Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Pseudoscience Quackery

Physicians who promote COVID-19 and antivaccine misinformation should lose their medical license

The Federation of State Medical Boards warned physicians that spreading COVID-19 misinformation might jeopardize their license to practice. It’s about time the FSMB said that, but I have serious doubts that anything will happen.

Long before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, I not infrequently went on record arguing that physicians who promote antivaccine misinformation should lose their license to practice medicine. The most recent example I could find occurred nearly a year before things started shutting down due to COVID-19, when I noted the case of Dr. Larry Palevsky, who had recently spoken at a rally opposing vaccine mandates issued in response to measles outbreaks that had been occurring due to low MMR vaccine uptake. (Truly it was a simpler—and far less lethal—time two years ago.) At the time, I argued that antivaccine physicians, particularly antivaccine pediatricians like Dr. Palevsky, should be subject to sanctions by their state medical boards, up to and including losing their license to practice medicine. Before that, I had applauded the Medical Board of California for having suspended the license of Dr. Robert Sears (who like to go by “Dr. Bob”) for deficiencies in practice related to vaccination, among other things), having said at the time action was first taken that “it was about time” and then approving of the sanctions the board finally issued, while lamenting that, not only did Dr. Bob get off easy, with just a suspension of his license, but he was being defended with massive false balance.

What Dr. Bob did wrong and why the Board sanctioned him can be found previous posts by yours truly here and hereSkeptical Raptor, and others. The CliffsNotes version is that there was a case where he handled the complaints of a child with severe headaches after having been hit in the head…poorly. He also granted a nonmedical exemption to school vaccine mandates to a child based on non-science-based reasons and failed to keep adequate records. Personally, at the time, I was surprised that what got Dr. Bob’s license in trouble was mostly the case of the child with head trauma, given that he had started profiting by offering seminars on how to avoid vaccine mandates and providing bogus nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates beginning almost as soon as SB 277, the California law that eliminated nonmedical exemptions, was passed in 2015.

In light of this history, I was happy to see that the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) had issued a statement on physicians who promote COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation:

Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession and puts all patients at risk.

The FSMB is, as its name implies, the organization made up of state medical boards, described thusly:

The Federation of State Medical Boards represents the state medical and osteopathic regulatory boards – commonly referred to as state medical boards – within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia. It supports its member boards as they fulfill their mandate of protecting the public’s health, safety and welfare through the proper licensing, disciplining, and regulation of physicians and, in most jurisdictions, other health care professionals.

With this mission:

The FSMB serves as a national voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, data, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best practices.

The fact that the FSMB issued such a statement stating that physicians spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 risk disciplinary action is a big deal, at least to me. However, my enthusiasm and approval are tempered by my knowledge of how state medical boards actually operate. They are, in general, underfunded, have inadequate resources, and can only act when they receive a complaints about specific instances of poor practice or patient injury. Indeed, when a state medical board actually does act against an antivaccine physician (for instance), its penalties are often minimal, as was the case for Dr. Bob Zajac in Minnesota.

Indeed, I’ve long lamented how rare it is for a state medical board to suspend or revoke the medical license of outright quacks and how difficult it has been on the occasions when a state has tried. One good example that I like to cite is cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski, who has been practicing his cancer quackery in Houston since the late 1970s and, despite the occasional attempt of the Texas Medical Board to put a stop to his activities, has managed to prevail, with only minor impediments placed on his ability to practice, leading me to lament, “How is it that in 2018 cancer Stanislaw Burzynski is still preying on desperate cancer patients?

Elsewhere, I’ve discussed the problem before a number of times. The problem is that state medical boards tend to be reluctant to go after doctors who use unscientific treatments like “detoxification” and colon cleanses because it forces them to enforce a standard of care, because such cases are harder to prove, and because there is so much pushback. State medical boards are generally good at going after doctors who commit easily identified, clear-cut breaches in trust, such as substance abuse, defrauding insurance companies, or diddling patients. When it comes to making judgment calls about doctors practicing outside of the standard of care, they’re a lot more reluctant to do so. That’s why the only physician behaviors very likely to result in strong action consists of running a prescription mill, sexual improprieties with patients, or practicing while impaired due to abuse of alcohol or illicit substances. It’s a matter of resource allocation and prioritization. State medical boards tend to react primarily to what they perceive to be the most immediately and obviously dangerous behaviors. Practicing quackery rarely makes the cut, because medical boards tend to be loathe to make value judgments about medical practice, and proving quackery is way harder and more resource-intensive than proving that a doctor is an addict who has been practicing while impaired or has sexually abused patients.

Even horrible surgeons like Dr. Christopher Duntsch, whose epic incompetence in the operating room resulted in multiple “clean kills” and paralyzed patients, to the point that his bungled operations so alarmed colleagues that they actually took the rare action of complaining about him, all too often take a long time to take down. Ultimately, Dr. Duntsch, who had major substance abuse problems in addition to his epic incompetence in the operating room, finally did lose his medical license and is now serving a life sentence in a Texas prison for multiple counts of aggravated assault relating to 33 botched surgeries over two years, including two that resulted in patient death. Indeed, Dr. Duntsch’s case was so remarkable that he is now the subject of an eight part series on Peacock entitled Dr. Death: The Undoctored Story:

The good thing about the case of Dr. Duntsch is that doctors as sociopathic as he was are rare. The bad thing about the case is that it took a really long time for his colleagues (who knew his reputation and had had to try to salvage his disastrous complications) and the Texas Medical Board to act.

