Browsed by
Tag: Bobby Kennedy

Breaking News: Bobby Kennedy Sues Facebook and its “Independent” “Fact Checkers”

Breaking News: Bobby Kennedy Sues Facebook and its “Independent” “Fact Checkers”

This morning, August 18, 2020, Bobby Kennedy/CHD filed a federal lawsuit against Facebook and its outside fact-checkers on a variety of grounds, including First and Fifth Amendment violations, RICO and a claim under the Lanham Act. The heart of the case seems to be that Facebook is restricting his organization’s right and ability to present published scientific studies which show that picture of vaccine safety put out by the CDC and the WHO is false and that Facebook has deep and basically undisclosed ties to Pharma and is acting as Pharma’s shill to sell known unsafe and dangerous products. The main financial conduit is through advertising revenues which Pharma pays to Facebook. Of course, the same could be said about most TV media, and it not widely appreciated that the US is only one of two developed nations that permit direct-to-consumer advertising.

Here is a link to the CHD website page about the lawsuit.
There is a link to a downloadable pdf of the complaint.

My one-word description of it I guess would be “WOW.” It is 95 pages and has a table of contents (well deserved) and a table of authorities, which is something you don’t see every day, and says to me that they are going straight at these guys, hard and are not hiding the ball and that they are letting world know that they think they have legal authority on their side.

The core issue in the case is complicated, nuanced, multidimensional, and involves important issues involving the balancing of differing and sometimes opposing constitutional rights, as well as some novel issues involving statutes and in particular the federal communication act’s protection of internet service providers. Basically, republishers are immune from lawsuits, but entities that post content are not. The main fact/legal issue will be whether by posting advisories and referring readers of CHD content to the CDC for accurate information about vaccines, does Facebook transform itself into a content provider which is not immune from suit under the communications act?

This may sound familiar to some because the argument has one big proponent: President Donald Trump. That is the argument he was making against Twitter when it put an advisory about a few of his tweets or even removed one (or a few, I don’t recall which). But since he runs the government, he can do other things than sue, like trying to remove federal immunity from providers who think they can censor him and get away with it.But if you’re anyone other than the President, you have to do things the old fashion way and sue, and that is what RFK, Jr. has done.

The countervailing point is that many feel that social media has been derelict in its duty to stem the flow of misinformation, hate speech, false information, and crazy conspiracy theories. It is the reaction to that knock on social media that has ensnared Bobby’s group (and many other groups who are against vaccine mandates) in this boondoggle.

It is also known that foreign powers, notably Russia, China, and Iran are using social media as “useful idiots” to spread false facts and conspiracy theories to sow dissension and weaken the country. And regrettably, it is working all too well.

Congress held hearings about this warned Facebook and the other big social media players that if they didn’t get this false information under control, including what was claimed to be the false information spread by the “anti-vaxxers,” Congress would do it by regulation. The lawsuit ties those Congressional threats into the story the Complaint tells.

On a technical level, the complaint is a very impressive piece of legal work. And it certainly raises some timely and very important questions. I also think that this suit will be widely applauded by many different communities, mostly good (in my view anyway) but some not so good. The right-wing wingnuts who spew crazy racist hate and conspiracy theories who have been banned from social media will love the complaint, but I guess that’s sometimes the cost of doing business. The ACLU defended the American Nazi’s right to march in Skokie because there were important First Amendment issues. This lawsuit, if successful, might benefit some very unsavory characters and groups, (like the Alex Jones types), but there is no question that the lawsuit raises very important questions which need to be aired publicly and not just in the halls of Congress.

Beyond that, there is one thing I am very certain of.

I don’t want Mark Zuckenberg and a few of his billionaire Silicon Valley confreres deciding what I can see or post on their platforms, mostly because there are so few of them and they are in effect a monopoly. That may mean breaking them up like they did with AT&T, (and I am in favor of that big-time), or it may mean something else.

But to the extent that this lawsuit furthers the conversation about taking away the power of a very, very few rich white guys to decide what Americans see on social media, I’m for it, and it is happening none too soon.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Bobby Kennedy’s Intro to “Plague of Corruption” is even more important now, after the attacks on the Frontline Doctors and the Firing of Board Certified Physician Dr. Simone Gold

Bobby Kennedy’s Intro to “Plague of Corruption” is even more important now, after the attacks on the Frontline Doctors and the Firing of Board Certified Physician Dr. Simone Gold

In the future, when they write about how and why the current pharma controlled and corrupted medical paradigm was replaced, I think they will point to the Frontline Doctor’s July 27th press conference, the resulting dismissal of board-certified physician Dr. Simone Gold from her job, and the world-wide public outcry relating to the suppression of information about Hydroxychloroquine by the social media monopolies as the fulcrum point. We are seeing in real-time the dysfunction and failures of the public health apparatus. But we are also seeing how the defenders of the current paradigm wage war against those who question the current medical paradigm, namely the vilification, marginalization, and harassment of the professionals who challenge the church of medical orthodoxy.

