Standing Tall for Physician Free SpeechWashington, DC&nbsp;- April 21, 2025On April 16, 2025, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1745246854/AFD_Kory_Amici_Brief_4_16_2025_159cbd451b.pdf">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States, in support of the Petitioners in&nbsp;Kory v. Bonta. The Petitioners in this case are doctors Pierre Kory, Le Trinh Hoang, and Brian Tyson, along with Physicians for Informed Consent and Children’s Health Defense. The Respondents are California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Medical Board of California executive director Reji Varghese, and Osteopathic Medical Board of California executive officer Erika Calderon. The Petitioners are suing the Respondents for targeting physicians for spreading so-called COVID-19 “misinformation” and infringing on the constitutionally&nbsp;protected doctor-patient relationship. By submitting a petition for&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1745246899/20250225143104572_24_Kory_Petition_1200100a39.pdf">writ of certiorari</a> to SCOTUS, the Petitioners are asking the High Court to reverse the decision of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.Since 2022, the medical and osteopathic medical boards of California, with assistance from state lawmakers, have been threatening disciplinary actions against physicians for providing free speech (information and opinions) to patients that depart from the COVID narrative issued by public health authorities. This speech being suppressed by the Respondent California officials includes alternative FDA-approved treatments for the virus, the alleged benefits of public health measures such as masks, and the safety and effectiveness of the experimental mRNA shots. Any doctor that refuses to comply with this “narrative” and deviates from the COVID-19 “standard of care” is subject to investigation, sanction, and even prosecution. The Petitioners sued, asserting that this speech is protected by the First Amendment and that patients have the right to be provided with this information - seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction which was later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. Additionally, the district court held that the Petitioners did not have standing to bring their case.America’s Frontline Doctors contends that by attempting to prohibit discussions of all viable treatment options available to patients, the Respondents' enforcement policy breaches ethical duties of honesty, transparency, and informed consent owed by physicians to their patients and arguably constitutes professional malpractice. Doctors cannot withhold valuable and life-saving medical information from their patients. The Respondents’ draconian interference with the protected doctor-patient relationship threatens to destroy the Petitioners’ ethical medical practices. Medical censorship can kill, and patient lives are at risk. This gives them firm standing to safeguard their rights and have access to the courts to redress their grievances.Further, the Respondents’ coercive censorship scheme constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and blatantly violates the First Amendment. By favoring speech that embraces only one viewpoint in this debate over medical treatment, the Respondents are choosing sides. This is particularly dangerous when the viewpoint discrimination adopted has been proven by vast medical research to be incorrect and the censored treatment options have been proven to be safer.Lastly, both of the lower courts held that all physician speech to their patients is not protected by the First Amendment because it is incidental to medical care. In other words, a doctor's appointment transforms protected free speech into speech not protected by the First Amendment. However, merely labeling protected free speech as “incidental to medical care” does not change its character as free speech.AFLDS attorney David Dalia states, “How can anyone believe that government censorship of free speech rights of physicians is a good idea? The American Medical Association recognizes that withholding medical information from patients is unethical. So why is California doing this? Why is California promoting, through this coercive disciplinary scheme, experimental COVID-19 mRNA gene therapy injections with terrible safety profiles? They threaten honest doctors who in their best professional judgment discuss simple, safe and effective cures using Nobel Prize-winning drugs such as Ivermectin. This is completely irrational. California is constitutionally prohibited by our great First Amendment from engaging in such egregious ‘viewpoint discrimination.’ We are hopeful that the United States Supreme Court will protect the free speech rights of physicians by granting these excellent doctors’ writ of certiorari in this case.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “The COVID pandemic showed the world that tyranny no longer operates in the dark. Those seeking to usurp power and trample on the rights of the American people are doing so in plain sight. Tyranny is not TAKING hold in California. It has TAKEN hold. And as California goes, so goes the Nation. This lawsuit is not only about the free speech rights of California doctors. It’s about the free speech rights of anyone who holds a state license. Like our Founding Fathers, all citizens have a duty and a moral obligation to take a stand against evil. AFLDS and I will always stand for free speech. This is not the time to sit on the sidelines. Join us in the charge. Censorship, no matter what form it takes - no matter who wields it - must be held accountable by We the People.”This pivotal free speech case has the power to set a precedent for all doctors being targeted by rogue actors and for all patients seeking truth in healthcare. We proudly stand in solidarity with the righteous Petitioners in&nbsp;Kory,&nbsp;and we will continue standing for physician free speech. Together, we are calling on the Supreme Court to grant their petition for certiorari.Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on the status of this case and our efforts to protect the free speech rights of all Americans.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in Kory v. Bonta

Breaking Down the Dam of COVID TyrannyPhiladelphia, PA.&nbsp;- April 15, 2025On April 14, 2025, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1745614556/AFLDS_Amici_Brief_Addendum_stamped_25_1183_3rd_Cir_4_18_2025_d0a5df68d5.pdf?updated_at=2025-04-25T20:55:56.916Z">amici curiae brief</a> with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in support of the Plaintiffs-Appellants (Plaintiffs) in&nbsp;Boyd v. Shriners. The Plaintiffs are seeking damages resulting from the&nbsp;Defendants-Appellees’ (Defendants)&nbsp;COVID-19 “vaccine” mandate. By submitting an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1744757424/2025_04_07_Appellants_Brief_1_08_AM_ca162d03ae.pdf">appeal</a> to the Third Circuit, the Plaintiffs are asking the appellate court to reverse the decision of the district court. This case has the potential to break the dam of COVID tyranny and deliver restorative justice for countless Americans harmed by these unlawful mandates.In September 2021, Shriners Hospitals for Children issued a mandate requiring its employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of new or continued employment. The Plaintiffs refused to comply and their jobs were ultimately terminated. The Plaintiffs sued, alleging that the Defendants deprived them of their right to refuse EUA (emergency use authorization) drugs, the right to be treated equally before the law, and the right to privacy. District Court Judge Cathy Bissoon granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, relying on previous precedent for cases that are still on appeal and have not yet received final judgment. Those decisions relied on the narrative that the COVID “vaccines” are “safe and effective.”&nbsp;AFLDS is supporting and standing with the courageous Plaintiffs in two of these cases. Please see our press releases for&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-bridges-v-the-methodist-hospital">Bridges v. The Methodist Hospital</a> and&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-sweeney-v-ucha">Sweeney v. UCHA</a> to learn more.&nbsp;America’s Frontline Doctors maintains the position that the COVID shots are not “vaccines” because they do not prevent infection or transmission. This makes them personal medical treatments ONLY. Additionally, vast scientific research and evidence has proven these experimental mRNA gene therapy injections to be neither safe nor effective. The CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has documented a horrific safety profile attributed to these shots with millions of adverse reactions and hospitalizations. By coercively “mandating” these dangerous medical treatments, the Defendants engaged in unconstitutional, illegal, and possible criminal activity in violation of numerous well-established laws and regulations. If left unchecked by the courts, these egregious and unlawful violations are likely to recur in the future. The Third Circuit must reject the Defendants’ mandate by reversing the lower court’s dismissal.AFLDS attorney David Dalia states, “It should be obvious to everyone by now that these experimental COVID gene therapy injections are neither ‘safe’ nor ‘effective.’ The evidence makes that quite clear and many states are now calling for them to be banned entirely. So why are hospitals still ‘mandating’ them? Absolutely no one should be coerced into taking these dangerous injections under the threat of job termination. We are hopeful that the Third Circuit will correct the deeply flawed decision of the district court.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “As the cases against these ‘vaccine’ mandates continue to mount, the dam of COVID tyranny will continue to break. Justice will be served. It is only a matter of time. We proudly stand in unity with the brave Plaintiffs in&nbsp;Boyd&nbsp;and are hopeful that the Third Circuit will reverse the lower court’s dismissal and hear their case. Supporting these cases is critical to AFLDS’ mission and we will always be at the forefront of the medical freedom fight. Total victory is on the horizon. We will see a new day in the United States of America.”Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on the status of this case and our efforts to deliver restorative justice for all Americans victimized by COVID mandates.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in Boyd v. Shriners

