The case stems from accusations that Gary Edwards, who took his chiropractic practice to Alabama several years ago, had convinced a Mennonite farmer with AIDS that he was cured and could start a family.

The patient, Duane Troyer, died and left behind a wife and daughter with HIV infections. Edwards always has denied that he ever said Troyer had overcome HIV.

After the case came to light in stories published in The Star, the chiropractic board suspended his license for two years — although that suspension was set aside pending appeals that Edwards ultimately won in 2002. The board could have tried again to impose its penalties, but it never did, and Edwards’ departure from the state would have made disciplinary action moot.

But he filed suit against the former board members in 2005 to collect legal fees and losses to his business. That case went to trial last week. In a 9-3 verdict, the Cole County jury awarded damages of $6,284,759.

Attorney General Chris Koster’s office represented the board members, and a spokesman said the state planned to file a post-trial motion to have the verdict set aside. Edwards’ attorneys could not be reached for comment.

The case stretches back 20 years, when Troyer went to Edwards’ office several times beginning in 1990.

A member of a Mennonite sect from north-central Missouri, Troyer had hemophilia and contracted the AIDS virus from tainted blood products. He died in 1992.

At dispute in the case is whether Edwards told Troyer that the treatments cured him of AIDS. Edwards has insisted that he made no such claim. Troyer’s wife and mother-in-law have contended otherwise.

The chiropractor won his appeal in 2002 in large part because a court said he had not been given access to key pieces of evidence. One was testimony Troyer’s widow gave in an unrelated lawsuit involving tainted blood that caused Troyer’s AIDS. Edwards argued that testimony in that case would vary from the widow’s testimony that Edwards said Troyer was cured.

Edwards’ suit also contended that the chiropractic board seemed to overlook a religious anointing ceremony at Troyer’s church held in hopes of curing him and urging made by the minister at his wedding that the Troyers start a family. The chiropractor suggested those factors might have led the couple to believe Troyer was cured or to conceive a child even if he remained HIV-positive.

The jury’s verdict came against six former members of the chiropractor board — Lawrence Gerstein, Charlotte Hill, Mary Holyoke, Charles Klinginsmith, Larry Lovejoy and Lee Richardson. Ordinarily, members of such boards are immune from civil suits for their official duties. But there is an exception when a court finds they acted with gross negligence. Still, the state’s legal expense fund will ultimately cover any damages.

A broken little toe. Some docs just splint and tape this kind of injury, depending on just how bad the break is. How bad could it be? Try a 45 degree angle. My orthopod, Birrell Smith, at Las Tablas Medical Center, in Templeton, California, recommended a pin to hold the bone in place.

He told me his fee was $600, but I would have to speak to each professional separately - including the hospital to find out what their fees would be. As a cash-paying patient, I was familiar with the routine and paid the anesthesiologist $400 before heading to the hospital.

At Twin Cities Hospital in Templeton, California (a Tenet Hospital), I gave the administrative clerk the code Dr. Smith gave me for a “closed treatment of fracture, phalanx or phalanges, other than the great toe, with manipulation; each..” I don’t recall what the exact numeric code was.

The clerk said this would cost $2205.09. I expressed curiosity over the fact that three years earlier, the same hospital had charged me $1300 for a more major surgery. Her response was that the earlier surgery was not an emergency. As I stopped myself from slipping off the chair with one hand, I used the other to pull out my cell phone and told her that I’d let her think about that while I called several other competitive hospitals in the area.

Another clerk walked by and told her that since I was paying cash (AND I was the ONLY other patient in their out patient surgicenter), that I was eligible for their 40% discount. Yippee! So, I wrote the check and that was that. NOT!

A month later, I got a bill from the hospital with a “pre adjusted” total of $17,519.07. The adjusted total was $3,931.74. When I called the hospital to tell them they must have made a mistake, they said that the billing clerk had changed the code after she read the doctor’s notes.

“Isn’t that a bit like practicing medicine without a license?” I asked, “And by the way, I’m looking at the AMA website right now and the code the doctor used is for a higher reimbursement rate, so how is it that you can charge me more for a code that reimburses less?”

The woman I was speaking to told me I was putting words in her mouth and she couldn’t discuss this with me anymore. She hung up and I started looking more closely at the bill.

Here’s the breakdown:

• Surgery $5,255 (facility fee?)
• Anesthesia $2,306 (anesthesiologist – PAID)
• Lab $51 (I think they took blood)
• Diagnostic Imaging $443 (X-Ray? Fluoroscope?)
• Pharmacy $5,225 (it was a 20 minute procedure)
• Supplies $2,232 (gauze and bandages?)
• Respiratory Therapy $306 (none used)
• Recovery $1,697 (two barf bags)

TOTAL $17,515.00

I felt this was just out right fraud. The check I wrote for $1323.54 should have covered all of these costs under the heading of facility fee. It was time to use California AB 774.

