Category: US

Posted on

ACOG, Council On Patient Safety In Women’s Health Care, Partnered With Drug Companies

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the ACOG, made quite a stir when they recommended back in December 2020 that it was okay for pregnant women to get these experimental “emergency use authorization” vaccines. Apparently, that is still the case.

Turns out, there is a bigger picture to look at. The ACOG is part of the Council on Patient Safety, a collective of health care groups that work together.

The Membership Of The Council On Patient Safety In Women’s Health Care comprises 19 different spots, and there are currently 2 vacancies. The groups have different goals, but there is a lot of overlap with what they do. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a member, and so is the American College of Nurse Midwives. By itself, that it nothing remarkable.

  • American Academy of Family Physicians
  • American Association of Nurse Anesthetists
  • American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • American College of Nurse Midwives
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  • American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  • American Society for Anesthesiologists
  • American Society for Reproductive Medicine
  • Advancing Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery
  • Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
  • Nurse Practitioners In Women’s Health
  • Preeclampsia Foundation
  • Society for Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics & Gynecology
  • Society of Gynecologic Surgeons
  • Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology
  • Society of OB/Gyn Hospitals
  • Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility

The problems start to set in once you realize that the Council on Patient Safety also has an “industry” branch, including pharmaceutical companies. Needless to say, whatever policies the Council pushes can greatly increase the market for these products

The Forum on Patient Safety in Women’s Health Care, created in January 2013, is a collaboration between the Council and industry partners committed to advancing patient safety in women’s health care. The Forum is designed to facilitate open and ongoing dialogue in order to identify and maximize common interests in women’s health and to develop collaborative initiatives.

There is a scrolling banner of those industry partners, and it was capped for illustrative purposes. Anyone find it odd that drug companies are partnering with health groups this closely?

Some familiar names, including Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson. Is it any wonder that vaccines are still recommended for pregnant women? I don’t suppose the industry partners had anything to do with that. Interesting, that people online are recently getting upset over these recommendations, yet no one takes that time to do even a basic search.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control Foundation (the fundraising arm), receives considerable donations annually, including from drug companies. This isn’t really a secret these days. And what a shocker, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, are both on the donors list.

Now, the USCDC recommends mass vaccinations, including for pregnant women. The Council on Patient Safety recommends them too. And both have ties to companies that will benefit from these decisions. Do you get it now?

(Update): This problem isn’t limited to the United States, which isn’t surprising. The Society for Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada has some interesting donors. The largest is MD Financial Management, a company that provides money management services to doctors. The next largest are Bayer, Merck and Pfizer. Related health care groups probably are funded by big pharma as well.

Now, SOGC refers to this as “providing resources”. Is that a euphemism for drug companies providing money? Or discounting their products? Wish it was a little more specific.

(1) https://cwcnova.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ACIPURGINGEUA.pdf
(2) ACOG Recommends Vaccinating Pregnant Women
(3) https://www.phillytrib.com/news/health/ob-gyn-associations-recommend-all-pregnant-people-get-vaccinated-against-covid-19/article_74130a85-fb9d-5ed6-a4f2-002b4746f238.html
(4) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/
(5) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/council/about-us/council-members/
(6) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/council/about-us/industry-form/
(7) https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporationshttps://archive.is/cYdV4
(8) https://www.sogc.org
(9) https://www.sogc.org/en/-COVID-19/COVID-19/COVID-19-Champions/en/content/COVID-19/covid-champions.aspx?hkey=1d24c3f0-be85-48f3-bc0a-a006c53b98a2
(10) https://archive.is/lGQpy

Posted on

FDA Stopping Emergency Authorized PCR Tests? Not Approved In Canada Either

The FDA has allowed so called RT-PCR testing under the pretense that it’s effective for virus detection. It has been given emergency use authorization, which is set to run out in December 2021. Okay, what will take its place, or will this whole hoax come to an end?

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”

Public health officials in Canada always talk about how they are “following the science”. Turns out, at least part of it has been farmed out to the United States. And what is adopted here is sketchy, at best. If Canada is relying on this “testing” method, and the U.S. stops, what happens here?

