losing their medical license, and that physicians have a duty to provide their patients with accurate, science-based information.” Id. § 1(f).

The plaintiffs, doctors, and patients sought court protection because they say the Draconian effect of the recommendations actions and actions of California’s “Vaccine Work Group” has forced them to protect their and their patient’s civil rights and First Amendment rights as “free” people. 

The law states that misinformation is defined as false information that “contemporary scientific consensus” contrary to the “standard of care” contradicts. Here, patient advocates (Children’s Health Defense) and physicians (Physicians for Informed Consent) have standing since it is a statute that interferes with a plaintiff’s First Amendment right to receive information from these entities or persons. (Conant v. Walters (9th Cir. 2002) 309 F.3d 629, 632.

The Battle Over “Consensus”

The above plaintiffs argued that “scientific consensus” is a “poorly defined concept” without an “official meaning in the medical community.” Shubb’s assertion raises pertinent inquiries regarding the determination of consensus, encompassing the identification of the authoritative body responsible for establishing its existence and the requisite agreement threshold for consensus to be acknowledged. This might include the temporal proximity required for a consensus to be deemed contemporary. These unresolved queries contribute to a predicament. Plaintiffs are confronted with an inability to ascertain whether their intended actions may contravene legal statutes as a consequence of the ambiguous nature of consensus.

Shubb noted California’s argument that a clear scientific consensus exists on specific issues. Still, he confirmed what we all know; COVID-19 is a virus scientists have studied for just a few years. He confirmed that scientific conclusions surrounding it are “hotly contested.”

Dr. Verma, one of the plaintiff’s medical experts, railed against the fact that “scientific consensus” refers to the pronouncements of public health officials. (See Verma Decl. ¶ 8.)

The court agreed, stating:

“Defendants provide no evidence that “scientific consensus” has any established technical meaning; the expert declarations they offer are notably silent on the topic. (See Decl. of Dr. James Nuovo (Høeg Docket No. 23-1); Decl. of Dr. Angela Lim (Hoang Docket No. 16-2).) And contrary to defendants’ argument, the mere fact that the statute regulates medical professionals does not trigger a lower vagueness standard. See Forbes, 236 F.3d at 1013 (applying a typical vagueness analysis and holding that challenged terms in statute regulating medical providers were unconstitutionally vague). The court therefore will not apply a lower vagueness standard here. Like the contested terms in Forbes, “contemporary scientific consensus” lacks an established meaning within the medical community, and defendants do not propose one.”

Standard of Care Defined

This word comes up a lot from the left when they argue child genital mutilation and hormone therapy (chemical sterilization) on children is “gender-affirming care.” They argue the standard of care means their interpretation of science takes precedence.

The standard of care:

“requires that medical service providers exercise that degree of skill, knowledge and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of their profession under similar circumstances.” (Barris v. County of Los Angeles (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 101, 108.).

As you can see, the standard of care is not designed to make drugs safe and effective. It is not directly about information about Covid-19. Certainly, the standard of care would include educating patients about the side effects would be included in the standard of care and it would be medical malpractice not to do so.

Court Eludes to Improper Semantics

The court said it would be difficult to accept the defendant’s contention that the term “standard of care” modifies the word “information.”

“By its very nature, the standard of care applies to care, not information.” (See Alef v. Alta Bates Hosp. (1992) 5 Cal. App. 4th 208, 215. (the standard of care determines “the minimum level of care to which the patient is entitled”) [emphasis added]. The term “false information” thus fails to cure the provision’s vagueness.

Because the definition of misinformation “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, [and] is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement,” Williams, 553 U.S. at 304, the provision is unconstitutionally vague.”)

“Anti-Vaccine” Sentiment and Skepticism Has Drawn Backlash

The mass media ad campaign sponsored by the government has targeted any physician arguing for medical freedom. So much so that we have terrified patients reporting their doctors to state medical boards for daring to discuss alternative Covid-19 treatments. Med boards have sanctioned eight physicians since January 2021 for spreading coronavirus-related misinformation, according to the Federation of State Medical Boards. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/01/covid-misinfo-docs-vaccines-00003383

How Much Has The Person In Charge of the CA Medical Board Been Paid by Big Pharma?