I wrote a 30-day demand letter to the hospital. Since they were going to use insurance billing codes, despite the fact that it was a cash transaction, I was going to use them right back at them. According to the code, the procedure I had reimbursed at $200, so that meant I over paid them by $1123.54, and I wanted that money back.

Simultaneously, I filled out the small claims paperwork and paid a little extra to have the Sheriff serve the hospital. I wasn’t going to wait 30 days.

According to AB774, if you are uninsured and your income is below 350% of the federal poverty level or you have health insurance but your medical costs are more than 10% of your family’s income in the last year, you could qualify for free or discounted care.

California law requires every hospital to offer reduced rates to uninsured and underinsured patients that may have low or moderate income and to provide policies that clearly state the qualifications for free care and discounted payments.

Twin Cities did not have any such policy clearly stated. Anywhere. In no other business would a retailer accept payment, only to turn around and say, “I just didn’t bill you enough, here’s another bill,” and think they could get away with it.

In my case, they chose to use insurance billing codes - known as CPT codes. They cited the codes, so I cited them right back and reinforced my case with AB 774.

They didn’t even show up in court. I got a check about a month later.

Originally a Canadian resident, Tess Weber recently moved from California to escape high taxes.  More information about how and why hospitals defraud patients and insurance companies here.

Prosecutors said they would not oppose probation without any imprisonment for Bloch. This should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with our courts. While the Department of Justice relentlessly pursues, prosecutes and imprisons inconvenient whistleblowers, high-ranking bureaucrats who violate their rights are usually coddled by the system. The crooked wheel of justice crushes those at the lower levels of the government and pushes up criminals in high places. This bad egg is being cooked over-easy, with obvious disregard for hundreds of whistleblowers whose careers have been destroyed due to the OSC’s failure to investigate their complaints.

The legacy of failure

Here is an abbreviated list of Scott Bloch’s dubious “accomplishments” as the former head of the OSC:

• Knowingly and willfully ignoring whistleblower disclosures;
• Dismissing and closing hundreds of whistleblowing complaints without investigation;
• Deleting hundreds of files pertaining to whistleblowing disclosures and complaints of retaliation and reprisal;
• Rolling back protections for federal employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation;
• Staffing key OSC positions with cronies who shared his discriminatory views;
• Engaging in retaliatory activities against OSC staffers who opposed his wrongdoing;
• Assigning interns to issue closure letters in hundreds of whistleblower complaints without investigation;
• Intimidating OSC employees from cooperating with government investigators;
• Misusing prosecutorial power for political purposes;
• Reducing the backlog of cases pending at the OSC by 56% percent by closing cases without an investigation and destroying electronic files;
• During the fiscal year of 2008, the OSC filed 0 corrective action petitions with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB);
• During the fiscal year of 2008, the OSC obtained 0 stays from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB);
• Bloch reassigned his perceived critics within the OSC to field offices across the country – giving them 10 days to accept, or else they’d be fired;
• Bloch imposed retaliatory transfers upon OSC staffers he perceived as having a “homosexual agenda”;
• OSC under Bloch rarely recognized legitimate whistleblowers, typically only when the whistleblower has already prevailed elsewhere.

In an ironic twist that shocked his own staffers, in 2007 Bloch initiated a large-scale investigation against Karl Rove. He decided to probe the disappearance of an untold number of emails related to the firing of the New Mexico’s U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias. Bloch assembled a task force to create the impression that the OSC was investigating the White House, while Bloch himself was under investigation for mass-destruction of inconvenient documents. One year earlier, in December of 2006, Bloch hired private technicians with a firm called “Geeks On Call” to delete whistleblower complaints and related computer files by conducting the 7-level memory wipe of the computers at the OSC’s office. Bloch was also investigated by the FBI for obstruction of a Hatch Act inquiry for improperly mixing his political and official activities.

Bloch wasn’t charged with obstruction of justice, evidence tampering, destruction of official files, impeding an official federal investigation, civil right violations and violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). Instead, he was charged only with criminal contempt. While this charge carried a possible prison sentence, Department of Justice prosecutors said they would not oppose probation for Bloch, who is currently working as (don’t fall down laughing) an employment attorney at the Tarone & McLaughlin law firm in Washington.

Bloch’s defense attorney, William Sullivan Jr., a Winston & Strawn partner in Washington, had the audacity to state in court papers that Bloch has “served with distinction” as the head of the OSC. Sullivan wrote, “This case marks an unfortunate aberration for Mr. Bloch,” submitting 35 pages of letters to Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson, who is scheduled to preside over the sentencing. These letters include notes from Bloch’s wife, his friends and former co-workers.