Read between the lines on Health Canada’s own website.

Health Canada refers to guidance published by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on nucleic acid-based tests:
.
-for testing devices intended for laboratory or point-of-care use, please refer to FDA’s guidance on molecular -tests
-for testing devices intended for self-testing, please review the FDA guidance for molecular and antigen tests for non-laboratory use
-Manufacturers following the FDA guidance for molecular and antigen tests for non-laboratory use should note that Health Canada expects them to follow the guidance for non-prescription testing. This is because the distinction made by the FDA between prescription and non-prescription testing does not exist in Canada.
.
The FDA, Food & Drug Administration, guidances are in a template format and outline requirements that these products must meet.

Health Canada says in its own guidelines that it uses the USFDA as a reference point in how nucleic-acid based tests are conducted. That’s quite interesting considering that the FDA’s own tests are not approved, but instead have emergency use authorization. And that is set to lapse at the end of 2021. And it’s about to get more interesting from that.

Now, FDA approval is different than FDA emergency use authorization. This parallels Health Canada, in which approval is different than interim authorization. The FDA lists a few circumstances where EUA will be given. The following is from their site:

1. A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a CBRN agent(s);
.
2. A determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces of attack with a CBRN agent(s);
.
3. A determination by the Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a CBRN agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent(s);
.
4. The identification of a material threat, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, that is sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad.

Presumably, the emergency use authorization is granted under #3. However, the document makes it clear that this is not the same thing as being approved. Furthermore, when the emergency is over, sales and distributions of such products must end.

Health Canada links that FDA document on their own site. Presumably, this is used as a starting point for how the Canadian Government handles such things.

Under Section B on that same page, Health Canada lists the “specific nucleic acid sequences from the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 (please specify the targeted gene(s) of the pathogen).” In other words, these tests are not supposed to test for an isolated virus, but to test for a gene, or a portion of a virus — assuming it exists.

The World Health Organization also doesn’t think isolating a virus is necessary. See page 3 of its March 2020 guidance, page 8 of its September 2020 guidance.

Health Canada, again, same page, asks companies applying for an authorization to disclose the known limitations of their testing equipment. On F, Proposed Intended Use, it provides the following:

  • Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history and epidemiological information.
  • Negative results from pooled samples should be treated as presumptive. If inconsistent with clinical signs and symptoms or necessary for patient management, pooled samples should be tested individually. Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and must not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Negative results must be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures, history, presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19.
  • Use of the [test name] in a general, asymptomatic screening population is intended to be used as part of an infection control plan, that may include additional preventative measures, such as a predefined serial testing plan or directed testing of high-risk individuals. Negative results should be considered presumptive and do not preclude current or future infection obtained through community transmission or other exposures. Negative results must be considered in the context of an individual’s recent exposures, history, presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19.

These are what Health Canada lists as examples (emphasis mine). In other words, the tests, if negative, don’t really mean negative. It must be taken in context of other factors. This is a long way away from being the “gold standard” that we are always told it is.

Such guidelines seem ripe for abuse, as a test result could mean whatever the person wants it to be. The above disclaimer means that it’s very subjective, and unreliable as a standardized medical or scientific device.

The BC Centre for Disease Control admitted in April 2020 that the tests are useless. If they can’t detect infection, and the actual error rate is unknown, then they are of no help, other than to artificially drive up false positives. Also, let’s not forget this now scrubbed article of Bonnie Henry admitting false positives could overburden the hospitals. Does this virus even exist?

Other provinces, like Ontario and Manitoba, claim that PCR tests are the “gold standard”. At testing what exactly?

It’s not just nucleic acid tests (or PCR tests) that are held to virtually non-existent standards. Other tests follow the same pattern.

Results are for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 [protein name]antigen. Antigen is generally detectable in [specimen type]during the acute phase of infection. Positive results indicate the presence of viral antigens, but clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

Negative results should be treated as presumptive, and do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or patient management decisions, including infection control decisions. Negative results should be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures, history and the presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19, and confirmed with a molecular assay, if necessary, for patient management.

