• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

U.K. Doctors Could Soon Face Action over "Misleading" Social Media Posts

74x12

74x12

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
People that are willing to put their ideas to the test. I have not seen a science denier that is not a coward when it comes to their beliefs.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that's what they want? They just want to test all the alternative theories doctors come up with? If so that would be very benevolent.

Or do they just want to silence people who contradict them?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
74x12 said:
Are you sure that's what they want? They just want to test all the alternative theories doctors come up with? If so that would be very benevolent.

Or do they just want to silence people who contradict them?
Click to expand...
If people have alternative ideas testing them is fine. It is a good idea. But from what I have seen, when their ideas are refuted they do not accept the refutations, or they simply avoid testing.

One thing one should never do is to advocate cures that have not been confirmed.
 
SomeRandom

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Debater Slayer said:
Doctors who post medical misinformation may soon be penalized by new U.K. guidelines for online content:



Doctors could soon face action over ‘misleading’ social media posts

It looks like not even Elon Musk's billions will be able to save medical misinformation from being scrutinized by European governments and medical authorities.

I approve. This is a great step to counter online misinformation from irresponsible doctors who could put lives at risk, which is basically just a very public form of malpractice. I think the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the importance of such measures.
Click to expand...
Honestly?
I sort of thought that was a thing now.
Like many of my friends and family work in various medical fields and they dare not make a post about about even Panadol for fear of potential reprisals.
(Lots of posts of them having drunken escapades though lol)
 
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
There are reliable methods for doing this. When one is not following those reliable methods one has a duty to say so to others.

I know it is much more comfortable to believe lies when someone that supposedly has authority says them. The UK is only making sure that doctors do not abuse their authority.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. There's multiple areas of medical practice that are highly debated. If one doctor recommended a carnivore diet and another only plants for example, the powers that be could get rid the one who doesn't promote what they want promoted. They can weed out doctors that don't recommend high priced medicine but herbal alternatives. They could literally control the market for drugs by banning the doctor prescribing of the ones that they don't profit from.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Wildswanderer said:
Nonsense. There's multiple areas of medical practice that are highly debated. If one doctor recommended a carnivore diet and another only plants for example, the powers that be could get rid the one who doesn't promote what they want promoted. They can weed out doctors that don't recommend high priced medicine but herbal alternatives. They could literally control the market for drugs by banning the doctor prescribing of the ones that they don't profit from.
Click to expand...
And highly debated ideas would not be under this restriction, though there could still be a requirement of ideas being supported by proper sources. When it came to the Covid19 pandemic the two sides were clear. One was supported by evidence and the other went out of their way to deny the evidence. That is what would be restricted.
 
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
And highly debated ideas would not be under this restriction, though there could still be a requirement of ideas being supported by proper sources. When it came to the Covid19 pandemic the two sides were clear. One was supported by evidence and the other went out of their way to deny the evidence. That is what would be restricted.
Click to expand...
No, it is highly debatable what the best methods were to deal with covid, but one side was banned from talking about it on certain platforms.
 
Guitar's Cry

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Wildswanderer said:
Nonsense. There's multiple areas of medical practice that are highly debated. If one doctor recommended a carnivore diet and another only plants for example, the powers that be could get rid the one who doesn't promote what they want promoted. They can weed out doctors that don't recommend high priced medicine but herbal alternatives. They could literally control the market for drugs by banning the doctor prescribing of the ones that they don't profit from.
Click to expand...

If we take the wording at face value, they are weeding out doctors who are "dishonest and untrustworthy, do not make clear the limits of their knowledge [and] do not make reasonable checks to make sure any information given is not misleading."
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Guitar's Cry said:
If we take the wording at face value, they are weeding out doctors who are "dishonest and untrustworthy, do not make clear the limits of their knowledge [and] do not make reasonable checks to make sure any information given is not misleading."
Click to expand...
So no flashlights up the butt or horse dewormer?:(
 
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, it really was not. You can't count those that did not have valid evidence. And if you do not understand the concept of evidence it is rather easy to understand.
Click to expand...
The whole covid information methodology was a perfect example of inconvenient information being suppressed and a certain narrative being pushed to the forefront.
 
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Guitar's Cry said:
If we take the wording at face value, they are weeding out doctors who are "dishonest and untrustworthy, do not make clear the limits of their knowledge [and] do not make reasonable checks to make sure any information given is not misleading."
Click to expand...
And who gets to decide what is dishonest and untrustworthy?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Wildswanderer said:
The whole covid information methodology was a perfect example of inconvenient information being suppressed and a certain narrative being pushed to the forefront.
Click to expand...
Really? And you have evidence of this. Or are you just misinterpreting the way that the science changed as we learned more and more? The fact is that the science deniers were almost always wrong and that the science behind how to deal with this was improved over time. That is how science works by the way. It never says "this is absolutely right". What it says is "the evidence tells us that this is the best way to deal with this problem now".
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Wildswanderer said:
Yeah but it's very hard to get to. Because it's buried. The thosands who have negative side effects from the vaccines were essentially silenced.
Click to expand...
Uh huh:rolleyes: Endless clinical trails "poof!!" Vanished.

And no, you do not understand about supposed negative side effects. I am pretty sure that your error has been explained to you in the past so I will not try to do so again.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Twilight Hue said:
And just who is it that makes those determinations?
Click to expand...
The General Medical Council, i.e. the professional body that regulates doctors in the UK.

Details of their role are given at this link: https://www.gmc-uk.org/about/what-we-do-and-why/our-mandate

This explains they have a statutory role, under the provisions of the 1983 Medical Act.

The GMC is the body responsible for upholding professional standards and can that strike off a doctor for malpractice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top