We Have a Way Bigger Problem Than “Disinformation”

This article was originally published here. My Jewish father was an old country lawyer who believed deeply in fairness and justice for all living people, so I was curious what he thought about the Nazis. It was spring of 1977, and the American Nazi Party had announced their intention to hold a July 4th rally in the town of Skokie, a predominantly Jewish community in Illinois. Not surprisingly, the town of Skokie had sought an injunction to ban the rally, and the Nazis had, ironically, sought the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to fight the injunction. The subject at the family dinner table was this: Should the American Civil Liberties Union protect the free-speech rights of Nazis? Remember, we’re of Jewish heritage, so it’s hard to look at the philosophical issues involved objectively because there’s so much emotion attached to the subject matter. Nonetheless, I’ll never forget my father’s response: “They have to defend them,” he said of the ACLU’s decision to fight the ban on behalf of the Nazi Party. “Free speech isn’t just for people you agree with.” It isn’t. Free speech is about vigorously defending the rights of people with whom you disagree. “Censorship almost always creates more damage than whatever’s being censored would’ve caused,” my father told me. Right now, the country is bitterly and tragically divided over the challenges associated with COVID. I want to suggest that we’re facing a bigger challenge — equally terrifying, but one on which we can and should be united: the quietly emerging challenges to our free speech. There’s a below-the-radar increase in censorship and “de-platforming” taking place right now, and it’s making disturbing inroads into our First Amendment rights. Exhibit A: Last month, Dr. Joseph Mercola — one of the most influential voices in integrative medicine and the owner of the number one natural health website in the world — felt he had no choice but to remove over 20 years of content from his website, content that I and many other people have found immensely valuable over the past two decades. Among other things, Dr. Mercola was known for exposing his readers to brilliant but renegade thinkers like Kilmer McCully, M.D., the professor who was basically de-platformed out of his lab at Harvard for advocating the view that homocysteine was as serious a risk factor for coronary heart disease as cholesterol, a piece of “disinformation” that did not sit well with the establishment. Postscript: Dr. McCully was welcomed back to Harvard after about two decades of subsequent research essentially proved he was right all along.1 But I digress. Dr. Mercola explained why he’s taking down the content on his site in a disturbing video on YouTube,2 the crux of which is that he could no longer endure the backlash (some might say persecution) he was enduring for publishing information that questioned conventional narratives on nutrition and health — information that has been come to be branded “disinformation”. By backlash, I’m talking threats on his life. He believes this is probably due to a New York Times hatchet piece — and I don’t use that term lightly — that labeled him number one on its list of top “disseminators of disinformation” on health-related issues. If you’d like an example of the dangerous misinformation that brought death threats to members of the Mercola organization, take a look at one of the FDA’s warning letters to Dr. Mercola, which states that he is illegally selling products — specifically vitamin C, vitamin D and quercetin — intended to “mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19”.3 Never mind a recent published paper entitled “Vitamin D Insufficiency May Account for Almost Nine of Ten COVID-19 Deaths: Time to Act”4 or that, according to Medscape, vitamin D deficiency quadruples the death rate from COVID.5 Apparently, the FDA and the NY Times have decided that Joe Mercola is guilty of what’s turning out to be the defining sin of the 21st century: Disinformation. I wonder if that word scares you as much as it does me. See, I was a kid during the cold war, and one of the things we used to read about was how the Soviet Union would send dissidents to “re-education” camps. They had to be “re-educated” because they were filled with all sorts of subversive ideas (like communism was terrible) and had to be “set straight” and rehabilitated before they could be allowed to re-enter society. Re-education? Disinformation? It sounds like North Korea to me. The entire concept should be chilling to any American, and I don’t care where you stand on vaccination — or on anything else! Look, I know there are exceptions to the free speech rule — my father always used to say that free speech doesn’t include the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre — but we’re not talking about those one-off cases. We’re talking about something much, much more insidious. Who Decides What’s Disinformation? The minute y

We Have a Way Bigger Problem Than “Disinformation”

This article was originally published here.

My Jewish father was an old country lawyer who believed deeply in fairness and justice for all living people, so I was curious what he thought about the Nazis.