The [test name] is intended for use by [include intended user, for example, trained clinical laboratory personnel specifically instructed and trained in vitro diagnostic procedures]. The [test name] is only for use under the Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization.

Under Section F: Proposed intended use, there are some rather lengthy disclaimers to be added in. In short, these tests are to be used as an emergency authorized test by the FDA, not approved.

Beyond that, the test results are meaningless. A positive result could be a false positive, and a negative result could be a false positive. It’s only to be used in conjunction with a patient’s history. Again, this is competely subjective.

Interim Orders, like this one signed on March 30, 2020, allow medical devices and medications to be distributed in Canada, even if they don’t meet all the regulatory conditions. In short, as long as there is an “emergency”, there will always be a way to get them into the market.

That Order since lapsed, and Patty Hajdu signed another one on March 1, 2021. Theoretically, as long as this keeps getting extended, then Health Canada will never need to make a determination as to whether these products are safe.

Limitations related to the intended use of serological tests
.
Based on the information available at the present time, Health Canada will not authorize serological tests intended to be used for diagnosis or for self-testing. As research evolves and we learn more about the virus, the disease and the immune response, the requirements in this Guidance may be updated accordingly based on available scientific evidence.
.
The following statements should be included as limitations of serological tests:
.
-This assay is not intended to be used for screening patients or as an aid for diagnosis of patients with suspected COVID-19 infection.
-This assay is not intended for home testing (or self-testing).
–Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions.
–Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.
-False negative results can occur in elderly and immunocompromised patients.
–False positive results for IgM and IgG antibodies may occur due to cross-reactivity from pre-existing antibodies or other possible causes.

The above listings are limitations of serology testing. All of these tests come with a common disclaimer: we don’t know that they actually work.

If people haven’t figured out by now that this is all a scam, then they probably never will. This is obvious to anyone paying attention.

(1) https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing/nucleic-acid-devices.html
(3) https://archive.is/HaFdq
(4) http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BC-COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-COVID-19-laboratory-Testing-March-17-2020.pdf
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-September-11-2020-Guidelines.pdf
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing/antigen-devices/fda-guidance-molecular-diagnostic-template-commercial-manufacturers.html
(9) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medical-devices/application-information/guidance-documents/covid19-requirements-serological-antibody-tests.html
(10) https://archive.is/ISGAH
(11) https://archive.is/hyKJj
(12) https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
(13) https://archive.is/oc5OY
(14) https://www.fda.gov/media/97321/download
(15) FDA Emergency Use Guidelines
(16) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing/antigen-devices/fda-guidance-antigen-template-test-developers.html
(17) https://archive.is/wASc9
(18) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/compliance-enforcement/covid19-interim-order-drugs-medical-devices-special-foods.html
(19) https://archive.is/sPj1p
(20) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drug-medical-device-food-shortages/interim-order-2021.html
(21) https://archive.is/n3dPV
(22) https://archive.is/U2k6g

Posted on

Rockefeller Spends $13.5 Million To Combat “Misinformation” In U.S., Elsewhere

Think that it’s only taxpayers who are funding efforts to stop so-called “misinformation”? Turns out, the Rockefeller Foundation is financing it as well, and this is quite the contribution.

July 15, 2021—The Rockefeller Foundation is announcing $13.5 million in new funding to strengthen Covid-19 response efforts in the U.S., Africa, India, and Latin America to counter health mis- and disinformation – confusing, inaccurate, and harmful information that spreads at an unprecedented speed and scale and threatens the health and wellbeing of communities around the world. The announcement responds immediately to Confronting Health Misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Building a Healthy Information Environment, which calls for a “whole-of-society” effort so that people around the world know what to do—and trust the sources they hear from—during a public health emergency.

“By identifying mis- and disinformation as a challenge to our collective health, the Surgeon General’s guidance reinforces The Rockefeller Foundation’s role in investing in data-driven public health interventions to meet the unique challenges of today’s media environment,” said Bruce Gellin, Chief of Global Public Health Strategy at The Rockefeller Foundation.

