Dual Journey in Medicine & Law
Simone begins by recounting her unusual and impressive academic journey. Raised in a family where medicine was a way of life—her father being a doctor—she was destined for a career in healing. Simone entered medical school at an extraordinarily young age, starting at 19 at the University of Chicago Medical School. Graduating at 23, she demonstrated not only academic excellence but also a drive and passion that set her apart. Her natural curiosity and personal ambition led her to question established norms early on. Despite the rigid system of memorization in the first years of medical training, she excelled by combining her clinical aptitude with critical thought. Recognizing that modern medicine required more than just textbook knowledge, she also pursued legal studies. Simone enrolled at Stanford Law School—an institution known for its intellectual rigor—in order to gain a broader perspective on the intersecting worlds of health policy and legal ethics. This dual training not only made her one of a rare breed—a physician with legal acumen—but also deeply informed her understanding of systemic dysfunctions in both medicine and governance.
Her formal education laid the groundwork for her later fights on multiple fronts: from clinical practice to public advocacy. The perfect blend of scientific discipline and legal scrutiny allowed Simone to critically analyze claims in the medical literature, as well as challenge policies enforced by unaccountable bureaucracies. In her narrative, she stresses that while most of her peers were content with rote learning, she absorbed tools for questioning the established order. This background, built on a foundation of rigorous academics and an ingrained commitment to the doctor–patient relationship, would become her cornerstone when confronting controversial issues later in her career. Her early academic experiences provided her with the analytical skills and moral resolve that continue to define her professional trajectory.
Medical Training and the Shift to Fragmented Care
Simone reflects on the evolution of medical training over the years, noting a stark contrast between the old system and the modern era of shift work. Early in her career, medical training involved prolonged 36-hour shifts that allowed residents to follow a patient’s clinical progression from the initial presentation to later stages of disease. This approach fostered a deep understanding of pathophysiology and diagnostic nuance. However, the introduction of strict work-hour limitations—a response to tragic cases like the Libby Zion incident—transformed the training environment dramatically. Residents were transitioned into a shift-worker model with shorter periods of patient contact. Although this change was intended to safeguard doctors from exhaustion and reduce errors, Simone argues that it also led to fragmentation of care. Doctors no longer developed long-term relationships with their patients; they were unable to observe the full arc of a disease’s natural progression. This shift, she asserts, contributed to a mechanistic approach to diagnosis and treatment, where the focus was on ticking off algorithmic boxes rather than fully understanding underlying pathologies.
The training environment, as Simone describes, became less conducive to fostering critical inquiry. Instead of encouraging question-asking beyond what was approved by senior physicians, modern medical training often left little room for challenging established treatments. Consequently, physicians missed opportunities to innovate or to assess when standard protocols might actually be counterproductive. Simone’s experiences highlight how the dilution of clinical continuity can lead to a diminished sense of ownership over patient outcomes and an erosion of the doctor–patient relationship. These changes, in her view, not only impair the development of refined clinical judgment but also blunt the drive to critique or improve the system from within.
Her Quest Amid a Global Crisis
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, Simone’s professional curiosity and frontline expertise immediately came into play. As an Emergency Physician accustomed to rapid problem solving in crises, she was both excited and deeply engaged by the emerging challenge. Unlike many of her colleagues who fell into habitual protocols, Simone devoted every spare moment to studying the literature and understanding the novel disease. She read every journal article available, engaged with her peers, and examined historical parallels—especially given that this was not the first time a respiratory virus had threatened public health.
In the early days of the pandemic, Simone was particularly interested in repurposed treatments. She found it compelling that hydroxychloroquine, a drug with decades of usage, showed promise against SARS-CoV-2. This observation was rooted in a scientific rationale: the virus causing COVID-19 shared significant genetic similarity with SARS-CoV-1, for which hydroxychloroquine had been effective. Simone’s investigative spirit led her to conclude that the outbreak presented an unprecedented opportunity to rethink treatment protocols. However, as the crisis evolved, she was struck by the rapid shift in attitudes among her peers. Whereas at first there was cautious optimism grounded in scientific principles, soon media hype and political maneuvering transformed the narrative into one of fear and dogma. Many of her colleagues began dismissing a treatment that she had studied rigorously—citing misinformation, secondhand opinions, or headlines rather than solid evidence.
