Hantavirus and the Politics of Panic

The Turning Tide Against TyrannyUnknown to the general public, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has changed the definition of “vaccination” several times in recent years. These are not just minor adjustments but consequential changes that radically redefined what it means to be “vaccinated”. As court battles raged against COVID “vaccine” mandates, it’s important to understand how these changes did and will impact the legal landscape.In October 2021, AFLDS and Dr. Gold&nbsp;<a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/videos/post/dr-gold-explains-the-preliminary-injunction-against-kaiser-permanente">sued</a> Kaiser Permanente on behalf of 4,000 employees being forced to comply with an illegal COVID-19 shots mandate under the coercive threat of losing their jobs and livelihood. It was evident that these shots were not vaccines as the word had been historically defined, failing to stop both infection or transmission, making them experimental therapeutics at best. Because of this, our government had no legal standing to mandate them. Leading the charge with science-based arguments, AFLDS was the first to present this legal theory to the courts. Despite violating numerous provisions of both the US Constitution and the California State Constitution, the judge&nbsp;<a href="https://casetext.com/case/united-kp-freedom-all-v-kaiser-permanente">refused</a> to invalidate Kaiser’s mandate by dismissing the case. However, a recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals further validated AFLDS’ argument against these unlawful mandates.&nbsp;In&nbsp;<a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/OPINION-OF-THE-9TH-CIRCUIT-REVERSING-AND-REMANDING-1.pdf">Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Carvalho</a>, a three-judge panel vacated a lower court’s order which dismissed the Plaintiffs’ allegations that the Los Angeles Unified School District’s COVID-19 “vaccination” policy interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The Ninth Circuit recognized that because the experimental mRNA injections do not prevent infection or transmission of COVID-19, they should be considered as personal medical treatments only and cannot be forcibly mandated upon employees by the government. This groundbreaking decision exposed the truth. Because the COVID shots do not stop the spread of the disease, they cannot be classified as vaccines.Jacobson vs. CruzanAs lawsuits against the illegal COVID-19 “vaccine” mandates started to mount in 2021, many legal advocates relied on the precedent set by&nbsp;<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/">Jacobson v. Massachusetts</a> to make their case. This landmark SCOTUS decision centered around whether or not the government could mandate the smallpox vaccine - a disease which had a very high mortality rate at that time.&nbsp;Jacobson held that the government may enact a mandatory vaccination law if vaccination is determined to be the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. However, individuals that refused the vaccine could pay a modest fine or get a medical exemption. Despite&nbsp;Jacobson being the leading Supreme Court precedent for public health mandates, it is the incorrect premise to use against the COVID shot policies that were pushed relentlessly during the pandemic.&nbsp;From a medical perspective, the premise of&nbsp;Jacobson is that a vaccine stops the transmission of a contagious illness. In the case of the COVID-19 injections, overwhelming evidence shows that these shots do not prevent infection or transmission, merely claiming to reduce the symptoms of the disease. Thus, they must be classified as medical treatments and not vaccines. Therefore, legal challenges to the COVID shot mandates must look to a precedent involving the right to refuse medical treatment.The case of&nbsp;<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/497/261/">Cruzan v. Director</a> arose from a tragic car accident that left Nancy Cruzan in a vegetative state. Her family sought to end her medical treatment by taking her off life support because they believed she would prefer to die rather than remain in a vegetative condition. In short, the High Court ruled that the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment is a personal choice and cannot be dictated by the government.&nbsp;Cruzan very clearly states that the individual has an inalienable right to choose his or her own medical treatment.Understanding the science behind the COVID shots, AFLDS and Dr. Gold recognized that any litigation against the mandates should focus on&nbsp;Cruzan&nbsp;over Jacobson. The lawsuit against Kaiser created the blueprint for what became the winning argument in the&nbsp;Health Freedom Defense Fund case. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is a pivotal victory for the medical freedom movement and a major legal turning point for all those who have been harmed by unconstitutional mandates.&nbsp;Weaponizing Words and DefinitionsThe strategy employed by AFLDS and Dr. Gold in the lawsuit against Kaiser is a firm reminder that these victories can be achieved by utilizing precedent-setting law while holding fast to the Constitution. In order to strengthen our legal arguments even further, we must also recognize that the tyranny of the COVID era did not happen overnight, and identify the strategies being used against us. A crucial example of this is the weaponization of words and their definitions.The CDC’s ever-changing definition of the word “vaccination” is clear evidence of the slow burn strategy of tyranny. Prior to 2014, the CDC defined vaccination as the “injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to&nbsp;prevent the disease.”<fn class="footnote" title="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1729199849/Footnote_1_jvjbw5.pdf" contenteditable="false">1</fn>‍ This straightforward definition is aligned with what most people understand vaccination to mean - taking the vaccine will prevent them from getting the disease which is the primary purpose of a vaccine.&nbsp;However, as early as October 2014, the CDC changed the definition of vaccination to be “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce&nbsp;immunity to a specific disease.”