The funding will support the design and evaluation of interventions, tools, and methods to build trust in Covid-19 vaccination efforts and counter inaccurate information, and research to understand how inaccurate health information impacts online and offline behaviors, the true cost of mis- and disinformation on health and economic outcomes, and what strategies might be most effective to counter and manage inaccurate and harmful information from malicious sources. Funded projects will provide a foundation for modern information and communication networks that better serve people and are better prepared to encourage actions and behaviors essential to public health response efforts. Detailed information is slated to be released by the end of 2021.

“Science alone is not sufficient to drive action: the best data analysis in the world will not stop an outbreak if people at risk are not aware of the problem, do not think it is a real threat, do not trust the messenger, or do not know what actions to take to protect themselves and their loves ones,” said Estelle Willie, Director of Health Policy and Communications at The Rockefeller Foundation. “The Rockefeller Foundation’s $13.5 million commitment is a direct acknowledgment that effective public health begins with effective communication that cuts through the noise and confusion stemming from mis- and disinformation.”

Today’s announcement marks another step in The Rockefeller Foundation’s commitment to reinvigorate public health for the 21st century so that the world can effectively prevent, detect, and respond to health threats to avert future pandemics. This investment builds on the Foundation’s U.S. Equity-First Vaccination Initiative, which supports community-based organizations serving people of color with the expertise and resources to own and drive evidence-based, misinformation-resilient conversations about vaccines in their communities. Launched in April 2021, the year-long initiative will identify effective strategies to increase vaccine confidence in diverse communities, and assess, to the extent possible, the role misinformation plays in shaping knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about Covid-19 vaccines.

“Vaccine equity” is a term that’s based on the assumption that racism and structural inequalities are the reasons that certain minorities are unable to get vaccines in high enough numbers.

Of course, Rockefeller is also the same organization who brought the “Lockstep Narrative” back in 2010. It was also a partner in the 2016 project, ID2020.

Don’t worry, nothing to see here.

(1) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/the-rockefeller-foundation-commits-13-5-million-in-funding-to-strengthen-public-health-response-efforts/
(2) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/covid-19-response/achieving-vaccine-equity/
(3) Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010
(4) https://id2020.org/alliance

Posted on

San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus Claims Video Was Satire, Makes It Public Again

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus recently put out a video, where very creepy men sing about “coming for your children”. They claim it’s about teaching kids not to hate, although the entire atmosphere gives off pedo vibes.

At a minimum, this was an incredibly tone-deaf stunt. Sensible parents, even open minded ones, are not going to want to subject their children to this. Is this how tolerance is taught?

But if this was just a joke, what exactly is the punch line? What were they aiming for? Or was this a way to manufacture victimhood? Did they never once stop to think how unsettling this is?

“The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus was founded, in part, to fight discrimination and bigotry against all peoples. Today, our chorus members are facing death threats, vile attacks, false accusations, doxing, and other forms of harassment because of our satirical video performance “Message from the Gay Community.”

“We placed the video in private mode to quell the intolerance and hateful responses from mostly anonymous people. Upon reflection, we have made it live again for all to see the satirical and obviously tongue-in-cheek humor. We want everyone to judge for themselves. We will not allow ourselves, even in the face of death threats, to retreat or bow to attempts to twist our words, meaning, self-deprecation and humor.

“We are thankful for the efforts of the San Francisco Police Department and law enforcement for their quick response and assistance in handling these threats.

“The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus is dedicated to being role models, teaching, and spreading the message of love, inclusion, humor, and celebration through our music. We believe, most fervently, in open dialogue , communication, and free speech. We will continue to do so through our music. We invite everyone to join us.”

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus performed a tongue-in-cheek song commissioned by an external arts organization which ironically had a simple message around teaching young people to speak out against anti-LGBTQ hate. The Chorus sings in harmony, ‘Someone’s got to teach them not to hate.’ As a result of manipulation from anti-LGBTQ media figures, the Chorus is now facing uncalled-for and disgusting threats of violence, as well as hate and harassment, across social media. As GLAAD’s Social Media Safety Index reported, hate and harassment too often goes unchecked on social media and the platforms need to act swiftly to address the hateful content directed at the Chorus, especially the threats of violence. The ugly anti-LGBTQ rhetoric just reinforces the need for LGBTQ visibility, community, and advocacy, all of which the SFGMC has exemplified in its 40+ year history.”

