Ministry of Truth? FTC orders Dr. David Brownstein to stop publicising
his natural remedies for Covid-19
Newsletter published on May 18, 2020
(1) Nerd's reference to Covid-19 as "the CCP virus" - Israel Shamir
(2) Scientists say Covid-19 is "well adapted for humans," suggest Lab origin
(3) Covid-19 did NOT come from animals in Wuhan market - biologists
Alina Chan & Shing Zhan
(4) Who is paying for Covid-19 ads?
(5) FCC Waives TV, Radio Ad Disclosure Rules for COVID-19 ads
(6) Robert F Kennedy Jr: How Did Bill Gates 'Land the Job of Dictating
World Health Policy'?
(7) Dr. B. - testimonial from Michelle: ‘My lungs felt like they were in
a cage’
(8) FTC orders Dr. David Brownstein to stop publicising his natural
remedies for Covid-19
(9) FTC tells therapists to stop making 'Unsupported Claims' about
Coronavirus cures; says "deceptive speech is not protected by the First
Amendment"
(10) Feds To Get Power To Target Websites Making "False Claims" (2010)
(11) Is the FTC our Ministry of Truth?
(12) Trump Goes to War Against CDC 'Ministry of Truth'; 'evidence-based'
and 'science-based' requirement stifles free inquiry
(13) Which Types Of Speech Are Not Protected By The First Amendment?
(14) Is Your Speech Protected By The First Amendment?
(15) Fox News fights coronavirus misinformation lawsuit: First Amendment
protects "false" speech
FTC, CDC & FDA statutes & rulings banning 'false claims' should be
contested in the Supreme Court, citing the First Amendment right to Free
Speech - Peter M.
(1) Nerd's reference to Covid-19 as "the CCP virus" - Israel Shamir
From: israel shamir <israel.shamir@gmail.com>
> RaTG13 – the undeniable evidence that the Wuhan coronavirus is man-made
It refers to the virus as "the CCP virus"
and calls Wuhan Lab "military research lab of the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP)
How can one take seriously these articles bearing in mind that
previously you posted Uygur hoax?
Isn't it too rich?
Comment (Peter M.): But consider the valid point he makes:
If RaTG13 is a natural virus discovered in 2013, as Shi Zhengli claims,
why did not she report it until Jan 23, 2020?
On the origin of Covid-19, he Chinese Government posits two
explanations: that it originated in thew West Market, and that it
wasengineered by the USA.
If China has strong evidence for either of these two claims, why does Xi
Yingping oppose an international inquiry?
(2) Scientists say Covid-19 is "well adapted for humans," suggest Lab origin
Scientists Shouldn't Rule Out Lab As Source Of Coronavirus, New Study Says
BY JASON LEMON ON 5/17/20 AT 3:36 PM EDT
A new scientific analysis of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has
argued that scientists should not rule out the possibility that the
virus originated in a laboratory setting, no matter how likely or
unlikely that could be
While U.S. officials and intelligence agencies have held out the
possibility of a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, China has
dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory.
The scientific community has generally agreed with China's position that
the Coronavirus jumped species in nature, probably at a wet market in
the city of Wuhan. That view has been in part based on the evidence that
the COVID-19 virus was not genetically manipulated.
Scientists who looked at the study at Newsweek's request said that the
analysis is unconventional and uses techniques that are unproven. They
cautioned against drawing conclusions until more research can
corroborate the analysis.
The new study, which has not been peer-reviewed and was published on the
site bioRxiv hosted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, notes that the
novel virus is "well adapted for humans."
It was authored by scientists from the Department of Zoology &
Biodiversity Research Center at the University of British Columbia, the
Fusion Genomics Corporation and the Stanley Center for Psychiatric
Research at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.
bioRxiv cautions that studies published on its site should not "be
regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior,
or be reported in news media as established information."
"Our observations suggest that by the time SARS-CoV-2 was first detected
in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission to an
extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV. However, no precursors or
branches of evolution stemming from a less human-adapted SARS-CoV-2-like
virus have been detected," the authors of the study explained in the
abstract.
"The sudden appearance of a highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 presents a
major cause for concern that should motivate stronger international
efforts to identify the source and prevent near future re-emergence,"
they warned.
The analysis explains that there is still no clear evidence to point to
a precise origin of the virus. The researchers explained, based on the
genetic makeup and samples of the virus, it remains unclear whether
SARS-CoV-2 adapted inside an intermediary animal host, within a human,
or in a laboratory setting. It could have potentially jumped from
species to species within a lab.
"Even the possibility that a non-genetically-engineered precursor could
have adapted to humans while being studied in a laboratory should be
considered, regardless of how likely or unlikely," the authors wrote.
In conclusion, the study cautions that various possibilities for how the
outbreak began in humans "means that we need to take precautions against
each scenario to prevent re-emergence."
As Newsweek reported on April 27, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency
updated an assessment of the origins of the novel coronavirus pandemic
to suggest that it could have accidentally leaked from a laboratory in
Wuhan, China. Previously the assessment had concluded that the new virus
had "probably occurred naturally."
