5 ms·

SM Study Reveals 52 Doctors Spread Covid-19 Misinformation to Millions in US

18 points by smrtinsert 3y ago

TurkishPoptart 3y ago
"Misinformation" just means "any information that contradicts something the CDC said at one time", which is _insane_, considering the CDC's guidance and the efficacy of these mRNA shots changes weekly. It's shameful to think that a diversity of viewpoints or interpretations of data, and willingness to change one's viewpoint based on new data is considered "misinformation" by a political, government agency. That is not scientific in the slightest. Science is a _process of discovery_, not a Soviet diktat from the highest-paid bureacrat and the corporations that pay him. We've reached a dark time in American history where presenting a different point of view gets you labeled as a crank. Yes, there are cranks out there, but I think most of them will actually engage with the data and are frankly more reliable than a good Soviet doctor whose rationale for treatment is "the Commisariat this week said so".
- andrei_says_ 3y ago
  Can you provide more info on the mRNA vaccine efficacy changing weekly?
  - TurkishPoptart 3y ago
    "Protection [not immunity] conferred by mRNA vaccines against moderate (emergency department or urgent care) and severe (hospital admission) covid-19 waned during the months after primary vaccination, increased substantially after the third dose, and waned again by four to five months." [1] At first, CDC said vaccinated people didn't need to wear masks, then reversed course and said we still had to! [2] Also at first, CDC did NOT recognize the idea of "natural immunity", which we've known about since the beginning of immunology. They bluffed, (due to the influence of big pharma institutional capture, I suspect), and only until 2022 did they admit that natural immunity DOES confer protection. [3, 4]. Overall, the omicron variant conferred better immunity than all of the vaccines. [1]: https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj-2022-072141 https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj-2022-072141 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L03-my4E4gI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L03-my4E4gI [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hXESCSRyvY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hXESCSRyvY [4]: https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/592457-the-cdc-is-finally-recognizing-natural-immunity-legislators-should-follow/ https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/592457-the-cdc-is-fin...
- helen___keller 3y ago
  Their definition of contradicting CDC is based on this table https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jamanetworkopen/939195/zoi230834supp1_prod_1691425918.57638.pdf?Expires=1695223984&Signature=jxzRYiEDxMNcmVfda7ljbTDf7MHu1EFxzablNOD-hanSM2HHsKCThCP85ilVQqeqhO5KDSnzbFg1cJeqofQwzUoNE2nsVsUW6EiwjLGTJOlAvxxnboPmRwdr2S0IgKRVYOrCXVNUc~tzskvJdfca0Z7-wSR2EmBdaxbMIr7eLTWXe4j~hH-rHieB1Nyfj5I0H8E92k8ec5vBoVQi6T7S-CGzJ6A0tsAjEicRnjS6AkItEFjiDYk9DSDvnITToi3WKxdlAiKOJ9gDjZob4VIBprxfMQieYez3ZVof-bPF0rh~ZTcimSd1Z2np8SuxZPRI9HgSElnm60HyW7lKOjwXgA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jaman... which seems highly reasonable. Care to describe which item on this table changed weekly?
  - TurkishPoptart 3y ago
    So, everything on the "public health guidelines" list is actually wrong, except the first item if someone is very old and very sick. The mRNA shots never promoted immunity to illness, and it's factually inaccurate to claim that they did or do. We still don't know the long-term safety effects of these shots. The Cochrane study of studies on masks invalidated the guidance that cloth/fabric masks can do anything to stop an aerosolized virus. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/23/cdc-advises-longer-wait-between-first-and-second-vaccine-doses https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/23/cdc-advises-lo... https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s1227-isolation-quarantine-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s1227-isolation-quar... https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/why-did-cdc-change-covid19-isolation-quarantine-recommendations https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/why-did-cdc-change-covi...
cempaka 3y ago
Had to scroll through quite a few paragraphs to find the actual truth claims in question, finally made it to these: > Claiming vaccines were unsafe or ineffective True. You can argue they were a net benefit to certain at-risk demographics but the idea that they were safe, necessary, or beneficial to give en masse to adolescents with prior exposure is just laughable. > Promoting unapproved medications to prevent and treat COVID-19 So, not even really a claim that outright false misinformation was spread here, just that they did not slavishly follow the FDA. > Challenging the effectiveness of wearing masks We're not even allowed to challenge this, when the Bangladesh study that even mask advocates like to point to showed a reduction in community transmission of something like 10%, with "no effect" within the 95% CI? > Conspiracy theories about the pandemic. Everyone with their head not shoved under three feet of sand knows at this point that this thing came from a lab. By definition, they all believe in a "conspiracy theory about the pandemic," since an effective and ongoing conspiracy to conceal its origins must be carried out as we speak.