You’re Not Censoring American COVID Comments ‘Nearly Enough'

[jimnyc]

That's the thinking of today, to censor others and what they have to say.

---

Surgeon General to Big Tech: You’re Not Censoring American COVID Comments ‘Nearly Enough’

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy nagged social media companies for not doing more to censor so-called misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to Murthy in an August 22 appearance of CNN’s State of the Union, the American people are so-called “superspreaders” of misinformation by questioning the government narrative, according to the Biden administration. America’s current surgeon general responded to Facebook’s most recent transparency report by scourging social media

Murthy commented on the “profound cost of health misinformation,” observing that “we’ve been seeing the health misinformation as a problem for years, but the speed, scale and sophistication with which it is spreading and impacting our health is really unprecedented.”

Murthy went on to say “its happening largely and in part, aided and abetted by social media platforms.” His diagnosis was that Big Tech may have done “some things to reduce the spread of misinformation,” but it’s “not nearly enough.”

Rest - https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/alexander-hall/2021/08/23/surgeon-general-big-tech-youre-not-censoring-american

[icansayit]

https://img.etimg.com/thumb/msid-47024436,width-1200,height-900,imgsize-240517,overlay-economictimes/photo.jpg
HERE IS THE OATH:
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office ...
Appointment and Appointment Date are Established by Personnel Order.
NOTE -- The oath of office must be administered by a person specified in 5 USC Section 2903 or as delegated by the Secretary to the
Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Health, Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, or as re-delegated by the
Assistant Secretary for Health to the Surgeon General, Deputy Surgeon General, Assistant Surgeons General or to active duty
Regular Corps officers of the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service who hold the Permanent Director (O-6) grade.

He was also OBAMA'S S.G. in 2014.

[revelarts]

In order to have enough freedom, it is necessary to have too much.
Clarence Darrow

Progressivism is the belief that we have too much freedom with which to make too many stupid choices.
David Harsanyi

Which country is suffering from too much freedom of speech? Name it...
Julian Assange

[revelarts]

That's the thinking of today, to censor others and what they have to say.

---

Surgeon General to Big Tech: You’re Not Censoring American COVID Comments ‘Nearly Enough’

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy nagged social media companies for not doing more to censor so-called misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to Murthy in an August 22 appearance of CNN’s State of the Union, the American people are so-called “superspreaders” of misinformation by questioning the government narrative, according to the Biden administration. America’s current surgeon general responded to Facebook’s most recent transparency report by scourging social media

Murthy commented on the “profound cost of health misinformation,” observing that “we’ve been seeing the health misinformation as a problem for years, but the speed, scale and sophistication with which it is spreading and impacting our health is really unprecedented.”

Murthy went on to say “its happening largely and in part, aided and abetted by social media platforms.” His diagnosis was that Big Tech may have done “some things to reduce the spread of misinformation,” but it’s “not nearly enough.”

Rest - https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/alexander-hall/2021/08/23/surgeon-general-big-tech-youre-not-censoring-american


I'm not sure how exactly this all ends but there are FAR to many in gov't in the past 20 years (R and D) that really DO NOT LIKE the constitution or bill of rights .
And far to few people in general that stand up consistently for the WHOLE show,
even in the face of "lack of safety" real or imagined.

[Mika-El]

I agree its a slippery slope and if you start censoring, it takes on a life of its own in censory free speech and I believe Trump constantly tried to do this with the media and now some of his supporters who supported that and his vilification fo anyone who did not agree with him as a liar and should be censored, are now complaining about this current issue but suddenly worried about censorship.

So excuse me if I am having a problem with some peoples' sincerity and believe they are only concerned about getting their poins of view across and could give a crap about the larger picture.

That aside you would all agree if I screamed fire in a movie theatre and caused a panic that hurt or killed people and there was no fire that is not the kind of free speech we would want to protect and would in fact consider it criminal.

Likewise even in a freedom of speech country like the US, there is a limit to how far you can speak in public when it comes to saying things that incite violence or hatred. Its a fine line but it has been used. No one likes to see it used but it has been used.

Me personally the most famous American incident I can think of is the Skokie, Illinois march by neo Nazis through suburbs where holocaust survivors lived. It was deliberate provocation.