A few months ago, Plague of Corruption was published, which is Judy Mikovits’ story about how she was attacked by the medical establishment. Predictably, her book and the documentary about it have been attacked and suppressed. Her book had a forward by Bobby Kennedy.

I’ve been doing this medical maverick stuff for a long, long time, and I have written quite a bit about it, including my own book about some of the mavericks I have defended. But in all that time, and with all my words, I don’t recall ever seeing as cogent and succinct a summary of the perils facing these mavericks as Bobby’s forward to the Mikovits and Heckenlively book. In light of the recent attacks on the Frontline Doctors, it is well worth rereading and sharing Bobby’s words.

(I am only going to share the general parts of his forward. For the entire forward which contains a good summary of Judy’s story, his forward is posted at his group’s (Children’s Health Defense) web site: .

Bobby and his group of committed activists do great and important work, so if you can, please make a donation to them. Here is the link.
The posting of his introduction was on CHD’s web site, published on May 12, 2020.

(I will have a few things to say after his Introduction)

©”Moral Courage and Our Common Future—A Foreword to Plague of Corruption”

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense

“And yet, it moves!” Galileo whispered those defiant words in 1615 as he left the Roman Inquisition tribunal before which he repudiated his theory that the Earth—the immovable center of the Universe according to contemporary orthodoxy—revolves around the sun. Had he not recanted, his life would be forfeit. We like to think of Galileo’s struggles as the quaint artifact of a dark, ignorant, and tyrannical era where individuals challenged government-anointed superstitions only at grave personal risk. Dr. Judy Mikovits’s story shows that stubborn orthodoxies anointed by pharmaceutical companies and corrupt government regulators to protect power and profits remain a dominant force in science and politics.

* * *
[parts about Judy’s case omitted, see the link above for the entire Introduction]

“Challenging contemporary orthodoxies is an occupational hazard

The persecution of scientists and doctors who dare to challenge contemporary orthodoxies did not take a rest after Galileo: it has always been, and remains today, an occupational hazard. Henrik Ibsen’s 1882 play An Enemy of the People is a parable for the pitfall of scientific integrity. Ibsen tells the story of a doctor in southern Norway who discovers that his town’s popular and lucrative public baths were actually sickening the visitors who flocked to them for rejuvenation. Discharges from local tanneries had infected the spas with lethal bacteria. When the doctor goes public with the information, local merchants, joined by government officials, their allies in the “liberal-minded independent press,” and other financially interested parties move to muzzle him. The medical establishment pulls his medical license, the townsfolk vilify and brand him “an enemy of the people.”

Ibsen’s fictional doctor experienced what social scientists call the “Semmelweis reflex.” This term describes the knee-jerk revulsion with which the press, the medical and scientific community, and allied financial interests greet new scientific evidence that contradicts an established scientific paradigm. The reflex can be particularly fierce in cases where new scientific information suggests that established medical practices are actually harming public health.

The real-life plight of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician, inspired the term and Ibsen’s play. In 1847, Dr. Semmelweis was an assistant professor at Vienna’s General Hospital maternity clinic, where around 10 percent of women died from puerperal “birth bed” fever. Based on his pet theory that cleanliness could mitigate transmission of disease-causing “particles,” Semmelweis introduced the practice of mandatory hand washing for interns between performing autopsies and delivering babies. The rate of fatal puerperal fever immediately dropped to around 1 percent. Semmelweis published these findings.

Rather than building a statue to Semmelweis, the medical community, unwilling to admit culpability in the injury of so many patients, expelled the doctor from the medical profession. His former colleagues tricked Dr. Semmelweis into visiting a mental institution in 1865, then committed him against his will. Semmelweis died mysteriously two weeks later. A decade afterward, Louis Pasteur’s germ theory and Joseph Lister’s work on hospital sanitation vindicated Semmelweis’s ideas.
Modern analogs abound

Modern analogs abound. Herbert Needleman of the University of Pittsburgh endured the Semmelweis reflex when he revealed the brain-killing toxicity of lead in the 1980s. Needleman published a groundbreaking study in 1979 in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that children with high levels of lead in their teeth scored significantly lower than their peers on intelligence tests, on auditory and speech processing, and on attention measurements. Beginning in the early 1980s, the lead and oil industries (leaded gasoline was a lucrative petroleum product) mobilized public relations firms and scientific and medical consultants to lambast Needleman’s research and his credibility. Industry pressured the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Scientific Integrity at the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Pittsburgh to launch investigations against Needleman. Ultimately the federal government and the University vindicated Needleman. But the impact of the industry’s scathing assault ruined Needleman’s academic career and stagnated the field of lead research. The episode offered an enduring demonstration of industry power to disrupt the lives of researchers who dare to question their products’ safety.
Trade journals and the popular media disparaged [Rachel Carson] as a ‘hysterical woman.’

