EU Backtracks After Commissioner Threatened Musk Over Trump Interview
It took less than a day for the European Commission to completely backtrack on its attempt to intimidate X owner Elon Musk into censoring his interview with President Trump. Officials distanced themselves from the commissioner who sent the threatening letter and claimed that he acted alone, with no prior authorization from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
As we reported, Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton—the EU’s self-styled “digital enforcer” responsible for creating and overseeing the bloc’s infamous social media censorship tool, the Digital Services Act (DSA)—wrote a letter to Musk ahead of the billionaire’s two-hour-long live interview with the Republican presidential candidate, “reminding” him that failing to moderate any content on X that “may incite violence, hate, or racism … including in the context of elections” will face legal repercussions and the “full use of [the EU’s] toolbox.”
The threat turned out to be counterproductive as conservative politicians on both sides of the Atlantic rushed to call out Brussels’ attempt to violate the principles of freedom of expression as well as to interfere in the democratic electoral process of an outside country, the United States.
European Union is attempting to meddle in the US Election …they can go to hell https://t.co/d9ullhN0N2
— Chris LaCivita (@LaCivitaC) August 12, 2024
Facing the growing backlash, the Commission simply chose to throw Breton under the bus, completely washing its hands of what it described as the unfortunate action of an official gone rogue. “The timing and the wording of the letter were neither coordinated nor agreed with the president nor with the [other commissioners],” a Commission spokesman said on Tuesday, August 13th.
Several anonymous Eurocrats also came forward to snub Breton and further distance themselves from him. “Thierry has his own mind and way of working and thinking,” one of them told the FT; while another source seemed to regret the fact that Breton’s stunt may hinder future digital regulations. He told Politico that “DSA implementation is too important to be misused by an attention-seeking politician in search of his next big job.”
It may be true that the commissioner’s decision to send the letter was made without wider consent within the Commission, but the argument still seems like a weak excuse given that as Internal Market Chief, Breton is fully empowered to oversee enforcement of the DSA and can communicate with companies who fall subject to the new rules independently.
Furthermore, as much of a PR disaster as it turned out to be, Breton’s letter did not exist in a vacuum. Critics of the DSA have long warned that certain parts of the flagship legislation package can be easily misused to censor political opposition—primarily right-wing views—on social media, as it allows Brussels to unilaterally decide what it deems “harmful content” that must be purged from online discussions.
What’s more, the Commission spokesman also confirmed what Breton said in the letter, namely that the ongoing investigation against X into whether it violates the DSA by allowing too much free speech will take into account the restitution of Donald Trump’s account (suspended after the January 6th riots in DC), regardless of the fact that he’s running an election campaign.
Last month, Elon Musk also revealed that the European Commission offered him a “secret backroom deal” to increase censorship on X to avoid being slapped with massive fines under the DSA without having to compromise his image as a “free speech absolutist,” but the billionaire promptly refused. That discussion may have led Breton to write the first draft of the letter, which he admitted to keeping on the shelf for some time now while waiting for an appropriate time to publish.
In short, the DSA gives Brussels’ leftist bureaucrats every opportunity to abuse it by silencing political opposition, and Breton only did what was the logical next step of what has been in the works for years. His only mistake was to do it openly. Nonetheless, it would be naïve to think the Commission would not resort to the “full use of its toolbox” either way; it is just angry Breton drew attention to what has been going on from the beginning.
New EU Regulation on Healthcare Data Threatens Privacy and Security
In a bid to revolutionise healthcare accessibility and efficiency across European borders, a recent piece of legislation seeks to establish a centralised database for critical medical data. While the proposal is well-intentioned, there is cause for concern over its potential ramifications for data security and privacy. Despite these apprehensions, European policymakers have pushed forward with the legislation, seemingly overlooking the significant privacy risks it entails.
In the evolving landscape of European healthcare, the recent adoption of legislation on the European Health Data Space (EHDS) and regulations for substances of human origin (SoHO) by the European Parliament marks a significant step towards a more integrated approach to healthcare in the EU. On April 24th, with an overwhelming majority of 445 in favour, 142 against, and just 39 abstentions, the European Parliament endorsed the establishment of the EHDS, underscoring its potential to empower patients and healthcare professionals alike.
The EHDS aims to revolutionise healthcare delivery by centralising and standardising medical data across member states, thereby facilitating access to patient records and enabling seamless cross-border healthcare. This, coupled with the SoHO regulations aimed at ensuring the safety and quality of substances used in medical procedures, could, in theory, herald a new era of healthcare efficiency and safety within the European Union.
Undoubtedly, the intentions behind these regulations are noble, aiming to enhance healthcare outcomes, foster medical research, and guarantee the safety of medical procedures. However, it is crucial to critically examine the extent of data collection and the potential implications for data privacy and individual freedoms. The balance between the pursuit of public health benefits and the protection of citizens’ rights to privacy must be meticulously calibrated to prevent potential overreach by authorities and safeguard fundamental freedoms.