Turning the Tide Against COVID TyrannyDenver, CO.&nbsp;- March 27, 2025On March 19, 2025, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1743093814/Sweeney_v_UCHA_AFLDS_Amici_Curiae_Brief_Doc23_stamped_3_19_2024_06ca07fb4d.pdf">amici curiae brief</a> with the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, in support of the Plaintiffs-Appellants (Plaintiffs) in&nbsp;Sweeney v. UCHA. By submitting an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1743093814/Doc_15_Appellant_s_Opening_Brief_Sweeney_v_UCHA_1_1_44c6d455f5.pdf">appeal</a> to the Tenth Circuit, the Plaintiffs are asking the appellate court to reverse the decision of the district court and are seeking damages resulting from the Defendants-Appellees’ (Defendants) COVID-19 “vaccine” mandate. This case is positioned to turn the tide in the medical freedom fight by correcting the injustices inflicted on countless Americans who were wrongly coerced, threatened, and damaged by tyrannical COVID mandates.In July 2021, the University of Colorado Health Authority issued a mandate requiring its employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or have a valid exemption. Any employee that refused to comply faced disciplinary action up to and including termination. The Plaintiffs sued, alleging that the Defendants deprived them of their right to refuse EUA (emergency use authorization) drugs, the right to be treated equally before the law, and the right to procedural due process. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang granted the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding a “compelling” government interest in justifying the Defendants’ mandate. In other words ruling the mandate was rationally related to stopping the spread of the virus.America’s Frontline Doctors maintains the position that these experimental mRNA injections are not vaccines because they do not prevent infection or transmission. This makes the COVID shots personal medical treatments ONLY. Additionally, vast scientific research has proven these “vaccines” to be neither safe nor effective.Further, the Defendants engaged in unconstitutional, illegal, and possible criminal activity by “mandating” these dangerous medical treatments in violation of numerous well-established laws and regulations. These unlawful violations are likely to recur in the future if left unchecked by the courts. Coercively mandating the COVID shots is unacceptable in the United States of America. The Tenth Circuit must firmly reject the Defendants’ mandate by reversing the district court’s erroneous dismissal.&nbsp;AFLDS attorney David Dalia states, “How can anyone mandate anything that might kill you? This is about saving lives. It should be obvious to everyone by now that the COVID shots are not ‘safe and effective.’ The evidence makes that quite clear. Absolutely no one should be coerced into taking these dangerous injections under the threat of job termination. COVID-era tyranny and its mandates can no longer be condoned. Dangerous precedents cannot be set. We are hopeful that the Tenth Circuit will correct the deeply flawed decision of the district court.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Since our inception, America’s Frontline Doctors has been at the forefront of the medical freedom fight. We recognized from the beginning that vaccine mandates and passports must not become the law of the land. If tyranny is given an inch, it most certainly will take a mile. We saw this during COVID. However, We the People have the power to take our country back. It’s up to us. We proudly stand in solidarity with the courageous Plaintiffs in this historic case and pray that the Tenth Circuit will reverse the district court’s dismissal. AFLDS and I will continue to support these cases. The dam of COVID tyranny is breaking and it's only a matter of time before the American people achieve total victory.”Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on the status of this case and our legal efforts to ensure medical freedom for all Americans.&nbsp;# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in Sweeney v. UCHA

A Pivotal Case Advances to the High CourtWashington, DC&nbsp;- March 12, 2025On March 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States&nbsp;<a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/supreme-court-to-decide-can-colorado-silence-counselors-who-dont-push-gender-ideology/">agreed</a> to hear&nbsp;Chiles v. Salazar, granting the Petitioner’s writ of certiorari. This pivotal case has the potential to set a precedent for countless healthcare professionals across the country that are being forced to comply with a radical gender ideology to the detriment of their patients.Last December, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1734471609/Chilesv_Salazar_AFLDS_Amici_Brief_d79921f9b2.pdf">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court in support of the Petitioner (Kaley Chiles), calling on the High Court to hear her case. The Petitioner is suing the Respondents over Colorado’s “Counseling Censorship Law” which violates her free speech rights by prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in any conversation with minor patients that does not steer them in the direction of “gender-affirming care.” Please read our previous&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-chiles-v-salazar">press release</a> to learn more.&nbsp;America’s Frontline Doctors is pleased that the Supreme Court will hear&nbsp;Chiles v. Salazar. We are hopeful that SCOTUS will strike down Colorado’s unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Children all across our Nation must be protected from the dangers of “gender-affirming care.”&nbsp;AFLDS attorney David Dalia states,&nbsp;“The granting of&nbsp;certiorari by SCOTUS in the&nbsp;Chiles case is a great victory for fundamental parental rights in this country. SCOTUS grants certiorari and agrees to hear only 1% -2% of all cases, but reverses the lower court in about 80% of those cases granted. I’m optimistic that the Supreme Court will declare this terrible Colorado statute to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, an obvious ruling which the lower courts failed to do.”&nbsp;AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Colorado’s law is a blatant violation of the First Amendment that severely compromises the patient-counselor relationship. By forcing counselors to comply with a radical gender ideology, vulnerable minor patients are directed down the tragically predictable path of medical mutilation. The medical harms of this path are well documented and growing. In&nbsp;Chiles, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to affirm our constitutionally protected right to free speech. In doing so, the children of Colorado will be better protected against the agenda of the medical mutilation industry. I am hopeful that the High Court will strike down Colorado’s assault on our God-given liberties.”&nbsp;Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on the status of this case and our efforts to end the medical mutilation of children.&nbsp;# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