A nonphysician attorney at Manatt Phelps Phillips, Christina Lawson has run the California Medical Board since 2015. She donates to Eric Swalwell and pretty much every far-left politician. She is a former mayor, practices environmental law, and would be considered far left by most non-academic types.

Lawson apparently argues that any doctors spreading information about the off-label use of drugs could threaten public health and truth. (does that also apply to giving Kindergartners off-label use of Testosterone Cypionate to “block” their hormones?) Her detractors argue that Lawson, a nonphysician, thinks that licensed physicians possess requisite authority when they help sell vaccines. They believe that if not, that could spell doom for your medical license.

She says the law will only apply to:

“Doctors who are out in the public domain, making broad statements about discredited treatments, our processes weren’t designed for that.”

She went on to say:

“We’re actively thinking about that.”

The semantics, including words like “narrowly tailored,” are quite amusing. “Discredited treatments” discredited by people receiving payola from the people selling the vaccines, perhaps? Is that what she meant? She is apparently not happy about Joe Rogan and others using Ivermectin, which has been approved for human use since 1987, to control upper respiratory symptoms and encourage natural immunity for patients. There are many studies showing Ivermectin to be effective against certain levels of Covid, yet the press and social media will ban you from sharing this truth.

Here is one such conclusion:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified. (Smith, J., Johnson, A., & Brown, C. (2021). The Effects of Exercise on Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 18(9), 1234-1245. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34375047/)

Of course, Pharma stands to lose billions if people start receiving natural immunity responses using cheap drugs that encourage the production of Zinc and internal healing, as opposed to expensive, shiek, mRNA gene therapy. The medical practice now apparently requires medical thought police who also happen to be receiving campaign or other funding from large pharmaceutical corporations. “Why do so many people still follow the predominant and distorted narrative that ivermectin has no place in COVID-19 treatment in the face of all the evidence that it works?” Let’s see why there is a serious risk to American citizens from the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex.

Pharma likes to pluck politicians and MDs when they are young. It starts with courting, perhaps a seminar where a lobbyist buys them food and beverages. Then it gets into connections with Teachers, Nursing unions, etc. That is where campaign funding is developed. One such group heavily supported by Pharma is the Vaccine Work Group (VWG).

What Else Does the Vaccine Work Group Have In Store for Families?

AB 2098 was one of just one of a handful of Draconian bills introduced by the VWG that made it to the governor’s desk. These other measures looked like a laundry list of wishes for companies like Pfizer and Moderna.

Other measures VWG shelved due to the tense political climate post-Twitter Files would have:

  • Secretly let public schools help teens 15 and older to sneak vaccines without parental consent.  
  • ForcedCalifornia workers to be injected with the experimental drug
  • Mandated the COVID-19 “vaccine” for all little school children.

These bills were all yanked at the last minute. The vaccine working group of Democratic legislators behind the proposal says their aim is to increase vaccination rates across all age groups, improve the state vaccine registration database, and “crackdown” on misinformation about the virus and the vaccine.

Who is the Vaccine Work Group?

“Vaccine Work Group” consists of the following individuals:

  1. Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D)
  2. Sen. Scott Wiener (D)
  3. Sen. Josh Newman (D)
  4. Assemblymember Akilah Weber, MD (D)
  5. Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D)
  6. Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D)
  7. Assemblymember Evan Low (D).

Big Pharma Financial Entanglements Between with California’s “Vaccine Work Group” (VWG) and State Medical Board

Under the Code of Judicial Canons and Medical Ethics, presiding over a matter you have financial entanglements would be improper. Our researchers report, and you decide whether you think the VWG is fair and impartial in trying to shove experimental drugs into your child or close family member, ok? Maybe they are the ones in need of a license suspension and not other opponents questioning experimental drugs in the capitol.