For Simone, the experience was both illuminating and frustrating. She observed that a lack of inquisitiveness among healthcare professionals contributed to the spread of misinformation. The pandemic, therefore, served as a critical moment when the gap between evidence-based practice and the influence of external forces—media, politics, and public sentiment—was thrown into sharp relief. Her approach during this period was defined by a blend of scientific acumen, critical analysis, and an unwavering commitment to patient care, even under immense pressure.
Ebola & Misguided Preparedness
Simone recounts her experience from the 2014 Ebola scare as a painful lesson in leadership failure and mismanagement. During that period, her hospital was unexpectedly designated as the receiving center for any potential Ebola patients arriving from West Africa—even though it was an under-resourced, inner-city facility. The decision baffled her; she questioned the logic behind channeling a highly infectious disease to a facility that had historically struggled to provide adequate care. At the core of her criticism was the observation that critical questions were not being raised about the hospital’s capacity to manage such a crisis.
One of the most disturbing aspects for Simone was the use of inadequate safety measures. Staff were trained to don hazmat suits made of flimsy blue paper, a method that she quickly identified as ineffective against a virus as tenacious as Ebola. In her view, the decisions made by the administration—and by extension, by policymakers—were not driven by solid scientific rationale but by bureaucratic expediency and a failure to recognize the real risks. Instead of a thoughtful, data-driven response, the leadership chose a path that prioritized appearances over substance, leaving frontline workers, particularly those in vulnerable positions like nurses, exposed to unnecessary danger.
Simone’s critique was not merely about logistical missteps but also about the systemic disregard for evidence-based practice. In her role as an emergency physician with a law background, she was acutely aware of the consequences of such failures. This experience further reinforced her belief that decision-makers often failed to appreciate the fundamental importance of the doctor–patient relationship and the nuances of medical care. In her narrative, the 2014 Ebola scare became a symbol of how leadership can falter in times of crisis—when fear overrides facts, and where the drive to protect bureaucratic interests takes precedence over genuine patient safety.
Hydroxychloroquine “Science” Under Fire
In the early months of 2020, during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, hydroxychloroquine emerged as a potential game changer—a prospect that excited Simone immensely. Drawing upon her dual expertise in medicine and law, she quickly recognized that a century-old drug might offer a treatment option for SARS-CoV-2. Her logic was scientific and straightforward: the virus responsible for COVID-19 shared notable genetic similarities with SARS-CoV-1, a virus for which hydroxychloroquine had shown promise in past research. Simone’s excitement stemmed from the possibility that a well-established medication could offer a safe and cost-effective remedy in the midst of a global crisis.
However, as she delved deeper into the scientific literature, Simone was struck by how rapidly the narrative surrounding hydroxychloroquine shifted. Initially, her clinical colleagues appeared open-minded, but soon, fueled by media sensationalism and political pressure, the consensus started to change. Within weeks—from an early period of cautious optimism to a vehement rejection—the treatment was labeled dangerous and ineffective by mainstream channels. Simone observed that her peers had become more interested in echoing press releases and social media sound bites than in critically evaluating the data. The dramatic turnaround in opinion left her frustrated; it was as though a well-established medication was demonized without due scientific scrutiny.
Simone’s recollection of that period highlights a critical conflict between evidence-based medicine and the overwhelming power of sensational media. Whereas scientific inquiry and clinical experience should have guided treatment decisions, external influences rapidly turned the tide against her evidence-based perspective. For Simone, this transformation was not only disheartening but also emblematic of a broader problem: the suppression of critical thinking in the face of political and media pressures. Despite her rigorous review of early studies and pharmacovigilance data—which even suggested that hydroxychloroquine had a safety profile better than many over-the-counter drugs—she saw the treatment become a casualty of a narrative driven more by ideology than by science.