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > True. You can argue they were a net benefit to certain at-risk demographics but the idea that they were safe, necessary, or beneficial to give en masse to adolescents with prior exposure is just laughable. There's legitimate discussion to be had, but how convenient of you to ignore that there's also a lot of misinformation being spread. Saying that vaccines are not effective when they are. Lying about the dangers or claiming that they'll turn you magnetic or turn you into a crocodile From the article: Unfounded claims included that the vaccines caused infertility, irreparable damage to one’s immune system, increased risk of developing a chronic illness for children, and a higher risk of cancer and death. This is just plain old antivaxxer nonsense > So, not even really a claim that outright false misinformation was spread here, just that they did not slavishly follow the FDA. No, literal misinformation was spread claiming that drugs that don't work were effective. > We're not even allowed to challenge this, Again, people can "challenge" whatever they want, they just can't make up bullshit. The doctors in the study were lying. They were making claims that wearing masks was actually harmful.
  - cempaka 3y ago
autoexec 3y ago
Doctors spreading misinformation in a pandemic have clearly violated their oath but what concerns me more is the lack of accountability from licensing bodies. It would do a lot to restore people's faith in the medical field if bad actors lost their license. The total lack of accountability undermines the integrity of the medical profession and the public's trust. It's insane to me that a doctor who tells their patients that their illness is caused by demon sperm and that medications are made from alien DNA continues to be allowed to practice medicine in the US. What does it take for a doctor to lose their license at this point?
- zackees 3y ago
  [dead]
nostrebored 3y ago
As expected, one of the people included as a prolific misinformer is Vinay Prasad, a doctor, MPH, professor of epidemiology at UCSF, and a highly cited and respected medical professional. The bizarre take of this appeal-to-authority (ironically published by two authors with BS degrees and one MPH) is that researchers with contrarian opinions should be labeled as misinformers regardless of reasoning. Dr. Prasad's reasoning for all of this information is public record. People willfully choose not to engage with it. Similarly, Jayanta Bhattacharya appears quoted as a misinformer. Dr. Bhattacharya is one of the most cited professors in his fields of our lifetime, a professor of medicine, economics, and health policy who has made significant contributions to each domain, and even outside of his specialties. The people claiming that their analysis is misinformation have no trouble using their work prior to the pandemic. Lumping them in with people who were prescriptively shilling for ivermectin at the beginning of the pandemic is fundamentally dishonest. But there's been very little about the discourse around public health that's been good faith. At this point we know that includes information that the authors use to determine accuracy in this paper, like the efficacy of cloth masking.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > Similarly, Jayanta Bhattacharya appears quoted as a misinformer. Because he actually spread misinformation including: Pushing ivermectin, telling lies about masks being harmful and making misleading statements about the effectiveness of vaccines
  - cempaka 3y ago
    Do you have a link to Bhattacharya "pushing ivermectin"? And what specific statements about vaccine effectiveness did he make which are misleading? Masks are harmful, so that one isn't really misinformation. I mean, if he was saying the higher CO2 is bad for you or something that would be pretty dubious, but the idea that there are absolutely zero downsides to extended public masking is risible.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > Do you have a link to Bhattacharya "pushing ivermectin"? Not finding one directly, but he was part of the senate hearings that covered it and part of the lawsuit against the government for trying to get social media companies to remove misinformation. > Among those allies is Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee and who on Tuesday held a hearing devoted to promoting discredited coronavirus treatments and maligning public safety measures. There had been an outcry ahead of the hearing because one of the witnesses scheduled was Dr. Jane Orient, an outspoken critic of vaccines. Another witness was Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya of Stanford, a co-author of a petition against lockdowns called the Great Barrington Declaration. (https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-vaccine-rollout-marred-by-confusion-false-claims-233349756.html https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-vaccine-rollout-marred-by...) https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/missouri-v-biden-ruling.pdf https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/missou... > Masks are harmful, so that one isn't really misinformation. Masks aren't harmful, as evidenced by the countless people who wear them all the time either professionally or just to avoid spreading/catching illness.
keernan 3y ago
"right-wing group that promoted unproven COVID-19 treatments and whose founder was arrested during the January 6 riot on the US Capitol."

