Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, former Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and President of the Truth for Health Foundation, provides insight into why people continue to reject vaccination despite experts' advice and increasing mandate pressure. She also spoke about the sad fact that many physicians are reluctant to speak out about the risks of inoculating patients with COVID shots.
In an interview with The Epoch Times reported under the title, "The Erosion of Medical Freedom," Dr. Vliet began by answering the question, "What is medical freedom?"
She then went on to explain that medical freedom has two elements. It is the autonomy of the patient, as well as the freedom to debate ideas and different points of view.
"A huge element of medical freedom that physicians historically have always defended is the oath of the physician: to carry out for the benefit of the patient to the best of their ability and judgment," she said.
In fact, this has always been one of the fundamental concepts of the physician-patient relationship, at least since the 1960s, when President Lyndon Johnson successfully pushed the Medicare/Medicaid Act of 1965. As part of his campaign to get the bill approved, he pledged that the government would not prescribe treatment, wouldn't set pricing, and wouldn't interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.
Every single one of these things has been tossed out the window. Doctors are limited in their abilities since the government sets the rates they will pay and determines what they will cover.
The 2010 health care legislation included even more restrictive restrictions. It exempted Congress' anti-kickback laws when pharmacy benefit administrators were compensated to reject patients' doctor-prescribed medications. These pharmacy intermediaries are paid to select something cheaper for the insurance provider, pharmaceutical firm, or whomever they work for.
Dr. Vliet describes them as invasions of medical freedom.
The Epoch Times then asked what rights individuals have to challenge professional medical advice.
"Fundamentally, the only way that true science progresses is with people asking questions, discussing ideas, testing hypotheses, accumulating and analyzing the data, and then looking for trends. It's looking at what is working, and what is not working," Dr. Vliet responded.
She said that this is the whole foundation of the scientific process, except in totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany, the USSR, or communist China, which have made attempts to restrict scientific debate.
On doctors and patients who defend medical freedom branded as anti-science or political rebels
Dr. Vliet said this is how those who challenge the existing quo are attacked, naming Galileo, Copernicus, Ignaz Sammelweis, and Elizabeth Blackwell as examples.
"While we were saving lives, all of the government spokespeople who were espousing the party line and criticizing us were the ones disobeying basic medical principles of early treatment and forcing everyone who got sick to wait until they were critically ill," she said.
"They were sending patients to a hospital to be put on a ventilator, and that gave them a 30 percent risk of dying. They're guilty of causing an excessive number of deaths with policies that betray all the principles of medicine," she added.
Vaccine: first a personal decision, now forced
Dr. Vliet claims that it's not even the professionals that are calling for vaccination proof. Employers with little medical expertise, for example, need proof of an experimental shot before returning to work.
Another is the litigation filed against HHS for the FOIA to reveal the death rate with these shots. The CDC's VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) is obviously broken or, according to whistleblowers, intentionally not publishing information.
Whistleblower affidavits, explains Dr. Vliet, are sworn statements submitted in federal court. If proven to be lying, they will be prosecuted.
"They are saying that the deaths in one of the databases are over 45,000. And that doesn't count the Medicare/Medicaid database, or the CDC VAERS database. It's not the 12,000 deaths that the public can see. And that's just one aspect of the damage and the risk," she noted.
On doctors keeping mum
The majority of doctors speaking out about clinical risks are independent practitioners. They are only accountable to their patient. They are not subject to the dictates of a big hospital health system, in which bureaucrats dictate what physicians may do and speak.
"Between 85 and 90 percent of doctors are not independent," explained Dr. Vliet. "This number increased after the Obamacare legislation in 2010. By design, it pushed physicians into employed roles where they are controlled by administrators running the health system."
She added that she has spoken with physicians in over a dozen states who told her that their hands are tied from prescribing hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. Only independent doctors are capable of doing it at this point in time.
Nonetheless, she maintained: "I think we're at a point where doctors need to search their soul and ask: 'Am I going to advocate for my patients? Or am I just going to sit back and do what the administrator tells me to do?"