In our world, the “practice of medicine” has been legalized under governmental Medical Practice Acts through the license.
License and licentious come ultimately from the same word in Latin, licentia, whose meanings ranged from “freedom to act” to “unruly behavior, wantonness.” —Root of License
The medical system is a standardized model, and indisputable, even though it is no older than 116 years, born shortly after the publication of the 1910 Flexner Report.
In the business of western medicine, medical doctors follow the rule of law to obtain a medical license due to the inherent risks of allopathy, established by theRockefeller Foundation. The license, itself, came into being around 1930.
Through the license, the medical system is structured to ensure robust sales of medical products and services. The global pharmaceutical market was valued at $1.7 trillion in 2024, with the U.S. accounting for more than half in drug sales ($714.3 billion).
However, there are growing tensions between state licensing boards, the First Amendment, and an individual’s right to receive medical information—especially since the public health emergencies of 2019 (COVID‑19), that puts the license under a microscope.
Allopathy : a system of medical practice that emphasizes diagnosing and treating disease and the use of conventional, evidence-based therapeutic measures (such as drugs or surgery) : allopathic medicine
The Scope of Practice
Under the scope of the Medical Practice Act, a medical school graduate must first acquire a license before he or she can legally practice under the titles of: “MD,” “DO,” “physician,” “doctor of osteopathic medicine,” “osteopathic physician,” “doctor of medicine,” “naturopathic doctor,” “chiropractic doctor,” “surgeon,” “medical doctor,” or “doctor.”
Among other things, licensed allopathic medicine allows a “doctor” to prescribe, treat, diagnose, prevent, and cure and puncture the skin, in connection with disease, injury and mental or physical condition.
It is illegal to represent oneself as a licensed doctor without a license.
Lesser Known Reasons for Licensure
Under MN statute (146A) 214.001, a medical license is legally required where the unregulated practice of the occupation may harm or endanger the health, safety, and welfare of citizens, and the potential for harm is recognizable and not remote.
In other words, a medical license is permission, by government, to do something otherwise deemed to be illegal that is likely to cause harm.
A license is a “privilege” granted by governments, that can be altered, suspended, or revoked.
Licensed medicine discourages alternative, natural medicine.
Licensing creates a monopoly for select groups from certain schools, while acting as a barrier to others, essentially fencing them out.
The fees of licensing fund certain schools, tests, accreditation, to ensure sales of products.
The license creates “turf wars.”
Specifically, the medical license limits free thinking while also threatening doctors for suggesting holistic healing alternatives since the doctor is liable under threat of malpractice.
For instance, the Georgia Composite Medical Board revoked the license of Susan Kolb, M.D., after concluding that she performed “unnecessary procedures.” According to the 2022 court decision, as one liability, Kolb prescribed a “detoxification” process to her patients, although such a process is “absolutely not” a treatment.
In allopathic medicine, there is no financial incentive for preventing illness or attempting to correct nutritional deficiencies that may underly a patient’s condition. Doing so is called “misinformation.”
During COVID, Dr. Meryl Nass faced “misinformation” allegations. One 2021 survey reported 67 percent of state medical boards reported experiencing “an increase in complaints related to licensee dissemination of false or misleading information.”
This leads to the question: is or is not free speech protected under the First Amendment?
License to Punish
The medical license and board certification can be revoked, and the physician made subject to harsh disciplinary actions, if the medical board deems a doctor is “spreading misinformation (i.e., COVID-19).”
In his paper, Dr. James Thorp addressed medical authorities with scathing reviews:
The mainstream medical journals have become increasingly corrupt in the last few decades because of unethical entanglements involving Big Pharma, governmental agencies, industry and politicians.
Had the CARTEL not mocked, derided, threatened, censored, and persecuted the health professionals who offered early outpatient treatment, well over 80% of the deaths and hospitalizations in the US could have been prevented since the onset of the pandemic.
Before COVID-19, licensed medicine was increasingly blamed for usurping ownership of living bodies through “medical kidnap“ of children by the State.
Questionable Authorities
The Federation of State Medical Boards Inc. (FSMB) allegedly banned physicians throughout the country from disseminating certain information under a “censorship” policy regarding COVID-19.
Subsequently, medical licensing boards in six states disciplined several doctors for allegedly “conveying valid medical information that dissented from what the FSMB’s national leadership considers to be the prevailing scientific consensus.”
Essentially, licensed American physicians are subject to professional discipline for giving the proverbial “second opinion.”
In 2025, six doctors sued the FSMB in a complaint filed in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
What is the FSMB?
According to a November 1, 2010 study, the establishment of the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) occurred in 1912, after the publication of the Flexner Report in 1910.
What authority, if any, does the FSMB hold?
According to the non-profit 501c (3) National Health Freedom Coalition (NHFC), and Diane Miller, Director of Law and Public Policy:
“the FSMB has no state-delegated authority over physicians. The title itself is misleading. In the court documents for the four physicians, the Complaint begins by the defendant, the FSMB, describing itself :
On April 30, 2022, Defendant Federation of State Medical Boards, Inc. (“FSMB”), the umbrella nongovernmental organization of all the physician licensing agencies in the fifty United States and their overseas territories…
Miller asks, “Now, how in the world did a private corporation become: ‘the umbrella nongovernmental organization of all the physician licensing agencies in the fifty United States and their overseas territories?’”