Which brings us to COVID-19 misinformation, which can kill.

I previously discussed the case of Dr. Steven LaTulippe, whose license was suspended by the Oregon Medical Board for having  violated an order in Oregon requiring healthcare workers to wear face coverings in healthcare settings, and also because he was giving out dangerous misinformation to his patients. The order also noted that Dr. LaTulippe “and the staff in his clinic refuse to wear masks in the clinic and urge persons who enter the clinic wearing masks to remove their masks,” “regularly tells his patients that masks are ineffective in preventing the spread of COVID-19 and should not be worn,” and “further asserts that, because virus particles are so small, they will pass through the recommended N95 masks and most other face coverings people are choosing to wear,” while directing “patients to a YouTube video providing false information about mask wearing.” At the time, I approved, but didn’t think the order went far enough. Just a suspension of Dr. LaTulippe’s license just didn’t seem to go far enough given his irresponsibility and spreading of COVID-19 misinformation.

The problem, of course, is the sheer number of physicians who have fallen under the spell of COVID-19 and antivaccine conspiracy theories, starting in 2020. It started with hydroxychloroquine and other “miracle cures” for COVID-19 and degenerated from there. You’ve probably heard these names: Dr. Vladimir ZelenkoDr. Mehmet Oz (yes, him!), Dr. Stephen Smith, and many others. Meanwhile, a group of doctors dubbing themselves “America’s Frontline Doctors” (none of whom are actually what I would consider pandemic frontline doctors) started promoting all manner of COVID-19 disinformation, including the claim that hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure that “they” are keeping from the people. Now, many of the same doctors (plus others who, to their initial credit that didn’t last, didn’t jump on the hydroxychloroquine bandwagon last year) are promoting ivermectin.

Also, unsurprisingly, there are physicians who were not at all happy to see the FSMB statement. Even less surprisingly, it’s the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a far right wing medical John Birch Society camouflaged as a legitimate medical professional society. I’ve written about the AAPS a number of times, relating how it’s promoted antivaccine pseudoscience blaming vaccines for autism, including a view that is extreme even among antivaccine activists, namely that the “shaken baby syndrome” is a “misdiagnosis” for vaccine injury. It’s worse than that, though. AAPS has promoted HIV/AIDS denialism, blamed immigrants for crime and disease, promoted the pseudoscience claiming that abortion causes breast cancer using some of the most execrable “science” ever, and not only rejected evidence-based guidelines as an unacceptable affront on the godlike autonomy of physicians; the very concept of a scientific consensus about anything. Let’s just put it this way. The AAPS has featured publications by antivaccine mercury militia “scientists” Mark and David Geier and many others. Unsurprisingly, in the age of COVID-19, the AAPS has seamlessly pivoted to COVID-19 denial, antimask nonsense, and antivaccine conspiracy theories.

The title of its protest of the FSMB statement? As you might expect, Dr. Tamzin Rosenwasser’s article is entitled The Federation of State Medical Boards Channels the Soviet NKVD. (I suppose I should be grateful that Nazis weren’t mentioned, at least in the title.) After quoting the FSMB statement, Dr. Rosenwasser goes all anti-Communist, consistent with the AAPS’s similarity to a medical John Birch Society:

The FSMB has been described as a “private lobbying organization that represents the state’s attorneys who work for medical boards.” It does not by itself have the legal authority to take a doctor’s license but is highly influential.

The NKVD, the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, was the Soviet secret police agency, the precursor to the KGB.

No subtlety there, is there? It gets even less subtle. Dr. Rosenwasser invokes Ignaz Semmelweis (of course!) and the example of Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who in the 1980s discovered that most peptic ulcer disease was due to a bacteria, Helicobacter pylori, which went against the prevailing medical consensus of the day. I applaud Dr. Rosenwasser from resisting the urge to invoke Galileo. That shows some major restraint, perhaps more so than not invoking Nazis. Oh, wait, she did go there:

To coerce people to be vaccinated against their will violates the Nuremberg Code. Did we not once have an actual meeting of minds that the things done by doctors in Germany at the direction of that National Socialist government warranted the Nuremberg Code, designed to prevent any recurrence of such medical experiments?

Was there a consensus in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s that Jewish, Romany, and Slavic peoples were a disease on the superior Aryan race? Was that consensus enforced by fear? Was there also a consensus that Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholic priests, and Lutherans like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who did not agree with that consensus were to be tortured and executed along with the people they defended?

Is there now a consensus among all 50 States that physicians are to be muzzled, silenced, and have their lives destroyed in case they do not agree with the new NKVD?

It always amuses me how the AAPS can’t seem to understand the difference between Communism, socialism, and fascism, but whatever. Also, as I’ve pointed out before, the Nuremberg Code does not apply to vaccine mandates or COVID-19 vaccines, but rather is a thinly veiled Godwin designed to portray vaccine advocates as Nazis.