<fn class="footnote" title="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1729199849/Footnote_2_cionhp.pdf" contenteditable="false">2</fn>‍ This definition shifts the emphasis from prevention to the generation of immunity. The change appears to be subtle, but immunity is certainly a step down from prevent. Immunity means an individual is resistant but still susceptible to a disease after vaccination. Preventing the disease means vaccination stops the individual from getting infected with the disease.&nbsp;In September 2021, in the middle of COVID, the CDC once again changed the definition of vaccination to be “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce&nbsp;protection from a specific disease.”<fn class="footnote" title="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1729199849/Footnote_3_d2uko1.pdf" contenteditable="false">3</fn>‍ This definition replaced the already weaker word “immunity” with the even weaker word “protection”. This is a significant departure from why vaccines were created in the first place: to prevent. By this new definition, vaccines are far less effective than their original definition. Prevention has been downgraded to immunity, and then downgraded again to protection: this is a far cry from the original prevention of the disease. Everyone who is disinterested in vague “protection” is now labeled with the pejorative “anti-vaxxer”.&nbsp;The CDC wasn’t the only one making changes. In January 2024, Merriam-Webster added the phrase “a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA)” to the definition of “vaccine”.<fn class="footnote" title="“Vaccine.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine. Accessed 3 Oct. 2024." contenteditable="false">4</fn>‍ This text just burst onto the scene from … nowhere.&nbsp;It’s clear that these changes were intentionally made to include the experimental mRNA technology and loop the COVID shots in with traditional vaccines. A vaccine that does not prevent infection or transmission is NOT a vaccine! Additionally, these&nbsp;medications require a serious reevaluation of safety, efficacy, legal and ethical implications. Under no circumstances should these&nbsp;medications be labeled as the same product as traditional vaccines.&nbsp;&nbsp;The changes to the definition of “vaccination” appear subtle, but the impact is not. Because the CDC’s changes are not widely publicized, the general public is being misled and left completely unaware of the changes to the definition (and that the purpose of vaccines has fundamentally changed). Much like a frog sitting in a pot of hot water while it is being heated up, these gradual changes are made under the radar, hoping the public won’t notice until it’s too late.&nbsp;This is a severe breach of trust. Judges overseeing vaccine legal disputes who rely on the traditional definition of the word will be unable to distinguish between the old and aggressively new definition. As a result, the judicial system will likely apply a vaccine legal standard that was never meant to include these new experimental injections.The significance of these changes is that the COVID shots are not the same vaccines that the Supreme Court ruled could be mandated back in 1905 (Jacobson). Nevertheless, the government’s Orwellian tactic of retrofitting science to suit its purposes means that centuries-old laws are being applied to dangerous experimental injections. Children can be forced to take any injection under school-issued mandates as long as they fall under the CDC’s definition of a vaccine.&nbsp;Moving Forward Against TyrannyLiability protection under US law is only granted to valid vaccines. The CDC was fully aware of this key distinction when they changed the definition. The US government and its corrupt health agencies misled the public by altering definitions and pushing mandates that did not meet legal or health standards. The Ninth Circuit ruling challenges government overreach and represents a monumental victory for medical freedom, ultimately challenging Big Pharma’s unlimited liability protection and may hold them accountable for producing dangerous COVID-19&nbsp;treatments. This decision could fundamentally reshape national vaccine policies and prevent unconstitutional mandates in the future. Further, this opens the door for those who lost their jobs and livelihoods for refusing the injections to seek restitution.&nbsp;The tide is turning in the fight against the injustices that were perpetrated against the American people during the COVID-19 pandemic. This historic ruling&nbsp; paved the way for cases such as&nbsp;Johnson v. Kotek where the Petitioners are seeking damages resulting from illegal and unconstitutional “vaccine” mandates. AFLDS and Dr. Simone Gold recently filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1726681379/AFLDS_Amici_Brief_Johnson_v_Kotek_b11c1e7699.pdf">amici curiae</a> brief with SCOTUS in support of the Petitioners, thoroughly reasoning that the Ninth Circuit’s decision has set a precedent that the High Court must uphold.&nbsp;AFLDS remains committed to supporting these critical cases in the freedom fight and will continue to expose the corruption of our health agencies. Together, We the People must continue to apply unrelenting legal pressure to correct the injustices of COVID tyranny. Faith and trust in our judicial system can only exist if the court upholds the rule of law.&nbsp; &nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><div class="fncontainer"><hr class="fndivider"><h4 class="fntitle">Footnotes:</h4><div class="fncontent"><div class="fnitem" id="1"><div class="fnlink" id="1" href="#1">1&nbsp;</div>https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1729199849/Footnote_1_jvjbw5.pdf</div><div class="fnitem" id="2"><div class="fnlink" id="2" href="#2">2&nbsp;</div>https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1729199849/Footnote_2_cionhp.pdf</div><div class="fnitem" id="3"><div class="fnlink" id="3" href="#3">3&nbsp;</div>https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1729199849/Footnote_3_d2uko1.pdf</div><div class="fnitem" id="4"><div class="fnlink" id="4" href="#4">4&nbsp;</div>“Vaccine.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine. Accessed 3 Oct. 2024.</div></div></div></div>

