Broken Truth

On October 2, 2025, John Davidson of BrokenTruth.TV sat down with Dr. Sheila Furey, president of the Virginia Medical Freedom Alliance (VAMFA), for an in-depth discussion on the intersections of constitutional rights, medical autonomy, and ongoing threats to personal freedoms. The interview, which touched on topics from COVID-era mandates to gender ideology and vaccine-informed consent, served as a prelude to VAMFA’s upcoming summit. As the nation continues to grapple with the aftermath of public health policies and increasing governmental controls, Dr. Furey’s insights underscore the urgency of her organization’s second annual event, co-hosted with Feds for Freedom.

Interview Summary

The conversation began with Dr. Furey outlining the summit’s focus: “Medical Freedom in the Constitution,” emphasizing how the U.S. Constitution should safeguard individual rights against government overreach. She highlighted the “destruction of the Constitution” during the COVID-19 pandemic through lockdowns, church closures, and vaccine mandates, which she described as violations of bodily autonomy and informed consent. Dr. Furey expressed concerns about emerging threats like digital IDs, Real ID, and mechanisms for total government control, drawing parallels to developments in Europe and Canada.

Davidson and Dr. Furey discussed the “eye-opener” of the past five years, noting a growing public thirst for information on these issues. Dr. Furey stressed the importance of educating families to protect their children from ongoing medical mandates and vaccine injuries, which she argued lack true informed consent. She criticized the childhood vaccine schedule, urging parents to question doctors about side effects, ingredients, and testing—information often not provided.

The interview delved into vaccine injuries, with Dr. Furey sharing stories of parents awakening to the harms and seeking healing for their children. She celebrated grassroots victories, such as those by Feds for Freedom against federal mandates, while lamenting the lack of accountability for figures like Pfizer’s Albert Bourla. Dr. Furey attributed this to indoctrination in the medical community, guilt among doctors, and government protection of Big Pharma, which she said has “destroyed the health of this nation” for over a century.

A significant portion addressed gender dysphoria and trans ideology. As a child and adolescent psychiatrist, Dr. Furey traced its roots to the 1920s–1930s with figures like Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld and Dr. Harry Benjamin, linking it to Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s abusive “research” on children. She criticized changes in the DSM from “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria,” which she sees as normalizing discomfort rather than addressing underlying issues like sexual abuse (affecting 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys before age 18) or cognitive disabilities. Dr. Furey advised parents to affirm their child’s God-given gender as a gift and explore discomfort from a child’s perspective, sharing an anecdote of a boy confusing friendship with gender change.

The discussion also touched on broader societal issues, including the sexualization of children in schools and media, homeschooling as a response, and the need for churches and citizens to stand against policies like abortion without parental consent or medical assistance in dying. Dr. Furey warned of political threats in Virginia’s upcoming gubernatorial election, particularly candidate Abigail Spanberger’s positions, urging action to prevent “absolute tyranny.”

Throughout, both emphasized networking and empowerment through events like the summit, where attendees can connect with experts, celebrate victories, and build resilience against future overreach. Dr. Furey described the movement as “miraculous,” fostering sharing among medical freedom groups nationwide.

About the Upcoming Event: Medical Freedom and The Constitution – Protecting Yourself From Government Overreach

Scheduled for October 10–11, 2025, at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia, this two-day summit aims to empower attendees with constitutional knowledge to combat government encroachment on medical and personal freedoms. Co-hosted by VAMFA and Feds for Freedom, the event features a stellar lineup of speakers addressing topics like vaccine mandates, informed consent, HIPAA myths, organ harvesting, digital IDs, and constitutional challenges.

Key speakers include:

* Alex Newman: Journalist and author on globalism and education.

* Ivan Raiklin: Constitutional attorney and strategist.

* Christine Dolan: Investigative journalist interviewing pilot Jim Zitlow on aviation mandates.

* Steve Krahling: Whistleblower on vaccines and questions parents should ask doctors.

* Twila Brase: Expert on HIPAA lies and Real ID.

* Garret O’Boyle: FBI whistleblower on government overreach.

* William Olson: Constitutional lawyer.

* Dr. Irene Mavrakakis: On life, death, and hidden organ harvesting practices.

* Dr. Sheila Furey: Child psychiatrist on medical freedom and gender issues.

* Matt Strickland: Veteran and business owner challenging mandates.

* Marcus Thornton and Jim Erdman: Co-founders of Feds for Freedom, sharing their historic legal victories.

* Bernadette Pajer: Advocate on vaccine policy.

* Rob Green: Military veteran on freedom issues.

The summit encourages reflection, networking, and Q&A, with speakers available both days. It’s designed for freedom-loving individuals, families, students, and professionals to forge connections, share wisdom, and learn alternative paths to compliance. Attendees are urged to bring resumes if interested in internships or collaborations with speakers from military, government, and medical fields.How to Buy TicketsTickets are available now through the VAMFA website at vamfa.org. Early bird pricing has ended, but standard rates are affordable:

* Friday Ticket: $30

* Saturday Ticket: $75

High school and college students attend free (thanks to a generous donation), but must register in advance and present a valid student ID at the door. To purchase:

* Visit the event page on vamfa.org.

* Select your ticket type and quantity.

* Complete attendee information and proceed to checkout.

Seats are limited and expected to sell out, so act quickly. For questions, contact VAMFA via their website.This summit represents a critical opportunity to reclaim constitutional protections amid ongoing threats to medical freedom. As Dr. Furey noted in the interview, “This is our time and we can no longer sit on the sidelines.” Whether you’re a parent, student, or concerned citizen, attending could equip you to protect your family and community. For more on VAMFA’s mission, visit vamfa.org.

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

In a new episode of BrokenTruth.TV aired on September 29, 2025, host John Davidson and co-host Attorney Warner Mendenhall welcomed Dr. William Makis, a Canadian physician whose courageous stand against medical establishment corruption has made him a global figure in the fight for medical freedom and patient rights. Dr. Makis, board-certified in nuclear medicine, radiology, and oncology, shared his harrowing personal story of persecution by Canadian health authorities, insights into systemic healthcare failures, and groundbreaking work on repurposed drugs for cancer treatment. The interview shed light on the dark underbelly of modern medicine, from vaccine mandates to “turbo cancers,” and the urgent need for reform.

