State Medical Board Martyrs Their First: Board Votes to Suspend License of Dr. Tenpenny.

On Wednesday, August 9, the Ohio State Medical Board voted to suspend the medical license of Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, prominent outspoken critic of the covid-19 mRNA injections after a prolonged inquisition which was, according to her defense team, surrounding her opinions on said injections.

When it comes to critics of the government’s mRNA platform, and specifically the covid-19 injections, few are more well-known than Dr. Sherri Tenpenny. Dr. Tenpenny is a Osteopathic medical doctor who runs the Tenpenny Integrative Medical Center.

According to documents released by the board, the case brought up against Dr. Tenpenny centered around her alleged failure to cooperate with the State Medical Board’s inquisition against her. Per said documents, the board alleges that they received “350 allegations” against Dr. Tenpenny which prompted the inquiry. According to Media Rep Joel Whetstone, allegations against a doctor do not need to be by patients of said doctor.

“Anyone may file a complaint,” Whetstone said. “The board can initiate its own complaint, and a complaint can also come from a variety of sources including but not limited to patients, medical providers, organizations, and other state agencies, among others.”

The board argued that because Dr. Tenpenny did not cooperate with their investigation, the board’s attorneys recommended they immediately and indefinitely suspend her medical license.

Reviewing the board’s own documentation paints a somewhat different story. Beginning at the start of the mRNA platform roll out in 2021, the board sent inquisitors to Dr. Tenpenny’s office, specifically requesting she respond to the board and answer questions pertaining to her position and opinion on the Covid-19 injections. Per the Board’s hearing documentation, these were the only questions ever asked of Dr. Tenpenny.

“The Interrogatories asked for information regarding Dr. Tenpenny’s practice in general, as well as asking specifically about her practice regarding recommendations concerning, and administration of, vaccines and whether any of her patients subsequently contracted certain illnesses,” The document said. “The Interrogatories also specifically ask how many doses of COVID-19 vaccines she had provided and whether she had personally received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

According to the document, the inquisitors also asked Dr. Tenpenny “regarding the COVID-19 vaccine not injecting a real virus but strips of genetic material and patients suffering complications such as abnormal bleedings, myocarditis, strokes, and neurological complications.” It should be noted these inquiries were posed to Dr. Tenpenny in 2021. Two years after these inquiries have been all but answered with a litany of scientific explanation delving into how the very mechanism of action, and the contents, of these injections can lead to all of these events. At the time, Tenpenny was making rounds throughout multiple internet podcasts explaining these very possibilities, far before the scientific community had caught up to the realization we all face today; namely that these injections pose a very real risk to public health.

It was during this time of public outcry that the board claims they received some 350 allegations against Dr. Tenpenny. Though the board would not reveal what the allegations were, considering the only questions they ever asked pertained to her public comments on the mRNA injections, it may be a safe assumption that they pertained to said subject matter.

“They made it clear it wasn’t about the good care I take of my patients,” Tenpenny said. “This has been going on for two years.”

The board demanded access to Dr. Tenpenny’s records, responses to their questions on her statements surrounding the injections, as well as a full psychological examination with a stated cost of $2000, which she would be responsible for. According to the board’s records, Tenpenny’s defense team sent corresponding responses to each attempt from the inquisition team.

“The September 7th Interrogatories are invasive, irrelevant to any inquiry into (St. Ex. 3 at 3) Mr. Renz further wrote that Dr. Tenpenny would not respond to the Interrogatories and asserted that “[d]eclining to cooperate in the Board’s bad faith and unjustified assault on her licensure, livelihood, and constitutional rights cannot be construed as an admission of any allegations against her.” (St. Ex. 3 at 3) Mr. Renz also wrote that most of Dr. Tenpenny’s statements which were quoted in the August 11, 2021 letter4 were “based on factual reports by third parties – including peer-reviewed studies published in mainstream medical journals.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, the board voted to suspend Dr. Tenpenny’s licensure, not due to any findings of wrongdoing or medical malpractice, but because of the process violation of ‘failing to respond.’ At the Wednesday hearing, the board did not appear receptive to the arguments of Dr. Tenpenny’s defense team, which argued that Tenpenny was effectively the victim of a witch hunt surrounding her opinions on the covid-19 injection. Additionally, Attorney Tom Renz argued that moving to suspend a medical practitioners license for what was effectively an interpretation of a process violation was unheard of. Attorney Tom Renz argued that on every occasion, the defense team requested the board seek the authority of a judge and secure a courts approval to compel the responses they demanded to which the board refused to do. Renz argued that failing to follow a legal procedure was a violation of Tenpenny’s rights to due process under the law.

“This is a very simple case,” Board vice president Jonathan B. Feibel said. “This has nothing to do with the treatment she has given to patients, this is strictly how the board should handle this case based on rules. If we [filed proceedings with a judge] with every case this board would never get anything done.”

Feibel quoted ORC 4731.22, which states that ‘The board shall investigate evidence that appears to show that a person has violated any provision of this chapter or any rule adopted under it.’ However, ORC 4731.22 is very specific about when the board can suspend medical licensures of practitioners. According to ORC 4731.22, the board process should have been to secure a subpoena from the perquisite court district to compel cooperation. There does not appear to be any statute within ORC 4731.22 which permits the board to suspend medical licensure for not responding to their preference on inquiries regarding a doctor’s public speech.

Despite the board and the state’s attorney arguing that they had ample ability to form the inquisition based on their alleged ‘350’ reports, they also stated on multiple occasions no factors of this decision had anything to do with the standard of care Dr. Tenpenny practices on her patients.

During the vote, the board’s legal team abstained, leaving only the 6 practitioners voting affirmatively. The vote effectively represents one of the most egregious oversteps in authority within the medical field in the state of Ohio.