Dr. Philp McMillan,  John McMillan

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” – Galileo Galilei, 1623

Four centuries past, Galileo Galilei turned his telescope to the heavens and confirmed that Earth was not the center of the universe. In doing so, he unleashed the might and fury of the Inquisition for daring to assert that the Earth orbited the Sun. His punishment was forced recantation, lifelong house arrest, and his works banned. Today, a different kind of “starry messenger,” the frontline clinician or questioning scientist, may find themselves in the crosshairs of a similar medieval backlash. When powerful institutions become gatekeepers of truth, they silence criticism, stifle innovation, and ultimately put progress itself on trial.

Consider the case of Dr. Shankara Chetty, a South African general practitioner facing professional censure for his approach to treating COVID-19 and his outspoken views. Chetty gained attention for his effective treatment of COVID-19 patients through unconventional but successful therapies involving antihistamines and steroids. Yet, much like Galileo’s ordeal brought into modern focus, he now faces disciplinary action – not praise – for publicly questioning vaccine mandates and what he describes as “an agenda behind the pandemic narrative.” Dr. Philip McMillan, a researcher and clinician, succinctly summarizes the troubling paradox: “They’re not even interested that he saved lives; they’re just focused on the fact he said something negative about the vaccine.”

Dr. Chetty’s willingness to “relinquish that license” rather than betray what he perceives as truth serves as a poignant entry point into a broader, unsettling question: Is modern medicine fostering its own mechanisms of silencing dissent, to the detriment of truth, autonomy, and even the value of life?

“Speech Committees” and Their Chilling Effect

The idea that dissent is being systematically managed and enforced, not by religious tribunals but by “speech committees,” is introduced by Lisa Miron in her upcoming book, “World on Mute.” These committees, often nested within respected regulatory bodies such as the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) in the US, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), or the UK’s General Medical Council (GMC), define and punish medical speech deemed contrary to official narratives. Physicians who challenge accepted positions, especially regarding COVID-19 treatments or vaccine safety, face threats to their licenses, livelihoods, and reputations.

Such punitive measures create a “chilling effect,” where the definition of “misinformation” can be problematically narrow, stifling the very scientific debate and exploration of alternative viewpoints vital for progress. This suppression of medical speech discourages other physicians from voicing critical concerns or exploring potentially life-saving alternatives and risks turning medicine into a monoculture, vulnerable to failure when dominant narratives prove flawed.

Cases like Dr. Chetty’s, or those of Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Meryl Nass in the US, who also faced action for their COVID-related stances, prove the professional perils. Their experiences validate how medical authorities today, much like the Catholic Church during Galileo’s trial, prioritize adherence to dogma over empirical evidence and clinical outcomes.

The Fracturing of a Profession

The pressure to conform has, according to Dr. Chetty, led to a “fractured fraternity” in medicine, with many doctors feeling “afraid to speak out” or “coerced” into narratives that they question. This internal division breeds moral distress and erodes the physician’s ability to act in the best interest of their patients. Medical autonomy, already challenged by bureaucratic and commercial pressures, faced new onslaughts during the pandemic as standardized protocols often overrode individualized care, jeopardizing the doctor-patient relationship. Dr. McMillan opines that “doctors have abdicated their position of advocacy…” This presents a terrible choice for clinicians, many of whom have honed their expertise and judgment over decades: remain faithful to their conscience and patients, or conform to the prevailing system.

Parallel to this suppression is the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. AI promises efficiency and improved diagnostics, but it also carries the significant risk of depersonalization and loss of clinical autonomy. Lisa Miron argues that as medicine becomes increasingly regulated by centralized committees and governed by AI-driven protocols, the traditional doctor-patient relationship erodes. “AI healthcare reduces patients to mere data points,” Miron cautions, “stripping away the human element essential for true care.”

When Control is Codified, and Life Itself Questioned

Lisa Miron’s most profound warning concerns “lawful tyranny,” the transition of these control mechanisms from regulatory policy into binding legislation. She cites Canadian examples like Bill 36 (Health Professions and Occupations Act) and online harms proposals, which could empower authorities with broad, vaguely defined powers to police professional speech and conduct, potentially with severe penalties, even “life imprisonment for speech” deemed “hateful” if it counters official medical narratives. This isn’t confined to Canada; California’s attempted AB 2098 showed a similar legislative impulse.

This shift towards controlled, depersonalised medicine subtly aligns with another alarming trend: the expansion of legal euthanasia in countries like Canada. As of the latest available data, approximately 4.7% of all deaths in Canada in 2023 were attributed to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID). State-sanctioned voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide accounted for 6.6% of all deaths in Quebec in 2022. Under tight speech controls, critical voices are being sidelined, and sensitive ethical debates have increasingly become one-sided. Decisions about life and death, once sacred exchanges between doctors and patients, risk becoming bureaucratic decrees influenced by state or economic priorities rather than individual dignity and patient choice.

A Crossroads for Modern Medicine

Facing converging crises of suppressed speech, compromised autonomy, and AI-driven medicine, the medical community is flailing. Physicians face a choice: adhere to their Hippocratic oath and speak truth to power, risking severe professional and personal penalties, or yield to imposed narratives and relinquish their role as patient advocates.

Yet Galileo’s legacy offers hope. His unwavering commitment to evidence-based inquiry ultimately led to vindication and advanced humanity’s understanding of the cosmos. Today’s medical professionals face a similar crossroads. Free discourse, clinical autonomy, and ethical integrity can only be preserved by challenging institutionally imposed dogma. Only then can medicine fulfil its highest calling: to care passionately for human life, guided not by institutional decree but by clear-eyed reason and the relentless pursuit of truth.