A Physician’s Fight for Freedom of Speech

Dr. Makis, who earned his medical degree and specialized at McGill University, detailed how his career was derailed just before the COVID-19 pandemic. His innovative cancer program in Edmonton, Alberta, was allegedly sabotaged by Alberta Health Services (AHS), leading to a $13.5 million lawsuit for breach of contract and malfeasance. When he refused a settlement, his medical license was effectively held hostage by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA).

As the pandemic unfolded, Dr. Makis began speaking out against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and the vaccines themselves, which he described as “dangerous and flawed” based on data from early rollouts, such as in Israel. This dissent triggered a barrage of threats from the CPSA, including attempts to silence him through courts, declare him a vexatious litigant, and strip his Charter rights to freedom of expression. “They’ve tried to destroy me financially,” Dr. Makis recounted, noting frozen bank accounts, seized funds totaling $150,000, and even threats of imprisonment.

Despite these assaults, Dr. Makis has built a massive following, with nearly 600,000 on X (formerly Twitter), making him one of the most followed physicians globally. His supporters rallied, raising over $290,000 for his legal defense, allowing him to retain top freedom-fighting lawyers. Co-host Mendenhall drew parallels to U.S. cases, like a recent First Amendment win in Washington State for a physician’s free speech rights, emphasizing the need for ongoing support for dissenting doctors.

Corruption in Healthcare: Bureaucrats, Big Pharma, and Lost Accountability

The conversation delved into the structural issues plaguing healthcare systems in both Canada and the U.S. Dr. Makis highlighted how Canadian medical boards, operating as private corporations, interfere in doctor-patient relationships, prohibiting informed consent discussions about vaccine risks. “Doctors are not allowed to give informed consent anymore because of this one particular class of pharmaceutical products,” he stated, referring to COVID vaccines.

In Canada, bureaucrats and administrators act as intermediaries for Big Pharma’s influence, dictating practices through memos and multi-billion-dollar contracts. Alberta Health Services, with its $26 billion annual budget, exemplifies this lack of transparency and accountability. Dr. Makis criticized the absence of oversight, noting how provincial governments have abdicated responsibility, allowing ethical breaches like the persecution of doctors prescribing ivermectin or writing vaccine exemptions.

Mendenhall echoed these concerns, pointing to U.S. parallels: corporate ownership of healthcare, pharmacy benefit managers limiting drug formularies, and captured medical boards infiltrating with globalist agendas over decades. Both agreed that without accountability, ethical medicine is impossible. Dr. Makis lamented the destruction of lives, including his own inability to practice as an oncologist, forcing him to assist cancer patients only as a “health coach.”

Political Disappointments and the Need for Grassroots Action

Dr. Makis expressed deep disappointment in Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who campaigned on dissolving the CPSA but backtracked after election. Under her leadership, his persecution intensified, including a post-leadership review court application for his imprisonment. He speculated on behind-the-scenes deals with powerful pharmaceutical interests, citing scandals involving privatization and multi-million-dollar lawsuits.

The panel discussed similar U.S. dynamics, with slow progress under new administrations despite expanded discussions on vaccines and off-label drugs. “No one is coming to save us,” Mendenhall asserted. “It’s up to us as a people to make our voices heard.” Dr. Makis urged support for physicians like Drs. Peter McCullough, Mary Talley Bowden, and others facing similar boards, emphasizing the need for systemic rethinking of medical licensing.

Breakthrough Cancer Treatments with Repurposed Drugs

Shifting to his pioneering work, Dr. Makis explained his shift to repurposed drugs like ivermectin, fenbendazole, and mebendazole for cancer, inspired by suppressed research during the pandemic. His protocols, published in peer-reviewed papers, have shown remarkable results: a 75% response rate in stage 4 patients, with 25-30% experiencing dramatic tumor shrinkage, especially when combined with chemotherapy.

He shared stories of patients pulled from hospice or offered euthanasia who became cancer-free, including a stage 4 pancreatic cancer case. These drugs, cheap and off-patent, threaten the $200 billion cancer industry dominated by players like Pfizer and AstraZeneca. Dr. Makis criticized oncology’s profit-driven model, where patients are seen as “a $500,000 to $1 million savings account” for pharma, exhausted on expensive treatments before being abandoned.

Addressing critics who dismiss his successes as “anecdotal,” he countered: “I have over a thousand anecdotes. At what point does it become evidence?” He pointed to Johns Hopkins’ patent on mebendazole for glioblastoma and ongoing clinical trials, questioning why major centers like MD Anderson aren’t investigating these further.

Turbo Cancers, Vaccine Links, and DNA Contamination

A chilling segment covered “turbo cancers”—aggressive, treatment-resistant cancers linked to COVID vaccines. Dr. Makis cited mechanisms like IgG4 immune shifts that tolerate cancer cells, supported by emerging peer-reviewed studies from Italy and elsewhere. These cancers defy conventional prognoses, with patients dying months after being told they had years.

He warned of DNA contamination in vaccines, including SV40 promoters (from simian virus 40, historically linked to tumors), hidden from regulators. Process changes in manufacturing amplified risks, potentially facilitating genomic integration. “The technology itself is not fit for human use,” he concluded, calling for fraud investigations to vitiate pharma’s legal protections and pursue criminal accountability.

Mendenhall referenced ongoing fraud cases, like whistleblower Brooke Jackson’s suit against Pfizer, urging the new U.S. administration to reverse dismissals. Both stressed proving fraud to seize assets and bankrupt culpable companies.

A Call to Action

This interview underscores the urgent battle for medical integrity amid corruption and censorship. Dr. Makis’s resilience inspires, but as he noted, change requires collective action. For more, visit Dr. Makis’s Substack at drwilliammakismd.substack.com, follow him on X @MakisMD, or watch the full episode on BrokenTruth.TV. BrokenTruth.TV continues to platform voices like Dr. Makis, fostering the discussions needed to reclaim healthcare from vested interests.

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

In a riveting interview on BrokenTruth.TV aired on September 25, 2025, host John Davidson sat down with Nicole Sirotek of American Frontline Nurses and Dr. Sabine Hazan, a renowned gastroenterologist and microbiome expert. The discussion centered on a viral social media video posted by Sirotek on September 24, detailing a tragic case of acetaminophen (Tylenol) overdose in a pregnant woman, sparked by political backlash to former President Donald Trump’s comments on a potential link between the drug and autism. The conversation highlighted the lethal risks of the over-the-counter medication, the politicization of medical science, and the urgent need for public education amid dangerous TikTok challenges.