Scientists and the intelligence community have largely dismissed
conspiracy theories that the virus was genetically manipulated. Many
scientists have also stressed that it is more likely that the virus
arose naturally than that it leaked from a lab, although there is not
yet conclusive evidence for either theory.
President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and some top
Republican lawmakers have quickly jumped behind the theory that the
virus could have emerged from a lab leak. The Wuhan Institute of
Virology was known to be researching coronaviruses similar to the one
that has now caused the pandemic. But Chinese scientists at the facility
and Chinese officials have roundly rejected the possibility that a lab
leak could have spurred the global outbreak.
Pompeo has said that the U.S. does not have "certainty" about the Wuhan
lab theory, but has said that there is "significant evidence that this
came from the laboratory." Meanwhile, China has maintained that the
virus emerged naturally, with initial analysis suggesting it came from a
now infamous wet market in Wuhan.
However, the new study published on bioRxiv explains that from the wet
market samples still in existence, it's not possible to determine if
there was an intermediary species before the virus jumped to humans. "If
intermediate animal hosts were present at the market, no evidence
remains in the genetic samples available," the researchers wrote. They
conclude that the available market samples were most likely from humans,
not animals.
Trump, who is facing significant criticism within the U.S. for his
administration's response to the pandemic, has repeatedly blamed China
for the novel coronavirus outbreak. He has also suggested that the U.S.
will attempt to punish China.
"There are many things we could do," the president told Fox Business
host Maria Bartiromo on Thursday morning. "We could cut off the whole
relationship."
Dr. Anthony Fauci, a key member of Trump's coronavirus task force who
serves as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, has been less receptive to the Wuhan lab theory.
"If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what's out there
now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward
this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated – the
way the mutations have naturally evolved," Fauci said in an interview
with National Geographic earlier this month.
"A number of very qualified evolutionary biologists have said that
everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates
that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species," he said.
China has faced significant international criticism for its handling of
the novel coronavirus outbreak. Chinese officials initially covered up
the outbreak in Wuhan. They have also appeared to be censoring research
into the origins of the virus, and German and U.S. intelligence suggests
that the World Health Organization (WHO) was pressured by China to
downplay the threat posed by COVID-19. Meanwhile, the Chinese government
has attempted to shift the narrative, as it tries to position itself as
a global leader in dealing with the pandemic by sending medical supplies
to nations around the world.
As research into the origins of the novel coronavirus continues, the
global pandemic has already infected nearly 4.7 million people around
the world. Of those infected, more 313,000 have died while over 1.7
million have already recovered.
(3) Covid-19 did NOT come from animals in Wuhan market - biologists
Alina Chan & Shing Zhan
'Coronavirus did NOT come from animals in Wuhan market': Landmark study
suggests it was taken into the area by someone already infected - as
Beijing thwarts efforts to establish source of Covid-19
Specialist biologists suggest the virus was taken into the market by a human
The virus was surprisingly 'already pre-adapted to human transmission'
It comes as Beijing thwarts global efforts to establish the source of
the virus
By IAN BIRRELL FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 07:00 AEST, 17 May 2020 | UPDATED: 09:27 AEST, 17 May 2020
China’s claims that the pandemic emerged from a wild animal market in
Wuhan last December have been challenged by a landmark scientific study.
The Mail on Sunday can reveal that analysis of the coronavirus by
specialist biologists suggests that all available data shows it was
taken into the market by someone already carrying the disease.
They also say they were ‘surprised’ to find the virus was ‘already
pre-adapted to human transmission’, contrasting it to another
coronavirus that evolved rapidly as it spread around the planet in a
previous epidemic.
The explosive claims come as Beijing thwarts global efforts to establish
the source of the virus. The news will fuel concerns over the Communist
regime’s cover-up since the disease emerged last year in the central
Chinese city.
The new research is clear in its finding. ‘The publicly available
genetic data does not point to cross-species transmission of the virus
at the market,’ said Alina Chan, a molecular biologist, and Shing Zhan,
an evolutionary biologist. Their paper insists all routes for ‘zoonotic’
(animal to human) transmission – in this case from bats – must be
examined. It says: ‘The possibility that a non-genetically engineered
precursor could have adapted to humans while being studied in a
laboratory should be considered.’
The revelations add to the growing clamour for an international inquiry
into the outbreak. ‘We need to get to the bottom of many things in
relation to Covid-19,’ said Tory MP Bob Seely, a member of the Commons’
Foreign Affairs Select Committee. ‘We need to know where this virus
began, why we were told at one time there was no human transmission, and
what was the role of the Chinese Communist Party.’
Sourcing the virus is key to understanding the disease, developing
vaccines and stopping fresh outbreaks. But the issue has become fraught
after US President Donald Trump claimed it emerged from a Wuhan
laboratory working on bat-borne diseases and China responding by blaming
American soldiers at a sports contest.
Beijing health authorities have insisted the virus almost certainly came
from an animal in Huanan market in Wuhan. They said it was ‘only a
matter of time’ before they identified the crossover species behind
transmission from bats to humans. The World Health Organisation quickly
backed its claims. ‘The evidence is highly suggestive that the outbreak
is associated with exposures in one seafood market in Wuhan,’ it said in
a statement.
