The American Medical Association, sold to the highest bidder
I was asked to report my writings on the AMA's evil work from the beginning of the COVID period, to show what they really represent (<15% of US doctors)
The AMA represents less than 15% of physicians and went woke during COVID, trashing any principles (and its published ethical standards) to conform with desired narratives. They were probably paid plenty to do so. The organization is sitting on a billion dollars in equity and brings in $500 million a year. Here are 3 posts I made about them in 2019 and 2021:
I am looking over the “AMA Covid -19 Guide. Winter 2021. It is not a guide. It only deals with Covid vaccines, not treatment. It’s raison d’etre is:
“To overcome vaccine hesitancy and ensure widespread vaccine acceptance among all demographic groups, physicians and the broader public health community must continue working to build trust in vaccine safety and efficacy, especially in marginalized and minoritized (this is not my misspelling–Nass) communities with historically well-founded mistrust in medical institutions. As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available, it is critical that physicians continue to ensure they practice and encourage their patients to wear masks, physical (sic) distance and wash hands until a critical mass of the population is vaccinated.”
It is an extraordinary document. I wonder how much the AMA got paid to put their name on it. Probably a lot.
It is extraordinary because it would repel most doctors. It was obviously written by a non-doctor. I have an idea of one person who may have had a hand in creating it–John Grabenstein, a pharmacist and propagandist extraordinaire, who helped craft the fake science on the anthrax vaccine. He works for the Immunization Action Coalition now. He is a one man band who knows how to pull all the levers to push terrible vaccine policies.
It turns out that the current AMA President, Gerald Harmon, was instrumental in pushing the experimental and dangerous anthrax vaccine, and punishing refusers and truth tellers. This got him rapid promotions, and he retired as a Major General. No doubt he worked with Grabenstein back then, and probably now.
Whoever wrote the “Guide” did not know that whooping cough and pertussis were the same thing, or that the DTP vaccine includes tetanus. It is of interest that there is no name on it, no clue about how it came into existence.
All this business about “equity.” If the federal government cared about equity, why are they always bombing and droning people of color? What equity means to them is that a 25% acceptance of the Covid vaccine by Black people cannot be allowed to stand. And the refusal by blacks to participate in clinical trials is especially egregious.
The document is really kind of a hoot, it is so out of 1984. It shows you what the propagandists are really worried about, for example, the fact that too many people have learned the FDA “review” and the Pfizer preclinical tests were bogus:
On combating the spread of vaccine misinformation:
• With misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine development process circulating widely, new AMA policy seeks to educate physicians on speaking with their patients about the vaccine and provide culturally appropriate education materials for all patients.
On vaccine development:
• To help physicians promote vaccine confidence among patients and the general public, we must continue to instill confidence in the information, education, and transparency around the FDA’s process for authorization or licensure, as well as the standards by which FDA will review future vaccine candidates and the clinical endpoints the FDA hopes to achieve.
• Physicians must be continuously updated about the review process for future COVID-19 vaccines. Any available safety and efficacy data must be in place as soon as possible so that any questions or concerns about the vaccine candidates can be addressed.
• The AMA has been talking to FDA officials about the role the agency needs to continue to play in alleviating vaccine concerns by ensuring the process is transparent and based on science.
• The widespread availability and adoption of a safe and efficacious vaccine will play an essential role in slowing transmission of COVID-19 (this is after Rochelle Walensky admitted on CNN to Wolf Blitzer that the vaccines did not stop transmission—Nass) and allow us to move safely and confidently toward the full re-opening of our businesses and schools, helping ease Americans back toward pre-pandemic life.
• Research shows growing levels of confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, but there continues to be vacancy hesitancy among some individuals and in some communities, which we are striving to overcome.
• What’s clear is that the benefits of getting the vaccine to protect you from COVID-19 exceed the risks, which is why medical experts strongly recommend getting the vaccine.
• To improve the dialogue and provide opportunities for physicians to learn more about vaccine development, approval, and ongoing distribution plans and challenges, AMA has initiated a series of “town hall” type webinars with physicians and career staff at both the FDA and CDC. All events are archived on AMA’s website.
• To develop the most effective COVID-19 vaccine, U.S. clinical trials must include representation of all Americans to ensure treatments are studied in every population that may use it. (Gotta get those minorities a jab!—Nass)
The AMA is pleased that efforts have been made by institutions to acknowledge the exclusion of Black and Latinx people from clinical trials historically. (The flip—poor minorities have been “excluded” from being guinea pigs—not exactly true. They have excluded themselves, knowing what they know about prior scientific misadventures—Nass)
Now there are many efforts underway to ensure Black and Latinx people, who have been disproportionately affected by the virus, are prioritized in clinical trials.
