Daniel O'Connor's Speech at the Supreme Court

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

There could be no other time in American history where free speech is on life support, particularly involving scientific discourse in the context of doctors and scientists responding to patients dying from an infection with a human engineered virus and later suffering from another novel exposure—mass indiscriminate genetic vaccination. Both the illness and the vaccines expose the human body to the damaging and potentially lethal Wuhan Spike protein.

Everything from the origins of the virus, early therapeutics, and early data on vaccine toxicities was censored in mainstream and social media in a premeditated and coordinated fashion all over the world. It took government agents working hand in glove and in some instances directly within media offices to “moderate content” in order to put out the following line to the public:

Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex False Narrative

1. SARS-CoV-2 was equally deadly to all age groups and thus everyone must mask, lockdown, and wait in fear

2. The infection is the first in history that cannot be treated early by any means

3. We will be saved by global mass vaccination campaign with an array of products administered every six months without an endpoint

4. All vaccines are safe and effective without question from their release in December 2020 until now

Despite a broad array of arguments put forward by the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court on Monday, March 18, 2024 appeared to be caught in a tangle of procedural and substantive issues all poisoned by partisan politics. The importance of scientific discourse appeared to be lost as witnessed by this exchange captured by Politco.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed the Louisiana attorney about instances when the government could require speech to be suppressed if there was a compelling interest — raising a more expansive defense for the government taking action against certain speech. Notably, the other two liberal justices did not publicly follow her lead.

“Not every situation in which the government engages in conduct that ultimately has some effect on speech necessarily becomes a First Amendment violation,” Jackson said. She later went further to say some might argue the government “has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country.”

If government paternalism wins over the free speech of scientists, then we are in for dark times in clinical medicine as attorney Daniel O’Connor alludes to in his speech on the steps of the Supreme Court. O’Connor leads TrialSite News which has been a beacon of scientific integrity and free speech in a time where rapid communication was needed for scientists and doctors to collaborate and save lives.

Please listen to O’Connor’s well developed delivery and contrast it to the warped analysis from Justice Brown. We will find out in a few weeks what SCOTUS decides and will need to recalibrate our approach moving forward.

Please subscribe to Courageous Discourse as a paying or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

President, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org