Better in their words…

Today I returned from lecturing on Fifth Generation Warfare in Toronto, Canada. This was my second invited lecture to a group of “resistance” members, the first being almost exactly one year ago. Excellent talks were also provided by Drs. Jill Glasspool-Malone, Mark Trozzi, and Byram Bridle. At the theater I had the opportunity to meet with many old friends and newly found ones, including both Tammy Peterson (Mrs. Jordan Peterson) and various anonymous physicians who I have been in contact with since the very beginning of my journey objecting to the mismanagement and rampant ethical breaches associated with the COVIDcrisis.

Frankly, I was shocked by what I learned from talking with these colleagues.

Many are already aware that the World Economic Forum client stateformerly known as “Canada” (managed on behalf of the WEF and it’s corporate members by their “young leader” program graduates Justin Trudeau and Christina Freeland, who were placed by the WEF into this position to do their bidding), and specifically the Provence now generally known as the Peoples Republic of Ontario, is now requiring that Dr. Jordon Peterson atone for his thoughtcrimes by participating in a mandated and court-ordered reeducation program.

What few are aware of is that this thoughtcrime punishment is being visited on many other Ontario physicians who had the temerity to provide early treatment for COVID disease, particularly administering the forbidden treatments of Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Zinc and other inexpensive, off patent repurposed drugs or over-the-counter supplements.

Additional speech-thought- and medical practice crimes include failure to properly employ worthless cloth or paper dust masks to prevent coronaviral transmission, as well as granting medical and religious exemptions from receipt of toxic COVID “vaccines” which an abundance of data indicate are neither safe nor effective at preventing infection, replication, spread, hospitalization or death from disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR tests.

A brief history of Authoritarian State-mandated “re-education” during the 20th and 21st century

Viet Nam:

“Re-education” camp, also known as the forced labor camp, is a shortened term referring to the system of prison camps that was planned, advocated and operated by the Vietnamese Communist government right after the end of the Vietnam War in May of 1975. Its purpose was to detain former military officers, former government employees at all levels of the Republic of Vietnam in the South as well as civilians.

Reeducation Through Labor in China:

Reeducation through labor (laodong jiaoyang or laojiao), according to the Ministry of Public Security, is an administrative measure of reform through compulsory education designed to change offenders into people who “obey law, respect public virtue, love their country, love hard work, and possess certain standards of education and productive skills for the building of socialism.” The term refers to a system of detention and punishment administratively imposed on those who are deemed to have committed minor offenses but are not legally considered criminals. Reeducation through labor —sometimes labeled rehabilitation through labor— is not to be confused with reform though labor (laodong gaizao or laogai), the complex of prisons, labor camps, and labor farms for those sentenced judicially.

Russia:

Russia plans to send delinquent youngsters to military-patriotic re-education camps and to install special software blocking banned websites in schools, the head of Russia’s Security Council has said.

President Vladimir Putin created a patriotic directorate inside the Russian army last summer, evoking memories of a Soviet practice that once taught soldiers the tenets of Marxism. Observers noted that Putin’s move could signal the start of a wider renaissance in ideological education that would spread to schools and colleges.

“Juveniles prone to committing offenses will be sent to military-patriotic camps in 2019,” Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev was quoted as saying by the state-run TASS news agency on Tuesday.

“Re-Education Camps” for Doctors?: published by “Alliance for Natural Health” 05/10/2022

“More than 2 years into this pandemic, the largest threat next to the spread of the virus itself is the spread of disinformation and misinformation.” These words were spoken by the CEO of the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), Humayun Chaudhry, DO. The statement is emblematic of the wave of censorship that has been building since the beginning of the pandemic. It is also in line with other attempts at the federal level to gag free speech about natural treatments for COVID prevention and treatment. We cannot allow these efforts to stifle the speech of doctors to succeed.

