The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) revoked the certifications of Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik for allegedly spreading misinformation. ABIM said that Kory and Marik’s “statements about the safety and efficacy of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine” as treatments for COVID-19“ are false and inaccurate because they are unsupported by factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven medical information.”

The ABIM made the same claims regarding the doctor’s statements about the ineffectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. The ABIM statement regarding misinformation is “While ABIM recognizes the importance of legitimate scientific debate, physicians have an ethical and professional responsibility to provide information that is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven. Providing false or inaccurate information to patients or the public is unprofessional and unethical and violates the trust that the profession of medicine and the public have in ABIM Board Certification. Therefore, such conduct constitutes grounds for disciplinary sanctions.”

The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), an organization founded by Dr. Marik and Dr. Kory, published a Substack post to refute the decision made by the ABIM. The blog post states, “Since May 2022, when the ABIM first issued a Notice of Potential Disciplinary Action, Drs. Marik and Kory have tirelessly defended their positions, providing substantial medical and scientific evidence to support their recommendations for early COVID-19 treatment and their critiques of vaccine risks. Despite presenting over 170 references in a detailed 60-page response submitted in January 2023, the ABIM has chosen to dismiss these robust scientific contributions in favor of a narrow, “consensus-driven” narrative.”

The issue of scientific consensus is a parameter that ABIM lists as necessary, although it insists that legitimate scientific debate is important. The Bandwagon logical fallacy is an argument that relies upon the claim that  “because something is popular, it must be effective, true, or otherwise positive.” In this case, scientific professionals make up the bandwagon, but the requirement for doctors to fall in line with the consensus negates the ability to have a “legitimate scientific debate.” A debate requires a difference of opinion, which would have to go against the consensus.

Scientific and media consensus can drive the conversation in regard to medical guidelines. For example, the Journalist’s Resource states “When a reporter interviews a source whose views match the collective position, it’s a strong signal the information is trustworthy, explains Eric Merkley, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto who studies expert consensus.”

The article calls for journalists to adhere to the consensus, echoing the stance famously taken by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson during an episode of The HighWire with Del Bigtree. Tyson argued that focusing on scientific consensus is essential for ensuring that public information is reliable and evidence-based. However, as George Orwell is often quoted, “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations.” This raises questions about the potential conflicts of interest in journalism, especially considering that The Journalist’s Resource is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Notably, the foundation’s chairman, Roger S. Fine, served as the corporate vice president and general counsel of Johnson & Johnson for 30 years before joining the foundation.

Dr. Kory posted a personal response to ABIM on his Substack. He said, “Although I can still practice medicine, the ABIM’s actions against me and Paul Marik threaten the sanctity and autonomy of the physician-patient relationship. The harm to patients will be immense.”

“The massive financial opportunities that COVID immediately presented to Big Pharma were threatened by the “inconvenient truths” Paul and I put out there,” Kory added. “This ABIM action is one way in which Big Pharma punishes those who are foolish enough to do so. Foolish is not quite the right word in our case, as I would argue we were simply naive to the consequences of advocating publicly for the use of off-patent medicines for an immensely profitable disease. It wasn’t heroism as some think, but rather extreme naivete.”

An investigative report last year by Paul Thacker found that Richard Baron, the President and CEO of ABIM, is a client of a PR firm that also represents Pfizer, Moderna, and the CDC. Furthermore, the scientific consensus comes from studies funded by the industry profiting from the product.

The ABIM Foundation provided $110,000 in funding to programs to counter medical misinformation, including a Spanish fact-checking site known as Factchequeado. The American Academy for Pediatrics (AAP) provided “virtual training for pediatricians and other stakeholders” in 2023, which was paid for by Factchequeado. The AAP has direct financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

In 2023, Journalist Lee Fang wrote, “The American Academy of Pediatrics was one of the most visible organizations working to build public support for vaccine mandates. The organization received multiple, specialized grants from Pfizer in 2021. Pfizer also provided grants to individual state chapters of the AAP earmarked for lobbying on vaccine policy. The Ohio AAP chapter, for instance, lobbied the Ohio legislature against bills to curb coercive COVID-19 vaccine policies, while receiving an “immunization legislation” advocacy grant from Pfizer.”

Factchequeado also partnered with the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation (NIHCM)  to “counter mis and disinformation on health and science topics.” The NIHCM Foundation is a non-profit with a board of directors working for the health insurance industry.

The ABIM is linked to various interests in the pharmaceutical industry, which may face financial implications if ivermectin is widely used instead of more expensive treatments.

While ABIM states that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik spread misinformation regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, the FDA settled out of court with the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. The HighWire reported on this in March, when the FDA was ordered to remove all social media posts disparaging ivermectin.

The FDA still provides warnings that ivermectin is not approved for the treatment of COVID-19, it can be dangerous to take in large doses, and many people are taking ivermectin formulations that are only approved for use in animals. Drs. Kory and Marik advocate using ivermectin in treating COVID-19, as Dr. Kory authored The War on Ivermectin. When Joe Rogan announced on his podcast that he took ivermectin to treat COVID-19, the media and the FDA said people were taking horse dewormer. In the settlement, the FDA had to take down a post that said, “You’re not a horse. Stop it.”

According to the FDA, “Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea.”

The safety of ivermectin has been established for decades for these uses, and the mild side effects occur in 1-10% of users. Meanwhile, Ozempic is approved as a diabetes medication but not for weight loss. That hasn’t prevented healthcare practitioners from giving Ozempic prescriptions for weight loss. Using FDA-approved drugs off-label is considered standard practice. The FDA does not mention the word “dangerous” when speaking of Ozempic or semaglutide compounding. Meanwhile, the percentage of those who experience side effects from semaglutide products like Ozempic is at least 36% according to some studies. Jeffery Jaxen has been reporting for The HighWire about the severe side effects associated with Ozempic.