Consequences for doctors and nurses spreading misinformation

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Which medical authorities is he compelled to agree with, because they disagree all over the board?

636 Epidemiologists Disagree With the CDC on This One Thing, Survey Shows

The CDC and WHO Disagree on This Major Face Mask Rule - Best Life

Opinion | Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?

My point was that the licensing board has the right to make standards that licensees are to adhere to, not what the standards are.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

My point was that the licensing board has the right to make standards that licensees are to adhere to, not what the standards are.

The wheels are already in motion to remove offending doctors, who do not agree with the prevailing orthodoxy.

"Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not," FSMB said. "They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health."

FSMB has not yet formally defined "misinformation" or "disinformation" in its policy, but the organization's ethics committee is studying the issues of physician misinformation and disinformation and plans to provide more guidance at a later date, an FSMB spokesperson said in an emailed statement to Becker's.

"However, we currently view misinformation as sharing or distributing verifiably false information," the spokesperson said. "We define disinformation as sharing or distributing information that the distributor knows is false."

Definitions are critical in law.

 

[Jimmy D]

The wheels are already in motion to remove offending doctors, who do not agree with the prevailing orthodoxy.

Where does it say that?

 

[Pommer]

Where does it say that?

“It is known”

 

[rambot]

The wheels are already in motion to remove offending doctors, who do not agree with the prevailing orthodoxy.

"Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not," FSMB said. "They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health."

FSMB has not yet formally defined "misinformation" or "disinformation" in its policy, but the organization's ethics committee is studying the issues of physician misinformation and disinformation and plans to provide more guidance at a later date, an FSMB spokesperson said in an emailed statement to Becker's.

"However, we currently view misinformation as sharing or distributing verifiably false information," the spokesperson said. "We define disinformation as sharing or distributing information that the distributor knows is false."

Definitions are critical in law.

Sounds great! Doctors getting punished for sharing verifiable false information sounds great! Parts of me think theysy do this with, you know, a lot of other illnesses.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Where does it say that?

Not sure why you responded without reading the sources that I have posted but here one is again (with the term "misinformation" undefined):

"FSMB, a nonprofit that represents all U.S. state medical boards, said any clinicians who create or spread vaccine misinformation or disinformation risk disciplinary action by state medical boards, including suspension or revocation of their medical license, according to a statement emailed to Becker's Hospital Review."

"FSMB has not yet formally defined "misinformation" or "disinformation" in its policy, but the organization's ethics committee is studying the issues of physician misinformation and disinformation and plans to provide more guidance at a later date, an FSMB spokesperson said in an emailed statement to Becker's.

"However, we currently view misinformation as sharing or distributing verifiably false information," the spokesperson said. "We define disinformation as sharing or distributing information that the distributor knows is false."

While FSMB has not formed a recommendation yet for the definitions of misinformation and disinformation, state and territorial medical boards may use various terms, such as "professional misconduct" or "ethics violation," in their own procedures to address concerns surrounding misinformation and disinformation, FSMB said."

Physicians who post COVID-19 vaccine misinformation may lose license, medical panel says 

Minnesota state senator says he is being investigated by Board of Medical Practice over COVID-19 comments | MinnPost

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Sounds great! Doctors getting punished for sharing verifiable false information sounds great! Parts of me think theysy do this with, you know, a lot of other illnesses.

Yes, but there has to BE verification that what the doctor says is indeed false. Asking questions, noting discrepancies, reporting outcomes - all not verifiably false information.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not sure why you responded without reading the sources that I have posted but here one is again (with the term "misinformation" undefined):

I did read your sources, which is why I asked.

I saw this… “However, we currently view misinformation as sharing or distributing verifiably false information," the spokesperson said. "We define disinformation as sharing or distributing information that the distributor knows is false."

Which would be entirely appropriate. Disagreeing with “prevailing orthodoxies” is one thing, knowingly spreading potentially harmful and demonstrably false information is another.

Do you think medical professionals should be allowed free reign to spread verifiably false health information?

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes, but there has to BE verification that what the doctor says is indeed false. Asking questions, noting discrepancies, reporting outcomes - all not verifiably false information.

Are you a member of the a State Medical Board? If not you don’t really get to say what “has” to happen.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Are you a member of the a State Medical Board? If not you don’t really get to say what “has” to happen.

He is a citizen of the country, no? They work for him.

 

[rambot]

Yes, but there has to BE verification that what the doctor says is indeed false. Asking questions, noting discrepancies, reporting outcomes - all not verifiably false information.

Here's the problem. Discrepancies and outliers are now being INSINUATED as important.
Talking about their existence while giving proper context would have an appropriate response instead of an insidious ellipses which is what those videos do because it gives them money and views.


US society and the scientific method don't really coexist very well because of competing needs and expectations.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I did read your sources, which is why I asked.

I saw this… “However, we currently view misinformation as sharing or distributing verifiably false information," the spokesperson said. "We define disinformation as sharing or distributing information that the distributor knows is false."

Which would be entirely appropriate. Disagreeing with “prevailing orthodoxies” is one thing, knowingly spreading potentially harmful and demonstrably false information is another.

Do you think medical professionals should be allowed free reign to spread verifiably false health information?

Sure. "Knowingly" (so with intent) spreading "verifiably false" information.

But that isn't what is being silenced everywhere. It is any discussion at all that varies with the current narrative. Doctors and nurses have been fired all over for speaking up.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

95% of Congress gone, just like that! No mainstream news would be good news too.

Yes , if they're lying about COVID-19 being no big deal. They should be fired .

 

[whatbogsends]

Yes , if they're lying about COVID-19 being no big deal. They should be fired .

The treatment of Covid isn't settled science by any stretch of the imagination. Requiring doctors to go lock-step with the CDC isn't going to produce medical innovation which improves treatment for the disease.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The treatment of Covid isn't settled science by any stretch of the imagination. Requiring doctors to go lock-step with the CDC isn't going to produce medical innovation which improves treatment for the disease.

Not even the 'data' is settled science.