But back to Semmelweis and Marshall and Warren. The resistance to Marshall and Warren is often vastly exaggerated for effect when they are invoked for this purpose. In reality, their findings were accepted quickly when you come right down to it. In brief, as I’ve discussed before, Marshall and Warren first reported a curious finding of what they described as “unidentified curved bacilli on gastric epithelium in active chronic gastritis” (not ulcer) in two letters to The Lancet, published on June 4, 1983. They reported that it wasn’t seen using traditional staining methods and suggested that they might be associated with gastritis. By 1992, multiple studies had been published establishing the causative role of H. pylori in peptic ulcer disease, and medical practice rapidly changed. That’s less than ten years, which, given how long it takes to organize and carry out clinical trials, is amazingly fast. Yet somehow a favorite AAPS-style myth is that “dogmatic,” “close-minded” scientists refused to accept Marshall and Warren’s findings. In actuality, H. pylori as a major cause of gastric and peptic ulcer disease is, in reality, an example of an old scientific consensus that deserved to be questioned, was questioned in the right way, and was overthrown rather quickly.

As for Semmelweis, whose evidence that the simple act of handwashing before delivering babies was very effective at dramatically lowering the incidence of life-threatening prevent puerperal fever was rejected by most of his fellow physicians in Vienna 160 years ago in one of the most shameful episodes in medical history, I can say one thing with great confidence. Neither Dr. Rosenwasser, the AAPS, nor any of the other quacks promoting COVID-19 misinformation is another Semmelweis, or anything resembling Semmelweis. (I also note that Semmelweis’ story is a bit more complex than the version that is usually recounted by people like Dr. Rosenwasser in that Semmelweis’ findings were more favorably viewed in other countries, such as the UK and his results were long understood because of his reluctance to publish them, leading to their being spread through secondhand reports.)

Unsurprisingly, Dr. Rosenwasser can’t resist including standard antivaccine talking points in her article:

Now, we have an experimental vaccine for a disease with a greater than 99 percent survival rate except in patients who are over 70 years old or have comorbid conditions. Though it is available only under an Emergency Use Authorization, people are under intense pressure to receive it. Severe side effects have occurred in some recipients: myocarditis in more than 3,000; Guillain-Barré syndrome in more than 450; bleeding and clotting disorders in about 2,000; and death in more than 11,000. But mass vaccination is apparently consensus-driven.

If you have any doubt that the AAPS is antivaccine, just look at that paragraph. It recycles all the standard antivax talking points about the COVID-19 vaccine, such as the claim that it is experimental, which conflates a legal definition of a drug or vaccine that hasn’t yet achieved full FDA approval with a scientific definition. (By any reasonable scientific definition, vaccines that have undergone multiple phase 3 clinical trials and been administered to two billion people with an excellent safety record are no longer “experimental.”) Then there’s the dishonest appeal to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database, which deceptively ignores the baseline rates of such complications.

In the end, even as I support the concept of the FSMB’s statement of suspending or revoking the licenses of physicians who promote COVID-19 disinformation and antivaccine misinformation, I have enormous doubt that it will come to anything. State medical boards are constrained by the laws of their state, some of which (I’m talking to you, Texas) treat a medical license, once obtained, more like a right than a privilege, severe underfunding that only lets them go after a medical license in the most egregious cases, and other constraints. Worse, in the age of COVID-19, the entire right-wing COVID-19 disinformation ecosystem, of which the AAPS is a small but influential part on medical matters, will treat any physician whose license is sanctioned by a state medical board as a free speech martyr. I’m glad the FSMB said something about revoking the licenses of physicians who spread misinformation, but I fear that in practice implementing such a policy will be well nigh impossible.

Doctors who are antivaccine and/or promote COVID-19 misinformation often appeal to free speech and portray any attempts by medical licensing bodies, whatever the state or country, to discipline them for their activities as fascistic (or Communist) assaults of “free speech.” Here’s the thing, though. Professional speech is not the same as some random fool on social media saying the same thing. When physicians use the imprimatur of authority that society bestows on them to add the authority of their profession to their misinformation, that is an abuse their status as a physician that during a pandemic can have potentially deadly consequences. Contrary to Dr. Rowenwasser’s ridiculous comparison to the repression carried out by the NKVD and appeal to the Nuremberg Code, it is entirely appropriate for the FSMB to recommend going after the medical license of any physician promoting obvious COVID-19 and antivaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories. That is not suppression of free speech. That is professional oversight. My fear is that nothing will come of the FSMB’s statement, as much as this statement should guide state medical boards in disciplining quacks.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

37 replies on “Physicians who promote COVID-19 and antivaccine misinformation should lose their medical license”

Supporting your point about the too low penalties is the fact that in Dr. Bob Sears second case – which involved five very problematic exemptions – he only got longer probation.

On the other hand, we have seen some more vigorous action for other doctors – like revoking Kenneth Stoller’s license, and at least temporary revocation of Dr. Paul Thomas’.

