When doctors turn persecutors

Here's a statement at Wikipedia:

When Alexander Fleming discovered the crude penicillin in 1928, one important observation he made was that many bacteria were not affected by penicillin.^[46] This phenomenon was realised by Ernst Chain and Edward Abraham while trying to identify the exact of penicillin. In 1940, they discovered that unsusceptible bacteria like Escherichia coli produced specific enzymes that can break down penicillin molecules, thus making them resistant to the antibiotic.

And here's another:

Because penicillin resistance is now so common, other antibiotics are now the preferred choice for treatments. For example, penicillin used to be the first-line treatment for infections with Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Neisseria meningitidis, but it is no longer recommended for treatment of these infections. Penicillin resistance is now very common in Staphylococcus aureus, which means penicillin should not be used to treat infections caused by S. aureus infection unless the infecting strain is known to be susceptible.

From that, I conclude that things do move on ... both medical understanding, plus the circumstances, e.g. developing resistance. The average person, imho, is not sufficiently well read across the medical spectrum and thus is dependent on "expert" opinion.

Dr. Nigel Wilson MRCGP FFOM, a retired consultant occupational physician, writes:

I understand the concept of truth and how hard it is to establish an absolute truth in science. I understand the enlightenment principles that any ideas can be discussed, that nobody has a veto on ideas and that it is important to doubt and test all of our ideas continually. There is no indication from her writing that Dr. Goff understands how important it is to doubt, question and test the effectiveness and safety of interventions such as vaccines and masks.

Across our corner of the blogosphere and vlogosphere, we have seen and reposted countless concerns through medical literature by doctors disagreeing with Establishment orthodoxy, e.g. on Remdesivir, Ivermectin and HCQ which continually points out a shift in understanding, as well as gross malpractice in pushing things known to be wrong. The whole field is volatile and any new evidence must be carefully considered.

Dr. Sarah L. Goff, MD PhD, defined misinformation. She surveyed social media platforms and news sources for anything written by other physicians that fits her selected examples of both. She then proposes that physicians guilty of writing what she judges to be misinformation should be “regulated and disciplined”.

Dr. Goff identified four major themes of alleged misinformation. These included: (1) vaccines were unsafe and/or ineffective; (2) masks and/or social distancing did not decrease risk for contracting COVID-19; (3) other medications for prevention or treatment were effective despite not having completed clinical trials or having been FDA approved, and (4) other misinformation.

Dr. Goff includes a brief discussion of vaccine safety and effectiveness and mask effectiveness, but does not attempt to undertake a full review of the published evidence in these areas.

Yet she's happy to go draconian any dissent whatever with her orthodoxy, esp. if reports of effectiveness of various remedies. Nigel Wilson:

There is no indication from her writing that Dr. Goff understands how important it is to doubt, question and test the effectiveness and safety of interventions such as vaccines and masks.

These four publications (quoted in the article by Dr. Wilson) are examples which give us a legitimate reason to question the use of masks and the Covid vaccines and to look further for evidence. Are we not allowed to raise questions about these issues without being threatened with disciplinary procedures? Not to ask any questions would be lacking in curiosity in the extreme, especially for practising physicians concerned about the safety of their patients and the integrity of their advice. These publications do not prove anything conclusively, but they should not be ignored.

It could be argued that the examples of misinformation used by Dr. Goff are themselves misinformation. To suggest that anyone who states that the Covid vaccines were unsafe and/or ineffective is guilty of misinformation is to ignore significant evidence which raises questions about the vaccines. To suggest that anyone who states that masks did not decrease risk for contracting COVID-19 is guilty of misinformation is also to ignore evidence to support this view. It could be argued that Dr. Goff is using false, inaccurate or misleading examples of misinformation in her study in order to suppress dissenting views. 

Dr. Goff appears to have very little humility.

Oh it's more than lack of humility, innit?  Is it not covering backsides to prevent any sort of examination of their own conduct and quite possible mass deaths as a result of the attitude and conduct. 

Unfortunately, "siccing" the law on any with reason to oppose and dissent is hardly the stuff of scholarship and investigation, of learning and adapting ... which one would think a required practice across the field of medicine.