Madison Area Lyme Support Group

Physicians who publicly spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic could be sanctioned by the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM), including potentially losing board certification, the organization said Thursday.

“Making public statements that are directly contrary to prevailing medical evidence can constitute unprofessional conduct and may be subject to review by ABEM. Should ABEM determine that a physician is promulgating inaccurate information that is contrary to the interests of patients and that adversely impacts public safety, ABEM may withdraw or deny certification for that physician,” they stated.

This warning echoes a statement that focused on COVID-19 vaccines specifically from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) issued earlier this month. Both follow reports of some physicians deliberately spreading misinformation about the pandemic — especially regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.  (See link for article)

____________________

The AMA is not our friend, but is a political organization that wants to monopolize medicine, and cares more about money and power than patients.

Thankfully, State legislators are pushing back against the draconian AMA:

• Colorado  HB 22-1015 restates a prescriber’s ability to use off-label treatments, including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and would keep licensing boards from disciplining a prescriber or pharmacist for doing so.
• Florida HB 687 and SB 1184, which would keep state medical licensing boards from disciplining, or threatening to discipline, a medical provider for what they say on social media and other platforms, unless the regulatory board could prove that it resulted in “direct physical harm” of a patient who they’ve treated in the last 3 years.
• Idaho  HB 613 prohibits a medical licensing board from taking action against a provider for COVID-19 treatment recommendations, including off-label drugs, and also from requiring a provider to report their vaccination status for licensure.
• Indiana  HB 1372 lets a doctor or an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) make a standing order for pharmacist to dispense ivermectin, and prevents multiple licensing boards from disciplining a licensee because of the order. The bill also stipulates that no information given out by the pharmacy’s information sheet “may discourage the recipient from using ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.”
• Iowa  SF 2031 protects physicians who prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine from actions by licensing bodies. HF 2266 lets pharmacists prescribe these drugs with a standing order if they request it, and protects them from any liability if the drugs cause harm.
• Kansas SB 211 and HB 2280 requires patients wanting an off-label drug to sign a waiver protecting the prescribing physician from liability if any harm occurs. Both bills were referred to the Committee on Public Health and Welfare. Also, SB 381 would allow prescriptions for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for COVID, and specifies that a prescription, recommendation, or opinion of a provider related to any COVID-19 treatment can’t be considered “unprofessional conduct.” The bill would also rescind any disciplinary actions related to off-label treatment that started in March 2020. State legislators also pushed for a budget change that would slash the budget for state medical board investigations into prescribers of ivermectin.
• Kentucky  HB 352 prevents medical boards from disciplining a physician or physician assistant (PA) based on their treatment for COVID-19, including treatments not approved by the FDA, as long as they believe it’s in the best interest of a patient who has given written consent.
• Missouri  SB 1133 keeps a state medical licensing board from disciplining a provider for dispensing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, and also prevents the provider from asking why the patient needs the medication.
• New Hampshire  HB 1022 prevents licensing boards from taking action against providers for prescribing ivermectin with a standing order. HB 1466 prevents action by licensing boards against physicians for off-label use of FDA-approved drugs or devices.
• Oklahoma  HB 4294 keeps medical licensing boards from suspending, revoking, or not renewing a license based on a physician’s treatments or recommendations for COVID-19.
• Pennsylvania  HB 1741 was introduced in July 2021, but tabled in February 2022. The bill states that doctors may prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, and prohibits the state medical licensing board from disciplining any doctor or pharmacist for using off-label treatments for COVID-19. The wording was later amended to remove the latter language, but kept the language on licensing boards. FSMB publicly opposed this bill, stating, “Restricting a state medical board’s authority to assess the quality of patient care — as this bill would — limits recourse for patients that have suffered harm.”
• Tennessee  HB 1870/SB 1880 prevents medical licensing boards or subcommittees from taking any disciplinary action against physicans related to COVID-19 treatment, if the provider thinks the treatment is in the patient’s best interest. HB 2506/SB 2621 allows doctors, PAs, and APRNs to prescribe ivermectin, and lets pharmacists dispense it, without facing discipline from licensing boards. HB 2744/SB 2630 stipulates the same for pharmacies to dispense ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The state’s medical board pulled their policy with the FSMB language from its website in response to pressure from Republican lawmakers. According to a Tennessee state representative who spoke to MedPage Today previously, the medical board was being given too much power, and he’d heard from doctors in his area that it was “just unheard of and unprecedented that this board of medical examiners would review things that we’re saying.”
• Virginia  HB 102/SB 711 keep medical licensing boards from disciplining providers who prescribe FDA-approved drugs for off-label use.
• Washington  HB 2065 allows providers, including naturopathic practitioners, to recommend or prescribe hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, the steroid budesonide, monoclonal antibodies, zinc, vitamin D, and vitamin C for COVID-19 without facing disciplinary action.
• West Virginia  HB 4309 lets providers prescribe hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or ivermectin off-label; specifies that no action can be taken against prescribers; and that such prescriptions don’t constitute “unprofessional conduct or otherwise grounds for discipline. HB 4455/SB 605 allows pharmacists to prescribe ivermectin through a doctor or APRN standing order, and states that no data on the information sheet about the drug can discourage the use of ivermectin. Medical boards would not be able to take action against the standing orders.
• Wisconsin  Introduction of a bill that would amend the state statute to protect healthcare providers from any action from their credentialing board in the Department of Safety and Professional Services. The bill proposes that no credentialing board can retaliate, discriminate, or otherwise take any action against a provider for expressing their “professional opinions.”