It was spring of 1977, and the American Nazi Party had announced their intention to hold a July 4th rally in the town of Skokie, a predominantly Jewish community in Illinois. Not surprisingly, the town of Skokie had sought an injunction to ban the rally, and the Nazis had, ironically, sought the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to fight the injunction.

The subject at the family dinner table was this: Should the American Civil Liberties Union protect the free-speech rights of Nazis? Remember, we’re of Jewish heritage, so it’s hard to look at the philosophical issues involved objectively because there’s so much emotion attached to the subject matter. Nonetheless, I’ll never forget my father’s response:

“They have to defend them,” he said of the ACLU’s decision to fight the ban on behalf of the Nazi Party. “Free speech isn’t just for people you agree with.”

It isn’t. Free speech is about vigorously defending the rights of people with whom you disagree.

“Censorship almost always creates more damage than whatever’s being censored would’ve caused,” my father told me.

Right now, the country is bitterly and tragically divided over the challenges associated with COVID. I want to suggest that we’re facing a bigger challenge — equally terrifying, but one on which we can and should be united: the quietly emerging challenges to our free speech. There’s a below-the-radar increase in censorship and “de-platforming” taking place right now, and it’s making disturbing inroads into our First Amendment rights.

Exhibit A: Last month, Dr. Joseph Mercola — one of the most influential voices in integrative medicine and the owner of the number one natural health website in the world — felt he had no choice but to remove over 20 years of content from his website, content that I and many other people have found immensely valuable over the past two decades.

Among other things, Dr. Mercola was known for exposing his readers to brilliant but renegade thinkers like Kilmer McCully, M.D., the professor who was basically de-platformed out of his lab at Harvard for advocating the view that homocysteine was as serious a risk factor for coronary heart disease as cholesterol, a piece of “disinformation” that did not sit well with the establishment.

Postscript: Dr. McCully was welcomed back to Harvard after about two decades of subsequent research essentially proved he was right all along.1 But I digress.

Dr. Mercola explained why he’s taking down the content on his site in a disturbing video on YouTube,2 the crux of which is that he could no longer endure the backlash (some might say persecution) he was enduring for publishing information that questioned conventional narratives on nutrition and health — information that has been come to be branded “disinformation”.

By backlash, I’m talking threats on his life. He believes this is probably due to a New York Times hatchet piece — and I don’t use that term lightly — that labeled him number one on its list of top “disseminators of disinformation” on health-related issues.

If you’d like an example of the dangerous misinformation that brought death threats to members of the Mercola organization, take a look at one of the FDA’s warning letters to Dr. Mercola, which states that he is illegally selling products — specifically vitamin C, vitamin D and quercetin — intended to “mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19”.3

Never mind a recent published paper entitled “Vitamin D Insufficiency May Account for Almost Nine of Ten COVID-19 Deaths: Time to Act”4 or that, according to Medscape, vitamin D deficiency quadruples the death rate from COVID.5

Apparently, the FDA and the NY Times have decided that Joe Mercola is guilty of what’s turning out to be the defining sin of the 21st century: Disinformation. I wonder if that word scares you as much as it does me.

See, I was a kid during the cold war, and one of the things we used to read about was how the Soviet Union would send dissidents to “re-education” camps. They had to be “re-educated” because they were filled with all sorts of subversive ideas (like communism was terrible) and had to be “set straight” and rehabilitated before they could be allowed to re-enter society.

Re-education? Disinformation? It sounds like North Korea to me. The entire concept should be chilling to any American, and I don’t care where you stand on vaccination — or on anything else!

Look, I know there are exceptions to the free speech rule — my father always used to say that free speech doesn’t include the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre — but we’re not talking about those one-off cases. We’re talking about something much, much more insidious.

Who Decides What’s Disinformation?

The minute you accept the notion of “disinformation” you automatically buy into the notion that there’s one truth. (In fact, if you google “opposite of disinformation,” the first word that appears is “truth,” followed by “facts”).

Now, you might say, “What’s wrong with that?” But the problem is, facts don’t “speak for themselves.” Facts are impartial, and always have to be interpreted. Otherwise, they’re just numbers without context — they have to be woven into a narrative. And as we all know, it’s possible for intelligent people, acting in good faith, to look at the exact same facts and come up with very different narratives.