Now, a series of responses had compared some of the names against the California sex offender registry. While there were several matches, keep in mind, California has some 40 million residents. Therefore, it’s quite possible for many people to have the same names. While the video above is disgusting, these weirdos shouldn’t be mistaken for those — if the names are coincidental.

If this performance was just tone deaf, it would make sense to take it down. However, the Chorus seems to thing that this “should” be thrown in the faces of everyone.

Yes, tolerance for gays is declining. And antics like this are directly responsible for it happening. Say what you will about the Muslims, but they would never stand for such degeneracy.

(1) https://www.sfgmc.org/
(2) https://www.sfgmc.org/press-releases-1/2021/7/9/statement-from-san-francisco-gay-mens-chorus-july-9-2021
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INfxtSbh6Do

Posted on

Ron DeSantis “Vaccine Passport Ban” Leaves EHP Act, Forced Vaccinations, Curfews Intact

Amendment To Original
It seems that many of these powers were already in place from 2002, and then Governor Jeb Bush. However, the vaccine passport ban left these intact. SB 1262, the Emergency Health Powers Act, was passed in the hysteria of terrorism, which the media helped perpetuate. It was (in error), attributed to DeSantis. Instead, he appears to have just left them in place.

There is a separate piece of legislation, SB 6003, to strike “vaccination” out. We’ll have to see how it goes.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is frequently hailed as a freedom lover, and a pushback to tyranny in the area. But is that really true? How strong is his resistance?

At no point does DeSantis condemn or criticize these experimental concoctions. He never states that they are not approved, but only allowed because of an FDA Emergency Use Authorization. He never talks about the manufacturers being indemnified from liability.

Granted, he issued a blanket pardon for all of the illegitimate fines and charges handed down for breaching previous draconian Orders, but they should never have been issued in the first place.

For starters, while local officials may be prohibited from imposing mask mandates, there is nothing stopping private businesses from demanding them, even for essential goods.

Recently, DeSantis signed SB 2006, which the media claimed would ban “vaccine passports”. While that is true, there were many poison pills left from the Bush era. Either the Governor didn’t fully read the existing Act, or he just didn’t care.

Specifically, still allows the right of the State to impose quarantine measures, similar to what the International Health Regulations call for. It also allows for forced vaccinations. That’s right, a provision was put in to allow for MANDATORY vaccinations “or other treatments”. SB 6003 is in the works to strip vaccination out, but so far, has not been passed.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/BillText/er/HTML is the link, and it seems to be down. So is the general site. Thankfully, it has been archived.