However the courts said they can march provided they limit what they say and do, and the police were there to protect. For me as a person from a family with holocaust surviving relatives it was obviously not appreciated. I know Jewish lawyers for the Civil Liberties Association were the ones arguing the neo Nazis should be able to march.

I agreed with that because the police were there to protect and had things gotten out of control they wo uld have shut it down but on the other hand freedom of expression was not unintentionally limited with the concern the same precedent shutting them down might be used to shut someone else down where the issues were not the same.

So it was a tough issue. The US legal system errs on the side of freedom of expression. Whether Trump's outbursts had he been re-elected gone on to try shut down certain media we will never know.

The US went through McArthy witch hunts which I believe had the similiar tone to Trump approaches to opinions other than his own right down his accusing people of not being patriotic.

Now I heard Trump vilify Fauci like many of you. I heard him recommend supposed medical treatments that were dangerous.

He was a role model. His comments may have exposed people to harm. Excuse me but I am concerned about that.

I am concerned because I read conspiracy theories and absolute medical falsehoods. Is there a line to be drawn?

The American Medical Association draws a line to try protect the public from quacks and fraudulent medical cures.

Do people need to be protected from dangerous comments that could injure or kill them or others if they follow them about Covid 19? Well its not an easy question.

Its one thing to clearly express a subjective opinion. Its another to present supposed corroborated facts that were never corroborated and not facts.

We have advertising laws preventing certain words from being used to mislead to protect the publiuc, so?

I am reluctant to censor people like you are but I do think the internet is full of out and out false statements as to Covid 19 that could be dangerous in helping spread the virus or in encouraging people to take false cures.

So I am not sure if a line needs to be drawn and where but my gut says as bad as censorship is, there have to be some limits and I think right now everyone is doing their best to balance free speech but be vigilant for dangerous and irresponsible statements that could harm people.

I think people are currently doing their best. Whether anything else must be done I can't say. If it has to be some sort of limitation it would have to be extremely precise, specific, limited and not set a precedent to be used on any situation other than the specific one it was made for. Easier said than done doing that.

Great topic. Very difficult issue.

[revelarts]

I agree its a slippery slope and if you start censoring, it takes on a life of its own in censory free speech and I believe Trump constantly tried to do this with the media and now some of his supporters who supported that and his vilification fo anyone who did not agree with him as a liar and should be censored, are now complaining about this current issue but suddenly worried about censorship.
So excuse me if I am having a problem with some peoples' sincerity and believe they are only concerned about getting their poins of view across and could give a crap about the larger picture.
That aside you would all agree if I screamed fire in a movie theatre and caused a panic that hurt or killed people and there was no fire that is not the kind of free speech we would want to protect and would in fact consider it criminal.
Likewise even in a freedom of speech country like the US, there is a limit to how far you can speak in public when it comes to saying things that incite violence or hatred. Its a fine line but it has been used. No one likes to see it used but it has been used.
Me personally the most famous American incident I can think of is the Skokie, Illinois march by neo Nazis through suburbs where holocaust survivors lived. It was deliberate provocation.
However the courts said they can march provided they limit what they say and do, and the police were there to protect. For me as a person from a family with holocaust surviving relatives it was obviously not appreciated. I know Jewish lawyers for the Civil Liberties Association were the ones arguing the neo Nazis should be able to march.
I agreed with that because the police were there to protect and had things gotten out of control they wo uld have shut it down but on the other hand freedom of expression was not unintentionally limited with the concern the same precedent shutting them down might be used to shut someone else down where the issues were not the same.
So it was a tough issue. The US legal system errs on the side of freedom of expression. Whether Trump's outbursts had he been re-elected gone on to try shut down certain media we will never know.
The US went through McArthy witch hunts which I believe had the similiar tone to Trump approaches to opinions other than his own right down his accusing people of not being patriotic.
Now I heard Trump vilify Fauci like many of you. I heard him recommend supposed medical treatments that were dangerous.
He was a role model. His comments may have exposed people to harm. Excuse me but I am concerned about that.
I am concerned because I read conspiracy theories and absolute medical falsehoods. Is there a line to be drawn?
The American Medical Association draws a line to try protect the public from quacks and fraudulent medical cures.
Do people need to be protected from dangerous comments that could injure or kill them or others if they follow them about Covid 19? Well its not an easy question.
Its one thing to clearly express a subjective opinion. Its another to present supposed corroborated facts that were never corroborated and not facts.
We have advertising laws preventing certain words from being used to mislead to protect the publiuc, so?
I am reluctant to censor people like you are but I do think the internet is full of out and out false statements as to Covid 19 that could be dangerous in helping spread the virus or in encouraging people to take false cures.
So I am not sure if a line needs to be drawn and where but my gut says as bad as censorship is, there have to be some limits and I think right now everyone is doing their best to balance free speech but be vigilant for dangerous and irresponsible statements that could harm people.
I think people are currently doing their best. Whether anything else must be done I can't say. If it has to be some sort of limitation it would have to be extremely precise, specific, limited and not set a precedent to be used on any situation other than the specific one it was made for. Easier said than done doing that.