Applying Legal Precedents Against COVID Mandates

Medical Malpractice or Gross Negligence?It has been universally accepted for decades that fully informed consent of the individual in both medical treatment and experimentation is not only essential but legally required. All reputable governments, NGOs, organizations, policy leaders and physicians have widely established that it is absolutely mandatory. Excluding specific limited medical situations, children do NOT have the ability to give informed consent.Informed Consent is defined as:&nbsp;“A patient's consent to a medical or surgical procedure or to participation in a clinical study after being properly advised of the relevant medical facts and the risks involved.”The roots of informed consent and medical ethics arose largely from the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199711133372006">Nuremberg Code</a> in the 1940s. The Nuremberg Code became the basis for all modern medical ethics laws and global human rights, including informed consent laws in the United States of America. Countless laws, codes and regulations all across the world rely on its ten principles. The Nuremberg Code spends so much time on informed consent because it is far too easy for a scientist or physician to manipulate the average person into complying with the doctor’s preference. This can be for an ill-intentioned reason or just a matter of limited time, information or resources. Regardless, the temptation to misinform or under-inform patients will always exist. This is precisely why the Nuremberg Code places such enormous emphasis on obtaining informed consent.A Dereliction of DutyPer the Nuremberg Code, the “duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment (treatment). It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity." Doctors offering ANY medical procedure have the sole responsibility of educating and equipping themselves with the knowledge of all the relevant medical facts associated with the treatment in order to obtain true informed consent from their patients. The professional obligation of the physician cannot legally be entrusted to anyone else. Again, we repeat, it is&nbsp;not&nbsp;permissible for the physician to legally shirk this responsibility - the legal responsibility&nbsp;forever&nbsp;remains with the physician, even if the physician instructs a subordinate to speak the words to the patient.&nbsp;The medical harms of “gender-affirming care” (aka medical mutilation) are&nbsp; <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1736443508/AFLDS_White_Paper_PAGES_docx_151d82c3c4.pdf">well documented</a> and growing. The dangers include infertility, sexual dysfunction, loss of libido, inability to orgasm, cardiovascular issues, urinary complications, bone fractures, neurological anomalies, insulin resistance, permanent scarring, infection and even death. Doctors offering these procedures must be well versed in all the known risks that have proven to result from these procedures in order to adequately obtain informed consent from their patients. Essentially, in order for a patient to give their full informed consent, they must have a complete understanding that all persons who undergo “gender-affirming care” will trade in a physically healthy body for a chronically sick body that, in the best-case scenario, needs lifelong medical care and intervention.&nbsp;Throughout human history, there has never been widespread swaths of the population willing to sign up to exchange healthy bodies for bodies dependent on lifelong medical care. Because of this, we know that the side effects and complication rates of “gender-affirming care” are not being thoroughly conveyed to patients by their physicians. Healthcare providers ignorant of the facts regarding medical mutilation could be deemed to have committed “ordinary negligence” which is covered by medical malpractice insurance. However, those who are willfully ignorant, are guilty of gross negligence which exceeds the mere ordinary negligence of medical malpractice. In fact, doctors or nurses who do not convey all the facts to their patients could be criminally charged with medical battery.In the law, there is a phrase&nbsp;Res Ipsa Loquitur which is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.” This phrase is invoked when the facts are so clear, a finder of fact (judge or jury) is not even necessary.