Rachel Carson ran the same gauntlet in the early 1960s when she exposed the dangers of Monsanto’s DDT pesticide, which the medical community then promoted as prophylactic against body lice and malaria. Government officials and medical professionals led by the American Medical Association joined Monsanto and other chemical manufacturers, attacking Carson viciously. Trade journals and the popular media disparaged her as a “hysterical woman.” Industry talking points derided Carson as a “spinster,” the contemporary euphemism for lesbian, and for being unscientific. Vicious criticisms of her book appeared in editorial pages in Time, Life, Newsweek, the Saturday Evening Post, US News and World Report, and even Sports Illustrated. I am immensely proud that my uncle, President John F. Kennedy, played a critical role in vindicating Carson. In 1962, he defied his own USDA, a captive agency in league with Monsanto, and appointed a panel of independent scientists who validated every material assertion in Carson’s book Silent Spring.

The experience of British physician and epidemiologist Alice Stewart offers a near-perfect analogy to the Medical cartel’s lynching of Judy Mikovits. In the 1940s, Stewart was one of the rare women in her profession and the youngest fellow ever elected at the time to the Royal College of Physicians. She began investigating the high occurrences of childhood cancers in well-to-do families, a puzzling phenomenon given that disease often correlated with poverty, and seldom with affluence. Stewart published a paper in The Lancet in 1956 offering strong evidence that the common practice of giving X-rays to pregnant women was the culprit in carcinomas that would later afflict their children. According to Margaret Heffernan, author of Willful Blindness, Stewart’s finding “flew in the face of conventional wisdom”—the medical profession’s enthusiasm for the new technology of X-rays—as well as “doctors’ idea of themselves, which was as people who helped patients.” A coalition of government regulators, nuclear promoters, and the nuclear industry joined the US and British medical establishments in launching a brutal attack on Stewart. Stewart, who died in 2002 at the age of ninety-five, never again received another major research grant in England. It took twenty-five years after the publication of Stewart’s paper for the medical establishment to finally acknowledge her findings and abandon the practice of X-raying expectant mothers.
Punished, exiled, and ruined

Judy Mikovits is heir to these martyrs and, more directly, to a long line of scientists, whom public health officials have punished, exiled, and ruined specifically for committing heresy against reigning vaccine orthodoxies.

Dr. Bernice Eddy was an award-winning virologist, and one of the highest-ranking female scientists in NIH history. She and her research partner Elizabeth Stewart were the first researchers to isolate the Polyomavirus—the first virus proven to cause cancer. In 1954, NIH asked Eddy to direct testing of the Salk polio vaccine. She discovered, while testing eighteen macaques, that Salk’s vaccine contained residual live polio virus that was paralyzing the monkeys. Dr. Eddy warned her NIH bosses that the vaccine was virulent, but they dismissed her concerns. The distribution of that vaccine by Cutter Labs in California caused the worst polio outbreak in history. Health officials infected 200,000 people with live polio; 70,000 became sick, leaving 200 children paralyzed and ten dead.

In 1961, Eddy discovered that a cancer-causing monkey virus, SV40, had contaminated ninety-eight million Salk polio vaccines. When she injected the SV40 virus into newborn hamsters, the rodents sprouted tumors. Eddy’s discovery proved an embarrassment to many scientists working on the vaccine. Instead of rewarding her for her visionary work, NIH officials banned her from polio research and assigned her to other duties. The NIH buried the alarming information and continued using the vaccines.

In the autumn of 1960, the New York Cancer Society invited Eddy to address its annual conference. Eddy chose the subject of tumors induced by the polyoma virus. However, she also described tumors induced by the SV40 viral agent in monkey kidney cells. Her NIH supervisor angrily reprimanded Eddy for mentioning the discovery publicly and banned her from public health crisis statements. Eddy argued for publication of her work on the virus, casting the contaminated vaccine supply on an urgent public health crisis. Agency bigwigs stonewalled publication, allowing Merck and Parke-Davis to continue marketing the oncogenic vaccine to millions of American adults and children.

On July 26, 1961, the New York Times reported that Merck and Parke-Davis were withdrawing their Salk vaccines. The article said nothing about cancer. The Times ran the story next to an account about overdue library fines on page 33.

While two drug companies, Merck and Parke-Davis, recalled their polio vaccine in 1961, NIH officials refused to pursue a total recall of the rest of the supply, fearing reputational injury to the vaccine program if Americans learned that PHS had infected them with a cancer-producing virus. As a result, millions of unsuspecting Americans received carcinogenic vaccines between 1961 and 1963. The Public Health Service then concealed that “secret” for forty years.

In total, ninety-eight million Americans received shots potentially containing the cancer-producing virus, which is now part of the human genome. In 1996, government researchers identified SV-40 in 23 percent of the blood specimens and 45 percent of the sperm specimens collected from healthy adults. Six percent of the children born between 1980 and 1995 are infected. Public health officials gave millions of people the vaccine for years after they knew it was infected. They contaminated humanity with a monkey virus and refused to admit what they’d done.
Today, scientists find SV-40 in a wide range of deadly tumors, including between 33 percent and 90 percent of brain tumors, eight of eight ependymomas, and nearly half of the bone tumors tested.

