AAPS Supports Courts’ Authority over a Hospital that Denies Patients’ Access to a Common Treatment

AAPS Supports Courts’ Authority over a Hospital that Denies Patients’ Access to a Common Treatment

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has filed an amicus brief with the Wisconsin Supreme Court to urge it to reverse a 2-1 appellate decision that cut off judicial review when a hospital denies potentially life-saving treatment to a hospitalized patient. AAPS asks the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reestablish the authority of courts to order a hospital to stop interfering with a widely used, FDA-approved treatment for a hospitalized patient.

In Gahl v. Aurora Health Care, a 2-1 panel of a Wisconsin appellate court ruled for the hospital as it denied a patient access to ivermectin for treating COVID-19, while the patient was deteriorating under the hospital’s protocol. The appellate court reversed the circuit court even though it had heard persuasive evidence from two physicians, one of whom is an expert on ivermectin.

The circuit court ordered the hospital to allow the patient to receive the treatment of his choice as prescribed by a physician he selected. But the appellate court reversed that pro-patient decision and granted the hospital carte blanche to deny medication sought by a hospitalized patient, without judicial intervention for the patient.

In its amicus brief, AAPS argued to the Wisconsin Supreme Court that hospitals are not authorized to practice medicine, and neither are the FDA and other entities that have been interfering with access to ivermectin throughout the COVID pandemic. Courts should not allow hospitals to interfere with the judgment of practicing physicians and the wishes of hospitalized patients to obtain safe medication that is widely available to those outside of a hospital.

“If a hospital can properly deny care to confined patients with safe, approved medications, then such a hospital should disclose that on the front door of its entrance to all before they enter,” wrote AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly in this amicus brief. “Hospitals should not become unaccountable islands of tyranny, wielding unchecked power to withhold or deny care,” he added.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943. Its motto is omnia pro aegroto (everything for the patient).


COVID-19: Do you have enough life insurance?

COVID-19: Do you have enough life insurance?

If you have dependents, you need to protect them in case you die suddenly. Life insurance is the method used by most. Sudden, unexpected death of a breadwinner is not new, but the constant stream of hazards in the news should focus your attention.

Many scare stories turn out to be hype—especially those based on computer modeling (and serving an agenda). But the graph below shows actual occurrences. Sudden Adult Death Syndrome is real.


The source is the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV), which insures 72 million lives. Remember that if actuaries, in contrast to public health authorities, make a mistake, they and the companies they work for face consequences—including bankruptcy.

Just after the rollout of COVID-19 injections, there was a sharp, unprecedented spike in unexpected deaths, a 1,000% increase. The KBV denies a causal relationship to vaccination. The cause for the deaths is unknown, but it is not COVID-19. Authorities have not yet done appropriate studies to investigate a possible vaccine connection. Mainstream media did not attend a press event where data analyst Tom Lausen presented the figures, which he calls a “risk signal.”

From CDC data, equity investment advisor Edward Dowd calculates that Millennials, age 25 to 40, experienced an 84% excess mortality in the fall of 2021, coinciding with vaccine mandates and boosters—a Vietnam War-size event.

When it comes to New Year’s resolutions, number 1 should be providing as best you can for your family’s future, and carefully examining the risks you might be taking.


COVID-19 vaccine: Should I worry about visual symptoms?

COVID-19 vaccine: Should I worry about visual symptoms?

If you listen to the radio, you will be hearing ads about boosters or updated COVID vaccines. But unlike with drug ads, there is no long list of rare side effects, or advice to “call your doctor if….”

One rare side effect of COVID vaccines is blindness or loss of vision. This could result from damage to the artery that supplies the eyeball, or from damage to the optic nerve, somewhat like what is seen in the optic neuritis that may occur in multiple sclerosis (MS). The graphic illustrates the process in Guillain Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disease that damages other nerves (also rarely associated with vaccines as well as with viral diseases).

Animation of nerve damage in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Credit: Doctor JanaWikiMedia Commons. To support Dr. Jana visit his Patreon.

You definitely need to call your doctor immediately (and be examined) if you develop blurred vision, blind spots, visual field cuts, or sudden loss of vision. Prompt treatment with steroids may save your vision.

We do not know whether repeated injections increase the risk, or whether doctors will consider a transient episode a contraindication to future doses.

For further information:

Blinded by COVID Vaccination” by Peter McCullough, M.D.