This not only provides better safety and efficacy data but is a more equitable strategy that will hopefully contribute to trust in the vaccine once available.
Tuesday, September 7, 2021
AMA insists doctors and pharmacists stop supplying ivermectin
AMA, APhA, ASHP statement on
ending use of ivermectin to treat
COVID-19
SEP 1, 2021
WASHINGTON, DC – The American Medical Association (AMA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA), and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) strongly oppose the ordering, prescribing, or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial.
Ivermectin is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for human use to treat infections caused by internal and external parasites. It is not approved to prevent or treat COVID-19. Ivermectin is also available to treat certain veterinary conditions; medications formulated or intended for use in animals should not be used by humans. We are alarmed by reports that outpatient prescribing for and dispensing of ivermectin have increased 24-fold since before the pandemic and increased exponentially over the past few months. As such, we are calling for an immediate end to the prescribing, dispensing, and use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial. In addition, we are urging physicians, pharmacists, and other prescribers—trusted health care professionals in their communities—to warn patients against the use of ivermectin outside of FDA-approved indications and guidance, whether intended for use in humans or animals, as well as purchasing ivermectin from online stores. Veterinary forms of this medication are highly concentrated for large animals and pose a significant toxicity risk for humans.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FDA have issued advisories indicating that ivermectin is not authorized or approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. The National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, and Merck (the manufacturer of the drug) all state there is insufficient evidence to support the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19. The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19 also recommend against the use of ivermectin outside of a clinical trial.
Use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been demonstrated to be harmful to patients. Calls to poison control centers due to ivermectin ingestion have increased five-fold from their pre-pandemic baseline. A recent CDC Health Alert Network Advisory (PDF) recommends that health care professionals should counsel patients against use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, including emphasizing the potentially toxic effects of this drug, including “nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Overdoses are associated with hypotension and neurologic effects such as decreased consciousness, confusion, hallucinations, seizures, coma, and death.”
For more information, we encourage patients and health care providers to consult the FDA’s Consumer Update on Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 and the CDC Health Alert Network Advisory on the Rapid Increase in Ivermectin Prescriptions and Reports of Severe Illness Associated with Products Containing Ivermectin to Prevent or Treat COVID-19.
Patients are encouraged to talk to their physicians, pharmacists, and other prescribers about currently available therapies authorized or approved for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. The most effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 are to get vaccinated, wear a face mask, stay at least six feet from others in public places, wash hands frequently, and avoid large crowds of people. Our organizations strongly urge eligible unvaccinated individuals to get vaccinated.
AMA COVID-19 Resource Center for Physicians
Saturday, July 13, 2019
AMA ties itself in knots because its own ethical code disputes its current position in favor of mandatory vaccinations
AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 2.2.1
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/pediatric-decision-making
As the persons best positioned to understand their child’s unique needs and interests, parents (or guardians) are asked to fill the dual responsibility of protecting their children and, at the same time, empowering them and promoting development of children’s capacity to become independent decision makers. In giving or withholding permission for medical treatment for their children, parents/guardians are expected to safeguard their children’s physical health and well-being and to nurture their children’s developing personhood and autonomy.
But parents’ authority as decision makers does not mean children should have no role in the decision-making process. Respect and shared decision making remain important in the context of decisions for minors. Thus, physicians should evaluate minor patients to determine if they can understand the risks and benefits of proposed treatment and tailor disclosure accordingly. The more mature a minor patient is, the better able to understand what a decision will mean, and the more clearly the child can communicate preferences, the stronger the ethical obligation to seek minor patients’ assent to treatment. Except when immediate intervention is essential to preserve life or avert serious, irreversible harm, physicians and parents/guardians should respect a child’s refusal to assent, and when circumstances permit should explore the child’s reason for dissent.
(a) Provide compassionate, humane care to all pediatric patients.
(b) Negotiate with parents/guardians a shared understanding of the patient’s medical and psychosocial needs and interests in the context of family relationships and resources.
(c) Develop an individualized plan of care that will best serve the patient, basing treatment recommendations on the best available evidence and in general preferring alternatives that will not foreclose important future choices by the adolescent and adult the patient will become. Where there are questions about the efficacy or long-term impact of treatment alternatives, physicians should encourage ongoing collection of data to help clarify value to patients of different approaches to care…
(g) When it is not clear whether a specific intervention promotes the patient’s interests, respect the decision of the patient (if the patient has capacity and is able to express a preference) and parents/guardians.