Today, SV-40 is used in research laboratories throughout the world because it is so reliably carcinogenic. Researchers use it to produce a wide variety of bone and soft-tissue cancers including mesothelioma and brain tumors in animals. These cancers have exploded in the baby boom generation, which received the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines between 1955 and 1963. Skin cancers are up by 70 percent, lymphoma and prostate by 66 percent, and brain cancer by 34 percent. Prior to 1950, mesothelioma was rare in humans. Today, doctors diagnose nearly 3,000 Americans with mesotheliomas every year; 60 percent of the tumors that were tested contained SV-40. Today, scientists find SV-40 in a wide range of deadly tumors, including between 33 percent and 90 percent of brain tumors, eight of eight ependymomas, and nearly half of the bone tumors tested.

In successive measures, NIH forbade Bernice Eddy from speaking publicly or attending scholarly conferences, held up her papers, removed her from vaccine research altogether, and eventually destroyed her animals and took away access to her labs. Her treatment continues to mark an enduring scandal with the scientific community, yet NIH’s Bernice Eddy playbook has become a standardized template for Federal vaccine regulators in their treatment of dissident vaccine scientists who seek to tell the truth about vaccines.

Dr. John Anthony Morris was a bacteriologist and virologist who worked for thirty-six years at NIH and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), beginning in 1940. Morris served as the chief vaccine officer for the Bureau of Biological Standards (BBS) at the National Institute of Health and later with the FDA when the BBS transferred to that agency in the 1970s. Dr. Morris irked his superiors by arguing that the research carried out by his unit demonstrated there was no reliable proof that flu vaccines were effective in preventing influenza; in particular, he accused his supervisor of basing HHS’s mass vaccination program for the swine flu primarily on a scientifically baseless fear campaign and on false claims made by pharmaceutical manufacturers. He warned that the vaccine was dangerous and could induce neurological injuries. His CDC superior warned Dr. Morris, “I would advise you not to talk about this.”

When vaccine recipients began reporting adverse reactions, including Guillain-Barré, Dr. Morris disobeyed that order and went public. He declared that the flu vaccine was ineffective and potentially dangerous and said that he could find no evidence that this swine flu was dangerous or that it would spread from human to human.

In retaliation, FDA officials confiscated his research materials, changed the locks on his laboratory, reassigned his laboratory staff, and blocked his efforts to publish his findings. The FDA assigned Dr. Morris to a small room with no telephone. Anyone who wished to see him had to secure permission from the chief of the lab. In 1976, HHS fired Dr. Morris on the pretext that he failed to return library books on time.
Among the vaccine’s victims were 500 cases of Guillain-Barré, including 200 people paralyzed and thirty-three dead.

Subsequent events supported Dr. Morris’s skepticism about the swine flu shot. The 1976 swine flu vaccination program was so fraught with problems that the government discontinued inoculations after forty-nine million people had received the vaccine. Among the vaccine’s victims were 500 cases of Guillain-Barré, including 200 people paralyzed and thirty-three dead. Furthermore, the incidence of swine flu among vaccinated was seven times greater than among those who were unvaccinated, according to news reports.

According to his New York Times obituary, Dr. Morris said, “The producers of these (influenza) vaccines know they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.” He told the Washington Post in 1979, “It’s a medical ripoff I believe the public should have truthful information on the basis of which they can determine whether or not to take the vaccine,” adding, “I believe that given full information, they won’t take the vaccine.”

FDA used the same playbook in 2002 to isolate, silence, and drive from government service its star epidemiologist, Dr. Bart Classen, when his massive epidemiologic studies, the largest ever performed, linked Hib vaccines to the juvenile diabetes epidemic. FDA ordered Dr. Classen to refrain from publishing the government-funded studies, forbade him from talking publicly about the alarming outbreak, and eventually forced him out of government service.

In 1995, the CDC hired a PhD computer analytics expert, Dr. Gary Goldman, to perform the largest-ever CDC-funded study of the chickenpox vaccine. Goldman’s results on an isolated population of 300,000 residents of Antelope Valley, California, showed that the vaccine waned, leading to dangerous outbreaks of chickenpox in adults and that ten-year-old children who received the vaccine were getting shingles at over three times the rate of unvaccinated children. Shingles has twenty times the death rate of chickenpox and causes blindness. CDC ordered Goldman to hide his findings and forbade him from publishing his data. In 2002, Goldman resigned in protest. He sent a letter to his bosses saying that he was resigning because “I refuse to participate in research fraud.”
Our corrupt medical officials have systematically disgraced and silenced them.

Recent medical history overflows with other examples of the brutal suppression of any science that exposes vaccines’ risks; its casualties include brilliant and compassionate doctors and scientists like Dr. Waney Squier, the railroaded British gastroenterologist Andy Wakefield, the steadfast father/ son research team David and Dr. Mark Geier, Italian biochemist Antionetta Gatti, and Danish epidimiologist Peter Goetzsche. Any just society would have built statues to these visionaries and honored them with laurels and leadership. Our corrupt medical officials have systematically disgraced and silenced them.