SCOTUS Grants Writ Petition in Chiles v. Salazar

Taking a Stand for Parental RightsWashington, DC&nbsp;- March 12, 2025On March 10, 2025, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1741820388/AFD_Mahmoud_Amici_Brief_9a5c385f2e.pdf">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States, in support of the Petitioners in&nbsp;Mahmoud v. Taylor. A coalition of Maryland parents (Petitioners) are&nbsp;<a href="https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20250304162418/Mahmoud-v-Taylor-Merits-Opening-Brief.pdf">suing</a> the Montgomery County Board of Education (Defendant) for forcing their young children to read controversial books pushing radical gender ideology without parental notification or the opportunity to opt out. By submitting our&nbsp;amici curiae brief, AFLDS joins the Petitioners in calling for SCOTUS to reverse the decision of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In short, we are asking the High Court to affirm the Petitioners' parental rights to protect their children from dangerous curriculum contrary to their religious beliefs.&nbsp;In November 2022, the Board of Education introduced “LGBTQ-inclusive” storybooks for instructing elementary school students. These books champion pride parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for children. Despite initially assuring hundreds of concerned parents that they would be notified when the books would be read and could opt their children out, the Board reversed course in March 2023. Stripped of their parental rights, the Petitioners sued for damages and injunctive relief to prohibit the Board from continuing its no-notice and no-opt-out policy. The Petitioners argued that the Board’s policy violated the Free Exercise Clause by overriding their freedom to direct the religious upbringing of their children and by burdening their religious exercise.&nbsp;The district court&nbsp;<a href="https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20230824190313/2023-08-24-59-Opinion-and-Order.pdf">denied</a> the Petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that they could not show “that the no-opt-out policy burdens their religious exercise.” The Fourth Circuit later&nbsp;<a href="https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20240515133057/Mahmoud-opinion.pdf">affirmed</a> the lower court’s ruling so the Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS granted the Petitioners’&nbsp;<a href="https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20240912180459/Mahmoud-v.-Taylor-Cert-Petition.pdf">writ of certiorari</a> and is set to hear their case in April of this year.&nbsp;America’s Frontline Doctors holds the position that the Petitioners are engaged in the lawful exercise of their constitutionally protected parental rights to shield and protect their minor children from being exposed to radical gender ideology. These fundamental rights include the religious upbringing of their children and protecting them from real or potential harms. The psychological and physical harms of prematurely exposing minor children to sexualized materials, such as those pushed by the Board’s curriculum, are&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/medical/mutilation">well documented</a>. Further, the reading of such materials to children can arguably be characterized as criminal child abuse.&nbsp;Additionally, parental rights cannot be co-opted by government actors such as the Montgomery County Board of Education. By denying the Petitioners’ motion for an injunction, the Fourth Circuit allowed the Board’s egregious violations of the Petitioners’ parental rights to continue. This is directly contrary to numerous well-settled court precedents and centuries of tradition.AFLDS attorney David Dalia states, “When I tell people that the parents LOST in both courts in their attempt to shield their kindergarten-aged children from exposure to inappropriate, harmful and highly sexualized materials, they are incredulous. Parents have the fundamental right to protect their children from any and all harmful influences, as affirmed by numerous precedents from the United States Supreme Court. Our amici curiae brief is packed with relevant and accurate medical research on these subjects. The same day we filed our brief in&nbsp;Mahmoud, SCOTUS granted certiorari in the related case of&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-chiles-v-salazar">Chiles v. Salazar</a>, involving Colorado’s Counseling Censorship Law. The Court is clearly interested in these parental rights issues, which I expect they will reaffirm. I urge everyone to watch&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/videos/post/the-gold-report-ep-32-gender-ideology-is-a-cult-with-erin-lee">Dr. Gold’s interview</a> with a courageous Colorado mother who rescued her daughter from being transitioned by her school without her parent’s knowledge. This interview succinctly and compassionately covers all of these issues.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Usurpation, no matter who wields it, has no place in the United States of America. Allowing the Montgomery County Board of Education to usurp the parental authority of Maryland parents threatens not only our constitutionally protected rights, but the lives of children across the country. The Board’s reckless policies are causing irreversible psychological and physical harm to Maryland children as we speak. We cannot allow a precedent to be set in which parental rights are seized by the State. This will come to a state near you if not stopped. This must end now.”This pivotal case for parental rights is poised to set a legal precedent for any citizen battling government usurpation across the country. America’s Frontline Doctors proudly stand in solidarity with the courageous parents of Maryland and all parents taking a stand for parental rights.&nbsp;Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on the status of this case and our efforts to safeguard the constitutional rights of every citizen.&nbsp;# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in Mahmoud v. Taylor