In the broader spectrum of European data governance, the EHDS intersects with regulations like the Data Governance Act (DGA), the Data Act (DA), and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). While the DGA focuses on horizontal rules for data availability in the public sector without mandatory sharing, the EHDS mandates centralised medical data sharing across member states. The DA emphasises commercial data sharing and emergency data access, a gap filled by the EHDS’s legal basis provision for data disclosure. Similarly, the GDPR provides targeted data subject rights and safeguards for health data, aligning with the EHDS’s aim of enabling research through secondary data use.
The new regulation promises a future where patients have immediate and easy access to their digital health data across borders. It envisions a scenario where healthcare professionals can seamlessly access patient records from different EU countries, facilitating evidence-based decision-making and ensuring continuity of care.
However, amid the optimism, concerns loom large regarding data privacy and potential surveillance. As health data becomes increasingly digitised and centralised, questions arise regarding the security of sensitive medical information and the risk of unauthorised access or breaches. Recent high-profile cyberattacks on institutions like LastPass and the British Library underscore the pervasive threat posed by malicious actors seeking to exploit vulnerabilities in digital infrastructure. The EHDS, with its vast repository of sensitive health data from across the EU, presents an attractive target for hackers seeking to steal valuable information or disrupt healthcare services.
The possibility of large-scale data aggregation also raises legitimate concerns about government surveillance. Government agencies could find it easier to access comprehensive health profiles of individuals, potentially leading to privacy violations and infringements on civil liberties. The centralised nature of the EHDS also raises concerns about the potential for data misuse, whether for political, discriminatory, or commercial purposes. Without robust safeguards and oversight mechanisms in place, there is a real risk that the EHDS could erode individual privacy rights and undermine trust in healthcare systems.
The scope of government access to health data must be limited to protect patient privacy and basic civil liberties. Any such access must be strictly justified and subject to independent oversight. Clear guidelines should be established regarding the permissible purposes for which government agencies can access health data, with robust safeguards in place to prevent abuse or unauthorised use.
Mechanisms for transparency and public accountability should be strengthened, allowing citizens to scrutinise the actions of government entities and hold them accountable for any breaches of privacy or misuse of data. Furthermore, enhancing data security measures, such as encryption, access controls, and regular audits, is essential to mitigate the risk of data breaches and unauthorised access.
Ultimately, the success of the EHDS and SoHO regulations hinges on transparency, accountability, and a steadfast commitment to upholding individual rights. Achieving this delicate balance between facilitating data access for healthcare purposes and safeguarding personal privacy demands ongoing vigilance and rigorous oversight. On the crucial issue of patient privacy and civil liberties, we must not take our eye off the ball. To instil trust and confidence in the regulatory framework, it is imperative to establish transparent governance mechanisms and enforce strict accountability measures.
Citizens must be empowered with the knowledge and tools to understand how their medical data is being used, whether for direct patient care, research, or public health initiatives, and to exercise control over its dissemination. Likewise, healthcare providers and policymakers must remain vigilant about protecting patient privacy and upholding the highest ethical standards in medical practice.
BREAKING: Tim Walz Caught in New Acts of Stolen Valor
On the Wednesday show Alex Jones covered the latest resurfaced stolen valor videos of Democrat candidate Kamala Harris’ Vice Presidential pick Tim Walz.
Don’t miss:
POWERFUL VIDEO: Black Man Lays Out the Real History of the Republican & Democrat Parties
During the Wednesday show Alex Jones analyzed a video of a black man explaining the racist history of the Democrat party.
BREAKING: NYC to Spend 5 Billion a Year Catering to Illegal Aliens
On the Wednesday show Alex Jones covered how the illegal alien invaders in New York City will cost the city $5 billion and that figure is set to double.
Don’t miss:
‘Medical Warfare’: Doctors Who Questioned Covid Shots, Promoted Ivermectin Lose Certification
Two doctors who spoke out about vaccines and alternative treatments for COVID-19 received notice that their medical certifications were revoked, while another doctor said her certification was revoked without her knowledge.
The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) last week revoked the certifications of Drs. Pierre Kory and Paul Marik, following a two-year investigation into their promotion of ivermectin andhydroxychloroquine as treatments for COVID-19 and their statements questioning the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
According to The Washington Post, the two physicians continued “to promote ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medication, as a treatment for COVID long after the medical community found it to be ineffective.”
Kory and Marik are co-founders of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which promotes alternative treatments for COVID-19.
Citing unnamed experts, the Post claimed the FLCCC “spread misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic.”
MedPageToday quoted an ABIM spokesperson, who said the organization “does not comment publicly on the reasons for the revocation of certification.”
However, in a summary of the ABIM’s decision reviewed by The Defender, the organization stated that the doctors’ “conduct poses serious concerns for patient safety and undermines the trust that the public and the medical profession place in the meaning of ABIM board certification.”
In a press release, the FLCCC Alliance said it “categorically disagrees” with ABIM’s decision.
“We believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundational principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations,” the press release states.