Officials closed the market the day after notifying the WHO and sent in
teams with strong disinfectants. Samples from animals were taken but,
four months later, the results have not been shared with foreign
scientists. The actions led to claims that they were deliberately wiping
away crucial traces.
‘The crime scene was completely gone,’ said Guan Yi, a University of
Hong Kong expert. ‘How can we solve a case without evidence?’
The new study into Sars-CoV-2 –the strain of coronavirus that causes
disease – examines genetic samples from patients along with those taken
during the 2002-04 epidemic of SARS, a coronavirus transmitted from bats
to humans through the handling and eating of civet cats. The paper is by
Chan and Ben Deverman, scientists at the Broad Institute, a research
unit affiliated to Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
and Zhan, from the University of British Columbia.
It says they were surprised to discover the new coronavirus has remained
so stable rather than adapting rapidly to humans. This resembles the
earlier virus, they say, during the later stages of epidemic after it
‘had developed several advantageous adaptations for human transmission.’
This was evident from a sample taken from a patient in Wuhan last December.
They point to ‘multiple branches of evolution in both humans and animals
in the 2002-04 epidemic’, adding: ‘In contrast, Sars-CoV-2 appeared
without peer in late 2019, suggesting there was a single introduction of
the human-adapted form of the virus into the human population.’
The team says there is no evidence if this means the virus became
well-adapted to humans in bats; exists in other animal populations; was
spreading undetected in humans for months while mutating; or could have
leaked from a laboratory. But they warn the failure to detect any
‘branches of evolution from a less human-adapted’ form of this virus was
‘a major cause for concern’.
Significantly, the study says genetic examination of four samples
containing the virus from the seafood market to those taken from the
Wuhan patient are ‘99.9 per cent’ identical. This suggests it came from
infected visitors or vendors, indicating ‘Sars-CoV-2 had been imported
into the market by humans’. The authors confirmed to the MoS they had
found no evidence ‘of cross-species transmission’ at the market.
They cite a paper by Chinese scientists, published this month in
Zoological Research journal, that has also inferred the virus was
brought in to the market after examining samples from infected patients.
These new studies dovetail with another work by Chinese scientists
published in The Lancet earlier this year, which found only 27 of the
first 41 confirmed cases were ‘exposed’ to the market – and only one of
four initial cases in the first two weeks of December.
Chan and Zhan said that while the stability of the virus was ‘good news’
for developers of vaccines and treatments, it was alarming not to know
the source and any precursors, in case there were pools in the wild from
which similar diseases might emerge again.
‘The evidence suggests a single introduction of the human-adapted form
of the virus into humans,’ they said, adding that the strange lack of
earlier forms or sibling viruses contrasted with the SARS outbreak. They
refused to speculate on how the disease adapted to humans, although they
share the scientific consensus there was no ‘human interference’ in its
creation.
Their study, which has not been peer reviewed yet, will increase concern
over Beijing’s cover-up after it silenced whistleblowing doctors,
delayed admitting to human transmission and blocked outside teams of
experts from investigating.
Earlier this month, it emerged that a Frenchman was a confirmed case
four days before China notified the WHO about a new ‘pneumonia-like’
disease.
China has consistently denied an accidental leak from one of two Wuhan
labs working with bats. Last week, however, its officials ordered
security at all labs working with viruses to be tightened. The MoS
revealed two weeks ago that the head of the bio-safety team at Wuhan
Institute of Virology had warned of deficient safety.
China’s Centre for Disease Control and Prevention still says on its
website: ‘The virus was successfully isolated from positive
environmental specimens, suggesting that the virus originated from wild
animals sold in the South China Seafood Market.’
(4) Who is paying for Covid-19 ads?
From: "Tom and Kathy" Subject: Covid Ads
Tom asked a question this morning . . . who is paying for all the Covid
ad phrases . . . "times like these," "more than ever," "home," "family,"
and "here for you," "we’ve always been there for you," "we may be apart,
but we can stay connected," "we’ll get through this together." This is
what I found:
"Ordinarily, a TV spot has to include a disclosure of who paid for the
time per FCC rules. But with businesses shuttered, events canceled and
social distancing, many advertisers can no longer use the commercial
time they have already bought from TV and radio stations and are instead
donating it to use for public service announcements."
(5) FCC Waives TV, Radio Ad Disclosure Rules for COVID-19 ads
FCC Waives TV, Radio Ad Disclosure Rules for COVID-19 PSAs
Will extend until June 30
John Eggerton
Apr 3, 2020
The FCC has waived its advertising disclosure rules for COVID-19 public
service announcements using donated commercial ad time.
Ordinarily, a TV spot has to include a disclosure of who paid for the
time per FCC rules. But with businesses shuttered, events canceled and
social distancing, many advertisers can no longer use the commercial
time they have already bought from TV and radio stations and are instead
donating it to use for public service announcements.
Those PSAs display the name of the CDC or other public health authority,
not the original ad time purchaser, so could run afoul of the rule that
require broadcasters to disclose who bought the time.
