Riverton MD Blasts Powell Doc For Defending California ‘Diktat’ That Censors, Punishes Doctors 

Dr. Kent Stockton writes: We are currently experiencing suppression and censorship of certain facts by powerful forces, despite copious documentation of those findings which do not fit the official narrative. This is not the way of the Scientific Method.

Kent D. Stockton MD

February 04, 20237 min read

Dr kent stockton 1 scaled e1675536672430
(Cowboy State Daily Staff)

By Kent D. Stockton MD, Guest Columnist 

Dr. Jim McEvoy, DO, retired radiologist in Powell expressed his beliefs in a Jan. 16 [guest column] with Cowboy State Daily regarding the duty of a physician to follow the diktats of our government health agencies when instructing or advising patients.  

McEvoy referenced California Assembly Bill 2098, which passed into law in early January but now has been paused in a preliminary injunction while the courts system considers whether it’s constitutional. The law would have put doctors at risk of losing their licenses for speaking against COVID-19 vaccines, or for discussing non-traditional COVID remedies with patients.  

In defending the law, McEvoy advised physicians not to go “against the grain” of official positions, even if their own study and experiences suggest there may be better ways to approach and deal with a particular situation. He cautions those of us in the healing professions to “adhere to the commonly accepted standard[s] of care for Covid patients as required by a new California law.”  

I beg to differ with Dr. McEvoy. I, too, am a retired physician, an MD with 37 years of active patient care as a family physician and an ER physician here in Riverton. My practice involved direct interaction with patients over a long period of time. 

Dr. McEvoy said that his perspective is, “You act in the best interest of the patient, and the fiduciary duty is, you uphold the standard of care…” adding that doctors can deviate from the commonly accepted standard of care, but only when dissenters are a respected and experienced minority offering peer-reviewed work. 

Now, wait just a minute…take a look at the list of respected physicians and researchers at the end of this letter, who have made copious contributions to the body of medical knowledge and who sport impressive academic credentials, with a multitude of peer-reviewed studies among them—and tell me we should disregard their conclusions and recommendations out of hand; accepting instead the recommendations of those who purport to represent the “medical consensus.”   

I’m sure these listed physicians and researchers have contributed far more to medical knowledge than Dr. McEvoy or myself and would take umbrage at the suggestion that their work arrives at spurious conclusions. Are they not respected and experienced? Hmm… 

Dr. McEvoy is correct that doctors should not give wrong information to their patients. I couldn’t agree more. But – who is giving the wrong information?  Which group is offering peer-reviewed data, and how did they arrive at their conclusions? Is there available documentation of scientific methods and logic? 

We are currently experiencing suppression and censorship of certain facts by powerful forces, despite copious documentation of those findings which do not fit the “official” narrative. This is not the way of the Scientific Method, which has succeeded due to the give and take of ideas and honest debate, with trial and experimentation from all sides of every problem.  

We seem to be re-entering the Dark Ages of medicine: many of our predecessors were scorned and reviled when they suggested actions that we now accept as necessary, such as washing our hands before delivering babies and performing surgery, etc. 

There is a huge body of medical literature that has been accumulated since the COVID onslaught and much of that body of knowledge is now being suppressed, ignored, and even vilified by the current powers-that-be. Those same powers punish and censor those promoting alternate points of view.  

That is not, I’ll say it again, the way of the Scientific Method. 

The well-respected researchers and practitioners, though they may represent a minority, are armed with research products that show: 

     1). The “vaccines” do not prevent the spread of Covid-19, nor do they prevent recipients from contracting the virus. 

     2). It has been shown that vaccinated people are more likely to succumb to active Covid disease and to excess mortality than the unvaccinated. 

     3). There are now many peer-reviewed studies from other countries that demonstrate excellent and long term immunity from Covid derived from active disease, and better immunity than that of the vaccinated. 

     4). There is a marked increase in all-cause mortality in vaccinated patients, noted since the introduction of the mRNA vaccines—and this does not apply equally to unvaccinated people. 

     5). Ivermectin (IVM) and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are not dangerous drugs—IVM has been in extensive use for more than 20 years; HCQ has been extensively used for over 40 years. Billions of doses of both drugs have been used around the world, with essentially no harmful effects—they are even given safely to pregnant women, nursing mothers and children. Both drugs are on the list of Essential Medicines of the World—and the discoverers of these drugs both received the Nobel Prize for their accomplishments. Many studies, including many peer-reviewed studies, show definite benefit in Covid-19 illness if given early in the course of disease, and also for prophylaxis. 

  6). Those who promote early treatment with off-label, relatively inexpensive medications, and who oppose “vaccine” mandates without fully informed consent, have extensive and powerful data to support their argument. 

     7). Those objecting to our recommendations (early treatment, targeted care of those most vulnerable, and otherwise business as usual) are also those with likely conflicts of interest:  Big Pharma, Big Tech, government, mainstream media, Big Academia. 

For any legislative body to mandate treatment protocols, to ban even the discussion of alternative care plans, violates: 

     1). The Hippocratic Oath, which maintains that “I will abstain from all intentional wrongdoing and harm.” 

     2). The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

     3). The Physician/Patient relationship. 

     4). The Nuremberg Convention of 1947. 

For the above reasons, and also to acknowledge a huge body of pertinent data that has been shoved under the rug, allowing only one voice in the concepts and treatment of Covid-19, I firmly disagree with the recent California law and with those, such as Dr. McEvoy, who champion the unopposed, undisputed, and anti-scientific approach to the treatment of this disease. 

Below is a partial list of physicians and researchers whose work I have consulted in coming to the above conclusions: 

Peter McCullough MD—author of over 600 peer-reviewed medical papers; former vice chief of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center; Professor at Texas A&M University. Fired due to his outspoken stance on Covid-19. 

Jay Battacharya MD, PhD, DVM – Stanford University Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology; co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration; Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institute. 

Sunetra Gupta PhD — Epidemiologist, Oxford University; co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration. 

Martin Kulldorff PhD – Epidemiologist, Harvard Medical School; co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration; Senior Scholar, Brownstone Institute.  

Harvey Risch MD, PhD – Epidemiologist, Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. 

Marty Makary MD, MPH –Professor of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University. 

Robert Malone MD, MS – pioneered the development of the mRNA vaccination. 

Steve Kirsch — Master of Science degree from MIT (Electrical Engineering and Computer Science); business entrepreneur, ex-Silicon Valley multi-millionaire, co-inventor of the optical mouse; established the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF); established and currently heads up the Vaccine Safety Relief Fund (VSRF).

Paul Marik MD – Pulmonologist, Eastern Virginia Medical School; founding member of the FLCCA; developer of the MATH+ and I-MASK+ programs for treatment of early Covid-19. 

Pierre Kory MD – Critical Care and Pulmonary Medicine; President and co-founder of the FLCCA. 

Vladimir Zelenko MD – Pioneer in early treatment of Covid-19; developer of the very successful “Zelenko Protocol.” 

Geert vanden Bossche – PhD, DVM – virologist and vaccinologist; Dutch.  

Aseem Malhotra MD—well-known British cardiologist.  

Michael Yeadon MD, PhD – Past VP of Science Division of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. 

Peter Breggin MD – Psychiatrist, Ithaca, NY – early critic of Covid-19 protocols. 

Share this article



Kent D. Stockton MD