Posted on 03/27/2023 2:51:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A Monterey pediatrician known for his anti-vax beliefs, Douglas Hulstedt, has lost his medical license in the wake of a dramatic custody battle case Hulstedt was a part of, one that even he publicly called “fairly grisly.” In that case, a 9-year-old boy was shot and killed by his father who in turn killed himself, after the father was ordered by a judge to present his son for routine childhood vaccinations in 2021. Hulstedt advised the father that such vaccinations were dangerous.
The California Medical Board filed an accusation against Hulstedt last year for gross negligence due to “lacking basic medical knowledge” and repeatedly providing written vaccine exemptions for the boy between 2014 and 2020. On Nov. 8, 2022, the board held a hearing resulting in his license revocation, which included ordering Hulstedt to pay $20,000 in fines and $49,560 in reimbursement of the board’s investigation costs. Hulstedt tried and failed to stop the revocation, which delayed it being formally entered and announced publicly until Feb. 27.
Hulstedt, representing himself, argued during the hearing that his actions caused no harm to the child. “To the contrary,” Administrative Law Judge Juliet E. Cox wrote in her decision, “respondent not only delayed [the child’s] receipt of immunizations that would have protected” the child and community from diseases, “but also contributed to conflict between [the child’s] parents.”
Last fall Hulstedt filed two lawsuits against the Medical Board in which he claimed numerous miscarriages of justice using an explosion of nonsensical legal terms. The case is pending a motion by the state to dismiss. Hulstedt continues to file documents – in one filed March 16, Hulstedt made “criminal-claims” against California Secretary of State Rob Bonta for allegedly lying and denying Hulstedt due process. He copied myriad state and federal officials, including U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and, inexplicably, a military post office in Virginia.
Hulstedt followed a similar playbook prior to and during the Medical Board hearing in November, according to the revocation decision written by Cox. Hulstedt “barraged” attorneys representing the state by mail “with documents that did not state any cognizable pre-hearing motions,” she said. During the hearing Hulstedt demanded the judge and the state’s attorney answer “irrelevant or incomprehensible questions, and asserted the same objections over and over.”
Attempts to reach Hulstedt were unsuccessful. During the Medical Board’s investigation last year, Hulstedt repeatedly refused to hand over medical records, another violation. “The Medical Board has been out looking for scalps for anyone that has written medical exemptions,” he said during a podcast in April 2022.
Hulstedt said that he was justified in writing exemptions for the child based on his medical history. In the decision, Cox pointed out that other doctors who had examined and tested the child found there was no reason he couldn’t be safely vaccinated.
That is not a good look for PH to make stuff up on the fly. Granted the early versions of Civid were really nasty to elderly people and people with serious health conditions. The same government officials that pushed for cancelling March Madness to limit the spread, turned around and pushed for the closings of universities and sending students back home...
mRNA gene therapy was not a form of vaccination until the definition was changed to include them in 2020.
And since they now are known to neither prevent catching the disease or preventing its spread, I doubt they fit in the revised definition.
Sorry, I still don't know. Please forgive me, but I do not hold you to be a reliable source. I might even give you negative epistemic weight.
Efficiency against the original variant could well have been close to 100% and approaching 60% against the latest variants.
I agree those are not logically exclusive. But it does not save the claim by Fauci and others. The protection (to whatever extent it really existed) faded too quickly for the claim to be true without some provision to the claim.
As far as we know this claim *might* have been true: "It is very unlikely you will get covid-19 in the week following one of your mRNA boosters".
However this claim is certainly not true: "It is very unlikely you will get covid-19 during this pandemic outbreak if you take one of these covid-19 vaccines".
I allow it is unfair to take them literally as a promise that 100% of the population who takes a jab will not get covid-19 ever. However considering how fast the protection (to whatever extent it really ever existed) fizzled out the statement requires the speakers mother or somebody with an ulterior motive to be defendable.
AndyTheBear wrote: “Sorry, I still don’t know. Please forgive me, but I do not hold you to be a reliable source. I might even give you negative epistemic weight.”
Have you seen post number 62, this thread where the poster makes this very claim.
The claim was in your words from post 57:
Do you agree with this claim often made by vaccine skeptics: “These can’t be vaccines because you can take the vaccine and still catch the disease”.
And post 62 says:
mRNA gene therapy was not a form of vaccination until the definition was changed to include them in 2020.
And since they now are known to neither prevent catching the disease or preventing its spread, I doubt they fit in the revised definition.
You seem confused, or perhaps you are just not good at reading and understanding what people say in general.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.