Covid has led to an unprecedented level of medical censorship. Long-standing norms have been erased by a cabal of political and corporate elites that now dictate how medicine may be practiced. Medical journals reject or retract peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts with conclusions that do not support prevailing health policies or pharmaceutical company interests. And physicians who don’t toe the line are persecuted by their employers, ridiculed by their peers, and denied access to popular media platforms. If this trend continues, physicians—along with the patients they serve and the nature of scientific discovery itself—will soon be completely and irrevocably subordinated to special interests.
On Saturday, we will join physicians in Ocala, FL, to determine a course of action that doctors can take together to fight this censorship and protect patients. The basis for this meeting is our shared commitment to the Global Covid Summit Declaration II, which lays out three policies that will define our response to the pandemic in the months ahead. After careful consideration, the FLCCC has elected to sign and support the declaration. We want to make clear why we came to this decision, as these tenets underscore the importance of pushing back against the use of government force to dictate medical policy and practice in America.
First, the decision to treat Covid is between a patient and their physician. We have been working on the frontlines for 18 months to treat patients ravaged by the pandemic. We’ve reviewed hundreds of studies, consulted with fellow physicians across the U.S. and around the world, published treatment data in several journals. Based on this knowledge, the FLCCC has developed treatment protocols that we believe give patients the best options to most quickly recover from Covid. Our protocols are built around ivermectin, which numerous studies have shown can reduce Covid cases, hospitalizations, and death rates. Government officials in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, credit a program centered around the widespread use of ivermectin with the near total eradication of the disease.
Many other treatments also show efficacy. Our fellow physicians thus may have different approaches based on their patients and experiences with these various therapies. The important thing is that we enable discussion and debate to give physicians the freedom and ability to decide the best course of treatment for their patients. This is simply not happening. Our public health agencies and institutions have implemented a rigid, top-down approach to treatment, threatening physicians who don’t follow their pre-ordained protocols with loss of their livelihoods.
Second, people who have been infected with the novel coronavirus and recovered should not be mandated to get vaccinated. It was clear as early as the summer of 2020 that Covid infection conferred significant protection when people who recovered from the disease were not getting sick again. Over 100 published studies have since confirmed that immune system protection is durable, reinfection rare, and that in all cases, natural immunity confers equal or superior protection to vaccines.
However, as with early Covid treatment, it seems no amount of evidence will convince proponents of vaccination mandates that natural immunity merits consideration. The CDC cherry-picks studies or contorts data to claim vaccine protection is superior, justifying the administration’s heavy-handed vaccine mandate policies. And public health professionals who know better play along, discounting natural immunity on the basis that these same government agencies have not established a common standard for antibody testing.
All of this is cold comfort for people who have been forced or pressured to get vaccinated and suffered injuries—and it’s going to be even worse when it happens to their children. This is why we support the third article of the declaration: healthy children should not be forced to get the vaccine.
We simply do not have enough information to justify forcing these injections on children. According to the New York Timesstory on the FDA panel’s recommendation to approve Pfizer’s vaccine for children:
“Pfizer officials described safety data on about 4,500 children ages 5 to 11 divided into two cohorts of roughly equal size. The first group was followed for about two months, the second for about two and a half weeks.”
Under normal conditions, this is a process that takes years. There is no scientific or moral basis on which to rush to vaccinate children and expose them to potential harm—which is a near certainty—given that fewer than 700 children have died of Covid in this country.
We are concerned that these policies may be exposing healthy people to potential harm and must be challenged. In each case, the government is forcing people to make personal medical decisions that should be left between a patient and his or her doctor. That’s why we have signed this declaration and why we will be in Ocala to work with a growing community of concerned physicians to push for policy reform.