&nbsp;Res Ipsa Loquitur that legal informed consent is not being provided by doctors offering “gender-affirming care” to children, because persons with healthy bodies would not willingly consent to trade these for unhealthy bodies.&nbsp;Minors Cannot ConsentIt must be stated that there is no precedent for allowing a minor to consent to his or her own medical treatment. With the exception of circumstances such as life-saving emergencies or pregnancy, patients under the age of consent cannot give consent. For example, an emergency physician can substitute for a parent in the case of life-threatening complications from a car accident, but cannot treat a teenager with a sprained ankle. In short, the law does not allow for minors to consent to permanent and life-altering treatments - which is exactly what “gender-affirming care” is.Adults, not children, have the mental capacity to make informed decisions for procedures that can affect the rest of a child’s life. This is exactly why the responsibility of providing the informed consent of a minor has been delegated to parents or legal guardians. The tragic reality of “gender-affirming care” is that anyone (adult or minor) who signs off on these procedures is “consenting” to medical mutilation that will lead to permanent disfigurement and lifelong health complications. It is simply not credible that ANYONE tasked with safeguarding a child’s health and safety would give a doctor consent to medically mutilate that child when fully informed of all the risks.While a parent or legal guardian’s authority to consent for their children must always be respected, we submit that no one possesses the legal authority to consent to the medical mutilation of children. The history of common law supports that no person (parent or State) can consent to medical interventions that will inflict lifelong health complications on another human being who will eventually gain the legal ability to refuse or consent for him or herself upon reaching adulthood. The evidence shows that “gender-affirming care” has a certainty of creating such health complications.&nbsp;In the case that a person is unable to give consent (i.e. incompetence), it is recognized that a medical power of attorney or family can provide consent, but there are legal limits to jurisdiction. For instance, there needs to be clear and convincing evidence or substantial proof that the patient would have accepted the alternate decision-maker’s consent to treatment. However, this is not possible here because minors are not physiologically capable of making such a decision. We submit that until a minor becomes an adult, there is no common law precedent for a de facto (parent or State) medical power of attorney to consent to medical mutilation including actual or constructive destruction of bodily functions. Lastly, it is void on public policy grounds to permit any other third party to consent to permanent disfigurement. While there are rare medical situations that may require these life-altering interventions, the law can provide allowances for these circumstances.Taking A Stand Against Medical MutilationRecognizing the profound, irreversible harm associated with hormonal and surgical interventions aimed at addressing gender dysphoria, AFLDS calls for an immediate moratorium on these interventions for children. Sign our petition&nbsp;<a href="https://secure.anedot.com/america-s-frontline-doctors/mutilation">TODAY</a>, and urge Congress to make it clear to physicians and hospitals that offering these procedures to children is illegal.We encourage you to visit our&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/medical/mutilation">website</a> where you can access a wealth of information and resources on the topic of medical mutilation. Equipping ourselves with the truth is the first step towards protecting our children.&nbsp;Stay tuned - AFLDS will continue to keep the American people updated on our progress and efforts to end medical mutilation and protect children everywhere.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Exposing the Misinformed Consent of Medical Mutilation