As the Nobel-prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, Ph.D., has taught us, we rarely if ever make decisions based on facts and data.6 Our decisions, conclusions and interpretations are subject to cognitive distortions such as confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and availability bias. It’s been well-documented that people see what they expect to see — if you doubt it, look at the results of the classic “invisible gorilla” experiment, which you can actually watch on YouTube.7

The fact that there are multiple “readings” of the same data, multiple perspectives and interpretations of facts may be confusing, but is ultimately a good thing. And guess what? I want to be able to hear all those interpretations. And so should you. Be suspicious — and frightened — when the powers that be don’t want you to hear them.

When you buy into the notion that there is one clear-cut truth in science, health, and medicine, without nuance, shading, or consideration of alternate perspectives — you have to answer a very uncomfortable question: Who decides what the “truth” is going to be? And … for how long it’s going to be “true”?

I’d like anyone reading this who is familiar with the history of science and has read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions8 to tell me that they think that what we now think is absolutely true about the Coronavirus — or any other health issue, for that matter — is likely to remain “absolutely true” 100 years from now.

Few things in health and medicine pass that test. Remember, as recently as 50 years ago, we thought it was “absolutely true” that low-fat diets prevented obesity and heart disease. To say otherwise was to be spreading disinformation. You remember how well that worked out.

Cholesterol “Disinformation?”

I know this all to be true from personal experience. For the past decade or so, I’ve been making the case that cholesterol does not cause heart disease, that too many people are on statin drugs unnecessarily, that saturated fat does not clog arteries, and that our myopic focus on an outdated HDL-LDL lab test is causing us to take our eye off the ball when it comes to doing what we can actually do to prevent heart disease.

When cardiologist Steven Sinatra, M.D., and I originally appeared on The Dr. Oz Show, a committee of doctors wrote in saying we should be banned from television. (“Cancel culture” hadn’t come into vogue yet, but that’s what they were asking for!)

I appeared — with a dozen smart, credentialed people, including professors from places like Harvard Medical School — in a documentary9 produced by the Australian Broadcasting Company and hosted by a television journalist with a Ph.D. from Columbia Journalism School that reasonably questioned the conventional wisdom of cholesterol and statin drugs.

There was a coordinated campaign in Australia to remove the video from YouTube — a campaign that was briefly successful. A PR firm planted headlines in the local papers saying essentially that “31,000 people would die” if they followed the disinformation in the documentary. We were essentially cancelled and de-platformed.

And when Dr. Timothy Noakes — one of the most respected medical researchers and professors in South Africa — began to question the high-carb diet and recommended high-fat for his patients, the powers that be attempted to take his license and deplatform him for going against “standard medical practice” and giving advice that was “unscientific.”

This resulted in a four-year trial, thousands of pages of scientific articles entered as evidence, and two international witnesses being flown in, all of which led to the total vindication of Dr. Noakes and the restoration of his license.10 Turns out Dr. Noakes was right all along — and we’d never have known it if he had been silenced.

It doesn’t matter if you agree with me about cholesterol, or if you agree with the people who disagree with me, or if you agree with Dr. Noakes about the benefits of high-fat diets, or with Dr. Mercola about the benefits of vitamin D3, and it doesn’t matter where you stand on vaccinations. The cost of silencing dissident voices is simply greater than whatever damage could be done by people spouting ideas that the establishment does not agree with.

If you don’t object vehemently to the censorship of ideas expressed in writing, speaking, and video, you are essentially agreeing to the idea of a Truth Police, because somebody’s got to make the decision on what constitutes disinformation.

Who shall that be? The people who work at YouTube and Facebook? The government? The American Heart Association? The Scientologists? The Anti-Scientologists? The Vegans? The Carnivores? Democrats? Republicans? I vote for none of the above!

The only way to not have to solve the awful Rubik Cube problem of who shall be the “Truth Police” is this: Eliminate the position. We don’t need truth police. We need to be able to hear all lawful points of view on any subject and we need to start reading up on things and trusting ourselves to make our own judgements.

And, as long as I’m dreaming, wouldn’t it be nice for us to all make our judgements and arrive at our opinions without being so attached to our tribe’s version of the truth? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could hold our positions on health matters in a space that allowed us to modify our positions when new data and interpretations present themselves?