Maybe we will see some more, in the context of the pandemic. I agree that it’s long overdue.

Useful analog: What should be done to a physician who says to a patient: “no need to treat your PCP pneumonia or your HIV. It’s all made up by big pharma to sell drugs, anyway!” The consequences of that malpractice are just as dire as advocating against an effective vaccine in the middle of a raging pandemic. Death by respiratory failure that was totally preventable.

A law like that would not be legally permissible IMO because “anti-vaccine” misinformation is singled out for special treatment. That’s like saying organized fraud is okay, as long as it benefits global industry. It would need to cover all vaccine misinformation. Are you sure that’s a road you want to go down? Maybe you should bring it on.

Deviating from the accepted standard of medical care has long been a recognized justification for medical board complaints, and potentially can lead to suspension or revocation of one’s license to practice.

Discouraging vaccination or urging unproven Covid-19 care based on egregious misinformation could certainly fall into that category.

@NWO Reporter Can you point us any religious dogmas based on clinical trials ?

A law like that would not be legally permissible IMO because “anti-vaccine” misinformation is singled out for special treatment.

Nobody cares about your legal dicta, Ginny. Go crochet a swing or can some tasty frogs.

Narad-Sorry to say but many involved in the legal professions, US , UK or anywhere else would be very interested in the many difficulties in framing such a proposed Law(s) to inhibit the antivax brigade’s dangerous nonsense.

I would expand the criteria. If a doctor promotes ANY information that is not supported by multiple sources of evidence then they should be told to stop. They should then be given a reasonable amount of time to produce evidence that supports their position. This evidence must satisfy an independent panel of experts in the relevant field. If it doesn’t, they should be told shut up about it for good or lose their licence.

I suppose you could vary the threat levels depending on how much harm their information could cause. Recommending woo in addition to evidence based treatment does less harm, usually, than recommending woo in place of evidence based treatment.

@NumberWang–This sounds like what the Oregon Medical Board did with Paul Thomas, If Paul Thomas is telling the truth regarding his encounters with his medical board, namely they requested this of him after he published his anti-vax book “The Vaccine Friendly Plan”. I get the sense from his incessant I’m-a-martyr-send-me-money-for-my-lawyer-fees” videos that his published paper on how supposedly his unvaxxed patients are healthier than his vaxxed patients was his ace in the hole. But since that paper was recently retracted, I think he’s in trouble when the Oregon Medical Board meets next on his case in January 2022.

Unfortunately the speed at which medical boards are forced to move (due to the scant resources they get) makes the idea of rapid action against these quacks during a pandemic feel very remote.

Unfortunately, I’ve heard a few of these physicians as live guests or being featured in print on websites/ podcasts of well-known alt med, anti-vax or woo proselytisers ( NN, PRN, High Wire Talk, AoA, Mercola etc) which is even more alarming because some of these outlets serve as woo consolidators and reach ( supposedly) millions of followers. Thomas, Sears, Palevsky, Zelenko and Cowan spring to mind immediately.

Not a physician, but over at Mikey’s place, Judy Mikovits is claiming SARS-CoV-2 is a lab made monkey cell virus spread in polio vaccines amongst others.

Somehow no-one noticed a worldwide pandemic for all those years until the beginning of 2020.

I swear there is a competition to see who can have the most ridiculous theory about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 published.

Physicians who promote Covid vaccine misinformation should lose their license? Yeah — I am reflecting on all the ‘misinformation’ I heard: Masks are useless against Covid; the vaccinated don’t need to mask; the vaccines will prevent transmissions; boosters are not needed; the lab leak theory is crazy conspiracy. Hey — has anyone thought of stripping Dr Fauci’s license?!

Masks where considered useless, when unsymptomic transmission was not known
Boosters may not be needed, but this it is may change if nasty variant comesw in.
Vaccinated may need masks, if pandemic amonst unvaccinated is bad enough
You will notice that one should change your opinion when new data comes in.
This is quite different than saying that masks are useless because virus particles are so small or mispresenting VAERS data.
Lab leak hypothesis is actully probably wrong. Vaccines does not prevent tzransmission among unvaccinated.
Sammelweiss problem was an actual dogma of traditional Westerm medicine, that diseases are caused by miasma. It was written in the books, so no refutation was acceptable. He did not have explanation either, Pasteur provided it later.

“You will notice that one should change your opinion when new data comes in.”

Gurgles changes his opinion whenever he finds out that he was accidentally right. If there was ever any evidence that vaccines were dangerous, Greg would be kicking in doors to vaccinate people at gunpoint.

<

blockquote>
You will notice that one should change your opinion when new data comes in

That’s my point, Aarno! With the science constantly ‘evolving’, we don’t know what will be misinformation today and fact tomorrow. We don’t want to strip any physician of his license for spreading ‘ dangerous misinformation’ only to see him proven correct in the future.

To handle such delicate affairs, maybe the ‘experts’ should agree on unchangeable Covid facts. Such info should be printed in a manual, and all ‘experts’ and doctors should be made aware of it and told they cannot breach such info lest they face penalties. I vote for Orac initiating such a manual, and being the final arbitrator to decide when a breached has occurred and if penalty is warranted. Just my two cents.

