Now doctors are being threatened with the loss of their license if they fail to toe the line of mainstream medicine on how to prevent and treat COVID.<\/p>\n
The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) recently\u00a0announced<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that doctors who \u201cspread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation\u201d risk disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the revocation of their medical license. The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM)\u00a0issued a similar warning<\/strong><\/a>, stating that physicians who publicly spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic risk losing their board certification. What exactly constitutes \u201cmisinformation\u201d is not defined in either case and likely includes anything that doesn\u2019t adhere to what government health authorities dictate. This gagging of free speech about alternative treatments violates patients\u2019 rights and the legal requirements of informed consent.<\/p>\n Who decides what counts as \u201cmisinformation\u201d? One thing we\u2019ve learned from the pandemic is that available information can change, often quite rapidly. The CDC\u2019s masking guidelines changed multiple times. Initially we were told that the virus could be spread on surfaces before subsequent investigations\u00a0revealed<\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>that the virus mostly spreads when aerosols and droplets containing the virus are inhaled. As we\u2019ve\u00a0said before<\/strong><\/a>, the Wuhan lab leak theory was first dismissed as a conspiracy theory, but is now acknowledged as a legitimate, even likely, explanation of the virus\u2019 origin. Often the \u201cmisinformation\u201d of today becomes the established facts of tomorrow.<\/p>\n Take ivermectin, for example. Informed consent legally requires your doctor to discuss the risks and benefits of alternatives to vaccines to address COVID-19. Would it be misinformation to talk about the\u00a0successes of ivermectin<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0impressive body of evidence<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that recommends its use to prevent and treat COVID-19? Is a doctor risking their license if they talk about the drop in COVID case counts in South American cities that instituted\u00a0massive, prophylactic ivermectin distribution campaigns<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0compared to cities that didn\u2019t? Despite this compelling evidence, the FDA\u00a0stubbornly recommends against<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0using ivermectin for COVID, likely because Big Pharma and their government cronies want mandatory vaccines, not ivermectin, as the answer to COVID because vaccines will make the most money.<\/p>\n The ABEM\u2019s edict against spreading \u201cmisinformation\u201d may be in response to the\u00a0MATH+ protocol<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0developed by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance for hospitalized COVID patients. Their protocol includes proven natural medicines like vitamin C, zinc, melatonin, and vitamin D (in addition to ivermectin and other medicines). Supplements like these are generally not patentable and thus unable to become FDA approved for the treatment of COVID, which requires expensive clinical trials. This is why the FDA and FTC\u00a0launched a massive censorship campaign<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0to silence discussion of how these \u201cunapproved\u201d medicines can help with COVID. It is shameful that doctors may risk their medical license by discussing these plausible alternatives for addressing COVID.<\/p>\n The vaccination issue has become a highly controversial topic with strong feelings on all sides. The government is recommending COVID vaccination for\u00a0almost everyone<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0above the age of 12. Informed consent legally requires doctors to discuss the risks and benefits of any medical procedure. Is it spreading \u201cmisinformation\u201d to discuss with patients the 488,318 adverse events, including close to 5,000 deaths, reported in the CDC\u2019s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)?<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t hyperbole. We saw one \u201cfact-checker\u201d\u00a0call out a post citing VAERS data<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0as false because, the fact-checker claimed, VAERS is unreliable and doesn\u2019t establish causation. That is true, but it\u2019s also true that a major limitation of VAERS is that adverse events are\u00a0severely underreported<\/strong><\/a>, perhaps even less than 1 percent. This would mean that VAERS arguably understates the dangers and side effects caused by vaccines. Is it \u201cmisinformation\u201d if your doctor informs you of these facts?<\/p>\n Is it \u201cmisinformation\u201d if you have an autoimmune condition and your doctor warns that you may be at increased risk of serious adverse events like blood clots, as we discussed in our\u00a0Right to kNOw campaign<\/strong><\/a>? To us, this seems to be legally required by informed consent for vaccination\u2014a complete picture of the benefits but also the risks of vaccination.<\/p>\n It\u2019s easy to see this as a slippery slope, making it a license-threatening offense to discuss ways to\u00a0boost immune resilience with supplements<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and other natural medicines.<\/p>\n