“Glad this matter is behind us, and Mr. Bloch is looking forward to getting on with his life,” Sullivan said as he walked with Scott Bloch to the probation office. Bloch’s victims don’t have the same luxury, as whistleblowers have been continually oppressed with no recourse throughout OSC’s existence.

OSC’s dark history

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act to protect whistleblowers from reprisal and hold responsible agency managers accountable. Under President Carter, OSC languished without permanent leadership or funding. When President Reagan came to power, he quickly appointed Alex Kozinski as the Special Counsel and gutted the OSC. Nearly 50% of the OSC personnel and 70% of attorneys and investigators at the OSC headquarters were fired or had resigned. This was unprecedented for any government agency.

Since that time, over 7,000 federal employees have filed complaints with the OSC. Out of those thousands of cases, OSC requested a hearing to restore jobs in only 2 instances.

The dog-gone mind behind the plan

To understand why the OSC never worked according to its stated purpose, one must go back in history. The Watergate investigation revealed a plan by the Nixon administration to replace the non-partisan civil service system with a politically loyal government workforce. Every government agency had a ghost “political hiring czar”, whose authority covertly trumped that of personnel offices.

A special manual was prepared by the former White House Personnel Office Chief Fred Malek. This encyclopedia-like guide was dubbed the Malek Manual and provided information on how to harass career employees out of the government by exploiting loopholes in civil service laws. Unpopular federal employees would be replaced by hand-picked applicants.

The Malek Manual emphasized a telling message: “You cannot achieve management, policy or program control unless you have established political control.” The manual went on to describe underhanded techniques designed to “skirt around the adverse action proceedings” (such as the EEOC and the MSPB), “to remove undesirable employees from their positions.” (The President and the Executive Branch, by Joel D. Aberbach. UCLA Center for American Politics and Public Policy Occasional Paper Series 9 1-9.)

A telling memorandum written by Fred Malek to President Nixon’s Chief of Staff stated in relevant part, “We garnered from reliable sources in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the Commission was preparing to sue the University of Texas for discrimination in the hiring of faculty. This could be disastrous for Texas. When queried, Bill Brown, Chairman of the EEOC, agreed not to pursue it. I will continue to follow this situation closely.”

The sobriquet most often used to describe Fred Malek was “hatchet man“, because of his ruthlessness in ousting those deemed to be disloyal. Malek’s techniques included mandatory transfers and investigations against whistleblowers and outspoken critics of the establishment. For example, Malek reportedly ordered the FBI to conduct an investigation of then-veteran CBS correspondent and Nixon critic Daniel Schorr, who was placed on the “Enemy List”. Sadly, Daniel Schorr died today, on the day of Scott Bloch’s scheduled sentencing that has now been delayed.

Fred Malek was infamously ordered by Nixon to count the Jews in high-ranking government positions. Malek admittedly completed this blatantly anti-Semitic order and compiled a list of government employees whom he believed to be Jewish. Shortly thereafter, these senior officials were transferred to other locations and less prominent, dead-end positions.

In spite of his prior activities, after leaving the White House, Fred Malek became the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In 1982 Fred Malek was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to head the U.S. Postal Service. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee refused to act on his nomination because Senators reportedly felt that Malek had made conflicting statements under oath regarding his role in the “program”. Outraged committee didn’t hold back its disgust. Then-Senator John Danforth (R-Mo.) said, in relevant part, “… whether it was legal or illegal . . . it was wrong, just plain wrong… you admit that it was true, you admit that it was wrong . . . you regret it and you will never do it again. . . . Am I wrong or right?” Fred Malek responded, “You are absolutely right, senator.” Senator David Pryor (D-Ark.) asked, “Did it ever occur to you that what you were doing was wrong or immoral?” Malek replied, “Yes, sir, it did.”

Under questioning by Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Malek admitted authoring a memo that suggested punishing politically incorrect people. Senator Levin described Malek’s role as “Unethical, immoral and improper“. Malek lost his bid for the head of the Postal Service and a few years later the same disclosures cost him his job as deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Fred Malek, Then and Now

Another disgusting vignette of Malek’s character was revealed when police arrested five men after locating a blood-spattered car near the park entrance in Peoria, Illinois. After giving conflicting stories, the men finally admitted that they “caught a dog and were barbecuing it.” The perpetrators caught, skinned and gutted a dog and barbecued it on a spit. One of them was Fred Malek.

Fred Malek, a Dog and the SEC

Fred Malek’s legacy continued with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) action against him in 2004. The SEC instituted administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Malek, his company, Thayer Capital Partners and their affiliates. The SEC charged that pension investments in Malek’s company were used to reward a political supporter, William DiBella, former majority leader of the Connecticut Senate. Malek’s company was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $150,000, and Fred Malek was personally made to pay a civil penalty of $100,000. Apparently, a leopard doesn’t change its Jew-counting, whistleblower-retaliating, critic-investigating, dog-barbequing, securities laws-violating spots.