"In this particular instance, however, where the time is being donated
for the broadcast of PSAs related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the CDC,
other governmental entities, or public health authorities, such a
disclosure requirement might undercut the reliability of these PSAs,
which are providing essential information, often from an entity charged
with tracking and limiting the spread of disease," said the FCC's Media
Bureau in explaining the waiver. "Moreover, requiring that the name or
corporate logo of the commercial entity that originally purchased the
airtime be included in the PSA might discourage the donation of
beneficial advertising time, as commercial entities might not wish to
have their names or corporate logos directly associated with the
provision of information about COVID-19 for fear of a negative
association by consumers."
The FCC has the discretion to waive the requirement if it thinks that
would be in the public interest. The Media Bureau said that is the case.
"The use of such donated advertising time could allow for the broadcast
of numerous additional PSAs to the community during this national
emergency and provide life-saving information to the public," it said.
The waiver extends to June 30, 2020, after which it will be reevaluated.
(6) Robert F Kennedy Jr: How Did Bill Gates 'Land the Job of Dictating
World Health Policy'?
Robert F Kennedy Jr: How Did Bill Gates ‘Land the Job of Dictating World
Health Policy With No Election?’
April 16, 2020
Baxter Dmitry
Bill Gates "landed the job of dictating world health policy with no
election, no appointment, no oversight and no accountability" says
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who wants to know "Does anybody else think this
is creepy?"
The world’s second richest man Bill Gates "landed the job of dictating
world health policy with no election, no appointment, no oversight and
no accountability" says Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is demanding to know
how and why this happened, adding "Does anybody else think this is creepy?"
Kennedy Jr.’s probing questions regarding Bill Gates and his unofficial
role as "dictator of world health policy" were met with an
overwhelmingly positive response by Instagram users.
"Beyond creepy. It’s terrifying," replied hlr725.
"Yes this is crazy and people need to wake up. Just because he has a
bunch of money doesn’t mean he gets to rule everyone and decide what we
inject into our bodies," surmised kbebernes.
"Furthermore, why is he seeking indemnity from world governments?" said
umanie.
"And why is Marina Abromovic Microsoft’s new spokeswoman?" queried
gracywaldon.
Last week Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slammed Bill Gates and his "messianic
conviction that he is ordained to save the world with technology."
"Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his
many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to
control a global vac ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control
over global health policy—the spear tip of corporate neo-imperialism,"
Kennedy Jr. wrote.
"Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems fueled by a messianic conviction
that he is ordained to save the world with technology and a god-like
willingness to experiment with the lives of lesser humans."
(7) Dr. B. - testimonial from Michelle: ‘My lungs felt like they were in
a cage’
There Is Still Hope Out There- Michelle: ‘My lungs felt like they were
in a cage’
Meet Michelle who is a nurse at a local hospital. She was sick for
several weeks with COVID symptoms to include headache, severe muscle
aches, diarrhea, and exhaustion. Michelle later had a dry cough that led
to chest pain, tightness in her chest, and shortness of breath. Learn
about the oral and IV therapies that Michelle received at our office to
strengthen her immune system and helped to overcome her symptoms.
To All Our Health!
~DrB
David Brownstein, MD is a conventionally trained Board-Certified Family
Physician with the additional overlay of holistic principles. While Dr
Brownstein does not claim to have a cure for any illness, he does
believe that we can enhance the individual’s immune system by supporting
the ‘host’ & the terrain of the host. The human body is well designed
and the immune system, when given the proper support, can optimally
function.
Disclaimer: The information on this account should not be used as
medical advice.Any therapies that are discussed should be supervised
under the guidance of your physician or licensed healthcare professional.
Click to watch Michelle’s testimonial!
David Brownstein, M.D. Dr B's Holistic Medicine, Dr B’s blog, Natural
Supplements, Natural Therapies, Ozone Therapy, Virus’ & Immune Support
(8) FTC orders Dr. David Brownstein to stop publicising his natural
remedies for Covid-19
There Is Still Hope Out There……..And We Are Taking Time Out To Re-Group
To My Loyal Readers-
I want to let you know that we have been ordered by the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) to stop making any statements about our treatment
protocols of Vitamins A, C & D, as well as nutritional IV’s, iodine,
ozone and nebulization to support the immune system with respect to
Coronavirus Diseases 2019 (COVID-19).
According to this letter:
"It is unlawful under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C Sec. 41 et seq. to advertise
that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease
unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence,
including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies,
substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made. For
COVID-19, no such study is currently known to exist for the products or
services identified above. Thus, any Coronavirus-related prevention or
treatment claims regarding such products or services are not supported
by competent and reliable scientific evidence. You must immediately
cease making all such claims."
What this means is that I will not be able to blog, post, tweet, email,
etc. for a while. We have temporarily put all Social Media platforms in
‘hibernation’ for the time being.
With that being said, there are a few things I want you to know:
– My office, the Center for Holistic Medicine, is NOT closing. I am
still here and so are my colleagues! We are committed to taking good
care of our patients and we are continuing to accept new patients, as
well. Feel free to email us at: info@centerforholisticmedicine.com
– Due to the COVID crises, we have had staff members take a leave of
absence in order to quarantine at home. We are doing our best to answer
the phones, but we simply do not have the ability to answer all the
calls right now. For that I apologize. We are asking for your patience
and please know we are doing our best in these trying times. If you need
to get a hold of us or make an appointment, email us at:
– I am reading every single email and message your are sending me. I am
touched beyond words. The uplifting messages mean more than I can say. I
appreciate your kindness and support during these difficult times.