The Viral Video and the Tragic Case

Sirotek recounted receiving a frantic early-morning call from a husband whose wife, 23-25 weeks pregnant, was in critical condition on a ventilator due to liver failure from a Tylenol overdose. The woman had reportedly taken excessive amounts to “prove” that Tylenol does not cause autism, reacting to Trump’s reference to a Harvard study during a recent announcement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Sirotek emphasized the slow, painful nature of Tylenol overdose without timely intervention, noting that antidotes like N-acetylcysteine must be administered within 8-24 hours to prevent death, which can occur in 4-18 days.

“This was a preventable situation,” Sirotek said in her video, lamenting the potential loss of life for both mother and child. She described the husband’s dilemma: whether to attempt an emergency delivery, risking the premature baby’s survival and long-term complications in the NICU. Sirotek stressed that the incident stemmed from TikTok challenges where users, including pregnant women and even a doctor, filmed themselves consuming large doses of Tylenol to counter Trump’s claims.

“This was a preventable situation,”-Nicole Sirotek

The video garnered over 5 million views after being amplified by major accounts, leading to a mix of positive awareness about Tylenol’s dangers and negative backlash, including safety concerns for Sirotek’s family due to past stalking incidents following her testimony before Senator Ron Johnson.

Medical Insights from Dr. Sabine Hazan

Dr. Hazan provided scientific context, acknowledging the HHS announcement and Harvard study’s hypothesis that acetaminophen could be a risk factor for autism and ADHD, though she described autism as multifactorial. “It’s an interesting study and definitely could have some basis as a risk factor for autism,” she said, but cautioned against viewing it as the sole cause.

Hazan warned of Tylenol’s toxicity, especially in vulnerable individuals with pre-existing liver issues, kidney problems, or during pregnancy—where the drug is not recommended. She highlighted how factors like depleted glutathione or metabolic issues could lower the threshold for overdose. Drawing from her microbiome research, Hazan linked repeated exposures (e.g., post-vaccination fevers treated with Tylenol) to disruptions in gut bacteria like bifidobacteria, potentially exacerbating conditions like autism.

She urged anyone who participated in the Tylenol challenge to seek immediate medical help: “You have four to 24 hours to get the antidote. Otherwise, you’re dead in four to 18 days.” Hazan criticized the lack of public warnings from health agencies and media, calling for disclaimers amid political meddling in medicine. “Politics are meddling into medicine,” she said, noting how Trump’s statement ignited anger without adequate education on risks.

Mental Health, Media, and Mistrust in Healthcare

The interview delved into societal issues, with Hazan attributing rising irrational behaviors—like TikTok challenges (recalling past Benadryl and cinnamon fads)—to microbiome alterations linked to mental health declines post-COVID. “We have a mental health issue in this country,” she stated, tying it to long COVID, spike protein injuries, and widespread anger fueled by media division.

Sirotek discussed media outreach, including from CNN, but emphasized ethical boundaries in protecting the family’s privacy. She noted mistrust in healthcare protocols, explaining why desperate individuals contact her: “There’s such a mistrust in health care that someone who had my contact information said, ‘Call her.’” Both guests lamented politicized medicine, where patient care is influenced by affiliations, and called for critical thinking over blind following.

They warned of unintended consequences from the HHS announcement, such as pregnant women avoiding necessary pain relief without alternatives, potentially leading to surges in febrile seizures or unguided naturopathic remedies. “There was no additional public education on this,” Sirotek said, highlighting confusion among patients told by doctors to take Tylenol.

Fallout and Calls for Humanity

The guests addressed personal attacks: Sirotek faced hate after a misreported post implied she was the overdosed woman, while Hazan shared experiences of “PubPeer attacks” and paper retractions following her own Senate testimony. She defiantly stated she’s withholding new autism-related discoveries, including a case of verbalizing autistic twins, to avoid further harassment: “Nothing’s coming out of my brain. I don’t need to publish.”

In closing, the trio emphasized compassion over division. “Get back to being a human again and have a heart,” Hazan urged, while Sirotek called for prayers and education to prevent unnecessary suffering. Davidson praised their efforts, noting their appearances in the film Epidemic of Fraud.

This interview serves as a stark reminder of how political rhetoric, social media trends, and inadequate health messaging can intersect with deadly consequences, urging viewers to prioritize facts, consult professionals, and avoid risky challenges. As Sirotek concluded, “If we stop fighting and work cohesively together, we can prevent a lot of unnecessary suffering.”

See both Dr. Hazan and Nicole Sirotek in the award winning documentary “Epidemic of Fraud”, now.

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

In a powerful interview on BrokenTruth.TV, host John Davidson and co-host Attorney Warner Mendenhall sat down with Attorney Gregory G. Yacoubian and his clients, former Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) employees Jeannine Bedard and Mike Parks. The discussion delved into the personal and legal ramifications of refusing the City of Los Angeles's COVID-19 vaccine mandates, highlighting issues of labor rights, due process, and the broader societal impacts of such policies. Bedard and Parks, both terminated for non-compliance, shared their stories of resilience, faith, and determination amid what they describe as illegal impositions by their employer.

Background on the Mandates and Legal Foundation

The controversy stems from a City of Los Angeles Ordinance enacted in August 2021 (No. 187134), which mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for city employees, including police officers and firefighters. The ordinance allowed for religious or medical exemptions, with exempted individuals required to undergo weekly testing while on duty and at the city's expense. However, shortly after—in late 2021—the city unilaterally imposed additional conditions without amending the ordinance. Employees were required to sign a "Notice" agreeing to pay for their own testing (approximately $561 per month) and conduct it off-duty, effectively as a new condition of employment.

Those who refused, like Bedard and Parks, were relieved of duty and faced disciplinary hearings leading to termination. Yacoubian argues this violated several provisions of the California Labor Code, which prohibits employers from requiring workers to pay for business expenses or perform unpaid work off-duty. Additionally, the summary discipline process bypassed due process requirements established in the landmark California case Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975), which mandates minimum procedural safeguards for public employees facing termination.

Yacoubian, a seasoned litigator with over 21 years defending police officers and firefighters, brings unique expertise to the case. A retired LAPD lieutenant with more than 40 years in law enforcement, he remains a reserve officer and certified instructor with California's Peace Officers' Standards and Training (POST). He has also served as an adjunct professor at three law schools. In the interview, Yacoubian emphasized that his clients had served faithfully during the early pandemic—working under emergency conditions for 18 months—only to face these abrupt changes.