Holding Rogue Medical Boards AccountableWashington, DC&nbsp;- February 18, 2025On February 14, 2025, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1739894002/AFLDS_Amici_Brief_for_Thomas_5454d125cf.pdf">&nbsp;amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States, in support of the Petitioner in&nbsp;Thomas v. Harder. Dr. Paul Thomas (Petitioner) is suing the members and staff of the Oregon Medical Board (Respondents) for intentionally persecuting him for his research and views on childhood vaccines, forcing him out of his medical practice in three states. By submitting a petition for&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-752/336474/20250102234102163_Thomas%20Petition.pdf">writ of certiorari</a> to SCOTUS, the Petitioner is asking the High Court to vindicate his right to sue the Oregon Medical Board for damages by reversing the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-752/336474/20250102234132799_Thomas%20Appendix.pdf">judgment</a> of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This critical case has the potential to set legal precedent for all doctors seeking justice from the tyranny of rogue medical boards.&nbsp;In December 2020, the Oregon Medical Board suspended Dr. Thomas’ license on an emergency basis stating he was a “danger to the public.” The Board’s rationale for this action was that the doctor was failing to protect the health and safety of his patients by not meeting the standard of care relating to vaccinations. To target Thomas, the Respondents concocted an unwritten rule that pediatricians had the duty to vaccinate their patients. Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Respondents were entitled to absolute immunity from the damages their actions caused.&nbsp;Dr. Paul Thomas practiced medicine in Oregon for over 30 years, serving thousands of patients with zero complaints. He was also licensed to practice medicine in both Washington State and Hawaii. Dr. Thomas saw tremendous success in the treatment of his patients, truthfully informing them of all relevant and available medical information. Despite being an honest doctor upholding his oath, the Oregon Medical Board targeted him. They fabricated a rule, investigated him for 2 years, and wrote up phony charges. The good doctor’s life was devastated - he lost his license in all three states, his medical practice, and his marriage.&nbsp;America’s Frontline Doctors contends that the Respondents should not be allowed to escape accountability for their alleged intentional and malicious behavior behind a shield of unwarranted “absolute immunity.” Even judges are denied absolute judicial immunity in cases where they are alleged to have engaged in such acts. Further, the Oregon Medical Board’s enforcement of its unwritten vaccine ideology upon independent doctors is contrary to well-established Oregon state law and the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. These violations disqualify the Respondents from automatic blanket immunity.&nbsp;Doctors have a professional obligation to fully inform their patients of the possible benefits and adverse consequences of all medical treatments. Dr. Thomas has been consistent with his duty of providing his patients informed consent and adhering to the Hippocratic Oath. We are hopeful that SCOTUS will correct the erroneous judgement of the lower courts which deprived Dr. Thomas access to pursue justice. Certiorari should be granted in order to justly reinstate Dr. Thomas and to curb any future abuses by medical boards nationwide.&nbsp;AFLDS attorney David Dalia states, “Medical boards must not be allowed to revoke a good doctor’s hard earned medical license for conducting accurate medical research and data with which they simply disagree. The medical board inflicted their extreme vaccine ideology upon Dr. Thomas, and coercively demanded that he recommend experimental drugs to children against his best professional judgment; drugs which have resulted in over 38,000 deaths in America alone. The medical board turned a blind eye to the pertinent adverse reaction statistics, and to the dozens of studies which confirmed Dr. Thomas’ data. The Board’s persecution campaign against Dr. Thomas was so malicious that a book was written about it. The medical board also ignored the many states and other countries which are now moving to ban these dangerous mRNA drugs completely. Dr. Thomas should be reinstated immediately.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Like Dr. Thomas, I experienced firsthand the usurpation of a weaponized medical board. This is the usurpation that George Washington warned us about. The tyranny inflicted upon Dr. Thomas has no place in our country. Allowing the Oregon Medical Board to escape accountability for their crimes against Dr. Thomas would set a dangerous precedent. If not stopped, future violations are likely to recur. The courts must hold these bad actors accountable.”America’s Frontline Doctors will continue our fight to hold medical boards accountable for their actions. We proudly stand in solidarity with Dr. Thomas and ethical doctors everywhere who put their patients before profit.&nbsp;Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on the status of this case and our efforts to bring truth back to medicine.&nbsp;# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org &nbsp;Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in Thomas v. Harder

Standing Tall Against Tyranny and Usurpation&nbsp;San Diego, CA.&nbsp;- February 4, 2025On Tuesday, December 10, 2024, a Superior Court judge delivered a precedent-setting&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1738703344/jan_15_decision_gold_359b4115b5.pdf">decision</a> in Dr. Simone Gold’s landmark free speech case against the California Medical Board (CMB). As we previously&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/issue-briefs/dr-gold-emerges-victorious-in-landmark-free-speech-case">reported</a>, Dr. Gold emerged victorious over the CMB last year, overcoming their fraudulent witch hunt and flagrant abuse of power.In 2023, Dr. Gold&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/simone-gold-m-d-v-medical-board-of-california-et-al-dr-simone-gold-sues-the-california-medical-board-and-its-president-kristina-lawson">sued</a> the CMB in federal court in response to their illegal and unrelenting efforts to silence her and revoke her physician license. During a 3-day medical licensing&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/issue-briefs/dr-gold-remained-poised-and-dignified-during-an-intense-3-day-hearing-with-the-california-medical-board">hearing</a>, the CMB alleged that Dr. Gold was devoid of professional ethics and judgement due to her misdemeanor presence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. The CMB charged that Dr. Gold's actions that day were “substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician.” This was a shocking pivot from their original accusation of spreading COVID-19 “misinformation.”&nbsp;After the conclusion of the hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) vindicated Dr. Gold by ruling that the CMB cannot revoke her physician license. However, the judge concurred with the CMB’s J6 claims, ordering that she be publicly reprimanded by the medical board and required to take a medical ethics course. Despite the legal victory in retaining her license, Dr. Gold recognized that an outstanding physician with a flawless track record should not be subjected to an absurd reprimand or ethics course. Further, allowing the CMB to continue its unchecked abuse of power sets a dangerous precedent. Dr. Gold and her legal team immediately submitted a writ of mandate (appeal) to the Superior Court of California.&nbsp;San Diego Superior Court Judge Michael T. Smyth found that the CMB had failed to show with clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Gold’s conduct on J6 was “substantially related” to her role as a physician - vacating the California Medical Board’s public reprimand and Dr. Gold’s requirement to take a medical ethics course. In addition, the judge awarded Dr. Gold financial relief for litigation costs which the CMB will now have to pay her for.&nbsp;In a statement following this remarkable ruling, Dr. Gold said, “The initial trial verdict was a victory by any definition. I appealed because what the government did was wrong. The California Medical Board has absolutely no authority to sanction doctors for nonmedical misdemeanors. George Washington warned us about usurpation and the courts must hold these executive agencies accountable. I am thankful for my excellent attorneys who believed in my vision for victory. I have been vindicated and together we have set a historic precedent for any licensed professional battling usurpation in the future.”&nbsp;Lead Attorney Heather Gibson added, “It’s a sad day in America when the awesome and virtually unlimited power of the agencies of government is wrongfully brought to bear on productive patriots. Fortunately, there are still a few individuals in the system who can intervene under the right circumstances on behalf of individuals like Dr. Gold, who refuse to surrender. I am so proud to have acted on her behalf.”If the California Medical Board cannot successfully appeal the Superior Court’s decision, the federal stay will be lifted and Dr. Gold’s federal case will proceed. Stay tuned for updates on Dr. Gold’s unwavering fight to safeguard&nbsp;our freedoms!# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

