This post steps away from my usual focus on cancer and metabolic disease and instead shares a deeply personal story: how I was pushed out of clinical medicine. COVID forced me to confront just how profoundly—and, at times, deliberately—dysfunctional our medical system has become. What began as unease at guidelines and hospital policies evolved into the realization that dissent, nuance, and true patient‑centered care were no longer welcome.
In this post, I’ll describe what it felt like from the inside: the pressure to conform, the quiet punishments for asking hard questions, and the moment it became clear that staying would mean betraying my own ethics. This is not just my story; it is a case study in how a system can lose its way, and what that means for every patient who walks through a clinic door. If you care about medicine, about trust, and about what happens when clinicians are no longer allowed to think for themselves, this is a story you need to read.
To help this information reach as many people as possible, I have removed the paywall from this post. If you believe this work is valuable, I invite you to consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Subscriber support is my primary source of funding and enables me to continue conducting independent research, reviewing the scientific literature, and producing practical, evidence-based content on cancer and metabolic disease. Paid subscribers receive access to more in-depth articles, expanded analyses, exclusive educational resources, and opportunities for greater engagement.
Your support helps ensure that this work remains independent, accessible, and focused on advancing knowledge that can make a meaningful difference in patients’ lives.
COVID changed my life forever.
After more than 40 years practicing medicine, I believed I understood how scientific medicine functioned. I devoted my career to patient care, academic medicine, teaching, and research. I became the only tenured professor in my department, received a national teaching award from the American College of Physicians, achieved board certification in four specialties across three countries, and published more than 500 peer-reviewed scientific articles. Throughout my career, I never received a single patient complaint and was never sued. My students consistently gave me outstanding evaluations, and I genuinely believed that medicine—while imperfect—was fundamentally grounded in:
scientific inquiry,
open debate,
intellectual honesty,
and the pursuit of truth.
COVID shattered that belief.
The pandemic exposed something I had not fully appreciated: modern medicine is not governed only by science. It is also shaped by:
politics,
institutional power,
pharmaceutical influence,
bureaucratic control,
media narratives,
financial interests,
and ideological conformity.
Most disturbing of all, I learned how dangerous it can become for physicians who publicly question institutional orthodoxy.
During the pandemic, I increasingly raised concerns regarding:
lockdowns,
suppression of early treatment,
masking policies,
vaccine mandates,
denial of natural immunity,
school closures,
and the widening disconnect between evolving evidence and official public messaging.
Rather than being debated scientifically, many dissenting physicians were attacked personally and professionally.
I experienced this firsthand.
Despite decades of academic and clinical service, I was subjected to what can only be described as a sham peer-review process—a mechanism hospitals have historically used to remove physicians considered disruptive or politically inconvenient rather than genuinely dangerous. The process was never designed to determine truth. The outcome appeared predetermined from the outset.
I was accused of a series of extraordinary and demonstrably false allegations involving patient care, resident interactions, nursing conduct, and conversations with patients’ families. These accusations bore little resemblance to reality, yet they became the basis for formal disciplinary proceedings. I ultimately found myself before a hostile Medical Executive Committee proceeding that resembled less a scientific review than a predetermined tribunal (a Kangaroo court). The process culminated in the permanent destruction of my medical career and the revocation of my credentials. This was followed by the American Board Of Internal Medicine (ABIM) revoking all my board certifications. The irony was that the ABIM considered Dr Kory and myself “misinformationists” and a threat to the American public.
What disturbed me most was not simply the personal loss itself, but what the experience revealed about modern medicine.
Scientific disagreement had become dangerous.
The central question was no longer:
“Is this physician correct?”
Instead, the question increasingly became:
“Does this physician threaten institutional authority?”
That distinction fundamentally changed medicine.
COVID revealed how rapidly medicine can abandon:
scientific humility,
open inquiry,
individualized thinking,
clinical judgment,
and honest debate.