Dr. Chaudhry was referencing the FSMB’s recent approval of a medical misinformation and disinformation policy. The policy encourages state medical boards to “consider the full array of authorized grounds for disciplinary action” and not to be “dissuaded from carrying out their duty to protect the public by concerns about potential challenges to disciplinary decisions.” But don’t worry: FSMB recommends that state boards should also “consider whether there are options that do not involve disciplinary action that could help a licensee understand the ethical basis of their duty to convey accurate information to patients and the public.” This is eerily reminiscent of authoritarian “re-education” camps for doctors.

As we’ve said before: We’ve learned from the pandemic that available information can change, often quite rapidly, as with the CDC’s masking guidelines. We were also told that the virus could be spread on surfaces, then subsequent investigations revealed that the virus mostly spreads when aerosols and droplets containing the virus are inhaled. Often the “misinformation” of today becomes the established facts of tomorrow.

Further, there is a massive problem with encouraging state medical boards to initiate a campaign against “disinformation” because what constitutes “disinformation” is in the eye of the beholder; any definition will likely be vague enough to encapsulate any health information the government or state medical boards don’t like.

We believe that Congress should pass a bill protecting doctors’ free speech rights. Just as professors are protected after they get tenured, doctors’ free speech rights should be protected after they receive their medical license.

There are certainly bad actors out there that try to make a quick buck by peddling outright falsehoods. But the many efforts at censorship seem to be geared at a subset of doctors that buck the status quo when it comes to COVID-19—either those who don’t believe in vaccinating everyone under the sun with multiple COVID vaccine shots, those who recommend common-sense vitamins and minerals for immune support, or those who believe the voluminous scientific literature on the benefits of medicines like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and others for the early treatment of COVID patients. We would like to think that science-based medicine can accommodate a diverse array of views, but powerful forces like the FSMB, the American Medical Association, and others seem dead-set on a one-size-fits-all approach. Deviate from their orthodoxy as a doctor, and you risk your license being suspended or revoked.

Canadian Court Orders Jordan Peterson to Take Re-education Program

Posted by Daily Citizen Staff | Aug 30, 2023

In January of this year, best-selling author Jordan Peterson was told by Canada’s College of Psychologists of Ontario to undergo re-education therapy for his very public statements, not on professional psychology and science, but politics and culture. The Canadian College of Psychologists holds Peterson says things they don’t care for and feel they have the duty to fix his beliefs. Peterson took his case to court because the College’s order threatens his professional licensure.

The Ontario Divisional ​C​​ourt dismissed Dr​.​ Peterson’s claim in late August and upheld the College of Psychologists’ demand. The Court’s ruling admits its concern is “language used by Dr. Peterson in public statements” made in 2022. The nature of these statements?

The Court explains Peterson’s words were “degrading, demeaning and unprofessional.” So the author and wildly popular commentator must undergo, at his own expense, a “coaching program” directed by the Canadian College of Psychologists so that he might “reflect on, and ameliorate (his) professionalism in public statements.”

Peterson responded to the ruling by saying, “Bring it on” in a social media post, telling his fellow citizens, “If you think you have a right to free speech in Canada, you’re delusional.”

Here is a link to the court’s decision.

Peterson stated he will make his forced re-education process very public so that everyone can see exactly what he is being subjected to, explaining “we will see what happens when utter transparency is the rule.”

The Court’s ruling admits that Dr. Peterson has confessed that he has, by his own will, established a thorough accountability group to ensure his public communications are in line with his status as a public intellectual and clinician. This includes his “expert editorial teams at Penguin Random House” who publish his books, members of his immediate family “who work professionally with me,” and “a very wide network of expert thinkers from the world of theology, psychology, politics and business.”

The Court also included this confession from Peterson, seasoned with a dash of sarcasm, of violating the delicate speech ordinances of current Canadian politics.

I would say, then, in my defense, that I have already undertaken the remediation of my actions in a manner very much akin to what has been suggested … and would like to therefore submit … that I have already and plan to continue to atone for what are no doubt my multiplicity of sins in relation to my interaction with the public audience I have the privilege to serve.