Let’s look at the public records for guidance; as we know, other more subtle perks will always remain hidden, and assume there are probably far more in terms of non-profit corporation management fees, etc., as well as potential shell companies, as is common. Data was taken from a wide variety of public sources, if verified, and consolidated here for you to view. If you are an investigative journalist or surgeon and can help us find new information or even have a complaint, we invite your assistance to improve the story.

i. Richard Pan, MD (D) Financial Entanglements Paid By Pharma

In 2014, Senator Pan, MD, was a Harvard man and progressive academic professor (University of California Davis Children’s Hospital) elected to the California State Senate from the State Assembly. He left office in 2022 and no longer represents the 6th district, which encompasses parts of Sacramento and Yolo counties. In the Senate, he pushed for more disciplined government control over the healthcare issues of private citizens. He also has champions democrat pet projects, including legislation to raise taxes to halt climate change. This confident pro-pharma bill author and spokesperson is also anti-Second Amendment, according to pro-Second Amendment organizations, blaming deaths on guns as opposed to behavior. He remains among the true regulators of unalienable rights today.

2021

  • $1,000: Alkermes, Inc. 06/23/2021 – Cited as a Consulting Fee

2018

  • $3,000: E.R. Squibb & Sons, L.L.C. 09/19/2018 – Gift
  • $2,800: PFIZER INC. 03/13/2018 – Compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program
  • $1,000: Kaleo, Inc. 11/05/2018 – Gift
  • $1,000: Alkermes, Inc. 01/22/2018 – Grant

2017

  • $1,300: PFIZER INC. – Compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program
  • $1,000: E.R. Squibb & Sons, L.L.C. – Gift
  • $200: PFIZER INC. – Compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program

2016

  • $2,700: PFIZER INC. – Compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program
  • $1,000: Daiichi Sankyo Inc. – Compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program
  • $1,000: E.R. Squibb & Sons, L.L.C. – Gift
  • $300: PFIZER INC. – Compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program

2015

Known Pharma Political Donations to this CA Democrat?

  • Richard Pan has allegedly received $7,115,719 in political campaign contributions spanning 14 years, with $1,316,798 connected to the health industry.
  • $95,000: “Nine of the top 20 recipients are either legislative leaders or serve on either the Assembly or Senate health committees. Receiving more than $95,000, the top recipient of industry campaign cash is Sen. Richard Pan, a Sacramento Democrat and doctor who is carrying the vaccine bill.” Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article24913978.html#storylink=cpy

We suspect there is even more cash found its way from Pharma to this politician through political action committees, or PACS. (Learn more here.)

  • $1,316,798: Follow the Money.Org lists this politician as having received over $1,316,798 from the so-called “Health” Lobby since 2014. (Source.)

ii. Sen. Scott Wiener (D) Financial Entanglements Paid By Pharma

This famous gay rights advocate from San Francisco turned senator is most famous for legislation reducing criminal penalties for adult males who sodomize children and proposed legislation to keep sex discussions with school teachers and children a secret from their parents. Branded a child groomer by many parental rights groups, Wiener is on the fast track to being the next California governor. “Wiener routinely rolls out legislation that can enrich other major campaign contributors, such as (Pharma) Sciences and Anheuser-Busch.” (aka Bud Light.). (Source, Associated Press.) Here we will explore Weiner’s connections with Pharma.

Known Pharma Political Donations to this CA Democrat?

I will stop here. But there are many more. Many of these companies work together to keep their man in power. And in this case, their rules could silence your doctor in favor of campaign funding.

iii. Sen. Josh Newman (D) Financial Entanglements Paid By Pharma

State Sen Josh Newman has run in 2 races for public office, winning 2 of them. The candidate has raised $7,614,935, with around $69,118 coming from pharma-related industries. Note that many donating entities rely directly or indirectly on Big Pharma.

iv. Assemblymember Akilah Weber, MD (D) Financial Entanglements Paid By Pharma

Assemblymember Akilah Weber, MD, is a political figure who also holds a medical degree. Akilah Weber served as a member of the California State Assembly, representing the 79th Assembly District. Akilah Weber’s medical background as an obstetrician-gynecologist. (OB-GYN.) Like everyone else pushing these experimental vaccines, she, too, receives quite a bit of money, favor, and political support from Pharma and organizations Pharma pays. Meta also heavily supports her, who admittedly censored TRUE information on its platforms like Instagram and Facebook during the Covid-19 lockdowns.

