[sandokhan]

There is no such thing as mRNA technology. It simply does not work. What K. Kariko did, back in 2005, is to substitute Pseudouridine (a nucleoside) for Uracil (a nucleobase). However, there is a huge problem: Pseudouridine is a chiral isomer (an isomer of Uridine). At first, unlike the mRNA which was destroyed immediately by the immune system, they noticed that cmRNA (chemically modified RNA, or modRNA) is not. They did not realize that humanity had met before with a pathogen which was coded with Pseudouridine, the very reason why the immune system did not annihilate the cmRNA at once. It has everything to do with transgenerational epigenetics.

Therefore, the cmRNA "vaccines" have nothing to do with the pathogen called Sars-Cov-2. Sars-Cov-2 is coded with four nucleobases, among which we find Uracil. By contrast, the genetic code of the cmRNA vaccines has been modified: Uracil has been replaced with Pseudouridine 100%. No relationship whatsoever between the two genetic codes.

Delta was caused by two lethal antibodies: REGN10987 and B38. Here, then, is the mechanism of the cmRNA vaccine: the immune system will be sabotaged to create mostly binding ISOMERIC ANTIBODIES, and less of the "normal" abs (including the two lethal abs described above). That is how they were able to claim, "less severe cases of Covid-19". However, now, the persons who got the vaccines have these large quantities of isomeric abs (including the isomeric version of the lethal abs) in their organisms. Misfolded abs (beta sheet prions as opposed to alpha helix prions) lead to certain problems. Both REGN10987 and B38 have an IgG format.

Omicron is Mers-Cov-2, without its prion domain having been activated.

Both Delta and Omicron are mycobacteria (M. avium and M. influenzae) and not viruses.

Alpha helix peptides, proteolytic enzymes (such as bromelaine) are helpful to deal with both Sars-Cov-2 and cmRNA.

[stack]

Both Delta and Omicron are mycobacteria (M. avium and M. influenzae) and not viruses.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence for this across the virology experts in the world. Where'd you come up with this notion? Are you a virologist?

[sandokhan]

Theory:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348357613_Article_title_Hypothesis_of_Potential_Evolution_of_SARS-CoV-2_through_Hybridization_of_SARS-CoV-1_with_Saccharomyces_cerevisiae_and_Mycobacterium_avium_naturally_inside_an_immunocompromised_Pangolin

https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-.PPDO2ZU.v1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7131758/

https://www.researchgate.net/post/COVID-19_CCTCGGCGGGCACGT_PRRAR_AA_Furin_cleavage_site_at_23603-23617_of_the_MN908947_Genbank_Genome_Matches_Mostly_Bacteria_COVID-19_in_BLAST

Practice:

https://www.academia.edu/43416919/How_BCG_Vaccination_Trials_Might_Finally_Unlock_the_Many_Mysteries_of_COVID_19_ (pg 9-12)

M. avium is a cell wall deficient mycobacterium, it looks just like a virus and does pass through the same filters. However, epidemiologists and virologists have refused to test Covid-19 patients for mycobacteria.

[stack]

Yeah, this:

Article title: Hypothesis of Potential Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 through Hybridization of SARS-CoV-1 with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Mycobacterium avium naturally inside an immunocompromised Pangolin.

So someone has a hypothesis about Pangolins...So what?

[sandokhan]

Pfizer knew from the start that Sars-Cov-2 is a mycobacterium:

https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/pfizer-data-azithromycin-covid-19-trial/

The Sars-Cov-2 genome has sequences from the following pathogenic agents:

Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mycobacterium leprae, Bacillus anthracis, Borrelia burgdorferi, Clostridium perfringens, Clostridium tetani, Helicobacter Pylori, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Vibrio cholera and Yersinia pestis), two malarial parasites (Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium knowlesi) and influenza virus A.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0171298521000395

Monkeypox (MPV) is actually mousepox, and poxviridae is also a mycobacterium (a variant of M. leprae):

https://archive.org/details/b30503036/page/n34/mode/1up (pg 16-18)