The National Post, Canada’s national newspaper, editorialized that “Professionals everywhere should be watching this case”  because it “could have a chilling effect on people in other regulated professions, like doctors, lawyers, teachers and accountants.” They add,

Professionals should not have to soft pedal their speech for fear that activists will weaponize regulatory bodies so that unpopular speech or an unpleasant tone is penalized, even when there is no connection between that speech and the profession.

The Financial Post lamented, “The impact of this decision is to empower woke bodies everywhere to discipline members who express unpopular opinions that cause someone ‘offence.’”

They continue,

This decision will inevitably motivate political enemies of any member of a regulatory body — whether it be one of lawyers, osteopaths, engineers or, well, psychologists — who have no legal basis for any claim otherwise, to harass that person by filing complaints about their expressed opinions or writings.

Free speech used to be a deep value to many so-called “free-thinking” progressives. The evidence continues to mount that this is sadly no longer the case. Speech control, fueled by the powers of the Left, is gaining increasing steam.

Everyone, regardless of political beliefs, should be greatly concerned.

What is the “Re-Education” process which the College of Physicians and Surgeons of (the people’s republic of) Ontario is imposing on apostate physicians who refuse to accede to the local High Priests of the approved COVIDian narrative?

Below is an actual (but anonymized) finding of sin and the atonement required by the “College” regarding one of their own who has strayed from their flock.

Concerns

Source: Member
Active Date: <Early Fall> 2023
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Summary of the Undertaking given by Dr. XX to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, effective <Early Fall> 2023:

A College investigation was conducted into whether Dr. XX engaged in professional misconduct and/or is incompetent in his family medicine practice and in his conduct, including his care and conduct in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and prescribing and promotion of ivermectin for COVID-19, and the completion of COVID-19 vaccine exemptions. As a result of the investigation:

Dr. XX will restrict his practice as follows:

Dr. XX will not provide medical exemptions in relation to vaccines for COVID-19;

Dr. XX will not provide medical exemptions in relation to mask requirements for COVID-19;

Dr. XX will not provide medical exemptions in relation to diagnostic testing for COVID-19; and

Dr. XX will not prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in relation to COVID-19.

Dr. XX will engage in professional education including in respecting CPSO policies, public health guidance, and Ministry of Health directives during a declared pandemic, misinformation and evidence-based decision making, the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in an outpatient setting, and medical record keeping.

Furthermore, Dr. XX is required to agree to and sign the following confession and terms, and to show a high level of contrition in a statement to be written after having completed (at his own expense, including the enrollment fee) the mandated re-education curriculum:

As from <Early Fall> 2023, the following are imposed as terms, conditions and limitations on the certificate of registration held by Dr. XX in accordance with an undertaking and consent given by Dr. XX to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario:

UNDERTAKING, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND CONSENT
("Undertaking") 

of

DR. XX
("Dr. XX") 

to

COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO
(the "College")

A.	PREAMBLE

(1)	In this Undertaking:

"Code" means the Health Professions Procedural Code, which is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18, as amended;

"Discipline Tribunal" means the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal of the College;

"ICR Committee" means the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College;

"OHIP" means the Ontario Health Insurance Plan;

"Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal" means the Discipline Committee established under the Code;

"Public Register" means the College's register that is available to the public.

(2)	I, Dr. XX, certificate of registration number NNNNN, am a member of the College.

(3)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that the College conducted an investigation bearing File Number CAS-NNN (the "Investigation") into whether I engaged in professional misconduct and/or am incompetent in my family medicine practice and in my conduct, including my care and conduct in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and my prescribing and promotion of ivermectin for COVID-19, and my completion of COVID- 19 vaccine exemptions.
 
(4)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that I signed an interim undertaking in lieu of the ICR Committee making an Order under section 25.4 of the Code on <Spring>, 2022 (the "2022 Undertaking").