1056 (d) The State Health Officer, upon declaration of a public
1057 health emergency, may take actions that are necessary to protect
1058 the public health. Such actions include, but are not limited to:
1059 1. Directing manufacturers of prescription drugs or over
1060 the-counter drugs who are permitted under chapter 499 and
1061 wholesalers of prescription drugs located in this state who are
1062 permitted under chapter 499 to give priority to the shipping of
1063 specified drugs to pharmacies and health care providers within
1064 geographic areas that have been identified by the State Health
1065 Officer. The State Health Officer must identify the drugs to be
1066 shipped. Manufacturers and wholesalers located in the state must
1067 respond to the State Health Officer’s priority shipping
1068 directive before shipping the specified drugs.
1069 2. Notwithstanding chapters 465 and 499 and rules adopted
1070 thereunder, directing pharmacists employed by the department to
1071 compound bulk prescription drugs and provide these bulk
1072 prescription drugs to physicians and nurses of county health
1073 departments or any qualified person authorized by the State
1074 Health Officer for administration to persons as part of a
1075 prophylactic or treatment regimen.
1076 3. Notwithstanding s. 456.036, temporarily reactivating the
1077 inactive license of the following health care practitioners,
1078 when such practitioners are needed to respond to the public
1079 health emergency: physicians licensed under chapter 458 or
1080 chapter 459; physician assistants licensed under chapter 458 or
1081 chapter 459; licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, and
1082 advanced practice registered nurses licensed under part I of
1083 chapter 464; respiratory therapists licensed under part V of
1084 chapter 468; and emergency medical technicians and paramedics
1085 certified under part III of chapter 401. Only those health care
1086 practitioners specified in this paragraph who possess an
1087 unencumbered inactive license and who request that such license
1088 be reactivated are eligible for reactivation. An inactive
1089 license that is reactivated under this paragraph shall return to
1090 inactive status when the public health emergency ends or before
1091 the end of the public health emergency if the State Health
1092 Officer determines that the health care practitioner is no
1093 longer needed to provide services during the public health
1094 emergency. Such licenses may only be reactivated for a period
1095 not to exceed 90 days without meeting the requirements of s.
1096 456.036 or chapter 401, as applicable.
1097 4. Ordering an individual to be examined, tested,
1098 vaccinated, treated, isolated, or quarantined for communicable
1099 diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and
1100 present a severe danger to public health. Individuals who are
1101 unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or
1102 treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be
1103 subjected to isolation or quarantine.
1104 a. Examination, testing, vaccination, or treatment may be
1105 performed by any qualified person authorized by the State Health
1106 Officer.
1107 b. If the individual poses a danger to the public health,
1108 the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation
1109 or quarantine. If there is no practical method to isolate or
1110 quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any
1111 means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual.
1112 c. Any order of the State Health Officer given to
1113 effectuate this paragraph is shall be immediately enforceable by
1114 a law enforcement officer under s. 381.0012.
1115 (e)(2) Individuals who assist the State Health Officer at
1116 his or her request on a volunteer basis during a public health
1117 emergency are entitled to the benefits specified in s.
1118 110.504(2), (3), (4), and (5).
1119 Section 18. Section 381.00316, Florida Statutes, is created
1120 to read:
1121 381.00316 COVID-19 vaccine documentation.—
1122 (1) A business entity, as defined in s. 768.38 to include
1123 any business operating in this state, may not require patrons or
1124 customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19
1125 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry
1126 upon, or service from the business operations in this state.
1127 This subsection does not otherwise restrict businesses from
1128 instituting screening protocols consistent with authoritative or
1129 controlling government-issued guidance to protect public health.
1130 (2) A governmental entity as defined in s. 768.38 may not
1131 require persons to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19
1132 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry
1133 upon, or service from the governmental entity’s operations in
1134 this state. This subsection does not otherwise restrict
1135 governmental entities from instituting screening protocols
1136 consistent with authoritative or controlling government-issued
1137 guidance to protect public health.
1138 (3) An educational institution as defined in s. 768.38 may
1139 not require students or residents to provide any documentation
1140 certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery for
1141 attendance or enrollment, or to gain access to, entry upon, or
1142 service from such educational institution in this state. This
1143 subsection does not otherwise restrict educational institutions
1144 from instituting screening protocols consistent with
1145 authoritative or controlling government-issued guidance to
1146 protect public health.
1147 (4) The department may impose a fine not to exceed $5,000
1148 per violation.
1149 (5) This section does not apply to a health care provider
1150 as defined in s. 768.38; a service provider licensed or
1151 certified under s. 393.17, part III of chapter 401, or part IV
1152 of chapter 468; or a provider with an active health care clinic
1153 exemption under s. 400.9935.
1154 (6) The department may adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536
1155 and 120.54 to implement this section.
1156 Section 19. Subsection (1) of section 406.11, Florida
1157 Statutes, is amended, and paragraph (c) is added to subsection
1158 (2) of that section, to read:
1159 406.11 Examinations, investigations, and autopsies.—
1160 (1) In any of the following circumstances involving the
1161 death of a human being, the medical examiner of the district in
1162 which the death occurred or the body was found shall determine
1163 the cause of death and certify the death and shall, for that
1164 purpose, make or perform have performed such examinations,
1165 investigations, and autopsies as he or she deems shall deem
1166 necessary or as shall be requested by the state attorney:
1167 (a) When any person dies in this the state:
1168 1. Of criminal violence.
1169 2. By accident.
1170 3. By suicide.
1171 4. Suddenly, when in apparent good health.
1172 5. Unattended by a practicing physician or other recognized
1173 practitioner.
1174 6. In any prison or penal institution.
1175 7. In police custody.
1176 8. In any suspicious or unusual circumstance.
1177 9. By criminal abortion.
1178 10. By poison.
1179 11. By disease constituting a threat to public health.
1180 12. By disease, injury, or toxic agent resulting from
1181 employment.
1182 (b) When a dead body is brought into this the state without
1183 proper medical certification.
1184 (c) When a body is to be cremated, dissected, or buried at
1185 sea.
1186 (2)
1187 (c) A district medical examiner shall assist the State
1188 Health Officer in identifying and reporting deaths upon a
1189 request by the State Health Officer under s. 381.00315.
1190 Section 20. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
1191 act, this act shall take effect July 1, 2021.