Dr. Gold Scores Another Legal Victory Over CMB

The First Step Toward Restorative JusticeWashington, DC&nbsp;- January 28, 2025Ending one of the darkest moments in our Nation’s history, on Monday January 20,&nbsp; President Donald J. Trump pardoned over 99% of the J6 hostages and commuted the sentences for the remaining fourteen, still under review for pardons. The president’s actions will have a profound impact on the rule of law and free speech in the United States of America. AFLDS is tremendously thankful to the president for standing with the J6 hostages and keeping his promise to pardon them.&nbsp;The President of the United States&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/granting-pardons-and-commutation-of-sentences-for-certain-offenses-relating-to-the-events-at-or-near-the-united-states-capitol-on-january-6-2021/">said</a>, “This proclamation ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation.”&nbsp;America’s Frontline Doctors holds the position that the systemic rot that led to this injustice must be undone. The judges who imposed excessive sentences, the prosecutors who pushed baseless charges and the federal agents who raided the homes of peaceful taxpayers must all be held accountable. These pardons represent a long-overdue acknowledgement of this injustice, but they do not erase the suffering endured by so many. All those who suffered political persecution at the hands of the weaponized Biden DOJ must be made whole. This is why we are urging President Trump to help bring restorative justice to the thousands of Americans whose lives were destroyed by a totalitarian regime.In a statement following the president’s proclamation, AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold stated, “On behalf of all the J6 hostages, including myself, I would like to thank President Trump for taking this major step toward restorative justice. The patriots that were held hostage by the Biden regime are the 21st century version of Japanese-Americans who were held in internment camps. I urge President Trump and his Cabinet to engage with us to ensure restorative justice for Americans that were viciously persecuted by their own government. This pardon is only the first step. It’s time that we finally see justice.”AFLDS Creative Director John Strand added, “The sweeping pardon of the fraudulent and malicious J6 prosecutorial witch hunt is both a complete exoneration of J6 protesters, who were entrapped and betrayed by their own government, and a powerful repudiation of the Biden regime’s brazen trampling of the Constitution in the course of weaponizing the DOJ against citizen dissidents. President Trump demonstrated both moral courage and constitutional clarity in resisting shameful pressure from many republicans to further perpetuate the democrat/media lies about January 6. The corruption and cowardice of those republicans must not be forgotten, nor forgiven, and President Trump’s outstanding courage and integrity should likewise be remembered forever.”The pardoning of the J6 hostages was not just a victory for them. It was a victory for all Americans. President Trump’s pardons are only the beginning of our renewed fight for justice, freedom and the restoration of a country that has veered dangerously off course. We have the opportunity to usher in a renaissance where Americans stand together for our rights and the principles upon which this country was founded. Together, with courage and unity, we will ensure that the miscarriage of justice perpetrated over the last four years is never repeated.&nbsp;Stay tuned - We keep you updated on our efforts to engage with the Trump administration and ensure all J6 hostages receive restorative justice.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

President Donald J. Trump Pardons the J6 Hostages

A Monumental Victory Over Weaponized GovernmentHouston, TX. – January 27, 2025On January 24, 2025, US District Judge David Hittner&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/EithanHaim/status/1882895715820863510">dismissed</a> the US government’s lawsuit against courageous whistleblower, Dr. Eithan Haim. Haim, 34, was put in the crosshairs of a weaponized DOJ after he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/whistleblower-doctor-targeted-by-doj-after-exposing-texas-children-s-hospital-s-secret-transgender-surgery-program?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email">exposed</a> the secret transgender program at Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH).Upon discovering that TCH was lying to the public about the existence of its gender clinic and that the medical mutilation of children was a top priority, Dr. Haim recognized that he had a moral obligation to expose the hospital’s deception. Haim partnered with journalist Christopher Rufo, who then published a bombshell&nbsp;<a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/sex-change-procedures-at-texas-childrens-hospital">exposé</a> in May 2023 that immediately sent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-doctor-blew-the-whistle-on-his-hospitals-transgender-clinic-now-the-feds-are-trying-to-ruin-his-life">shockwaves</a> across the country.&nbsp;Despite redacting patient names and believing his own actions to be legal, the once anonymous whistleblower became a target of the US government. On June 4, 2024, three armed US Marshals delivered a court summons and four-count&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68860918/1/united-states-v-haim/">indictment</a> charging Dr. Haim with violating the patient-privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The prosecutors allege that the doctor knowingly obtained sensitive patient records under false pretenses with the intent to cause malicious harm to TCH’s physicians and patients. If convicted, Haim would have faced up to ten years in prison and&nbsp; $250,000 in fines. Last week’s ruling ended the government’s persecution of the brave doctor.&nbsp;In a statement following this monumental victory, Dr. Haim stated, “We took on the most powerful federal leviathan in human history and we won! It demonstrates the strength and power of truth when it stands up to corruption.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Dr. Haim exposed the tremendous harm being done to vulnerable children while thousands of others stayed silent. His courage saved lives and sparked legislative action in Texas. Dr. Haim upheld his oath to ‘do no harm’ even under the threat of weaponized government abuse. This is both a victory for a valiant man and a win for American justice.”&nbsp;America’s Frontline Doctors salute Dr. Haim for his continued bravery in the face of evil. The DOJ’s persecution of Dr. Eithan Haim was about more than just silencing the voice of one doctor. It was about silencing ALL doctors and truth-tellers who speak out against government tyranny.&nbsp;Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on Dr. Haim and our efforts to bring courage and honor back to medicine!# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org &nbsp;Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

Federal Judge Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit Against Dr. Eithan Haim

Holding COVID Tyranny AccountableNew Orleans, LA.&nbsp;- January 9, 2025On January 2, 2025, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1736456659/Bridges_v_Methodist_Hospital_Amici_Curiae_Brief_stamped_1_2_2025_24_20483_Documents_9b3ad51c5f.pdf">amici curiae&nbsp;brief</a> with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in support of the Plaintiffs-Appellants (Plaintiffs) in&nbsp;Bridges v. The Methodist Hospital. By submitting an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1736456659/Appellant_s_Opening_Brief_Final_7e8a6ab92b.pdf">appeal</a> to the Fifth Circuit, the Plaintiffs are asking the appellate court to reverse the&nbsp;<a href="https://casetext.com/case/bridges-v-the-methodist-hosp-1">decision</a> of the district court - seeking declaratory relief and damages resulting from the Defendants-Appellees’ (Defendants) COVID-19 “vaccine” mandate. This pivotal case for medical freedom has the potential to set a precedent for lawsuits across the country and for the countless Americans seeking justice from COVID tyranny.&nbsp;In April 2021, the Methodist Hospital System implemented a mandatory COVID-19 immunization policy for all of its employees and vendors. The Plaintiffs refused to comply and had their jobs or vendor privileges terminated. District Court Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. upheld the Defendants’ mandate, concluding that the Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to refuse vaccination and the COVID-19 “vaccine” mandates are rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In other words, the Defendants’ mandate was in the best interest of safety and stopping the spread of the virus.&nbsp;America’s Frontline Doctors maintains the position that these experimental mRNA injections are not vaccines. Failing to prevent infection or transmission, the COVID shots are personal medical treatments ONLY. Further, vast scientific research and evidence have proven these “vaccines” to be neither safe nor effective. In dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claims, the lower court relied on the now-disproven “safe and effective” narrative.Further, the Defendants engaged in unconstitutional, illegal and possible criminal activity by mandating dangerous experimental medical treatments in violation of numerous well-established laws and regulations. If left unchecked by the courts, these unlawful violations are likely to recur in the future. The Fifth Circuit must firmly reject the Defendants’ mandate by reversing the lower court’s deeply flawed ruling.&nbsp;AFLDS attorney David Dalia states, “As most people now know, the COVID shots are neither ‘safe’ nor ‘effective.’ This was not disclosed to those who were coerced into taking these injections under the threat of job termination. As of November 29th, 2024, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System logged 38,190 attributable deaths and countless serious adverse reactions since these experimental injections were introduced around 2021. Two American states and several European countries no longer recommend these injections. No public or private institution should ever illegally ‘mandate’ such risky and dangerous shots again. After all, how can anyone attempt to mandate anything that might kill you? We are hopeful that the Fifth Circuit will invalidate this hospital mandate.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Voluntary, coercion-free and fully informed consent to medical treatments is not only essential but legally required. As the lessons of Nuremberg and the Tuskegee experiment teach, forced medical experimentation on human beings is reprehensible and must not be upheld by any court. Tyranny can only persist if we allow it. These unlawful mandates must be swiftly and unanimously rejected.”&nbsp;Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on the status of this case and our efforts to hold COVID tyranny accountable.&nbsp;# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in Bridges v. The Methodist Hospital