MPV is related to Sars-Cov-2 through RNA G-quadruplex structures:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.18.496696v1

Non-coding RNA and M. tuberculosis:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3384566/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8628891/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2014.00096/full

Non-coding RNA and prions:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326183713_Interrelation_of_prions_with_non-coDing_RNAs

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333576/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34209482/

https://rupress.org/jcb/article/210/4/529/38290/Prion-like-domains-in-RNA-binding-proteins-are

G-quadruplexes and prions:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4132711/

The above data demonstrate that sequences within PrP mRNA have the propensity to switch between hairpin structures and G-quadruplexes depending on environmental conditions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314185/

https://www.cell.com/trends/biochemical-sciences/fulltext/S0968-0004(20)30272-3

G-Quadruplexes in RNA Biology: Recent Advances and Future Directions
Other indirect but promising pieces of evidence support that RG4s might be part of the structural ‘switch’ induced by the pseudouridylation of tRNA-derived fragments important for translation initiation impacting stem cell commitment during key developmental processes.

Omicron (Mers-Cov-2) is activating its prion domain (example, the CH.1.1 variant, with the P681R mutation).

https://rense.com/general96/K-20220328/CREUTZFELDT-JACOB%20SARS-COV-2.pdf

The Mers-Cov-2 and Sars-Cov-2 spike protein has a similar structure:

Here we report that among spike protein sequences of genus Betacoronavirus and outside of the SARS-CoV-2 clade an analogous polyfunctional domain was found in only one other virus: an artificial MERS infectious clone, described already in 2017, which constitutes an adapted genotype from serial passage in genetically humanized mice. In contrast to this artificial MERS coronavirus, which has no natural primary host and which during passage acquired the full pat7 motif, S protein sequences from all other betacoronaviruses did not present a polyfunctional S1/S2 junction domain analogous to SARS-CoV-2. As the evolutionarily closest betacoronaviruses outside of the SARS-CoV-2 clade lack all its three functional features, this critical S1/S2 polyfunctional domain becomes an unlikely product of natural evolution alone.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221214164619/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4301576

[stack]

Pfizer knew from the start that Sars-Cov-2 is a mycobacterium:

https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/pfizer-data-azithromycin-covid-19-trial/

A report from March 26, 2020??? About a week or two into the actual Pandemic?

And that's not at all what Pfizer was claiming in the article you cited. You're literally making that up.

From your article, "Compared with 16 controls, the proportion of participants who achieved virologic cure following six days of treatments was observed to be higher in the 20 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine."

Hmmm, virologic...

As well, "AZM (Azithromycin) reduces in vitro replication of several classes of viruses including rhinovirus, influenza A, Zika virus, Ebola, enteroviruses and coronaviruses, via several mechanisms. AZM enhances expression of anti-viral pattern recognition receptors and induction of anti-viral type I and III interferon responses."

Hmmm, viruses...

[sandokhan]

You haven't done your homework on the subject, which is a pity.

https://lawrencebroxmeyermd.academia.edu/DrLawrenceBroxmeyerMD

Influenza A, ebola, zika, rhinoviruses are mycobacteria. Azithromycin is used especially for M. avium.

https://www.academia.edu/10076102/Is_the_Ebola_virus_real

https://www.academia.edu/12969028/EBOLA_OR_AFRICAN_STRAINS_OF_TUBERCULOSIS

https://www.academia.edu/30666782/Questioning_the_Zika_Virus

https://www.academia.edu/35088077/The_Great_Influenza_Pandemic_What_Really_Happened_in_1918

https://web.archive.org/web/20180508034750/http://drbroxmeyer.netfirms.com/001pdfBIRDFLUEDITORIALPUBLISHED.pdf

http://www.oilgeopolitics.net/Swine_Flu/Tuberculosis/tuberculosis.html

Out of nine sites, seven sites showed molecular similarity with 54 antigenic determinants found in twelve pathogenic bacterial species (Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mycobacterium leprae, Bacillus anthracis, Borrelia burgdorferi, Clostridium perfringens, Clostridium tetani, Helicobacter Pylori, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Vibrio cholera and Yersinia pestis), two malarial parasites (Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium knowlesi) and influenza virus A.