– We will get through this. Keep in mind, the vast majority—over 99% of
us will survive Cornavirus and move on. At CHM we are committed to
providing the best health care that we are capable of and we will
continue to do just that.
– Let me know how you are doing! Tell me about your success stories of
good health at: info@drbrownstein.com. As I stated above, every post
will be read!
– I will still be in contact with you, just to check-in, while we spend
this time to re-group.
– Don’t worry! I will DEFINITELY be back! I already have PLAN B ready to go.
To All Our Health! ~DrB
Note: David Brownstein, MD is a conventionally trained Board-Certified
Family Physician with the additional overlay of holistic principles.
While Dr Brownstein does not claim to have a cure for any illness, he
does believe that we can enhance the individual’s immune system by
supporting the ‘host’ & the terrain of the host. The human body is well
designed and the immune system, when given the proper support, can
optimally function.
Disclaimer: The information on any of Dr Brownstein’s blogs should not
be used as medical advice. Any therapies that are discussed should be
supervised under the guidance of your physician or licensed healthcare
professional.
David Brownstein, M.D. Dr B's Holistic Medicine, Dr B’s blog, Natural
Supplements, Natural Therapies, Virus’ & Immune Support
(9) FTC tells therapists to stop making 'Unsupported Claims' about
Coronavirus cures; says "deceptive speech is not protected by the First
Amendment"
FTC Sends 21 Letters Warning Marketers to Stop Making Unsupported Claims
That Their Products and Therapies Can Effectively Treat Coronavirus
FTC Sends 21 Letters Warning Marketers to Stop Making Unsupported Claims
That Their Products and Therapies Can Effectively Treat Coronavirus
Supposed therapies range from stem cell infusions to acupuncture and
ozone treatments
The Federal Trade Commission announced it has sent 21 additional letters
warning marketers throughout the United States to stop making
unsubstantiated claims that their products and therapies can treat or
prevent coronavirus (COVID-19). This is the third set of warning letters
the FTC has sent to sellers of such products as part of its ongoing
efforts to protect consumers from COVID-19 related scams.
The FTC previously sent warning letters to the sellers of supplements
including colloidal silver, teas, essential oils, and other products
pitched as scientifically proven coronavirus treatments. The letters
announced today, however, address a wider range of products and supposed
treatments, including some that may appear more medically sophisticated
to consumers, such as acupuncture, intravenous (IV) "therapies" with
high doses of Vitamin C, ozone therapy, and purported stem cell
treatments. However, there is currently no scientific evidence that
these products or services can treat or cure coronavirus.
The FTC sent the letters announced today to the companies and
individuals listed below. The recipients are grouped based on the type
of therapy, product, or service they pitched to supposedly prevent or
treat coronavirus disease.
General Therapy Products, Vitamins, and Supplements:
Abundant Life Wellness Center (homeopathic dilutions)
Alkaline for Life at the Center for Better Bones (high-dose Vitamin C)
Blessed Maine Herb Farm (herbal therapy)
Ethos Natural Medicine LLC (Kratom tablets and powders)
Fast Relief Acupuncture (acupuncture and herbal therapy)
Greenbelt Outdoors (high-dose Vitamin C)
Jiva Med Spa (supplements)
Personal Health Shop (elderberry)
REVIV (high-dose Vitamin C)
IV Therapy and Related Treatments:
Absolute Health Clinic (IV Vitamin C; stem cell therapy)
AwareMed (IV therapy)
Liquivida Lounge (IV therapy; Vitamin C)
Merge Medical Center
Prana IV Therapy (IV Vitamin C)
Vidaful Medicine (IV Vitamin C; stem cell therapy; ozone therapy)
Windhorse Naturopathic Clinic (IV Vitamin C)
Ozone Therapy:
American Medical Aesthetics
RowenSu Clinic
TRLYHEAL Pty. Ltd.
Stem Cell Therapy:
Center for Regenerative Cell Medicine
Stemedix, Inc.
In the letters, the FTC states that one or more of the efficacy claims
made by the marketers are unsubstantiated because they are not supported
by scientific evidence, and therefore violate the FTC Act. The letters
advise the recipients to immediately cease making all claims that their
products can treat or cure coronavirus and to notify the FTC within 48
hours about the specific actions they have taken to address the agency’s
concerns.
The letters note that if the false claims do not cease, the Commission
may seek a federal court injunction and an order requiring money to be
refunded to consumers.
The letters announced today are the latest round of warnings the FTC has
sent to sellers of products pitched as able treat or prevent
coronavirus. The Commission also has sent letters to several Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers, warning them that it is
illegal to aid or facilitate the transmission of pre-recorded
telemarketing robocalls pitching supposed coronavirus-related products
or services.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect
and educate consumers. You can learn more about consumer topics and file
a consumer complaint online or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP (382-4357).
Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, read our blogs, and
subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
PRESS RELEASE REFERENCE:
FTC Warns Nine VoIP Service Providers and Other Companies against
‘Assisting and Facilitating’ Illegal Coronavirus-related Telemarketing Calls
FTC Announces Latest Round of Letters Warning Companies to Cease
Unsupported Claims that Their Products Can Treat or Prevent Coronavirus
CONTACT INFORMATION
CONTACT FOR CONSUMERS:
FTC’s Consumer Response Center 877-382-4357
FTC MEDIA CONTACT: Mitchell J. Katz Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2161
FTC STAFF CONTACT: Richard Cleland Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3088
(10) Feds To Get Power To Target Websites Making "False Claims" (2010)
Feds To Get Power To Target Websites Making "False Claims"
New FTC guidelines would allow government to scrutinize content of
websites, "patrol what bloggers say and do"
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, June 22, 2009
The Federal Reserve refuses to disclose where trillions of dollars in
bailout money went and yet the FTC is more concerned about snooping into
the financial affairs of bloggers who make a few bucks off affiliate
relationships, according to new guidelines set to be introduced later
this year that would give the government a foot in the door to regulate
and shut down blogs for making "false claims".
"New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible
modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers — as
well as the companies that compensate them — for any false claims or
failure to disclose conflicts of interest," states an Associated Press
report.
Furious that struggling families are supplementing their income by
having housewives write blogs about cooking, or individuals posting
political opinions and funding their operation by carrying affiliate
links to Amazon books, the new FTC regulations would ensure that "Any
type of blog could be scrutinized, not just ones that specialize in
reviews," according to the report.
The proviso that "any type of blog could be scrutinized" frames this
assault on free speech in a wider context that just individuals making
claims about products advertised on their websites.
The proposed guidelines (PDF) state that "deceptive speech is not
protected by the First Amendment," and that "The Supreme Court has
repeatedly stated that the government can restrict, or even ban, such
speech." Of course, the issue of whether such speech is deceptive will
be decided by the government itself.
The definition of "false claims" is so loose that it could hand the feds
the power to shut down any website on a whim based on the flimsiest of
pretexts. The AP report notes that the new guidelines would create a
system to "patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online".
As the Cryptogon website points out, in reality this has little to do
with the FTC’s concern for fair business practices and everything to do
with the government getting a foot in the door for their overarching
agenda to regulate and control blogs and free speech on the Internet.
"What has happened is that bloggers have blown the support columns out
from underneath traditional media and the people who run the show don’t
like that."
"The fact that some of us are able to survive by maintaining blogs must
have come as an incredible shock to fat bastards in boardrooms across
the land. That we are not "regulated" is unthinkable in the Soviet hive
mind that governs the political economy of the United States."
This is all about creating a chilling atmosphere and preventing people
from creating their own websites by establishing a mountain of red tape
and bureaucracy around the currently simple process of writing and
maintaining a blog.
The ultimate endgame is to mimic the Chinese Internet system of total
government regulation and censorship via the implementation of a
registration process whereby every blogger will be assigned a number and
given permission to blog by the government. If the blogger expresses an
opinion deemed unsavory by the authorities then their registration
credentials will be terminated and their ability to login to their own
blog will be removed.
This article was posted: Monday, June 22, 2009 at 4:47 am
(11) Is the FTC our Ministry of Truth?
Technology: Is the FTC our Ministry of Truth?
The FTCs recent prosecution of Internet companies conjures up
similarities to Orwells dystopian future
By Thomas Julin | May 25, 2012 at 12:00 AM
In the great George Orwell novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four," the Ministry of
Truth is a vast bureaucracy that ironically exists to falsify historical
events in the service of political ideology. Its headquarters is an
80-story building of 3,000 rooms, and its outside walls bear the words
"War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," and "Ignorance is Strength." ...
(12) Trump Goes to War Against CDC 'Ministry of Truth'; 'evidence-based'
and 'science-based' requirement stifles free inquiry
Trump Goes to War Against CDC’s "Ministry of Truth"
Unraveling the Facade of US Health Care…
By Kent Heckenlively, JD
In George Orwell’s classic novel, 1984, the main character, Winston
Smith, works for the "Ministry of Truth" in a future authoritarian society.
On the outside wall of the ministry are plastered the three slogans of
the Party: "WAR IS PEACE," ‘FREEDOM IS SLAVERY," and "IGNORANCE IS
STRENGTH!"
This description of an authoritarian organization which seeks to impose
its will despite its many failings seems a particularly apt description
of our current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
President Trump appears to have fired the first salvo against this
corrupt institution.
According to an article from The Washington Post on December 15, 2017,
President Trump has instructed the CDC to stop using the words
"evidence-based" and "science-based." (CDC Gets List of Forbidden Words,
by Lena Sun and Juliet Ellperin)
It’s about damned time!
The words "evidence-based" and "science-based" are nothing less than the
deliberate twisting of language to stifle free inquiry. They are like
corrupt priests who claim that "only they" know the will of the
Almighty. The Mandarins of the CDC should probably start packing their
bags and find a new location for their brand of openness like the
recently dismembered ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria.