18 points by smrtinsert 3y ago

"Misinformation" just means "any information that contradicts something the CDC said at one time", which is _insane_, considering the CDC's guidance and the efficacy of these mRNA shots changes weekly. It's shameful to think that a diversity of viewpoints or interpretations of data, and willingness to change one's viewpoint based on new data is considered "misinformation" by a political, government agency. That is not scientific in the slightest. Science is a _process of discovery_, not a Soviet diktat from the highest-paid bureacrat and the corporations that pay him. We've reached a dark time in American history where presenting a different point of view gets you labeled as a crank. Yes, there are cranks out there, but I think most of them will actually engage with the data and are frankly more reliable than a good Soviet doctor whose rationale for treatment is "the Commisariat this week said so".

andrei_says_ 3y ago
Can you provide more info on the mRNA vaccine efficacy changing weekly?
- TurkishPoptart 3y ago
  "Protection [not immunity] conferred by mRNA vaccines against moderate (emergency department or urgent care) and severe (hospital admission) covid-19 waned during the months after primary vaccination, increased substantially after the third dose, and waned again by four to five months." [1] At first, CDC said vaccinated people didn't need to wear masks, then reversed course and said we still had to! [2] Also at first, CDC did NOT recognize the idea of "natural immunity", which we've known about since the beginning of immunology. They bluffed, (due to the influence of big pharma institutional capture, I suspect), and only until 2022 did they admit that natural immunity DOES confer protection. [3, 4]. Overall, the omicron variant conferred better immunity than all of the vaccines. [1]: https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj-2022-072141 https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj-2022-072141 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L03-my4E4gI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L03-my4E4gI [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hXESCSRyvY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hXESCSRyvY [4]: https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/592457-the-cdc-is-finally-recognizing-natural-immunity-legislators-should-follow/ https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/592457-the-cdc-is-fin...
helen___keller 3y ago
Their definition of contradicting CDC is based on this table https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jamanetworkopen/939195/zoi230834supp1_prod_1691425918.57638.pdf?Expires=1695223984&Signature=jxzRYiEDxMNcmVfda7ljbTDf7MHu1EFxzablNOD-hanSM2HHsKCThCP85ilVQqeqhO5KDSnzbFg1cJeqofQwzUoNE2nsVsUW6EiwjLGTJOlAvxxnboPmRwdr2S0IgKRVYOrCXVNUc~tzskvJdfca0Z7-wSR2EmBdaxbMIr7eLTWXe4j~hH-rHieB1Nyfj5I0H8E92k8ec5vBoVQi6T7S-CGzJ6A0tsAjEicRnjS6AkItEFjiDYk9DSDvnITToi3WKxdlAiKOJ9gDjZob4VIBprxfMQieYez3ZVof-bPF0rh~ZTcimSd1Z2np8SuxZPRI9HgSElnm60HyW7lKOjwXgA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jaman... which seems highly reasonable. Care to describe which item on this table changed weekly?
- TurkishPoptart 3y ago
  So, everything on the "public health guidelines" list is actually wrong, except the first item if someone is very old and very sick. The mRNA shots never promoted immunity to illness, and it's factually inaccurate to claim that they did or do. We still don't know the long-term safety effects of these shots. The Cochrane study of studies on masks invalidated the guidance that cloth/fabric masks can do anything to stop an aerosolized virus. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/23/cdc-advises-longer-wait-between-first-and-second-vaccine-doses https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/23/cdc-advises-lo... https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s1227-isolation-quarantine-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s1227-isolation-quar... https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/why-did-cdc-change-covid19-isolation-quarantine-recommendations https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/why-did-cdc-change-covi...

cempaka 3y ago

Had to scroll through quite a few paragraphs to find the actual truth claims in question, finally made it to these: > Claiming vaccines were unsafe or ineffective True. You can argue they were a net benefit to certain at-risk demographics but the idea that they were safe, necessary, or beneficial to give en masse to adolescents with prior exposure is just laughable. > Promoting unapproved medications to prevent and treat COVID-19 So, not even really a claim that outright false misinformation was spread here, just that they did not slavishly follow the FDA. > Challenging the effectiveness of wearing masks We're not even allowed to challenge this, when the Bangladesh study that even mask advocates like to point to showed a reduction in community transmission of something like 10%, with "no effect" within the 95% CI? > Conspiracy theories about the pandemic. Everyone with their head not shoved under three feet of sand knows at this point that this thing came from a lab. By definition, they all believe in a "conspiracy theory about the pandemic," since an effective and ongoing conspiracy to conceal its origins must be carried out as we speak.

