How low can they go?

[Polymath257]

Lol. Here you go accusing again.

Whats a low level Dr?
Are the Dr's in question low level or not?
Show your evidence of how you know about the Dr's.

Well, one way to tell a higher level doctor is to see who writes the textbooks used for educating new doctors. Look at who other doctors look up to for their views.

or are they hacks that nobody else ever refers to? or refers to negatively when they do?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Several independent professional organizations across the world all agreeing to lie in the same way for political reasons? That's not going to happen. Human nature shows otherwise.

This is the insanity of conspiracy theories.

Depends on if it's truly independent or if it's affiliated via "connections".

 

[Heyo]

"connections".

These?

 

[Polymath257]

Depends on if it's truly independent or if it's affiliated via "connections".

Connections strong enough to induce professionals from across the world to lie?

Hardly likely.

 

[Truth in love]

Again, a meta analysis of many studies including this one. Proved the exact opposite.

Meta analysis trumps one research paper every time.

No, not when there is clear that politics and money not actual evidence is in play.

 

[Truth in love]

Lol. The shots were free for everyone in the US that wanted one. No cost, no insurance, nothing needed but show to show up for it.

Certainly it wasn't about money.

Truly you are that ignorant about federal regulations and big pharma?

 

[Truth in love]

You are stuck in a distrustful hole, and I can't help you out of it. Only you can by stopping the digging.

If you don't want to believe the science that's your game. Don't expect the government or doctors to follow false info, and don't expect Drs peddling false info to not get into trouble.

I love science that is why I have issues with what the government did.

 

[Truth in love]

Also, medrxiv.org is not a peer reviewed study platform, which means the study author paid to put it there. (It says so right at the top of the first study page).

Peer review is one of the Gold Standard models of research, without it the research is fallible at best.

Peer review has been shown to be very much a poor guard in many cases. More Computer-Generated Nonsense Papers Pulled From Science Journals

Its not worthless, but its far from the high standard it pretends to be.

 

[Polymath257]

Peer review has been shown to be very much a poor guard in many cases. More Computer-Generated Nonsense Papers Pulled From Science Journals

Its not worthless, but its far from the high standard it pretends to be.

Do you have a better alternative?

 

[Truth in love]

A bureaucrat that is, of course, a physician themselves. Actually, a board of such physicians that determine what sorts of treatments are NOT effective and judge doctors based on that.

So, yes, at this level, I *do* want bureaucrats that are experts making decisions on what treatments should NOT be done. Among those that actually work, the private care physician is free to choose.

And, once again, this is nothing new.

Truthfully, this is far better than some bureaucrat that is NOT a doctor deciding what treatments I cannot get because they work for the insurance company. Having an oversight board of physicians to judge physicians seems like the right way to go.

The decision should be made by the patient and doctor not some board.

 

[Truth in love]

Except that they were NOT shown to work well with covid. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.

Studies were done and the effectiveness was disproved. So it would be malpractice for a physician to prescribe them now for covid.

That would be misinformation. Many studies including the small sample one in France showed a lot of help.

Now we have some folks who like to manipulate things I have no doubt one could create a study to minimize benefits, but that's hardly honest or real science .

 

[Truth in love]

The doctors in question are NOT honoring their oaths. They are violating them.

And this is *precisely* why we need medical boards staffed by expert physicians to determine appropriate treatment(s) and recommend penalties when a doctor violates best practices.

No putting a patient a head of politics is what the oath should compel.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, not when there is clear that politics and money not actual evidence is in play.

A meta-analysis is evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Peer review has been shown to be very much a poor guard in many cases. More Computer-Generated Nonsense Papers Pulled From Science Journals

Its not worthless, but its far from the high standard it pretends to be.

It's definitely a lot better than just any random person posting crap on the internet.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That would be misinformation. Many studies including the small sample one in France showed a lot of help.

Now we have some folks who like to manipulate things I have no doubt one could create a study to minimize benefits, but that's hardly honest or real science .

Says the person who posted a non-peer reviewed paper that has been retracted.

 

[Truth in love]

Do you have a better alternative?

Personally I like to find research (often peer reviewed) where the person has no political or financial ties to the outcome or where it run counter to those ties. I don't care how many people peer reviewed the Hershey's funded study that chocolate is healthy. That bias is pretty clear.

That by law Big pharma could not get emergency authorization for the vaccines if and approved medication was working. Phizer and others had billions of reasons to push for no cheap drug to work. (Pfizer revenue and profits soar on its Covid vaccine business - CNN).

So the doctors running around trying to save lives and says "hey this worked well" I trust a lot more than those who are in bed with those who stand to make billions of a drug not being allowed to be used.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No putting a patient a head of politics is what the oath should compel.

That's exactly what this does, so you shouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Polymath257]

The decision should be made by the patient and doctor not some board.

That depends on the standing of the doctor. If they are committing malpractice, then it IS the decision of a board to determine that.

That would be misinformation. Many studies including the small sample one in France showed a lot of help.

Now we have some folks who like to manipulate things I have no doubt one could create a study to minimize benefits, but that's hardly honest or real science .

Small studies are poor. You need larger studies for statistical relevancy. And, given the numbers involved in covid, such should be easily possible.

The only ones trying to manipulate this are the politicians trying to get votes by denying the seriousness of the disease.

No putting a patient a head of politics is what the oath should compel.

Agreed. And the only reason to use ivermectin for covid is politics. Any doctor that does this is automatically guilty of malpractice.

 

[Polymath257]

So the doctors running around trying to save lives and says "hey this worked well" I trust a lot more than those who are in bed with those who stand to make billions of a drug not being allowed to be used.

I don't. They are snake oil salesmen trying to get a buck in a charged political climate. They saw an opportunity and are trying to sell it.

 

[The Hammer]

No, not when there is clear that politics and money not actual evidence is in play.

Truly you are that ignorant about federal regulations and big pharma?

I love science that is why I have issues with what the government did.

Peer review has been shown to be very much a poor guard in many cases. More Computer-Generated Nonsense Papers Pulled From Science Journals

Its not worthless, but its far from the high standard it pretends to be.

Okie dokie