Is questioning the status quo in medicine now a crime? 🚨

Recently, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) made headlines by revoking the medical certifications of two prominent physicians, Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik, following a prolonged investigation into their advocacy for alternative treatments for COVID-19. This decision, which also affected Dr. Meryl Nass, who claims her certification was revoked without her knowledge, has sparked significant debate within the medical community and beyond. The revocations raise questions about the boundaries of medical discourse, the role of consensus in science, and the impact on physicians who challenge prevailing narratives.

The Revocation of Certifications: A Two-Year Investigation

The ABIM’s decision to revoke the certifications of Drs. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik came after a two-year investigation into their promotion of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as treatments for COVID-19.

Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine medications were deemed ineffective by the broader medical community in order to lockdown emergency use authorization (EUA) approval for the dangerous and untested mRNA drugs. Despite this, Kory and Marik continued to advocate for their use, along with expressing skepticism about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

According to reports, these two physicians are co-founders of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), an organization that promotes alternative treatments for COVID-19. The FLCCC has been accused by some experts of spreading misinformation about the pandemic, a claim that the ABIM appeared to support in its decision to revoke the certifications of Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik.

The Medical Community’s Response

The revocation of the certifications has been met with mixed reactions. The FLCCC Alliance, in a press release, categorically disagreed with the ABIM’s decision, arguing that it represents a dangerous shift away from the foundational principles of medical discourse and scientific debate. The press release emphasized that science thrives on dialogue and differing viewpoints, and that the censorship of dissenting opinions is detrimental to the progress of medical science.

Dr. Marik expressed disappointment with the decision, stating that it sets a concerning precedent where physicians who hold opposing viewpoints are silenced. He emphasized that the core of scientific progress lies in the ability to challenge the status quo and engage in open debate.

Dr. Kory echoed similar sentiments, asserting that the fight is not just about their right to speak, but about protecting the future of healthcare. He argued that when doctors are silenced for questioning the prevailing narrative, it is not just the individuals who suffer, but the entire medical community and society as a whole.

The Case of Dr. Meryl Nass: Certification Revoked Without Notice

While Drs. Kory and Marik were aware of the investigation and participated in a hearing, Dr. Meryl Nass, another physician known for her critical stance on COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, claimed that her certification was revoked without her knowledge. Nass, who is the founder of Door to Freedom, a group that advocates for medical freedom, said she only discovered the revocation when she searched her name in the ABIM’s database of certified physicians.

Nass’s case adds another layer of controversy to the ABIM’s actions. She alleges that the ABIM’s decision to revoke her certification is illegal according to the organization’s own procedures, as she was never informed of any investigation against her. Nass, whose medical license was previously suspended by the Maine Medical Board under contentious circumstances, argues that the ABIM’s actions are part of a broader effort to silence dissenting voices within the medical community.

Broader Implications for the Medical Profession

The revocation of certifications by the ABIM has broader implications for the medical profession, particularly for physicians who have been critical of mainstream approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Peter McCullough, another physician who has faced challenges with the ABIM over his positions on COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, highlighted the potential dangers of the ABIM’s actions. He accused the ABIM of violating principles of equal protection, due process, and the rules of evidence, arguing that the board is unfairly targeting doctors who were early innovators in treating COVID-19.

The revocations not only affect the reputations of the doctors involved but also have practical consequences for their careers. Without ABIM certification, physicians may find it difficult to practice in large hospitals and academic institutions, obtain hospital privileges, or collect insurance reimbursements. This effectively limits their ability to continue practicing medicine, particularly in the mainstream healthcare system.

A Debate Over Science and Consensus

At the heart of the controversy is a debate over the role of consensus in science and medicine. The ABIM’s decision was based on the argument that the statements made by Kory and Marik about the safety and efficacy of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and COVID-19 vaccines were false and inaccurate because they were not supported by consensus-driven medical information. However, Kory and Marik, along with their supporters, argue that science is not static and that consensus should not be the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Dr. Marik questioned the ABIM’s reliance on consensus, arguing that the board cherry-picked articles that supported their point of view while ignoring a broader range of scientific evidence. He and others believe that there is substantial data that calls into question both the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, data that they feel has been overlooked or dismissed by the ABIM.

Dr. McCullough further criticized the ABIM for failing to update its members on important risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines, such as myocarditis and other adverse events. He argued that the ABIM is setting a dangerous precedent by decertifying physicians for nonclinical reasons and ignoring evidence that contradicts the prevailing narrative.

Study Links mRNA COVID Vaccines to Increased Risk of Heart Inflammation

A recent study published on August 5 highlights a significant association between receiving the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, specifically the Pfizer and Moderna shots, and the onset of serious heart inflammation disorders, such as myocarditis and pericarditis. The study found that males under the age of 30 were particularly at risk for these post-vaccine side effects. The researchers, focusing on the Japanese population, noted that most adverse events occurred shortly after vaccination.

Despite the researchers’ claims that the prognosis for most vaccine recipients was generally positive, there have been instances of fatalities among those affected by heart inflammation. The study did not clearly address the long-term survival rates for individuals suffering from myocarditis or pericarditis post-vaccination. Concerns have been raised about the long-term mortality risk, with some statistics suggesting that up to 75% of those who develop myocarditis after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine may die within 15 years.

Interestingly, the study also incorporated data from as far back as 2004, which predates the introduction of mRNA vaccines by 17 years. This historical data was used to establish a baseline for heart disorder rates before the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing for a more comprehensive analysis of the increase in myocarditis and pericarditis cases following vaccination.

FDA Surveillance Study Reveals Serious Health Risks in Children Following mRNA COVID Vaccination

Yet another study published in JAMA, conducted as part of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) public health surveillance mandate, revealed that several serious health issues have been detected in children following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. The study identified statistical signals for myocarditis or pericarditis in children aged 12 to 17 after receiving the Pfizer vaccine (BNT162b2). Additionally, the study found a new safety signal indicating an increased risk of seizures in children aged 2 to 4 who received the Pfizer vaccine and those aged 2 to 5 who were administered the Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273).

The research analyzed data from adolescents aged 12 to 17 and confirmed a known safety signal for myocarditis and pericarditis, which are serious conditions involving inflammation of the heart or the membrane surrounding it. These conditions, which have previously been associated with the Pfizer vaccine, can be life-threatening. The study also brought to light a new concern regarding seizures in younger children who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, raising additional safety questions for this age group.

US Government Funded Study Links COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines and Myocarditis

Another government funded study linked COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to myocarditis that has gone unreported in the MSM.

The Future of Medical Discourse and Certification

The revocation of certifications by the ABIM raises important questions about the future of medical discourse and the role of certification boards in regulating the profession. Critics argue that the ABIM’s actions represent a form of “medical lawfare,” where organizations use legal and procedural mechanisms to silence dissenting voices.

As the debate continues, it remains to be seen how these actions will impact the broader medical community and the public’s trust in medical institutions. For now, the cases of Drs. Kory, Marik, Nass, and McCullough serve as a reminder of the complex and often contentious relationship between science, medicine, and public health policy.