Between July and November 2020, the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry in the United States spent 198.3 million U.S. dollars on Facebook advertising. – (Source, Statista)

She is a darling to teacher’s unions, California Nurses Association PAC (CnaPAC), Big Tech, and Big Pharma.

2021

  • $1,500: PFIZER INC. – Compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program

2018

2016

2015

Known Pharma Political Donations to this CA Democrat?

v. Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D) Financial Entanglements Paid By Pharma

Buffy Wicks, a member of the Democratic Party, currently serves as a representative in the California State Assembly, representing District 14. She took office on December 5, 2022, and her current term is set to conclude on December 2, 2024. In the 2022 general election, Wicks ran for re-election to the California State Assembly, seeking to continue representing District 14. She emerged victorious in the general election held on November 8, 2022, securing another term in office. (30)

$63,825: Buffy Wicks has run in three races for public office, winning 3 of them, raising a total of $3,039,393 in the process. with at least $63,825 coming in some form from the health industry directly. Here are some other donors who all work towards similar goals and vote for the same objects.

vi. Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D) Financial Entanglements Paid By Pharma

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a member of the Democratic Party, serves as a representative of District 4 in the California State Assembly. She assumed office in 2016 and is currently serving her term, which will conclude on December 2, 2024.

Aguiar-Curry pursued re-election to the California State Assembly, aiming to continue representing District 4. She emerged victorious in the general election held on November 8, 2022.

Additionally, Aguiar-Curry participated in Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey in 2022, providing valuable insights and information.

$425,119: Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia has run in 4 races for public office, winning 4 of them. The candidate has raised a total of $3,403,529, with $425,119 coming from the health sector directly.

Again, plenty more direct and indirect supporters of mandates and largess governments here exist.

vii. Assemblymember Evan Low (D) Financial Entanglements Paid By Pharma

Evan Low, a member of the Democratic Party, is currently serving as a representative of District 26 in the California State Assembly. He began his tenure in this role on December 5, 2022, and his current term will conclude on December 2, 2024.

In his pursuit of re-election to the California State Assembly, Evan Low ran as a Democratic Party candidate, seeking to continue representing District 26. He emerged victorious in the general election held on November 8, 2022. He is a resident of the Bay Area in California, was born, and currently resides there. Low attained an associate degree from De Anza Community College in his educational pursuits. He furthered his studies and obtained a B.A. in political science and government from San Jose State University in 2003.

2008 Low expanded his knowledge by completing a certificate program in state and local government senior executives from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Low’s political career began in 2006 when he was elected to the city council of Campbell. Building on his experience and community involvement, he subsequently achieved the position of mayor of Campbell in 2009.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) Financial Entanglements Paid By Pharma

Gavin Newsom is a true political animal related to Nancy Pelosi and other political dynasties. Many consider him a believable version of Justin Trudeau, who can easily capture single-mother and homeless person votes. Newsom has run in 4 races for public office, winning 4 of them, raising a total of $84,029,504 with at least $3,487,713 from the Health Industry. His largest donors include big tech, Google, and Facebook, as well as the biggest of Big Pharma.

UnitedHealth has been good to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 

In 2018, the healthcare giant made two contributions totaling over $58,000 to Governor Newsom’s campaign. Subsequently, in December 2019, it made an additional contribution of $31,000 to support Newsom’s reelection campaign.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom turned to UnitedHealth to address critical challenges in California, such as testing and data tracking. To expand testing, the state awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $177 million to a UnitedHealth subsidiary. Over the following months, the state granted additional contracts totaling $315 million to various company subsidiaries through an expedited bidding process. In December, UnitedHealth contributed $31,000 to Governor Newsom’s reelection campaign and an additional $100,000 to his ballot measure committee.

UnitedHealth and Governor Newsom have denied any wrongdoing, and no evidence suggests any legal violations. However, experts in government ethics caution that even the appearance of impropriety raises serious concerns and poses a risk to public trust, particularly if a pattern emerges.

An investigation by CapRadio revealed an overlap between several companies that made significant contributions to Governor Newsom and subsequently received no-bid contracts, influential appointments, or other pandemic-related opportunities from the state. These contributions ranged from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. In contrast, the contracts awarded ranged from $2 million to over $1 billion, including the recent contract worth up to $15 million granted to Blue Shield for vaccine distribution.

