AAPS Amicus Brief Supports Dr. Paul Thomas: Defending Medical Freedom and Free Speech

Hello to all health freedom friends and family,

​I’m excited to share that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has filed an amicus brief in support of my case before the U.S. Supreme Court. This brief emphasizes the importance of protecting our First Amendment rights as physicians, especially when it comes to speaking openly about vaccines and other health matters that may not align with the mainstream narrative.

The AAPS has a long history of advocating for the preservation of the patient-physician relationship and standing up against governmental overreach. In this brief, they make a compelling case for why state medical boards like the Oregon Medical Board should not be granted absolute immunity when retaliating against doctors who simply express their professional opinions on controversial topics, such as vaccines.

This powerful statement from the AAPS brief underscores a fundamental principle of justice: protecting the rights of professionals to speak freely without fear of retaliation. In my case, it's not just about my right to speak on vaccine safety—it’s about ensuring that all professionals have the freedom to share their research and opinions, no matter how controversial they may be.

Here are a few key points from the AAPS amicus brief:

• First Amendment Rights: The brief argues that government officials, including medical board members, should not be allowed to infringe on a doctor’s right to free speech. My research and views on vaccines are just that—views backed by science and my personal experience—but the Oregon Medical Board tried to silence me, and this brief is asking the Court to protect my right to speak freely without fear of retaliation.
• Qualified Immunity vs. Absolute Immunity: The AAPS highlights the dangerous precedent of granting absolute immunity to medical boards. This type of immunity could allow state agencies to take retaliatory actions against physicians like me, without any accountability, simply because we hold differing views on public health issues. The brief argues for qualified immunity instead, which offers protection for government officials while still allowing for accountability when their actions infringe on constitutional rights.
• The Need for Court Intervention: Just like the National Health Federation’s brief, the AAPS amicus brief underscores the need for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and address the power imbalance that allows these medical boards to suppress alternative viewpoints and force conformity to pharmaceutical interests. The brief makes it clear that this is not just about my case—it’s about ensuring that doctors everywhere can speak freely about medical practices, without risking their careers.

This brief is a significant step forward in the fight for health freedom and the right to informed consent. I’m grateful to the AAPS for their unwavering support, and I’m hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will recognize the importance of this issue.

Read the full amicus brief below:

Yours in good health,