Does Greg not understand how science works? As new evidence is acquired, you update your theories. Policies based on a new understanding should change accordingly. Some people seem incapable of understanding this, no matter how many times it is explained to them. If the super nice guy next door turns out to be a serial killer, do you continue to consider him a super nice guy?

If the super nice guy next door turns out to be a serial killer, do you continue to consider him a super nice guy?

Some people do.
Look at the Belgian military who treatened to kill some virologists and took heavy weapons from the army. In the end he only killed himself, but before he was found, his neighbours argued he was a very nice man.

“With the science constantly ‘evolving’, we don’t know what will be misinformation today and fact tomorrow.”

So we should depend on whatever fact-deprived nonsense appeals to us, knowing that it is extremely unlikely to ever evolve into something resembling truth?

Example: the dynamic duo who recently wrote an op-ed in the Wall St. Journal praising ivermectin to the skies as a Covid-19 cure, then acknowledged in a later letter to the editor that a key study they cited had been retracted – but they still stood by their claims! Such people can’t admit they were wrong.

Actual scientists acknowledge error and learn from it.

Bob Zajac, as punishment for promoting not practicing the standard of care regarding vaccines in his practice as well as promoting his anti-vaccine views in the advertising of his practice is now required by his medical board to (as reviewed by Dorit on a recent Skeptical Raptor posting):

Take courses in:
Medical ethics.
Communicable diseases.
Professional boundaries.
Patient communication, focusing on explaining risk and informed consent.

Read a document about the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Write a five page or more paper summarizing what he learned and “demonstrating how it is implemented in his practice.”

Remove from his website language criticizing CDC’s research on vaccine safety and language proposing alternative vaccine scheduled.

Not to post public materials on his clinic website blog or vlog.

Pay a civil penalty of $10,000.

While we all wish it were more severe, there is a possibility this will hurt Zajac financially. When Paul Thomas had his license suspended in 12/20, he has stated that he lost insurance contracts and was forced to “tail out” on his malpractice insurance because his malpractice insurer termed his contract due to what happened with the medical board (the tail amount that must be paid (typically within 30 days of termination is 150 to 200% of your annual premium which was probably about 30K for Thomas.

Now while Zajac didn’t lose his license, the stipulation he entered into with his medical board is a public announcement that he provides substandard care. So it may happen that the health insurance plans he contracts with might not want to contract with him anymore and that his malpractice insurer might term him or at least jack up his premiums because of this medical board decision.

As I posted under Dorit’s column on Raptor’s site, Zajac just got a rap on his knuckles. Reported in the Strib today, Zajac’s attorney sounded pleased with the agreement; “I think there has been great work at resolving this,.” And Zajac himself posted on FB.

I still have my medical license, unrestricted. I can still see patients, serve the community, and keep moving and going where God is bringing me… Still allowed to speak my heart in public, and will continue to provide Informed Consent with open honest dialogues regarding health and medical freedom issues.

IOW, like Dr. Bob Sears, he’s just going to keep on keeping on. He should have lost his license. State medical boards are a joke.

Over here in UK-ia my old regulator, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, finally did something useful and sensible and removed an anti-vax loon from the register – https://www.nmc.org.uk/registration/search-the-register/registrant/iNc9l2ts9a5pTPhMnMwuFg2/?lastName=Shemirani&pageNo=1 – for spouting anti-vax rubbish, amongst other things. There is a long list of the nonsense she came out with from p10 on.

I note also that she was said to employed as an “independent aesthetic nurse”, whatever the buggery bolloocks one of those is, suggesting that she might have been having trouble getting a job as a proper nurse in a proper healthcare setting, as she would have had to convince someone like me or my sister that we should let her near any patients…

Murmer- a quick google and we have for aesthetic nurse- one who performs non-surgical aesthetic treatments, injectable or otherwise. I did laugh at your unusual expletives, ‘buggery bollocks’.

Yes – Fauci screwed up saying don’t mask. He was trying to preserve PPE. It was a mistake to go about it that way. Period.

Yes – the virus could have come from WIV. There are plenty of precedents for dangerous stuff leaking BL4. We will probably never know for sure.

None of this changes the fact that the vaccine works, is safe, and (best of all) is FREE and readily-available. None of this means the scientific method is flawed. You’re conflating crappy, maybe-biased journalism with the science it purports to report about.

So the Mayo Clinic says the Pfizer vaccine is only 42% effective. would you buy a car that only worked 42% of the time (or have an airbag or seat belt that worked 42% of the time).

https://humanevents.com/2021/08/11/biden-admin-concerned-as-mayo-clinic-study-shows-pfizer-vaccine-dropped-to-42-effective/

People on this blog want doctors who give bad/misleading/non groupthink advise to loose their medical license’s, what about lawyers who give bad/misleading legal advise. No one is forcing people to follow these doctors or lawyers advise, that’s why its call a legal opinion or a medical opinion.

Kay as usual is playing fast and loose with facts.

The report out of Mayo says the Pfizer vaccine is 42% effective against infection by the Delta variant while the the Moderna vaccine had 76% effectiveness against infection by Delta.

