Why I Fought Against the COVID Agenda (Interview with Dr. Joseph Sansone)

In part one of this interview hosted by Dr. Joseph Sansone, I talk about witnessing medicine quietly drift away from its ethical foundations during the COVID “pandemic.” My firsthand clinical experiences conflicted sharply with public narratives and showed how the Hippocratic Oath was gradually subordinated to centralized dogma. The interview also explores my early encounter with the COVID “vaccine” emergency use authorization materials, the collapse of informed consent under mandate pressure, and the personal and professional consequences faced by physicians who continued to speak the truth.Dr. Joseph Sansone holds a B.A. in Psychology, an M.S. in Clinical Mental Health Counseling, and a Ph.D. in Psychology. He is a practicing psychotherapist specializing in clinical hypnosis and a vocal activist who has continually opposed the COVID criminals.Healing After Harm Fundraiser Campaign (21% Raised)We need your support to launch our cutting-edge, evidence-based supplement line designed specifically to aid recovery, detoxification, and long-term prosperity for those affected by harms from the Covid-19 era. These premium formulations draw on the latest independent research to empower healing, restore vitality, and build resilience for a healthier future.Help Our CauseDuring COVID, a period described by the dinosaur media as a global medical emergency, my direct clinical experience was markedly different. I worked many 14-hour emergency department shifts with few or no patients present—a situation I had never encountered over decades of practice. This sustained absence of patients stood in stark contrast to the constant messaging that hospitals were full and in a crisis.Outside the hospital, citizens were convinced to put on displays to praise healthcare workers for their “sacrifices.” The reality was that we were working less than ever. At the time, I assumed this was a regional variation and focused on preparing for the virus we were being warned was coming.In preparation, I immersed myself in the available literature and emerging data around COVID, spending long hours reviewing studies, prior coronavirus research, and early clinical reports. Many early treatments were very promising, but discussions about them were often dismissed and shut down without the kind of rigorous clinical debate that is necessary in medicine.The decisive moment came when one of my previously open-minded colleagues stated that questioning public health guidance was not the role of physicians. That view directly conflicted with my understanding of medical ethics. I did not take an oath to public institutions or policy directives. I took the Hippocratic Oath to individual patients, which demands independent judgment, ongoing inquiry, and restraint in the face of uncertainty.When emergency use authorization documents became available, I reviewed them directly, beginning with the ingredient list and delivery mechanism rather than public summaries. What I encountered differed fundamentally from traditional vaccines, which rely on the administration of a finite amount of attenuated or inactivated virus. By contrast, these products used experimental lipid nanoparticle delivery systems to instruct human cells to produce viral protein internally.This immediately raised concerns about where these materials were going in the body, how long the effects would last, how much would accumulate over time, and what the long-term risks might be. These were not minor or theoretical questions, and they warranted far more caution, transparency, and open discussion than was allowed during the rollout.As mandates expanded, informed consent became increasingly conditional. Patients faced pressure tied to employment, education, travel, and participation in ordinary life. At the same time, physicians were discouraged and, in some cases, explicitly warned against providing exemptions or even acknowledging patient hesitation.When I expressed concerns publicly, regulatory scrutiny followed despite the absence of patient complaints. An investigation was launched involving nineteen investigators, a disproportionate response to what really amounted to open public debate. Colleagues who voiced similar reservations faced license restrictions, suspensions, or compelled retirement. I later returned briefly to clinical work to assist patients left without care after Dr. Crystal Luchkiw was suspended. In a short period, I encountered multiple serious adverse events following injection, including neurological complications, clotting disorders, and newly diagnosed cancers. These observations aligned with the reports I was seeing and many of the dangers which were predictable based on the ingredient lists. I shared responsibility for this work alongside Dr. Chris Shoemaker, as we attempted to stabilize the patients. Shortly thereafter, my license to practice was suspended. What remained most striking was not disagreement over policy, but the erosion of open dialogue and ethics in medicine.