Jeannine Bedard's Case: A Push to the U.S. Supreme Court

Sergeant Jeannine Bedard, with 24 years at LAPD, described the intense pressure from superiors and colleagues to comply. Positioned in an office role, she questioned the necessity of the mandate, citing early evidence that the vaccines did not prevent transmission or infection. Bedard refused to sign the Notice, viewing it as an illegal alteration of her employment terms. Despite her clean record and coveted assignment, she was terminated after a Board of Rights hearing.

Her case has advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court via a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Docket No. 24-1263), set for conference on September 29, 2025.[^1] The petition argues that California state courts' failure to rule on the Labor Code violations infringes on federal due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Bedard highlighted her faith and family as key motivators, stating she aimed to set an example for her four daughters by standing against coercion. "If we don't stand up, who's going to?" she asked, reflecting on the broader erosion of trust during the pandemic.

In the interview, Bedard also noted the union's initial lawsuit against the city, which resulted in a July 2023 ruling halting testing fees (though settled without full reinstatement for terminated employees). She expressed frustration over inconsistent enforcement, with some officers evading mandates quietly while vocal resisters like herself faced swift repercussions.

Mike Parks' Case: Addressing Conflicts in California Law

Officer Mike Parks, from a law enforcement family (his father served 36 years with LAPD), echoed Bedard's experiences. Working in sexual assault investigations, Parks volunteered for high-risk duties early in the pandemic, even after contracting COVID-19 himself (which he described as mild). He submitted a religious exemption but refused the off-duty testing fees, leading to his relief from duty on Christmas Eve 2021 and eventual termination—just days before his first child's birth.

Parks' case is pending at the California Supreme Court via a Petition for Review (Docket No. S292889), filed recently and awaiting a start date as of September 9, 2025.[^2] It seeks to resolve a conflict between recent appellate decisions—Krug v. Board of Trustees and In re Acknowledgment Cases—regarding the application of Labor Code protections to public employees. Parks emphasized the city's blatant disregard for its own ordinance, calling the Notice a contract that illegally shifted costs. He also recounted retaliation against his wife, an LAPD sergeant, who faced suspension for not wearing a mask during his hearing while nine months pregnant.

Like Bedard, Parks credited his faith and family for his resolve, stating he would not change his decision despite financial hardships. He lamented the department's bias against those with religious convictions, noting how resisters were labeled as risks while others slipped under the radar.

Broader Themes: Political Pressure, Faith, and Societal Lessons

The interview touched on political pressures influencing outcomes, from judicial decisions to union settlements. Yacoubian described ideological drives among some city attorneys and internal pushes for compliance, warning that such precedents could backfire on public employers. Both clients and Yacoubian highlighted a perceived bias against faith-based objections, with evil forces at play in a city focused on "money and power."

Mendenhall and Davidson drew parallels to historical oppressions, referencing books like Live Not by Lies and emphasizing faith and family as anchors against tyranny. They praised the "unheralded" millions who resisted mandates, noting recent FDA discussions on DNA contamination in vaccines as vindication. Guests urged continued vigilance, with Yacoubian calling for a clearinghouse of factual resources to combat ongoing misinformation.

As Bedard's Supreme Court conference approaches and Parks' petition progresses, these cases could set precedents for employee rights nationwide. Bedard and Parks, now in new roles—Bedard in advocacy and Parks in law enforcement training—remain committed: "If you can't fight, we'll fight for you." Their stories underscore the human cost of mandates and the enduring power of principle.

[^1]: U.S. Supreme Court Docket Search: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx (confirmed as of September 22, 2025).

[^2]: California Supreme Court Docket Search:

https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov

(confirmed as of September 22, 2025).

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

On September 15, 2025, just days after the shocking assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in Utah on September 10, John Davidson, host of Broken Truth, sat down for an impromptu interview with attorney Warner Mendenhall, co-founder of Freedom Counsel and owner of Mendenhall Law Firm.

The discussion, marked by technical glitches and a somber tone, served as Davidson's first public statement since the tragedy. What unfolded was a raw, hour-long dialogue touching on grief, the sanctity of free speech, the dangers of political violence, election integrity, the role of nonprofits in shaping ideology, and calls for accountability through legal channels.

Mourning Charlie Kirk: A Loss to Truth and Freedom

The interview opened with heartfelt reflections on Kirk's death, which authorities have described as a politically motivated attack by a suspect with leftist ideologies.

Davidson, who did not know Kirk personally but admired his work, expressed profound sorrow. "This is the first time I've spoken publicly since Charlie's assassination," he said, noting how Kirk's advocacy for the unborn, women, Christianity, and foundational American principles had permeated social media and inspired many. He highlighted the courage required to speak truth in a hostile environment, calling Kirk's loss "devastating to our nation, to our movement of truth and freedom."

Mendenhall echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that violence to silence speech represents "a complete breakdown of humanity." He drew parallels to nonviolent leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Tolstoy, warning that violence breeds chaos, which often benefits elites who exploit divisions. Both men stressed that regardless of agreement with Kirk's views, his right to express them under the First Amendment was inviolable. Mendenhall praised Kirk for platforming discussions on vaccine issues early, including his own lawsuit against Pfizer for alleged clinical trial fraud, and for listening to opposing voices without interruption.

The conversation turned to the potential "chilling effect" on future voices. Davidson referenced cartoonist Scott Adams' reluctance to engage publicly due to life risks, while Mendenhall invoked faith and sacrifice, citing figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who continues advocacy despite family history of assassinations. They hoped Kirk's legacy would inspire millions to speak out, fostering a renewed patriotic spirit amid nationwide vigils.

The Perils of Violence and the Need for Nonviolent Resistance

A recurring theme was the rejection of retaliatory violence. Davidson worried about those seeking "violence with violence," while Mendenhall reiterated that retribution should come through nonviolent means, such as investigations. He warned that chaos serves those in power, urging awareness of broader manipulations.

The duo discussed how suppressed speech leads to isolation, with Davidson sharing an anecdote about a contractor desperate for open conversation. Kirk's work, they argued, had shown young people they were not alone, countering campus censorship. Mendenhall tied this to global trends, citing arrests in Australia and England for social media posts, contrasting it with America's free speech tradition.

Scrutinizing Nonprofits and Ideological FundingShifting to accountability, the interview delved into nonprofits (NGOs) potentially fostering divisive ideologies. Davidson linked this to Kirk's assassination, suggesting investigations into organizations that nurture "psychotic thought." Mendenhall pointed to Arabella Advisors as a prime example—a Washington, D.C.-based firm managing a network of left-leaning funds often criticized as a "dark money" hub.