Included in this Bill, SB 2006, are the famous provisions to ban “vaccine passports”, and the text can be found on lines 1122 to 1147. As stated there is a $5,000 (maximum) penalty for breaching this. However, it is not a complete ban, and professions such as health care can still require it.

But that isn’t all. Starting on line 1097
1097 4. Ordering an individual to be examined, tested,
1098 vaccinated, treated, isolated, or quarantined for communicable
1099 diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and
1100 present a severe danger to public health. Individuals who are
1101 unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or
1102 treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be
1103 subjected to isolation or quarantine.

A State Health Officer can order a person to be examined, tested, vaccinated, treated, isolated of quarantined for “communicable diseases”. People who refuse, even for valid exemptions, may be quarantined by force. That doesn’t exactly seem consistent with “freedom”. Why is it still there?

1107 b. If the individual poses a danger to the public health,
1108 the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation
1109 or quarantine. If there is no practical method to isolate or
1110 quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any
1111 means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual.

Line 1110 and 1110 state that the State Health Officer may use any means necessary to vaccinate, or otherwise “treat” an individual. What good is it to ban vaccine passports, when the underlying vaccination can still be imposed on a member of the public? What else is in there?

1029 (b) Before declaring a public health emergency, the State
1030 Health Officer shall, to the extent possible, consult with the
1031 Governor and shall notify the Chief of Domestic Security. The
1032 declaration of a public health emergency shall continue until
1033 the State Health Officer finds that the threat or danger has
1034 been dealt with to the extent that the emergency conditions no
1035 longer exist and he or she terminates the declaration. However,
1036 a declaration of a public health emergency may not continue for
1037 longer than 60 days unless the Governor concurs in the renewal
1038 of the declaration.

The State Health Official is an unelected bureaucrat, who has the power to just declare an emergency, and keep it going. Yes, the Governor needs to sign off on renewals past 60 days, but that doesn’t really fix the problem. And who runs Florida anyway, the Governor, or the State Health Officer?

124 specified format; requiring that orders issued by a
125 political subdivision which impose a curfew
126 restricting travel or movement allow persons to travel
127 during the curfew to and from their places of
128 employment; amending s. 377.703, F.S.

Don’t worry about more house arrest (sarcasm). In the event of a forced curfew, people would still be allowed to travel to their jobs. DeSantis won’t PREVENT areas from imposing one, but at least people will still be able to work.

Ron DeSantis is greatly admired in Canada. But is he really the freedom fighter that he claims to be? Why were all of these things left in?

(1) https://www.flsenate.gov/
(2) https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/BillText/er/HTML
(3) https://archive.is/XCFxp
(4) Wayback Machine Archive
(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRFpYmBHzn0
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zeL0lVxXms
(7) https://aapsonline.org/press/jebbushlet.htm
(8) https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2002/04/state-public-health-emergency-bills-getting-favorable-reception

Posted on

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Sleight-Of-Hand With Her “Abolish The ATF” Legislation

Marjorie Taylor Greene made headlines recently with her “Abolish the ATF” Bill, HR3960. Problem is, it does nothing to promote freedom for gun owners. It essentially transfers existing ATF powers to the Department of Justice, or the FBI.

