3 ms·

Online disclosure of a private letter received from an associate medical officer of health; Interference with testing of an infant, who was not his patient, fo

by Braxton1980 2y ago

Online disclosure of a private letter received from an associate medical officer of health; Interference with testing of an infant, who was not his patient, for COVID-19; Online disclosure of college investigative materials; Failure to cooperate with the college's investigation; and Failure to comply with an interim order imposed by the college.

mike_hearn 2y ago
Yeah, exactly: the first thing a public health conspiracy has to do is forbid doctors talking about it. This case is unusual because the tribunal was so clear about their intent: > "As a physician, the information you communicate is trusted by many." People don't trust us but they trust you, so we're going to make you into our handpuppets. > "Online disclosure of a private letter received from an associate medical officer of health;" Don't tell anyone we're using you this way, otherwise they'd stop trusting you too. > "We are dismayed by the deliberate steps you took to undermine the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Your communications to colleagues, patients and your thousands of followers on social media regarding COVID-19 and public health response measures were careless, often offensive and at times, possibly harmful." Offending the government is the primary thing listed here; they aren't even sure he caused harm! The other charges are similar: he disagreed with the government on COVID, he revealed publicly that the government was threatening him, he didn't cooperate with the people who were threatening him, he "deterred the public from complying" and so on. Then something about an infant i.e. someone too young for an invasive COVID test to have value (so he was probably right to interfere with it).
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  >Yeah, exactly: the first thing a public health conspiracy has to do is forbid doctors talking about it. Where was that? Also why would a conspiracy forbid people to talk about something when conspiracies often use evidence that something is trying to be hidden to prove their point
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    The tribunal states that one of his infractions was publishing a letter he received telling him to stop dissenting. > Also why would a conspiracy forbid people to talk about something It's not a conspiracy if there's no attempt to keep it secret, is it? The fact that some conspiracies are sometimes detected due to mistakes or whistleblowers doesn't mean their attempts at secrecy were useless. Presumably there are conspiracies that are never detected, but even if they are, secrecy and intimidation tactics still have value to the conspirators. Look at this very thread: it's full of people baffled that anyone might not trust their doctor. But if doctors are being forced to toe the line and not reveal that they're being so forced, then you aren't trusting a doctor, you're trusting someone in the licensing authority or public health agencies - very different.
    - Braxton1980 2y ago
      Was the issue the contents of the letter or publishing a private letter

mike_hearn 2y ago

Yeah, exactly: the first thing a public health conspiracy has to do is forbid doctors talking about it. This case is unusual because the tribunal was so clear about their intent: > "As a physician, the information you communicate is trusted by many." People don't trust us but they trust you, so we're going to make you into our handpuppets. > "Online disclosure of a private letter received from an associate medical officer of health;" Don't tell anyone we're using you this way, otherwise they'd stop trusting you too. > "We are dismayed by the deliberate steps you took to undermine the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Your communications to colleagues, patients and your thousands of followers on social media regarding COVID-19 and public health response measures were careless, often offensive and at times, possibly harmful." Offending the government is the primary thing listed here; they aren't even sure he caused harm! The other charges are similar: he disagreed with the government on COVID, he revealed publicly that the government was threatening him, he didn't cooperate with the people who were threatening him, he "deterred the public from complying" and so on. Then something about an infant i.e. someone too young for an invasive COVID test to have value (so he was probably right to interfere with it).

Braxton1980 2y ago
>Yeah, exactly: the first thing a public health conspiracy has to do is forbid doctors talking about it. Where was that? Also why would a conspiracy forbid people to talk about something when conspiracies often use evidence that something is trying to be hidden to prove their point
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  The tribunal states that one of his infractions was publishing a letter he received telling him to stop dissenting. > Also why would a conspiracy forbid people to talk about something It's not a conspiracy if there's no attempt to keep it secret, is it? The fact that some conspiracies are sometimes detected due to mistakes or whistleblowers doesn't mean their attempts at secrecy were useless. Presumably there are conspiracies that are never detected, but even if they are, secrecy and intimidation tactics still have value to the conspirators. Look at this very thread: it's full of people baffled that anyone might not trust their doctor. But if doctors are being forced to toe the line and not reveal that they're being so forced, then you aren't trusting a doctor, you're trusting someone in the licensing authority or public health agencies - very different.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    Was the issue the contents of the letter or publishing a private letter