By way of the, "Wretched Dog," a good friend and reader.  This needs to go viral, as much as possible.  Please give the widest possible dissemination.   Video on blog does not seem to work, but it does at the link.

Original, here.

[Our original post of the video below on Vimeo was removed, purportedly for "violating" Vimeo's guidelines against "false or misleading claims" about the COVID-19 vaccine. We therefore uploaded it on our new Rumble account to let our readers watch and decide for themselves.]

Dr. Simone Gold, the founder of America's Frontline Doctors, spoke at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2021 Restoration Weekend on Nov. 11th-14th at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, Florida. Dr. Gold discussed the medical tyranny that is now taking over America -- and how our Constitution is under lethal attack. A transcript follows.


Simone Gold: You know, all the speakers at the event are amazing, but it's really an honor to follow Dinesh. That's a man after my own heart. We are really giving birth to a new movement here; a movement where we fight back.

Now, the fight we are in, in my estimation, is really the second Revolutionary War, because the reality is, is that we're living under a tyranny that we never thought was possible in America. We have lost almost all of our Constitutional rights. We only retain, with a big struggle, the Second Amendment. What do I mean? The First Amendment, the freedom of religion. We saw that go by the wayside this past year. Free speech, which is what I was doing. Free press, which is completely corrupted and a monopoly, doesn't exist. The right to peacefully assemble. Fourth Amendment: bodily integrity. Fifth Amendment: due process. Sixth Amendment: speedy and public trial. Seventh Amendment: a right to a jury trial. Eighth: no excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment. We've heard many speakers already about the January 6 defendants who are being held pre-trial. Gone. These things are as strong and inviolate a law as we have in America, and they've just been abrogated. Disappeared.


How have we lost so many Constitutional rights? Marxists take down the nation in four steps: demoralization, disorientation, crisis and then the promise of normalization. All the disorientation you've been experiencing the last 20 months were all based upon lies told by scientists and politicians. It's gotten people very disoriented. It's a little disorienting, though, right? Because you're living it in real time, and you think, well, that wasn't what they said a couple of months ago, right? It's literally 1984, George Orwellian.

Note that medical tyranny is just the mechanism. It's the means to control us. It's more effective than religious or economic tyranny because it's silent, it's stealth, it causes great fear and it causes a hyper-reliance on authority figures. And it's creating a conflict between two groups of people, the vaxed and what I call the naturals: people who are betting on natural immunity. That distracts us from the real enemy, which is the overlord that's trying to control both groups. Vaccine mandates are just hashtag social control. It's the modern version of "show me your papers," and my father's a Holocaust survivor; I don't take that phrase lightly. We are fighting a Communist takeover of our nation, and we must push back or our Constitutional republic will collapse, and with it, all human freedom around the world.

America's Frontline Doctors are your freedom fighters. Most of you know me from the early treatment that we brought forward the summer of 2020. Many people here -- I would just, for my own sake, enjoy a show of hands. How many people here obtained early treatment medication and/or early treatment from our website, from America's Frontline Doctors? Yeah. I'm delighted. Nothing makes me happier. When they ask me why I got in this fight, I said it was a simple as a patient in front of me needed medicine, and I wrote the prescription, and the next day I was threatened to be fired for writing a prescription for safe, generic medicine that's been on the market for 65 years. It blew my mind. Okay? That activity where we created a mechanism whereby you could obtain medicine that you needed or you wanted that was perfectly safe, FDA-approved, just 10 days ago, is what landed me on the receiving end of a very nasty letter by Congressman Clyburn, who now threatens to investigate me criminally for making early treatment medication available to you. Just wanted to let you know. The fight, the war, is real.

Now. Oh -- I do want to say how that investigation is coming about. This may ring a bell, those of us who are paying attention, as Dan Bongino was talking about, the Russian collusion. About a month ago, there was an article printed in a newspaper I had never heard of called The Intercept. I discovered that The Intercept is a rag far left of the New York Times. They printed an article alleging that the telemedicine company to which America's Frontline Doctors referred people, a third-party telemedicine company, had had patient data breaches, that it had been hacked. This got the telemedicine company, of course, very nervous. They thought they had good firewalls up. They spent about $200,000 to prove that there was no actual hack. It was all made up. It was all a lie. But it was the basis for Congressman Clyburn's investigation into me. And I thought to myself, that sounds very familiar. A fake story in a rag paper. So get ready for Part 2.

