🦷 Dentists Pulling Healthy Teeth to Make Room for Profitable Implants Some implant experts worry that many dentists are losing sight of dentistry’s fundamental goal of preserving natural teeth and are too willing to remove teeth to make room for expensive implants, according to a months-long investigation by KFF Health News and CBS News. “There are many cases where teeth, they’re perfectly fine, and they’re being removed unnecessarily. I really hate to say it, but many of them are doing it because these procedures, from a monetary standpoint, they’re much more beneficial to the practitioner.” — William Giannobile, dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine MORE ON THIS ⬇️ https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/dentists-pulling-healthy-teeth-profitable-implants-kff/?utm_source=sovren&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20241105

sovren.media

🚨 Appeals Court Rules Against CHD, RFK Jr. in Landmark Censorship Case An appeals court handed down a ruling late Monday, dealing a blow to the landmark censorship case brought in March 2023 by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. against the Biden administration. The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the plaintiffs — CHD, Kennedy and news consumer Connie Sampognaro — have no legal basis to sue the Biden administration for pressuring tech giants to censor their social media posts. “We are, of course, disappointed with and disagree with the 5th Circuit’s decision here. We believe that the additional evidence CHD presented more than sufficiently established standing for Children’s Health Defense. We pointed the court to ongoing censorship activities by the government and we demonstrated that the government has a significant and improper role in the social media platforms’ censorship of CHD.” — Kim Mack Rosenberg Kennedy’s campaign Chief of Staff Brigid Rasmussen also described a series of content moderation actions taken by social media platforms against the Kennedy campaign. MORE ON THIS ⬇️ https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5th-circuit-rules-against-chd-rfk-jr-censorship-lawsuit/?utm_source=sovren&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20241105

sovren.media

No, COVID Vaccines Aren’t ‘Robust’ — That’s Just the Truth To have a truly robust vaccine it must afford long-lasting immunity. It is with this category that the COVID-19 countermeasures fall well short of any definition that can be equated to robust. More from TrialSite News ⬇️ https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccines-not-robust-immunity/?utm_source=sovren&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20241106

sovren.media

💉 Nurse Sues New Jersey Hospital That Denied Her Religious Exemption for Flu Vaccine Alexandra Clark, a behavioral health nurse at Saint Clare’s Health in Denville, filed the complaint last month after the hospital emailed her saying it wasn’t accepting religious exemptions for the 2024 flu season. The denial was an abrupt policy shift. Clark — a devout Catholic who has worked for Saint Clare’s Health since December 2023 — previously was granted a religious exemption from the hospital’s flu vaccine mandate. “Ms. Clark has now been left with the choice to either abandon her religious beliefs or lose her job,” according to her complaint. Clark isn’t alone. Her attorney is seeking class-action status on behalf of the “hundreds” of current and prospective employees also denied religious exemptions this fall. Dominique Venezia, a New Jersey Chapter leader for Children’s Health Defense, commended Clark for bringing the suit. “A religious exemption is an individual right that should not be challenged,” Venezia told The Defender. READ MORE ⬇️ https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/nurse-sues-new-jersey-hospital-religious-exemption-flu-vaccine/?utm_source=sovren&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20241105

sovren.media

📣 ‘Historic’: Federal Court Says AstraZeneca Not Immune From Liability in Case Involving Woman Injured by COVID Vaccine During Clinical Trial A federal court ruled Monday that a lawsuit filed by a woman injured by AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine during a U.S. clinical trial can continue. The court rejected the drugmaker’s claim that a federal liability shield protects it from breach-of-contract claims. Brianne Dressen sued AstraZeneca in May, alleging she was injured and became disabled by the company’s vaccine in 2020 when she participated in the company’s clinical trial. According to the complaint, AstraZeneca’s consent form for trial participants promised enrolees medical treatment in the event of illness or injury suffered during the study. In its motion to dismiss, filed in June, AstraZeneca said that under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) of 2005 — which grants manufacturers of emergency countermeasures such as COVID-19 vaccines immunity from legal liability — Dressen could not sue the vaccine maker for her injuries. But in his Nov. 4 ruling, Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby of the U.S. District Court in Utah said the PREP Act’s liability shield does not extend to breach-of-contract claims. He said the basis of Dressen’s claim “is a broken promise, not a countermeasure.” The ruling stated: “PREP Act immunity requires a causal link between the claim and a tangible medical countermeasure, and breach of contract claims arise from one party’s failure to perform a legal obligation without regard to any countermeasure. The PREP Act’s statutory scheme and purpose support this construction.” Shelby’s ruling could result in more lawsuits challenging the PREP Act, according to Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for Children’s Health Defense. READ MORE ⬇️ https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-liability-ruling/?utm_source=sovren&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20241105

sovren.media