SCOTUS is now weighing whether licensing boards can punish doctors for offering off-label drugs like Ivermectin
X Post
The HighWire w/ Del Bigtree
Politico is upset that the Supreme Court might let doctors… talk to their patients.
Read that again.
Politico's actual concern (in print!!!) is that a Supreme Court ruling protecting physician free speech "could permit doctors to speak more freely with patients and to the public about approaches to health care that are outside the mainstream."
Outside the mainstream. Let's talk about that for a second.
Who decides what's "mainstream?" The same institutions that told us masks didn't work, then said they did? The same bodies that said COVID couldn't have come from a lab? The same establishment that assured us the vaccines would stop transmission? The same system that watched Dr. Paul Marik (the most published ICU doctor in the world) stand before a Senate hearing in tears, saying, "They took away the drugs that were working for me. They made me just watch my patients die."
His ICU had the highest survival rate. And they stripped him of his ability to treat.
Doctors who used hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin (and saved lives doing it) had their licenses threatened or revoked. Not for harming patients. For HELPING them. For thinking outside the box when the entire world admitted it didn't know how to treat this disease.
The Supreme Court is now weighing whether licensing boards can punish doctors for speaking their truth. And Politico's position is that they should be able to.
The patient comes first. That is the foundation of medicine. And what we did to doctors during COVID, and what Politico is defending, is the complete inversion of that principle.