British Columbia's New Powers to Silence Dissenting Physicians | Hacker News Reader

British Columbia's New Powers to Silence Dissenting Physicians

orthomolecular.activehosted.com

24 pointstrinsic228 comments

Didn't know what Orthomolecular Medicine means. Sorry, but that adds a cup of scepticism to the text and requires more reference tracking that I can afford. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine

To add further skepticism, "Brian Peckford, former Premier of Newfoundland, disagrees. He is the last surviving member of the group that drew up Canada's Charter of Rights." is a massive red flag.

1. Chretien was much more instrumental to the authorship of the Charter, and is checks CBC as he's kind of old still alive.

2. That "qualification" is meaningless. It's trying to imply Canadian constitutionalism has original intent, which it doesn't (we use a living document philosophy). So a non-applicable appeal to authority.

Doesn't help that the one concrete example of "dissent" in the text itself is about covid vaccines, which afaik are pretty much a settled issue in terms of safety and efficacy.

Safety and efficacy for whom? Numerous European countries have already begun significantly dialing back the demographic groups to whom they are recommending booster shots, so I'd say it's looking pretty unsettled.

Base your statements in repeatable, peer reviewed scientific fact and no one gets hurt.

What about the case where new, largely untested therapies are being pushed on the public before they have even been around long enough for peer reviewed data on their long-term effects to become available, and the only peer-reviewed data on their short-term effects comes from trials run by the manufacturers themselves?

By "untested therapies," are you referring to a medical technology that's existed for several hundred years?

I had in mind PEG-coated-mRNA and adenovirus vaccines which cause the body's own cells to express a close analog to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antigen, a thoroughly novel approach which was rolled out to the general public roughly nine months after the very first tests were administered in humans, and in the case of mRNA vaccines more broadly, was described in articles as late as 2017 as potentially having problems with toxicity especially in repeat dosing.

You’re basically saying that we should not trust the internal combustion engine because Ford released a new model car.

A horrendously uninformed comparison. It's extremely tedious to still be reading this Pfizer/FDA copypasta at this point. It's more like if Ford wanted to release a car with some kind of completely new engine or propulsion type while having done almost no safety testing at all. And if, at the same time, they were telling you, "this is just like every other car we've ever made, what's the big deal?" it would be as good of a hint that they were hiding something as it turned out to be in the case of the mRNA vaccines.

Even in the case of traditional vaccines, it was generally expected pre-Covid that years of testing would be undergone before a rollout to the general public, so even putting aside the question of novelty, the more apt comparison would still be something like "Ford pushes out a new model car with a significant body redesign while doing a bare fraction of the usual crash safety tests."

We've been testing mRNA technology since the 90s, and mRNA vaccines since 2005. Hardly a "completely new [...] propulsion type".

It's telling all you can do is attack me personally.

Yep, in an extremely small handful of test subjects, and they were having huge problems with safety signals pretty much that whole time.

The mRNA vaccines are an abject failure, every jurisdiction which made heavy use of them has seen higher levels of excess deaths persist for far longer than would be expected after a pandemic runs its course.

“peer reviewed scientific fact”

What’s that, precisely?

Try reading each word slower. Sound it out if there’s too many letters.

Why would you want to disenfranchise sociology and psychology?

I wouldn’t, because both of those fields can follow the scientific method as well.

COVID broke Canada

I think the government have enough (just right) power thru public funding. Giving them extra power to mandate doctor what to do is not right.

Can you trust anything? This article is odd.

Would could possibly go wrong?

Canadian doctors are routinely killing people, through the MAID program. Hospital are underfunded, and Shortages of staff, and lack of MRI machines are killing people who still want to live. 9 hour wait times in emergency rooms, pretty common.

Why on earth this is flagged?

This argument is bad faith - there is a hugely important public health imperative for doctors not to peddle quackery. COVID disinformation led to a staggering loss of life, and no doctor should be permitted to participate.

What "disinformation which led to staggering loss of life" do you have in mind, specifically? The vast majority of high risk groups for SARS-CoV-2 were fully vaccinated very soon after vaccines were made available, so (assuming their protective benefits were actually all they have been cracked up to be) there couldn't have been some huge impact of "disinformation" there. There also couldn't have been a "staggering" additional loss of life in the less vaccinated lower risk groups because COVID wasn't a particularly lethal threat to them in the first place. And the vaccines had marginal-to-zero ability to reduce infection so any question of lost herd immunity is out the window. Is there something else I'm not thinking of that you have in mind?

Sure, but eventually the “public health imperative” demands they all peddle quackery. And your comment that “COVID disinformation led to a staggering loss of life” is disinformation itself.

But such laws make things worse. Now, when doctors claim something is safe, they can be dismissed with "they'd go to jail if they claimed otherwise".

"Why Did So Many Doctors Become Nazis?": https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/fernande...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com