Even if this Bill had a chance of passing in Congress, would this ultimately change anything for the better?

Here are a few sections which prove the point.

[Page 25]
(1) REPEAL OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.—
2 Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
3 hereby repealed.
4 (2) REPEAL OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
5 EXCISE TAX.—Part III of subchapter D of chapter
6 32 of such Code is hereby repealed.
7 (3) Section 6103(i)(8)(A)(i) of such Code (26
8 U.S.C. 6103(i)(8)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘the
9 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explo-
10 sives’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Department of
11 the Treasury’’ and inserting ‘‘or the Department of
12 Justice’’.

[Page 25/26]
15 (1) Each of the following provisions of law is
16 amended by striking ‘‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
17 Firearms and Explosives,’’ each place it appears and
18 inserting ‘‘Department of Justice’’:
19 (A) Section 530C(b)(2) of title 28, United
20 States Code.
21 (B) Section 207 of division B of the Con-
22 solidated and Further Continuing Appropria-
23 tions Act, 2013 (28 U.S.C. 533 note).
(C) Section 207 of division B of the Con-
2 solidated and Further Continuing Appropria-
3 tions Act, 2012 (28 U.S.C. 533 note).
4 (D) Section 207 of division B of the Con-
5 solidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (28 U.S.C.
6 533 note).
7 (E) Section 207 of division B of the Omni-
8 bus Appropriations Act, 2009 (28 U.S.C. 533
9 note).
10 (F) Section 207 of division B of the Con-
11 solidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (28 U.S.C.
12 533 note).
13 (G) Section 107 of title I of the Consoli
14 dated and Further Continuing Appropriations
15 Act, 2013 (28 U.S.C. 533 note).
16 (H) Section 116 of title I of the Science,
17 State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies
18 Appropriations Act, 2006 (28 U.S.C. 533 note).
19 (2) Section 1151(c) of title XI of the Consoli-
20 dated and Further Continuing Appropriation

[Page 27/28]
8 (4) Section 2006(2) of title 28, United States
9 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘, the Director, Bu-
10 reau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,
11 Department of Justice,’’.
12 (n) AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 31, UNITED STATES
13 CODE.—
14 (1)(A) Section 713 of title 31, United States
15 Code, is amended—
16 (i) in the section heading, by striking
17 ‘‘Service, Tax and Trade Bureau, and
18 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fire-
19 arms, and Explosives’’ and inserting
20 ‘‘Service and Department of Justice’’;
21 (ii) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘and the
22 Tax and Trade Bureau’’ and all that follows
23 though ‘‘Department of Justice of the Depart-
24 ment of the Treasury’’ and inserting ‘‘and so
25 much of the Department of Justice as relates to
1 the administration and enforcement of provi-
2 sions transferred under the Brian A. Terry Me-
3 morial Eliminate the ATF Act’’ ; and
4 (iii) in subsection (b)—
5 (I) in each of paragraphs (1), (2), and
6 (3), by striking ‘‘either Bureau’’ and in-
7 serting ‘‘the Department’’; and
8 (II) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘,
9 the Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of
10 the Treasury, and the Director of the Bu-
11 reau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
12 Explosives, Department of Justice’’ and in-
13 serting ‘‘and the Department of Jus

Read the entire Bill. From the looks of things, this was just a publicity stunt. Simply transferring powers from the ATF to the Department of Justice addresses none of the problems Greene claimed to care about.

If you ever needed a reason not to trust a Q-Anon supporter, this is it. They will say all the right things, but will never deliver anything meaningful. Then again, some people will just broadcast it without actually reading it, though others will call this out.

(1) https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3960/text?r=1&s=4
(2) https://greene.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/greene.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Eliminate%20ATF%20Act%20HR%203960%20Bill%20Text.pdf
(3) Eliminate ATF Act HR 3960 Bill Text
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEJvFFW8QAc
(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7zkRHzwP_g