This paper was published in March of 2022 by a who’s who of physicians and others: James A. Thorp*, Thomas Renz, Christiane Northrup, Charles Lively, Peter Breggin, Richard Bartlett, Neil Karrow, Steve Kirsch, James Welsh, Phil Euell, Ryan Cole, Jeff Childers, Bryan Ardis, Benjamin Marble, Eric Feintuch, Daniel Nagase, Richard Urso, Paul E Merik, Peter A. McCullough.
I have provided links for download and recommend reading the entire paper.
The authors have two goals with this paper. The first is
to review disciplinary threats made to healthcare professionals by their governing bodies in the US…
The second is
to review medical literature for complications related to the COVID-19 vaccines and data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), particularly those related to pregnant women and women of reproductive age.
To the first point, they also explain that they
aim to bring attention to the populace, healthcare workers, and healthcare administrators that illegal and unconstitutional gag orders have been placed on all healthcare workers in the US, and to alert everyone that no healthcare worker can be trusted since they are under a gag order which renders informed consent null and void.[emphasis mine]
I have been thinking about this as my home state of California is trying to pass a censorship bill for healthcare professionals. In most cases, doctors here are already being censored. If the state jumps in this will be all the more reason to consider doctors’s advice as suspect. In September of 2021 the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ABOG) threatened their 22,000 members with a “Statement Regarding Dissemination of COVID-19 Misinformation.” Well, of course they did. I recommend going to the link to read the short, draconian statement.
The biggest questions regarding “misinformation” are:
- Who defines misinformation?
- What is the definition of misinformation in this context?
ABOG refers you to the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) for this, an entity that also fails to define what “misinformation” is. The paper asserts that what FSMB does instead of defining their terms is to launch accusations “stating that there has been ‘a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online and in the media.'”
ABOG also defers to the American Board of Medical Specialities (ABMS) “which expresses concern regarding the serious public health effects of the persistent spread of misinformation regarding the COVID-19 virus.” Apparently, deferring to others for your definitions will absolve you of any guilt you might otherwise have to deal with.
But still, there is no definitive definition. Does no one want to define misinformation? ABOG then goes on to agree with FSMB that doctors “have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health.”
Well this sounds just great, doesn’t it? But we all know that this does not mean what it appears to mean. The paper drives the point home:
As it turns out, there is no real definition for “COVID-19 vaccine misinformation” – or any honest answers to the questions posed above. The phrase “COVID-19 vaccine misinformation” constitutes a euphemism, and its true goal is deception. This is because euphemisms don’t create meaning, they disguise and distort or hide it, and have thus been referred to as “the language of evasion, hypocrisy, prudery, and deceit.”
Who is behind these statements? The authors of the paper make some logical conclusions:
As long-standing supporters of these distinguished organizations, the authors find it difficult to believe that ABOG created the language contained in your Statement Regarding Dissemination of COVID-19 Misinformation. Perhaps not coincidentally, this same language appeared and was published almost simultaneously by FSMB.org, ABMS.org, the Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN.org), multiple other ABMS boards, the AMA, SMFM, ACOG, governmental and private organizations with ties to the pharmaceutical industry, the pharmaceutical industry itself, “Big Tech” companies, the mainstream media, multiple medical journals, insurance companies, and many others who have a financial or other stake in pushing the experimental gene therapies.
If you want to see something interesting go to Google and enter “Statement Regarding Dissemination of COVID-19 Misinformation.” Just start clicking the links. Here’s some of what you’ll find:
We at the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), and the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) support FSMB’s position. We also want all physicians certified by our Boards to know that such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective Board to take action that could put their certification at risk.
When identifying themselves by their profession, nurses are professionally accountable for the information they provide to the public. Any nurse who violates their state nurse practice act or threatens the health and safety of the public through the dissemination of misleading or incorrect information pertaining to COVID-19, vaccines and associated treatment through verbal or written methods including social media may be disciplined by their board of nursing. Nurses are urged to recognize that dissemination of misinformation not only jeopardizes the health and well-being of the public, but may place their license and career in jeopardy as well.
ABMGG diplomates are required to meet high standards of professional and ethical conduct in the interest of protecting the public good. The spread of medical or scientific misinformation is unethical, unprofessional, and potentially harmful to the public. Accordingly, such behavior may threaten a diplomate’s certification by the ABMGG.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, some health care professionals have deliberately made false claims about COVID-19 vaccines and how the virus is transmitted, peddled untested treatments and cures, and flouted public health efforts such as masking and vaccinations—posing serious health risks to patients and significantly damaging vaccine confidence across the country. The new policy calls for the AMA to collaborate with relevant health professional societies and other stakeholders to combat public health disinformation disseminated by health professionals in all forms of media and address disinformation that undermines public health initiatives.
The rest of the paper focuses on the disaster the vaccines have been, with a special emphasis on pregnant women and their babies.
There are multiple independent sources all over the world that have observed significant increases in miscarriage (spontaneous abortion), fetal death, fetal malformation, severe placental inflammation, severe IUGR, neonatal demise, infant demise, permanent newborn/infant/child chronic autoimmune diseases, permanent immune deficiency syndromes, chronic permanent CNS diseases and chronic cognitive impairment, seizure disorders, neonatal / infant cancers, opportunistic infections, and many other disastrous consequences.
One of the things the paper is attempting to do is to get ABOG to retract their statement and work with these doctors to provide real solutions. I don’t see that happening. At this point, I think the only thing that will persuade these people is the real possibility of financial penalties and/or jail time. They are in too deep. The author’s write:
It should be understood that anyone who recommended this extremely dangerous experimental gene therapy in all pregnant women, in the absence of any safety data, bears the responsibility for these disastrous consequences.
Maybe that will scare or intimidate those who whole-heartedly recommended the vaccines without looking into it themselves. Will any of the people realize or be willing to admit they were lied to and that they trusted the information without giving it a second thought? These people are accountable.
There are thousands of physicians around the world that have treated millions of severe outpatient COVID-19 patients with early, effective, and safe options utilizing a variety of vitamins, supplements, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, steroids, and other safe repurposed medications. Dr. Peter McCullough arguably the most well-studied and published physician in the State of Texas and author of over 600 peer-reviewed publications, has championed the safe and effective use of early outpatient treatment for COVID-19, including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other vitamins, supplements, and repurposed drugs.
It is terrible to realize the amount of deaths and adverse events around the world that could have been avoided using these early, well-tested protocols. Read the paper, there’s a lot more in it than what is covered here.