**Comment**

Just to pound the nail in the coffin, doctors are reminded yet again if they happened to forget, Big Brother is watching them closely and anyone stating anything that isn’t in the accepted narrative script will be hunted down and persecuted. The article goes on to list many of the 20 “notable” super spreader physicians giving this “misinformation,” and that they had yet to be disciplined by their state boards as of last week.

The catch of course is what actually constitutes “misinformation?” Look no further.  ABEM’s Code of Professionalism states:

“ABEM certification requirements for professionalism includes an ethical requirement to … Refrain from conduct that the Board determines, in its sole judgment, to be sufficiently egregious that it is inconsistent with ethical behavior by a physician.”

They clearly spell out that behavior, solely determined by the board to be inconsistent, will result in decertification.

“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.”

In essence they are stating that medicine is to be consensus-driven, and anyone outside the group-think will be axed.  

If you are a Lyme/MSIDS patient, please pause here and reflect.  Consensus-driven medicine outlaws anyone who has a different thought or approach in medicine.  Ponder history for just a moment:

• Remember Florence Nightingale, aka, The Lady With the Lamp, who through organization, cleanliness, and warmth reduced hospital death rate by two-thirds, but defied current convention?
• How about Dr. Lister, the man who changed the world by hand-washing & cleanliness when ‘experts’ were happily going from surgery to surgery with bloody aprons and without a thought or concern over bacteria.
• What about Antony van Leeuwenhoek, an uneducated man without a scientific background who was the first to expose the world of bacteria to the ‘experts’?
• Or better yet, what about the crazy Barry Marshall who defied the ‘stress causes ulcers’ consensus, drank a patient’s organisms in a “cloudy broth”, biopsied his own gut!, and cured it with antibiotics?
• And more currently, how the Alzheimer’s Cabal that thwarted progress for decades, due to a dogmatic, singular belief in the ‘amyloid hypothesis’ prevented any competing ideas.

Lyme/MSIDS of course fits perfectly into this picture as there are currently two standards of care with continued polarization that doesn’t appear to be changing. Doctors and researchers who do not “toe the line” and follow the antiquated and unscientific CDC/IDSA Lyme treatment guidelines are still being hunted down, persecuted, fined, and can lose their medical license. Wisconsin has a long history with tick-borne illness and represents the first published case in a medical journal. Further, an IDSA founder who was a Wisconsin physician, disagreed with the CDC/IDSA stance and regularly treated his patients with high doses of IV antibiotics for tick-borne illness. We are in the thick of this ongoing battle.

Please remember that progress would not have been made if these fore-thinking people hadn’t defied consensus medicine. After all, science is continually evolving as evidence becomes available.

But herein lies the catch: evidence must be allowed to be gathered, debated, shared, and tested. 

Now they are shuting down the very people who can, and have found a way out of COVID madness.

Of course, there are guilty people, but not the ones listed by our corrupt public health ‘authorities’, and complicit mainstream medicine, and media.  The FDA and CDC have attacked every single therapy and test presented by others, the latest of which is ivermectin, a cheap, safe, proven drug against COVID with the media playing along by twisting and omitting facts. Rather than focus on the fact ‘authorities’ are bad mouthing and preventing successful treatments, they focus on the fact that desperate patients with nowhere to turn are self-treating with the animal form of ivermectin and are taking too much.  Further, they are completely ignoring the thousands upon thousands who have suffered harm from the COVID jabs and would rather blame “anxiety” for causing anaphylaxis, blood clots, hemorrhaging, heart inflammation, strokes, Bell’s Palsy, convulsions, and myocarditis (among a host of other reactions) rather than the injections.

For 40 years Lyme/MSIDS patients have often been told they were simply imagining their illness.

COVID madness looks a lot like Lyme/MSIDS madness.