In England a neuropathologist, Dr. Waney Squier of the Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, testified in a series of cases on behalf of defendants accused of inflicting shaken baby syndrome. Squier believed that, in these cases, vaccines and not physical trauma had caused the infants’ brain injuries. In March 2016, the Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal Service (MPTS) charged her with falsifying evidence and lying and struck her from the medical register. Squier appealed the tribunal’s decision in November 2016. The High Court of England reversed the MPTS’s decision, concluding, “The determination of the MPTS is in many significant ways flawed.”

Professor Peter Gøtzsche co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 to remedy the overwhelming corruption of published science and scientists by pharmaceutical companies. Over 30,000 of the world’s leading scientists joined Cochrane as volunteer reviewers hoping to restore independence and integrity to published science. Gøtzsche was responsible for making Cochrane the world’s leading independent research institute. He also founded the Nordic Cochrane Center in 2003. On October 29, 2018, pharmaceutical interests, led by Bill Gates, finally succeeded in ousting Professor Gøtzsche. A stacked board controlled by Gates fired Gøtzsche from the Cochrane Collaboration after he published a well-founded criticism of the HPV vaccine. In 2018, the Danish government, under pressure from pharma, fired Peter Gøtzsche from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen. His findings about the HPV vaccine threatened the pharmaceutical industry’s earnings.
A search for existential truth

Science, at its best, is a search for existential truth. Sometimes, however, those truths threaten powerful economic paradigms. Both science and democracy rely on the free flow of accurate information. Greedy corporations and captive government regulators have consistently shown themselves willing to twist, distort, falsify, and corrupt science, hide information, and censor open debate to protect personal power and corporate profits. Censorship is the fatal enemy of both democracy and public health. Dr. Frank Ruscetti often quotes Valery Legasov, the courageous Russian physicist who braved censor, torture, and threats on his life by the KGB to reveal to the world the true cause of the Chernobyl disaster. “To be a scientist is to be naïve. We are so focused on our search for the truth, we fail to consider how few actually want us to find it. But it is always there, whether we can see it or not, whether we choose to or not. The truth doesn’t care about our needs or our wants. It doesn’t care about our governments, our ideologies, our religions. It will lie in wait for all time.”

This account by Judy Mikovits and Kent Heckenlively is vitally important both to the health of our children and the vitality of our democracy. My father believed moral courage to be the rarest species of bravery. Rarer even than the physical courage of soldiers in battle or great intelligence. He thought it the one vital quality required to salvage the world.

If we are to continue to enjoy democracy and protect our children from the forces that seek to commoditize humanity, then we need courageous scientists like Judy Mikovits who are willing to speak truth to power, even at terrible personal cost.”

That’s his forward, and it is even more relevant now with the latest attack on clinicians whose crime is that they are speaking out about a treatment they are using which is working to save lives. Bobby’s forward is as good as it gets, so please reshare. Here it is again:


I am not advocating that you should take this drug if you get COVID-19 or if you want to prevent it. I don’t think anyone knows for sure how effective it is and/or in what subset of patients it may work or work best in. But I am very sure that because it is an FDA approved drug which has been in widespread use for decades, a licensed physician has the right to prescribe it off-label if, in the physician’s judgment, the potential benefits outweigh the risks for a given patient, so long as there is proper informed consent.

Of course, some state government authorities are trying to interfere with that right, but that should be resisted by the public, because it should be each patient’s right to decide on which FDA approved treatment that patient should receive, in consultation with her physician. That is one of the bedrock principles of modern medicine, or at least it used to be.

How the change is going to happen

Like all paradigm shifts, this one is and will continue to be bumpy, and there are always casualties, like the attacked and discredited scientists who are later vindicated.

There have been and will continue to be some lawsuits, but lawsuits will not be a significant part of this, due to the judiciary’s inherent conservative nature and institutional bias.

Standard social media may help somewhat, despite its attempt to suppress the message of these mavericks. However, I think the change will ultimately happen because of workarounds created by innovators who will better serve the large swaths of people who just are not buying what is being fed to them. There is a physics to the demand for information; The unmet demand for information will be satisfied by the marketplace, probably by what comes next after Facebook.

In the meantime, keep organizing, share the opinions of the frontline physicians using this and natural treatments (and prophylactics like Vitamin D) with the local and state authorities, listen to and share the opinions of thought-leader advocates like Bobby K, watch for the innovators and help them make what’s next, next, and most importantly, keep the pressure on!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

The Kennedy-Dershowitz Debate: Must See TV!

The Kennedy-Dershowitz Debate: Must See TV!

A few days ago, the Bobby Kennedy/Alan Dershowitz debate was released. As a lawyer involved in the vaccine issue, it was very heartening to see such a high quality debate on the subject. It was very enjoyable to watch these two extremely smart, deep thinkers talk about these issues with open mindedness, clarity and mutual respect for each other, and for the opinions of the other with which they did not agree. I can’t personally recall anything like this ever happening in the vaccine area. I hope that there will be more of them.