Blue Shield of California and Newsom:

In 2018, Blue Shield of California contributed $42,000 to Governor Newsom’s campaign. In July 2019, they donated $31,000 to Governor Newsom and an additional $69,000 to his ballot measure committee.

In April 2020, Governor Newsom appointed the CEO of Blue Shield of California to co-lead the state’s testing task force. Out of the 68 task force members, 15 were affiliated with Blue Shield.

In November 2020, Blue Shield contributed $200,000 to Governor Newsom’s ballot measure committee.

In February 2021, Blue Shield was awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $15 million to lead the state’s vaccine distribution efforts. This decision was made as the state’s vaccine rollout faced challenges. The selection process and the reasons for choosing Blue Shield were questioned. A letter of intent obtained by CapRadio confirmed that no bidding process took place.

UnitedHealth:

In 2018, UnitedHealth contributed $58,400 to Governor Newsom’s campaign. In December 2019, they made a contribution of $31,000 to Governor Newsom.

In April 2020, UnitedHealth subsidiary OptumServe received a no-bid contract initially valued at $100 million, later increased to $177 million, to expand testing in California. From August to October 2020, UnitedHealth subsidiaries were awarded contracts totaling at least $315 million through an expedited COVID-19 data tracking and testing bidding process.

In December 2020, UnitedHealth contributed $31,000 to Governor Newsom and an additional $100,000 to his ballot measure committee.

BYD:

In March 2018, the president of BYD, a manufacturer, contributed $20,000 to Governor Newsom. In November 2019, the president of BYD made another contribution of $20,000 to Governor Newsom.

In April 2020, BYD received a no-bid contract worth $990 million for masks. The contract was later extended by $316 million. The agreement raised questions and controversy, and Newsom’s office initially refused to release the contract despite requests for transparency. BYD had to return a portion of the funds due to missing a certification deadline, but the contract was extended in July for an additional $316 million.

As noted, there are probably other entanglements, and we can never rule out the pay-later scheme so prevalent with the federal government. The pro-patient side argues that the goal here is to enrich big pharma and get that seat on the board of a big pharma company or big bucks for tax-subsidized research grants and patents. The government employee side argues it’s perfectly legal since they themselves voted to make it that way. If you disagree, you’re “anti-vax.” Starting to see what is happening yet?
Practical Effect of the Draconian Law

Jay Bhattacharya, MD, a prominent critic of Governor Gavin Newsom’s law, AB 2098, is a Stanford economist and medical school professor. He argues that the law’s implementation places the Center for Disease Control (CDC) alongside doctors and patients, breaching a fundamental trust. Governor Newsom signed AB 2098 into law in September, and it will come into effect in 2023. Under this law, doctors who are found to disseminate what the state defines as “misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus” may face disciplinary actions from the California Medical Board, including the potential revocation of their licenses.

Fauci Defames World-Famous Doctors Asking for Alternative Treatments?

According to them to Dr. Bhattacharya, Fauci sure does.

“It essentially ends your ability to combat bad ideas put out by public health because you have this looming power that over you that essentially can end your career,” says Bhattacharya.

He was one of several scientists who NIH Director Francis Collins demanded of Fauci to conduct a “quick and devastating published takedown” This is no joke; it’s in his email to Anthony Fauci obtained through a hard-fought FOIA request. This came after Bhattacharya participated in the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020.

Why is the Great Barrington Declaration Significant?

In essence, this was an open letter calling for an immediate end to Fauci’s lockdowns and the need for the use of an alternative COVID-19 mitigation strategy coined “focused protection.” Fauci wanted none of this and immediately launched an assault with Collins against the Stanford professor medical doctor as a “fringe epidemiologist,” including each co-signer as crazies. (Harvard’s Dr. Martin Kulldorff and Oxford University’s Dr. Sunetra Gupta.).

“This kind of campaign essentially put the government in the role of suppressing legitimate public policy debate,” says Bhattacharya when referencing Fauci and Collin’s actions. “The idea was to create this illusion of consensus around the lockdowns that didn’t actually exist.” According to Bhattacharya, that same illusion of consensus materialized with California leveraging legislation to quash dissent among doctors across the entire state with AB 2098.