Instead, medicine increasingly became:
centralized, bureaucratic, ideological, and narrative-driven.
At the same time, some of the most consequential misinformation during the pandemic originated not from fringe voices, but from major institutions themselves, including the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, academic journals, and public health authorities.
COVID ultimately became far more than a viral pandemic. It became a revealing stress test of:
scientific integrity,
institutional credibility,
academic medicine,
and the culture of modern biomedical science itself.
What follows are the lessons I learned from that experience—and why I believe the pandemic exposed profound structural problems within modern medicine that extend far beyond COVID itself.
The Collapse of Scientific Humility
Science is supposed to evolve.
In the setting of a novel pandemic, uncertainty should have been expected regarding:
viral transmission,
masking,
distancing,
school closures,
lockdowns,
vaccine durability,
natural immunity,
asymptomatic spread,
and optimal treatment strategies.
Yet uncertainty was rarely communicated honestly.
Instead, institutions frequently projected:
certainty,
confidence,
and moral authority,
even when evidence remained incomplete, preliminary, or contradictory.
The public repeatedly heard:
“The science is settled.”
But much of the science was not settled at all.
This became one of the defining failures of the pandemic:
provisional assumptions became rigid doctrine.
Science gradually gave way to:
slogans,
behavioral messaging,
political tribalism,
and narrative enforcement.
The culture of medicine shifted from:
“follow the evidence”
to:
“follow the approved narrative.”
Institutional Misinformation During COVID
One of the greatest ironies of the pandemic is that many positions later shown to be incomplete, exaggerated, weakly supported, or deeply flawed were aggressively promoted by major institutions.
1. “Two Weeks to Flatten the Curve”
Initial restrictions were presented as:
short-term emergency measures
designed to prevent hospital overload.
However, temporary mitigation rapidly evolved into:
prolonged lockdowns,
social restrictions,
business closures,
travel restrictions,
vaccine passports,
and unprecedented governmental intrusion into daily life.
The collateral damage was enormous:
delayed cancer diagnoses,
deferred surgeries,
untreated chronic disease,
addiction,
depression,
economic devastation,
educational regression,
social isolation,
and widespread deterioration in mental health.
Public health became narrowly focused on:
viral suppression at almost any cost,
while broader societal harms were minimized or ignored.
2. The Lockdown Narrative
One of the central assumptions of the pandemic was that prolonged lockdowns would substantially suppress viral spread long-term.
Yet respiratory viruses historically have been extraordinarily difficult to contain through prolonged societal shutdowns.
Over time, evidence accumulated showing:
highly variable lockdown effectiveness,
enormous collateral damage,
and limited long-term impact once widespread community transmission became established.
Countries and states with dramatically different restrictions often experienced surprisingly similar epidemic trajectories over time.
Meanwhile, the harms became increasingly obvious:
poverty,
unemployment,
domestic violence,
substance abuse,
educational decline,
delayed medical care,
and severe psychological stress.
COVID exposed a major weakness in modern public health:
the inability to rationally balance competing harms.
3. The Six-Foot Rule
The now-famous “six-foot distancing rule” became one of the defining symbols of the pandemic.
Yet later testimony and reporting suggested the rule rested on surprisingly weak scientific foundations… it was essentially invented from thin air by Dr Anthony Fauci.
The issue was not whether distancing might reduce transmission under certain circumstances.
The issue was:
extraordinary certainty was attached to a highly uncertain recommendation.
Again, provisional assumptions became institutional dogma.
Questioning the six-foot rule was frequently portrayed not as scientific skepticism, but as irresponsibility or anti-science behavior.
4. The Denial of Natural Immunity
Historically, naturally acquired immunity has always been recognized as a fundamental principle of viral immunology.
Yet during COVID:
prior infection was frequently minimized,
recovered individuals were often treated as immunologically naïve,
and vaccine mandates commonly ignored recovery status.