COVID-19 vaccine: Should I worry about my child’s heart?

COVID-19 vaccine: Should I worry about my child’s heart?

Now that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is recommending COVID vaccination for children, it may soon be added to shots required for school attendance. And there will be lots of advertising. This figure is something you won’t see in the ads:

The FDA asked for prospective studies of myocarditis, with blood tests, ECG, and cardiac imaging before injections and at timepoints afterwards to detect the real rate of heart damage and to ascertain how much of the problem could be asymptomatic and potentially present a future risk of sudden death in an unsuspecting patient. Pfizer and Moderna were not forthcoming, writes the world’s most widely published cardiologist, Peter McCullough, M.D., M.P.H. Thus, he turned to a study done in Thailand. He writes: that if the Mansanguan study is confirmed, a million young Americans could have sustained heart damage from COVID-19 vaccination, and some of them will be at risk for cardiac arrest and future heart failure…. These data suggest we should not be surprised by rising rates of sudden death in young persons with sports and during daily life including sleep.”

Others downplay the risk. For example, Shin Jie Yong, who writes for medium.com, “aiming to improve scientific literacy in this age of information overload and mis/disinformation,” states that he was appalled when he read the analysis published by the Florida Department of Health and its advice to avoid the COVID mRNA vaccine in men aged 18–39. He critiques a number of studies, but not Mansanguan et al. He concludes that “thankfully, myocarditis is rare” and that “myocarditis from mRNA vaccines is also readily recoverable.” Young men might want to avoid the Moderna product, but he still thinks that it is “still likely to bring more benefits than harm.”

        This much is clear:

  • The risk of heart inflammation is acknowledged.
  • The degree of risk is not precisely known.
  • Each person must weigh the benefit of a lower risk of severe COVID, at least for a few months, vs. the chance of permanent heart damage or even sudden death.
  • Unlike with an illness following drinking water at Camp Lejeune or taking Zantac, there is virtually no likelihood of financial compensation for COVID vaccine adverse effects.

        If you opt to take the shot, you may want to have diagnostic tests “just in case,” because early treatment including exercise restriction could be lifesaving.

        Whether you take the shot or not, be aware of the desirability of early treatment for COVID.

        Further information:


AAPS Urges Public Comments Against COVID Shots for Children

AAPS Urges Public Comments Against COVID Shots for Children

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets Oct 20 and is expected to recommend adding COVID-19 shots to the immunization schedule for children. Many state laws or regulations automatically impose whatever the CDC’s ACIP recommends, notes the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

There is a very tight deadline, Oct 20, for submitting comments that the committee will consider. See Regulations.gov for the mechanism to submit your comments.

Federal courts have blocked the Biden Administration from mandating the COVID-19 vaccine for federal workers and private employees, but through an ACIP recommendation the federal government can impose it on millions of schoolchildren, states AAPS.

AAPS believes that this decision should be made by parents, in consultation with their family physicians, rather than by a federal advisory committee that meets behind closed doors.

AAPS has posted comments strongly opposing this recommendation, as has AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D.

“It does not make sense for young children to be subjected to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate while the Supreme Court blocked a similar mandate by the Biden Administration on employees of private companies and the federal workforce,” states AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly. “Data published by the CDC itself shows that nearly nine out of ten American children under the age of 17 already have antibodies from a prior COVID-19 infection,” he observed.

Opposition by adults to the COVID-19 vaccine has been growing, as data posted by the CDC show decreasing numbers of adults complying with recommendations by the Biden Administration to be vaccinated or receive boosters now. President Biden himself announced that the COVID pandemic is over. “At this time, it would only enrich vaccine manufacturers to impose a vaccine mandate against young children nationwide and preserve the manufacturers’ protection against liability from any harm these products might cause,” Mr. Schlafly added.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943. Its motto is omnia pro aegroto (everything for the patient).


The FDA Misled the Public About Ivermectin and Should Be Accountable in Court, Argues AAPS

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) filed its motion and amicus brief Thursday evening with the federal district court in Galveston urging it to allow the lawsuit to proceed against the FDA for its misleading statements against ivermectin. In Apter v. HHS, a group of physicians sued to hold the Food and Drug Administration, a federal agency within the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), accountable for its interference with physicians’ ability to treat Covid-19.