He described it as a "spider web" of nonprofits, sometimes funded by taxpayer dollars through entities like USAID, promoting ideologies antithetical to American values, including speech suppression.

They critiqued tax-exempt status enabling such groups, noting how donors like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation bypass taxes to fund agendas.

Mendenhall argued that partisan activities violate IRS rules for 501(c)(3) organizations, making them vulnerable to revocation. He referenced Zuckerberg's 2020 election funding, where over $400 million from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative flowed through nonprofits like the Center for Tech and Civic Life to support election administration amid COVID—funds that critics claim disproportionately boosted Democratic turnout.

Such interference, they said, undermines local election integrity.

Election Integrity: From Fraud to Reform

The discussion expanded to election malfeasance, with Mendenhall distinguishing voter fraud (individual acts, often prosecuted) from election fraud (systemic issues like machine manipulation and unobserved drop boxes). He advocated for hand-counted paper ballots to restore observability, criticizing centralized, computerized systems vulnerable to algorithms and AI.

Examples included Fulton County's refusal to seat GOP election board members, leading to daily fines, and ignored state board requests for materials.

Mendenhall lamented the lack of enforcement, noting post-2020 lawsuits often dismissed on standing grounds rather than merits. He called for legislative fixes to grant voters standing and decentralize processes.

On judiciary, Mendenhall defended independence despite frustrations with lenient sentences, arguing it's essential for checks like overturning vaccine mandates. He opposed mandatory minimums, favoring political accountability through elections and retention votes.

Whistleblowing and a Call to Action

Wrapping up, Mendenhall outlined NGOs' weaknesses: partisan bias and misuse of funds. He encouraged whistleblowers to file IRS Form 211 complaints, offering Freedom Counsel's network of over 250 attorneys for anonymous support.

Rewards could follow successful claims, and he criticized the IRS whistleblower office's responsiveness, hoping for reform under new leadership.

Davidson proposed a dedicated landing page on freedomcounsel.org for submissions. Advice for whistleblowers included gathering emails, budgets, and screenshots securely, using tools like ProtonMail or iPhone's Notes app.

A Path Forward Amid Grief

The interview concluded on a note of resilience, with Davidson thanking Mendenhall and affirming their commitment to carry on Kirk's work. In a time of division, their conversation underscored the need for courage, nonviolence, and legal accountability to preserve free speech and democratic integrity. As Mendenhall put it, "We are here on Earth to sacrifice for our children," a sentiment that resonates deeply in the wake of Kirk's tragic death. For those inspired to act, resources like Freedom Counsel offer a starting point in the ongoing fight against corruption and suppression.

In a compelling episode of Broken Truth, host John Davidson (@BrokenTruthTV) sat down with attorney Ray Flores, a senior outside counsel for Children's Health Defense (CHD), in an interview co-hosted by Warner Mendenhall of Freedom Counsel. The discussion, aired on Labor Day 2025, delved into Flores' extensive background in natural health advocacy, his transition to law, and his ongoing legal battles against government overreach in public health policies, particularly surrounding vaccines and COVID-19 countermeasures. With a focus on accountability, vaccine injuries, and recent political shifts, the interview highlighted the intersection of medicine, law, and politics in post-pandemic America.

From Natural Health Advocate to Legal Warrior

Flores began by sharing his unique journey, starting in the 1980s as a leader in the natural foods industry. He founded a marketing company representing hundreds of manufacturers and served as national president of the Natural Product Brokers Association. Early on, he witnessed regulatory attacks on effective natural supplements like L-tryptophan and St. John's wort by agencies such as the FDA, which he saw as a precursor to broader assaults on health freedoms.

Recognizing the need for legal expertise to protect the industry, Flores enrolled in law school at age 40 while running his successful business. Admitted to the bar in 2004, he defended natural foods companies in contractual disputes and expanded into criminal and civil law. The COVID-19 era propelled him into high-profile cases, beginning with challenges to vaccine mandates alongside attorneys like Greg Glaser and Rick Jaffe. This led to his role at CHD, where he now handles seven active lawsuits, including Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and groundbreaking challenges to federal health policies.

Key Lawsuits: Challenging Vaccine Safety and Government Immunity

A centerpiece of the interview was Flores' successful lawsuit against HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (formerly a private attorney who had filed related FOIA requests) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The Act mandates a task force to improve vaccine safety through better licensing, manufacturing, testing, and reporting. Flores argued that no such task force had operated effectively since a brief stint from 1990 to 1998, and no biennial reports to Congress had been filed in nearly 40 years.

Using a citizen's action provision, Flores compelled HHS to form the task force within five months and commit to submitting reports every two years. He credits this as a pivotal win, blaming HHS for subsequent vaccine injuries due to their negligence. "I blame HHS for every single vaccine injury that's happened since then," Flores stated, noting the childhood vaccine schedule has ballooned from a handful in 1986 to around 29 vaccines (delivering over 70 doses) today, with minimal safety improvements.

Another highlight was the Watts case, the only willful misconduct lawsuit ever filed under the PREP Act, which grants broad immunity for COVID-19 countermeasures. Representing the estate of George Watts Jr., who died from myocarditis after receiving a Pfizer vaccine in 2021, Flores sued the Department of Defense (DOD) for misleading the public about the vaccine's safety and effectiveness. Watts believed he was getting the licensed Comirnaty vaccine, but received an emergency use authorization (EUA) product from a "hot lot."

In a stunning reversal, Judge Carl J. Nichols vacated his own dismissal after Flores pointed out procedural errors— the case required a three-judge panel under the PREP Act. This revival extends the litigation, potentially into a more favorable political climate. Flores emphasized the PREP Act's barriers: only serious injuries or deaths qualify for compensation via the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), leaving most of the 1.5 million VAERS-reported injuries unaddressed.

Flores also touched on his suit against the National Park Service for refusing cash payments at over 30 sites, including Yosemite and the Grand Canyon. He views this as a step toward a surveillance state, where digital payments could enable control over citizens' behaviors, such as denying access for non-vaccination or dissent.

Political Winds: Trump's Shift and Kennedy's Influence

The conversation turned timely with President Trump's recent Truth Social post questioning the success of COVID-19 vaccines and Operation Warp Speed. Flores and Mendenhall interpreted this as a "crack in the dam," suggesting Trump is distancing himself from past endorsements amid mounting evidence of fraud and injuries. They praised Kennedy's role in pushing for the vaccine safety task force, seeing it as a sign of alignment between Trump and Kennedy against entrenched interests.

