Mass Psychosis

[Stoic]

Who said anything about the First Amendment? Where did you get the idea that the ideal of free expression begins and ends at the FA?

"Freedom of speech" does not mean that you can say anything you want without consequences. It just means that, with a few exceptions, the government can't keep you from saying what you want.

[Stoic]

No, I've got something, and you will find it if you go back to page one of this thread and read with an open mind. I'm not sure why you're asking me to reiterate things that have already been discussed at length, and I don't feel any compulsion to summarize this thread for you.

If you don't want to engage, then don't. Just don't try to blame others.

[Mountain Man]

If you don't want to engage, then don't. Just don't try to blame others.

Says the guy who is too lazy to read through a thread and wants somebody else to summarize the key points for him.

[Mountain Man]

The medical boards are threatening doctors who spread misinformation to the public, not to their patients.


Give an example.


I doubt that there will be a problem is a doctor tells one of his patients not to bother getting vaccinated. If he says that to the public in general, he really needs to be disciplined.


The evidence given is that the medical boards are concerned about doctors providing misinformation about vaccination. If you have evidence that they are threatening doctors for recommending or prescribing ivermectin, please provide it.

In other words, the certification and licensing agencies are coercing doctors not say in public what they are saying to their patients in private. Does that make any sense to you?

[stfoskey15]

One large ivermectin study was found to be fraudulent: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...hical-concerns

[Stoic]

Says the guy who is too lazy to read through a thread and wants somebody else to summarize the key points for him.

If someone should have to sift through hundreds of posts, it should be the one who presumably knows what he's looking for.

If you wrote it, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find it.

[Stoic]

In other words, the certification and licensing agencies are coercing doctors not say in public what they are saying to their patients in private. Does that make any sense to you?

Yes. It means that what doctors say to their patients is somewhat more privileged than what they say to the public. Even if it's false.

[mikewhitney]

One large ivermectin study was found to be fraudulent: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...hical-concerns

Great find. Indeed the Elgazzar study was withdrawn. Then there is the Roman study ( Roman et al., Clinical Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/cid/ciab591 (preprint 5/25/21) (Peer Reviewed) (meta analysis)
Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials) finding Ivermectin ineffective. However, the Roman study was found deficient among the peers:

Source: https://trialsitenews.com/statement-of-concern-and-request-for-retraction-clinical-infectious-diseases-acceptance-of-roman-et-al/

We have sent an Open Letter to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal “Clinical Infectious Disease” to recommend an investigation and consequent retraction of a highly problematic meta-analysis titled “Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials” Re: Roman Y M, Burela P A, Paspuleti V, Piscoya A, Vidal J E and Hernandez A V (“Roman et al.). There are a number of identified, material concerns associated with this study that merit the imminent escalation to the journal’s leadership.

An “Accepted Manuscript” in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Roman et al. does not meet the standards of accuracy and integrity that any learned journal should demand. In asserting Conclusions that are not defensible on the evidence presented, it makes no contribution to science or medicine. In its present form, it should be retracted.

© Copyright Original Source

There also had been a study or two that were printed to the journals before Elgazzar or Roman (if I'm keeping the rough time sequence in mind sufficiently) and were pulled from the journals.

This leaves over 70 peer-reviewed studies on Ivermectin. The meta analysis at ivmmeta.com shows the high degree of success with the use of Ivermectin.

[mikewhitney]

The medical boards are threatening doctors who spread misinformation to the public, not to their patients.


Give an example.


I doubt that there will be a problem is a doctor tells one of his patients not to bother getting vaccinated. If he says that to the public in general, he really needs to be disciplined.


The evidence given is that the medical boards are concerned about doctors providing misinformation about vaccination. If you have evidence that they are threatening doctors for recommending or prescribing ivermectin, please provide it.

That is all the worse that medical boards threaten doctors for information to the public. The public arena is one option for opening up debate and discussion. Mountain Man pointed this out. How has the information even been found to be justifiably called misinformation? In support of your stance, maybe you can find the scientific studies that the medical boards rely on to make their determinations.

