Physicians who post COVID-19 vaccine misinformation may lose license, medical panel says

Only 3 possible options exist
1. You think Fauci was lying in his own emails,
2. You haven't even read them.
3. You read them and will continue to falsify what they say

 

1. I don't
2. I have not
3. Above answers this option
4. There are many that have read the emails and you and those whose political views run parallel yours have misconstrued them simply for political reasons.

 

Well, If you haven't even read his emails, WTH are you doing commenting on their contents.
Oh, My bad, thats what the left does. I forgot myself for a moment.

 

No, what you forget is that I don't HAVE to read them. They have been common knowledge for a while and your false claims of their meaning is only held by people with intents to divide the country even more.
It's really that simple. That's politics.

 

Translation:
I prefer to regurgitate what the media tells me rather than read them myself, think for myself, and form my own opinion.
i appreciate that confirmation. Explains a lot.

 

The fact that science has learned more about COVID is NOT AN EXCUSE for ignoring medical science. Initially there was hope for various medical treatments for COVID, for example. So, that was studied and found to be false in certain well publicized cases. There were questions about how COVID is spread. So, that was studied, causing changes in policy recommendations.

That does NOT form a basis for a valid charge against science based medicine.

If someone would like to propose an alternative to science based medicine, they should do so.

Then, we could make some comparisons and assessments.

 

No one should believe anything absent proof. There is probably some justification for most people to take unproven vaccines on the recommendation of healthcare officials and their doctors regardless of any doubts they may have.
There is no justification for everyone to take any unproven vaccine. Doing so would place the entire population at risk.

 

I think you're missing my point. "Science" is not a chiseled-in-ivory dictum. Science evolves and changes, and often reverses itself. Labeling something today as dis/misinformation may deny it to another scientist or researcher who might come up with a breakthrough.

 

Scientists come up with conflicting studies ALL THE TIME. So, this "deny another scientist" argument really has no justification.

I agree science is absolutely NOT "chiseled-in-ivory"

But, it is the case that there are VAST differences in the capabilities of various sources. An individual doctor can not be compared to the CDC, for example. The CDC is doing controlled testing across huge populations, and is seriously investigating tens of thousands of results. No doctor in hospital practice can do that. They have the resources to take these reports from doctors into account an evaluate them in the context of a far wider testing regime that includes the controls that goo science requires.

Also, it's not as if the CDC is the only such organization. Every first world country (or the EU as a whole, for example) has a serious medical science facility.

One has to consider the sources being used. In too many cases, the sources have very little or no backing of ANY science AT ALL - such as with anti-vaxers, Rand Paul, and others.

 

But it COULD. For instance, for quite a while the origin of COVID-19 was alleged to be a fish marker in Wuhan and those that suggested it came from a lab. Lab-origin thinking was stifled until suddenly it wasn't.

But hasn't the CDC vacilated on some issues as well.

I'm not concerned with anti-vaxers or Rand Paul; I'm talking about scientists who publish something that is contrary to current science.

 

That wasn't the CDC or science based medicine. That was WHO doing an initial investigation of the source of this pandemic.

Everybody in the world agrees with WHO and the investigators that the investigation is NOT conclusive OR complete.

So, that doesn't have anything to do with the ability of the CDC to analyze COVID, vaccines, mask function, methods of transmission, etc.

I don't believe so. They have changed recommended policy advice. But, they only recommend policy, and their recommendations have been ignored in numerous cases.

Initially, they searched the lists of medications that could possibly have an effect on COVID. That's how hydroxychloroquine was found. Searching that list made sense as those drugs had already gone through testing, making them far easier to deliver. That information was made known. After testing, the CDC stated that those drugs are NOT effective against COVID in ANY WAY - as a prophylactic, by themselves, or by in combination with other drugs. That's not "vacillating" - that is coming up with an hypothesis and subsequently proving it false.

OK, cite a case like that. References to a possible pattern can't be discussed without evidence that it happened in some case.

And again - the issue is how we select sources for the very best current information.

So, THAT means a comparison.

Is it the CDC or Rand Paul?

Is it anti-vaxx or is it science based medicine.

Is it the press or or talking heads on Fox or MSNBC or is it the CDC + FDA?

Those are the actual choices. Suggesting the CDC isn't perfect is not a real answer.