Most of the bacterial antigens that displayed molecular similarity with antigenic sites in SARS-CoV-2 RBD (receptor binding domain) were toxins and virulent factors. Antigens from Mycobacterium that showed similarity were mainly involved in modulating host cell immune response and ensuring persistence and survival of pathogen in host cells.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0171298521000395

Sars-Cov-2 is a mycobacterium, and so is Omicron (Mers-Cov-2).

The first major result on the use of cmRNA vaccines:

https://unglossed.substack.com/p/boosting-tolerance-igg4

I would not call it tolerance. IgG4 leads to desensitization. Ongoing exposure to spike can lead to IgG4 related disease (IgG4-RD). IgG4 induction is the second stage. It is most likely preceded by IgE induction. Injecting any antigen will induce IgE. I warned against it. I also wanted them to measure IgG1,2,3,4. Finally someone has done it.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279299679_An_Atlas_of_RNA_Base_Pairs_Involving_Modified_Nucleobases_with_Optimal_Geometries_and_Accurate_Energies

It is interesting that, when focusing on the H-bonded bases, the Pseudouridine modification seems rather to have a destabilizing than a stabilizing effect.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6009661/

Misincorporation of pseudouridine by T7 RNA polymerase can have implications for RNA-based therapeutics, as pseudouridine is incorporated into RNA to reduce immunogenicity.

https://elifesciences.org/articles/60917

A prion accelerates proliferation at the expense of lifespan

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2965242/

Effect of pseudouridylation on the structure and activity of the catalytically essential P6.1 hairpin in human telomerase RNA

[stack]

Actually you haven't done your homework on your sources, which is a disastrous pity.

Wow, you found one MD (Actually not even an MD at all...) who agrees with you, Dr. Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD. Amazing. I can find thousands of virologists who disagree with you.

As well, I'm not sure Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD is to be trusted as he had his license suspended for fraud, part of which was that he was found to have lied about his residencies and falsifying his credentials, & malpractice back in the mid 90's and reinstatement denied in 2000.

His medical license was revoked in NY, CA, PA & FLA, denied a license in Texas.

He also claims to have been a "researcher" at the N.Y. Institute Of Medical Research. There's no such institute.

He doesn't seem like the kinda "researcher" I would consider to be a reliable narrator.

Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD - Medial License Revoked - Fraud/Malpractice




Try and find some sources with at least an ounce of credibility.

[sandokhan]

No, he got suspended because he would not waiver on the matter that all of the ailments that you had described were not viruses. I had done my homework, since everything you posted was well-known even two years ago, in the other thread which ran into 39 pages of debate.

All of Dr. Broxmeyer's papers are peer-reviewed. Especially this one, which was published in the most prestigious medical journal in the world:

Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska, D., Miltner, E., Chacon, O., Wagner, D., McGarvey, J., Barletta, R.G. and Bermuddez, L.E. (2002) Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. J Infect Dis 186,
1155–1160

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/186/8/1155/2191390

The Journal of Infectious Diseases
Oxford Academic

Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens.


We are currently exploring the use of other mycobacteriophages and attenuated mycobacterial strains of M. avium and M. tuberculosis, as well as bacille Calmette-Guerin as potential phage delivery systems.

All of his papers which describe zika, ebola, H1N1, as having been caused by mycobacteria are peer-reviewed. That is why he is a very credible source.

What about the credibility of the medical doctors you believe in?

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.

Always, one needs to test for BOTH viruses and mycobacteria. Did your medical doctors perform these tests? All of them have refused to test for mycobacteria.