As to a doctor who was kicked out of the hospital practice in BC... Dr. Hoeffe told a nurse that a patient would not need the vax because the patient had covid-19 recently.

[Mountain Man]

Yes. It means that what doctors say to their patients is somewhat more privileged than what they say to the public. Even if it's false.

But what if a doctor has good reasons backed by scientific studies and data for thinking that what he is saying is true? Honestly, it sounds like the boards in question are for some reason desperate to have "consensus" about the China flu vaccines, but they realize there are enough open questions and room for debate that the only way they can get the appearance of widespread agreement is to threaten a doctor's livelihood if he dares to contradict the state mandated narrative. Back to something I quoted earlier:

Think about it from a common sense perspective. If the claims behind COVID-19, and the variants as an example, were honest and genuine; and if the benefits of the vaccine were true as claimed; the medical establishment would not need to threaten doctors, and they would not view sunlight as a risk to their objective.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ded-and-cited/

The only reason the government and its agencies would fear a doctor publicly contradicting them is if they lacked definitive proof that the doctor was wrong.

[Mountain Man]

Many of the vaccinated are angry at the unvaccinated because they’ve been lied to, both about who is actually spreading Covid (anyone care to guess what happens when a vaccinated person contracts Covid, yet feels fine and engages normally in society?) and the efficacy of the vaccines themselves. So many seem to think the vaccines are sterile, in the same way vaccines against other diseases have been, and that, if we just mask and vax harrrrrd enough there will actually be a future time when there is no Covid. Well, here’s a news flash: Even if vaccination levels somehow reached 100%, transmission and contraction of this virus will not end.

I’ve said this over and over for 18 months, and I’ll say it again. It’s time to end the insanity. It’s time to surrender and stop fighting a fight we can’t win. Sure, shield and vaccinate the vulnerable (and hope to God that some of the rumors about vaccines driving variants aren’t true), but the vast majority of people need to accept and deal with the fact that they are going to get this virus, which will continue virusing until it's finished, regardless of what humans do. The good news, if they are willing to hear it, is the same as it’s always been: it won’t be dangerous for the vast majority.

https://townhall.com/columnists/scot...ender-n2595743

[Stoic]

That is all the worse that medical boards threaten doctors for information to the public. The public arena is one option for opening up debate and discussion. Mountain Man pointed this out. How has the information even been found to be justifiably called misinformation? In support of your stance, maybe you can find the scientific studies that the medical boards rely on to make their determinations.

I would guess that they rely on the phase 3 trial results, along with the public health records regarding results of covid-19 infections and results of vaccinations.

As to a doctor who was kicked out of the hospital practice in BC... Dr. Hoeffe told a nurse that a patient would not need the vax because the patient had covid-19 recently.

To support your point, you chose this guy?

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-doctors-misinformation-covid-19-1.6021489

More recently, Lytton, B.C., family physician Dr. Charles Hoffe published another letter to Henry on the website of the anti-vaccine group Vaccine Choice Canada, making numerous unproven and false claims about COVID-19 vaccines.

Hoffe claimed in his letter, dated April 5, that after administering the Moderna shot to community members, he believes "this vaccine is quite clearly more dangerous than COVID-19."

The B.C. Centre for Disease Control publishes weekly updates on adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, and as of May 1, a total of 54 serious health events, including anaphylaxis, seizure and possible neurological effects, were reported out of 1.85 million doses administered. That's a rate of about 0.002 per cent.

While four people have died within 30 days of receiving one of those 1.85 million shots, none of those deaths are believed to be the result of the vaccine. In comparison, 1,622 people have died of COVID-19 in B.C. out of 136,100 confirmed cases.

Hoffe's letter also echoes a common but thoroughly debunked talking point used in conspiracy theorist circles that suggests mRNA vaccines are actually a form of "experimental gene modification therapy."

These vaccines, which include the COVID-19 shots from Pfizer and Moderna, absolutely cannot alter someone's genes.

