 |
| Dr. John Campbell / YouTube |
The ruling is a huge win for patients seeking medical freedom and for doctors who questioned the government’s Covid narratives.
In a landmark case, an appellate court judge has ruled that physicians threatened by credentialing boards for speaking out against Covid policies and abortion have sufficient standing in court.
A year after the case was dismissed by a district court, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) Educational Foundation filed an appeal for the right to sue the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American Board of Family Medicine, and the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for “coordinated” attempts to “censor and chill the speech of physicians,” especially those “who spoke critically of positions taken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, lockdowns, mask mandates, Covid vaccination, and abortion.”
A district court judge had ruled AAPS lacked standing and denied AAPS’s attempt to amend the claim. But in a decision filed June 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed the dismissal, and the case has now been remanded to a lower court for discovery and potentially a full trial.
Censorship, Threats
“The AAPS Educational Foundation brought the case because of a series of physicians who were being threatened with loss of their board certification because they had made comments that were either critical of the Covid vaccines or that advocated for early treatment with repurposed drugs,” Jane Orient, AAPS executive director, told me. “Particularly bad were the three defendants of the internal board who were also engaged in threatening physicians who supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade or had anything to say about abortion and its side effects.”
The claimants also identified unlawful actions taken by Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board.
“The DGB was devoted to seeking out and finding ‘disinformation,’ ‘malinformation,’ and, or pressuring people, including those on specialty boards and social media companies, to take action,” Orient said.
The government has since disbanded the board and claims no responsibility for its actions, but AAPS wants the government held accountable. “They can just disperse the function over their agencies or just move and start one up again,” Orient said.
Physicians were specifically threatened based on their public comments, hearing testimonies, press comments, and letters to the editor, Orient said. Doctors were also targeted for prescribing perfectly legal medications that went against the narrative. --->READ MORE HERE
Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine infringed on a patent held by rival Moderna, the High Court in London, England, found in a decision released on July 2.
The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines both utilize messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology.
Moderna patented mRNA processes that replace the nucleoside uridine with N1-methylpseudouridine, a modified RNA. The patent is titled, “ribonucleic acids containing n1-methyl-pseudouracils and uses thereof.”
The patent “is valid,” the court stated, adding that it was infringed “given that Pfizer/BioNTech conceded that it would be infringed if valid.”
The court rejected arguments made by Pfizer and BioNTech, including the argument that Moderna’s patent was not novel. It said parts of the patent were novel, from a method developed by the University of Pennsylvania.
The District Court of the Hague in 2023 found the patent to be invalid due to lack of novelty versus the method, but the London court said it weighed other evidence and found some factors persuasive that the Hague did not.
Moderna in 2020 said it would not enforce patents related to COVID-19 against rival manufacturers. However, in 2022, it revoked the declaration, meaning Pfizer and BioNTech came into violation of the patent, the high court said in a related decision.
Justice Jonathan Richards wrote in the ruling, that “Even if the pledge was an express waiver of rights, it was validly retracted by the March 2022 statement since Pfizer/BioNTech had not by that date materially changed its position in reliance on the pledge.”
The court also ruled that a second patent held by Moderna was invalid. --->READ MORE HEREFollow links below to relevant/related stories and resources:
Unraveling COVID-19 Brain Fog: New Study Pinpoints Immune Culprit
'COVID Tongue' Is Definitely a Thing—Here's What It Is and How to Know if You Have It
USA TODAY: Coronavirus Updates
WSJ: Coronavirus Live Updates
YAHOO NEWS: Coronavirus Live Updates
NEW YORK POST: Coronavirus The Latest
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment