4 ms·

No, they aren't "all" subject to licensing rules. That's why the specific industries do matter. Can you share some examples of these doctors? AFAIK the only do

No, they aren't "all" subject to licensing rules. That's why the specific industries do matter. Can you share some examples of these doctors? AFAIK the only doctors who lost their licenses are those who created fake medical documentation or who shared verifiably false medical information. Not for "disagreeing" with the government stance on vaccines. I don't know if you lived in a different timeline than me, but I remember a lively debate throughout the entirety of COVID. Consensus (and evidence) was overwhelmingly on one side, sure, similar to how consensus is that you should go to the hospital if you get a heart attack. And yeah, if a doctor advises someone against that despite strong clinical evidence that the patient is best served by going to the hospital, they'll jeopardize their license.

Bnichs 1y ago
The problem is that when the government itself spreads verifiably false information, there are no reprocussions like there are for the individual who does it. Just like when an individual steals money they tend to face consequences, banks who do the same thing on a much more massive scale face nothing.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  You're suggesting the government shared information that was verifiably false at the time it was shared? Can you give some examples?
  - Bnichs 1y ago
    Just to preface. Covid is the new Nazis, all arguments end up devolving into its discussion. Im tired of talking about covid but it's hard to get past how our country handled it, both the people and the government. To answer your question: https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/jun/06/did-fauci-say-he-made-up-covid-19-rules-on-social/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/jun/06/did-fauci-say... >He said the 6-foot guideline “sort of just appeared” and wasn’t based on any data, and that such a study would be difficult to do. He also said he didn’t recall any studies about masking young children, but said the guideline was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision. https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-dr-faucis-top-advisor-held-accountable-for-covid-19-federal-records-violations-undermining-nih-operations/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-dr-fauci... Making up arbitrary rules and then enforcing them saying "trust the science" is not coming from a place of honesty. Especially when combined with the deletion of emails.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      Excellent example! First the strong rebuttal: "Verifiably false information at time of sharing" in this case would mean you have evidence that Fauci knew distance played no role in infection rates, or that a distance other than 6 feet was better, and put out information suggesting 6 feet was correct anyway. You have no evidence of this, of course, because this is not what happened. The more general rebuttal is that you are revealing exactly the type of "can't be trusted with details" that kneecapped public health communications throughout COVID. The question is why Fauci selected 6 feet instead of 4, 5, 7, 8 or even 6.1, 6.148, or even 6.489598365983 feet. The reality is that there's no real reason to select any of these over any other. There's a continuous curve of difficulty of adherence and a continuous curve of transmission reduction. Any specific number would have been "arbitrary", but very obviously a clear guideline is better than a completely non-actionable "stay as far away as you reasonably can." This is like hauling out the guy who set interstate speed limits at 60mph and not 59 or 59.5 or 59.84846898 and then blasting him for selecting the "arbitrary" 60 miles per hour. Does that make sense to you?
      - Bnichs 1y ago
        The number isn't the point, the messaging of "this number is science" is. If it were delivered clearly as "we done have all the information, but our best judgement based on a, b, c says the number is X" that would be far better and most of all honest than "it is 6ft and that's the science, follow the rules or don't enter public spaces" Does that make sense to you?
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        What? There's not "a lack of information." The information is there's a continuous curve of transmission. You could have complete information and you would still need to pick an "arbitrary" point. > it is 6ft and that's the science, follow the rules or don't enter public spaces Link to which guidance you feel most closely stated this. I have never seen any guidance from CDC, NIH, FDA, or anywhere else that resembles this.
mike_hearn 1y ago
I'm not going to get into the weeds about COVID because you said: > the things these systems "say" are emergent phenomena ... Consensus was overwhelmingly on one side ... [those who disagree] jeopardize their license Rephrased, it's not happening and it's good that it's happening. Pick your side: either you want agreement in the healthcare system to be trusted because it's the result of many independent decisions pointing in the same direction, or you want a system that punishes dissent. You can't try to claim the benefits of the first whilst cheering on the second.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Wait wait, can you tell me what was actually inside the [ ellipsis ] that you substituted out? Arguing in bad faith is one thing, but I suspect you might even be tricking yourself!
  - mike_hearn 1y ago
    You're claiming healthcare advice is an emergent phenomenon and also agreeing that people who spread "verifiably false" misinformation lost their license - a totally non-emergent phenomenon. I get that your faith in authority is so strong you don't really believe there were any mistakes made there, and thus that the people who were fired for opposing public health mandates weren't really part of the healthcare system at all in some sense. But they were a part of it, and mistakes were made by public health officials, many of which they later admitted to. Again: pick your side. Advice motivated by career-ending penalties for non-compliance cannot be said to be an emergent phenomenon.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      How many licensure boards are there in the US? Roughly 60. How many allow their doctors to relay verifiably false medical information with their patients? Roughly zero. Is this because there's some big conspiracy of all 60 licensure boards getting together to suppress information, or is it because each of them has independently reached the self-evident conclusion that licensees spreading false information destroys the credibility of the profession? Emergent phenomena, amigo.

Bnichs 1y ago

The problem is that when the government itself spreads verifiably false information, there are no reprocussions like there are for the individual who does it. Just like when an individual steals money they tend to face consequences, banks who do the same thing on a much more massive scale face nothing.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
You're suggesting the government shared information that was verifiably false at the time it was shared? Can you give some examples?
- Bnichs 1y ago
  Just to preface. Covid is the new Nazis, all arguments end up devolving into its discussion. Im tired of talking about covid but it's hard to get past how our country handled it, both the people and the government. To answer your question: https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/jun/06/did-fauci-say-he-made-up-covid-19-rules-on-social/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/jun/06/did-fauci-say... >He said the 6-foot guideline “sort of just appeared” and wasn’t based on any data, and that such a study would be difficult to do. He also said he didn’t recall any studies about masking young children, but said the guideline was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision. https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-dr-faucis-top-advisor-held-accountable-for-covid-19-federal-records-violations-undermining-nih-operations/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-dr-fauci... Making up arbitrary rules and then enforcing them saying "trust the science" is not coming from a place of honesty. Especially when combined with the deletion of emails.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Excellent example! First the strong rebuttal: "Verifiably false information at time of sharing" in this case would mean you have evidence that Fauci knew distance played no role in infection rates, or that a distance other than 6 feet was better, and put out information suggesting 6 feet was correct anyway. You have no evidence of this, of course, because this is not what happened. The more general rebuttal is that you are revealing exactly the type of "can't be trusted with details" that kneecapped public health communications throughout COVID. The question is why Fauci selected 6 feet instead of 4, 5, 7, 8 or even 6.1, 6.148, or even 6.489598365983 feet. The reality is that there's no real reason to select any of these over any other. There's a continuous curve of difficulty of adherence and a continuous curve of transmission reduction. Any specific number would have been "arbitrary", but very obviously a clear guideline is better than a completely non-actionable "stay as far away as you reasonably can." This is like hauling out the guy who set interstate speed limits at 60mph and not 59 or 59.5 or 59.84846898 and then blasting him for selecting the "arbitrary" 60 miles per hour. Does that make sense to you?
    - Bnichs 1y ago
      The number isn't the point, the messaging of "this number is science" is. If it were delivered clearly as "we done have all the information, but our best judgement based on a, b, c says the number is X" that would be far better and most of all honest than "it is 6ft and that's the science, follow the rules or don't enter public spaces" Does that make sense to you?
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        What? There's not "a lack of information." The information is there's a continuous curve of transmission. You could have complete information and you would still need to pick an "arbitrary" point. > it is 6ft and that's the science, follow the rules or don't enter public spaces Link to which guidance you feel most closely stated this. I have never seen any guidance from CDC, NIH, FDA, or anywhere else that resembles this.

mike_hearn 1y ago

I'm not going to get into the weeds about COVID because you said: > the things these systems "say" are emergent phenomena ... Consensus was overwhelmingly on one side ... [those who disagree] jeopardize their license Rephrased, it's not happening and it's good that it's happening. Pick your side: either you want agreement in the healthcare system to be trusted because it's the result of many independent decisions pointing in the same direction, or you want a system that punishes dissent. You can't try to claim the benefits of the first whilst cheering on the second.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Wait wait, can you tell me what was actually inside the [ ellipsis ] that you substituted out? Arguing in bad faith is one thing, but I suspect you might even be tricking yourself!
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  You're claiming healthcare advice is an emergent phenomenon and also agreeing that people who spread "verifiably false" misinformation lost their license - a totally non-emergent phenomenon. I get that your faith in authority is so strong you don't really believe there were any mistakes made there, and thus that the people who were fired for opposing public health mandates weren't really part of the healthcare system at all in some sense. But they were a part of it, and mistakes were made by public health officials, many of which they later admitted to. Again: pick your side. Advice motivated by career-ending penalties for non-compliance cannot be said to be an emergent phenomenon.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    How many licensure boards are there in the US? Roughly 60. How many allow their doctors to relay verifiably false medical information with their patients? Roughly zero. Is this because there's some big conspiracy of all 60 licensure boards getting together to suppress information, or is it because each of them has independently reached the self-evident conclusion that licensees spreading false information destroys the credibility of the profession? Emergent phenomena, amigo.