The only thing mRNA does inside the human body is carry the instructions for building proteins — in the case of vaccines, those proteins trigger an immune response. Once those proteins have been built, the mRNA degrades, and it's physically impossible for it to be incorporated into a person's DNA.

"You can't go from RNA back to DNA in human cells. It's not possible because we just don't have the machinery to deal with it," Dr. Zain Chagla of McMaster University in Hamilton told CBC News in December.

Hoffe has yet to respond to requests for comment from CBC News or The Canadian Press.

© Copyright Original Source

[Stoic]

But what if a doctor has good reasons backed by scientific studies and data for thinking that what he is saying is true?

There are no scientific studies or data showing that getting vaccinated is more dangerous than getting covid-19.

Honestly, it sounds like the boards in question are for some reason desperate to have "consensus" about the China flu vaccines, but they realize there are enough open questions and room for debate that the only way they can get the appearance of widespread agreement is to threaten a doctor's livelihood if he dares to contradict the state mandated narrative. Back to something I quoted earlier:

Think about it from a common sense perspective. If the claims behind COVID-19, and the variants as an example, were honest and genuine; and if the benefits of the vaccine were true as claimed; the medical establishment would not need to threaten doctors, and they would not view sunlight as a risk to their objective.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ded-and-cited/

The only reason the government and its agencies would fear a doctor publicly contradicting them is if they lacked definitive proof that the doctor was wrong.

Another reason to fear a doctor publicly contradicting them is that there are a lot of poorly informed citizens who will believe the doctor.

[mikewhitney]

I would guess that they rely on the phase 3 trial results, along with the public health records regarding results of covid-19 infections and results of vaccinations.



To support your point, you chose this guy?

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-doctors-misinformation-covid-19-1.6021489

More recently, Lytton, B.C., family physician Dr. Charles Hoffe published another letter to Henry on the website of the anti-vaccine group Vaccine Choice Canada, making numerous unproven and false claims about COVID-19 vaccines.

Hoffe claimed in his letter, dated April 5, that after administering the Moderna shot to community members, he believes "this vaccine is quite clearly more dangerous than COVID-19."

The B.C. Centre for Disease Control publishes weekly updates on adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, and as of May 1, a total of 54 serious health events, including anaphylaxis, seizure and possible neurological effects, were reported out of 1.85 million doses administered. That's a rate of about 0.002 per cent.

While four people have died within 30 days of receiving one of those 1.85 million shots, none of those deaths are believed to be the result of the vaccine. In comparison, 1,622 people have died of COVID-19 in B.C. out of 136,100 confirmed cases.

Hoffe's letter also echoes a common but thoroughly debunked talking point used in conspiracy theorist circles that suggests mRNA vaccines are actually a form of "experimental gene modification therapy."

These vaccines, which include the COVID-19 shots from Pfizer and Moderna, absolutely cannot alter someone's genes.

The only thing mRNA does inside the human body is carry the instructions for building proteins — in the case of vaccines, those proteins trigger an immune response. Once those proteins have been built, the mRNA degrades, and it's physically impossible for it to be incorporated into a person's DNA.

"You can't go from RNA back to DNA in human cells. It's not possible because we just don't have the machinery to deal with it," Dr. Zain Chagla of McMaster University in Hamilton told CBC News in December.

Hoffe has yet to respond to requests for comment from CBC News or The Canadian Press.

© Copyright Original Source

Thanks for contributing a useless article that does not discuss the science of anything but just makes unsupported statements to try to contradict what Hoffe has said.

One example is the reliance on "belief" that certain deaths are not the result of the covid shots. Hoffe has identified clotting in 60% of people that he checked after they got these shots.

[Sparko]

Thanks for contributing a useless article that does not discuss the science of anything but just makes unsupported statements to try to contradict what Hoffe has said.

One example is the reliance on "belief" that certain deaths are not the result of the covid shots. Hoffe has identified clotting in 60% of people that he checked after they got these shots.

There you go handwaving away anything that contradicts your view.