Great topic. Very difficult issue.
The issues of getting people to review and accept truthful information is diffucult
The issue of censorship is NOT difficult. Not at all.

for starters, speaking for myself only here, I’m not a Trump supporter. (I voted 3rd party)
And I’ve spit into the wind about the hypocrisy of Liberals And Conservatives on this issue, and others, for too many years.
Each side trots out the same arguments when they want to censor (or do other unconstitutional acts) Because now it's “different”. Because “ITS FOR OUR SAFETY”. IN THIS one CASE Freedom is TO DANGEROUS.
And With Censorship “yelling 'FIRE' is illegal", is the goto example of legal “censorship”.
Couple of problem with that defense though.
1st, it assumes that because “yelling Fire” is illegal that WE CAN and should ADD MORE ITEMS to the list of things that are illegal to say.
But why should we assume that? Who said "yelling fire" was a TEMPLATE for other restrictions? And not just a very singular/unique carve out in our rights.

It’s really not a “hard question”.
We should not censor, period. The legal lines that are established NOW, Are fine. There’s no need to move them because part of the population is Alarmed at a “new” situation.
The rights have served us well.
the only hard questions are:
Do we want the gov’t to muzzle information available to the public?
Do we all want to have access to ALL info available …good, bad and ugly… to make our own decisions?
Do we trust our neighbors with the freedom to make up their own minds?
Do we really want a free country or one run by the current crop of gov’t approved “experts” on any given subject?

We’re often reassured that 'This is NOT the slippery slope you’re looking for.' But when the OTHER SIDE does it, Then It’s clearly McCarthyism and the 1st steps to dictatorship. it’s funny how some on each side have NO objectivity and insist that if they do it, it’s basically a hard but necessary evil.... for the good of the country.
Rather than seeing ALL our rights as NECESSARY... for the good of the country. even if there's some pain associated with them.

So Mika, Sorry, but the current legal lines or “Yelling Fire” SPECIFICALLY and only. Is just fine. (I’d even vote for some of the similar items on books to be rolled back.)
And Allowing Protecting peaceful protest of Nazis, KKK Christians, Satanist, Jews, Muslims, BLM, LBGTXYZ, AntiVaxxers, Commies etc, is part of the freedom we all enjoy/endure. And is codified in the constitution.

“Yelling Fire”
is NOT some template for shutting down speech.

BTW, Mika are you a doctor, or a virologist? you say
“I am reluctant to censor people like you are but I do think the internet is full of out and out false statements as to Covid 19 that could be dangerous in helping spread the virus or in encouraging people to take false cures. So I am not sure if a line needs to be drawn and where but my gut says as bad as censorship is, there have to be some limits and I think right now everyone is doing their best to balance free speech but be vigilant for dangerous and irresponsible statements that could harm people.”


So How exactly do you know what’s a false cure and what’s not?
I suspect you were allowed to read/hear/see various bits of information that allowed you come to a conclusion of what’s probably safe and what’s not.
Or do you just believe what you heard from certain people without question?

Why should you or the gov’t or a group of media corps or giant pharma companies be the one(s) allowed to ration out information?
Who decides who gets to be the censors Mika?
The founders of this country understood clearly that NO ONE should be trusted with the job.
I wish more people understood that simply fact.

[Mika-El]

The issues of getting people to review and accept truthful information is diffucult
The issue of censorship is NOT difficult. Not at all.

for starters, speaking for myself only here, I’m not a Trump supporter. (I voted 3rd party)
And I’ve spit into the wind about the hypocrisy of Liberals And Conservatives on this issue, and others, for too many years.
Each side trots out the same arguments when they want to censor (or do other unconstitutional acts) Because now it's “different”. Because “ITS FOR OUR SAFETY”. IN THIS one CASE Freedom is TO DANGEROUS.
And With Censorship “yelling 'FIRE' is illegal", is the goto example of legal “censorship”.
Couple of problem with that defense though.
1st, it assumes that because “yelling Fire” is illegal that WE CAN and should ADD MORE ITEMS to the list of things that are illegal to say.
But why should we assume that? Who said "yelling fire" was a TEMPLATE for other restrictions? And not just a very singular/unique carve out in our rights.

It’s really not a “hard question”.
We should not censor, period. The legal lines that are established NOW, Are fine. There’s no need to move them because part of the population is Alarmed at a “new” situation.
The rights have served us well.
the only hard questions are:
Do we want the gov’t to muzzle information available to the public?
Do we all want to have access to ALL info available …good, bad and ugly… to make our own decisions?
Do we trust our neighbors with the freedom to make up their own minds?
Do we really want a free country or one run by the current crop of gov’t approved “experts” on any given subject?

We’re often reassured that 'This is NOT the slippery slope you’re looking for.' But when the OTHER SIDE does it, Then It’s clearly McCarthyism and the 1st steps to dictatorship. it’s funny how some on each side have NO objectivity and insist that if they do it, it’s basically a hard but necessary evil.... for the good of the country.
Rather than seeing ALL our rights as NECESSARY... for the good of the country. even if there's some pain associated with them.

So Mika, Sorry, but the current legal lines or “Yelling Fire” SPECIFICALLY and only. Is just fine. (I’d even vote for some of the similar items on books to be rolled back.)
And Allowing Protecting peaceful protest of Nazis, KKK Christians, Satanist, Jews, Muslims, BLM, LBGTXYZ, AntiVaxxers, Commies etc, is part of the freedom we all enjoy/endure. And is codified in the constitution.

“Yelling Fire”
is NOT some template for shutting down speech.

BTW, Mika are you a doctor, or a virologist? you say
“I am reluctant to censor people like you are but I do think the internet is full of out and out false statements as to Covid 19 that could be dangerous in helping spread the virus or in encouraging people to take false cures. So I am not sure if a line needs to be drawn and where but my gut says as bad as censorship is, there have to be some limits and I think right now everyone is doing their best to balance free speech but be vigilant for dangerous and irresponsible statements that could harm people.”


So How exactly do you know what’s a false cure and what’s not?
I suspect you were allowed to read/hear/see various bits of information that allowed you come to a conclusion of what’s probably safe and what’s not.
Or do you just believe what you heard from certain people without question?

Why should you or the gov’t or a group of media corps or giant pharma companies be the one(s) allowed to ration out information?
Who decides who gets to be the censors Mika?
The founders of this country understood clearly that NO ONE should be trusted with the job.
I wish more people understood that simply fact.

Who gets to be the censors? We the public to start with of course on an individual basis. If it's a false medical cure than the American Medical Association and Surgeon General. If it is a subjective conspiracy theory, no one but us as individuals. Are you asking how do I know a cure is fake without being a doctor? Really? Think about it. If it is a non doctor prescribing a treatment like Trump I know because the source is not properly trained.

If it's a medical debate between doctors, that is why the American Medical Association steps in to decide what are conventionally recognized cures and that is why the FDA regulates use of drugs.

I defer to properly trained physicians.

[SassyLady]

Who gets to be the censors? We the public to start with of course on an individual basis. If it's a false medical cure than the American Medical Association and Surgeon General. If it is a subjective conspiracy theory, no one but us as individuals. Are you asking how do I know a cure is fake without being a doctor? Really? Think about it. If it is a non doctor prescribing a treatment like Trump I know because the source is not properly trained.

If it's a medical debate between doctors, that is why the American Medical Association steps in to decide what are conventionally recognized cures and that is why the FDA regulates use of drugs.

I defer to properly trained physicians.
Unfortunately, MSM and Social Media are censoring legitimate doctors and medical professionals who are not on board with the science behind the mandates. It's been proven over and over again that masks don't help.

Personally, I listen to my doctor's and we discuss the censorship of information. Seems as if anything Pharmaceuticals promote is the new science. Anything that doesn't make them money is immediately claimed as bogus.

Once again, put all the info out there and let the individual decide. Kinda hard to make informed decisions if some info is being censored.

[Juicer66]

If it's a medical debate between doctors, that is why the American Medical Association steps in to decide what are conventionally recognized cures and that is why the FDA regulates use of drugs.

I defer to properly trained physicians.


Perhaps in Dream Land that could work well .

It was the CIA who formally stated at inception in 1947 that you controlled everything when you controlled information and health .

Now we have totally corrupt Pharma and political regulators within the UN and WHO and then through middle management ( FDA and CDC organisation types ) and

then to the foot soldiers -- scared and cowardly members of the medical professions .

A great strategy and performance if you are a Globalist and /or Eugenicist .Even smarter if you are in Bejing assessing infiltration and conversion results .

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://img.etimg.com/thumb/msid-47024436,width-1200,height-900,imgsize-240517,overlay-economictimes/photo.jpg
HERE IS THE OATH:
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office ...
Appointment and Appointment Date are Established by Personnel Order.
NOTE -- The oath of office must be administered by a person specified in 5 USC Section 2903 or as delegated by the Secretary to the
Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Health, Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, or as re-delegated by the
Assistant Secretary for Health to the Surgeon General, Deputy Surgeon General, Assistant Surgeons General or to active duty
Regular Corps officers of the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service who hold the Permanent Director (O-6) grade.

He was also OBAMA'S S.G. in 2014.


The guy is ffing scum....--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Unfortunately, MSM and Social Media are censoring legitimate doctors and medical professionals who are not on board with the science behind the mandates. It's been proven over and over again that masks don't help.

Personally, I listen to my doctor's and we discuss the censorship of information. Seems as if anything Pharmaceuticals promote is the new science. Anything that doesn't make them money is immediately claimed as bogus.

Once again, put all the info out there and let the individual decide. Kinda hard to make informed decisions if some info is being censored.

Censoring seems to have become a big thing my friend.
Always an easy way to deny those that are brave enough to speak the truth...
These doctors, nurses and other trained individuals that are speaking out-against-- the vaccine are being unjustly censored, punished and falsely vilified by government, companies and others that are promoting that we must become slaves to a tyrannical government.
That we must give up our freedoms in favor of big daddy socialist dem government.--Tyr

[Gunny]

I agree its a slippery slope and if you start censoring, it takes on a life of its own in censory free speech and I believe Trump constantly tried to do this with the media and now some of his supporters who supported that and his vilification fo anyone who did not agree with him as a liar and should be censored, are now complaining about this current issue but suddenly worried about censorship.

So excuse me if I am having a problem with some peoples' sincerity and believe they are only concerned about getting their poins of view across and could give a crap about the larger picture.

That aside you would all agree if I screamed fire in a movie theatre and caused a panic that hurt or killed people and there was no fire that is not the kind of free speech we would want to protect and would in fact consider it criminal.

Likewise even in a freedom of speech country like the US, there is a limit to how far you can speak in public when it comes to saying things that incite violence or hatred. Its a fine line but it has been used. No one likes to see it used but it has been used.

Me personally the most famous American incident I can think of is the Skokie, Illinois march by neo Nazis through suburbs where holocaust survivors lived. It was deliberate provocation.

However the courts said they can march provided they limit what they say and do, and the police were there to protect. For me as a person from a family with holocaust surviving relatives it was obviously not appreciated. I know Jewish lawyers for the Civil Liberties Association were the ones arguing the neo Nazis should be able to march.