Protecting Free Speech and Our Nation’s ChildrenWashington, DC&nbsp;&nbsp;- Tuesday December 17, 2024On December 13, 2024, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1734471609/Chilesv_Salazar_AFLDS_Amici_Brief_d79921f9b2.pdf">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States, in support of the Petitioner in&nbsp;Chiles v. Salazar. The Petitioner (Kaley Chiles) is suing the Respondents over Colorado’s&nbsp;<a href="https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&amp;crid=7e0b7996-78d9-459c-8d5c-65962b6b26f0&amp;nodeid=AAMAAHAAKAADAAC&amp;nodepath=%2FROOT%2FAAM%2FAAMAAH%2FAAMAAHAAK%2FAAMAAHAAKAAD%2FAAMAAHAAKAADAAC&amp;level=5&amp;haschildren=&amp;populated=false&amp;title=12-245-202.+Definitions.&amp;config=014FJAAyNGJkY2Y4Zi1mNjgyLTRkN2YtYmE4OS03NTYzNzYzOTg0OGEKAFBvZENhdGFsb2d592qv2Kywlf8caKqYROP5&amp;pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A65KM-2JS3-CGX8-00VX-00008-00&amp;ecomp=6gf59kk&amp;prid=82b21010-69bc-4a7d-ae4a-b2d621f1dcb9">“Counseling Censorship Law”</a> which violates her free speech rights by prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in any conversation with minor patients that does not steer them in the direction of “gender-affirming care.” By submitting a petition for&nbsp;<a href="https://adflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/chiles-v-salazar-2024-11-08-scotus-cert-petition.pdf">writ of certiorari</a> to SCOTUS, the Petitioner is asking the High Court to hear her case and reverse the&nbsp;<a href="https://dm1l19z832j5m.cloudfront.net/2024-09/Chiles-v-Salazar-2024-09-12-Appellate-Ruling.pdf">decision</a> of the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which upheld the state’s law - denying her declaratory and injunctive relief.America’s Frontline Doctors contends that Colorado’s “prohibited speech” law blatantly violates the First Amendment and severely compromises the patient-counselor relationship. The Tenth Circuit reasoned that a counseling session transforms speech into conduct and conduct is not protected by the First Amendment, finding instead that the discussion of all treatment options was “incidental speech.” However, merely labeling protected free speech as “conduct” does not change its character as free speech nor does it turn free speech into unprotected “incidental speech.”Further, the state’s law exhibits unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by only allowing speech that affirms a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity while prohibiting alternative treatments. Viewpoint discrimination is when the government prohibits or disfavors one type of speech (a particular viewpoint) while permitting another type of speech (a different viewpoint), and is flagrantly illegal in the United States of America. The Petitioner must be free to engage in protected and confidential speech with her clients that is in the best interests of Colorado’s minor children. The medical harms of “gender-affirming care” (aka medical mutilation) are&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1736443508/AFLDS_White_Paper_PAGES_docx_151d82c3c4.pdf">well documented</a> and growing. Prohibiting discussions of ALL viable treatment options available to patients breaches ethical duties of honesty and transparency owed by counselors to their patients and arguably constitutes professional malpractice.&nbsp;AFLDS attorney David Dalia states, “Research has shown that somewhere between 85 - 98% of children who are experiencing confusion about their biological sex will outgrow their confusion within two years. They become normal, young, unmutilated adults. Twenty-one American states, numerous European countries, and most recently the U.K., have all banned puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and ‘gender reassignment’ surgeries for minor children due to the perceived lack of benefit. Given these undisputed facts, Colorado’s unconstitutional restriction on therapeutic speech with children can be seen as unethical, irrational, cruel, and possibly criminal genital mutilation and child abuse. We sincerely hope that the Supreme Court rejects this misguided transgender ideology.”&nbsp;AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “By only allowing speech that affirms a radical transgender ideology while rejecting that which affirms reality-based biology, the government is choosing sides. Colorado’s law directs vulnerable children down a tragically predictable path of sterility and lifelong health complications. If trapping 100% of children into ‘gender-affirming care’ was the sole correct path, the Nation would not be hearing from countless detransitioners alleging that they were not informed of the biological facts before ‘consenting’ to medical mutilation.”Recognizing that this pivotal case has the potential to set a precedent for countless healthcare professionals across the country being forced to comply with a radical gender ideology to the detriment of their patients, AFLDS is calling on SCOTUS to grant the Petitioner's writ of certiorari.Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on this critical case and our efforts to end the medical mutilation of children.&nbsp;# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in Chiles v. Salazar