A Flawed Study in the Lancet
Simone vividly recounts the impact of a highly influential Lancet publication that profoundly disrupted the conversation about hydroxychloroquine. In early 2020, when the idea of using hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 was still being explored, an article published in the prestigious Lancet quickly turned the tide of public opinion. The study claimed that the drug was not only ineffective but also unsafe. Because the Lancet sits atop the echelon of reputable medical journals, its conclusions carried enormous weight. Almost overnight, the drug was widely decried, and its use was effectively halted in many parts of the world.
For Simone, the publication of this study was a turning point—a classic case of how the misuse of scientific authority can reshape medical practice. She points out that the study’s methodology and data set were deeply flawed. With tens of thousands of patients supposedly included, it appeared rigorous on paper. However, as independent researchers began scrutinizing the data, major inconsistencies and statistical problems emerged. Critics argued that the study used aggregated data that spanned multiple countries and heavily relied on administrative databases, which could not adequately account for confounding variables. The rapid dissemination of these flawed conclusions had a cascading effect: healthcare providers redirected their treatment protocols and regulatory agencies swiftly put hydroxychloroquine off the table.
The backlash from independent physicians soon grew louder, forcing the Lancet’s editors into a defensive posture. After intense public scrutiny and calls for transparency, the journal eventually had to issue a retraction—a rare and damning outcome in the world of scientific publishing. Simone sees this development not only as evidence of a failure in scientific oversight but also as an example of how reputational mechanisms in academia can be exploited or manipulated. The fake study provided ammunition for those who already suspected that the medical-industrial complex was not solely interested in patient welfare but was influenced by external, non-scientific forces. It marked a significant moment when evidence was manipulated, public discourse was misdirected, and independent voices in medicine found themselves silenced by the overwhelming influence of a single, flawed publication.
Uniting Maverick Doctors
In the wake of the hydroxychloroquine controversy, Simone found herself increasingly isolated from mainstream medical opinion. Yet, amid the cacophony of noise on social media and traditional platforms, an independent community of like-minded doctors emerged. Through online networks, these physicians—who questioned the dominant narrative—banded together. They shared data, discussed clinical experiences, and united in their belief that evidence and common sense were being discarded in favor of politically driven policies. This digital gathering created a powerful counter-narrative, one that was rooted in years of clinical practice and a commitment to medical civil liberties.
Emboldened by this solidarity, Simone helped organize public speaking events to articulate an alternative viewpoint. One of the most pivotal moments was when she joined a group of independent doctors at the Supreme Court. The decision to speak in front of this iconic institution was both symbolic and strategic. Armed with scientific data and fierce personal conviction, the group aimed to remind the public and decision-makers that the rights of both patients and physicians were being trampled in favor of bureaucratic mandates. For Simone, the act of standing before the Supreme Court was not only a protest against censorship but also an affirmation of the essential human need to speak truth to power. She highlighted the need for transparency and evidence-based decision making at all levels of healthcare policy.
By taking the message directly to such a revered institution, Simone and her colleagues demonstrated that independent medical thought could no longer be sidelined. Their public statements were not conducted in isolation but were seen as a clarion call for doctors everywhere to reclaim their voice and resist undue external pressures. The event was a turning point—a moment when activism, clinical expertise, and a deep commitment to intellectual freedom merged in a powerful public display. This initiative carried a dual message: one of defiance against overreach, and another of hope that truth, when spoken passionately, could begin to reclaim its rightful place in healthcare policy discussions.
Speaking Truth to Power
Simone’s determined pursuit of the truth came at a steep personal and professional price. As she became increasingly vocal about issues surrounding hydroxychloroquine, medical freedom, and the infiltration of political narratives in healthcare, the establishment began to turn against her. Her unwavering commitment to disseminating information that challenged the status quo did not sit well with institutional leaders, leading to a cascade of negative repercussions. She found herself targeted by massive media campaigns, defamation, and professional ostracism. Eventually, the weight of these conflicts culminated in Simone being fired from her hospital positions.
For Simone, being terminated was not simply a case of losing a job—it was an orchestrated attempt to suppress dissent. She described the process as a deliberate effort to tarnish her reputation, with headlines branding her a “quack” and accusations levied without rigorous examination of her credentials or work. This personal attack on her character was deeply demoralizing, not to mention ironic given her impeccable clinical record and history of a patient-centric approach. Despite a spotless track record spanning 20 years in emergency medicine—where she not only provided exceptional care but also garnered the affection of colleagues, nurses, and patients—Simone was painted as an outlier dangerous to the system.
