Amazon Excommunicates Dr. Paul Marik

Banning of "Cancer Care" is an extremely dark moment in the history of censorship.

A few days ago I received the word that Amazon had banned Dr. Paul Marik’s book Cancer Care: The Role of Repurposed Drugs and Metabolic Interventions in Treating Cancer. In Amazon’s words:

Hello,
We are terminating your account effective immediately because we found that you have published titles with misleading content that have the potential to mislead or defraud our customers.
You can see the violations reflected in the following title(s):
58840430 / Cancer Care: The Role of Repurposed Drugs and Metabolic Interventions in Treating Cancer, PRI-4BJKMH3ENCP / Cancer Care: The Role of Repurposed Drugs and Metabolic Interventions in Treating Cancer
As part of the termination process:
• We will close your account
• You're no longer eligible to receive any outstanding royalties
• You'll no longer have access to your accounts. This includes, editing your titles, viewing your reports and accessing any other information within your account
• All of your published titles will be removed from sale on Amazon

This action strikes me as identical to that of the Holy Office of the Inquisition excommunicating a heretic during the Counter-Reformation.

On the same day I received the news of Dr. Marik’s excommunication, I also received some photos of Dr. McCullough’s trip to Milan, Italy, including one of him standing in front of the Teatro alla Scala opera house.

These two events, happening on the same day, reminded me of Verdi’s 1867 opera, Don Carlos, based on Friedrich Schiller’s 1787 play of the same title. As the distinguished law professor, Martha Nussbaum, wrote about the play and opera in her 2022 essay, Don Carlos: Liberty or the Inquisition?

Republics sometimes die by conquest from without. But they also die by collapse from within. … Can this new … form of government depend on people to do the job? Or will weak-willed human beings give way to fear and yield their freedom to an authoritarian leader — whether religious or secular?

This question was much debated in the 18th century, when Friedrich Schiller made it central to his drama Don Carlos (1787), and it was still debated when Verdi — drawing on Schiller, but also on his own passionate involvement in the Risorgimento (a movement for Italian unity and republican self-government) — wrote his opera Don Carlos (1867).

The villain of Don Carlos is the Grand Inquisitor of Spain during the reign of Philip II. As Nussbaum points out, Verdi was drawn to Schiller’s opera not only as a historical drama, but out of his conviction that its theme of “Liberty or the Inquisition?” was still as relevant as ever in the Italy of his day.

Self-government had powerful enemies, in particular Pope Pius IX (1792-1878), who became pope in 1848, and was 75 when Don Carlos premiered. Initially sympathetic to the Risorgimento, he changed course and adopted an extreme conservative and church authoritarian posture. In 1864 he issued a "Syllabus of Errors," an attack on all forms of liberalism, religious toleration, personal autonomy, and national self-determination which still makes chilling reading. He reversed the religious toleration laws of the Republic and reinstituted the Jewish ghetto, which he had previously opened.

As Nussbaum concluded her essay:

Here, I think, Verdi sees more deeply than Schiller: The struggle for free speech and freedom is perpetual, and it must be fought in the heart and mind of every person who loves self-government, in every generation—as love of liberty contends with superstition and fear of power. We cannot wait for God, or even history, to deal with our tyrants. Italy's future was precarious in the 1860's—with Pius IX lurching from liberalism to dark anti-rationalism—just as ours is today, with threats against democracy from the forces of anti-truth, and with a public culture tainted by fear of other groups and people. The ending of Don Carlos is as dark or "light" as we make it in our lives.

The Grand Inquisitor at a recent production of Don Carlos at the Met.

Today in the United States, the Democratic Party, and mainstream media, and much of the academic establishment believe in ORTHODOXY, and therefore see no reason why men like Dr. Paul Marik—one of the most published and distinguished critical care doctors in history—should be protected from censorship.

The ultimate victims of this censorship will be people dying of cancer who might have benefitted from the information presented in Dr. Marik’s book. Like the hospital administrators who deprived Dr. Marik’s intensive care patients of his repurposed drug protocol for treating advanced COVID-19—thereby consigning them to death instead of allowing them to have a fighting chance under Dr. Marik’s care—whoever compelled Amazon to ban his book apparently doesn’t want cancer patients to try repurposed drugs that could suppress tumor growth, even if conventional cancer treatments have failed to stop the disease’s advance.

Fortunately, the book is still available on the FLCCC.net website — at least for now.

Schiller and Verdi would have understood the grave danger that censorship poses to the American Republic. Sadly, people with true education, discernment, and culture have become increasingly rare in the United States. Their influence in public affairs has been crowded out by the rule of half-educated philistines—people “full of passionate intensity” as Yeats famously put it in “The Second Coming.”