OK, I know that’s a fantasy, but it’s how science actually works. Science is the practice of questioning things, constantly — offering alternative hypotheses to accepted “wisdom,” and then testing those new hypotheses. If you don’t hold “conventional wisdom” up to examination, then you’re not doing science, you’re doing propaganda. Questioning is how we grow our knowledge base in the first place.

You can’t do that if you silence the questioners. “Disinformation?” Bring it on! I want to hear all points of view. I’ll disregard the ones I think are crazy, but I want the opportunity to decide for myself what makes sense and what doesn’t, and I want you to have that same opportunity.

No matter where we stand on other matters, I hope we can stand together for “open borders” in the marketplace of health information.

Source : Mercola More   

What's Your Reaction?

like
0
dislike
0
love
0
funny
0
angry
0
sad
0
wow
0

Next Article

American Medical Association Instructs Doctors to Deceive

The Winter 2021 “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation,”1 issued by the American Medical Association (AMA) raises serious questions about the AMA’s adherence to transparency, honesty, ethics and the moral standards to which it will hold its members. The AMA was founded in 1847 and is the largest professional association and lobbying group of physicians and medical students in the U.S. According to the AMA itself, its mission is to promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health. How then do they explain this “COVID-19 messaging guide,” which explicitly teaches doctors how to deceive their patients and the media when asked tough questions about COVID-19, treatment options and COVID shots? AMA Teaches Doctors How to Deceive “It is critical that physicians and patients have confidence in the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines as they become available for public use,” the “AMA COVID-19 Guide” states, adding:2 “To overcome vaccine hesitancy and ensure widespread vaccine acceptance among all demographic groups, physicians and the broader public health community must continue working to build trust in vaccine safety and efficacy, especially in marginalized and minoritized communities with historically well-founded mistrust in medical institutions.” Indeed, the entire guide is aimed at teaching doctors how to foster confidence in the medical profession in general, as it pertains to treatment of COVID-19, but in particular as it pertains to the experimental COVID shots. The guide provides “suggested narratives” for various engagements, such as when communicating on social media, as sell as “talking points to guide external communications,” such as when being interviewed. It lists nine specific “key messages” that they want doctors to focus on when communicating about COVID-19. These key messages can be summarized as follows: Express confidence in vaccine development Stress the importance of vaccines Highlight the need to combat the spread of vaccine misinformation Adhere to updated ethical guidance for physicians and medical personnel, which says they have a moral obligation to get vaccinated themselves Give general vaccine recommendations, such as the recommendation for everyone over the age of 6 months, including pregnant women, to get an annual flu shot Stress the importance of eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptions Highlight the increased availability of flu vaccines, and the importance of getting a flu shot even if you’ve gotten a COVID injection Highlight the importance of including minorities, both in vaccine trials and as trusted messengers who can “promote social pressure” to get minorities vaccinated and dispel historical distrust in medical institutions Denounce scientific analyses “predicated on personal opinions, anecdote and political ideologies” AMA Concerned About Disinformation On page 7 of the guide, under the science narrative heading, the AMA declares it is “deeply concerned that rampant disinformation and the politicization of health issues are eroding public confidence in science and undermining trust in physicians and medical institutions,” adding that “Science should be grounded in a common understanding of facts and evidence and able to empower people to make informed decisions about their health.”3 To that end, the AMA is calling upon “all elected officials to affirm science and fact in their words and actions,” and for media to “be vigilant in communicating factual information” and to “challenge those who chose to trade in misinformation.” AMA Then Instructs Doctors on How to Disinform It’s a disappointment, then, to find the AMA instructing doctors on how to misinform the public using a variety of psychological and linguistic tools. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of this is the recommended “COVID-19 language swaps” detailed on page 9. As you can see below, the AMA explicitly instructs doctors to swap out certain words and terms for other, more narrative-affirming choices. Shockingly, this includes swapping “hospitalization rates” to “deaths” — two terms that are not even remotely interchangeable! It strains credulity that the AMA would actually tell doctors to substitute a factual data point with an outright lie. But with this swap, are they not telling doctors to state that people are dead, when in fact they’ve only been hospitalized with COVID-19?Hospitalization rate refers to how many people are sick in the hospital with COVID-19, whereas death refers to how many people have died. The first term refers to people who are still alive, and the other refers to patients who are not alive. It strains credulity that the AMA would actually tell doctors to substitute a factual data point with an outright lie. But with this swap, are they not telling doctors to state that people are dead, when in fact they’ve

American Medical Association Instructs Doctors to Deceive

The Winter 2021 “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation,”1 issued by the American Medical Association (AMA) raises serious questions about the AMA’s adherence to transparency, honesty, ethics and the moral standards to which it will hold its members.