The dismissal cut across more than her professional life. It meant sudden financial insecurity, a public relations crisis, and the forced abandonment of her longstanding commitment to patient care. Simone’s narrative reveals how the mechanisms of power and influence within healthcare can be mobilized to silence those who challenge the approved narrative. Despite the emotional and practical setbacks, her resolve did not break. Instead, the trial by fire only strengthened her determination to continue advocating for medical civil liberties. She began to use her newfound notoriety as a platform for further activism, transforming personal loss into a rallying cry against censorship and institutional overreach.
Unexpected Christian Allies
In a surprising twist amidst the chaos of professional ostracism and political battles, Simone found unexpected solidarity from the Christian community. While her own background was rooted in Jewish traditions, the support she received from certain Christian organizations underscored a broader ideological convergence on the importance of truth and freedom of speech. As she struggled to rebuild her professional life after being fired, Simone was approached by a Christian television network that recognized her commitment to uncovering the truth. Their support extended beyond media coverage. They offered financial backing, matching donations wholeheartedly, which enabled her to continue speaking publicly and advocating for medical civil liberties.
This support was emblematic of a rare cross-faith alliance. It showed that when issues of constitutional rights and freedom of expression are at stake, ideological boundaries become less significant. For Simone, the backing from the Christian Church—especially the generosity of the network’s hosts—provided not only the financial means to persist in her endeavors but also a deep emotional and moral reassurance. Their willingness to amplify her message reinforced her belief that the fight for transparency in healthcare policy was not confined to one religious or political group. It was, in fact, a struggle for all individuals committed to truth above political expedience.
The donation, which in one instance amounted to nearly $180,000, was more than just money—it was a symbol of faith in her ideas. The Christian supporters demonstrated that despite her controversial stances, there was a substantial constituency that valued independent thought in medicine. This backing allowed Simone to launch and maintain her nonprofit organization, which focused on defending physicians’ rights and challenging oppressive mandates. The interfaith solidarity she encountered became a cornerstone in her ongoing battle against censorship and institutional overreach, and it provided hope that change was possible when disparate groups united for a common cause.
Mandated Medicine
Simone’s narrative takes a sharp turn when she addresses the increasingly contentious issue of government mandates overriding the judgment of both doctors and parents. In her account, the imposition of vaccine mandates—especially those affecting children—represents a fundamental assault on personal liberty and parental rights. Despite decades of individualized patient care, the modern system has shifted toward a one-size-fits-all approach in public health, often sidelining essential clinical judgment. Simone argues that this encroachment on personal freedom is not only medically unsound but also politically dangerous. She emphasizes that medicine has always thrived on a personalized doctor–patient relationship, where trust, discussion, and mutual understanding form the basis of treatment decisions. However, the mandates instituted during the pandemic have effectively supplanted these relationships with bureaucratic edicts.
For Simone, the issue goes beyond the immediate clinical implications. The mandates are symptomatic of a broader erosion of civil liberties, where the state effectively usurps the role of trusted professionals and even parents. In several jurisdictions, decisions once reserved for physicians or made in consultation with families are now overruled by policy, shifting power from individuals to administrators. This top-down approach, she warns, is deeply dangerous. It risks undermining the very fabric of society by establishing a precedent in which state power trumps personal autonomy. Parents, who are typically best placed to make decisions in the best interest of their children, are sidelined in favor of policies that may be dictated by political, financial, or ideological motives.
Simone’s critique resonates with her lifelong commitment to medical freedom. She observes that when decisions are imposed from above, the consequences extend beyond individual cases—they ripple outward, weakening the trust between the public and the professional community. In essence, these mandates do not just enforce medical treatment; they also fracture the societal bonds that depend on informed consent, personal choice, and the ethical responsibility of physicians to serve as advocates for their patients. This is a perilous development, one that underscores her call for a reexamination of policies that prioritize political expediency over genuine healthcare needs.