Fred Malek’s career in government and politics didn’t end after his activities were exposed. He is the former President of Marriott Hotels and Northwest Airlines and former assistant to United States Presidents Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Malek has formed seven institutional private equity funds, including three corporate acquisition funds with approximately $1.5 billion in committed capital and four funds that target hotel investments with over $500 million in committed capital. He recently served as a National Finance Committee co-chair of John McCain’s presidential campaign. In 2010, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.) called Malek “a man of high principle” who “has proved many times over the years his loyalty to the highest principles of freedom, human rights and international tolerance.”

Should we be surprised that our leaders and government officials are not interested in pushing forth effective whistleblower protection measures? Malek did not respond to this reporter’s request for comments.

The Ink Commission, later created to explore the Watergate Committee’s public record of the abuses, participated in studies and issued recommendations that became the foundation for the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.

In spite of the exposure, the ugly Malek Manual continued its destructive influence in government service.

Alex Kozinski and the Malek Manual

The next attack on the OSC and the merit system came from within the Office of Special Counsel itself. It was waged by President Reagan’s appointee, the former head of the OSC, Special Counsel Alex Kozinski, who kept a copy of the Malek Manual on his desk. Kozinski reportedly used its techniques (such as transfers, investigations and harassment) to purge the professional civil service experts from the OSC staff. They were replaced with obedient minions who viewed whistleblowers as crazy, disloyal troublemakers.

While serving as the head of the OSC, Alex Kozinski taught courses to federal managers on how to fire whistleblowers without getting caught by OSC investigators. For example, Alex Kozinski tutored Secretary Watt on how to purge a whistleblowing coal mine inspector from the Department of Interior. He used the OSC Investigations Manual as a handout in these morbid lectures. Senior Supervisors still serving in various government agencies quite possibly received such training on how to get rid of “inconvenient” employees and whistleblowers. These techniques are still being implemented within federal agencies today, with virtual impunity.

Alex Kozinski’s abuses were the major catalyst for passage of the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) of 1989, and he was forced to resign.

A few years later, 43 Senators voted against his confirmation for a seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after Senator Levin’s intensive investigation of Kozinski’s tenure as the OSC’s Special Counsel. In spite of the controversy surrounding his dubious OSC performance, Kozinski became the Chief Judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Curiously enough, OSC fiasco was not the last time Alex Kozinski would bring shame to the public office. In June of 2008, Los Angeles Times reported that Kozinski was caught operating a website that featured photos of naked women on all fours, painted to look like cows. Judge Kozinski’s website reportedly contained suggestive images of bestiality, pictured women shaving their pubic hair, themes of masturbation, public sex, contortionist sex, defecation and urination.

Ironically, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski was set to preside over an obscenity trial (the Issacs trial in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles), from which Kozinski later recused himself.

Porn trial in L.A. is halted - Judge grants a stay after conceding he maintained his own website with sexually explicit images.

With respect to his publicly accessible website, the panel of judges declared that Kozinski was “careless” and “judicially imprudent“. He was reprimanded but not disciplined. In spite of his OSC abuses, reprehensible anti-whistleblower stance and an obscene behavior, Alex Kozinski still sits as the Chief Judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

As the head of the OSC, Bloch continued Kozinski’s legacy of shame and disgrace, by destroying careers of countless whistleblowers he was appointed to protect.

Office of Special Counsel’s War On Whistleblowers

United States Office of Special Counsel

Watchdog groups and ethics advocates are appalled at the lackadaisical approach towards Bloch’s crimes. The proposed sentence of probation is not commensurate with the scope and longstanding impact of Bloch’s abuse of office and serious violations against federal whistleblowers.

Uncertain future

The OSC has operated without permanent leadership since 2008, leaving federal employees in the dark ages and without recourse. Legal professionals are now advising federal employees against coming forward. “When people call me and ask about blowing the whistle, I always tell them, ‘Don’t do it, because your life will be destroyed,’” says William Weaver, a professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and a senior adviser to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. “You’ll lose your career; you’re probably going to lose your family if you have one; you’re probably going to lose all your friends because they’re associated through work; you’ll wind up squandering your life savings on attorneys; and you’ll come out the other end of this process working at McDonald’s.”

Yes, that is the way things are. But that is not the way they ought to be.

Read more stories by Julia Davis, Los Angeles Homeland Security Examiner

Troubling signs

In 2008, the Semmelweis Report identified serious inconsistencies and red flags among HIV researchers, legislators and activists who receive funding from an industry that has paid $8 billion to settle dozens of criminal and civil complaints since 2004.

Part of the problem stems from industry regulators who help companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Astra Zeneca arrange million dollar fines for illegally marketing deadly drugs like Avandia and Seroquel that generate billions of dollars annually. Although these drugs kill or injure thousands of Americans each year, company executives avoid prison by paying small fines that are generally covered by higher drug prices.

The fact that HIV drugs cause many of the same diseases they ostensibly prevent is another flag. Unfortunately, as the drugs kill, their mortality is then used to generate media reports that prompts people to seek meaningless tests and debilitating treatments that eventually destroy their lives.

Nothing sells HIV testing and treatment better than news reports about HIV arrests. When someone is publicly accused of spreading HIV to dozens of partners, the resulting hysteria can generate hundreds of unnecessary tests and millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded medication and treatment. But when prosecutors are unable to prove the charges, newspapers never report that charges were dropped.

Proof of Concept

Although no sensible person trusts the word of serial felons, regulators, academics, universities and legislators who receive pharmaceutical funding turn a blind eye to the corruption.

Despite withering attacks from what investigative reporter Shannon Brownlee calls “drug whores,” OMSJ began to force prosecutors of criminal HIV cases to prove HIV tests actually detect HIV in 2009.

The simplicity of the test was apparently too much for prosecution experts. Despite the billions of dollars spent producing millions of pages of HIV research for three decades, experts who helped prosecutors put people like Willie Campbell and Philippe Padieu away for the rest of their lives were suddenly unavailable to testify under oath in OMSJ’s presence. In most cases, defense attorneys required little more than an affidavit to convince prosecutors to dismiss all HIV-related charges.

After prosecutors dropped or lost six cases in nine months, the Obama Administration has asked state officials to end HIV prosecutions altogether. Obama’s report cites “Human Rights” as a pretext, how long the Justice Department will take to free wrongfully-convicted victims of pharmaceutical propaganda is less certain.

For more information, visit the HIV Innocence Project.

Unfortunately, when measured against the Administration‘s own stated goals, the new health law fails to address the top health care concerns of the American people. According to a March 2009 report released by Health and Human Services, a majority of Americans identified cost as their top concern with American health care.

Independent experts have found that the new health law will increase the cost of health insurance and health care services. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), premiums for millions of American families in 2016 will be 10-13 percent higher than they otherwise would be.  This represents a $2100 increase per family, compared with the status quo.

And, according to a recent memo from the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the medical device and pharmaceutical drugs fees and the health insurance excise tax will ―generally be passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drugs and device prices and higher insurance premiums, with an associated increase in overall national health expenditures….

This is not the only bad news. According to the same memo, the new health care law bends the cost curve upward and increases national health spending. In other words, health care will cost more because of this new law.

Contrary to the promise that Americans who like their current health plan can keep it, the Administration published a regulation regarding ―grandfathered health plans – plans that are exempt from the changes under the law.  According to the published regulation, as many as seven out of every 10 businesses across the country will lose their ―grandfathered health plan. This means that about half of the more than 150 million Americans enrolled in employer plans will lose their current plan and either remain without employer coverage, or see the cost of that employer-provided coverage increase due to government mandates and regulation.  (Full report posted here.)

This report was written and published by United States Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. and John Barrasso, M.D.

James Murtagh MD

James Murtagh MD is not the first fraud GAP has knowingly promoted, which is why SSI has distanced itself from GAP and its cohorts since 2008.

During their 2008 events, GAP promoted Adam Kokesh as a whistleblower who claimed to have endured retaliation from the Bush Administration. Although GAP knew that the Marine Corps had discharged Kokesh for protesting in uniform after being demoted for numerous UCMJ violations (including illegal weapons charges), GAP Director Tom Devine promoted Kokesh as an anti-war protestor for donors like George Soros at the expense of real champions like Jeffrey Wigand, Marsha Coleman Adebayo, medical professionals (SSI) and supporters like US Senator Charles Grassley.

Along with doctors who killed and assaulted patients or molested children, the pharmaceutical industry recruited Murtagh’s motley crew to pervert the name of Ignaz Semmelweis. For an industry that has paid more than $7 billion in criminal and civil fines since 2004, laundering a few million through Soros and TAC to screw with “disgruntled employees” is nothing more than Grisham’s Law of corruption replacing honesty.

This week, SSI received this message from one of many confused physician:

“I understand there is a meeting coming up in the DC area. I’d like to attend, but I don’t see anything on the website about it.”

In response, I issued this response:

Hi Barbara:

I received your message and understand your confusion.

First of all, SSI’s annual report and website establishes that these confederates are not members or officers of our organization. SSI’s official meeting is being planned for July or August 2010. We will post information about that meeting on our website when we have firm dates.

The meeting next week was coordinated by James Murtagh MD and members of the Government Accountability Project (GAP). If you have paid membership dues or any other fees to them, you may be a victim of fraud.