Over time, substantial evidence demonstrated that prior infection provided meaningful protection against severe disease in many individuals.
The reluctance of institutions to openly acknowledge this reality severely damaged scientific credibility.
5. Masking Claims That Exceeded the Evidence
Public messaging regarding masking evolved dramatically over time.
Initially:
authorities discouraged public masking.
Later:
masking became universalized,
often without nuanced discussion regarding:mask type,
fit,
compliance,
setting,
duration,
or quality of evidence.
At times masking evolved beyond a medical intervention into:
a symbolic marker of social conformity and moral virtue.
The issue was never whether masks could potentially provide some benefit in selected circumstances.
The issue was:
absolutism,
certainty,
and intolerance toward questioning.
Science increasingly became replaced with:
slogans,
emotional messaging,
and binary thinking.
6. School Closures
School closures may ultimately rank among the most damaging public health interventions of the pandemic.
Children experienced:
educational regression,
speech delays,
developmental disruption,
anxiety,
depression,
obesity,
social isolation,
and impaired social development.
Yet relatively early evidence suggested children generally faced low risks of severe disease compared with elderly populations.
COVID demonstrated how poorly institutions sometimes account for:
secondary and tertiary harms of public health interventions.
7. The Wet Market Narrative and Wuhan Origins
Early discussion of a possible laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2 was frequently dismissed as:
“misinformation,”
“conspiracy theory,”
or “anti-science.”
The dominant institutional narrative strongly favored:
natural spillover from a Wuhan wet market.
Yet over time:
serious questions emerged regarding:
gain-of-function research,
laboratory biosafety concerns,
and the proximity of the outbreak to major coronavirus research laboratories in Wuhan.
Importantly, the issue was never whether a laboratory origin had been definitively proven.
The issue was:
legitimate scientific inquiry was prematurely suppressed.
Reasonable debate became politically taboo.
Science requires investigation—not censorship.
8. The Suppression of Early Treatment Discussions
Another major controversy involved hostility toward early outpatient treatment strategies.
Repurposed and inexpensive therapies were frequently:
rapidly dismissed,
politically stigmatized,
censored,
or inadequately studied early in the pandemic.
This reflected a broader problem within modern medicine:
excessive dependence on centralized approval structures and large randomized trials before allowing clinical flexibility.
Medicine has always relied upon:
pathophysiology,
clinical observation,
mechanistic reasoning,
and physician judgment,
particularly during rapidly evolving crises.
COVID revealed how rigid and bureaucratic medicine had become.
The Punishment for Questioning the Narrative
Perhaps even more disturbing than the misinformation itself was what happened to physicians who questioned it.
Doctors who challenged prevailing orthodoxy regarding:
lockdowns,
masking,
vaccine mandates,
natural immunity,
early treatment,
school closures,
or viral origins
often faced:
censorship,
professional attacks,
reputational destruction,
investigations,
social media bans,
academic marginalization,
loss of license to practice medicine
loss of employment
loss of medical credentials
and severe financial harm.
I experienced all of these consequences personally.
After decades practicing medicine, publishing extensively, participating in academic medicine, and contributing to critical care science, I witnessed something unprecedented:
scientific disagreement itself became treated as dangerous.
The issue was no longer:
“Is this physician correct?”
Instead, the issue increasingly became:
“Does this physician threaten institutional authority?”
That distinction fundamentally changed medicine.
The Chilling Effect on Physicians
Many physicians privately expressed concerns regarding:
lockdowns,
vaccine policy,
masking,
early treatment,
and public health messaging.
Yet many remained silent publicly because they feared:
professional retaliation,
reputational destruction,
financial harm,
or loss of livelihood (the need to keep a job is a strong incentive to keep quite).
Fear became institutionalized within medicine itself.
COVID revealed how vulnerable modern medicine had become to:
groupthink,
ideological conformity,
centralized narrative enforcement,
and bureaucratic coercion.