But not L. Broxmeyer.

https://www.academia.edu/43416919/How_BCG_Vaccination_Trials_Might_Finally_Unlock_the_Many_Mysteries_of_COVID_19_ (pg 9-12)

Can you explain to your readers why Sars-Cov-2 has so many bacterial epitopes?

Out of nine sites, seven sites showed molecular similarity with 54 antigenic determinants found in twelve pathogenic bacterial species (Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mycobacterium leprae, Bacillus anthracis, Borrelia burgdorferi, Clostridium perfringens, Clostridium tetani, Helicobacter Pylori, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Vibrio cholera and Yersinia pestis), two malarial parasites (Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium knowlesi) and influenza virus A.

Most of the bacterial antigens that displayed molecular similarity with antigenic sites in SARS-CoV-2 RBD (receptor binding domain) were toxins and virulent factors. Antigens from Mycobacterium that showed similarity were mainly involved in modulating host cell immune response and ensuring persistence and survival of pathogen in host cells.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0171298521000395

[sandokhan]

Here is the cmRNA genetic code:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210111092707/https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/



Uracil has been replaced 100% with Pseudouridine (Ψ), which is a chiral isomer. This means that the cmRNA genetic code is for an ISOMERIC Sars-Cov-2, and has nothing to do with Sars-Cov-2 which is coded with Uracil. As such, the immune system will produce ISOMERIC antibodies (isomeric abs were discovered in 1994), which have nothing to do with the pathogenic agent Sars-Cov-2.

https://anandamide.substack.com/p/differences-in-vaccine-and-sars-cov





https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/734/htm

However, superficial application of these two criteria can lead to mistakes. I will take the CGN codon family for Arg to show an incorrect optimization of the two mRNA vac.cines.

The designers of both vac.cines considered CGG as the optimal codon in the CGN codon family and recoded almost all CGN codons to CGG. There are two lines of evidence suggesting that CGG is not the optimal codon. These multiple lines of evidence suggest that CGC is a better codon than CGG. The designers of the mRNA vac.cines (especially mRNA-1273, Table 1) chose a wrong codon as the optimal codon.

Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 mRNA features two consecutive UGA stop codons. Moderna’s mRNA-1273 uses all three different stop codons UGAUAAUAG. Are these the optimal arrangement?

With such a +1 frameshifting, a downstream in-frame stop codon cannot serve as a fail-safe mechanism. UGA is a poor choice of a stop codon, and UGAU in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vac.cines could be even worse.
One caveat in the reasoning above involves the replacement of U by N1-methylpseudouridine (Ψ) in the two vac.cine mRNAs.

Therefore, the stop signals are ΨGAΨGA instead of UGAUGA in Pfizer/BioNTech’s vac.cine, and ΨGAΨAAΨAG instead of UGAUAAUAG in Moderna’s vaccine. As Ψ is more promiscuous in base-pairing than U and can pair with both A and G and, to a less extent, with C and U, stop codons become more prone to misreading by tRNAs. It is for this reason that both mRNA vaccines use consecutive stop codons as a fail-safe mechanism, with the hope that no frameshifting occurs when the first stop codon fails. However, UGAU is known to cause a +1 frameshifting. It is reasonable to infer that ΨGAΨ may be the same. I have mentioned before that mammalian AZ1 gene with a stop codon context UGAU is prone to polyamine-induced +1 frameshifting. Such a +1 frameshifting defeats the purpose of having multiple stop codons as a fail-safe mechanism.

[stack]

No, he got suspended because he would not waiver on the matter that all of the ailments that you had described were not viruses.

Apparently, you still haven't done your homework. If you actually read the documents regarding the revocation of his medical license you would see that it had nothing to do with ailments as not viruses. It was for medicare fraud and lying about his credentials. Nothing to do with bacteria or viruses.

All of Dr. Broxmeyer's papers are peer-reviewed. Especially this one, which was published in the most prestigious medical journal in the world:

Broxmeyer, L., Sosnowska, D., Miltner, E., Chacon, O., Wagner, D., McGarvey, J., Barletta, R.G. and Bermuddez, L.E. (2002) Killing of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a mycobacteriophage delivered by a nonvirulent mycobacterium: a model for phage therapy of intracellular bacterial pathogens. J Infect Dis 186,
1155–1160

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/186/8/1155/2191390

And no, not all of his articles have been peer reviewed. And this one has nothing to do with coronaviruses.

Broxmeyer is a liar and a con man. He still claims he was a researcher at an institute that doesn't even exist.

As well, in the paper it states:
"The introduction of protease inhibitors in the therapeutic armamentarium against human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) has had a significant impact on the incidence of M. avium bacteremia [4]; however, the infection rebounds as soon as the anti-HIV drugs are stopped or fail [5]. In addition, M. avium infection has been described with increasing frequency in non-AIDS populations [6, 7]"

Meaning, it's not saying anything like you claim. It still recognizes that HIV is a virus and that it leads to the susceptibility of contracting bacterial infections. Nothing new here.

What about the credibility of the medical doctors you believe in?

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.

Always, one needs to test for BOTH viruses and mycobacteria. Did your medical doctors perform these tests? All of them have refused to test for mycobacteria.

Obviously it depends. And yes, my medical Dr did perform these tests. If you have covid-like symptoms and perhaps share some symptoms of TB but your PCR comes back negative for covid, then you'll get a TB test (and testing for other bacterium), for instance, which is exactly what I did back in 2021.

[sandokhan]

Dr. Broxmeyer could not have published medical data in the Oxford Journal of Infectious Diseases unless his credentials had been checked and verified. This alone disproves your vitriolic attack against a scientist whose articles on infectious diseases speak for themselves. All of his other articles have been published in medical journals, and thus have been peer-reviewed. Do not confuse the stated reasons for the revocation of the medical license with the hidden agenda which was aiming at his unwaivering support for the bacterial cause of various diseases.

Obviously you do not know about his work on bacterial infections. He is saying that HIV is also a mycobacterium, certainly not a virus.

https://www.sidastudi.org/resources/inmagic-img/dd7314.pdf

Your doctor obviously did not test for M. avium, as these tests can be performed only by real experts on bacterial infections, such as Dr. Broxmeyer. Cell wall deficient mycobacterium look just like a virus and they pass through the same filters.

You have some explaining to do here. Certainly the bacterial epitopes (including M. avium) which have found on the spike protein of Sars-Cov-2 confirm the work published by L. Broxmeyer.

Out of nine sites, seven sites showed molecular similarity with 54 antigenic determinants found in twelve pathogenic bacterial species (Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mycobacterium leprae, Bacillus anthracis, Borrelia burgdorferi, Clostridium perfringens, Clostridium tetani, Helicobacter Pylori, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Vibrio cholera and Yersinia pestis), two malarial parasites (Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium knowlesi) and influenza virus A.

Most of the bacterial antigens that displayed molecular similarity with antigenic sites in SARS-CoV-2 RBD (receptor binding domain) were toxins and virulent factors. Antigens from Mycobacterium that showed similarity were mainly involved in modulating host cell immune response and ensuring persistence and survival of pathogen in host cells.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0171298521000395

Sars-Cov-2 also features epitopes from M. bovis, Nipah, and other pathogens.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423587/

BlastP analysis showed high homology of the SARS-CoV-2 envelope protein with 12 consecutive amino acids of the protein LytR C, which is a consensus protein unique to Mycobacteria.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8577642/

However, the knowledge that heat shock protein (HSP)65 is the main antigen of Mycobacterium bovis BCG prompted us to verify whether sequence similarity existed between HSP65 and SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) and nuclear (N) proteins that could support an antigen-driven immune protection of BCG vaccine. The results of the in silico investigation showed an extensive sequence similarity of HSP65 with both the viral proteins, especially SARS-CoV-2 S, that also involved the regions comprising immunodominant epitopes.