Capitol Confrontation
Simone’s account of January 6th unfolds as both a symbolic and practical chapter in her fight for medical freedom. Scheduled to speak at a public event near the Capitol, she intended to present a prepared speech on medical civil liberties—a core principle of her advocacy against state-imposed mandates. Despite possessing the correct permits and a clear message, Simone encountered an unexpected, disruptive force. When she and other speakers were assembled at the location, the organizers abruptly announced that no one would be allowed to speak. Instead of the dialogue and exchange of ideas expected at such an event, silence was imposed over a large, eager crowd.
Determined not to let her voice be silenced, Simone took it upon herself to climb the steps of the Capitol and begin speaking regardless. Although her words initially went unheard without amplification, her actions underscored her refusal to be marginalized. The incident was emblematic of the current political climate where, despite formal permissions and institutional legitimacy, dissenting voices are stifled. For Simone, this was more than a scheduling mishap—it was a deliberate move to suppress the message of medical freedom amid a politically charged environment.
The experience on January 6th was layered with irony. While many saw the day as a symbol of political extremism or even insurrection due to high-profile events elsewhere that day, Simone’s objective remained focused on health policy. Her attempt to speak in the heart of government power, even when silenced, sparked a reaction among the crowd and further solidified her commitment to testimony under pressure. The event served as a critical reminder of the challenges that independent voices face when they stand up against established political and bureaucratic structures. Simone’s persistence on that day—her willingness to speak out despite the barriers—became a defining moment for her ongoing campaign for transparency, accountability, and the protection of constitutional freedoms in the realm of public health.
Under Siege
Shortly after her series of public speeches and legal battles, Simone experienced a shocking intrusion into her private life: an FBI raid on her home. Described in vivid detail, the raid was orchestrated with an aggressive show of force. Federal agents, equipped with tactical gear, battering rams, and imposing weaponry, arrived at her apartment with a barrage of shouts of “FBI” that reverberated through the halls. Despite the intimidating nature of the operation, Simone remained remarkably calm—a testament to her emergency medicine training which had conditioned her to function under extreme stress.
The raid, a clear attempt to silence and intimidate, was both dehumanizing and logistically chaotic. Simone recalls how the agents stormed her residence, leaving little doubt that the intent was to crush dissent by force rather than dialogue. The incident struck a personal chord: here was a highly respected, independent doctor and lawyer, subjected not only to public defamation but now to coercive state power. Yet, true to her character, she interpreted the experience through a lens of analytical detachment. Her clinical mindset allowed her to assess the scenario almost dispassionately, noting the precise way in which the tactics were deployed to discourage further activism.
For Simone, the FBI raid was the manifestation of a broader trend—whereby the authorities, in collusion with other institutional forces, sought to deflate the momentum of independent voices in the medical and legal communities. It was an unmistakable signal that the fight for truth would not be confined to courtrooms or televised interviews; it would invade personal spaces, forcing individuals like her to confront state power directly. Despite the shock, Simone’s resolve was undeterred. Rather than succumbing to fear, she used the ordeal as evidence of the systematic effort to silence critical debate over medical freedom and civil liberties. This event, traumatic as it was, further galvanized her commitment to the causes she believes in, even as it underscored the dangerous lengths to which powerful interests would go to protect their narratives.
Politicized Legal System
Simone’s narrative takes a somber turn as she describes her confrontation with an increasingly politicized judicial system. After her home raid and multiple public outspokenness incidents, she found herself facing an onslaught of legal challenges. The prosecution was swift and unrelenting. Among the most jarring aspects of her legal battles was the use of a bizarre statute—a 1512 C2 felony related to witness tampering and evidence shredding—applied in completely inappropriate circumstances. Simone, who had spent decades earning respect in clinical circles, became entangled in charges that appeared designed solely to penalize her activism.
The trial itself was marred by what Simone saw as systemic bias. Although she possessed an unblemished professional record and extensive credentials, the judicial process was heavily skewed by political and bureaucratic pressures. Simone describes judges who, rather than scrutinizing the evidence thoroughly, relied on deference to executive branch agencies. This legal deference was reminiscent of the bygone era of the Chevron Doctrine—an approach that ultimately served to undermine the independence of the judiciary. In her case, the narrative was painted in broad strokes: an enemy of the “country” and a dangerous dissident perpetuating misinformation.