Taking A Stand to Protect Free SpeechNew Orleans, LA.&nbsp;- December 2, 2024On November 26, 2024, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1733251388/Kennedyv_Biden_AFLDS_Amici_Brief_Official_Stamped_Version_228e2ec477.pdf">amici curiae&nbsp;brief&nbsp;</a>with the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the Plaintiffs-Appellees (Plaintiffs) in&nbsp;Kennedy v. Biden. The Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the ongoing COVID-19 censorship at the hands of the Biden administration, the Defendants-Appellants (Defendants). By submitting an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1733251389/Kennedyv_Biden_En_Banc_And_Panel_Ruling_8ceab29e15.pdf">en banc rehearing petition</a> to the Fifth Circuit, the Plaintiffs are requesting that the full appeals court reconsider their case.Earlier this year, US District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty&nbsp;<a href="https://casetext.com/case/kennedy-v-biden-4/">ruled</a> that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense have standing for their First Amendment direct censorship claims against the Defendants. A Fifth Circuit three-judge panel later&nbsp;<a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/24-30252/24-30252-2024-11-04.html">reversed</a> the lower court’s ruling, rejecting the Plaintiffs’ claims that allowing the ongoing censorship to continue will cause more human harm. Additionally, the panel held that Plaintiffs were deprived of all legal standing because the government allegedly halted its censorship of the Plaintiffs (voluntary cessation), and vacated the trial court’s preliminary injunction.&nbsp;America’s Frontline Doctors contend that the Fifth Circuit panel adopted an overly restrictive interpretation of legal standing and concurs with the Plaintiffs’ claims. Medical censorship kills. ”Voluntary cessation” does not remove “standing” under the jurisprudence (theory of law). This holding sets a precedent that would allow government actors to destroy any and all constitutional rights at will under the simple pretense of temporary compliance. Further, this illegal behavior has not ceased and is likely to recur.AFLDS attorney David Dalia states, “Trial judge Terry A. Doughty delivered a well-reasoned opinion based on the evidence. The Fifth Circuit’s dangerous and deeply erroneous ruling is contrary to the prevailing jurisprudence. RFK Jr. and Children’s Health Defense were some of the worst victims of the government’s ongoing illegal censorship campaign. To deny these injured Plaintiffs standing is analogous to denying standing to a gunshot victim, as long as his assailant promises never to do it again! This is of course absurd. The&nbsp;en banc Fifth Circuit should swiftly correct this very grievous error.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “The dangerous precedent at stake in this lawsuit mirrors the historic&nbsp;Murthy v. Missouri case decided by SCOTUS earlier this year. Tragically, the High Court lacked the wisdom to strike down the government’s weaponized attack on free speech. As many know, AFLDS and I were also targets of the Biden administration as part of the so-called ‘Disinformation Dozen.’ The government’s suppression of free speech must not be allowed to continue. We remain hopeful that the Fifth Circuit has the courage to take the necessary action to correct this injustice by granting the Plaintiffs’ petition.”&nbsp;America’s Frontline Doctors maintains that the Defendants engaged in unconstitutional, dangerous and criminal activity by suppressing the Plaintiffs’ free speech during the COVID-19 pandemic. This illegal government overreach compromised the First Amendment rights and safety of millions of Americans. By censoring truthful and accurate medical information, the Defendants caused thousands of avoidable deaths - depriving millions of valuable information that could have helped them formulate personal medical decisions based upon fully informed consent.These egregious censorship tactics have also been weaponized to control other narratives such as election integrity, medical mutilation and climate change. Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on this pivotal free speech case and our efforts to end the tyranny of weaponized censorship.&nbsp;# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in Kennedy v. Biden

Standing Against the Medical Mutilation of ChildrenWashington, DC – October 17, 2024On October 15, 2024, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed a bold&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1729195331/20241015122545084_23-477_Amici_Brief_elbi8q.pdf">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States, in support of the Respondents in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/327730/20241008130915048_23-477%20Respondents%20Brief.pdf">United States v. Skrmetti</a>&nbsp;(formerly&nbsp;L.W. v. Skrmetti). The Respondents are being sued by the Biden-Harris administration over&nbsp;<a href="https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0001&amp;utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email">SB1</a>, Tennessee’s law that prohibits “gender-affirming care” for minors. By submitting our&nbsp;amici curiae brief, AFLDS joins the Respondents in calling for SCOTUS to affirm the judgment of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In short, we are asking the High Court to allow the state of Tennessee to enforce its own law which protects the health and safety of children by prohibiting these dangerous interventions.The government (Petitioner) argues that the state’s law discriminates on the basis of sex, violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. However, simply assessing the lines drawn by SB1 reveals the absence of any sex-based classification. The law creates two groups: (1) minors seeking to use puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for gender transition, and (2) minors seeking to use puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for other medical purposes. Both groups include both sexes, defeating the government’s equal protection argument.AFLDS maintains that minors are incapable of giving true and legal&nbsp;<a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/about-us/issue-briefs/exposing-the-misinformed-consent-of-medical-mutilation">informed consent</a> to medical mutilation. Despite the&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1736443508/AFLDS_White_Paper_PAGES_docx_151d82c3c4.pdf">overwhelming evidence</a> that these “treatments” result in permanent disfigurement, ushering children into lifelong medical misery instead of compassionate care, doctors who once took an oath to “do no harm” are now performing “gender-affirming” interventions on children. As a result, the lives of countless children and their families are being destroyed at the hands of a multi-billion-dollar industry that prioritizes profits over health. The rapid expansion of the Medical Mutilation Industry represents a tremendous threat to our national identity, security and future. To address this growing threat, our lawmakers must take critical action by passing legislation that protects the Nation’s children and holds rogue doctors accountable for their crimes against humanity.It is clear that SB1 is a proper exercise of the police power of the State of Tennessee to regulate these dangerous interventions to protect Tennessee minors from the tragically predictable consequences of medical mutilation. This exercise of state police power is similar to the longstanding and accepted state regulation of abortions, female genital mutilations, psychosurgery, shock treatments, lobotomies, child sterilizations, assisted suicides, euthanasia and even tattoos. As the medical harms of these “treatments” are well documented, state regulation is not only completely lawful and appropriate, it is mandatory.AFLDS Attorney David Dalia states, “There’s an alarming likelihood that these minor children will bitterly regret these mutilations. Studies show that as many as 85% of children grow out of gender dysphoria! As I learned the reality of ‘gender-affirming care,’ I became appalled. These surgeries and treatments are&nbsp; grotesque, and lead to a lifetime of medications, medical complications, repeat surgeries and regret. Surgeon Dr. Eithan Haim said: ‘they are offering a physiological solution to a psychological problem.’ States routinely regulate other dangerous surgeries and treatments like psychosurgery, child sterilizations, genital mutilations and euthanasia. I urge everyone to study the grisly facts and research about the medical mutilation of minors, as exposed by Tennessee, Alabama, twenty two other states, America’s Frontline Doctors, and 51&nbsp;amici curiae groups all supporting the State of Tennessee in the Skrmetti case. Tennessee’s lawful exercise of its police power to protect minor children from lifetime mutilations should be strongly affirmed. The age of majority should be required for any such drastic decisions.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Our laws on the books for informed consent are very clear and must be enforced. Children cannot give informed consent. This responsibility has been entrusted to the parent. However, there is no common law precedent that allows someone to consent to the medical mutilation of another. No third party, not parent nor government, can empower a minor to consent to medical mutilation. All of the childhood procedures happening right now are illegal because no person can legally grant ‘permission’ to cause lifelong health complications and sterility for another person.”&nbsp;This historic case will be argued in front of the Supreme Court in the coming months. AFLDS recognizes that if SCOTUS sides with the federal government and strikes down Tennessee's law, a precedent will be set that will endanger the lives of countless young Americans. The High Court must not lose sight of what is at stake: the health and safety of our Nation’s children.&nbsp;Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on the status of this case and our efforts to end the medical mutilation of children.&nbsp;&nbsp;# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in United States v. Skrmetti