From CNBC:

“To be sure, the authors found that both vaccines “strongly protect” against severe disease; the difference appears to be more about whether people get infected at all in the first place. The CDC has said the risk of infection is 8x higher in the unvaccinated than the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization or death is 25x higher.”

I’m happy I got the Moderna vaccine. Still, the Pfizer vaccine recipients are in a much better place than antivaxers, who’ve wound up being far more vulnerable, and reduced to trying to get others to believe their lies so misery can have company.

Actually, I want doctors stopped from promoting stuff that contradicts current evidence. Not contradicts ‘group-think’, contradicts evidence. Otherwise known as measured fact. It’s not a case of the most persuasive person getting to establish current knowledge. It’s a case of the most persuasive evidence establishing current knowledge.

Why is that so difficult to understand? If someone thinks current evidence is wrong then they should be able to show why and how to the same standards as the original data. If they can’t then their idea is shit. No point sulking because they get called on it. Step up your game and do a better job.

You did not read Daily Fail article:
He explained: ‘In that case, it would then be a laboratory worker instead of a random villager or other person who has regular contact with bats. So it is actually in the probable category.’

The Danish scientist stressed that the WHO investigators found no direct evidence of this.
So it is still a theory
It quite curious, too, that you now trust WHO
The real point that there were lot of possible infections earlier, It is known that there was an initial attempt to hide the epidemic:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/08/opinions/coronavirus-bociurkiw/index.html

So the guy that led the WHO probe said the first covid patient may have been infected by a bat while working the a wuhan lab.

If the evidence of the first case was hidden, what else was hidden?

And yes it is a theory. and yes there is no direct evidence (and probably never will be) but circumstantial case can be made.

and at this point with so many ‘experts’ changing their positions, mask no mask, it is not airborne it is airborne, social distance was just a made up 6 feet number, Trump vaccine, no Trump vaccine (even Orac changed his position and was hesitant to take it). It didn’t come from a lab, well maybe it did come from the lab.

I am aware that science changes, how many false things have been put out by our experts only to have to change their positions, sometimes the best answer is ‘at this point we don’t know” The truth takes time to sort itself out. How hard is that to accept.

So this is too early for many correct or incorrect answers. But it sure looks like we’re back to 1692-1693

I had to laugh at the monumental hubris of this idea. “Sure, I know medical science has been wrong about a lot of things over the years–but that kind of incorrect judgment doesn’t happen anymore. Everything we think we know now in the medical field is indisputably correct–so the right thing to do is punish all who disagree. It’s called “science.”

And I have to laugh at fools who can’t tell the difference between reasonable scientific debate about and questioning of current scientific understanding compared to promulgating bonkers conspiracy theories and pseudoscience the way that antivaxxers and anti maskers do.🤦🏻‍♂️

@ Kay West

You write: “would you buy a car that only worked 42% of the time (or have an airbag or seat belt that worked 42% of the time).”

Actually seatbelts only prevent deaths and serious injury by approximately 50%, so a bit better than 42%. And seatbelts and airbags have caused some injuries, e.g., burst bladders, bruised kidneys, and at least one death, belt twisted and sliced into driver. So, only 50% and small but real risk of serious adverse events. I guess you would recommend against mandatory seatbelt laws and even advise against using them?

As for the origin of COVID, not really important, given the huge diversity of coronaviruses in bats, some genetically close to SARS. The evidence is quite strong not from lab; but whether from lab or nature, the world and especially the U.S. were poorly prepared and some nations, especially the U.S. did a poor job of acting. And several reviews tell us that if another, perhaps more dangerous virus emerges, we are still ill-prepared. And by the way, there have been numerous leaks of gain-of-function viruses from U.S. labs, including, you guessed it, a couple of leaks of corona viruses. I realize that nothing will change what you choose to believe; but below is a partial list of the articles I downloaded and read on origins of COVID. I doubt you will read any of them:

Origin of Covid-19
Reference List

Adams B (2021 May 22). PolitiFact retracts Wuhan lab theory ‘fact-check’. Washington Examiner.

Aizenman N (2020 Feb 20). New Research: Bats Harbor Hundreds Of Coronaviruses, And Spillovers Aren’t Rare. NPR.

Allen A (2021 May 19). To the Bat Cave: In Search of Covid’s Origins, Scientists Reignite Polarizing Debate on Wuhan ‘Lab Leak’. Kaiser Health News.

Bai M (2021 May 29). Healthy skepticism – San Diego Union-Tribune.

Boswell J (2021 May 30). Chinese scientists created COVID-19 in a lab and then tried to cover their tracks, new study claims. The Daily Mail.

Boyd C (2021 Jun 23). More proof of lab leak? China DELETED samples from earliest patients. MSN.

Brufsky A (2020 Sep). Distinct viral clades of SARS-CoV-2: Implications for modeling of viral spread. Journal of Medical Virology; 92(9): 1386-1390.

Calisher CH et al. (2021 Jul 5). Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans. The Lancet

Coronaviridae Study Group of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (2020 Mar). The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2; Nature Microbiology; 5(4): 536-544.

