Will DOJ Try to Prosecute Parents Who Refuse to Mutilate Their Children?

Katie Pavlich Oct 04, 2022

Democrat-controlled Chicago is suffering a crime wave as overall crime since 2021 has skyrocketed 37 percent while motor vehicle thefts have spiked 64 percent, per police statistics.

 Last summer the Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick Garland were caught red handed after they fulfilled a request by the National School Board Association, which was passed along by the Biden White House, to use the Patriot Act against parents who showed up at school board meetings. ................Now, the same DOJ is being petitioned by the American Medical Association to crack down on parents and reporters who have exposed a number of child mutilation programs at hospitals across the country under the guise of "gender affirming care." AMA calls reports about gender programs a "coordinated attack.".................To Read More....

•  The Democrats’ in ‘loco’ parentis view of ‘democracy’ October 3, 2022 Democrats keep insisting that Republicans are a threat to “democracy,” so it’s useful to analyze what they mean by the word. 

The Progressive Neo-Racist Cancer Has Completely Destroyed The AMA

November 09, 2021 Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

It seems that no American institution is immune to the phenomenon. You have some organization out there that for all you know is just a regular and sensible group of professionals. You don’t pay much attention to what they are up to because, after all, you have your own life to lead. Then one day, for whatever reason, you have occasion to take a look at their latest utterances. And immediately it hits you — Holy Shit!, the Body Snatchers have gotten them too. The people involved seem by their physical appearance to be nearly unchanged, but they have developed a glassy-eyed stare, and out of their mouths come nothing but mindless catchphrases about “systemic racism,” “oppression,” “marginalized peoples,” and “white privilege.” Their words and actions are now centrally directed by some weird mind-control system that makes them incapable of doing anything except parroting the latest progressive neo-racist dogma.

I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t much been following what the American Medical Association has been up to for a few decades. Then I ran across the November 3 piece by Christine Rosen in Commentary titled “Critical Race Theory Is Coming for Your Doctor.” Rosen’s article dissects a new document just out (October 28) from the AMA, with the title “Advancing Health Equity: A Guide To Language, Narrative, and Concepts.” I should also mention that something called the Center for Health Justice of the Association of American Medical Colleges (the trade association of medical schools) also participated in preparing and uttering this document.

A fair summary of “Advancing Health Equity” would be that if you just stumbled across it at random, you would be sure that it is a parody. But I have cross-checked not only to Rosen’s article, but also to the AMA’s own website, and I can assure you that the document is not a parody. It is very real. If you were thinking “they must be kidding,” disabuse yourself of that idea. They are not.

Before getting into the substance of “AHE,” let me give some background on the current state of the AMA. If you’re my age or anything close, you may remember the AMA as having almost if not a majority of U.S. medical doctors as members, and of being the main voice of the medical profession. But the more recent story is that the AMA has been in a decades-long decline, and lately more like a death spiral. Somewhere along the way, it got captured by political activists, and the sane people have gradually abandoned it.

In the AMA’s own publicity, they tout statistics that seem to show healthy and even growing membership. For example, there’s this from a speech in June 2021 by AMA Executive Vice President James Medara:  

“This year the AMA celebrates 10 years of steady growth among dues-paying members, as shown on this slide. In terms of raw numbers, AMA membership has grown by more than one third since 2011.” 

 But plenty of analysts have looked more closely at the AMA’s numbers and discerned that the organization is rapidly hollowing out. For example, a June 2019 article in MedPage by Dr. Kevin Campbell has the title “Don't Believe AMA's Hype, Membership Still Declining,” and offers some insightful numbers. It appears that the AMA provides deeply discounted and/or free memberships to categories including medical students, residents, and retirees. Take those out of the AMA’s membership numbers, and here’s what you get:

[I]f you remove [students and residents] from the AMA's published numbers, you get 1,093,472 physicians, and . . . only 132,133 practicing physicians who are AMA members. That's 12.1%.

In short, it’s a tiny minority, basically consisting of those few doctors who spend their time on political activism rather than actually tending to patients.