“Defendant FDA has improperly exploited misunderstandings about the legality and prevalence of off-label uses of medication, in order to mislead courts, state medical boards, and the public into thinking there is anything improper about off-label prescribing,” AAPS writes in its amicus brief to the court. “Not only is off-label prescribing fully proper, legal, and commonplace, but it is also absolutely necessary in order to give effective care to patients.”

Yet the FDA published multiple statements and sent letters to influential organizations to falsely disparage ivermectin, implying that it was not approved for treating Covid-19. Many, including courts and state medical boards, were misled by the FDA into thinking that its lack of approval for this treatment meant that ivermectin should not be used to treat Covid-19.

“It has never been proper for the FDA to interfere with that essential part of the practice of medicine, and the FDA knows it,” AAPS informed the court. The FDA “insisted and continues to insist on interfering with the prescription of this safe medication by physicians in treating Covid-19,” AAPS added.

AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly pointed out to the court that the FDA “has engaged in a campaign of interference with the proper use by physicians of ivermectin, which has long been approved as fully safe for human use.” He alerted the court that once the FDA approves a medication as safe, then physicians have full authority to prescribe it to treat any illness, particularly a novel virus like Covid-19.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943. Its motto is omnia pro aegroto (everything for the patient).


Subpoena on Senator Lindsey Graham Should be Quashed and the Fulton County Grand Jury Shut Down

Subpoena on Senator Lindsey Graham Should be Quashed and the Fulton County Grand Jury Shut Down

In an amicus brief filed Sept 21, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to quash the subpoena on Senator Lindsey Graham to testify before a Fulton County grand jury in Georgia. Democrats overwhelmingly control that county, and did nothing for more than a year before engaging in a flurry of headline-grabbing activity on the eve of the upcoming midterm elections, AAPS points out.

“Didn’t Fulton County get the memo about this important public policy against using prosecutions to cause headlines near elections?” AAPS asked rhetorically in its amicus brief. Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice requires that prosecutors stand down for at least 60 or 90 days prior to an election, yet the Fulton County prosecutors have been a factory of headlines to disparage Republicans, AAPS informs the court.

“Our constitutional system has a check-and-balance on every potential abuse of power,” AAPS observes. “This federal court is the primary check-and-balance against a county proceeding that contravenes public policy and the democratic process for elections to federal offices” and should “rein in Fulton County both to quash its subpoena of Lindsey Graham and end its irresponsible interference with any future election.”

“The nearly two years of silence and then sudden headline-generating work by the Fulton County Democrats in this case cannot credibly be described as a mere coincidence,” states AAPS’s amicus brief. “For more than 20 months the officials in Fulton County generated few headlines, and then on the brink of the midterm election there has been a flurry of activity to generate very disparaging headlines against top Republican leaders.”

“It chills this First Amendment right to threaten prosecution or haul someone before a distant grand jury for hostile questioning based on disputing a reported election result,” AAPS points out. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Donald Trump should not be “made political target practice through a misuse of prosecutorial authority,” AAPS adds.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943. Its motto is omnia pro aegroto (everything for the patient).


Pro-life Physician Addresses Pro-choice Concerns

In the wake of the Dobbs decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, medical organizations and journals are restating their positions favorable to abortion.

“Whose life is more important?” is a pervasive concern of abortion supporters, writes family physician Sheila Page, D.O., in the fall issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

While it may be claimed that doctors might fear doing a needed procedure, lest they be accused of a crime, Dr. Page points out: “Procedures needed to save the life of the mother [such as removing a tubal pregnancy] are specifically defined not to be abortions. An early delivery necessitated by a mother’s health issue is not an abortion, as every effort is made to preserve the infant’s life if possible.”

Concerning the claim that giving birth is more dangerous than legal abortion, Dr. Page responds that the numbers are not comparable: “Abortion mortality is actually completely unknown, as the only ones tracking abortion mortality are abortionists who have a vested interest in not reporting honest numbers.”

“It seems that some physicians give little or no consideration to the ethics of abortion, which is often referred to as a medical treatment or a ‘reproductive right,’” she states. “Many physicians do not agree with this view but will not speak out because of fear of professional backlash by the abortion-friendly medical societies.”

Dr. Page’s view is that “the medical profession’s eagerness to protect abortion practices reflects a disturbing inversion wherein the ones we trust to be healers are using medical tools to terminate rather than protect life.”

She concludes that “the calling of a physician is to be a guardian of health and life, not an agent of death.”

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943.



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)