If you haven’t seen or shared it on social media, please do. If you have seen and shared it, share it again! Here is a link:

I made some notes and have some thoughts about what I particularly liked about the debate, and I thought I’d share them.

First, it wasn’t so much of a debate as a discussion among two people with very different areas of expertise. AD is a long-time legal scholar and extremely well versed on constitutional law. Bobby Kennedy is a health and environmental advocate, and knows a zillion times more about the science and policy than AD. Bobby himself acknowledged the differences in their areas and expertise and jokingly said he would try to keep the discussion on the science and policy rather than constitutional law. And he succeeded in doing so, providing AD with a much-needed education of the many of the mainstream-suppressed scientific facts concerning vaccines.

AD’s basic initial and general point was that based on Jacobson and other cases, the government had the right under its police powers to forcibly inject everyone with vaccines.

BK thanked AD for participating in this debate and lamented the difficulty he has had getting people on the other side (like Offit and Hotez) to debate him.

BK correctly pointed out that Jacobson didn’t force anyone to get a vaccine. It only upheld a law that mandated a small pox vaccine or pay a $5.00 fine. AD came back that there were other cases which upheld compulsory medical procedures. The debate didn’t get into the specifics, but AD was talking about Buck v Bell, a case from the late 1920’s in which Oliver Wendall Holmes upheld a Virginia law for forced sterilization for a woman (incorrectly) claimed to be mentally defective. The most significant eugenics-like quote from the opinion was that “three generations of imbiciles are enough.” AD didn’t talk about that case, which is probably a good thing, since it is viewed as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever (along with the Dred Scott and the Korematsu decisions). (Here is an article about OWH which discusses the opinion, for anyone interested.

My comment: I think BK is correct that forcibly injecting people with vaccines is fundamentally different from the issue in Jacobson. In addition, it has been over a hundred years since our government has had mandatory universal adult vaccines. That, plus the likely shortages of a COVID-19 once it is released could mean that the issue of a mandate for the vaccine will not come up. The caveat is that, despite the shortages and priorities of vaccine delivery, some states try to pass mandatory vaccine laws, either for adults or for children. That is something we’ll have to watch out for.

BK made the important point that unlike almost every other medical procedure, vaccines are given to healthy people, so there should be a higher standard for safety.

My comment: that argument should resonate with open-minded people.

BK made the point that vaccines are for others, not the individual. AD pushed back a little. However, I think most vaccine experts believe that most vaccines are for the protection of the recipient as well as the public. Even the HPV vaccine is thought to protect others (and specifically, the sexual partner of the HPV vaccinated). So not the strongest point, in my view, at least based on the accepted view of vaccine experts.

AD asked BK to agree that vaccines have been spectacularly effective in the past like with polio and small pox. BK said it was a complicated issue and cited literature about how it was sanitation and other public health measures, rather than the vaccines. Since this isn’t AD’s wheelhouse, he didn’t have much to say in response. BK would have had a much harder time with a vaccine expert, and I would think that this would be where the debate would have broken down, with the vaccine expert calling BK a crazy anti science anti vaxxer.

What about Masks? Twice (at least) AD asked BK to agree with him that ordering masks was constitutional. BK ducked the issue. It’s complicated

BK’s most important point was about the lack of true placebo testing in vaccines in general, and in one of the leading COVID-19 drug trials underway now. He pointed out that the protocol originally called for an actual placebo as the control, but during the trial, the protocol was changed to a meningitis vaccine as the control (a fauxcebo according to vaccine policy thinker Mary Holland, Esq.) BK pointed out that this vaccine had one of the worst safety profiles of any vaccine. Therefore this trial will grossly overstate the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine candidate, and there will be no way to actually assess the safety profile of this vaccine candidate, just like there is no way to assess the safety profile of any current mandated vaccine because in none of the testing was a true, actual, real placebo used as the control. This is the heart of the vaccine-concerned argument against vaccines (and you can expect to see this pointed argued in all of the cases I am working on for the California doctors fighting the medical board).

What Bobby is pointing out about the switcheroo in the control group is catching vaccine manufacturer in the act of scientific fraud, or at least showing why vaccine trials are flawed, unscientific, intellectually dishonest, but regrettably how all these medical products are actually approved. This is an extremely powerful point. I hope it will be repeated and be reshared in social media.

While the lack of placebo testing was the most important point substantively in the discussion (in my opinion anyway), I think the most important takeaway by AD was that his annual flu and pneumonia vaccines given by his long-time and trusted physician might be doing him more harm than good. BK made the point, supported by a high-quality study, about the overall deterioration of the immune system with the use of these vaccines in older people. I think that really shook-up AD, and I expect he has already sent his physician the study BK cited. I don’t think AD will be too excited in the future about getting these annual sticks.

And BTW: one of the things I really liked about the debate, format-wise, was the showing the first page of the studies and articles which they were talking about. Hey Bobby, if all the references you cited are not already up on your web site, please put them up, so we all can easily access them.