(5)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that this Undertaking replaces the 2022 Undertaking.

(6)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that, in addition to accepting this Undertaking, the College will also deliver a caution in person.

B.	UNDERTAKING

(7)	I, Dr. XX, undertake to abide by the provisions of this Undertaking, effective immediately.

(8)	Practice Restrictions

(a)	I, Dr. XX, undertake to restrict my practice as follows:

(i)	I will not provide medical exemptions in relation to vaccines for COVID-19;

(ii)	I will not provide medical exemptions in relation to mask requirements for COVID-19;

(iii)	I will not provide medical exemptions in relation to diagnostic testing for COVID-19; and

(iv)	I will not prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in relation to COVID-19.

(9)	Professional Education

(a)	I, Dr. XX, undertake to participate in and successfully complete all aspects of the detailed IEP, attached hereto as Appendix "A", including all of the following professional education (the "Professional Education"):

(i)	The following learning modules in Evidence-Informed Decision Making in Public Health, National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, McMaster University:

1.	Introduction to Evidence-informed Decision Making;

2.	Searching for Research Evidence in Public Health;

3.	Critical Appraisal of Intervention Studies;

4.	Assessing the Applicability and Transferability of Evidence.
 
(ii)	Review, reflection, and a written summary of the following policies and other self-study:

1.	The College's Practice Guide: Medical Professionalism and College Policies;

2.	Social Media, CPSO Policy;

3.	The Spread of Misinformation, Dialogue. 2023., College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario;

4.	Murthy V.H. Confronting Health Misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General's Advisory on Building a Healthy Information Environment. 2021;

5.	The following sections from McIntosh, K. COVID-19: Epidemiology, virology, and prevention. UpToDate. Retrieved August 8, 2023:

(i)	Prevention; and

(ii)	Post-Exposure Management.

6.	The following section from Cohen, P., Gebo, K. COVID-19: Evaluation of adults with acute illness in the outpatient setting. UpToDate. Retrieved August 8, 2023:

(i)	Therapies that we do not recommend.

7.	Medical Records Documentation, CPSO Policy.

(iii)	Review, and reflection of the following self-study:

1.	Pasquetto I.V., et al. MisinfoRx: A Toolkit for Healthcare Providers.

(iv)	PROBE: Ethics & Boundaries Program, by receiving a passing evaluation or grade, without any condition or qualification. I, Dr. Bernstein, will agree to abide by any recommendations of the PROBE program.

(b)	I, Dr. XX, undertake to complete the Professional Education within three (3) months, or, if no satisfactory program is available by that time, by the first possible opportunity thereafter.

(c)	I, Dr. XX, undertake to provide proof to the College of my successful completion of the Professional Education, including proof of registration and attendance and participant assessment reports, within one (1) month of completing it. I acknowledge that the College will determine, in its sole discretion, whether I have successfully completed the Professional Education.
 
(d)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that a report or reports may be provided to the College regarding my progress and compliance with the Professional Education.

(e)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that if any of the programs or resources listed above become unavailable, substitution requests will be reviewed by the College and the College will determine in its sole discretion whether substitution is appropriate.

(10)	Monitoring

(a)	I, Dr. XX, undertake to inform the College of each and every location at which I practise or have privileges, including, but not limited to, any hospitals, clinics, offices, and any Independent Health Facilities with which I am affiliated, in any jurisdiction (collectively my "Practice Location" or "Practice Locations"), within five (5) days of executing this Undertaking. Going forward, I further undertake to inform the College of any and all new Practice Locations within five (5) days of commencing practice at that location.

(b)	I, Dr. XX, undertake that I will submit to, and not interfere with, unannounced inspections of my Practice Locations and patient records by a College representative for the purposes of monitoring my compliance with the provisions of this Undertaking.

(c)	I, Dr. XX, give my irrevocable consent to the College to make appropriate enquiries of OHIP, and/or any person who or institution that may have relevant information, in order for the College to monitor my compliance with the provisions of this Undertaking.