A Call to Action for All AmericansNaples, FL. - October 16, 2024On Sunday October 6, 2024, AFLDS proudly premiered “What is a Doctor?” at New Beginnings Church in Bedford, Texas. Sponsored by Moms for America and Patriot Mobile, this landmark event marked the launch of AFLDS’ campaign to screen this groundbreaking documentary across the Nation.&nbsp;<a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/whatisadoctor">What is a Doctor?</a> reveals the disturbing agenda behind the Medical Mutilation Industry and the tragic impact of the mislabeled "gender-affirming care" on vulnerable children. This powerful film was made by doctors who refuse to be silent as the lives of countless children and their families are destroyed. Please read our previous&nbsp;<a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-announces-premiere-of-what-is-a-doctor">press release</a> to learn more.&nbsp;The screening was followed by an insightful discussion with the cast of the film. Dr. Simone Gold was joined by Dr. Miriam Grossman, Dr. Melanie Crites-Bachert, Dr. Eithan Haim and Dr. Scott Jensen.During the discussion, Dr. Grossman praised the movie, declaring “This film is a home run. Every family needs to understand - no one is immune from this insanity. To the contrary - we are all vulnerable. We have to wake up. And this film, I believe, will wake people up.”&nbsp;Commenting on the critical question that the film poses, Dr. Haim stated, "Throughout our history, stories told about doctors illustrated their miraculous power to heal. But now, it is not the patients who are sick but the doctors - that disease being the pathological metastasis of a mind virus that destroys our society's most innocent and pure, the children. By asking the question in the movie's title, doctors can stem the bleeding, begin extraction of the cancer, and take the first step to healing.“In a continuing effort to Drain the Science Swamp, Dr. Gold and AFLDS are calling on all Americans to be the voice for the most vulnerable among us and take a stand to protect our children. We encourage everyone to share the film’s&nbsp;<a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/whatisadoctor">website</a> where you can:<ul><li>Learn more about the film and the cast</li><li>Sign up to get notified when a showing is playing in your area</li><li>Sign up to host a showing in your city</li><li>Donate to support the movie</li></ul>AFLDS is blowing the whistle on rogue doctors who have forsaken their oath to “do no harm” and we are calling on the American people to join us. Together, we will fight back against the Medical Mutilation Industry and expose the truth. United, we resolve to fiercely protect our children in order to preserve their innocence and future.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

AFLDS Premieres “What is a Doctor?”

A Precedent-Setting Case for Medical FreedomWashington, DC. - September 18, 2024On September 16, 2024, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team vigilantly filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1726681379/AFLDS_Amici_Brief_Johnson_v_Kotek_b11c1e7699.pdf">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States, in support of the Petitioners in<a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2024/02/23/22-35624.pdf">&nbsp;Johnson et al. v. Kotek, et al.</a> (formerly&nbsp;Johnson v. Brown). The Petitioners are seeking damages resulting from unconstitutional and illegal COVID-19 vaccine mandates. By submitting a petition for&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-173/322395/20240813193006226_Johnson%20v%20Kotek%20Petition.pdf">writ of certiorari</a> to SCOTUS, the Petitioners are asking the High Court to hear their case and reverse the decision of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which dismissed their claims for damages.&nbsp;In 2021, Oregon’s Governor Kate Brown issued COVID-19 vaccine mandates for all healthcare workers, school employees and state employees.&nbsp;<a href="https://casetext.com/case/johnson-v-brown-87">Johnson v. Brown</a> sought to establish that the State’s mandate was unconstitutional and in violation of federal law. The Plaintiffs in&nbsp;Johnson assert that in the context of the experimental COVID “vaccine”, their right to refuse unwanted medication is determined by the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199711133372006">Nuremberg Code</a>, which requires informed consent without any element of duress. The district court dismissed the case, and the Ninth Circuit refused to address the merits of the constitutional issue, finding instead that the Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Because the lower courts have failed to vindicate the Petitioners’ right (and that of millions of Americans) to refuse orders that they be injected with experimental drugs, they are urging SCOTUS to grant a writ of certiorari and hear their case.&nbsp;AFLDS holds the position that these experimental mRNA injections are not “vaccines”, because they do not prevent infection or transmission, and they are neither&nbsp;safe, nor&nbsp;effective. The COVID shots are personal medical treatments only. This is backed by a tremendous amount of scientific research and evidence showing a horrific safety profile with millions of documented adverse side effects including death.&nbsp;The Defendants willfully violated numerous well-established constitutional principles, federal statutes, federal regulations, and the Nuremberg Code by illegally mandating dangerous experimental mRNA drugs via executive decree under the coercive threat of job termination. This deprives the Defendants of qualified immunity from the Plaintiffs’ claims for damages.As stated by AFLDS’ affiliate attorney, David Dalia, “After all, how can anyone ‘mandate’ anything that might kill you? It is self-evident that any decision by non-doctors to ‘mandate’ a dangerous experimental personal medical treatment under the coercive threat of the loss of one’s employment&nbsp; is irrational, and lacks any legitimate state purpose whatsoever. Additionally, the treatment does not prevent infection or transmission, and has severe side effects including death. The mandate violates numerous well-established laws including the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, the right of bodily integrity, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, 21 C.F.R. §50:25, the Nuremberg Code, and many others. These illegal and dangerous ‘medical mandates’ must cease."AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Gold added, “Since 2020, I have repeatedly argued that mandates of the&nbsp; COVID injections violate our constitutional rights. The&nbsp;only&nbsp;basis upon which our government can even consider&nbsp;mandating any medication is to ‘prevent the transmission of a communicable disease.’ From the moment Pfizer and Moderna submitted their applications to the FDA, and then through years of real-time data, everyone knows they do not stop transmission. This finding of fact was recently upheld by the Ninth Circuit. As these shots never met the historical definition of a vaccine by preventing transmission of the disease, they cannot be mandated. In addition, they were released in violation of the key element of the emergency authorization act, which is that no other treatment be available.”AFLDS recognizes that this critical case has the potential to set a precedent for countless Americans who were wrongly coerced, threatened and damaged by tyrannical vaccine mandates. This is why we are calling on SCOTUS to grant the Petitioners’ writ of certiorari and correct the miscarriage of justice conducted by the lower courts.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a> &nbsp;

Protecting your Medical
Freedom and Civil Liberties

Press Releases