All in all, I think Bobby Kennedy did an excellent job presenting the case against mandatory vaccination and how vaccines are much less safe than most people think and most vaccine experts are willing to acknowledge. It was a pleasure to see such a high-level and cordial discussion amongst very smart and highly accomplished professionals, which regrettably is all too rare in the days we live in.

One further thing:

Bobby’s organization, the Children’s Health Defense, is being partially suppressed by FB and some of the other social media entities. So, keep visiting their web site directly and if possible, donate to the group. Here is the link to donate:

They are doing excellent advocacy work, and they also financially support some key lawsuits around the country on vaccine and freedom issues. (That would include yours truly’s defense of Ken Stoller against the Medical Board of California. Thx for that Bobby. Keep up the fight and keep debating!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Foolish mandatory vaccination talk from the New York State Bar Association

Foolish mandatory vaccination talk from the New York State Bar Association

Circulating on social media is a recently published draft task force report from the New York State Bar Association, Health Law section. Like social media is saying, these New York health lawyers are proposing a State bar position in favor of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations, and specifically:
“when the efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine has been confirmed, enact legislation requiring vaccination of each person unless the person’s physician deems vaccination for his or her patient to be clinically inappropriate.”

See page 82 of the report, number (6). Here it is in case you want to look it over yourself.

This is utter foolishness, at least at this point in time, because of all the medical and scientific uncertainties and confusion about the disease. These health care lawyers would be better served if they correctly wrote about the state of vaccine law (which they didn’t) and concluded that at this point in time, there is not enough information to know whether a mandatory vaccine is feasible or required in the interests of public health. Here is why I think the draft recommendation is foolish, and the supporting legal analysis incorrect.

First, we do not know if the virus is coming back in the fall, i.e., whether there will be a second wave. Most recognized scientists are not sure, nor can they be. While the there was a much more deadly second wave of the Spanish Flu in the later part of 1918, other recent epidemics like Ebola, Swine and Avian flu came and went (epidemic wise anyway). Because COVID-19 is a new coronavirus strain, no one knows what is going to happen with it. So, what is the sense of recommending vaccine mandates prior to knowing whether this is one-and-done, or a second pandemic wave situation (or somewhere in between)? If there is no second wave, the need for a mandatory vaccine should be much less pressing.

Second, many experts are concerned about the highly abbreviated vaccine approval time-line, and question whether it is possible to create a new vaccine within the predicted/hoped for one year to 18 months. Unlike vaccine approval process in the past, a COVID-19 vaccine approval will be monitored by the public and picked-apart by thought leaders on both sides of the issue in public, people like Paul Offit to Bobby Kennedy. I think it is quite possible that they and their respective allies will actually be on the same side of the issue, in terms of FDA approval (non-approval actually) of a COVID-19 vaccine. (There are many reasons I think this, but I’ll explain them in another post.)

Let me point out something missing from the discussion of vaccine law (pages 60-62), namely that there has not been generalized adult mandatory vaccination in this country for over a hundred years. (except for health care workers in many states). It is far from clear that the country would accept mandatory adult vaccination.

In fact, under CDC’s definitions, most adults are under vaccinated or actually considered “unvaccinated” because they have not received all recommended vaccines and boosters. The CDC surveys adults every year, so vaccination coverage rates are readily available.

Distilling these three points: It is not clear that a universal mandatory COVID-19 vaccine will be needed by the proposed optimistic vaccine approval time-line, and given the lack of universal mandatory vaccination for the past hundred years and the unvaccinated status of most adults, it is far from clear that the country is ready to accept it.

The vaccination section of the draft report (pages 60-62) does cite 2018 CDC based information (page 60 footnote 335) that a majority of Americans will want the vaccine. But 2018 is now ancient history and not applicable, given all the concern expressed by pro-vaccine thought leaders complaining that the proposed time-line cannot produce an adequately tested vaccine. So, I think these health care lawyers are just dead wrong about this.

I predict that the more information that comes from the clinical trials of these vaccine trials, the less support there will be for mandatory vaccination, and you will be able to thank both Paul Offit and Bobby Kennedy and their colleagues and supporters for that!

The report cites various federal bills, some of which presumably propose federal mandatory vaccination. I sort of doubt there will be a federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate, in part because I suspect that Congress would have very legitimate concerns about the constitutionality of such legislation. Vaccines mandates are usually a state law matter under the 10th Amendment. I understand the commerce/interstate commerce argument, and how these concepts are used to allow for legislation which one would normally think are state law issues, but still. . . For sure, if there is no big second wave, I do not see federal mandatory COVID-19 going anywhere. If there is a second wave, I see the main action taking place in the states.

The flip side of this, is that I am fairly confident that President Trump does not have the constitutional authority to prohibit mandatory COVID-19 vaccination by the states. So, if you hoping he is going to save you and your family from a state COVID-19 vaccine mandate, I think you will be disappointed.

Finally, in the last few decades, there have been several-high profile infectious disease epidemics which despite pharma’s efforts, have not resulted in a safe and effective vaccine. Furthermore, we now know that some of these recent vaccines have actually exacerbated the disease and caused death.