Had Dr. Broxmeyer's BCG vaccines with bacteriophages specific for M. avium been implemented, Covid-19 would have been over in the month of february of 2020. Had Sars-Cov-2 been identified correctly as M. avium, the correct treatment (clarithromycin or even solithromycin) could have been administered from the start. Yet, cmRNA isomeric vaccines were put forth as treatment, but these vaccines are coded with Pseudouridine, a chiral isomer, which will only force the immune system to produce isomeric abs which have nothing to do with Sars-Cov-2.

[stack]

Obviously you do not know about his work on bacterial infections. He is saying that HIV is also a mycobacterium, certainly not a virus.

Broxmeyer is a charlatan, fraudster, and lying about his credentials. And all of the these studies clearly refer to SARS-Covid 19 as a virus.

According to Dr. Broxmeyer himself, he is “already heralded as today's single most perceptive and innovative medical investigator by colleagues in the United States and abroad, having already appeared as lead author in The Journal of Infectious Diseases.”
As the reportedly “most brilliant” doctor in the United States today, Broxmeyer must be a boon to the HIV/AIDS denialist cause. Certainly, Broxmeyer is nothing if not innovative. Writing in Medical Hypotheses, Broxmeyer suggested that mycobacteria might be the cause of Parkinson’s Disease (Med Hypotheses. 2002 Oct;59(4):373-7). Writing in the May, 2003 issue of the same journal, Broxmeyer asked, “Is AIDS really caused by a virus?” and concluded that, no, it is caused by mycobacteria. SARS, too, more than “just another viral acronym” (Med Hypotheses. 2003 Aug;61(2):314-7) is just misdiagnosed tuberculosis.

Broxmeyer’s innovation didn’t stop there. Heart disease (Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(5):773-9), Mad Cow (Med Hypotheses. 2004;63(4):731-9), cancer (Med Hypotheses. 2004;63(6):986-96), Alzheimer’s and Creutzfeldt-Jakob (Med Hypotheses, 2005;64(4):699-705), diabetes (Med Hypotheses. 2005;65(3):433-9), and even the 1918 flu (Med Hypotheses. 2006;67(5):1006-15) are, according to Broxmeyer, due to mycobacteria.

During Broxmeyer’s four-year run of publications in Medical Hypotheses, his affiliation was sometimes listed only as his own address in Whitestone, NY, and sometimes as Med-America Research (with the same address—not to be confused with MedAmerica). By 2006, though, Broxmeyer had been promoted to “Chief Medical Officer and CEO” of the company, no doubt in keeping with his unrivaled perception. The Med-America Research website, medamericaresearch.org, features only Dr. Broxmeyer and his innovative articles, and is in fact the same as Dr. Broxmeyer’s personal website listed above.

Not mentioned on his variously-named website is the inconvenient fact that Dr. Broxmeyer lost his medical license and pharmacist’s license in New York in the mid-1990s. He was charged in 1994 with “13 specifications of professional misconduct, including practicing fraudulently, practicing with negligence on more than one occasion, ordering excessive tests and treatments, and failure to comply with substantial provisions of State Law governing the practice of medicine.” He was also charged with “falsification of applications” by inflating his credentials. Broxmeyer’s 1997 application for restoration of his license was considered after his fulfilling several requirements including education credits and seeing a psychiatrist. After losing his license, Broxmeyer complained, he was forced to work as a “jet refueler for $5.75 an hour” and to go on welfare.

Broxmeyer’s peers denied his application for restoration, giving their reasons:
[T]he COP finds that Dr. Broxmeyer continues to be self-absorbed.…His misconduct was deliberate and planned and demonstrated disrespect for his profession….the COP cannot assess whether he has taken the appropriate rehabilitative steps to insure that the public would not be placed in danger again were his license restored.

[Lord Dave]

It should also be noted that being one of SEVERAL authors of a paper does not mean you're actually good at it.
It's like a school group project where one kid does nothing but still gets credit.

