According to the American Board of Internal Medicine, the remarks made by Dr. Peter McCullough may breach the board’s guideline on false or incorrect medical information. Now, the very same medical board is moving to strip Dr. Peter McCullough of his certifications.
In response to allegations that he misled the public regarding COVID-19 vaccines, a medical board has sought to revoke Dr. Peter McCullough’s credentials in internal medicine and cardiovascular disease.
In a recent letter (read below), the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) alerted McCullough of the development.
According to the board, McCullough’s remarks questioning the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination for healthy individuals under the age of 50 and mentioning that Americans have perished after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine prompted a review that resulted in a recommendation that McCullough’s board certifications be revoked.
According to the letter, the Credentials and Certification Committee of the ABIM determined that McCullough had “provided false or inaccurate medical information to the public.”
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
“By casting doubt on the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines with such seemingly authoritative statements, made in various official forums and widely reported in various media, your statements pose serious concerns for patient safety,” it reads. “Moreover, they are inimical to the ethics and professionalism standards for board certification.”
McCullough has until November 18 to file an appeal.
If he files an appeal, a panel chosen by the ABIM Board of Directors will review the case, and at least one hearing will be held. The panel could adopt the suggestion, reject it, or issue a different sanction.
McCullough stated in an email to The Epoch Times that he will appeal.
The board stated in a May notice of prospective disciplinary action that McCullough issued “numerous widely reported and disseminated public statements about the purported dangers of, or lack of justification for, Covid-19 vaccines.”
The board references McCullough’s testimony dated March 10, 2021, before a Texas Senate panel as an instance, in which he claimed that those who have recovered from COVID-19 had “complete and durable immunity” and that there is no justification for immunizing such a person.
At the time, McCullough said that there was “no scientific rationale” for giving the immunizations to healthy individuals under the age of 50.
Furthermore, in a court declaration, McCullough stated that more than 18,000 COVID-19 vaccination deaths had been recorded to the US-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, significantly above the total number of reported deaths for all other vaccines combined.
According to the American Board of Internal Medicine, the remarks may breach the board’s guideline on false or incorrect medical information, which states that “providing false or inaccurate information to patients or the public is unprofessional and unethical” and may result in sanctions.
McCullough used statistics showing that those under 50 have a negligible risk of dying after catching the illness, particularly if they do not have major underlying medical issues to support his claims about the COVID-19 immunization, for example.
He also mentioned that COVID-19 treatments are available, that the COVID-19 vaccination spike protein has been connected to complications such as blood clotting, and that the vaccines have offered inadequate protection against infection and no protection against transmission.
McCullough also cited data that revealed those with natural immunity—a category excluded from the vaccinations’ clinical trials—are more susceptible to vaccine adverse effects and had better protection than the vaccinated.
He stated that, in his medical judgment, patients who have recovered from COVID-19, based on his medical education, clinical experience, and assessment of scientific evidence, “have robust and durable immunity against the severe outcomes of adjudicated COVID-19 hospitalization and death recognizing that the Omicron variant has broken through natural immunity.”
He also stated that there “is no medical necessity or clinical indication for vaccination of a COVID-19 recovered patient since they have already had the condition for which the vaccines are indicated to prevent” and that scientific evidence does not reinforce vaccinating anyone under the age of 50.
The assertions regarding the purported absence of benefit from COVID-19 vaccines against mortality for people under 50, according to ABIM’s decision letter, were “not factual, scientifically grounded, or consensus driven.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that as of October 6, more than 71,000 Americans within this population had died from COVID-19, which was the basis for the board’s conclusion. No studies or other data were cited by the board.
The board claimed that the claims about COVID-19 vaccine mortality were likewise untrue because the CDC has determined that the advantages of receiving the vaccination exceed the risks. The CDC lists cardiac inflammation, blood clotting, and severe allergic shock as major vaccination adverse effects. All three are lethal.
“Nothing in your declaration submitted in response to the Notice, or in the materials submitted to ABIM on your behalf, compels a different conclusion,” ABIM wrote.
The World Health Organization was the sole other organization cited by the board. According to the WHO, billions of people worldwide “have been safely vaccinated against COVID-19,” and that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines “have been rigorously assessed for safety and clinical trials have shown that they provide a long-lasting immune response.”
The latter claim is untrue; according to recent CDC data, the level of protection against infection and serious disease rapidly declines. Ineffectiveness within months has been discovered in some research. The CDC modified their definition of a vaccination in response to the declining efficacy.
McCullough said he’s worried that ABIM will “continue to cherry-pick data and claim they have ownership over the ‘truth’ when in reality we are simply discussing data from a rapidly evolving pandemic.”
“ABIM should be only concerned with my clinical track record … which is perfect,” he said. “Board scores and clinical practice are of the highest quality.”
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), who asked McCullough to appear on Capitol Hill, said the doctor “has dedicated his life to saving others” and urged ABIM to reconsider its judgment.
ABIM Position, Lawsuit
In a joint statement issued in 2021 with two other medical boards, the ABIM stated that doctors who disseminate “misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine” may face disciplinary action.
“The evidence that we have safe, effective, and widely available vaccines against COVID-19 is overwhelming. We are particularly concerned about physicians who use their authority to denigrate vaccination at a time when vaccines continue to demonstrate excellent effectiveness against severe illness, hospitalization, and death,” the statement reads.
It was issued in collaboration with the American Boards of Family Medicine and Pediatrics in endorsement of a similar statement released by the Federation of State Medical Boards.
Dr. Richard Baron, ABIM’s president, in a blog post claimed that “the COVID vaccine is safe and effective” and that ABIM-certified doctors “must feel obliged to recommend vaccination as a first-line strategy for COVID prevention.”
The effectiveness of the immunizations against infection has steadily decreased. According to research released this year, those who receive vaccinations are more likely to contract the disease a few months after receiving it.
Subsequently, McCullough and other board-certified physicians, including Dr. Pierre Kory, received threatening letters from ABIM.
In July, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Educational Foundation filed a lawsuit against ABIM and the other boards, citing a First Amendment violation.
The case is still underway.
Read the document below: