Misinformation Kills

According to Dr. Jonathan Stea and a "study" he cites as evidence but a closer look at the details reveals an attempt to ruin the careers of dissident doctors who oppose the COVID agenda.

COI Analysis:

"Communication of COVID-19 Misinformation On Social Media by Physicians in the US"

The Tweet in question

You may remember this “study” that made the rounds back in August 2023. Well it has been making the rounds again with people like Dr. Stea and being used as proof that “Misinformation Kills”.

This is such a sociopathic thing to say because he knows damn well there is ZERO way to prove that claim not to mention that the statement is itself in Misinformation. Yet he parrots it and provides a “study” while claiming that 1,100,000 lives could have been saved if only us plebs would have followed the “public health recommendations”. This unbelievably sycophantic statement was the last straw, I needed to look at this “study”.

What I found left me dumbfounded.

The Study in question

I’ll also note that the 1,100,00 lives saved claim isn’t even referenced in the study as far as I can tell, so he just inserted that to bolster his non-argument, it’s probably claimed in some other ludicrous paper. I’ve noticed this “study” has been used as a pretext to “prove” that misinformation actually causes “harm”.

You see, they can’t do anything about their precious “misinformation” unless they can prove that is causing real world harm. That is what this entire “study” is about and the authors as well as anyone who shares it unironically should be laughed at for doing so.

Link to article

For the study they essentially cyber stalked 52 doctors who they claim are spreaders of “misinformation”. These screenshots are from the MedPage puff piece, the authors of it barely conceal their true intentions which is to ultimately get the 52 doctors license suspended for not falling in line with what authorities say is true. It’s absolutely detestable.

God forbid they use their rights as a citizen based on their expertise as medical doctors to “discourage people from getting the COVID-19 vaccine” or talk about “unapproved” (an Orwellian slip) medications and treatments. These same people would be the first to defend giving a 10 year old Lupron off-label in order to freeze their puberty and destroy their endocrine systems because of transgender ideology but god forbid these doctors recommend one of the safest drugs administered to humans in history to undermine their precious mRNA platform.

They even go as far as to say they were “spewing conspiracy theories”, they can’t even hide their contempt for the truth. Finally they trot out an “expert” named Nick Sawyer from UC Davis Health to state that the findings were “pretty damning, especially to medical specialty societies, board certifying bodies, and state medical boards, and federal agencies with jurisdiction over these doctors”.

Their intentions couldn’t be more transparent, this was a coordinated operation to publish a study in a reputable journal, so that it could be pointed to by medical propagandists in order to give medical boards and federal authorities the pretext to go after the doctors who refuse to tow the line.

So who wrote this screed aka “Study”? Well according to the byline there are 6 authors but the common denominator is Sarah Goff MD, PhD she runs the lab this paper came out of. All of the other Authors are undergrads, if you click there names it will take you to a page that shows this is the first paper they have ever been on.

Sarah is Yale educated for her BS in Neurobiology and went to UMass for her Doctor of Philosophy and Public Health. Interesting combo.Sarah is Yale educated for her BS in Neurobiology and went to UMass for her Doctor of Philosophy and Public Health. Interesting combo.

She was recently awarded a $3 Million grant from NIH to study the impact of Medicaid ACO’s on Mental Health for children. Ok now on to the paper itself.

Let’s look at the Design which are based upon the CDC guidelines, so they have already dispensed with logic and have entered the political realm. The Setting is social media and MSM outlets and the Participants are the physicians they have decided to target using the data gleaned from those sources. Misinformation is taken as anything that steps outside the bounds of the official guidelines that left the US with the highest death rate for wealthy in the world during covid I might add.

The results simply lay bare what they are worried about people thinking. Vaccine aren’t safe or effective, using non-approved medications because you must take the vaccine, the FDA said so. Thinking that masks, which are bacteria filled Petri dishes sitting an inch from your nose and mouth, aren’t healthy for you. Most of all though, don’t promote conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus or even dare to think that the government lies because that would make you a conspiracy theorist you horrible person. How dare you think.

Conclusion: Needless to say, if you have already determined that the people you are going to target specifically for spreading “misinformation” that doesn’t align with government policy, your conclusion has been preordained. These filthy misinformation spreaders are causing real world harm and we need to invest a lot more into studying this. We also need to examine these potential word murderers intentions because there may be some legal or professional retribution we can dole out in order to make an example out of them.

Another curious aspect to this study is that it states it is funded “via internal support by UofMass and Dr. Goff”. However if the study was self-funded by Dr. Goff and U Mass, why would they feel the need to place a disclaimer about the US Department of Veterans Affairs & US Government???

This made me curious so I did a quick search on Sarah academic paper history. What I found was that she has wrote a couple papers that are housed on RAND Corps website?

Oddly enough she was writing about the importance of Fluoride Varnish for children 1-5 years old.

Both of the studies were published just months apart and are all about “Health Equity”, they need to know why mostly white kids are the only ones getting the Fluoride Varnish.

I googled “fluoride varnish costs between 1 - 5 years old Massachusetts” and those studies were in the first 5 search results. Further down I found a presentation by the “Office of Oral Health Massachusetts Department of Public Health entitled “Public Health Dental Hygienist Toolkit”.