Exposing the CIC’s reliance on the mockingbird media to do its dirty work.&nbsp;As we previously discussed, the 4 key pillars of&nbsp;The Censorship Industrial Complex (CIC) are&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/issue-briefs/the-state-of-the-union-of-censorship-in-america">Censorship</a>, Propaganda, Forced Compliance, and Unpunished Defamation. Knowing the role that each pillar plays is crucial to understanding how the CIC operates and how we can defeat it.Propaganda<fn class="footnote" title="https://www.oed.com/dictionary/propaganda_n" contenteditable="false">1</fn> is defined as “The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a particular cause or point of view, often a political agenda.”Media-planted propaganda is an essential tool of the Censorship Industrial Complex. Congress’ disgraceful witch hunt against Dr. Gold and AFLDS is an alarming example of how the government (a willing participant of the CIC) relies entirely on the media to do its dirty work.A Propaganda-Fueled Witch Hunt&nbsp;In October 2021, Dr. Gold received a 7-page letter from Congressman James Clyburn, Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, threatening her with being subpoenaed by Congress. Mr. Clyburn accused AFLDS of being a “predatory actor capitalizing on the COVID crisis” by touting “misinformation” and using it to market disproven and potentially hazardous treatments. Clyburn went on to accuse AFLDS of offering paid online consultations and prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin, “reportedly” generating millions of dollars in revenue for the organization. However, these brazen accusations were unequivocally and verifiably false. What was the source Clyburn based his allegations on? He relied solely on articles put out by “news” outlets such as Time and The Intercept who were all parroting the same false narrative. Congressman Clyburn didn't bother to vet the information for accuracy.As pointed out to the Committee by AFLDS’ legal counsel, America’s Frontline Doctors did not provide telemedicine services or medications, nor did it receive referral payments from third parties who do so. It’s evident that Clyburn and his Committee operated without exercising&nbsp;any due diligence before hurdling such serious allegations at an upstanding civil liberties organization and threatening Dr. Gold with a Congressional subpoena. It’s obvious that the Committee’s accusations lacked a thorough understanding of AFLDS’ day-to-day operations and even what qualifies one to be a medical provider. The truth is that this investigation of a private citizen was not based on any factual evidence but on baseless propaganda created by a mainstream media that was all too willing to play their role as agents of the CIC. The targeting of AFLDS and Dr. Gold for these “crimes” was only made possible by propaganda and those nefarious enough to wield it. In short, the media planted the lies, which were then used as the basis for the Committee’s fraudulent investigation. Sound familiar? Russiagate anyone?In December 2022, Congressman Clyburn and his Committee released their final report. Despite the undeniable evidence submitted to them by AFLDS and the testimony provided by the telemedicine company (SpeakWithAnMD.com),&nbsp; there was zero mention of America’s Frontline Doctors in their report - which was equivalent to a full exoneration. The Committee’s frivolous 15-month investigation and shameful waste of taxpayer dollars ended with no semblance of an apology to Dr. Gold or the American people. They just slipped away.This is how it works. The government chooses their target. The media plants the propaganda. Attacks are launched by the government and the media in their respective spheres. If the target succumbs, there is a media feast. If the target prevails, there are no retractions or apologies. The government and media simply move on to the next victim. This is the&nbsp;modus operandi of the Censorship Industrial Complex.Coming Soon to A Doctor Near YouThe targeting of Dr. Gold and AFLDS by the Censorship Industrial Complex is not the first time that these diabolical tactics have been used in an effort to silence dissenting voices - and it certainly won’t be the last. Despite the CIC failing in their efforts to remove Dr. Gold from the public discourse surrounding COVID-19 and its aftermath, they will undoubtedly deploy these tactics in the future. COVID will not be the last pandemic and the CIC will always seek to tear down their opposition with propaganda. If these methods can be used against an outstanding citizen physician with an immaculate record like Dr. Gold, they will unquestionably be used against the next doctor who speaks out against the government-approved narrative. And this next doctor could be your own.&nbsp;COVID-19 has further revealed the blueprint for how the Censorship Industrial Complex uses the media as superspreaders of propaganda to discredit their enemies. This also gives us a much greater understanding of how it operates. In turn, we now have even more undeniable proof that the CIC can only succeed through compliance. We cannot be silent. “We the People” MUST make our voices heard!&nbsp;Dr. Gold refused to bend her knee to a long line of elites, including Congress. She stood her ground against clear and present tyranny. This is a firm reminder that we must all do the same the next time tyrants come knocking at our door.Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on our unwavering mission to expose the Censorship Industrial Complex and their propaganda-pushing media allies.&nbsp; &nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><div class="fncontainer"><hr class="fndivider"><h4 class="fntitle">Footnotes:</h4><div class="fncontent"><div class="fnitem" id="1"><div class="fnlink" id="1" href="#1">1&nbsp;</div>https://www.oed.com/dictionary/propaganda_n</div></div></div></div>

The Media-Planted Propaganda of the CIC

The Missouri v Biden case exposed the Censorship Industrial Complex,&nbsp;BUT “We The People” can only be silenced when we comply with the censors.&nbsp;In a shocking and eye-opening&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1758529993280205039">interview</a> with Tucker Carlson, Mike Benz (Foundation for Freedom Online) analyzed the most important issue of our time: censorship. America’s Frontline Doctors has been fighting censorship since 2020. The&nbsp;Censorship Industrial Complex (CIC) is a total inversion of the idea of democracy itself. Under the CIC, the will of the voters is replaced by the authority of “democratic” institutions. In other words, elite establishments who have created the CIC, use it to subvert democracy in the name of protecting it. These self-proclaimed “holy” institutions are threatened by opposing voices like AFLDS and all those refusing to comply with their propaganda.The fundamental nature of war has changed. When you can control the media and social media ecosystems that ultimately control elections, the ability to win through military conflict is no longer necessary. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) used tanks for 70 years, but now their weapon of choice is conducting organized political influence operations over social media.The Censorship Industrial Complex is made up of four key pillars. These are Censorship, Propaganda, Forced Compliance, and Unpunished Defamation. In order to fully understand how the CIC operates and how to defeat it, we must first understand the functions of each pillar.&nbsp;The Weaponization of CensorshipAs broken down in Dr. Gold’s recent speech at the&nbsp;<a href="https://rumble.com/v4fvmq0-international-covid-summit-dr.-simone-gold-the-state-of-the-union-of-censor.html">International Crisis Summit</a>, the quickest definitive summary of the CIC in action is found in Missouri v Biden (now Murthy v Missouri).&nbsp; This case was heard by SCOTUS on March 18.&nbsp; Dr. Gold and AFLDS, along with several freedom organizations and doctors filed&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1707507071/aflds/Murthy_v_Missouri-Americas_Frontline_Doctors__Dr._Simone_Golds_Amici_Brief-file-stamped-2-9-2024_23-411-US2024_ki4q27.pdf">amicus briefs</a> in support of the two state attorney generals who found&nbsp;overwhelming factual evidence of government censorship including weekly emails, phone calls, and meetings from multiple federal agencies to all the social media companies. In total, 16 states on the side of free speech have joined in their support for the affirmance of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV1.pdf">Ruling</a>. AFLDS is&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-and-simone-gold-m-d-j-d-file-amici-curiae-brief-in-scotus-case">asking</a> the High Court&nbsp;to&nbsp;permanently ban our government from interfering and colluding with Big Tech companies to suppress free speech, especially in the social media arena.At first, the government started out with pre-rollout calls to all the social media companies. They argued with Facebook and Twitter over their own policies in order to illegally outsource censorship to private companies. These&nbsp;requests from the government very rapidly escalated to&nbsp;demands,&nbsp;and then to financial&nbsp;threats for those that didn’t comply. Weak resistance soon became complete compliance.&nbsp;Our federal government required social media companies to provide periodic COVID-19 reports, product changes, and changes to their algorithms in order to prevent “misinformation” from going viral. Social media companies would then flag accounts and posts to reduce reach, suspending or deplatforming those speaking out against the government-approved narrative. A key example of this egregious censorship is from July 2020 when the AFLDS viral White Coat Summit received 20 million views in 8 hours before being taken down from all social media platforms. Along with AFLDS, some of the biggest targets of censorship included Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, among others.&nbsp;The level of weaponized censorship that exists today is alarming and unlike anything that we have ever seen before in this country. There are now established communication pathways between government agencies and Big Tech companies. What first started out with government agencies censoring unapproved COVID-19 narratives soon expanded to targeting topics such as gender-affirming mutilation, climate change, and election integrity. There is no limit to the damage that the Censorship Industrial Complex can inflict on America and across the globe.&nbsp;Silence is Not an OptionAmerica’s Frontline Doctors, much like the courageous attorney generals and fellow freedom advocates standing up to the Biden Administration, recognize that the Censorship Industrial Complex can only be empowered through our compliance. Each and every voice silenced pushes our great Nation one step closer to tyranny and the total erosion of free speech.&nbsp; We cannot and must not turn a blind eye to the corruption brought to light through the Murthy v Missouri case. Now is not the time to be silent. The loudest voices for freedom must make their voices heard.With the outcome of Murthy v Missouri now firmly in the hands of the Supreme Court, we must recognize that this pivotal moment for free speech was only made possible by those who refused to back down to tyrants.&nbsp;Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on the status of Murthy v Missouri and continue to expose the tyranny of the Censorship Industrial Complex.&nbsp;