If NHFC has to ask, then is FSMB a legitimate authority? If not, why must the accused doctors be made to prove themselves?
Is the presumption of innocence still a legal principle?
Practicing Medicine Without a License
In an obscure 2018 a study at the University of Pennsylvania the authors concluded if we want to maintain the current policy approach for the license, we need to justify it. We cannot simply assume it benefits consumers.
Consumers as a whole are worse off under licensing — the gains to those who benefit are far outweighed by the burden on the vast majority, who don’t.
The 2018 study suggested the whole licensing scheme should be held to public scrutiny. Instead, more professions are turning to licensure.
Today, Minnesota is one of 11 states provide “safe harbor” legislation for alternative, holistic, and complimentary health care practitioners to practice without a license; as well as functions as a consumer protection law. The reason?
-
Many healing practices do not pose an imminent risk to “public health and safety.”
-
Broad medical practice acts often criminalize harmless, beneficial actions.
-
Patients should have access to a wider range of treatment options, including holistic and alternative approaches.
Many professionals no longer wish to rely on government for the license; even if the same government granted them the privilege to practice their profession in the first place.
As it stands, any alternatives to medical licensure usually require changing the law. Some options include:
1) Safe Harbor practitioner exemption laws for natural, holistic healers, who do not practice licensed medicine. As long as practitioners avoid prohibited acts and give out client disclosures and a healthcare Bill of Rights, they can practice while providing safe services to their consumers.
2) Private Membership Associations (PMAs), whose members do not fall under the jurisdiction of local, state, and federal governments and corresponding laws and regulations.
3) NHFC’s draft Model Expanded Health Care Practice Act, – A bill for an act relating to health; authorizing expanded health care practices for health care professionals; proposing coding for new law.
4. In Minnesota, 146A.065 makes legal CAM practices by licensed or registered health care practitioners.
On the other hand, politicians, from state governors to presidents; and religious leaders to employers, all practice medicine without a license, under the banner of the World Heath Organization, every time they tell people to inject a medical product.
How did they get away with it? Remember, it is illegal to hold oneself out as a licensed physician.
How a License is like a Vaccine
From my 2023 article:
Where a license is used as a shield to protect the medical industry, a vaccine is a shield that provides legal immunity to vaccine makers against lawsuits from vaccine damage.
Where a license replaces inherent rights with acquired rights and privileges, a vaccine usurps innate immunity for acquired immunity.
Where a license reflects a transfer of power from a free market (self-regulation) to a controlled-market (state-regulation), a vaccine reflects a transfer of power from self-healing to disease management.
Where a license is legal permission from an authority (i.e. State government, medical board) to do something that would otherwise be deemed unlawful, a vaccine is legal permission to inject toxins that would otherwise be deemed illegal to ingest.
Where the license raises costs to consumers, consumers often pay the costs of vaccines.
Where a license is based on the theory of “standard of care,” a vaccine is based on the standard of “The Germ Theory of Disease.”
If vaccines work so well, then what do the vaccinated fear from the unvaccinated? If the license works so well, what do licensed doctors fear from unlicensed healers?
What Does Licensed Medicine Have To Fear?
The obvious question to ask is: what does licensed medicine have to fear in going after unlicensed holistic practitioners?
Holistic practitioners do not attend medical school. They do not practice licensed medicine. They do not ‘prescribe,’ ‘treat,’ ‘diagnose,’ or ‘cure.’ They do not puncture the skin, and do not cut into the body. They do not suggest medical alternatives. They do not use standard medical protocols or bill using standard medical codes. Why would they want to hold themselves out as being medical?
Where allopathic medicine ends, holistic medicine begins. One does not encroach upon the other. One is an apple, the other an orange.
As has been the case since 1900, the practice of licensed medicine co-exists alongside unlicensed traditional medicine because choice exists. Yet, the push for all holistic practitioners to be licensed is happening nationwide.
Uniformity Over Unity
A trend to license all healing modalities creates uniformity over unity.
To license holistic therapies, such as Reiki, is to classify and regulate them as a medical practice.
In California, a licensed Naturopathic doctor (ND) caused the death of a patient by injecting a serum of curcumin as a treatment for eczema.
A trend to “fence out” traditional, unlicensed naturopaths would not only prevent the choice for safer alternatives by unlicensed providers, but would damage their reputations.
The fact is that choice cannot be legislated.
In a free society, everyone has the right to give advice and the right to choose where to receive advice, whether from allopaths, osteopaths, acupuncturists, chiropractors, traditional naturopaths, homeopaths, or herbalists.
The more we deem a license to be “standard issue” the more everyone is measured to be “average, “ordinary, nothing special.”
Then again, that is the goal of Transhumanism.
Related articles:
How a License Legislates Choice
Leave A Comment