GAP

Like the Free Press and other pro-Marxist organizations, GAP is funded by George Soros in what appears to be an effort by Soros to control and suppress whistleblowers under the pretext of supporting them. While GAP may benefit some whistleblowers, Soros’ record is well documented. GAP appears to attract and exploit bona fide whistleblowers in an effort to give credibility to its efforts to suppress them.

TAC-Semmelweis

According to James Murtagh, his confederate SSI organization is funded and controlled by the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC). TAC is a South African pharmaceutical front group whose funding comes indirectly from the pharmaceutical industry and pro-Marxist groups. The linkages are posted here:

• Murtagh freely admits his connection to TAC - “TAC is the new Semmelweis…”
• TAC is funded by TAG
• TAG is funded by pharma
• TAG (Richard Jefferys) is Murtagh’s co-defendant in Celia Farber’s libel lawsuit
• Farber’s lawsuit stems from TAG’s (Jefferys) libel that was recorded on the pharmaceutically-funded Critpath listserve during May 2008
• Critpath is Philadelphia Fight, which is also funded by pharma. The Critpath listserve disseminates pro-pharma propaganda (FAPP) to AIDS activists throughout the US. Those activists then attack pharma’s critics
• FAPP’s co-chairs are all pharma-funded (Smith AED, Kawata NMAC, Davids CHAMP)
• At least one CHAMP Director is a self-described anti-capitalist revolutionary (e.g. Marxist)
• Consider also that the pharmaceutical industry has paid more than $7 billion in criminal and civil penalties since 2004. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Chart with links)

Murtagh has incorporated numerous failed organizations (including IAW) and nothing prevents him or his cohorts from incorporating another Semmelweis organization in another state. But Murtagh/TAC attacks SSI specifically to overtake and control our organization in an effort to destroy it and exploit its membership much as GAP appears to be doing for Soros.

Consider also what TAG’s Richard Jefferys (Murtagh’s co-defendant) wrote in 2008 a few weeks before Murtagh left SSI for TAC:

12 May (2008) 23:29:

I think the simplest talking points are that Farber and Duesberg aren’t whistleblowers, they’re liars. The examples are many… However, it’s probably too late to affect things tomorrow, the better strategy may just to be to target each of the co-sponsoring organizations & endorsers afterward in order to ensure that Semmelweis is disinvited from next year’s event. (2009)

Reporter Diana Scholl picked up the story on Critpath and posted this story on several pharmaceutical propaganda websites:

“D.C. Fights Back member and Whitman-Walker client Mark Fischer (TAG/Critpath/pharma) says the only time he got an opportunistic infection was when he stopped taking his meds. “These aren’t whistleblowers. They’re divergent thinkers who are 21st century snake oil salesmen. And especially in D.C., where there are so many reasons why people don’t get treatment, we don’t need this,” Fischer said.

Jefferys is thankful Duesberg and Farber didn’t get near Congressional leaders. “It would have given them PR,” Jefferys said. “We have no way of knowing how many people could have suffered as a result. Often those who work in the AIDS field just think of denialism is silly and that no one believes it. But a newly diagnosed person who went to a doctor who only gave him five minutes, then decided to do a web search and saw ‘AIDS Myth Exposed’ is who I am concerned about.”

Based upon these documents, it’s clear that Murtagh’s confederates have nothing to do with SSI’S mission, website or membership. If they did, Murtagh’s group would be attacked by GAP and Jefferys as our organization continues to be.

by E. Patrick Buntz
May 11, 2010
Previously published by The Benchmark on Second Quarter 2010

A surgeon with staff privileges sued a hospital for breach of contract, and later added a claim for slander per se, seeking compensatory damages for both claims, as well as punitive damages for the slander. He alleged that the hospital had breached its contract with its medical staff, the Medical Staff Bylaws, by invalidly giving another surgeon exclusive privileges for cardiovascular surgery. The exclusive grant barred him from such surgery even though he had been approved to perform such surgery by the hospital’s credentialing committee and medical staff leadership. Statements identified as slander during the litigation by senior executive officers of the hospital included that the doctor was not even qualified to perform surgery on a dog.

The jury found the hospital liable on the breach of contract claim and fixed his total damages at $2,817,000. These were reduced to $1,517,000 by the court because he could have mitigated his losses. In separate proceedings on the slander per se claim, the jury found Lawnwood liable for the slander; that Lawnwood specifically intended to harm him by its per se slanderous statements; that, in fact, it had actually injured him by the statements. The jury found, however, that he suffered no compensable damages from the slander but that he was entitled nevertheless to punitive damages of $5 million from the hospital.

