Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2021

[Ezerwoman’s note: The following is excerpted from the March 2021 edition of the AAPS News. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) was founded in 1943 as a voice for private physicians. The purpose of the AAPS is to protect the patient-physician relationship. The AAPS encourages doctors and patients to speak out together. Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems silent on the research and work of the AAPS.]

The wokeness mob’s attempt to cancel six popular children’s books by Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss) might push us toward a tipping point and an awakening. The motive is ostensibly to wipe out a virus of racism lurking in a few cartoons. These conceivably might be micro- (or nano or pico) aggressions.

An affiliate of the Southern Poverty Law Center declared the books racist, but Tucker Carlson says they were targeted precisely because they are not. Rather, they take a “race-neutral” approach. The Plain-Belly and the Star-Belly Sneetches’ ultimate “acceptance” of each other “doesn’t address the idea that historical narratives impact present-day power structures,” writes program associate Gabriel Smith (https://tinyurl.com/334sjhvp).

Ironically, Geisel was a leftist whose progressive views suffused his writings. “Generations of progressive activists may not trace their political views to their early exposure to Dr. Seuss, but without doubt this shy…genius played a role in sensitizing them to abuses of power,” writes Peter Dreier (tinyurl.com/yzne5aa7). Geisel was one of the earliest to fight anti-Semitism and racism.

Objections to implanting progressive or woke views into vulnerable children would be “fascist”—but they must be guarded against positive views of Western culture or American history.

The wokeness virus threatens to become incorporated into our cultural genome. Will persons born white be constantly trying to atone for “white privilege”? Will white physicians constantly have to document efforts to eradicate racial injustice in medicine (see JAMA 8/4/20)—originally perpetrated by the AMA?

Dr. Nathan Davis, considered AMA’s father, excluded women and blacks from the house of delegates. His bust has been removed from public view, and his name from an award, writes CEO James Madara (tinyurl.com/c7cnr3bf). Just recently, however, AMA honored Thomas Huxley (JAMA 8/18/20), though he once said that “no rational man…believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior of the white man” (Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, New York, Appleton, 1871, p 20). But Edward Livingstone, M.D., “who is White,” had to resign as JAMA deputy editor over a February 2021 podcast in which he questioned the concept of systemic racism and said, “Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.” Editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, M.D., called the podcast “offensive” and “hurtful” (https://tinyurl.com/wr4ewrty).

In the wokeness culture, sticks, stones, and broken bones might be tolerated, but not words that might give offense—or those who use them.  We must bid “goodbye to cultural icons, large and small—goodbye to all vestiges of the past, replete with their ‘bigoted’ value systems,” writes Ben Shapiro, so that individuals can “self-create” (tinyurl.com/4268zxtb).

 What Is a Human Being?

Disconnected from cultural moorings, atomized individuals  will not be liberated, but treated as vectors of literal or metaphorical viruses, who must be sufficiently vaccinated and tracked. Living a somewhat normal daily life is fast becoming a privilege. Will handing out electronic permission slips become a new function of physicians, asks Pat Conrad, M.D. (tinyurl.com/yrj7x5fc). Will medical boards or insurers require constant logging of a patient’s COVID status and documentation of vaccination counseling, as with controlled-substances data bases or smoking cessation? Will every communication be screened for subversive content?

Engineered  Language

Viral memes, like the genetically modified COVID-19 products, are engineered. Merriam-Webster altered the definition of “vaccine” for the occasion. On Feb 5, 2021, the definition was: “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms, that is administered to produce or artificially to increase immunity to a particular disease.” As of Feb 6, a “vaccine” is: “a preparation that is administered…to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious disease…. (b) a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein).” Vaccines are generally viewed as long-established and safe, though they are biologic agents, subject to a less stringent regulatory regime than drugs. The COVID products are novel, bioengineered, genetically modified biologic agents. They are vaccines only by a socially modified definition. As with vaccines, their manufacturers are immune from product liability.

Is There a Freedom (or Logic) Virus?

There are signs of resistance. When an Israeli airline forced a father and an 18-month-old off a flight because the child would not wear a mask, all the other passengers deplaned also in solidarity (tinyurl.com/rrssf7p6). Mask-burning rallies in many Idaho cities trigger woke activists (tinyurl.com/rwnpb2ps). With Lockdown 3.0 descending on Britain, “only dissent can save us now,” writes Irish science journalist Peter Andrews (tinyurl.com/nsnmx3yw). “It is time to draw a line in the sand.” Physicians, such as Dr. Mark Trozzi of Canada, are “surrendering personal income and security” to speak out (tinyurl.com/2zczz9eh).

Fortunately, Yertle the Turtle and Horton Hears a Who! are still acceptable. The small can bring down the mighty—if Jo-Jo, the “smallest of all” the Whos, speaks out to save the entire community. What if doctors and patients spoke out together?

AAPS News March 2021 – Going Viral – AAPS | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (aapsonline.org)

Read Full Post »

Controversial Things

As good neighbors, how should we deal with controversial things such as the “vaccine?”