Mendenhall highlighted whistleblower cases like Brooke Jackson's, revealing hidden adverse events in Pfizer's trials, and stressed the need for Trump to "get ahead of the lie" by holding pharmaceutical companies and officials accountable. Flores agreed, noting Trump's initial enthusiasm for leading vaccine development made him vulnerable to deception.

Recent CDC shakeups, including the departures of Director Susan Monarez and Dimitri Daskalakis (noted for controversial public imagery), were discussed as positive signs of change. The hosts criticized astroturfed protests and government retaliation against genuine dissenters.

Looking Ahead: A Call for Unity and Support

Flores urged support for Kennedy's efforts, emphasizing patience as legal and political processes unfold. He teased upcoming lawsuits but stressed the importance of unified action to save lives and restore freedoms. Mendenhall echoed this, crediting brave plaintiffs and attorneys for creating opportunities for reform.

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

This interview underscores a pivotal moment in the fight for medical freedom, blending personal stories of loss with strategic legal victories. As Flores put it, "We're going to hold them accountable." For those affected by vaccine policies, it offers hope amid ongoing challenges.

Watch the full interview above for in-depth insights, and follow @BrokenTruthTV for more on health, politics, and accountability.

When COVID captured the world in 2020, we all learned that the fastest way to get around FDA regulations was by using something called “Emergency Use Authorization”. Designed for public health emergencies, this designation gave a green light to every type of therapy, genetic test, and injectable medical drug on Earth to fight a given pathogen. The Secretary of HHS is specifically designated as the legal authority over Emergency Use Authorization.

As we covered in the segments from “Epidemic of Fraud” above, EUA’s can only be granted if there is no other available treatment option for a disease or pathogen. In other words, if HCQ or Ivermectin were beneficial, all of the big money drugs like Remdesivir, Paxlovid and the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ would have never been authorized for use.

Some would say that this provides a motive to discredit Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

Today, after being in office 6 months, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that HHS was rescinding the federal EUA status for these drugs.

I promised 4 things:

1. to end covid vaccine mandates.

2. to keep vaccines available to people who want them, especially the vulnerable.

3. to demand placebo-controlled trials from companies.

4. to end the emergency.

In a series of FDA actions today we accomplished all four goals. The emergency use authorizations for Covid vaccines, once used to justify broad mandates on the general public during the Biden administration, are now rescinded.

FDA has now issued marketing authorization for those at higher risk: Moderna (6+ months), Pfizer (5+), and Novavax (12+). These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors.

The American people demanded science, safety, and common sense.

This framework delivers all three. Thank you @DrMakaryFDA for your leadership.

While some on X celebrated the move, others were quick to point out factual details, like this week’s cohost of Broken Truth, Jennifer Kennedy, Esq.

And please stop calling them vaccines. They are investigational drug injections.Jennifer Kennedy, Esq. @JenRevere

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Involvement

Bill Gates and his foundation were instrumental in multiple levels of the COVID-19 response, involving themselves in clinical trials, academic research, and governmental policies for these vaccines. The organization has avoided scrutiny from the IRS and DOJ for potential non-profit status violations, and it’s avoided repeated questions about how its influence might affect research. Gates himself was abundantly clear (as stated in the excerpts from our film “Epidemic of Fraud” above) that ONLY a vaccine would be allowed to get the world out of the global pandemic.

Yesterday, August 26, Gates visited the White House personally. Considering the effort to discuss “global health”. Curious timing.

On the same day, it was announced that the Gates Foundation was distancing itself from Arabella Advisors, a political juggernaut that channels significant dark money funds into left-wing causes.

One can’t help but wonder if Gates Foundation’s chickens are finally coming home to roost. We have covered much of their involvement in research, tax avoidance, and public policy. You can read many of these stories below.

For now, those harmed by COVID-19 vaccines, mandates, and other EUA-approved medications like Remdesivir can take some solace that progress is being made. As the old proverb says, “The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.”

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

New Lawsuit Challenges CDC's Untested Childhood Vaccine Schedule

In a recent episode of BrokenTruth.TV, host John Davidson and co-host Jennifer Kennedy, Esq., an attorney from California, sat down with Rick Jaffe, Esq., a Connecticut-based lawyer known for his work in health freedom cases. The discussion centered on Jaffe's newly filed lawsuit against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which alleges that the agency's childhood vaccine schedule—recommending dozens of shots over 18 years—has never been properly tested for cumulative safety. This legal action, filed on August 15 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, could have far-reaching implications for vaccine mandates, parental rights, and public health policy.

The Core Argument: An Untested Schedule

Jaffe explained that while individual vaccines undergo limited safety testing—often for just a few days—the entire schedule, which includes up to 72 doses containing numerous antigens, has never been evaluated as a whole. "The entire schedule has never been tested together to see whether it's safe and whether it does more good than harm," Jaffe stated during the interview. He highlighted reports from the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) in 2002 and 2012, which recommended comprehensive studies on the schedule's cumulative effects but were ignored by the CDC.

This lack of testing, Jaffe argued, renders the CDC's recommendations "arbitrary and capricious" under administrative law. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief to acknowledge this failure and injunctive relief to downgrade all childhood vaccines from Category A (full recommendation) to Category B (shared decision-making, akin to informed consent). Until proper observational studies are conducted, Jaffe contends, parents and doctors should collaboratively decide on vaccinations, similar to practices in countries like England and Japan where mandates are absent.

Kennedy, drawing from her experience in California—where strict vaccine requirements for school entry exist—emphasized the downstream effects. States largely adopt the CDC's schedule for their mandates, she noted, turning untested recommendations into enforceable laws. "How can they require these of children if they're not even safety tested, not sufficiently individually, and certainly not that entire recommended schedule?" she asked.

The Plaintiffs: Heroes of Health Freedom

The lawsuit, titled Thomas v. Monarez (Civ. Action No. 1:25-cv-02685), features two prominent pediatricians as plaintiffs: Dr. Paul Thomas and Dr. Kenneth Stoller, alongside the organization Stand for Health Freedom.

Dr. Thomas, an Oregon-based physician, conducted a study comparing health outcomes among fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated children in his practice. His findings suggested that more vaccinations correlated with higher rates of illness, such as frequent office visits for non-wellness issues. Just five days after publishing, the Oregon Medical Board suspended his license, citing him as a public danger—a move Thomas and Jaffe attribute to retaliation. The journal later retracted the study without consulting the authors. Jaffe praised Thomas as a "hero" who "did the study that the IOM called to do" and paid the price.