In the appeal of the slander per se claim, Lawnwood presented no appellate issues regarding liability or entitlement to punitive damages. Instead it appealed only the amount of punitive damages, confining its argument to the contention that $5 million is excessive under the United States Constitution.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal analyzed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) [State Farm], and BMW of North America Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) [BMW]. Lawnwood argued that BMW and State Farm both hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment categorically bars any punitive damages exceeding a stated ratio with compensatory damages, usually 3:1 or 4:1. Dr. Sadlow argued that Lawnwood was incorrect as to the scope of these holdings. He contended that State Farm and BMW actually disclaim applying the ratio to all punitive damages awards, and that both decisions explicitly hold that the ratio may not apply in cases involving intentional and malicious conduct. In electing to agree with Dr. Sadlow’s interpretation of the State Farm and BMW decisions, the Fourth District Court of Appeal also cited to TXO Production Corporation v. Alliance Resources Corporation, 509 U.S. 443 (1993) [TXO], where the U.S. Supreme Court held that punitive damages of $10 million imposed for intentionally malicious misconduct are not improper even though actual losses were less than $20,000.

The 4th District also noted that under Florida Statute Section 768.73, as applied to intentionally malicious harm, punitive damages are tied to unusually reprehensible misconduct, rather than some ratio relating to compensable losses. Per the 4th DCA, this provision allowing punitive damages without proportionality for intentional, malicious harm satisfies any BMW and State Farm concern for fair notice and Due Process.

In the 32 page opinion, the appellate court came down hard on the hospital for the intentionally malicious defamation and for the attack against the doctor’s personal reputation. The judges even quoted the Ninth Commandment: “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” The appellate opinion noted that Lawnwood officials never offered to retract what was said about Dr. Sadow. The hospital’s attorneys called the words, “rhetorical hyperbole” and that the executive who made the remark was “Just kidding.”

The appellate court in Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. v. Samuel H. Sadow, concluded that although no compensatory damages were awarded for the slander per se, the amount of punitive damages assessed conforms to applicable law and is neither excessive nor arbitrary so as to exceed federal Constitutional norms. Because the issues presented are of great public importance as to the imposition and assessment of punitive damages under Florida law for cases involving intentionally malicious, harmful defamation per se under TXO, BMW and State Farm, the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court.

Had prosecutors released Stanback and his loot with a $5,000 fine, we could appreciate the deal that AstraZeneca received this week. The pharmaceutical giant paid a $520 million fine for bribing doctors into illegally prescribing a psychotropic drug that causes suicidal and homicidal ideation, weight gain, depression, nightmares, cancer, high blood pressure, and other deadly diseases. The fact that pharmaceutical executives paid a small fraction of their profits to avoid prison for a scheme that injured thousands and generated as much as one quarter of the company’s $32 billion revenues in 2009 is not unusual.

To equal AstraZeneca’s crimes, Mr. Stanback would have had to pistol-whip every teller during the commission of nearly 40,000 robberies. And while Stanback exposed a few people to threats and violence, adverse drug reactions (ADR) typically injure or kill millions of Americans every year. (Story at OMSJ.org)

Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office has rejected Cundiff’s petition, and Administrative Law Judge Daniel Juarez concurred in a recent ruling. However, that decision will be reviewed Thursday by a California Medical Board panel, which gives a final determination on whether to accept the Brown-Juarez position.

Deputy Attorney General Klint James McKay said on Monday that the appeal for reconsideration of the alleged false testimony was not timely.

“There has to be finality to the case,” he said, emphasizing that it would be difficult putting a new hearing together after nearly 10 years.

Cundiff has submitted to the California Medical Board a Petition for Reconsideration of the Proposed Decision.

The Long Beach resident had his medical license revoked by the board on Sept. 11, 2000, and the matter was reviewed during an administrative hearing in January.

Cundiff once wrote a column for the Press-Telegram Lifestyle section, called “Ask the Doctor,” and had been a physician and instructor at County-USC Medical Center for 17 years. He lost his license after a patient died, following a decision not to continue administering the blood thinner Coumadin, because of a high risk of bleeding. The patient subsequently died of clots in his lungs.

However, McKay turned down Cundiff’s request to subpoena the original evidence package for review at the reinstatement hearing.

“The truthfulness … does not support any exception to res judicata” - the rule that the state Supreme Court more than 85 years ago validated, by stating “unequivocally that `it is settled beyond controversy that a decree will not be vacated merely because it was obtained by forged documents or perjured testimony,”‘ McKay wrote in his brief to the Medical Board.

“If Jerry Brown knew his name was on this, he’d do something about it,” Cundiff said.

Key testimony in 2000, Cundiff contends, was recanted by the deceased patient’s daughter, after Cundiff’s license had been revoked. She originally testified that her father did not have an alcohol problem.

Cundiff said the case turned on whether the patient was or was not alcoholic.

The physician believed the patient’s drinking history made him a bad candidate for the blood thinner medication, since alcohol triggers internal bleeding.