Cui J et al. (2006 Oct). New Research: Bats Harbor Hundreds Of Coronaviruses, And Spillovers Aren’t Rare. Emerging Infectious Diseases; 13(10): 1526-1532.

Cyranoski D (2017 Dec 7). Bat cave solves mystery of deadly SARS virus — and suggests new outbreak could occur. Nature; 552(7683): 15-16.

Dallavilla T et al. (2020 Apr). Bioinformatic analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 is unrelated to known artificial coronaviruses. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences; 24(8): 4558-4564.

Docea AO et al. (2020 Jun). A new threat from an old enemy: Re‑emergence of coronavirus (Review). International Journal of Molecular Medicine; 45(6): 1631-1643.

Doucleff M (2021 Mar 15). WHO Points To Wildlife Farms In Southern China As Likely Source Of Pandemic. NPR.

Eldholm V & Brynildsrud OB (2020 Sep 17). On the veracity of RaTG13. https://virological.org

Engber D (2021 May 26). If the Lab-Leak Theory Is Right, What’s Next? We know enough to acknowledge that the scenario is possible, and we should therefore act as though it’s true. The Atlantic

Frum D (2021 May 18). The Pro-Trump Culture War on American Scientists: Some are trying to turn the lab-leak theory into a potent political weapon. The Atlantic.

Garry RF (2021 May 12). Early appearance of two distinct genomic lineages of SARS-CoV-2 in different Wuhan wildlife markets suggests SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin. virological.org

Ge XY (2013 Nov 28). Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature; 503(7477): 535-8.

Godlee F (2021 Jul 8). Covid 19: We need a full open independent investigation into its origins. BMJ.

Goodman A & Daszak P (2020 Apr 16). “Pure Baloney”/ Zoologist Debunks Trump’s COVID-19 Origin Theory, Explains Animal-Human Transmission. Democracy Now!

Gorman J, Zimmer C (2021 Jun 16). Scientist Opens Up About His Early Email to Fauci on Virus Origins. The New York Times.

Gorski D (2021 May 31). The origin of SARS-CoV-2, revisited. Science-Based Medicine.

Graham RL et al. (2013 Dec). A decade after SARS – strategies for controlling emerging coronaviruses. Nature reviews. Microbiology; 11(12): 836-48.

Hayes P (2020 Jul 21). Here’s how scientists know the coronavirus came from bats and wasn’t created in a lab. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog.

Holmes EC et al. (2021 Jul 7 Preprint). The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review. Zenodo.

House NNC et al. (2021 Mar 19). Corona Viruses: A Review on SARS, MERS and COVID-19. Microbiology Insights; 14.

Hu B et al. (2015 Dec 22). Bat origin of human coronaviruses. Virology Journal; 12: 221.

Hu B et al. (2017 Nov 30). Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus. PLoS Pathogens; 13(11): e1006698.

Jewell M (2021 Mar 4). A Primer on Coronavirus, Variants, Mutation and Evolution. NC State University: Applied Ecology News.

Jiang S & Shi ZL (2020 Jun). The First Disease X is Caused by a Highly Transmissible Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus. Virologica Sinica; 35(3): 263-265.

Kessler G (2021 May 25). Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible. The Washington Post.

Kim NY (2021 May 17). Debating the Origins of the COVID-19 Virus: What We Know, What We Don’t Know. PolitiFact.

Latham JR (2021 Feb 25). Why China and the WHO Will Never Find a Zoonotic Origin For the COVID-19 Pandemic Virus. http://www.linkedin.com

Li B et al. (2020 Jan 29). Discovery of Bat Coronaviruses through Surveillance and Probe Capture-Based Next-Generation Sequencing. mSphere; 5(1): e00807-19.

Li H et al. (2019 Sep). Human-animal interactions and bat coronavirus spillover potential among rural residents in Southern China. Biosafety and Health; 1(2): 84-90.

Li X et al. (2020 Jul 1). Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 through recombination and strong purifying selection. Science Advances; 6(27).

Li W et al. (2005 Oct 28). Bats Are Natural Reservoirs of SARS-Like Coronaviruses. Science; 310(5748): 676-9.

MacLean OA et al. (2021 Mar 12). Natural selection in the evolution of SARSCoV-2 in bats created a generalist virus and highly capable human pathogen. PLoS Biology; 9(3).

Maxmen A (2021 Apr). WHO report into COVID pandemic origins zeroes in on animal markets, not labs: Scientists say the conclusions make sense but note that supporters of the lab-leak theory are unlikely to be satisfied. Nature; 592(7853): 173-174.

Menachery VD et al. (2015 Dec). SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronavirus pose threat for human emergence. Nature Medicine; 21(12): 1508-1513.

Moran L (2021 May 5). Lab leak conspiracy theory rears its ugly head again: this time it’s Nicholas Wade of the New York Times. Sandwalk.

NDTV (2020 Mar 31). China Reopens Markets Selling Bats, Pangolins After COVID-19 Effect Dips. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news

Parrish CR Et al. (2008 Sep). Cross-Species Virus Transmission and the Emergence of New Epidemic Diseases. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews; 72(3): 457-70.