 

I'm not a doctor. Are you? If not and you think or are arrogant enough to believe you can decipher the technical aspects of what it is exactly what is being talked about to make your own "educated" opinion........that explains a lot also. It proves your arrogance is backed up by your wrong opinion.
Given that, I wonder if you ever go to a doctor at all. Heal thyself.

 

Oh, so your refusal to take to vaccine is saving mankind. Brilliant.

 

Ok, I think it's time to pull the plug. We're (or at least I'm) not talking about Rand Paul, or Fox, or MSNBC or what ever. My point, which I apoligize for not expressing better, is that science is not static, chiseled in ivory, "this is the way it is". It's dynamic, evolutionary, and in constant discovery and exploration. It' entirely possible that discoveries from legitimate sources may occur that challenge or refute currently acceptable wisdom. Having that discovery dismissed as dis/misimformation because it challenges "settled science" is, In my opinion unacceptable. Having popular social media site arbitrate what we see is totally unacceptable.

 

Any other profound flip flops you want to share? You certainly fit CNN's viewer market to a tee.

First you claimed it was all common knowledge which is why you didn't need to read them,
In your very next post you claim you need to be doctor to decipher them?

How would you know? Thats a lot of claims for someone who never read them. lol

 

IOW, you did not actually read my post. Try doing that you will like them!

 

Comprehension is not your thing
I don't have to read them because they are common knowledge and there plenty of articles about them and their contents so I haven't flipped on anything. It's really a pretty basic concept to understand.
I'll stick with until Fauci is arrested for all your supposed "crimes" that you only have wishful thinking going for you.

 

I read your posts when I need something to help me sleep.

 

Fauci got caught and its just killing you. He lied to the Senate about his involvement in Gain of function and the Wuhan lab.
He was in charge of funding for gain of function research and its clear in his emails that were released without his consent via FOI acts.
If you're happy letting the media tell you what you should think about Fauci's emails, then you shouldn't be surprised when they are wrong.

 

I certainly agree with that.

But, the problem today has to do with how we select and evaluate sources of information.

The fact that science does advance is not a knock on science - it is exactly what we need science to do. And, places like CDC, FDA, Dr. Fauci's organization, etc., all let us know when they find new information, including when they find that previous recommendations or evaluations have changed.

So, the real question is:

>> What sources are being considered adequate to oppose science based medicine?

If someone wants to say we shouldn't listen to the CDC, they need to say what we SHOULD listen to.

Then, we can evaluate that decision.

 

If he was caught red handed of such an egregious "crime".......how come no one is after him but Republicans.....and looking foolish doing it.

 

Absolutely TRUTH - but the supporting problem is some sources are arbitrarily silenced; so many of us don't KNOW there are alternatives.

Again, I absolutely agree. But that has to be an open and public discussion to be effective. When a new theory or additional information suggests that the current science/orthodoxy may not be totally factual or complete we have to insure the theory is at least introduced to the public and not censured on public media as dis/misinformation.

Again, I agree. But if there are alternative findings from CDC we should at least be able to hear and evaluate them - CDC as dodged and faked enough to justify that.

 

The catch is that there is NO value in treating the public to anti-science BS. In fact, there is a significant health risk to that.

Again, one HAS TO consider the source, how the idea was formed, whether it has already been analyzed by reputable science, etc.

The anti-VAX propaganda is a case in point. There are numerous ideas being spread that are WELL KNOW to be absolutely FALSE.

Those ideas need to be terminated before more people get sucked into the mistakes that are dangerous to our population as a whole.

>>> You want to dodge Rand Paul's lies. But, that IS what the issue is - that and other ideas known to be false, but promoted across our communication channels as truth.

I know we want free and open discussion, but when there are absolute lies that are damaging to our country's health there does have to be serious opposition.

 

Of course IF we ever get to hear or read it.

If we know it, how would actually reading it hurt?

So, you want to hide the side effects the vaccines have?

How do you know he's lying? Maybe his backing data is being censored.

We can't identify "absolute lies" unless with have absolute access to information free of media/government screening/censorship.

 

Thats your meter of guilt? You think for one second that Democrats will go after Fauci? If Democrats don't pile on then it must be a lie?
Thats what happens when you depend on the media to keep you informed. Whats next? His emails don't say what they say? They don't exist?

There is no other way to interpret what they say.