Marik told The Defender:
“The bottom line is we’re disappointed because we stand up for the truth. To censor science is to censor progress. Science is based on dialogue and people can have different points of view. That is the principle of science: it’s people having different points of view.
“We’ve never been in a situation before where physicians who have opposing points of view are silenced … It sets a really bad precedent that you can’t really challenge the status quo, and as we know, in medicine, there have been very dramatic changes based on changing understandings of science.”
In the FLCCC Alliance press release, Kory said, “This fight is about more than just our right to speak — it’s about protecting the future of healthcare. When doctors are silenced for questioning the prevailing narrative, we all lose.”
Kory and Marik participated in an ABIM hearing in May, but internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender that ABIM revoked her certification without her knowledge.
Nass said she was blindsided by ABIM’s decision to revoke her license, which she said she found out about only when she searched for herself in the organization’s database of certified physicians.
Nass told The Defender:
“After the Maine Medical Board suspended my license illegally — even though none of my alleged transgressions met the statutory requirement for an immediate suspension — the board later found me guilty of things I had not done and continued the suspension … All of this with never a single patient complaint.
“Now I learn, by chance, that the ABIM has suspended me without ever informing me I was even under an investigation, which is illegal according to the ABIM’s process.”
Dr. Peter McCullough also faced similar difficulties with the ABIM over his positions on COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. According to MedPageToday, ABIM revoked his certifications in 2022 — although, as of today, ABIM lists him as certified.
McCullough told The Defender, “The ABIM is violating principles of equal protection, due process, rules of evidence and has gone ex post facto to find reasons to attack qualified ABIM-certified doctors who innovated and saved lives early in the pandemic.”
Science based on ‘different points of view’
Kory and Marik held ABIM certifications in internal and critical care medicine, while Kory was also certified in pulmonary disease, according to MedPageToday.
They were initially notified about the risk of losing their certification in May 2022. Last year, ABIM’s Credentials and Certification Committee recommended the revocation of their certification for disseminating “false or inaccurate medical information.” A hearing followed in May.
According to the FLCCC Alliance’s press release, Kory and Marik “tirelessly defended their positions.” However, despite “presenting over 170 references in a detailed 60-page response submitted in January 2023, the ABIM has chosen to dismiss these robust scientific contributions in favor of a narrow, ‘consensus-driven’ narrative.”
According to the summary of ABIM’s decision, Kory and Marik’s “statements about the safety and efficacy of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine” as treatments for COVID-19 “are false and inaccurate because they are unsupported by factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven medical information.”
The ABIM also addressed the doctors’ positions on the COVID-19 vaccines:
“[The doctors’] statements about the purported ineffectiveness and dangers of COVID-19 vaccines are false and inaccurate because they are unsupported by factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven medical information. …
“ There is extensive factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven medical information demonstrating that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, and lead to better health outcomes.”
Marik questioned the board’s assertions regarding ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and the vaccines.
“What they do is, they cherry-pick articles which support their point of view and then they go on to say the vaccine is safe and effective. We know that’s completely not true. There’s overwhelming data to question both the safety and efficacy of the vaccine,” Marik added.
McCullough said:
“ABIM never updated its members on important risks such as fatal vaccine adverse events, including myocarditis, nor failing theoretical efficacy necessitating boosters that skipped human testing altogether.
“Setting a new dark milestone, ABIM is decertifying highly qualified physicians for nonclinical reasons and ignoring the evidence for early therapeutics and COVID-19 vaccine safety.”
ABIM engaging in ‘medical lawfare’
According to the Post, Kory maintains a license to practice medicine in California, New York and Wisconsin, where “there are no disciplinary actions listed against him.” Marik has retired and his medical license expired in 2022.
Revocation of their ABIM certification “effectively prevents them from practicing at large hospitals and academic institutions,” the Post reported.
Marik and Nass outlined the difficulties of practicing medicine without certification.
“It doesn’t affect us directly, but it affects us indirectly because we’re being accused of committing offenses that are just not true,” Marik said. “The indirect impact to our reputation … it’s a slap in the face, basically, for all the hard work we’ve done.”
Accusing the ABIM of being part of the “medical-industrial complex,” Marik said, “They seem more interested in making money than in protecting physicians. There have been a number of lawsuits against ABIM, so they don’t have the best of reputations. But unfortunately, they are the main certifying organization in the U.S., so they have enormous power and leverage.”
“If I get my license back — a big if, without board certification, I would have great difficulty getting hospital privileges and collecting insurance reimbursements. In other words, I would be unemployable, though I could potentially work on my own if patients paid me directly,” Nass said.
In 2021, ABIM and the Federation of State Medical Boards collaborated to draft the statement used to discipline Nass.
Nass said organizations like ABIM are engaging in “medical lawfare.” She said they are:
“Creating crimes that do not exist, using procedures that do not exist, to try and silence people like me. What did I do wrong? I read the literature and told the truth about what it said, publicly. The COVID vaccines are very dangerous. They don’t prevent COVID. Drugs can effectively treat COVID. And I prescribed those drugs and helped hundreds of Maine citizens. That was my crime.”