So what’s in this “Advancing Health Equity” thing? Let’s start at the beginning. The beginning here means the Preamble, which comes even before the Introduction. And the Preamble in a document such as this of course means the obligatory “Land and Labor Acknowledgement”:

The American Medical Association’s headquarters is located in the Chicago area on taken ancestral lands of indigenous tribes, such as the Council of the Three Fires, composed of the Ojibwe, Odawa and Potawatomi Nations, as well as the Miami, Ho-Chunk, Menominee, Sac, Fox, Kickapoo and Illinois Nations. . . . We acknowledge their ancestors were forced out by colonization, genocide, disease and war. The AAMC and AMA also acknowledge the extraction of brilliance, energy and life for labor forced upon millions of people of African descent for more than 400 years.

Now we must turn to the substance of the document. What are the means these people propose using to advance “health equity.” This being the American Medical Association, you might have the idea that their best shot at making a contribution to “health equity” would be through improvements in the practice of medicine. That would be entirely wrong. According to this document, the big problem causing health inequity is not deficient medical care, but rather — you guessed it — the use of the wrong “narratives.” And the solution, of course, is to force the use of the correct narratives.

Please start your journey by carefully studying this graphic:

Having reviewed that, you now understand that great harm has been done by use of the “dominant narratives,” also known as “malignant narratives,” that “undermine public health and the advancement of health equity.” These “dominant” and “malignant” narratives are the ones that contain such evil concepts as “meritocracy,” “individualism,” and “medicine itself”:

Central to this work is a consideration of our language, and the narratives that shape our thinking. As we explore in this guide, dominant narratives (also called malignant narratives), particularly those about “race,” individualism and meritocracy, as well as narratives surrounding medicine itself, limit our understanding of the root causes of health inequities. Dominant narratives create harm, undermining public health and the advancement of health equity; they must be named, disrupted and corrected.

Clearly, the fundamental imperative here is to “move healthcare toward justice.” And, as couldn’t be more obvious, the way to accomplish that goal is simply to replace “narratives grounded in white supremacy and sustaining structural racism” with morally superior narratives of “critical race theory . . ., gender studies, disability studies, as well as scholarship from social medicine”:

Narratives grounded in white supremacy and sustaining structural racism, for example, perpetuate cumulative disadvantage for some populations and cumulative advantage for white people, and especially white men. Patriarchal narratives enforce rigidly defined traditional norms, and reinforce inequities based on gender. Narratives that uncritically center meritocracy and individualism render invisible the very real constraints generated and reinforced by poverty, discrimination and ultimately exclusion. Yet a rich tradition of work in health equity and related fields, including critical race theory (defined in the glossary), gender studies, disability studies, as well as scholarship from social medicine, gives us a foundation for an alternative narrative, one that challenges the status quo, one that moves health care towards justice.

You can go on and on from there if you want. There are about 50 pages of this drivel. At around page 8 we start in on the latest in permissible and impermissible terminology. You quickly learn that most of the brand new vocabulary that you just learned last week has already been superseded and replaced among the super-woke. Example:

Avoid use of adjectives such as vulnerable, marginalized and high-risk.

These terms can be stigmatizing. These terms are vague and imply that the condition is inherent to the group rather than the actual causal factors. Try to use terms and language that explain why and/or how some groups are more affected than others. Also try to use language that explains the effect (i.e., words such as impact and burden are also vague and should be explained).

And that’s only the beginning of pages and pages of this stuff. Other terms that seemed to be fashionable just a few days ago and now are suddenly verboten include such things as “cultural competence,” “disadvantaged,” “under-resourced,” “under-served,” “disparities,” “fairness,” “vulnerable,” and many, many more. Check out the document to learn the latest trendy alternatives to each of these formerly-fashionable terms. Or better yet, don’t, because the new alternatives are likely themselves to be declared to be racist or white supremacist within a matter of days or weeks at most. Your chance of keeping ahead of this whirlwind is about zero.

At page 49 we find a list of names of people who have reviewed and approved this document. Some 29 of them are from the AMA. There are also seven from the AAMC. And then there are the fourteen from the CDC. Yes, the big government “public health” bureaucracy was heavily involved and has its fingerprints all over this.

Well, I’m about ready for my annual round of medical checkups from the internist, the eye doctor, the skin doctor, and so forth. The new item on my agenda is I will ask each of them if they are members of the AMA. Any one of them who is will promptly be replaced.

Why Do Doctors Go Along with COVID Panic Porn and CDC Prescriptions?

By Ted Noel, MD

I recently had a conversation with a reasonably well-informed writer who simply missed the real reasons why most practicing physicians go along with the Fauci Fraud.  As a public service, I will attempt to fill in a few gaps.  But first, I must define the fraud.