In the courtroom, the atmosphere was charged with political overtones. Simone was not only defending herself against legally questionable charges but also battling a narrative manufactured by powerful interests. The experience was isolating and deeply disillusioning as the judicial system, which is meant to ensure fairness and due process, instead appeared to operate as another instrument of political repression. Despite the overwhelming odds, Simone’s legal acumen—honed through years of dual training in medicine and law—allowed her to navigate this treacherous terrain. However, the toll was immense. The combination of politically motivated charges, judicial deferral to executive authority, and relentless media defamation pushed her into a corner where her only viable alternative was to accept a plea deal.
Facing Maximum Security for a Misdemeanor
Following the rigged legal proceedings, Simone faced a harsh punishment that starkly contradicted her spotless professional record. Despite her decades of experience, unwavering commitment, and popularity among patients and colleagues alike, the court handed her a shocking sentence of 60 days in prison—a punishment that she viewed as both disproportionate and politically motivated. The process was marked by what Simone calls dehumanization at every turn. Within the high-security confines of a maximum-security facility, she endured conditions designed to break the spirit of dissent.
Her account of prison life is both personal and vivid. Upon sentencing, Simone was subjected to solitary confinement for an initial period of eight days—a measure intended to isolate and disorient her. In this cramped, stark isolation cell with only a tiny window offering a glimpse of daylight, she felt the crushing weight of solitude. The punitive measures extended even to her release: as soon as her sentence ended, she was stripped of basic personal belongings like shoes, forcing her out onto the cold streets of downtown Los Angeles with nothing but her determination.
The severe conditions of her incarceration were meant to send a message: dissent would not be tolerated. However, instead of breaking her, these experiences further solidified her resolve. Simone used the time in prison as an opportunity to engage with fellow inmates, especially reaching out to women, gathering their stories and perspectives. These encounters provided both personal solace and a reminder of the human capacity for resilience. Even in an environment designed to sap the spirit, she clung to her core belief—that speaking truth to power was an inalienable right and duty.
Simone’s detailed recollections of her prison experience serve as a cautionary tale of how political prosecutions can inflict deep personal suffering. Her narrative in this section underscores the drastic measures that can be levied against those who challenge institutional narratives. Yet, even amid such oppressive conditions, Simone emerged with a renewed determination to continue her advocacy for medical civil liberties and freedom of speech.
Reflections, Realizations, and the Fight for Civil Liberties
In closing her extensive narrative, Simone reflects on the profound personal and professional transformations she has undergone in the face of relentless adversity. Her journey—from a brilliant, young physician and law student to a public advocate for medical civil liberties—has been marked by painful sacrifices, ostracism, and harsh legal battles. However, these experiences have also crystallized her core conviction: that the truth, however unpopular, must always be spoken. Even when faced with state repression, professional dismissal, and personal humiliation, Simone’s resolve has become stronger.
Her reflections point toward a future where the traditional boundaries between medicine, law, and public policy must be reexamined. Simone is optimistic that the recent shifts in judicial attitudes—such as the move away from uncritical deference to executive agencies—will eventually lead to a more balanced and just system. She argues that the collapse of trust in both public health directives and state mandates is a wake-up call for society. The erosion of the doctor–patient relationship and the imposition of one-sided mandates have not only diminished individual freedoms but also undermined the credibility of institutions that are supposed to protect those freedoms.
Looking forward, Simone envisions a future in which independent medical practice and informed legal advocacy play central roles in shaping public policy. Her work with nonprofit organizations and her persistent efforts to defend physicians’ rights signal a broader movement toward reclaiming transparency and accountability in governance. In her view, the solutions to many of today’s most troubling problems—be they in health care or civil liberties—lie in restoring entry points for genuine dialogue, scientific inquiry, and individual empowerment. Although she has endured tremendous personal hardship, she remains driven by a sense of purpose and the belief that, ultimately, truth and justice will prevail.