Dr. Stoller, formerly practicing in California, faced similar persecution. He issued medical exemptions based on genetic markers like MTHFR variants, going beyond the CDC's narrow guidelines. This led to investigations, demands for patient records by San Francisco authorities under a "public nuisance" theory, and eventual license revocation. Jaffe, who represented Stoller in those battles, described him as one of the few doctors willing to predict risks using available tools, even if primitive.

Stand for Health Freedom, an advocacy group, rounds out the plaintiffs, aiming to amplify the call for transparency and parental choice. Jaffe noted that the case is community-funded, with donations accepted through a link on his website.

Broader Implications and Ties to Current Events

The interview delved into potential ripple effects. If successful, the lawsuit could undermine state mandates, as most rely on CDC recommendations. Jaffe referenced a prior case, Cardenas v. HHS, where similar arguments prompted the CDC to shift COVID-19 vaccines for children to shared decision-making and stop requiring them in certain programs—changes announced shortly after filing.

A key discussion point was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent actions as HHS Secretary. Kennedy has threatened the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that following their own recommendations—diverging from a potentially revised CDC schedule—could strip liability immunity under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Jaffe called this "genius," as it might expose manufacturers and doctors to lawsuits, deterring aggressive promotion.

Criticism extended to the CDC Foundation, a nonprofit raising private funds for the agency's mission, which has received over $208 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Davidson and Jaffe questioned its ties, suggesting conflicts of interest, including funding groups that targeted doctors skeptical of vaccines.

The panel also addressed systemic issues, like the broken Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the lack of placebo-controlled trials. Jaffe compared the untested schedule to polypharmacy risks or unstudied cancer drug combinations, noting that even EPA tests toxin mixtures—yet vaccines escape scrutiny.

Challenges Ahead and a Call for Change

Filed in the D.C. Circuit before a Biden-appointed judge, the case avoids a preliminary injunction, anticipating a motion to dismiss from the government. Jaffe challenged the CDC to defend not testing the schedule publicly: "Let them say that it's not important to test whether these 72 medical interventions are safe."With Kennedy at HHS, Jaffe sees a unique opportunity. He predicted revelations from ongoing investigations into COVID vaccines could shift public perception, demanding accountability. Kennedy echoed concerns about religious zeal in vaccine advocacy, citing Dr. Paul Offit's claim that infants could handle 10,000 antigens safely—yet one food at a time is advised to avoid risks.

The interview critiqued Jacobson's 1905 Supreme Court ruling, often misused to justify mandates. Kennedy argued it's overdue for scrutiny, as modern applications ignore whether products like mRNA shots prevent transmission or even qualify as vaccines.

A Turning Point for Vaccine Policy?

Jaffe's lawsuit represents a bold push for evidence-based policy, potentially ending blanket mandates in favor of informed consent. As Davidson concluded, "This is a fight that has legs and could leave a big bruise." With growing skepticism post-COVID, this case could empower parents and challenge entrenched interests, ensuring childhood vaccines are truly safe—not just assumed to be. For updates, follow developments in Thomas v. Monarez and support via health freedom organizations.

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

Dr. Helen Chu was a notorious University of Washington Scientist in 2020. In January of 2020, she ‘invented’ her own ‘test’ for COVID, resulting in scores of diagnosis’ in the Seattle region.

Dr. Chu was then enlisted to create a study for Remdesivir. When the study was going to show a negative result for Remdesivir as a treatment, Chu et al changed the endpoint of the study to ‘time to recovery’. Dr. Chu has received funding from NIH, CDC, DARPA, and the Gates Foundation.

In the video clip above from our award winning documentary “Epidemic of Fraud", we cover the story of how Remdesivir caused more deaths from COVID.

When the Trump admin brought Secretary Robert F. Kennedy on board, Chu and others advising the CDC were removed from any further influence in the agency. Chu, who is accused by Dr. Paul Marik and others of committing ‘scientific misconduct’ in her remdesivir study declared in Stat+ that ‘Scientific expertise is no longer of use’.

Before his nomination to Secretary of HHS, Robert F. Kennedy went so far as to say that using Remdesivir in hospitals was ‘homicide’.

University of Washington Delays Releasing Chu’s Emails with Gates Foundation

Because Chu has links to Gates Foundation and we have numerous issues like Gates Foundation researching me when I submitted questions to the organization, on Feb 14, 2025 I submitted a public records request to the University of Washington.

I wanted to see how involved Gates Foundation was in the Remdesivir study in the weeks leading up to Dr. Chu ‘inventing’ her own COVID test. As of August 2025, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given over $1.5 Billion to the University of Washington.

Request Ex-PR_2025_000157All emails between and among Dr. Helen Chu ([email protected]) and any sender, recipient, cc'd or bcc'd whose email address ends in @gatesfoundation.org.Date range: 10/1/2019 - 7/7/2020

The University of Washington has delayed its response multiple times. This is the same University of Washington with links to the Gates Foundation and is one of the largest recipients of the foundation’s substantial wealth. Today’s response indicates the University may be delaying to warn the Gates Foundation that it may be exposed by this public records request.

Previous records requests include Gates Foundation’s direct communication with researchers who claimed HCQ was ineffective for COVID. The Gates Foundation’s Vaccine Deputy Director Peter Dull claiming “Now the fun begins” when David Boulware’s University of Minnesota study was released.

The University of Washington is also linked to the Washington Medical Commission. This is the same commission that considered Scott Miller PA one of the most dangerous men in Washington for his brazen efforts to treat patients before needing to get Remdesivir in a hospital.

The Gates Foundation’s involvement in studies, academia, and government are concerning to many people. For many months we have covered the case of William Scott from Florida, who has repeatedly submitted whistleblower 211 claims to get the IRS and DOJ to investigate whether the Gates Foundation should continue to enjoy the benefits of tax exempt status. The IRS and DOJ are not interested in investigating this issue.

Stay tuned for more as this story is ongoing.

By BrokenTruth.TV Staff Published August 21, 2025 Updated with Full Transcript Analysis

On August 20, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska, Chief Administrative Law Judge Joan Wilson presided over an appeal hearing concerning the Alaska Medical Board's denial of a physician assistant (PA) license to Scott Miller. Miller, a former PA from Washington state, had his license revoked there in 2023 following allegations of substandard care related to his use of off-label treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as public statements deemed misleading or harmful by the Washington Medical Commission.

