Who decides what is and is not misinformation? And on what basis?
This is a preview of medical services when the government is in total control of them. Only worse. The individual will be sacrificed for the collectivity.
Does that also hold true for guns, education, cars, recreation drugs, and politics....inquiring minds would like to know.
Trump is actually at fault for not firing Fauci or at least seeking other views and information for the best ways of dealing with pandemics.Pushing an accelerated liability-free vacinne program was a big mistake.
Trump made many poor choices in various appointments although he was likely constrained by his “advisors” in the Senate and Ivanka.
So, the first doctor to be disciplined will be Fauci, right?
So if a practicing doctor (someone who actually sees REAL patients) says something that goes against an office sitting administrator, the practicing doctor can have his/her license revoked?
How far we have fallen from “follow the science”, now its just do as your told dammit.
The medical community is cult save those attempting to speak out.
Kinda like Scientology — ironic analogy for an opportunistic industry.
Establishment medicine is corrupt to the core.
Pull all abortionists licenses. They claim it is not alive.
The left didn’t take 1984 as a warning - they took it as a challenge.
Ping me when one of the Vax Nazis shows up.
So that is what we base our science on now. Consensus. How much of that consensus is bought and paid for by people who are getting rich over the vaccine? Or those who fear the establishment?
Except for the few Free Republic Vax Nazis on this Forum, the general consensus here is that “vaccines“ are useless at best and dangerous at worst.
Any response from the Vax Nazi crowd?
Doesn't the average tin-pot dictator get at least 99% of the vote?
Meanwhile, guess who gets a Get-Out-Of-Jail free card regarding CoupFlu liability...
So why wasn’t Big Med agitating for immunity protection..?
Or, if they were, why didn’t get the same protection our so-called public health servants have been afforded?
Inquiring minds want to know
But, But, But...Trust the Science!
/eyeroll
Wow, between this and the woke AMA & med schools, what’s next, re-education camps for doctors?
One only see’s this in authoratarian regimes. Stop any “critical / open minded thinking” as it goes against the narrative.
It falls under the category of not questioning any Fake News or Propoganda.
We all know that fake news is the mingling lies, facts, and opinions.
A common definition of propaganda is that it “seeks to induce action, adherence and participation — with as little thought as possible”.
Common propaganda ploys related to medicine include the following:
• Hiding limitations of research.
• Preparing uncritical, incomplete research reviews related to a practice or policy.
• Ignoring counterevidence to favored views.
• Ignoring or misrepresenting well-argued alternative views and related evidence.
• Arguing ad hominem (attacking the critic) rather than adrem (responding to the argument).(Quackary - Propaganda in the Helping Professions. 2012. Eileen Gambrill. Oxford University Press)
“If you control the language, you control the argument
If you control the argument, you control information,
If you control information, you control history,
If you control history, you control the past.
He who controls the past controls the future.”
— Big Brother, “1984” (George Orwell)
Indicators of Propaganda
• Discouraging critical appraisal of claims; avoiding opportunities to discuss views with others who favor alternative views.
• Infl ated claims (puff ery); excessive claims of certainty (We have “the way”).
• Personal attacks/ridicule.
• Presentation of information/issues/views out of context; hiding context.
• Vagueness that obscures interests and arguments.
• Emotional appeals.
• Suppression of data unfavorable to views promoted.
• Distortion and suppression of competing well-argued views.
• Appeal to popular prejudices.
• Reliance on informal fallacies, such as unfounded authority and manner of presentation to support claims.
• Appeals to case examples and testimonials to support claims of eff ectiveness.
• Reliance on association and suggestion (e.g., negative innuendo).
• Transforming words to suit aims.
• Claiming one thing but doing another.
• Repetition.
• Oversimplification of complex topics.
The big problem with this, Jay W, is that “misinformation” is in the eye of the beholder, and yesterday’s COVID “misinformation” is today’s standard information.
I’m not talking about microchips, or poison in the shots. I have a feeling that THEY are talking about riffs on “the emperor has no clothes”, and I have certainly been posting plenty of THAT.
They are going to leave the crackpots alone. They are going to go after people who have been vocal about airborne transmission, early treatment, and non-natural evolution, all of which are well within the bounds of conventional medicine.