I agreed with that because the police were there to protect and had things gotten out of control they wo uld have shut it down but on the other hand freedom of expression was not unintentionally limited with the concern the same precedent shutting them down might be used to shut someone else down where the issues were not the same.

So it was a tough issue. The US legal system errs on the side of freedom of expression. Whether Trump's outbursts had he been re-elected gone on to try shut down certain media we will never know.

The US went through McArthy witch hunts which I believe had the similiar tone to Trump approaches to opinions other than his own right down his accusing people of not being patriotic.

Now I heard Trump vilify Fauci like many of you. I heard him recommend supposed medical treatments that were dangerous.

He was a role model. His comments may have exposed people to harm. Excuse me but I am concerned about that.

I am concerned because I read conspiracy theories and absolute medical falsehoods. Is there a line to be drawn?

The American Medical Association draws a line to try protect the public from quacks and fraudulent medical cures.

Do people need to be protected from dangerous comments that could injure or kill them or others if they follow them about Covid 19? Well its not an easy question.

Its one thing to clearly express a subjective opinion. Its another to present supposed corroborated facts that were never corroborated and not facts.

We have advertising laws preventing certain words from being used to mislead to protect the publiuc, so?

I am reluctant to censor people like you are but I do think the internet is full of out and out false statements as to Covid 19 that could be dangerous in helping spread the virus or in encouraging people to take false cures.

So I am not sure if a line needs to be drawn and where but my gut says as bad as censorship is, there have to be some limits and I think right now everyone is doing their best to balance free speech but be vigilant for dangerous and irresponsible statements that could harm people.

I think people are currently doing their best. Whether anything else must be done I can't say. If it has to be some sort of limitation it would have to be extremely precise, specific, limited and not set a precedent to be used on any situation other than the specific one it was made for. Easier said than done doing that.

Great topic. Very difficult issue.You can replace "Trump" with "the left/Democrats/MSM" and it would be a truer statement. Not because of partisanship either. Because of the amount of power and control each wield. The left/MSM/Big Tech are in collusion to control the National narrative. The OP is a perfect example. A shortcut message to the MSM/social media on what ought not be allowed.

I don't care who is doing it, it isn't okay. The end-user result where I sit says I don't believe any of them anymore, from any side. This mask/vaccine/lockdown. or not, has made it glaringly obvious that no one with any power over the people in this country can be trusted with it.

[revelarts]

Who gets to be the censors? We the public to start with of course on an individual basis. If it's a false medical cure than the American Medical Association and Surgeon General. If it is a subjective conspiracy theory, no one but us as individuals. Are you asking how do I know a cure is fake without being a doctor? Really? Think about it. If it is a non doctor prescribing a treatment like Trump I know because the source is not properly trained.

If it's a medical debate between doctors, that is why the American Medical Association steps in to decide what are conventionally recognized cures and that is why the FDA regulates use of drugs.

I defer to properly trained physicians.

I prefer the choice being to left to the patient.

With all the available information on the table.
people in dire straits medically choose for themselves everyday whether or not they'll try and experimental treatment. AMA FDA approved or not. Covid vaccines are a case in point.

I don't want the AMA involved in censorship. I want them involved in education.
Education of the public in the available information on whatever treatments are being used.
If they want to collectively crap on the ANY treatments that's fine. But they don't get to censor counter narratives. Especially from other doctors and researchers.

Anyone who listens to Trump's or Biden's medical recommendations alone without consulting the available evidence is asking for trouble.
You heard what Trump said and made your decision. Everyone else has a right to the same option.
the AMA and Big Pharma, and the Gov't aren't Big Brother or our Nannies.
It's great that you want to protect ignorant people from bad information. But Censorship is NOT the way to do it.
Not in a "free" country.

[Russ]

The US went through McArthy witch hunts which I believe had the similiar tone to Trump approaches to opinions other than his own right down his accusing people of not being patriotic.

