It's surprising and stupid.
>There's already a litany of incentives inherent to the modern medical workplace that ever so slightly tug doctors toward goals other than what is best for the customer,
Like what?
Like drug companies spending millions wining and dining doctors for them to recommend their products.
I'm sure financially using brand drugs over a genetic, for example, could be more costly for the patient but that may not be danger medicially
I think it probably is irrational, but I don't think there's any way to combat such biases. It's just how humans as social species are - we're less likely to trust someone who doesn't trust our views or opinions.
During COVID doctors had their licenses to practice revoked if they weren't on board with public health policies (set by people who were not doctors).
In just one example of many, this doctor [1] had his license revoked and the tribunal specifically stated that he was expected to (ab)use his patient's trust to get them to comply with government policies, even though he disagreed with them on health grounds.
Some people either didn't realize this, or agreed with the policy of forcing doctor's hands, and so have continued to trust. But I'd argue that if you knew about this policy, it was 100% irrational to trust what doctors told you on anything COVID related. The whole basis of trust is the assumption the doctor is doing what's best for you as an individual, but a doctor cannot do that if the advice they think is correct for your individual case is illegal to give you.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/patrick-phillips-trib...
Interference with testing of an infant, who was not his patient, for COVID-19;
Online disclosure of college investigative materials;
Failure to cooperate with the college's investigation; and
Failure to comply with an interim order imposed by the college.
> "As a physician, the information you communicate is trusted by many."
People don't trust us but they trust you, so we're going to make you into our handpuppets.
> "Online disclosure of a private letter received from an associate medical officer of health;"
Don't tell anyone we're using you this way, otherwise they'd stop trusting you too.
> "We are dismayed by the deliberate steps you took to undermine the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Your communications to colleagues, patients and your thousands of followers on social media regarding COVID-19 and public health response measures were careless, often offensive and at times, possibly harmful."
Offending the government is the primary thing listed here; they aren't even sure he caused harm! The other charges are similar: he disagreed with the government on COVID, he revealed publicly that the government was threatening him, he didn't cooperate with the people who were threatening him, he "deterred the public from complying" and so on. Then something about an infant i.e. someone too young for an invasive COVID test to have value (so he was probably right to interfere with it).
Where was that? Also why would a conspiracy forbid people to talk about something when conspiracies often use evidence that something is trying to be hidden to prove their point
> Also why would a conspiracy forbid people to talk about something
It's not a conspiracy if there's no attempt to keep it secret, is it?
The fact that some conspiracies are sometimes detected due to mistakes or whistleblowers doesn't mean their attempts at secrecy were useless. Presumably there are conspiracies that are never detected, but even if they are, secrecy and intimidation tactics still have value to the conspirators. Look at this very thread: it's full of people baffled that anyone might not trust their doctor. But if doctors are being forced to toe the line and not reveal that they're being so forced, then you aren't trusting a doctor, you're trusting someone in the licensing authority or public health agencies - very different.