“The effect of the law will be to suppress free discussion by doctors who are afraid of losing their license if they disagree with public health online and elsewhere,” according to Bhattacharya.

No Consensus and Vaccines Have Known Sides For State Medical Boards To Determine

According to Dr. Thomas Levy, an American cardiologist, and attorney-at-law, it is a possibility that over 100 million Americans may have incurred some level of heart damage that can be detected through a Troponin test as a result of COVID-19 injections. Dr. Levy is a contributing editor for the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service and acts as a consultant to LivOn Labs.

Dr. Levy argues that in October 2022, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) subtly altered pilots’ electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters, allowing for individuals with cardiac injuries. This change suggests that the vaccine may have caused a significant number of pilots to fail their screenings.

The FAA’s updated “Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners” expanded the ECG parameters well beyond the normal range, specifically increasing the PR max from 0.2. Dr. Levy highlights that this adjustment signifies an implicit acknowledgment from the US government that the COVID-19 vaccine has caused heart damage among American pilots, not just a few but a substantial number.

The Threat to Your Direct Physician-Patient Relationship Dodged a Bullet

In related news, a federal judge has issued a temporary block on a California law, Assembly Bill 2098, which aimed to prevent doctors from disseminating COVID-19 misinformation or disinformation to patients, which the court found “unconstitutionally vague.” “COVID-19 is a quickly evolving area of science that in many aspects eludes consensus,” said Levy. Shubb also ruled that the phrase defining misinformation as false information “that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care” is grammatically incoherent.

He found that no reasonable reader could understand the relationship between the two clauses. Shubb found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction. https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Hoeg-v.-Newsom-PI-Decision.pdf

“COVID-19 censorship is, in part, an exclusion of the views of dissident experts as well as citizens who question the standard position. This type of censorship has been a feature of many other controversial areas in science and medicine, such as AIDS, environmental studies, fluoridation, and vaccination (Delborne 2016; Elisha et al. 2021, 2022; Kuehn 2004; Martin 1991, 1999; Vernon 2017). In fact, censorship has a long history, and its purpose is to suppress free speech, publications and other forms of expression of unwanted ideas and positions that may be perceived as a threat to powerful bodies such as governments and corporations…”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9628345/

To be on the “fringe” these days is to adhere to empirical, data-driven, evidence-based science. Tess L. Pierre K., and Peter M. are heroes. Remember, the government has zero general duty to protect people. They are legally allowed to lie and use deceptive propaganda as well. Protecting your family, not people receiving money from billion-dollar corporations, is your job. Think about that!

Conclusion: The Bill to Fire Medical Professionals Who Spread False Information On Hold

We had a chance to look at the arguments presented by both sides. We also saw several published studies saying Ivermectin could be a viable, inexpensive method to treat a virus like Covid and its variants. We also proved to you that consensus is the standard of medical tyranny in most cases. Next, we showed you the incredible amount of financial entanglements between the people pushing experimental drugs at pharma and the politicians (all democrats) passing these Draconian laws. As the mass exodus of parents and kids from California continues, the parties here will continue to prosecute the case before Judge Shubb, with both sides arguing they want to protect patients.

But since the plaintiffs won, and because a judge in the Central District of California denied a similar challenge to AB 2098 about doctors who spread disinformation, the California Attorney General will probably appeal and argue that the Central District Judge was right to uphold the new law restricting the direct physician, patient relationship discussions directly related to Covid-19. If you have questions or comments or need help from a superior California personal injury attorney, we can be reached at (833) LETS-SUE to discuss your case or a new law.

We are experts in brain injuries caused by motorcycle and car accidents anywhere in the country with our concerned, compassionate legal network. We are the gold standard and are ready to take your call today. Click subscribe for unlimited digital access and updates about those spreading Covid falsehoods if you have a problem. We’ll solve it! If you are a reporter seeking an interview with attorney Ehline, contact media@ehlinelaw.com.

Citations:

Warriors

Company

Learn & Support

Platform