@4channel wrote:
I wouldn't put a lot of faith in TGA at all times.
You have no evidence to make such a statement. However, I realise that you are anti-establishment and that such a statement is in keeping with that perspective.
I would ask you to explain why you are prepared to glorify or hold up as deserving of the utmost respect such wayward groups as Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (oh, for goodness' sake, there is absolutely no necessity for a conservative group of doctors to have whacky ideas such as lack of gun control saving lives, or to advocate for fewer legal penalties if they (as doctors) make mistakes that cost lives or cause irreparable injury, or to oppose indoor smoking bans; these ideas are actually counter to sound theological principles and to the valueing of human life), or America's Frontline Doctors (politically-motivated, again conservative, and again I question why there are whackadoodle conservative groups so determined to lie rather than conservative groups reaching out with truth and accurate data), and Dr Peter McCullough (once a respected cardiologist, now an advocate for medical interventions that have been shown to be not effective.
That is, I'd ask you to explain why you give respectful treatment to such groups and individuals, citing their qualifications as medically qualified people as giving what they say gravitas, while you disrespect the TGA and ATAGI and the FDA and practically any qualified practising doctor/biologist/biochemist/pathologist/other health professional who does not follow the Simone Gold / James L. Doenges line, or who accepts data from large-scale double-blind randomised clinical trials rather than what is asserted, without evidence, to work against COVID-19. Medical qualifications seem on the one hand to be laudable for those whose views you share, but unworthy of consideration for those whose views you do not share.
Belief approach by those who follow the views of COVID-19 dissenters:
| | In respect of Dr Peter McCullough, AAPS, AFD, etc. | In respect of most doctors and health care professionals, TGA, ATAGI, FDA, etc. |
| Medical qualifications | Cause to respect their opinions | Not cause to respect their opinions |
| Involved in developing mRNA vaccines | Cause to respect his/their opinions | Not cause to respect their opinions |
| Involved in actually, literally, treating COVID-19 patients | n/a | Not cause to respect their opinions |
| Political ideology | Irrelevant | Relevant - must be in league with deceptive forces |
| Motives for speaking publicly | Courageous, out to save the world | Part of the whole "mainstream media" global deception, not courageous |
Do you not see the two opposing ideas here?
And...
Another belief approach by those who follow the views of COVID-19 dissenters:
| | In respect of treatments or experiments by Dr Peter McCullough, AAPS, AFD, etc. | In respect of treatments (new and emerging) used by treating health care professions approved by TGA, FDA, etc. |
| Proposed medical treatments must go through rigorous tests to see if safety and efficacy data are encouraging for doses sufficient to kill SARS-CoV-2 or protect against severe disease/death/hospitalisation | No, not for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and so on - just use them! It's a pandemic! We can't wait for clinical trials; it's too urgent a situation! | Yes, absolutely for vaccines. "Untried", "untested", "experiment". Admittedly it's a pandemic, but we have to wait for... not only stage 3 clinical trials (because they've been done) but for... much much more than that, because it's ... not that urgent a situation? |
| Prior use of a medication at doses proved safe for various other conditions justifies its use off-script (for COVID-19) at doses as deemed "Meh, let's try this" by any doctor. | Yes, that's right. | n/a |
| Quotations and statistics and references to studies don't have to be properly sourced (or read in context). | That's right. If Dr Peter McCullough said it, it's right. | No. Where's the evidence? Show me the link. Don't believe that study anyway. |
| Studies not yet peer-reviewed can/can't be used. | Yes, if it supports the views of these experts. | No. It's not peer-reviewed. It's just a pre-print. It can be ignored. |
| References to rebuttals of articles and corrections of articles can/can't be used in support. | Not if it's against the views of these experts. Just focus on the original bit that seemed to support the views of these experts. | Yes if the correction seems to say something negative about the mainstream experts' views. |
| Approval in place to administer certain drugs under clinical conditions by doctors | Not good enough. Give full emergency use authorisation even if the data isn't there to support it. | Such drugs are not forbidden; they can still be used in said clinical trials in severely ill patients where approved treatments have failed. |
You know, the main reason why Dr Peter McCullough et al are not satisfied by the current approvals to continue to use their suggested treatments in controlled trials may well be that they would be held to account for experimenting on patients if they ignored approved treatments and their various preferred medical interventions didn't work. This could be about hubris for some of those doctors, i.e. medical hubris that doesn't want to be legally liable for their treatment regimes.
If that is true, it's - at least for some - about doctors who want to go rogue and not have to answer to the families of those who died because of it, or to any legal system, or to any judge who can impose compensatory measures.
I do not claim that this is proven, nor do I think that every healthcare professional who is anti-vaccination or spreading misinformation about vaccines and about COVID-19 has the same motives. Some, no doubt, genuinely care about patients and believe what they are sharing.