Don’t believe me?
How is is that the CDC has been getting away with allowing nearly
106,000 deaths to occur every year for medical mishaps, 6.6 million
hospitalizations, and over 80 million adverse events? How is it that in
a few decades we have gone from 1 in 10,000 children having autism to 1
in 36?
Is our current "Ministry of Health" actually making us healthier, or is
it presiding over the slow extermination of the human species?
How deep does this sickness go?
Do you really expect the media to report on these issues when the
pharmaceutical industry has spent $3.2 billion dollars on television ads
for drugs in the past year?
When Robert Kennedy, Jr. was trying to get the former chairman of Fox
News, Roger Ailes, to highlight the documentary film, Trace Amounts,
Ailes told Kennedy that he’d have to fire any host who talked about the
health risk of vaccines because roughly 70% of the news budget came from
pharma advertising.
If vaccines are so safe, why do we need a "Vaccine Court" which has
rules so Byzantine it would feel right at home in George Orwell’s
dystopian future?
How can vaccines be "as safe as sugar water" while at the same time more
than $3.5 billion dollars have been paid out in claims by parents who
somehow managed to get their voices heard?
Forgive me if I don’t cry any tears over the CDC being able to use their
big, important words to prevent the inconvenient question of why our
society is suffering from record rates of neurological problems,
diabetes, cancer, and dementia. While the human race is on its way to
extinction I certainly wouldn’t want anybody to accuse me of raising my
voice and ruffling any feathers.
In The Art of War by Sun Tzu, the author writes, "Supreme excellence
consists of breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting." Trump is
known to be a fan of the writings of Sun Tzu, and it appears he is
implementing this strategy against the CDC.
Instead of using the words "evidence-based" or "science-based", The
Washington Post reports, "the suggested phrase is ‘CDC bases its
recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and
wishes.'" What a change that will be to have the CDC actually listen to
the public. One would almost think our tax dollars support them!
It seems that Trump is going to take these corrupt avatars of medicine
down from their high altars and force them to talk to the rabble. I
look forward to that discussion.
(13) Which Types Of Speech Are Not Protected By The First Amendment?
Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways,
there are basically nine categories:
Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that
list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.
(14) Is Your Speech Protected By The First Amendment?
by Lata Nott, Executive Director, First Amendment Center
Can your bosses fire you for stating opinions they don’t agree with? Can
your school keep you from starting a controversial club? Can a website
or newspaper refuse to publish your opinion?
Freedom of speech is a very well-known but often misunderstood concept.
Americans see free speech as an important right–-our last survey showed
that 86% of Americans think that free speech is more important than
protection from offense. But while it’s common for us to assert our
right to express our opinions, it’s easy to forget that not all of our
speech is legally protected by the First Amendment.
So when does the First Amendment protect your speech from censorship or
punishment? Ask yourself four questions.
1. FIRST OF ALL, IS IT SPEECH?
Freedom of speech doesn’t just apply to the words that come out of your
mouth. It applies to a number of different forms of expression, including:
Written works Online posts Movies and television Theater and dance Art
Video Games Political yard signs Handing out flyers Clothing Symbolic
speech, like burning a flag or wearing a black armband The right not to
speak, such as a refusal to say the pledge of allegiance Donations of
money to political campaigns At least one federal appeals court has
found that liking something on Facebook qualifies as speech. Some types
of computer code may be considered speech, but the limits of that is
still an open question.
2. IF IT IS SPEECH—IS THE GOVERNMENT CENSORING OR PUNISHING IT?
The First Amendment only protects your speech from government
censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors.
This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected
officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police
officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and
organizations. This means that:
A private school can suspend students for criticizing a school policy; A
private business can fire an employee for expressing political views on
the job; and A private media company can refuse to publish or broadcast
opinions it disagrees with. 3. IF THE GOVERNMENT IS CENSORING YOUR
SPEECH–DOES YOUR SPEECH FALL INTO AN UNPROTECTED CATEGORY? There are
several categories of speech that are not protected by the First
Amendment at all.
True threats
Blackmail
Defamation Obscenity
Child pornography
Fighting words
Solicitations to commit crimes
Incitement of imminent lawless action Perjury
Plagiarism
4. IF YOUR SPEECH DOES NOT FALL INTO ONE OF THE UNPROTECTED
CATEGORIES–DO YOU FALL INTO A SPECIAL CATEGORY?
The government generally has greater power to dictate speech policies
when it acts in certain capacities, such as educator, employer or jailer.
K-12 public school student
Government employee
State or federal prisoner
Note that this primer should not be taken as legal advice, but as an
effort to simplify what can be a very complicated area of the law. If
you wish to pursue a First Amendment legal action, you should contact an
attorney or legal services group in your area.
(15) Fox News fights coronavirus misinformation lawsuit: First Amendment
protects "false" speech
Fox News fights coronavirus misinformation lawsuit: First Amendment
protects "false" speech
Fox News says it cannot be held liable because the Constitution protects
"false" and "outrageous" claims
IGOR DERYSH
APRIL 16, 2020 9:00AM (UTC)
Fox News has moved to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a Washington state
group accusing the network of "deceptive" coronavirus coverage by
arguing that the First Amendment protects "false" and "outrageous" speech.