The hearing, which lasted approximately eight hours, focused on whether the Alaska Medical Board should reconsider its denial. Miller argued that his actions were clinically justified, supported by patient outcomes, and that Alaska's more permissive approach to medical freedom during the pandemic made him a suitable candidate. The state, represented by attorney Mr. Higgins, relied on the administrative record from Washington, emphasizing statutory grounds for denial under Alaska law, including professional incompetence and prior disciplinary actions.

This article analyzes the full video transcript of the hearing (available on BrokenTruth.TV), highlighting key testimonies from witnesses speaking on Miller's behalf. These individuals provided insights into Miller's character, medical expertise, and the broader context of COVID-era medical practices. We've organized the article into chapters based on each supportive witness, with approximate timecodes from the video re-stream to help viewers navigate directly to relevant sections. Timecodes are in HH:MM:SS format and are estimates based on the transcript's timestamps, which align with the video's runtime.

The hearing underscores ongoing debates about medical autonomy, off-label prescribing, and interstate licensing reciprocity in a post-pandemic world. BrokenTruth.TV obtained the re-stream footage to shed light on what Miller's supporters describe as politically motivated persecution of dissenting medical professionals.

Background: The Case and Hearing Setup (00:00:00 - 00:08:02)

The hearing began at 9:05 AM with Judge Wilson outlining the proceedings. Miller, present in the room, bore the burden of proof to show why the board should reverse its denial. The state invoked Alaska Statute 08.64.240 and related regulations, citing Miller's Washington revocation as grounds for incompetence or unfitness.

Observers included Miller's wife, Shelly Miller, and friend John Davidson, though they did not testify due to the rule excluding witnesses (00:04:17 - 00:04:51). The administrative record (Bates-numbered Division 001-00122) was admitted as evidence, along with Miller's exhibits filed on August 7, 2025. No opening statements were made; the hearing proceeded directly to testimony.

Miller's core argument: His Washington sanctions stemmed from COVID treatments that were effective in practice but clashed with federal narratives at the time. He highlighted Alaska's 2021 medical board statement supporting physician discretion in off-label prescribing, contrasting it with Washington's stricter stance.

Chapter 1: Testimony of Dr. Tom Grissom (00:04:17 - 01:07:26)

Dr. Tom Grissom (full name: John Thomas Grissom, MD), a family practice, anesthesia, and pain medicine specialist with 13 years of experience in Alaska, was the first witness called by Miller. Grissom, testifying remotely, swore to tell the truth at 00:08:14. He spoke glowingly of Miller's skills and encouraged him to apply for an Alaska license despite the Washington suspension.

Key Points from Direct Examination (00:09:33 - 00:33:22)

* Credentials and Relationship: Grissom detailed his residencies and fellowship, noting he met Miller through a mutual friend during the COVID-19 crisis (00:09:42 - 00:10:05). He praised Miller as an "exceptionally good practitioner" who would benefit Alaska, where attracting quality providers is challenging (00:10:54 - 00:11:34).

* Alaska vs. Washington Differences: Grissom highlighted Alaska's freer medical environment, free from the mandates that plagued Washington. He shared his own experience being targeted for prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, noting the FDA's shifted stance and that 78% of medications are used off-label (00:12:10 - 00:15:28).

* Clinical Justification: Responding to Miller's questions, Grissom defended off-label use based on anecdotal (clinical) evidence, citing examples like gabapentin for neuropathy. He argued practitioners should rely on patient outcomes over consensus narratives, especially when told no treatments existed (00:17:43 - 00:20:56).

* Support for Miller: Grissom treated over 1,000 patients with these drugs without hospitalizations, putting high-risk patients on prophylaxis. He reconciled community support for Miller with Washington's findings, asserting Miller posed no threat and was a "patient advocate" (00:21:49 - 00:32:48). He concluded Alaska would be "honored" to have Miller, calling him high-integrity and educated (00:31:46 - 00:33:02).

Cross-Examination by Mr. Higgins (00:33:26 - 00:41:18)

Higgins probed Grissom's relationship with Miller, revealing they met on a golf outing in St. Louis two years prior and had about 20 phone consults (00:34:36 - 00:37:01). Grissom described these as "curbside consults" on patient cases, emphasizing intellectual discussions rather than formal supervision. He defended his opinion of Miller's fitness as based on these interactions, likening it to assessing a junior partner's potential (00:38:15 - 00:40:19). Higgins questioned if Miller was practicing during these calls, but Grissom couldn't specify timelines.

Additional Questions and Responses (00:41:18 - 01:07:26)

Further questioning delved into off-label prescribing practices, with Grissom asserting it's common (78% of prescriptions) and defending it when beneficial (e.g., penicillin for strep throat). He shared his own experiences prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine during COVID, emphasizing patient outcomes over FDA approvals at the time. Judge Wilson and Higgins explored ethical aspects, such as misrepresenting prescription reasons to bypass restrictions, with Grissom viewing it as necessary for patient benefit in extraordinary circumstances.

Grissom's testimony painted Miller as a victim of politicized medicine, aligning with BrokenTruth.TV's focus on suppressed COVID narratives.

Chapter 2: Testimony of Pastor Rich Bluhm (01:09:25 - 01:29:21)

Pastor Rich Bluhm (full name: Richard Bluhm), a pastor at Bethel Community Church in Washougal, Washington, testified remotely. He swore to tell the truth at 01:10:23. Bluhm shared how Miller treated his family and congregation during COVID, praising his life-saving care.

Key Points from Direct Examination (01:10:55 - 01:29:21)

* Relationship with Miller: Bluhm met Miller through his son, who was a patient, and later sought his help during COVID for family and church members (01:11:16 - 01:11:40). He noted Miller's positive reputation and success in treating severe cases where hospitals failed (01:12:47 - 01:15:10).

* Community Impact: Bluhm described Miller as a hero who saved lives in his congregation, with only one death occurring when Miller couldn't intervene. He criticized hospital protocols and praised Miller's compassionate, effective care (01:15:33 - 01:16:53).

* Ethical Dilemmas: Discussing misrepresentation on prescriptions, Bluhm likened it to moral choices in extreme situations, emphasizing Miller's actions were for the greater good (01:17:08 - 01:18:20).

* Recommendation for Alaska: Bluhm urged the board to grant Miller a license, highlighting his integrity, sacrifice, and benefit to any community (01:20:23 - 01:28:15). He noted the church's positive outcomes due to Miller's guidance.

Bluhm's testimony emphasized Miller's role as a community savior during COVID, contrasting with Washington's findings.

Chapter 3: Testimony of Christine Hac…