[Tom Bishop]

Overcharging Medicaid for government-determined "unnecessary" procedures is a lot different than falsifying research papers. He was charged with things like using a throat swab test for people with sore throats. From the document:

https://apps.health.ny.gov/pubdoh/professionals/doctors/conduct/factions/FileDownloadAction.action?finalActionId=515&fileName=lc151279.pdf&fileSeqNum=1

'one of the charges indicated that his use of a throat swab for a patient with a sore throat was excessive. He asked the
Committee, “What’s wrong with that?”'

Aside from a penny pinching government who thinks sick people shouldn't be tested, what is wrong with that exactly? If I went to the doctor for a sore throat I would expect my doctor to perform a test. If this is the level of fraud he is charged with, we can assume that the other charges of unspecified "fraud" and "negligence" and "misconduct" in this document are of a similar nature. This is one of the only specified examples of his fraud in this document, and it's laughable. Other than this specific example the document generalizes it as $2,000 worth of fraud or $85,000 worth of fraud. Why not specify the worst example rather than the most laughable one? The example undermines the rest.

The document says that he wasn't performing the procedures he was supposed to perform. From the example we got, and considering the nature of Medicaid, this must mean he was giving better version of treatment and procedures to his patients than the government wanted him to give. Many complex procedures and courses of treatment can be turned into "fraud" if the charge code procedure as written in the "give them subpar" Medicaid billing reference manual isn't exactly the same to the letter as the version of the procedure the doctor performed.

The ludicrous example they gave in the document shows that they had it out for him for some reason. It is also plain that he was begging for forgiveness and accepting fault in the document with a proverbial gun to his head.

[markjo]

Other than this specific example the document generalizes it as $2,000 worth of fraud or $85,000 worth of fraud. Why not specify the worst example rather than the most laughable one? The example undermines the rest.

How much fraud must he commit before you think that it's a crime deserving of losing his license?

[Rama Set]

He said himself that he falsely billed Medicaid for $85,000 for tests he didn’t perform. Sounds like pretty open and shut case of fraud.

[Tom Bishop]

That could just mean that he was giving patients expensive heart medication based on prior medical history or alternate tests without going through Medicaid's 1800's-level antiquated cardio tests designed to act as a barrier to allow only the most extreme cases through to the medicine, that Medicaid demands to perform before they dole out the cash.

There is a difference between blatant unethical fraud and pro-patient ethical fraud to protect them from a tyrannical government, and it is unclear what happened. Based on the ridiculous example of the throat swab test where the "fraud" was doing something ethical for the patient, the picture is pretty dim for the government's side.

The document is vague and unspecific about exactly what he did for a reason. Not a good reason.

The document also makes comments that he misrepresented his resume. It turns out later on in the document that this means that he neglected to tell hospitals that he had more experience than his resume stated.



Wow, what a monster. This is certainly indicative of a fraudster caught in the act and the government's ethically valid case against this man.

[stack]

Hmm, a doctor lying about their credentials and experience is ok by you? Interesting.

Bottomline, he lost his license, in multiple States. Period. 6 years go by and the board still wouldn't grant him his license. Would you go to a Dr who had their license revoked for fraud and lying about their credentials? I definitely wouldn't. 

[Tom Bishop]

Hmm, a doctor lying about their credentials and experience is ok by you? Interesting.

Sure, I would see a doctor who made that "lie". His "lie" in what I quoted above was not disclosing that he had more experience than what his resume stated. Ridiculous.

Picking out this petty stuff like testing people who are sick and criticizing leaving out additional experience on his resume shows that the government had an unethical motive in prosecuting him.

Bottomline, he lost his license, in multiple States. Period. 6 years go by and the board still wouldn't grant him his license. Would you go to a Dr who had their license revoked for fraud and lying about their credentials? I definitely wouldn't.

According to this page he has current licenses in New York, Pennsylvania, and possibly New Jersey. Whatever happened in New York in the 90's clearly didn't hold water.

https://health.usnews.com/doctors/lawrence-broxmeyer-1398738#location