The State of the Union of Censorship in America

In an alarming power grab, the World Health Organization is pushing for the widespread adoption of a Pandemic Treaty that poses a significant threat to our national sovereignty and personal liberties.The World Health Organization (WHO), an agency of the UN, is&nbsp;<a href="https://frontline.news/post/emergency-response-or-planned-takeover-who-pandemic-treaty">lobbying</a> the 194 member states to ensure their ratification of the global agency's Pandemic Treaty this coming May. Under the pretext of better pandemic preparedness, the WHO's Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, wants the WHO to have complete control over global health responses and initiatives, including issues the agency deems health-related, such as climate change and population control and food supply. It is impossible to think of an issue this&nbsp;couldn’t cover.Fearing a string of defeats and a delay of the treaty's adoption beyond the May 2024 deadline, Tedros accused those against the agreement of trying to sabotage it and of spreading fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories. Part of the WHO’s plan is to reduce resistance to future “epidemic” countermeasures, to prevent opposing voices like AFLDS from speaking out to thwart their globalist agenda.The Smoke and Mirrors of the CCPThe Chinese Communist Party (CCP) thinks in terms of decades and centuries. Western nations are in this position because many years ago China made a tactical political decision to take over the WHO because the agency heavily determines public perception. This war over&nbsp;who controls the WHO escalated because China was humiliated in 2002 when the WHO properly blamed them for the SARS pandemic. From at least that point onward, China decided to&nbsp;become&nbsp;the WHO. Both Tedros and the previous WHO Director-General, Dr. Margaret Chan, received their positions as the result of significant lobbying on their behalf by the CCP.Tedros is the first WHO Director-General without a medical degree. When he was the health officer of Ethiopia, Human Rights Watch reported that Tedros engaged in widespread political suppression by withholding food and medicine to Ethiopians of other ethnicities - most egregiously the Amharans, who are now “missing” two million people. When he was elected WHO Chief in 2017, he immediately attempted to appoint the Marxist Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe - who engaged in massive anti-white racist human rights abuses - as the goodwill ambassador to the WHO. This makes sense once you learn that Tedros was the third highest member of Ethiopia’s Tigray People’s Liberation Front, a hard left organization that became part of the Ethiopian’s People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, a known terrorist organization.&nbsp;Prior to Tedros, Dr. Margaret Chan installed the structure for complete Chinese control of the WHO. In 2006, Dr. Chan was named Director-General of the WHO for two 5-year terms, and she was followed by Dr. Tedros for two 5-year terms. In other words, the CCP has been running the WHO for decades and using public health as a smokescreen for pushing its Communist agenda worldwide. Like Dr. Chan, Tedros is dutifully following China's playbook. Tedros’ praise of China’s transparency at the start of the outbreak along with the WHO forcing the world to change the name from “the Wuhan Virus” to COVID, undoubtedly showed that the CCP’s investment in the WHO takeover paid off.&nbsp;We Must Not Be SilentThe basic ideology supporting the measures detailed in the treaty, and the acquisition of greater power for those running the agency, were publicized by Dr. Chan. Further discrediting the narrative that COVID-19 was the catalyst for the Pandemic Treaty, is the evidence that the power grab was already being formulated more than a decade ago.&nbsp;It is clear that the real goal of these WHO leaders is not about health but rather a CCP/Marxist takeover - by using more American-friendly terminology such as “global health security.” We must not let them deceive us under the pretense of the public's “benefit.” This unchecked authority would leave the USA vulnerable to the dictates of a select few controlled by China, eviscerating our individual freedoms and rights. The WHO must not be allowed to dictate our future without our consent.Now is not the time to be silent. AFLDS will not allow this blatant attempt to seize control of our sovereignty and way of life to go unnoticed. Our elected representatives must stand with us against the tyranny of a globalist agenda and reject the blatant power grab of the WHO Pandemic Treaty.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Who Controls the WHO?

The Stand | The Truth About the COVID-19 Vaccine, Featuring Dr. Simone Gold, of America's Frontline Doctors.

Protecting your Medical
Freedom and Civil Liberties

Categories

Medical Mutilation

Medical Policy

Covid

Issue Briefs

Hantavirus and the Politics of Panic

Applying Legal Precedents Against COVID Mandates

Exposing the Misinformed Consent of Medical Mutilation

The Media-Planted Propaganda of the CIC

The State of the Union of Censorship in America

Who Controls the WHO?

Watch Videos

Dr Simone Gold: The Truth About the COVID-19 Vaccine

Dr. Richard Amerling explains Evidence Based Medicine, Medical Tyranny and Censorship