California advances bill that would see doctors punished for spreading false COVID information
A group has filed a lawsuit citing "First Amendment free speech" rights that claims the word "misinformation" has been weaponized.www.axios.com
Relay the government talking points or lose your license.
So if the government decides that ivermectin works and vaccines don't, you are willing to echo whatever they say? It is extremely shortsighted to let someone dictate what you say bc you currently agree. It is also naive to think political winds can't quickly change. If something is blatantly stupid and wrong, it is already considered malpractice. We don't need additional ways to punish or sue physicians. If politicians want more restrictions and punishment, they can start with themselves.
???I will assume you meant me specifically, so I will answer for myself. I am consistently for less government, not more. I never implied or said "I love the government when they are forcing women to give birth against their will" so that is a dishonorable attempt to strawman. That is also off topic and distracting from the current discussion. You could have simply agreed or disagreed with actual input. I have a feeling many conversations end up coming back to abortion for you.
When those statements were made, they were true.
Medical boards are political appointees and have already been weaponized. There were multiple states where medical boards wanted to proactively stop physicians from spewing dangerous bull**** only to be told by republucan politicians to absolutely allow that.
khn.org
outrage…???
Statements that are false aren‘t true just bc you think they are true. Period. Reminds me of Abraham Lincoln quote to paraphrase- Just bc you count a dog’s tail as a leg doesn’t mean a dog has 5 legs.
Pithy responses don't change the truth of my statement. Every quote you posted above was factual at the time it was made.
The right is pushing gender affirmative care?
Anti-gender affirming care. It has replaced abortion as the new object of outrage/boogeyman for them.
I think pushing either way is not ok. It's between the doctor and patient and each case is unique. Shouldn't legislate it either way.
I agree but the reality we live in is that the right has decided that they can regulate conversations/treatment about abortion and now they have begun to regulate conversations/treatment about gender dysphoria. In this brave new world I see no issue when a left leaning state wants to regulate the conversations/treatment of snake oil.
Didnt you live through the hell of 2020? Did you ever bother walking in to stepdown unit or ICU during that period? Nobody knew what the **** to do 3/2020 it was a fantastic failure at all levels and the CDC did the best that could be expected given the political environment they had to operate under. Also take a look in the mirror--if you are a moderate getting riled up over the spread of misinformation or 'political silliness' of the COVID response which party did you support in 2020 if that was some kind of priority for you? If it wasn't the democrats I think you are much farther to the right of the spectrum than you think given the incredible failure of their ruling party to rise above politics with Trump dropping useless bull**** on a near daily basis and creating more confusion than was needed.
Your criticism was what exactly? It was vaguely insinuated that Fauci shouldn't be able to practice medicine. This was based on what exactly? Because in the world I lived in his response was one of the few sane things that happened that year and provided a much needed anchor for the hell the ICU was especially as families got increasingly insane over ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and all the other bull**** Trump et al started ****ting all over Twitter.
Something can be true and then later not be. This is especially true with a virus that mutates over time.
The second statement isn't accurate but letting that go...
But we don't live in the version of reality where the government respects physician autonomy. We live in the version where it has been controlling this for many years. I don't want to live in an even crappier world where the government only gets to regulate what the religious far right thinks it should and nothing else which is what would happen if this were struck down.
“misinformation that the licensee deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead”
You bring up a very good point and I believe it stems from some mis-communication by our public health people. The buzz phrase from the pandemic was " We follow the Science" While technically accurate, many non Science people don't understand medical research and think of Gravity, the speed of light, The Periodic Table, etc., as " Science". Truths, basically carved in stone. Medical Science, for much of it, is Best Evidence to Date. If the CDC and others would have framed their recommendations as this is the best evidence we have to date, then adapting to changing data would have been better received by the general public. As it was, if the " Science" was changing then the perception by non science people is the CDC doesn't know what it's doing. Had they framed their recommendations as Best Evidence, it would suggest that the evidence could change. I'm half way through Debra Birx's book and she says there was lots of bad data from the sketchy, incomplete reporting systems used by the CDC and from around the world. We know what happens when faulty data enters the research study.
I'm not so sure. Even when I explain this to patients I either get a blank look or a "so you're saying they lied to us".
This isn’t even CLOSE to true.
What in the world are you talking about? Funding studies???? Nobody had time to submit a damn grant application to have it reviewed by the NIH and get it funded then start recruitment etc etc the government research process had no useful role in the pandemic in 2020 because it is so slow. You do remember that the virus hit the Usa in February and 10 months later we had a highly effective and safe vaccine that annihilated its mortality rate right? This was mass produced and distributed within months. It was a modern scientific miracle and it got trashed ironically by the people who actually believe in miracles who apparently didn't even recognize one when it hit them in the nose.
His wife is though right!?
It is good that you admit they should have not stated things so definitively. However, mandating things was the goal, and that would have undermined that goal.
Actually that's exactly how I would have described HIV in the 80s.
Agree, they came up with very efficacious vaccines for the original disease. We should be happy that current variants seem to cause less severe illness and that vaccines still offer protection from severe disease, not using this to crap on the vaccines.
Here is what I am talking about. Please look a the list that the CDC funded. They cared more about social science then Real science.
I am very curious as to where you got that list, care to share?
