It is a fact – recognized even by the politically left-leaning Centers for Disease Control – that “Vaccines are not safe for everyone.”
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley noted, however, that the also left-leaning Twitter suspended the account of a Just The News reporter for making that statement.
That potential danger for some individuals long has been recognized by the federal government, which has immunized vaccine makers from liability for damages and injuries from their products, and instead has taxpayers pay up when something very bad happens.
“Twitter is enforcing one of the largest censorship programs in history. It is the license of the censor. Twitter is unwilling to let people read or discuss viewpoints that it disagrees with as a corporation,” Turley said.
Now a report from Becker Hospital Review points out that doctors in positions to manage their industry are taking the same censorious position: Agree with us or we’ll hurt you badly.
The report explained the Federation of State Medical Boards has warned that “physicians and other healthcare professionals could be at risk of losing their medical licenses if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on social media, online and in the media”
But the organization left undefined “misinformation” and it could include any opinion with which it disagrees.
The report explained the federation represents all U.S. state medical boards and threatened that anyone offending its perception of “vaccine misinformation” would be dealt with in an immediate fashion.
That would include suspension or revocation of a medical license, the federation told the Review.
“Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also 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,” the federation warned.
The report confirmed there was no definition provided, but the organization is reviewing misinformation and will provide more instructions later.
“However, we currently view misinformation as sharing or distributing verifiably false information,” a federation official told the Review. “We define disinformation as sharing or distributing information that the distributor knows is false.”
Among the scandals that has developed during the worldwide pandemic inflicted by the COVID-19 virus that apparently originated in a Chinese biolap in Wuhan is that social media, legacy media and even some medical organizations have worked actively to suppress information about drugs that already have been approved for other uses that may minimize the damage from COVID-19.
There are multiple peer-reviewed studies that show, for example, that hydroxychloroquine is a safe and effective treatment. There also is support for the use of Ivermectin.
But social media companies like Twitter have actively censored those studies and comments about them, and punished people who raise the options that should be available to the American public.
One physician explained how hydroxychloroquine is an FDA-approved medication that’s been in use for 65 years, and has science backing its applications. But she was punished by social media for explaining those facts.
Among the many other physicians who have found hydroxychloroquine to be an effective treatment for COVID patients is Dr. Stephen M. Smith of East Orange, New Jersey.
In an interview with WND in May, Smith expressed his frustration with the politicization of hydroxychloroquine and the disconnect between the scientific data on the drug and the statements of scientists, media and politicians who have access to that data.
Smith, who briefed President Trump last year on the safety and effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, pointed out the World Health Organization temporarily halted studying hydroxychloroquine in response to a widely reported observational study published in the medical journal The Lancet that concluded seriously ill COVID-19 patients who were treated with hydroxychloroquine were more likely to die.
But in an embarrassing turn, the premiere journal was forced to withdraw the study after three of the four authors issued an apology, citing concerns about the quality and veracity of the data.
The federation said it could use allegations of “professional misconduct” or “ethics violations” to address physicians who fail to follow its messaging requirements.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.