The network's lawyers said in a motion seeking to dismiss the lawsuit
that the "First Amendment does not permit censoring this type of speech
based on the theory that it is 'false' or 'outrageous.' Nor does the law
of the State of Washington."
The Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics (WASHLITE)
filed a lawsuit in King County earlier this month seeking a court order
barring the network from "interfering with reasonable and necessary
measures to contain the virus by publishing further false and deceptive
content."
The suit accused the network of violating the state's Consumer
Protection Act by "falsely and deceptively disseminating 'news' via
cable news contracts that the coronavirus was a 'hoax' and that it was
otherwise not a danger to public health and safety."
The suit specifically cited Fox News host Sean Hannity and former Fox
Business host Trish Regan for having "acted in bad faith to willfully
and maliciously disseminate false information denying and minimizing the
danger posed by the spread of the novel coronavirus."
Hannity downplayed the threat of the coronavirus and argued it was less
dangerous than the flu. Regan was fired shortly after accusing Democrats
of pushing a "coronavirus impeachment scam."
Though there are numerous examples of Fox opinion hosts downplaying the
threat posed by the virus, many legal experts have dismissed the idea
that the network could be sued for its coverage of the pandemic. One of
the lawyers involved in the lawsuit has since withdrawn from the case.
"It's Constitutional Law 101: the First Amendment protects our right to
speak openly and freely on matters of public concern," Fox News Media
general counsel Lily Fu Claffee said in a statement. "If WASHLITE
doesn't like what we said, it can criticize us, but it can't silence us
with a lawsuit."
The network's 76-page filing, which includes dozens of pages of show
transcripts and examples of other media outlets purportedly downplaying
the risk of the virus early this year, argues that the hosts "never
described the Coronavirus as a 'hoax' or a 'conspiracy,' but instead
used those terms to comment on efforts to exploit the pandemic for
political points."
The network's lawyers argued that Hannity and Regan simply took part in
an "intense public debate" over "how serious of a threat" the virus
posed, noting that Hannity, in March, urged the elderly and people with
compromised immune systems to take "extra, extra, extra caution."
The motion also noted that when Regan wrongly argued that the "flu … can
be even more deadly" than the coronavirus, she emphasized that she was
"not saying that people should not take [the coronavirus] seriously."
"Under the First Amendment and state law, the truth or falsity of this
type of speech must be resolved through free and open debate in the
marketplace of ideas — not through burdensome litigation seeking to
impose legal penalties on political statements that a jury might deem
'false' or 'outrageous,'" the motion said. "In addition, the Complaint
also fails because the statements are constitutionally protected
opinions. Again, even accepting the Complaint's characterization of the
speech at issue, the Fox commentators were expressing their view on the
scientific question of how dangerous the Coronavirus is and how society
should respond to it — including what type of governmental action should
be taken."
The motion went on to cite CNN and New York Times coverage that compared
the coronavirus to the flu, arguing that "If this type of allegedly
'false' speech can be censored, then free and open debate on matters of
public concern is a dead letter."
The network added that WASHLITE's bid to get an injunction preventing
Fox News from expressing similar opinions in the future is an example of
unlawful "extraordinary prior restraint." The Washington CPA also "does
not regulate political commentary … nor is such commentary the type of
'extreme and outrageous conduct' covered by the tort of 'outrage,'" the
motion said.
Legal experts largely agreed with the network's position that the
lawsuit was unlikely to succeed.
Catherine Clark, an attorney for WASHLITE, vowed to respond to the
motion and told Variety that the suit "was not about prohibiting free
speech, but making sure that news organizations convey accurate
information."
Legal culpability aside, media analysts have widely criticized Fox News
for putting their viewers at risk by downplaying the threat posed by the
virus, which has now killed 26,000 people in the United States.
"Fox failed its viewers and the broader public in ways both revealing
and potentially lethal," wrote New York Times columnist Ben Smith.
A letter signed by more than 70 journalism professors around the country
criticized Fox News for spreading "misinformation" about the virus.
"Viewers of Fox News, including the president of the United States, have
been regularly subjected to misinformation relayed by the network —
false statements downplaying the prevalence of COVID-19 and its harms;
misleading recommendations of activities that people should undertake to
protect themselves and others, including casual recommendations of
untested drugs; false assessments of the value of measures urged upon
the public by their elected political leadership and public health
authorities," the letter said, pointing to a recent poll that found that
79% of Fox News viewers believed the media had overstated the danger
posed by the virus.
The network's competitors have seized on the criticism.
"There are surveys on this, showing a majority of people who get
information from Fox still think the virus threat is overblown," MSNBC
host Ari Melber said last week:
They're more likely to downplay it even compared to other Republicans.
If you don't get your information from Fox News or online conspiracy
theories, you're less likely to think it's overblown because it's not
overblown. For Fox viewers, it's especially perilous. The median age
there is 67. That mostly older audience, especially vulnerable if they
contract this virus. And as we just showed you, they've been told to
basically downplay it.
Read the full Fox News motion below: ...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.