The AMA was founded in 1847 and is the largest professional association and lobbying group of physicians and medical students in the U.S. According to the AMA itself, its mission is to promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health.

How then do they explain this “COVID-19 messaging guide,” which explicitly teaches doctors how to deceive their patients and the media when asked tough questions about COVID-19, treatment options and COVID shots?

AMA Teaches Doctors How to Deceive

“It is critical that physicians and patients have confidence in the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines as they become available for public use,” the “AMA COVID-19 Guide” states, adding:2

“To overcome vaccine hesitancy and ensure widespread vaccine acceptance among all demographic groups, physicians and the broader public health community must continue working to build trust in vaccine safety and efficacy, especially in marginalized and minoritized communities with historically well-founded mistrust in medical institutions.”

Indeed, the entire guide is aimed at teaching doctors how to foster confidence in the medical profession in general, as it pertains to treatment of COVID-19, but in particular as it pertains to the experimental COVID shots.

The guide provides “suggested narratives” for various engagements, such as when communicating on social media, as sell as “talking points to guide external communications,” such as when being interviewed. It lists nine specific “key messages” that they want doctors to focus on when communicating about COVID-19. These key messages can be summarized as follows:

Express confidence in vaccine development

Stress the importance of vaccines

Highlight the need to combat the spread of vaccine misinformation

Adhere to updated ethical guidance for physicians and medical personnel, which says they have a moral obligation to get vaccinated themselves

Give general vaccine recommendations, such as the recommendation for everyone over the age of 6 months, including pregnant women, to get an annual flu shot

Stress the importance of eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptions

Highlight the increased availability of flu vaccines, and the importance of getting a flu shot even if you’ve gotten a COVID injection

Highlight the importance of including minorities, both in vaccine trials and as trusted messengers who can “promote social pressure” to get minorities vaccinated and dispel historical distrust in medical institutions

Denounce scientific analyses “predicated on personal opinions, anecdote and political ideologies”

AMA Concerned About Disinformation

On page 7 of the guide, under the science narrative heading, the AMA declares it is “deeply concerned that rampant disinformation and the politicization of health issues are eroding public confidence in science and undermining trust in physicians and medical institutions,” adding that “Science should be grounded in a common understanding of facts and evidence and able to empower people to make informed decisions about their health.”3

To that end, the AMA is calling upon “all elected officials to affirm science and fact in their words and actions,” and for media to “be vigilant in communicating factual information” and to “challenge those who chose to trade in misinformation.”

AMA Then Instructs Doctors on How to Disinform

It’s a disappointment, then, to find the AMA instructing doctors on how to misinform the public using a variety of psychological and linguistic tools. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of this is the recommended “COVID-19 language swaps” detailed on page 9.

As you can see below, the AMA explicitly instructs doctors to swap out certain words and terms for other, more narrative-affirming choices. Shockingly, this includes swapping “hospitalization rates” to “deaths” — two terms that are not even remotely interchangeable!

Hospitalization rate refers to how many people are sick in the hospital with COVID-19, whereas death refers to how many people have died. The first term refers to people who are still alive, and the other refers to patients who are not alive.

It strains credulity that the AMA would actually tell doctors to substitute a factual data point with an outright lie. But with this swap, are they not telling doctors to state that people are dead, when in fact they’ve only been hospitalized with COVID-19?

Another highly questionable word swap is to not address the nitty, gritty details of vaccine trials, such as the number of participants, and instead simply refer to these trials as having gone through “a transparent, rigorous process.”

Swapping the factual term “Operation Warp Speed” for “standard process” is another outrageous misdirection. The two simply aren’t interchangeable. In fact, they’re actually diametrically opposed to one another. Standard process for vaccine development includes a long process of over a decade and a large number of steps that were either omitted or drastically shortened for the COVID shots.

