We need to offer protections to doctors who dare to speak about natural and off-patent medicines to help with COVID. Action Alerts!
A new report titled “Disinformation Doctors: Licensed to Mislead” calls on state medical boards across the country to take “proactive action” to stop medical doctors from spreading COVID “disinformation.” This is in line with other attempts at the federal level to gag free speech about natural treatments for COVID prevention and treatment. We cannot allow these attacks on free speech to succeed.
The main thrust of the report seems to be that vaccines are the only scientifically and medically viable way of addressing COVID-19, and any medical advice to the contrary constitutes “disinformation” that deserves punishment, including revoking doctors’ medical licenses.
The report authors claim that much of this “disinformation” relies on data from the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)—which, as of this writing, lists 8,892 deaths from COVID vaccines. The report authors encourage us to ignore these numbers and other reports of serious side effects from vaccination because “a report to VAERS does not mean that the vaccine caused the adverse event, only that the adverse event occurred some time after vaccination.” Yet the CDC routinely uses VAERS data to conduct its own studies and post-market safety surveillance on vaccines, suggesting the data is not as useless as the authors would like us to believe.
The report further claims that there isn’t evidence to support any prescription drug (like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine) or over-the-counter supplement to prevent or treat COVID-19. There are, in fact, compendiums of hundreds of studies showing the benefits of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for COVID-19, particularly when used in early treatment. One trial was recently published apparently showing ivermectin was ineffective for COVID, but there were a number of problems with the study: the dosage was too low, treatment was only for five days when it should continue for five days after symptoms subside, and the study population was older patients with comorbidities, which is not representative of the wider population. Further, ivermectin treatment in the study started within seven days of first symptoms, but this is not early enough; ivermectin needs to be started immediately, ideally on day one of symptoms presenting. We’ve reported on the impressive evidence for many natural treatments as well, including vitamin D, NAC, zinc, quercetin, and many others.
This report represents the kind of irresponsible thinking that led to many needless deaths. As we reported previously, front-line doctors were using combinations of drugs and supplements, including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and zinc, for the early treatment of COVID at the beginning of the pandemic with remarkable results. Studies that utilized these approaches showed an 85 percent reduction in mortality.
There seems to be a mistaken narrative, propagated by the mainstream media, that a group of rogue doctors are peddling unproven treatments like ivermectin on their patients. This is false. Front line doctors treated hundreds of patients each throughout the pandemic. In the absence of useable advice from the government, these doctors are using the medicines they have at their disposable to achieve the best outcomes for their patients. If ivermectin didn’t work in their experience, they wouldn’t use it.
Misguided attacks on disinformation are gaining steam. The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) issued a rare public statement explaining that doctors spreading COVID-19 disinformation may be putting their licenses at risk. This organization has a history of opposition to natural medicine dating back to the mid-1990s, when it discussed altering the definition of health fraud to include alternative medical care! It would appear that FSMB considers innovative approaches to healthcare to be nothing more than exercises in “quackery” and would jump at an easy chance to revoke the licenses of doctors who do not adhere to conventional medical orthodoxy—the very orthodoxy that ensures the FSMB an annual revenue of $50 million, mostly from offering credentialing services and licensing exams.
This isn’t to say that there are not bad actors out there spreading patently false information. But there is a massive problem with encouraging state medical boards to initiate a campaign against “disinformation” because what constitutes “disinformation” is in the eye of the beholder; any definition will likely be vague enough to encapsulate any health information the government or state medical boards don’t like. Will you be censored if you discuss the side effects of the COVID vaccine? If you point out the potential limits of their efficacy? If you talk about the immune support that vitamin D offers? If you discuss anything that deviates from the guidelines of the CDC or the FDA? Judging from this report, the answer to all these questions is “Yes.”
As we’ve pointed out before, emerging data means that narratives—and what is considered “disinformation”—can change. What was dismissed by many in the mainstream media as a conspiracy theory—the idea that the COVID virus could have escaped from a virology lab in Wuhan—has now gained traction with leading virologists endorsing the theory and President Biden calling for further investigation into the origins of the pandemic.
Some state legislatures are pushing back against these ill-advised efforts with bills that protect doctors and other health practitioners from state medical board disciplinary actions based on their advice on COVID-19 or for prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. There is also newly-introduced federal legislation, the Right to Treat Act, reaffirming that no federal agency has the right to regulate the practice of medicine or restrict the lawful prescribing of FDA-approved drugs. We must support these important initiatives.
Action Alert! Scroll down below and write to Congress, urging your representatives to support the Right to Treat Act. If you live in one of the listed states, click the corresponding link to take action on legislation in your state. Please send your message immediately.
States with bills protecting physicians and health care providers from disciplinary actions for treating COVID-19:
3 thoughts on “COVID “Disinformation” Witch Hunt”
As you said, doctors treating patients with known effective drugs are not some rogue bunch of misfits. I know of at least 4 well respected doctors in my area who are using everything at their disposal. One of them is the top infectious disease doctor in the area. For many years now other doctors have consulted with him on tough cases. He knows what he is doing.
There can be no answer other than Pfizer is pouring 10’s of millions into a campaign to discredit anything that works that they don’t profit off of. It is evil.
Most of the studies of ivermectin for COVID treatment involved test groups that were way too small, most consisting of a few hundred people, and many were over 60 years old, with other health issues. Some studies showed the drug to be effective, while other studies showed it not to be. Some doctors reported success with alternate treatments, while other doctors reported otherwise. The single biggest problem with this pandemic was a complete lack of widespread testing. Statistics regarding the virus abound everywhere, but without widespread testing, we have no idea how infectious the virus was, how fatal it was, etc. It could very well have been what the naysayers were touting, that almost no one died from it. Did masks and distancing slow the spread? We don’t know, because we don’t know how many were infected. We suspect our precautions slowed down the spread of the virus, but without data, we don’t really know. Did these alternate treatments actually work? Again, we don’t know, because too few people were tested, even in these trials.
Early treatment is the key. Too many people were told to “go home and if your lips turn blue, go to the emergency room.” At that point, it was too late for HCQ or Ivermectin or other useful (and inexpensive) preventatives or treatments and they ended up on respirators, which killed them. The bureaucrats who threatened doctors and pharmacists for using their early treatment methods need to be charged with mass murder–being paid by Big Pharma to wait for more expensive medications or vaccines.
And forced masking of children was child abuse. This could have been handled as with any infectious disease–keep sick kids at home and away from grandma.