There are two basic legs to the fraud. 

First is the idea that the Centers for Disease Control is in any way concerned with a mission related to its name.  The failure of the CDC to endorse any treatment that did not emanate from its exalted halls should give us our first glint of clarity.  There are literally millions of physicians around the world, and the great bulk of them truly wish to treat their patients well.  Among those are thousands of researchers, a number far in excess of those at the CDC, the NIH, and other alphabet soup government agencies.  The very idea that outside researchers are incapable of discovering anything useful without the help of the bureaucrats in D.C. is hubris of the highest order.  And it prevents the CDC, the FDA, or any other such agency from considering the idea that maybe, just possibly, there might be intelligent life down here.  Mount Olympus cannot be threatened.

The second leg of the fraud is less visible to the naked eye but much more powerful.  If I wrote this before I retired, I would be called before the Board of my group and told in no uncertain terms to shut up.  I might even be assessed a financial penalty with several zeroes after the one.  That's a serious impairment of my pursuit of happiness.  The reason for my group's dislike is more than the fact that I might be an irritant.  They may actually agree with what I have to say.  But they simply cannot afford for me to say it.  That's right: as a practicing physician in a group, my freedom of speech can become very expensive...to the group.

My group cared for patients of all descriptions, with roughly half of them on Medicare and another batch on Medicaid.  Both programs are ultimately managed by the feds, one of the most humorless groups on the planet.  They write a whole bunch of rules on how you have to document everything you do.  If you didn't document it correctly, it didn't happen, and you won't get paid.  But that's not the half of it.

Suppose you have one of those patients brought in by the ambulance from under the bridge.  His only clothes are the ones he's wearing, and he doesn't have two nickels to rub together.  It's more than obvious that this surgery for bowel obstruction will be a charity case.  Before Medicare, you'd simply write it off as your good neighbor duty.  Now you don't get a choice.  CMMS (the actual administrative agency) requires you to send a bill.  Twice.  Or maybe three times.  Whatever it takes to turn the bill into bad debt.  Then you have to send it to a collection agency.  Your only alternative is for your group to bring it up in its Board meeting and declare it a write-off that gets noted in the minutes..........But what does that have to do with ivermectin?  I'm glad you asked............ 

The financial risks may be extreme.  It takes a spine of steel to stand up to the authoritarian orthodoxy................To Read More....

One reason for the push for COVID vaccination may be to eliminate a potential control group

September 17, 2021 By Peter Skurkiss 

 

There are a number of reasons to explain the intense push from the Biden administration and the government medical bureaucracy to get people to take the COVID vaccine. From a wide search of the information available, I find it hard to believe that the actual health of people is one of the reasons.

 

For example, why demand people with natural immunity get vaccinated? And why insist on vaccinating children when their risk of serious effects from the virus is minuscule? It make no scientific sense especially when the vaccine itself can possibly cause serious health issues for the young.

 

This brings up one of the less talked about reasons behind the vaccination mania. It's to eliminate a possible control group of non-vaccinated people to which the vaccinated can be compared. Let me explain.

 

From the highest levels of the government to the public health authorities like the WHO, FDA, and CDC, to professional medical groups (American Medical Association, etc.) to the corporate media, the vaccines have been heralded as safe and effective. Already, the health authorities and the medical establishment have had their reputations sullied with their wrong-headed advice on stopping the virus via lockdowns, mask-wearing, and social distancing. And the number of deaths from the Wuhan virus did not come close to matching their early projections even when the actual COVID deaths were greatly inflated.

 

Now it's down to the vaccines. They already have egg on their faces due to their earlier pronouncements. Now they're desperate that people never find out about the possible damage these inadequately tested vaccines may be inflicting on humanity.............To Read More....

 

Does the AMA Really Care About Human Life?

September 16, 2021 By Peter Bleyer, MD

As a doctor, I see the lies of abortion.  Most doctors do, yet incredibly, the American Medical Association does not. For them, it's as if they don't care about human life.  Since I first comprehended that a baby in the womb could be legally and barbarically killed, I have asked many questions, most of which usually go unanswered.  How is it that in a country which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in its founding document, that we have allowed so many children to be sacrificed?  What kinds of people allow abortion and what kinds of people perform these procedures? 