“I stopped the blood thinner Coumadin because, in my opinion, it carried too great a risk of serious or fatal bleeding in this patient with alcoholism, liver failure and anemia,” Cundiff recalled.

Prior to the administrative hearing, McKay said the January focus was geared for a review of rehabilitation factors - and not a rehash of the merits of the original case.

“The evidence has been heard before,” McKay said. “That’s the way the system works.”

Countered Cundiff: “As an agency of state government and not a court of law, the California Medical Board is not bound by these legal technicalities and can consider this evidence.”

…huge losses of African lives are unconfirmed and that HIV is not sufficient or even necessary to cause the previously known diseases, now called AIDS in the presence of antibody against HIV. Further we call into question the claim that HIV antibody-positives would benefit from anti-HIV drugs, because these drugs are inevitably toxic and because there is as yet no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

Professor Peter Duesberg

Not since the trials of Galileo and Ignaz Semmelweis has a scientist been more of a threat to a corrupt scientific establishment. Considered one of the world’s most eminent cancer researchers, Prof. Duesberg’s 1987 paper sent shockwaves through research facilities, universities and HHS. Like Galileo’s exposure of Pope Urban’s geocentric universe, Prof. Duesberg’s unanswered questions implicated thousands of scientists and jeopardized billions of dollars in research funding.

For his heresy, the NIH cut off all funding to Duesberg.

As OMSJ described last week, AIDS Inc. is currently threatened on numerous fronts. While Celia Farber’s libel lawsuit against Treatment Action Group (TAG) makes its way through the New York Supreme Court, trial attorneys in more than thirty criminal HIV cases are forcing prosecutors to locate AIDS experts who are willing to testify under penalty of perjury. Unsurprisingly, the industry that has spent $7 billion to settle dozens of criminal and civil complaints since 2004 are responding like vampires in sunshine.

The Case Against Professor Duesberg

According to Science Insider, the UCB investigation is based upon complaints from none other than Nathan Geffen of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), which is funded by mining giant AngloGold and TAG, which is funded by pharma.

Geffen’s complaint exploits an insignificant error related to reported HIV prevalence within prenatal clinics. Because the error does not alter the paper’s conclusions, Geffen’s anxiety apparently stems from being caught manipulating computer models to exaggerate AIDS mortality…

Geffen relies on a report by Pride Chigwedere MD (et al), in which Chigwedere admits to using estimates that UNAIDS admits were deliberately inflated.   Chigwedere’s report was funded by the Harvard School of Public Health, which received a $160 million spike of AIDS funding from HRSA in the years leading up to publication (2008). 

… while SA’s actual mortality represents a tiny fraction of Geffen’s inflated numbers:

By 2007, reported HIV mortality remained negligible:

Without Geffen’s propaganda, AngloGold could not blame its mine-related lung diseases on the sexual stereotypes of its kaffir labor force; groups like TAG and TAC could not use the nonexistent pandemic to fund gay pharmaceutical activism and universities like Berkeley and Harvard could not justify the continued research of what prosecutors are finally dismissing as junk science.

Epidemiologists Without a Cause

Because infectious disease became statistically inconsequential in the US by 1955, epidemiologists suddenly found themselves with a lot of free time.

Even at the height of the alleged pandemic, AIDS mortality affected no more than .015 percent of the US population:

Because researchers throughout Europe (2), Australia and South Africa [2007] have corroborated these numbers, UCB and Reingold rely on reports like Geffen’s to justify continued NIH (taxpayer) funding.

In light of the pharmaceutical industry’s routine corruption, Geffen’s cynical complaint isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Conflicts of Interest

Geffen also alleges that co-author David Rasnick PhD should have reported his brief association with health advocate Matthias Rath MD. To assert that a co-author’s relationship (that ended is 2006) represents a punishable conflict of interest against Duesberg is absurd – especially when considering the breathtaking conflicts of his accusers and employer.

Since 1992, the NIH has directed to UC Berkeley more than $1 billion in mostly AIDS-related funding. A glance at 2010 indicates what is at stake:

To compound the absurdity, UCB Vice Provost Zedeck assigned the investigation to one man - Arthur Reingold - who, since 1988, has received more than $21 million for AIDS research programs.

In light of these facts, it’s understandable why, like Robert Gallo, Vice Provost Zedeck has avoided thousands of highly qualified licensed investigators to assign the only man with reason to obfuscate the obvious to convict America’s resident Galileo.

A Call for Action

A few years ago, Professor Duesberg would be forced to defend himself from Berkeley’s kangaroo court. Today, OMSJ is assisting Prof. Duesberg and thousands of other victims of medical and scientific corruption.

But OMSJ cannot succeed alone. With your generous single or recurring donation of $5, $10/mo or more, you can help OMSJ assist Professor Duesberg and other victims.

PLEASE HELP!