According to the lawsuit documents, Doctor Peter McCullough, months after his departure from Baylor, continued to cite his former titles, including “vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center,” in various media appearances. During these interviews, he reportedly voiced opinions on the pandemic that contradicted established scientific consensus. Baylor Scott & White Health, along with HealthTexas Provider Network, a co-plaintiff in the case, contend that Doctor Peter McCullough breached a confidential separation agreement established in February. This agreement was intended to clarify the terms of his departure and prevent any ongoing confusion regarding his affiliation.
The lawsuit, initially brought to public attention by The Dallas Morning News, highlights that Baylor received numerous inquiries questioning Doctor Peter McCullough’s current employment status and connection to the institution. Baylor argues that Doctor Peter McCullough’s continued association, albeit implied, creates “irreparable reputational and business harm” by suggesting an endorsement of his views. The core issue, as stated in the lawsuit, is the “ongoing confusion regarding McCullough’s affiliations, and whether Plaintiffs support his opinions,” which the separation agreement aimed to resolve.
Doctor Peter McCullough has faced significant criticism for spreading misinformation concerning COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Notably, he has publicly claimed that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary for healthy individuals under 50 and those who have recovered from the virus. He has also asserted claims of 50,000 deaths in America being attributable to COVID-19 vaccines. These claims are in stark contrast to data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which, while reporting deaths following vaccination, does not establish a causal link and cites a much lower number of reported deaths. As of current data, VAERS reports approximately 6,490 deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, with investigations ongoing to determine causality.
Furthermore, Doctor Peter McCullough has been a proponent of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment. This stance has drawn criticism from medical professionals, including a group from Doctors for America, who publicly refuted his “baseless, misleading commentary” in The Dallas Morning News. Randomized controlled trials have consistently demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective in treating or preventing COVID-19.
In response to the lawsuit, Doctor Peter McCullough’s attorney, Clinton Mikel, dismissed Baylor’s claims as “frivolous” and politically motivated. Mikel suggested the timing of the lawsuit, coinciding with Baylor’s announcement of mandatory COVID-19 vaccines for employees, indicates a politically charged atmosphere. He stated that “This is a politically motivated attempt to silence Dr. McCullough as he saves countless patient lives from COVID-19 and from ancillary actions related to COVID-19.” Mikel contends that Doctor Peter McCullough never explicitly claimed current affiliation with Baylor in interviews, and any such association by media outlets was erroneous and without his authorization. He also clarified that Doctor Peter McCullough is not anti-vaccine but holds concerns about the risk-benefit profile of COVID-19 vaccines.
Baylor has also filed a motion for a restraining order against Doctor Peter McCullough, emphasizing that their aim is not to stifle free speech but to ensure clarity regarding his affiliation. The motion states, “This is not a free speech issue or stifling of dissent. McCullough can offer his opinions to whomever he wishes, but he cannot do so while claiming current affiliation with Plaintiffs.” The legal proceedings are ongoing, focusing on the balance between Doctor Peter McCullough’s right to express his views and Baylor’s right to protect its reputation from perceived misinformation.
