The Witch Hunt Continues

U.S. Physician Dr. Ryan Cole Faces Charges From His Licensing Body

I am so sick and tired of seeing medical licensing bodies going on what appear to me to be witch hunts to round up and punish anyone and everyone who has dared to challenge their singular COVID-19 ‘narrative’.

The most recent victim is Dr. Ryan Cole, a physician in the United States of America. I have followed Dr. Cole’s public messaging and he knows what he is talking about. He is right to have voiced concerns regarding mask and ‘vaccine’ mandates, and to promote the use of effective early treatment strategies based on rationalized combinations of repurposed drugs. He has done the right thing by demanding transparent evidence from organizations that pushed rushed COVID-19 policies on people. As an expert vaccinologist who has been following COVID-19 science very closely, I can confirm that he has a solid rationale for dissenting with many of the decisions that his licensing college has made.

In my expert opinion, most medical licensing bodies, including those for physicians and surgeons, and other health professionals like naturopathic doctors, chiropractors, etc. should be thoroughly investigated. Specifically, they should be investigated for potential failure to follow and/or understand COVID-19 science and change their policies accordingly.

I recommend demanding that licensing bodies provide detailed reports to demonstrate their understanding of the peer-reviewed scientific literature that is focused on COVID-19; akin to what would be provided to a court of law. Hearsay evidence, such as quoting health-related organizations should not be allowed. Instead, evidence should focus on published data and raw data transparently overlaid with expert interpretations. Further, materials and methods to generate all data contained in the report should be commented on to either justify the strength of the data or to downgrade it. Conclusions drawn by authors of papers should never be accepted as conclusive. Rather, conclusions need to be drawn from a direct assessment of the materials and methods, followed by a deep and unbiased analysis of the results, which, by design, lack any overlay of opinions of the authors. The individuals who contribute to the report and their potential conflicts of interest should be fully disclosed.

Top-tier scientific reviewers could be carefully selected to review these reports. This group could be chaired by a carefully selected objective individual that specializes in conflict resolution and mediation meetings. This would be the equivalent of a grant review committee. However, the Chair would not need to be an expert in COVID-19 science. In fact, non-expertise in the field would probably be a necessity to ensure objectivity. I for one, would be happy to volunteer to provide my expert review services. Each reviewer could assign scores to the reports from licensing bodies based on a pre-established rubric. We would be compelled to fully rationalize our scores, including highlighting strengths and weaknesses.

All of the health professionals that a licensing body has gone after for COVID-19-related issues could also submit their evidence, individually or in a pooled report.

The review committee could then convene a panel discussion to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each body of evidence.

The expert review panel could then mediate a discussion of both reports between a limited number of representatives from each group (i.e., the licensing body vs. the accused health professionals). This could be done in a public forum for the educational benefit of the general populace.

A process like would not only help facilitate objective resolution of the ongoing conflicts between licensing bodies and their members, it would be an incredibly productive way to identify the overall strengths and weaknesses in the science underpinning COVID-19. A key outcome would be identification of key questions that could be prioritized for answer-seeking research moving forward.

Licensing bodies have been allowed to conduct the equivalent of witch hunts while apparently releasing themselves of the responsibility to demonstrate their own deep understanding of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. At the moment, I cannot recall a single time that I have seen licensing bodies provide a comprehensive list of scientific references to back-up their public accusations against their members. What I have observed is these licensing bodies applying well-coordinated ‘divide and conquer’ strategies against dissenting health professionals, with a healthy dose of censorship being a core weapon in their arsenal.

If the licensing bodies are correct and the health professionals they are maligning are incorrect, a process like the one above would be able to readily identify this (or vice versa).

No scientific or medical health professional should be above having the burden of proof placed upon them.

---