Who Holds The Medical Boards Accountable?
For centuries, doctors swore an oath to do no harm; today, power-hungry bureaucrats are rewriting that oath to serve their own agenda. And doctors who refuse to play political games?
Doctors who refuse to play political games with their patients - who prioritize patients over profits - are punished
AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in Thomas v. Harder Holding Rogue Medical Boards Accountable
Washington, DC - February 18, 2025 (source, all rights belong to AFLDS)
On February 14, 2025, Dr. Simone Gold and the America Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) legal team filed an amici curiae brief with the Supreme Court of the United States, in support of the Petitioner in 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 writ of certiorari to SCOTUS, the Petitioner is asking the High Court to vindicate his right to sue the Oregon Medical Board for damages by reversing the judgment 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 judgment 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.
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.
Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on the status of this case and our efforts to bring truth back to medicine.
What Is an Amicus Curiae Brief?
An amicus curiae brief, also known as a "friend of the court" brief, is a submission to a court by a person or organization that is not a party to the case but offers additional insight or expertise that may assist the court in making its decision.
These briefs are often filed in cases where there are broad public interests or significant legal implications involved.
They can provide alternative perspectives or additional information that the parties directly involved in the case might not present.
Amicus curiae briefs can be filed in various courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appellate courts, and state courts.
The rules governing the content, format, and circumstances of filing these briefs can vary depending on the jurisdiction.
For instance, Rule 37 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States dictates the specifics for briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, while Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure generally governs amici curiae in federal courts.
State rules of civil and appellate procedure typically govern amici curiae in state cases.
In prominent cases, amici curiae are often organizations with substantial legal budgets, such as advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union or the Pacific Legal Foundation, which file briefs to advocate for or against a particular legal change or interpretation.
If a case could affect an entire industry, companies not directly involved in the litigation may also file amicus briefs to present their concerns.
For example, in the Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago, thirty-two states filed amicus curiae briefs to express their views on the case's implications.
The decision to file an amicus curiae brief is typically under the court's discretion and may be influenced by factors such as the significance of the public interest or legal consequences, the implications for client state agencies or pending litigation, and the procedural posture of the case.
Requests for amicus briefs can come from various sources, including the Governor or Legislature, state agencies, other states or governmental entities, the National Association of Attorneys General, or private parties and interest groups.
About AFLDS
We 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.
Visit AFLDS.org
Media Contact Lisa Alexander, Communications Director | Media@AFLDS.org