“Vaccine hesitancy,” “vaccine misinformation,” and “denigrating the vaccine” are terms that have caused a lot of trouble for some physicians who have questioned the mainstream media, big pharma, big tech, and political narratives that the COVID vaccines are “safe and effective.”
Dr. Wade Hamilton, a pediatric cardiologist, told The Epoch Times he was just following his Hippocratic Oath when he didn’t suggest the COVID vaccine to a girl who already had COVID-19 and therefore possesses natural immunity.
With a dispassionate voice, he said that around Jan. 1, he had to stop working, in part related to an attack on his license.
“Nobody likes to have people in their office getting attacked by the Board of Medicine,” Hamilton said.
“In general, in medicine, that’s never been done previously in history—that you give somebody a vaccine or a shot that they already have natural immunity to—since there’s no benefit and there’s significant potential risk.”
In September last year, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) issued a statement that threatened physicians who “provide misinformation” about the COVID-19 vaccines—without defining what “misinformation” entails.
“The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), which supports its member state medical licensing boards, has recently issued a statement saying that providing misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine contradicts physicians’ ethical and professional responsibilities, and therefore may subject a physician to disciplinary actions, including suspension or revocation of their medical license. We at the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), and the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) support FSMB’s position. We also want all physicians certified by our boards to know that such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective board to take action that could put their certification at risk,” the statement reads.
Hamilton continued: “In other words, you’re not allowed to have an opinion separate from that of the Board of Medicine.
“I considered the risk-benefit ratio. And at the time, the risk of dying of COVID for any child was statistically, essentially zero. There were almost no deaths from COVID in children. And yet … there is no information about the safety [of the vaccine]. So to give an mRNA vaccine which is untested technology and in terms of preventing diseases with no real justification for a young person, I thought that the risk-benefit ratio favored not doing the shot.