Now, what does America's Frontline Doctors do? We are really a civil rights organization. We are the real ACLU. We fight hard. We fight intelligently. And today's talk is to share with you how to fight most intelligently in the court system. I'm going to just start with, first, what we do. We first believe in self-help. The overall strategy of the Communists is to convince people that they need an overlord to make decisions for them. That's all the propaganda and all the hyper-reliance on "experts" and all the censorship. As Thomas Jefferson observed, a nation cannot be both ignorant and free. The enemy of the Communists is an informed populace. So on America's Frontline Doctors, we have a news division, we have a legal division and we have a medical division, with the telemedicine, and soon, we will be bringing in-person clinics. That's our goal in 2022. Yeah.

We also started a citizen corps, which is community organizing at its most granular. I'd like to share with you just a little bit -- a one-minute video about what we're doing. We have a lot of resources to help the average person. For example, if you're looking for religious exemption, right? You go to You can self-educate and you can bring your own defense, or your own informed objection to your employer doing that. It's really the resource for the people. We are a populist movement. We are approaching 1 million members in a year and a half.

Second, we engage in effective law-fare. Among other things, I've spent the last 18 months searching for the fiercest freedom attorneys. One by one, I collected different people. They were a very diverse bunch; their professional backgrounds vary. But what they have in common is that each independently recognizes the absolutely mortal threat, and each is willing to work as hard as possible to stem the tide.

Together, America's Frontline Doctors has filed many lawsuits, including versus the University of California on behalf of the COVID-recovered student, the Department of Defense on behalf of the COVID-recovered solider, versus the CDC and Health & Human Services, versus who I call "Jim Crow" de Blasio -- that one's going to be heard in court on November 18. We filed that 10 weeks ago. Their response has been very underwhelming, which is fascinating, so watch for that one. And three weeks ago we filed against Kaiser Permanente. I will walk you through the Kaiser case more specifically because it is very important to understand this and to share it with others and explain it. Through understanding the Kaiser lawsuit, I will show you how to engage in effective law-fare.

As I was bringing various lawsuits, I was learning what worked and what didn't work. What doesn't work is explaining in tremendous detail and clarity with extraordinary science references and experts just how the mandates are illegal. Although the judiciary should step in when the executive has been corrupted, the judiciary has to first believe the executive has been corrupted. If they don't believe that, they cannot be convinced by experts. Judges will believe that their proper role is to defer to the executive branch, which, if it wasn't corrupted, is actually their role.

So we tried a new tactic when, 10 weeks ago, we filed against "Jim Crow" de Blasio. We sued based upon the mandates having a disparate racial impact. Of course the science is included, but the thrust of the case is that if a regulation or law has a disparate impact on the race, it is illegal on its face. No racist intent is needed or inferred. This is very important. New York law is stronger than federal law in terms of this disparate impact. Well, it turns out that black people get vaccinated at a lower rate than white people. There are very solid reasons for this difference. It wouldn't matter if there weren't, but we had an opportunity to explain just why there are solid reasons for this. So we went through the science, et cetera, but the case foundationally is because the law in New York says you can't have a disparate impact on the race. Because black people are getting vaccinated at lower rates, you're actually telling black people not just to get on the back of the bus, but they can't even get on the bus. And that's the basis of the lawsuit and we'll see how that hearing goes on November 18 in the Second District of New York. So it'll be fun.

We tried yet another new legal theory three weeks ago when we filed against Kaiser. There are three things we did that are completely new and different. These three things are what I hope you keep in mind as to how to effectively engage in law-fare. First, pick your defendant very deliberately. We've picked many different types of defendants: CDC, HHS, states, et cetera. You have to pick it very carefully, and you should pick it to satisfy more than one reason. Many people have come to us to ask us to defend them, and it took a long time to decide who to pick.

I picked Kaiser because -- a couple of reasons. One is, nobody else really wanted to engage against the hospital systems because judges' prejudice is that that's a special category. So you had to be careful. I wasn't willing to concede the area of our economy that's 20% -- right? Healthcare is 20%. A lot of people work in healthcare. So I wanted to be in that fight, and I just wanted the right defendant. I picked Kaiser because Kaiser was intertwined inappropriately with the federal government and the state government. There is extreme evidence showing that the relationship is much too cozy and it rose to state action. And although the case should just turn on the law, which I'll get to in a moment, the facts are so particularly repugnant between Kaiser and the government, I wanted to gain that advantage with the judge.

It's quite offensive when you read, in what we've put forward, that the vaccine data -- Vaccine Safety Datalink, VSD, which has nine contributing members, of the nine, five are actually Kaiser. Kaiser North California, Kaiser South California, Kaiser Colorado, Washington -- I forgot the fifth one. Actually Kaiser. Three of the remaining four are with Kaiser executives, organizations that had top Kaiser executives. And the ninth is the CDC. So you're saying eight of the nine that are formulating policy for the federal government are actually Kaiser. It's not -- if I was a judge and I wasn't completely corrupted, that would bother me. So that was one of the reasons we chose that defendant. So pick your defendant carefully.

Number two: Show overwhelming force with the expert declarations. We are bringing, at America's Frontline Doctors, an entirely new dimension to the battlefield. I think it's because, specifically, my past as a doctor and a lawyer, that I'm able to just bridge those two together and bring that to the courts. We arm our cases with devastatingly accurate breadth and depth and range of expertise. We simply cannot be dislodged on the facts and the expertise. It is comprehensive. It is indisputable. While we cannot control for corrupt or simple-minded judges, we are betting that they are not the majority and we will file in multiple jurisdictions to increase our odds. Yeah.

The third thing you must do to engage in very effective law-fare is you have to find the best legal minds to produce the best legal theories. Everyone around us keeps talking about the Jacobson case. Some of you may be familiar with this: 1905, landmark vaccine case decided by the Supreme Court. It was in the era of smallpox, and a person named Jacobson didn't want to get the shot, and the Supreme Court ruled, in the setting of a vaccine mandate -- in the setting of a mandate by the government, in the setting of a -- reducing the transmission of a contagious disease, the government could mandate you to take it. Of course, you could pay a small fine and be excused or get an exemption. That part is not quoted around, but that's the actual holding. But the real point I'm sharing with you is that the foundational premise of Jacobson is that the vaccine stopped the spread of contagious disease, quote, end quote. It's there. But everyone keeps talking about Jacobson, Jacobson, Jacobson.

I came to the problem differently because I was a practicing doctor for so long. For every legal battle that's coming our way, in law-fare, there is no substitute for finding those sub-, sub-, sub-specialty experts who simply know more than other people about the subject. Those are the people that may be able to conceive a different strategy, and that's what I did.

Jacobson held that the vaccine mandates by the government deserve special deference because they have "adapted to the spread of contagious diseases," and to protect the public health. But when I was in law school, I was already a doctor. One year I co-taught a class for the medical students on health law. Because of that, I was familiar with many Supreme Court rulings that impacted the practice of medicine, including Jacobson and many other cases about withholding or mandating medical care, one of those being Cruzan. I had a lot of legal knowledge on the practice of medicine in the United States. As a doctor, that was my law.

As a doctor, I've been watching the failure of the shots to stop the virus: the video I showed you here. We predicted this publicly in October 2020 based upon simply reading the applications submitted by Pfizer and Moderna. They never claimed to the FDA that they stop transmission. That may surprise many of you here. Many of you walked up to me to tell me that you were vaccinated, almost with an apology, and I said, listen, we're in the freedom fight. You get to choose. But by the way, did you know they don't stop transmission? They were never authorized to stop transmission, and you were hoodwinked by the media. I mean, it's shocking. Propaganda. Now, they were authorized in December 2020 solely for symptom reduction.

So now, one year later, everyone has been forced to publicly agree that, oops, they don't stop transmission. Who is everyone? Let's say, for starters, the director of the CDC, NIAID Director Fauci, Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, the Harvard School of Public Health, et cetera, et cetera. There is nobody that argues that they stop transmission. They do not stop transmission or acquiring of the virus. In fact, the CDC director, on Wolf Blitzer, specifically said, "The shots don't stop transmission."

So in the Kaiser case we have argued, for the very first time in the nation, that these cases cannot be adjudicated under the laws regarding vaccines. That simply calling something by the word "vaccine" does not make it for the public health, and that is, these shots verifiably do not stop the spread of contagious disease, which is a requirement of Jacobson, the court must look past the word "vaccine." By the way, the CDC actually changed the definition of the word "vaccine" in August. It's like, really -- it's really George Orwellian. Really, they changed the definition of the word "vaccine." I don't even want to -- it's too much.

The Harvard School of Public Health, on September 30, lead author Subramanian, published their findings, which is that in a worldwide study of 69 nations, 2,947 counties across America, the shots do not stop transmission or acquisition of the virus. And in fact, they are linked to being more likely to catch the virus. And I'm not trying to bum out anyone who got vaccinated. What the science shows, it appears it's mixed, but that your symptoms are diminished if you've taken the shots. I have a lot more I could say about that; I will just leave it alone. Again, it's your personal choice. But what they definitely don't do is stop the inter-person transmission, and in fact, they seem likely to make it more transmissible. Well, if there is -- if they're not stopping contagious disease, it cannot be adjudicated under Jacobson, and that's what we're bringing to the courts. That kind of legal theory. So.

So to engage in effective law-fare, first you must find a subject matter expert to envision the problem as cleverly as possible. You have to pick the right defendant and the best legal theory. And the second thing you have to do is you have to deliver the expertise in a way that is meaningful to the court. We have a process for the expert to work with the attorneys so they can continue to say what they know is factually true but much more clearly to a judge. It was very clear to me when I looked at what the experts are writing, these are -- many of them have become professional friends over this past 18 months. The way they write is not so clear to a court. So we work to make sure that it's clear to the court. That is -- it's critical.

Using the Kaiser case as an example, while the experts all knew that the shots don't stop transmission, they didn't know Jacobson and they didn't know Cruzan. And so they really didn't know how to explain their expertise in a way that was meaningful to the court. And we've corrected that problem, and that's critical if you want to win in court. So what we do, AFLDS bridges the knowledge gap between doctors and lawyers. Both sides together, we're working for freedom. This, in my estimation, is how to engage in effective law-fare. The other requirement, which is what I'm hearing about this afternoon, is an unwavering commitment to the ethical ideology and not compromising on our fight. I'm very tired of our side running tail. It has to stop.

We are your freedom fighters. We are fighting strategically in the courts and we're fighting in the streets. The way we fight in the streets is we fight the propaganda with the news division. We keep increasing our membership. We're putting out the citizen corps. Like I said, we're approaching 1 million members, about 850,000 now. So this is how you win. In addition to the law-fare, right, it's doing things like joining the citizen corps, becoming educated yourself. But one thing I think that we do is we never compromise.


I just want to share a little bit of good news. I traveled the nation -- earlier this year, they put me on a no-fly list. They've made it very difficult for me to travel. I've been traveling the nation. For about four months, we went around. There is no question that the vast majority of Americans are with us. I mean, there's absolutely no question about it. We need to not be meek about it. We have to go forward with tremendous force of conviction. There's no question. We need to, I believe, in my opinion, almost build separate societies where we have our own access to freedom, our own access to truth. That's why we're bringing you clinics next year. But you go to our, obtain medications -- hey, why not? That's why Congressman Clyburn's coming after me, so you might as well make good on it. So we're here to fight for you and I'm just here to tell you that the Constitution is just under grave attack.

Let me give you one small example of how our Constitution's under attack and the first lawsuit that we brought, okay? The first lawsuit was to protect the children. When they allowed these shots to go out to the 12- to 15-year-old age group, that's when we filed our first lawsuit. My point, why I did this: One week after they authorized this for the teenagers, one week was all it took for local jurisdictions to take away, to supersede parental authority. Within one week, some local jurisdictions -- San Francisco was the first -- said that they don't need parental consent for the shots or parental knowledge. Make no mistake; this has nothing to do with your health. It has everything to do with taking down our Constitution. Fight hard. Thank you.


Popular posts from this blog

Here ya go, Pete!

Beware of the Seductress...

PSA - Instant Incapacitation of an Attacker...