SM Study Reveals 52 Doctors Spread Covid-19 Misinformation to Millions in US

Had to scroll through quite a few paragraphs to find the actual truth claims in question, finally made it to these:

> Claiming vaccines were unsafe or ineffective

True. You can argue they were a net benefit to certain at-risk demographics but the idea that they were safe, necessary, or beneficial to give en masse to adolescents with prior exposure is just laughable.

> Promoting unapproved medications to prevent and treat COVID-19

So, not even really a claim that outright false misinformation was spread here, just that they did not slavishly follow the FDA.

> Challenging the effectiveness of wearing masks

We're not even allowed to challenge this, when the Bangladesh study that even mask advocates like to point to showed a reduction in community transmission of something like 10%, with "no effect" within the 95% CI?

> Conspiracy theories about the pandemic.

Everyone with their head not shoved under three feet of sand knows at this point that this thing came from a lab. By definition, they all believe in a "conspiracy theory about the pandemic," since an effective and ongoing conspiracy to conceal its origins must be carried out as we speak.

As expected, one of the people included as a prolific misinformer is Vinay Prasad, a doctor, MPH, professor of epidemiology at UCSF, and a highly cited and respected medical professional.

The bizarre take of this appeal-to-authority (ironically published by two authors with BS degrees and one MPH) is that researchers with contrarian opinions should be labeled as misinformers regardless of reasoning. Dr. Prasad's reasoning for all of this information is public record. People willfully choose not to engage with it.

Similarly, Jayanta Bhattacharya appears quoted as a misinformer. Dr. Bhattacharya is one of the most cited professors in his fields of our lifetime, a professor of medicine, economics, and health policy who has made significant contributions to each domain, and even outside of his specialties.

The people claiming that their analysis is misinformation have no trouble using their work prior to the pandemic. Lumping them in with people who were prescriptively shilling for ivermectin at the beginning of the pandemic is fundamentally dishonest. But there's been very little about the discourse around public health that's been good faith. At this point we know that includes information that the authors use to determine accuracy in this paper, like the efficacy of cloth masking.

Doctors spreading misinformation in a pandemic have clearly violated their oath but what concerns me more is the lack of accountability from licensing bodies.

It would do a lot to restore people's faith in the medical field if bad actors lost their license. The total lack of accountability undermines the integrity of the medical profession and the public's trust.

It's insane to me that a doctor who tells their patients that their illness is caused by demon sperm and that medications are made from alien DNA continues to be allowed to practice medicine in the US. What does it take for a doctor to lose their license at this point?

"right-wing group that promoted unproven COVID-19 treatments and whose founder was arrested during the January 6 riot on the US Capitol."

"Misinformation" just means "any information that contradicts something the CDC said at one time", which is _insane_, considering the CDC's guidance and the efficacy of these mRNA shots changes weekly. It's shameful to think that a diversity of viewpoints or interpretations of data, and willingness to change one's viewpoint based on new data is considered "misinformation" by a political, government agency. That is not scientific in the slightest. Science is a _process of discovery_, not a Soviet diktat from the highest-paid bureacrat and the corporations that pay him.

We've reached a dark time in American history where presenting a different point of view gets you labeled as a crank. Yes, there are cranks out there, but I think most of them will actually engage with the data and are frankly more reliable than a good Soviet doctor whose rationale for treatment is "the Commisariat this week said so".