This is a much different world than 1905 when the Jacobson decision was handed down, and which dealt with a vaccine which had been around for over a hundred years (and a few thousand years if you consider the use of small pox material for vaccination purposes). While Jacobson has been used continually up until the present to justify mandatory school vaccination, removal of the religious and personal belief exemption, and even quarantines, in this new world, in a direct attack on a mandatory COVID-19, where the drug approval process will be played out and debated in public and in social media, it would be a mistake to assume that the courts will reach the same result as they did in 1905.

The short of it is that I think the New York State Bar Association should save itself future embarrassment and reject the vaccine mandate recommendation, and send the vaccination section of the report back for further work, and maybe get some input from people who actually know what they are talking about, or at least who get the concept of nuance.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

Hey Mr. President: how about some quickie executive orders on prescription drug importing, stem cells, and vaccination

Hey Mr. President: how about some quickie executive orders on prescription drug importing, stem cells, and vaccination

Mr. President: looks like you’ve kept your word so far on Obamacare by signing a vague executive order allowing federal government agencies to do what they can to lower the costs or make more efficient whatever the agencies can figure out they can do without congressional approval. Hopefully that will work out.

I have a couple of ideas for some quickie executive orders, consistent with your campaign speeches or your thinking. As always, I’ll keep it short:

1. Consumers importing cheaper prescription drugs

Congress took up the issue, and since both parties are in the Pharma’s pocket, it once again declined the chance to help people by allowing them to import prescription drugs from Canada and other places where Pharma sells its products for a lot less money. You recently took Pharma to the woodshed in a recent tweet. On behalf of the people, thanks. In your inauguration speech, you railed against Congress for not watching out for us. Here’s my suggestions:

First: we need a standard Trumpian tweet excoriating Congress for protecting Pharma by its recent action in continuing the prohibition of patients from importing drugs manufactured by major drug companies which are sold for a lot less money abroad.

Second: how about an executive order ordering the FDA, DOJ and Customs not to enforce the existing drug importation restrictions. That would send a message to Pharma and Congress, as well as immediately save patients money.

Yes, you and the rest of the Republicans hassled Obama for using executive orders to circumvent enforcement of existing federal laws like immigration.

But let’s get real. That’s just an argument used by the party that doesn’t control the presidency. Further, I don’t think we should worry about little things like consistency. I’m guessing you’re okay with that, especially if some minor inconsistency can benefit the people who supported you, and trust me, your working class supporters will really appreciate having the option of cutting their out-of-pocket drug costs by half or more. You do this, and I guaranty your approval rating will jump-up a few points.

2. Stem Cells

Don, first thing I’d like you to do is call Rick Perry, and ask him about his experience in getting a stem cell transplant for his back problems. FYI, his stem cell procedure was flat-out illegal under federal law. But he was the Governor, so who was going to stop him? I’ve heard it helped him alot. If so, why shouldn’t the tens of thousands of patients who could similarly benefit from stem cell treatments get them? Do you really have to be a Governor to get the state-of-the-art treatment?

I’ve covered the FDA’s regulations and the technicalities in numerous prior posts,

But the bottom line is that your FDA severely limits access to stem cell treatments, and you should do something about it immediately, even before the FDA Commissioner is identified or sworn-in. So here’s what I suggest:

First: A quickie executive order that whatever draft guidance documents concerning stem cells (and there are currently four, explained in prior posts, see above) are on hold, and no final guidance documents will be issued except on the approval of your FDA Commissioner.

Second: Another executive order that as matter of enforcement policy, neither the FDA nor the Department of Justice will take any action against a clinic which removes stem cells or any other human tissue from a person, and reinjects or reimplants that tissue into that person. And the enforcement policy should make clear that it applies even when the stem cells are other materials are expanded or cultured, which is the procedure which was so successful on Rick Perry. If Rick Perry could do it, let the rest of us have access to this stuff. (And BTW, there is less of or no consistency problem here since the regulations actually allow many stem cell treatments; it’s just the FDA has decided in its infinite unwisdom to try to stop almost all of these procedures.). The institutional stem cell players and the aforedescribed media cheerleaders won’t like it, but your supporters and many, many others will love you for it.

3. Vaccination

First: Let’s get moving on the Bobby Kennedy Jr. Vaccine/Autism thing. Maybe this could be done by executive order as well. Hell, it’s just a commission. I know you received some pushback from the institutional vaccine pushers and their cheerleaders in the media, but there is a groundswell of support for Bobby and the Commission from the people, and per your speech yesterday, that’s what important to you.

Second: as you probably know, federal agencies have some kind of internal oversight, referred to as the “OIG” (Office of Inspector General). In light of some of the recent stories about cover-ups and scientific fraud at the CDC concerning the autism issue, you need to give some serious consideration to the CDC OIG position. Your pick needs to be willing to take on the powers that be in the agency. So choose wisely.

Enjoy the job, and hope you really shake things up in the health care field. It’s long overdue!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.