Although the Judeo-Christian heritage has always valued children, many other religions through the ages have demanded child sacrifice to please their gods.  It is therefore not surprising that leaders exist now, who, in devoting themselves to the gods of money and power, continue to glorify child sacrifice and work arduously to distance themselves from the country’s roots. What is surprising, however, is the level of concern these same abortion promoters, such as Joe Biden, Planned Parenthood, and the American Medical Association, have for my life over the COVID pandemic, as they infringe upon civil liberties and stifle alternative COVID views, all in the name of protection from COVID.  Or is it really surprising?............. To Read More

Nation's largest doctor group recommends removing 'male,' 'female' from birth certs

August 12, 2021  By Liam Brooks

"Remove 'male' and 'female' from birth certificates? Here's why the country's largest group of physicians recommends it."

That was a recent headline from an article in The Washington Post, one of the primary propaganda outlets for the Democrat National Committee.  The article was penned by an obvious political operative called Anne Branigin.  In the opening paragraph — with the spirit of objective journalism in mind (it's a news story, not an opinion piece) — Ms. Branigin makes it abundantly clear where she stands.

"For many Americans, birth certificates aren't just an important identity marker, they are an entry point into many parts of life," she opined.  "But for trans and nonbinary people, birth certificates can be a hurdle — a document that invalidates their identity — unless they amend it."

Invalidates their identity?  I didn't need to read another word to understand where this piece was going.  But on I went, and found that Ms. Branigin and the American Medical Association (AMA) — the aforementioned "country's largest group of physicians" — obviously didn't "follow the science"...one of the favorite catchphrases of the lunatic left.  Real science dictates one thing and one thing only: infants born with male genitalia are little boys; infants born with female genitalia are little girls.  Period. ............To Read More....

JAMA pulls plug on editor; fired for questioning 'existence of structural racism' on podcast

By Jessica Chasmar- The Washington Times - Friday, April 9, 2021 

An editor at the Journal of the American Medical Association is out of a job after criticizing the concept of structural racism in the healthcare field during a February podcast.

Dr. James L. Madara, CEO and executive vice president of the American Medical Association, announced in a statement that the journal had accepted the resignation of Deputy Editor for Clinical Reviews and Education Dr. Edward H. Livingston, accusing him of hosting a “harmful” podcast that “both minimized the effects of systemic racism in health care and questioned its profound impact on millions of people across our country.”

The AMA’s CEO declared that “structural racism exists in the U.S. and in medicine” and that it’s “not opinion or conjecture” but a fact proven “through the science and in the evidence.”......To Read More...

Our Group Take - 1. The AMA stopped being relevant in 1965. Until Medicare came in, they were against it. The very moment it did come in, they changed course because they saw how it could benefit THEM, not the docs they supposedly represented. They started the reimbursement schedules, to the tune of big bucks. As it is, fewer than 10 percent of actual practicing docs belong to that wretched organization. An absolute sick joke. 

2. Talk about yet another vile and grossly anti-science anti-American action that will have a massive chilling effect on science in addition to academics. This is the sort of thing expected in totalitarian nations, not America for heaven's sake. And yet it's now rampant across the nation.

A Look At Howard Bauchner’s Wish List For 2021

December 28, 2020 By Michael D. Shaw @ HealhNewsDigest

Howard Bauchner, MD is Editor in Chief of JAMA, and posted an editorial entitled “A Medical and Scientific New Year’s Wish List.” Bauchner has a long career in academic medicine.

As regular readers of this column know, I am not a huge fan of academic medicine for a host of reasons. Many of these stem from the fact that it is owned by the government and Big Pharma, and can be counted on to promote the establishment viewpoint most of the time. As to the American Medical Association, although its public perception is as the voice of doctors, this is no longer the case. A significant portion of the AMA’s revenue stems from selling billing, coding, insurance, and other products. Needless to say, the intrusion of such items into the practice of medicine is despised by most practicing physicians—even if the younger ones never knew anything different.

The preamble to Bauchner’s piece takes an unsupported swipe at the outgoing administration’s attitude toward “science.” Apparently, inflated research budgets—or lack of results—are never to be questioned by those outside the hallowed halls of academia. He decries the heavy administrative burden that is a sad reality of today’s medicine, seemingly unaware of the AMA’s role in bureaucratizing the profession, and academic medicine’s fanboy embrace of the very electronic health records that he criticizes.