The Pharmaceuticalization of Medicine
The pandemic also highlighted the structural influence of pharmaceutical economics on healthcare systems.
Institutional emphasis strongly favored:
patentable therapeutics,
vaccines,
and commercially scalable interventions.
Meanwhile:
generic drugs,
repurposed therapies,
and low-cost interventions
received comparatively little institutional enthusiasm.
This does not necessarily imply malicious intent.
However, modern biomedical systems are naturally optimized toward:
profitability,
patentability,
scalability,
and centralized control.
COVID exposed this reality with extraordinary clarity.
This profoundly influenced my later thinking regarding:
repurposed drugs,
metabolic medicine,
systems biology,
and cancer therapy.
Because once you witness how aggressively inexpensive therapies can be marginalized during a pandemic, you begin to understand why similar resistance exists in oncology.
The Erosion of Trust
Perhaps the greatest casualty of COVID was:
institutional trust.
Trust requires:
transparency,
humility,
openness,
tolerance of uncertainty,
intellectual honesty,
and willingness to admit error.
Instead, institutions frequently:
projected certainty,
suppressed dissent,
minimized uncertainty,
changed positions without acknowledgment,
and rarely admitted mistakes openly.
This profoundly weakened public confidence in:
medicine,
public health agencies,
academia,
scientific journals,
media organizations,
and governmental institutions.
Rebuilding trust will require:
intellectual humility,
decentralization of scientific discourse,
restoration of open debate,
and renewed respect for scientific dissent.
Conclusion
COVID-19 was not merely a viral pandemic. It became one of the most revealing moments in the history of modern medicine.
It exposed:
institutional misinformation,
politicization of science,
suppression of dissent,
pharmaceutical influence,
bureaucratic overreach,
narrative enforcement,
and the dangers of centralized authority.
It also demonstrated that science cannot function properly without:
debate,
skepticism,
humility,
transparency,
and intellectual freedom.
Most importantly, COVID reminded us that medicine must remain:
patient-centered rather than institution-centered,
inquiry-driven rather than narrative-driven,
and humble rather than dogmatic.
Because once scientific disagreement becomes punishable, science itself is no longer functioning as science.
I thank you from the bottom of my heart in reading this document and in supporting me and our cause.
We used to have Grand Rounds where physicians of all specialties could gather, discuss cases, and share modalities that worked. The pandemic ended that, as the free flow of information threatened the official “truth.”
My experience was similar to yours, Dr. Marik. I was forced to relinquish hospital privileges when I refused the COVID vaccine. I argued that I had personally had COVID, so had natural immunity, but that was not considered adequate. But by June 2021, I had seen enough adverse reactions to that “vaccine,” to make me want to avoid it at all costs.
So my mission became giving patients access to hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and high dose steroids and keeping them out of the hospital. My patients did well and my professional integrity remained intact.
Hospitals have been taken over by the “money-changers” and we, whose sole goal is to see patients get better, became unwelcome in those hallowed halls.
The solution lies in physicians breaking free from the institutional bonds and pulling out of insurance networks. Take charge again as leaders who remember the Oath of Hippocrates, and follow the motto of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, (AAPS) — “Omnia Pro Aegroto” - “All for the Patient.”
I certainly don’t believe everything I hear and read but I do believe every word you have just written. To have your career destroyed and your professionalism and integrity questioned by people around you who were your friends and colleagues would have been so upsetting and stressful. I am sorry for all you went through and the deep impact it will have had on you. However, that whole episode has provided you with a worldwide platform to speak honestly and with integrity and to use your immense knowledge to help cancer sufferers. You are absolutely a Doctor; to remove that title is laughable. You can’t undo 40 years of research, skills and experience. What you (and others) went through was disgraceful but rest assured I and others see right through it. Thank you for all you are doing now; it makes such a difference to people like me. You are helping me live a happier and longer life with the information you provide and I choose to follow because it is the truth and it leads to positive, healthier outcomes (UK)