As luck would have it I had just stumbled upon exactly what the RAND studies were referring to, the need to increase Fluoride Varnish treatments on 1-5 year olds, especially because of “health equity” naturally with an emphasis on “underprivileged”communities. So what do they recommend?

Source

Well firstly they immediately reference this as their “evidence” before continuing to the “data”.

You know I’m finding that document, so a quick search later and presto I found the document the Massachusetts Department of Health uses to make recommendations in regards to what people should put on their kids teeth between the ages of 1-5. Notice how I highlighted the “American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs”? Sounds official right? They are a council of “experts” appointed by the American Dental Association. An organization who sits at the heart of American Dentistry their About Page on the website states: “Together with our 159,000+ members, the ADA has been driving dentistry forward for more than 160 years.” So basically they have controlled the Dentistry Industry since 1859, James Buchanan was the president the last time they weren’t involved.

Source

According the the Fluoride Action Network: “The ADA and the ADA Foundation received over $28 million from pharmaceutical companies, dental equipment manufacturers and insurance companies, from 2006 – 2009, according to a January 20, 2010, letter from the ADA’s Chief Financial Officer to U.S. Senator Charles Grassley.”

This can’t possibly have any bearing on the recommendation can it? The major pharmaceutical companies that sell Fluoride are: Colgate, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble and Pfizer” All the heavy hitters have a stake in the dentistry’s industry.

The CDC named Fluoridation on of the “10 great public health achievements of the 20th century” so I think it’s safe to say that the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and government is a cozy one. They are both interested in making sure fluoridation continues to be used on the public at large.

Nevermind the fact that Fluoride has been found per a government sponsored report to be unsafe for children at the levels currently being used. That is why there is a major lawsuit happening right now to the CDC has been fighting tooth and nails.

Source

Also here is a post I made a while back explains the findings in the report.

Source

Now remember that paper from the council that was created by the ADA and that the Massachusetts government are using for recommendations? It was essentially ghostwritten by industry interests, that’s how this works. Here are the slides explaining the options for Fluoride:

The State of Massachusetts recommends the following for children 6 years old and Younger. Based on a risk assessment various forms of fluoride are the norm whether it be in the water, a must, toothpaste, or varnish. Either way they want fluoride in your child’s body.

I am sure it has nothing to do at all with the projected growth of the industry. Which is expected to reach $817,803 million by 2027.

Ok back to Sarah Goff and her studies that were released a few months apart in 2023 by RAND Corp. The Study 1 Conclusion although the rates are increasing, not enough equity has been spread around, those black and brown children’s rates are worryingly low, what would they do without our Fluoride?

Source

Study 2 was done in order to identify barriers to optimal fluoride application so it’s no surprise that they feel much work needs to be done to bring up those numbers because fluoride is apparently want 1-6 years old teeth crave.

Source

To summarize the original study I set out to examine for COI’s, was about targeting doctors who spread “misinformation” about COVID, this led me to the Fluoride industry which peculiarly enough, the author of the misinformation paper has ties to. She helped write 2 papers, promoted by RAND Corp. about the use of fluoride varnish. From Fluoride to a Misinformation paper targeting COVID doctors that was funded by UMass and Goff herself but placed a disclaimer on it about the views expressed are not representative of the views of the US Department of Veterans Affairs & US Government.

That got me thinking after the fact, so out of curiosity I searched the word “Government” within the study, thinking I may had missed something that said the government was somehow involved. To my surprise I was correct, this was an odd disclaimer because nothing else indicates government involvement. However, could it be because the word “government”is used 14 times in the paper?

I’m pretty sure by wanting to make clear the government definitely had no involvement, they revealed that the government definitely had involvement.

Something just didn’t add up so I wanted to see what else I could find on Sarah Goff, the Yale educated Neurobiologist with a Doctor of Philosophy and Public Health from UMass, who publishes for RAND Corp. Whilst promoting “Health Equity” via Fluoride and sponsored a paper targeting Doctors for not promoting the COVID-19 Vaccine.

In a jaw dropping twist, while searching about Sarah Goff in Massachusetts I came upon a substack post by non other than Meryl Nass, someone who is undoubtedly one of the 52 Doctors targeted. The post on her substack is about a covid vaccine mandate for a High School in Amherst, Massachusetts that was holding a COVID Vaccine clinic. It has a video of a school board meeting and a photo of this death certificate.

No way, it couldn’t be?

This was a local news story about why happened but did not mention family.

Before I jumped to conclusions I wanted to see what Amherst policy was for COVID Injections. Although the teachers mandate was lifted April 26th, 2023, the students mandate remained in effect. Considering this happy at an Amherst Cross Country event I think it is reasonable to infer what you are thinking.

But then my suspicions were unfortunately confirmed.

Finally as far as evidence goes, unfortunately here is the confirmatory obituary.

A photo of Anna Goff

I’ll end with this thought. It is inconceivable to me that after this happening, a person could sponsor a paper not only promoting the COVID injections but also takes it a step further and does so in a way that targets the very same doctors who warned you about it. How? I set out to simply learn about potential conflicts of interest, trying to understand the motivations of the authors who tow the “official line” and I ended up learning more about the true nature of this problem we all face than I could have ever have imagined. Let me tell you, it’s not comforting at all.

---

We The Free is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

---