Petrosillo N et al. (2020 Jun). COVID-19, SARS and MERS: are they closely related? Clinical Microbiology and Infection; 26(6): 729-734.

Qiu J (2020 Jun 1). How China’s ‘Bat Woman’ Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus. Scientific American.

Rasmussen AL (2021 Jan). On the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Medicine; 27(1): 8-9.

Rasmussen AL & Goldstein SA (2021 Jun 4). We may never know where the virus came from. But evidence still suggests nature. The Washington Post.

Reardon S (2021 Jan 29). The Most Worrying Mutations in Five Emerging Coronavirus Variants: Here is a guide to novel versions of the COVID causing virus—and genetic changes that can make them more contagious and evasive in the body. Scientific American.

Robertson L (2021 May 21). The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement. FactCheck.org

Sallard E et al. (2021 Feb 4). Tracing the origins of SARS‑COV‑2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters; 19: 769-785.

Samorodnitsky D (2021 May 26). The lab-leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is becoming a conspiracy theory. Massive Science. https://massivesci.com

Segreto R & Deigin Y (2021 Mar). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin: SARS-COV-2 chimeric structure and furin cleavage site might be the result of genetic manipulation. BioEssays; 43(3).

Siegel (2021 May 20). No, Science Clearly Shows That COVID-19 Wasn’t Leaked From A Wuhan Lab. Forbes.

Singh D & Yi SV (2021). On the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Experimental & Molecular Medicine; 53(4): 537-547.

Sørensen B et al. (2020 Jul 1). The Evidence which Suggests that This Is No Naturally Evolved Virus: A Reconstructed Historical Aetiology of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike. Minerva https://www.minervanett.no

Sullivan J (2021 Feb 13). Statement by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. http://www.whitehouse.gov

Tang X et al. (2020 Mar 3). On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2. National Science Review; 7(6): 1012-1023.

Thacker PD (2021 Jul 8). The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign? BMJ.

The Washington Post (2021 Mar 26). Secretary Becerra calls for follow-up investigation into pandemic’s origins. San Diego Union-Tribune.

Timberg C (2021 Feb 12). How Li-Meng Yan’s challenged claims about China and covid went viral. The Washington Post.

Wang N et al. (2018 Feb). Serological Evidence of Bat SARS-Related Coronavirus Infection in Humans, China. Virologica Sinica; 33(1): 104-107.

Wallace-Wells (2021 May 27). The Sudden Rise of the Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory. The New Yorker.

Wang LF & Eaton BT (2007). Bats, Civets and the Emergence of SARS. Current topics in microbiology and immunology; 315: 325-344.

Ward M & Rayasam R (2021 May 19). Experts weigh in on the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis. Politico.

Wardeh M et al. (2021 Feb 16). Predicting mammalian hosts in which novel coronaviruses can be generated. Nature Communications; 12(1): 780.

Wertheim J) et al. (2013 Jun). A Case for the Ancient Origin of Coronaviruses. Journal of Virology; 87(12): 7039-7045.

WHO (2021 Mar 30). WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2 – China Part – Joint WHO-China Study 14 January-10 February 2021.

Wikipedia. Horseshoe Bat.

Willemsen R et al. (2011 Sep). CGG repeat in the FMR1 gene – size matters. Clinical Genetics; 80(3): 214-25.

Woodward A (2021 May 27). Lab or Nature? The Current Evidence For Each of The SARS-CoV-2 Origin Theories. Business Insider.

Wu Y & Zhao S (2021 Jan). Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses. Stem Cell Research; 50.

Xiao (2021 Jun 7). Animal sales from Wuhan wet markets immediately prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Scientific Reports: 11(1): 11898.

Yan LM (2021 May 17). Archived fact-check: Tucker Carlson guest airs debunked conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was created in a lab. PolitiFact.

Yang XL et al. (2015 Dec 30). Isolation and Characterization of a Novel Bat Coronavirus Closely Related to the Direct Progenitor of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus. Journal of Virology; 90(6): 3253-3256.

Ye ZW et al. (2020 Mar 15). Zoonotic origins of human coronaviruses. International Journal of Biological Sciences; 16(10): 1686-1697.

Yu P et al. (2019 Apr). Geographical structure of bat SARS-related coronaviruses. Infection, Genetics and Evolution; 69: 224-229.

Zhang T et al. (2020 Apr 6). Probable Pangolin Origin of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with the COVID-19 Outbreak. Current Biology; 30(7): 1346-1351.

Zhong R (2021 Jun 9). Wuhan Markets Sold Animals That Could Have Infected Humans With Covid, Study Finds. The New York Times.

American Lab Leaks Coronavirus

Young A (2020 Aug 17). Here Are Six Accidents UNC Researchers Had With Lab-Created Coronaviruses. ProPublica.

Young A (2020 Aug 17). Near Misses at UNC Chapel Hill’s High-Security Lab Illustrate Risk of Accidents With Coronaviruses. ProPublica.

Number Wang- sometimes it may be easy to establish the dominant , best evidence-your measured facts- but at other times the evidence can be contradictory, controversial or whatever which will and does result in varying practices and much else.

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.