03/24/2024
The first amendment needs to apply social media. Media rules that pertain to public safety need to be a evaluated and cannot depend on political advantage or popular opinion. Just because someone has a different opinion does not mean they are a danger.
We saw how often someone whose opinion differed from popular opinion, regarding anything having to do with a pandemic, was instantly removed from social media.
Now we’re beginning to see some of the doubts, concerns, differing ideas actually have merit. Be very, very careful that we do not suppress conversation just because it is controversial. Or an opinion that is contradictory . Or that differs from the majority. Or from our political Leaders. Or even when it differs from the medical majority. 
Some of the questions many medical providers asked ( including myself) were:
Did the virus originate from a China lab? ( now the NIH believes it did)
Can we have access to the study data from Pfizer?
( they wanted it undisclosed for 75 years… a court ruled against that in 2022 and now has been made public. I urge you to find it and read it.)
Does the vaccine actually eliminate or reduce transmission? ( Pfizer now says it does not and has actually said they never claimed it did).
Are there long term risks of the covid vaccine? ( I run a Long Covid vaccine clinic for both viral and vaccine sequelae).
Do we need to have repeated boosters for Covid? What is the benefit/risk data? AND do repeated boosters increase our risk of serious vaccine side effects?
Not only could I not have my public opinion without threat of removal, retaliation, or reprisal, I could not even ask the questions. I trust science. I don’t trust suppression. Nor do I ever put blind trust in pharmaceutical companies and those who profit from them.
I will always stand for Honest Medicine and the patients I serve.