Following standard process is what makes vaccine development take, on average, 10 years and often longer. Operation Warp Speed allowed vaccine makers to slap together these COVID shots in about nine months from start to finish. You cannot possibly say that the two terms describe an identical process.

The Power of Language

Other language swaps are less incredulous but still highlight the fact that the AMA wants its members to help push a very specific and one-sided narrative that makes power-grabbing overreaches and totalitarian tactics sound less bad than they actually are, and make questionable processes sound A-OK.

Language is a powerful tool with which we shape reality,4 because it shapes how we think about things. As noted by storyteller and filmmaker Jason Silva:5

“The use of language, the words you use to describe reality, can in fact engender reality, can disclose reality. Words are generative… We create and perceive our reality through language. We think reality into existence through linguistic construction in real-time.”

For example, “lockdown” sounds like involuntary imprisonment imposed by a totalitarian regime, which is what it is, whereas “stay-at-home order” sounds far less draconian. After all, “home” is typically associated with comfort and safety.

The same goes for using “COVID protocols” in lieu of “COVID mandates, directives, controls and orders.” “Protocols” sounds like something that is standard procedure, as if the COVID measures are nothing new, whereas “mandates, controls and orders” imply that, indeed, we’re in medical fascism territory, which we are.

How to Steer, Block, Deflect and Stall Inconvenient Questions

The AMA could have instructed its members to simply stick to the facts and be honest — and in some sections, it does do that — but it doesn’t end there. Rather, the AMA provides a full page of instructions on how to steer the conversation, and how to block, deflect and stall when faced with tough questions where an honest answer might actually break the official narrative.

Here’s a sampling of these instructions. I encourage you to read through page 8 of the guide, and pay attention to these psychological tricks when listening to interviews or reading the news.

Interviewing techniques

Steer the conversation back to the narrative by saying:

“Before we leave that matter, let me add …”

Block a tough question by saying:

“That’s [proprietary, confidential etc], but what I can tell you is …”

Deflect an unwanted question by saying:

“That’s a common misperception but the reality is …”

Redirect away from an unwanted question, back to the official narrative by saying:

“I don’t have the details on that, but what I know is …”

Stall by saying:

Repeat the question asked, or acknowledge the question by saying, “I’m glad you asked …”

It’s worth noting that the AMA also stresses that: 1) Doctors are to speak for the AMA, and 2) doctors are NOT to offer their personal views. Speaking for the AMA is listed under “Your Responsibilities” when being interviewed, while not discussing personal views is listed under “Interview Don’ts.”

AMA Is Rapidly Eroding All Credibility

The AMA’s guidance isn’t all bad. Some of its advice makes perfect sense. But the inclusion of language swaps that result in false statements being made, and tools for steering, blocking, deflecting, redirecting and stalling in order to avoid direct answers do nothing but erode credibility and thus trust in the medical community.

Its direct instruction to not share personal views is another trust-eroding strategy. When people talk to their doctor, they want to hear what that doctor actually thinks, based on their own knowledge and experience.

They don’t expect their doctor — or a doctor appearing in an interview — to simply rehash a narrative dictated by the AMA. If we cannot trust our medical professionals to give their honest opinions and give direct answers, there’s little reason to even discuss our concerns with them, and that’s the opposite of what the AMA claims it seeks to achieve.

The AMA is concerned about the proliferation of misinformation and eroding trust, yet it’s telling its members to keep their professional views to themselves and lie about COVID deaths. With this guidance document, the AMA is essentially implicating itself as a source and instigator of medical misinformation that ultimately might injure patients.

In a Stew Peters Show interview (see top of this article), Dr. Bryan Ardis criticized the AMA guidance document, pointing out that while the AMA claims it put out the guidance to prevent political ideologies from dictating medicine, it is actually proving that the AMA itself is deferring to political ideology rather than medical facts.

The AMA wants its members to act as propagandists for a particular narrative — using “politically correct language” — rather than sharing information and acting in accordance with their own conscience and professional insight. As noted by Peters:

“If a doctor’s just going to repeat what the AMA tells them, why have doctors at all? You can get plenty of starving propagandists at any liberal college, but instead we want to turn our medical professionals into ideological zombies with stethoscopes.”

Source : Mercola More   

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.