It would seem that, first, everyone should have the right to ask questions, seek information, dialogue with those they trust, pray, wrestle with conscience, and then decide for themselves what they think is best. No one–not scientist, theologian or best friend–should say, “Take the vaccine.”

Someone I hold in high regard recently posted: “Take the vaccine.” But physicians, surgeons, immunologists, virologists, pediatricians, and the like are not on the same page concerning this present “vaccine.” Health care workers and first responders have genuine concerns. Their concerns range from use of fetal cell lines to “warp speed” production to long-term consequences and everything in between. All are worthy of consideration.

Pro-life folks have expressed concerns about using the cell lines of aborted babies. The answer sometimes given is, “Well, those abortions were a long time ago.” Or, “Today we could hardly recognize those cells as once being human.” If someone feels guilt in using a vaccine (or cosmetic or food product, for that matter) that contains tissue from aborted babies, there is forgiveness. Sure and certain forgiveness in Christ. Someone else may come at this “vaccine” dilemma by asking the question: “Just because we can, should we?” In all things medical and theological, this is never a bad question to ask.

This morning, Facebook featured a “public service announcement” that read: “Getting a Covid-19 Vaccine — Public figures share their experiences.” Dolly Parton, Mavis Staples and Richard Branson were included. Underneath, in fine print, I read: “These posts were selected by a team of experienced journalists at Facebook.” What am I to think of this? Should I put my trust in these “public figures” or Facebook’s “team of experienced journalists?”

After a choice, forgiveness is real. Thank you dear God for Your mercy and forgiveness in Jesus Christ. Before a choice, we can remember that because God has created us, He has given us our mind; our “reason and all our senses.”

3-19-21

Read Full Post »

I

(Note: I am sharing this public information as a blog because I was told by Facebook that I could not post it without suffering limited exposure or other kinds of restrictions.)

Dr. Tal Zaks is the chief medical officer at Moderna, Inc. He explained in a 2017 TED talk how the company’s mRNA vaccine was designed to work: “I’m here to tell you that we are actually hacking the software of life.” Moderna describes its new vaccine as “a computer operating system.” You can listen to Dr. Zak’s TED talk here https://leohohmann.com/2021/03/09/modernas-top-scientist-we-are-actually-hacking-the-software-of-life/

Dr. David Martin is a professor, researcher, author, inventor, and business visionary. His first invention was a laser integrated system to target and treat inoperable tumors. His mathematics helped unravel the way the human body processes hormones. Dr. Martin explains that the injections being supplied by Moderna and Pfizer are not vaccines. According to Dr. Martin, these manufacturers disguised their treatments as vaccines in order to fit them under the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts U.S. Supreme Court case, a ruling that has been interpreted [some say misinterpreted] as a license for states to mandate vaccines during health emergencies.

Dr. Martin says, “. . . This is not a vaccine. This is . . . a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine. Vaccines are actually a legally defined term. And they’re a legally defined term under public health law. They’re a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards, and a vaccine specifically has to stimulate . . . an immunity within the person receiving it but it also has to disrupt transmission. And that’s not what this is. They have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand going into the cell is not to stop transmission. It is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment it would not get the sympathetic ear of the public health authorities because then people would say well what other treatments are there?”

Dr. Martin continues, “The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable for both the legal definition of it, but also because it actually is the sucker punch to open and free discourse, because by saying ‘vaccine’ you dump it into a thing where you could be anti or pro ‘the therapy,’ but if you actually talked about it as a therapy, and remember–and people forget this–Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARS-COV2. If we said we’re going to give people prophylactic therapy for the cancer they don’t have, you’d be laughed out of a room, because that’s a stupid idea. That’s eactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small packet of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen-manufacturing site.”

Dr. Martin expresses frustration when he hears activists and lawyers and others say they’re “going to fight the vaccine.” Why? Because, he says, “if you stipulate that it’s a vaccine you’ve already lost the battle. It is not a vaccine. . . . Eighty percent of the people who get the virus are asymptomatic, meaning they have no symptoms at all. Eighty percent of the the people who get this injection have a clinical adverse event. You are getting injected with a chemical substance to induce illness, not to induce an immuno-transmissive response. In other words, nothing about this is going to stop you from transmitting anything. This is about getting you sick, and having your own cells being the thing that get you sick.”

I’m in over my head here, friends of Ezerwoman. This isn’t my area of expertise in any way, shape, or form. But because I was forbidden from sharing this information by Facebook “fact checkers,” I’m taking a risk and sharing it on my own blog site. You can read more of what Dr. Martin has to explain here https://leohohmann.com/2021/03/12/heres-why-mrna-injections-do-not-meet-the-legal-definition-of-vaccine/

There is one last thing. Sharyl Attkisson, former CBS News reporter, is the author of the book Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship. She explains that the media will use loaded words to steer you away from factual reports that do damage to the false narrative they are trying to feed into the public psyche. Attkisson explains that there are powerful interests that don’t want you to see or believe a particular study, report, or news article. They are trying to control the information.

So, because the information I shared above seems credible, I am attempting my first evasive maneuver around the Facebook thought police.

March 14, 2021

Read Full Post »