autoexec 3y ago
> True. You can argue they were a net benefit to certain at-risk demographics but the idea that they were safe, necessary, or beneficial to give en masse to adolescents with prior exposure is just laughable. There's legitimate discussion to be had, but how convenient of you to ignore that there's also a lot of misinformation being spread. Saying that vaccines are not effective when they are. Lying about the dangers or claiming that they'll turn you magnetic or turn you into a crocodile From the article: Unfounded claims included that the vaccines caused infertility, irreparable damage to one’s immune system, increased risk of developing a chronic illness for children, and a higher risk of cancer and death. This is just plain old antivaxxer nonsense > So, not even really a claim that outright false misinformation was spread here, just that they did not slavishly follow the FDA. No, literal misinformation was spread claiming that drugs that don't work were effective. > We're not even allowed to challenge this, Again, people can "challenge" whatever they want, they just can't make up bullshit. The doctors in the study were lying. They were making claims that wearing masks was actually harmful.
- cempaka 3y ago

autoexec 3y ago

Doctors spreading misinformation in a pandemic have clearly violated their oath but what concerns me more is the lack of accountability from licensing bodies. It would do a lot to restore people's faith in the medical field if bad actors lost their license. The total lack of accountability undermines the integrity of the medical profession and the public's trust. It's insane to me that a doctor who tells their patients that their illness is caused by demon sperm and that medications are made from alien DNA continues to be allowed to practice medicine in the US. What does it take for a doctor to lose their license at this point?

zackees 3y ago
[dead]

nostrebored 3y ago

As expected, one of the people included as a prolific misinformer is Vinay Prasad, a doctor, MPH, professor of epidemiology at UCSF, and a highly cited and respected medical professional. The bizarre take of this appeal-to-authority (ironically published by two authors with BS degrees and one MPH) is that researchers with contrarian opinions should be labeled as misinformers regardless of reasoning. Dr. Prasad's reasoning for all of this information is public record. People willfully choose not to engage with it. Similarly, Jayanta Bhattacharya appears quoted as a misinformer. Dr. Bhattacharya is one of the most cited professors in his fields of our lifetime, a professor of medicine, economics, and health policy who has made significant contributions to each domain, and even outside of his specialties. The people claiming that their analysis is misinformation have no trouble using their work prior to the pandemic. Lumping them in with people who were prescriptively shilling for ivermectin at the beginning of the pandemic is fundamentally dishonest. But there's been very little about the discourse around public health that's been good faith. At this point we know that includes information that the authors use to determine accuracy in this paper, like the efficacy of cloth masking.

autoexec 3y ago
> Similarly, Jayanta Bhattacharya appears quoted as a misinformer. Because he actually spread misinformation including: Pushing ivermectin, telling lies about masks being harmful and making misleading statements about the effectiveness of vaccines
- cempaka 3y ago
  Do you have a link to Bhattacharya "pushing ivermectin"? And what specific statements about vaccine effectiveness did he make which are misleading? Masks are harmful, so that one isn't really misinformation. I mean, if he was saying the higher CO2 is bad for you or something that would be pretty dubious, but the idea that there are absolutely zero downsides to extended public masking is risible.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > Do you have a link to Bhattacharya "pushing ivermectin"? Not finding one directly, but he was part of the senate hearings that covered it and part of the lawsuit against the government for trying to get social media companies to remove misinformation. > Among those allies is Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee and who on Tuesday held a hearing devoted to promoting discredited coronavirus treatments and maligning public safety measures. There had been an outcry ahead of the hearing because one of the witnesses scheduled was Dr. Jane Orient, an outspoken critic of vaccines. Another witness was Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya of Stanford, a co-author of a petition against lockdowns called the Great Barrington Declaration. (https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-vaccine-rollout-marred-by-confusion-false-claims-233349756.html https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-vaccine-rollout-marred-by...) https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/missouri-v-biden-ruling.pdf https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/missou... > Masks are harmful, so that one isn't really misinformation. Masks aren't harmful, as evidenced by the countless people who wear them all the time either professionally or just to avoid spreading/catching illness.

keernan 3y ago

"right-wing group that promoted unproven COVID-19 treatments and whose founder was arrested during the January 6 riot on the US Capitol."