Don't look now, Gassie, but you fit quite nicely into that category.
Looks like we all agree.
So by citing a cardiologist per se you would then agree that the guy out of Texas who we hear about on and on and on as a board certified cardiologist railing against the vaccine and pushing ivermectin is in fact not a reliable source but rather an appeal to authority?
Ok. I guess we can agree that since none of the dirty dozen of docs we are subjected to on a regular basis who have profited quite well from their websites are in fact reliable.
We agree on something.
Don't look now, Gassie, but you fit quite nicely into that category.
Looks like we all agree.
A physician may very well be a good source. Or they may not.
Just like a Chemist or a Physicist may be a good source. Or they may not.
The point is, using an appeal to authority by referring to some doctor or another and having that settle the argument is meaningless.
Witnessing Stephen Hawking discussing physics is great. Seeing him discuss religion or God-not so much.
As for these dirty dozen of docs you talk about, I don’t know who any of them are, have never been to their web sites, and even if I had, would not view them much differently than I do a dirty dozen of reporters, I just assume they know more about medicine.
But knowing about medicine doesn’t make you an automatic authority on vaccines. And even being a specialist doesn’t mean your word can be trusted, using Fauci as an example. I wouldn’t listen to a word he says about my dog’s immune system and how to deal with it, much less a human one.
As a matter of fact, an intelligent person who is uncorrupted by ideology or financial dealings may carry more weight in some cases.