(d)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that I have executed the OHIP consent form, attached hereton as Appendix "B'.

C.	ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

(11)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that all appendices attached to or referred to in this Undertaking form part of this Undertaking.

(12)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge and undertake that I shall be solely responsible for payment of all fees, costs, charges, expenses, etc. arising from the implementation of any of the provisions of this Undertaking.

(13)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that I have read and understand the provisions of this Undertaking and that I have obtained independent legal counsel in reviewing and executing this Undertaking, or have waived my right to do so.

(14)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that the College will provide this Undertaking to any Chief of Staff, or a colleague with similar responsibilities, at any Practice Location ("Chief of Staff" or "Chiefs of Staff").
 
(15)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that a breach by me of any provision of this Undertaking may constitute an act of professional misconduct and/or incompetence, and may result in a referral of specified allegations to the Discipline Tribunal of the College.

(16)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that this Undertaking constitutes terms, conditions, and limitations on my certificate of registration for the purposes of section 23 of the Code.

(17)	Public Register

(a)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that, during the time period that this Undertaking remains in effect, this Undertaking shall be posted on the Public Register.

(b)	I, Dr. XX, acknowledge that, in addition to this Undertaking being posted in accordance with section (17)(a) above, the following summary shall be posted on the Public Register during the time period that this Undertaking remains in effect:

A College investigation was conducted into whether Dr. XX engaged in professional misconduct and/or is incompetent in his family medicine practice and in his conduct, including his care and conduct in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and prescribing and promotion of ivermectin for COVID-19, and the completion of COVID-19 vaccine exemptions. As a result of the investigation:

Dr. XX will restrict his practice as follows:

Dr. XX will not provide medical exemptions in relation to vaccines for COVID-19;

Dr. XX will not provide medical exemptions in relation to mask requirements for COVID-19;

Dr. XX will not provide medical exemptions in relation to diagnostic testing for COVID-19; and

Dr. XX will not prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in relation to COVID-19.

Dr. XX will engage in professional education including in respecting CPSO policies, public health guidance, and Ministry of Health directives during a declared pandemic, misinformation and evidence-based decision making, the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in an outpatient setting, and medical record keeping.
 
D.	CONSENT

(18)	I, Dr. XX, give my irrevocable consent to the College to provide the following information to any person who requires this information for the purposes of facilitating my completion of the Professional Education:

(a)	any information the College has that led to the circumstances of my entering into this Undertaking;

(b)	any information arising from any investigation into, or assessment of, my practice; and

(c)	any information arising from the monitoring of my compliance with this Undertaking.

(19)	I, Dr. XX, give my irrevocable consent to the College to provide all Chiefs of Staff with any information the College has that led to the circumstances of my entering into this Undertaking and/or any information arising from the monitoring of my compliance with this Undertaking.

(20)	I, Dr. XX, give my irrevocable consent to any persons who facilitate my completion of the Professional Education, and to all Chiefs of Staff, to disclose to the College, and to one another, any of the following:

(a)	any information relevant to this Undertaking;

(b)	any information relevant for the purposes of monitoring my compliance with this Undertaking;

(c)	any information which comes to their attention in the course of providing the Professional Education and which they reasonably believe indicates a potential risk of harm to my patients.

Closing with good news from California, USA courtesy of a Liberty Council press release

I am told that crow tastes better with ketchup. So please send a bottle to WEF-trained “young leader” CA Governor Gavin Newsom.

CA Repeals “Medical Misinformation” Law That Censors Doctors

Sep 20, 2023

SACRAMENTO, CA – California lawmakers have repealed the state’s controversial “medical misinformation” law meant to silence and punish physicians and surgeons who communicate and treat their patients in a way that deviates from the “official government position” regarding COVID-19. Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098) aimed to empower the state’s medical board to revoke the medical licenses of any health care professional who spread what the state deemed as “misinformation” about the safety, efficacy, and development of the COVID -19 shots, as well as alternative treatments to the virus.