On to his ten wishes…

1. The first asks for respect for science. But, respect must be earned and not all contemporary “science” is worthy of it.
2.  An improved national response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in which he cites the usual platitudes and nothing more. Perhaps he could do something about the efforts to crush all dissent—whereby thoughtful physicians are regularly silenced.
3. A true national commitment to healthcare as a right and not a privilege. Older readers will recognize the “right versus privilege” distinction appearing in the vehicle codes of most states, emphasizing that being allowed to drive meant you needed to obey certain rules. In what fantasy world is healthcare a “privilege” in the US? One might argue that getting good care is a privilege, but what is “good care”? Perhaps Bauchner would create an AMA star chamber to rate all providers for their quality of care, while establishing a schedule of just how much healthcare per person is a “right.”
4. A national debate about a single-payer system. Oh yes, since Medicare works so well now, an even more gigantic bureaucracy would fare better. Notice he avoids the practical scheme proposed early on of the government only taking care of the hard cases, while reforming private insurance. Back in the day, the AMA was against the ideas of socialized medicine and Medicare, and they were right. How far the mighty have fallen.
5. Promoting the interoperability of electronic health records. Never mind that this was promised from the outset, and could have been achieved easily, but for the greed of the software companies and the stupidity of the government regulators. Now, he wants to take a mulligan?
6. Reducing administrative costs and eliminating barriers to healthcare access. Let’s see. Would the fulfillment of wish number four reduce or increase these costs and barriers? Has he really thought these through?
7. A national campaign to identify and treat every individual with hypertension in the US. Surprise! An actual healthcare idea. A good start would be offering a tax credit for purchasing a home blood pressure monitor, and encouraging people to use it every day.
8. Broad agreement on a limited number of high-priority national outcome measures. Population health under another name. Sounds great to the uninitiated, but discourages physicians to consider individual differences, and can lead to overtreating various chronic conditions (hypertension and diabetes, to name but two).
9. A greater appreciation that simply creating more knowledge (and science) does not necessarily improve health outcomes and may exacerbate health care inequities. While I agree with this wish, doesn’t it seem to contradict wish number eight—at least in part?
10. That the US returns to a time of civility, healthy debate, and respect for the opinions of others. However, how much respect does the AMA have for the opinions of practicing physicians, including those who don’t accept the revealed wisdom of those officials in charge of our pandemic response? Under what forum does this “healthy debate” take place in today’s cancel culture? Will he defend Dr. Michael deBoisblanc? (Editor's Note: Make sure to follow the link.  RK.)  If not, his tenth wish is just more disingenuous posturing.

The AMA Quietly Admits They Lied About Hydroxychloroquine

How Many People Have Died Because of These Soulless Hacks?

Dec 15, 2020

RUSH: I’m old enough to remember when hydroxychloroquine was a kook theory from a kook president. Now all of a sudden it is amazing the things that are happening after an election where this kook, this so-called kook, Donald Trump, has lost, allegedly lost. Now all of a sudden the AMA — although very quietly — that hydroxychloroquine is okay. It’s perfectly fine. Go ahead and use it if you want. It can be helpful.

How many people do you think — we’ll never know — how people do you think died needlessly because they were sent home to ride it out or were afraid to go to the doctor or were afraid to take hydroxychloroquine because of what they were hearing about it in the Drive-By Media?.........To Read More...

 

Don’t Let This Happen To Your Profession: AMA Culpable In Our Government Healthcare Fiasco

By Austin Hill on Sep 29, 2013

If you think Obamacare is bad for consumers and patients think about this: how would you like to spend between twelve and sixteen years of your life in grueling and expensive academic training, only to have politicians and bureaucrats dictating to you years later how you will practice your craft and how much money you’ll be allowed to earn?

Let’s be clear about medical doctors. Any individual who can genuinely earn the title “M.D.” is worthy of significant respect, and one would hope that an entire association of M.D.’s would be equally as worthy. Unfortunately the American Medical Association – the professional group that has purported to represent physicians in the U.S. for over a century - managed to foolishly get itself caught in the crossfire of the “Obamacare” war over the past few years. Now, MD’s – both those few who remain members of the AMA and the majority of physicians who are not members – as well as the practice of medicine itself, are all set to be big losers in the coming months and years.…..To Read More….