It sounds like you have given this some thought, but I really disagree with you on a number of points.
First, it's funny you should bring up Joe McCarthy and his witch hunts, and try to connect it to Trump. McCarthy would accuse his opponents of being Communists and put them on public trial, and if anyone defended them, he would accuse that person of being a Communist and put them on trial. Sound like anyone you know? How about CNN, who accused Trump of multiple unproven bad things every day of of his 4 years in office? How about Dems like Nancy Pelosi, that impeached him twice for making a phone call to Ukraine and for making a speech that said "peacefully march" to the Capitol?



Now I heard Trump vilify Fauci like many of you. I heard him recommend supposed medical treatments that were dangerous.

He was a role model. His comments may have exposed people to harm. Excuse me but I am concerned about that.


Trump talked about the possibilities of hydroxychloroquine but didn't tell people to use it yet. At the time, a highly reputed French doctor was testing it and saying it looked promising. He later used remdesivir, which was just posted about as being a great treatment for Covid.



Its one thing to clearly express a subjective opinion. Its another to present supposed corroborated facts that were never corroborated and not facts.

If you ever watch CNN, you will see dozens or even hundreds of supposed corroborated facts that were never corroborated and not facts, every day. Every day. Do you feel the same suspicions about CNN? If not, then you're looking at the world through CNN-colored glasses.

[Mika-El]

Unfortunately, MSM and Social Media are censoring legitimate doctors and medical professionals who are not on board with the science behind the mandates. It's been proven over and over again that masks don't help.

Personally, I listen to my doctor's and we discuss the censorship of information. Seems as if anything Pharmaceuticals promote is the new science. Anything that doesn't make them money is immediately claimed as bogus.

Once again, put all the info out there and let the individual decide. Kinda hard to make informed decisions if some info is being censored.


Here is an explanation as to when the AMA intervenes with questionable treatments:

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/medically-ineffective-interventions

With the above referenced, the AMA (I am Canadian so we have the CMA and its pretty much identical) does step in to sanction doctors who advocate certain treatments they find questionable.

Here is the full code of ethics:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399321/

Here is a summary of the complex ethical considerations involved:

https://www.amboss.com/us/knowledge/Principles_of_medical_law_and_ethics/

I have myself represented professionals before disciplinary bodies including physicians BUT not in regards to questionable treatments.

I do think one of the big issues during Covid where the AMA got involved was:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89705 .

I so get why people think the AMA is in bed with pharmaceutical companies and/or can not be trusted but someone has to monitor the medical profession and here is why I will give you an example where a physician made statements about Covid 19 treatment that were not true. Because he is a physician, his patients trust him and are not in the position to be able to properly analyze what he said because they do not have the proper education. Patients get what we call "Lazarus Syndrome". They come to see their physicians because of their position as healers, people they trust and put extreme faith in to the point of suspending their own critical thought processes and simply relying on the physician...but what if what the physician said proves incorrect?, i.e., :

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/scicheck-idaho-doctor-makes-baseless-claims-about-safety-of-covid-19-vaccines/

So with the above reference in mind I think to throw out the info to the publuc and let people decide is with due respect naive. I would argue it exposes the vast majority of patients out in the public to a real danger of being unable to truly understand what they are being told and so overly relying on their physicians for advice or worse, non physicians, i.e., self appointed experts on the internet.

That sai, here in a nutshell is my argument for why we need some kind of regulation and the full commentary on it can be found at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7351412/ :

"Fear, anxiety and even paranoia can proliferate during a pandemic. Such conditions, even when subclinical, tend to be a product of personal and predispositional factors, as well as shared cultural influences, including religious, literary, film, and gaming, all of which can lead to emotional and less than rational responses. They can render people vulnerable to engage in implausible conspiracy theories about the causes of illness and governmental responses to it. They can also lead people to give credence to simplistic and unscientific misrepresentations about medications and devices which are claimed to prevent, treat or cure disease. In turn such vulnerability creates predatory opportunities for the unscrupulous."

Also please consider this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/16/as-coronavirus-spreads-around-the-world-so-too-do-the-quack-cures

I never thought I would live to see the day that a US President would tell people to insert disinfectant in their arm yet it happened:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177

Whether we like it our not people are vulnerable to quackery and we have to do something to protect the public.

I am not sure just allowing people to say what they want and hoping the public will figure it out on their own is realistic.

p.s. please stay away from Trump he is hazardous to your health