However, four lawsuits have challenged the law as unconstitutional for violating doctors’ First Amendment rights, and a federal judge issued a temporary injunction in January 2023 blocking it from taking effect during ongoing litigation.

Senate Bill 815, which passed with a 35-1 vote, primarily makes reforms within the California Medical Board. However, a one-line provision added two weeks before the vote without any legislative discussion specifically repeals AB 2098. The repeal comes before any potential court rulings on the law’s constitutionality.

AB 2098, enacted in September 2022, was the first state law in the nation attempting to regulate the doctor-patient relationship regarding COVID-19. The bill defined “misinformation” as anything “false” that contradicted “contemporary scientific consensus” – namely that of the FDA and CDC. The bill cited the FDA and CDC as confirming the “safety and efficacy” of the shots. The bill then declared doctors would be guilty of “unprofessional conduct” for disseminating anything contrary or deviating from the federal agencies’ “consensus” on virus risks, prevention and treatments, and the shot’s “development, safety, and effectiveness.” Under the law, doctors could lose their licenses to practice medicine for using the available scientific data to question the shot’s safety record, or for discussing with their patients scientifically-studied alternative treatments that the FDA and CDC have scorned but could not prohibit, such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

A legislative analysis conducted by the Californina legislature in August 2022 determined AB 2098 would “probably not survive a 1^st Amendment challenge in court.”

Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign SB 815 and the repeal will take effect January 1, 2024.

Attorneys involved in the lawsuits stated that while the law’s repeal is good for the doctor-patient relationship in the near term, preventing a similar law in the future is the next challenge because courts are usually hesitant to make constitutional rulings on a repealed law. The attorneys indicated that several lawsuits are moving forward aiming to get favorable rulings that preserve the First Amendment rights of doctors from viewpoint censorship by state governments and state medical boards.

In granting the injunction already in place against AB 2098, Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California wrote a 30-page opinion in favor of the plaintiff doctors.

In Tracy Hoeg, M.D., PhD., Ram Durisetti, M.D., PhD. et al., v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of the State of California, et al., Judge Shubb noted that the First Amendment applies to both majority and minority opinions alike and the bill infringed on doctors’ “First Amendment rights because it impedes their ability to communicate with their patients in the course of treatment.”

The Court indicated that this impediment comes from the imposition of the board’s viewpoint on what constitutes “contemporary scientific consensus.”

Judge Shubb wrote, “…it appears that the primary term at issue—’contemporary scientific consensus’—does not have an established technical meaning in the medical community. Physician plaintiffs provide declarations explaining that ‘scientific consensus’ is a poorly defined concept… And what source or sources should physicians consult to determine what the consensus is at any given time (perhaps peer-reviewed scientific articles, or clinical guidelines from professional organizations, or public health recommendations)? The statute provides no means of understanding to what ‘scientific consensus’ refers.”

In addition, the Court wrote, “AB 2098 does not apply the term ‘scientific consensus’ to such basic facts, but rather to COVID-19—a disease that scientists have only been studying for a few years, and about which scientific conclusions have been hotly contested. COVID-19 is a quickly evolving area of science that in many aspects eludes consensus.

“Drawing a line between what is true and what is settled by scientific consensus is difficult, if not impossible,” concluded Judge Shubb.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver wrote, “Attempting to silence and punish doctors for what they say in the doctor-patient relationship is unconstitutional. The First Amendment specifically prohibits the government from censoring viewpoints. A wealth of scientific data shows the COVID shots are not safe nor effective rendering the government’s ‘scientific consensus’ notion meaningless. Moreover, so-called ‘scientific consensus’ has frequently been wrong. It is not the gold standard of truth. Throughout history, consensus has often been the excuse to censor ideas that later displace the former consensus. Doctors should never be muzzled in treating their patients.”