Elite Doctors Support Government Censorship in the Name of Public Safety

On March 25, Medpage Today gave us the pro-medical censorship argument, delivered by two doctors with impressive credentials who appear to be cheering on a 1984-style information-control future. Titled “Medical Misinfo Runs Rampant Online. The Gov't Must Retain the Right to Intervene,” this argument totally fails to understand the balance that must exist between the government’s right to inform and the free speech rights of citizens, especially in a rapidly changing field such as science. Benjamin D. Hoffman, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, General pediatrician and Professor of Pediatrics at Doernbecher Children’s Hospital and Oregon Health and Science University and Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPP, board certified and president of the American Medical Association, are the two authors.

Target: misinformation and disinformation

The two physicians seeking to muzzle tens of thousands of doctors aren't based on malicious intent, in fact quite the opposite. From their point of view, “Online misinformation about vaccines harms patients, undermines trust in science, and places additional burdens on our healthcare system through reduced vaccine uptake.” They go on to note that “the widespread proliferation of misinformation and disinformation has triggered higher levels of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, allowing a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases that we had nearly eradicated.”

And there has been an increase in measles cases and reports of vaccine hesitancy have led to a few percentage point reduction in children vaccination rates. But also, about 70% of the population lined up to get the COVID-19 vaccine under the premise that it would work like other vaccines. No one expected a third, fourth or even a fifth booster shot within just a couple years. To not be able to criticize the government and a powerful industry such as Pharma in a democratic society means, well, that you are no longer living in a democratic society. That a particular definition of science is exploited by a confluence of interests, a ministry of truth right out of George Orwell’s 1984 isn’t necessarily a stretch at that point.

To blame physicians that research and prescribe FDA approved repurposed drugs or that call out identified vaccine safety issues for vaccine hesitancy, and hostile to science-- classifying them as anti-vaxx, then advocating for the government to silence them, is frankly, a calling card of a precursor to an oppressive, overreaching state, and ultimately some form of fascism.

“Discredited medical falsehoods”

Admitting a tension between their goals and the US Constitution, our Medpage Today authors note that “Preventing the spread of vaccine misinformation without infringing on free speech protections in the First Amendment is a thorny legal issue that is at the heart of a landmark case now before the U.S. Supreme Court….”

They go on to state that our country’s top healthcare organizations and thousands of doctors think that “vaccine misinformation” is a grave threat to the public. The doctors say that they seek to partner with the federal government to advance “factual information.” They go on to note that the decision in Murthy v. Missouri, relating to when government advice becomes government coercion, is based on claims that the Biden administration “engaged in censorship during the pandemic by urging private social media companies to stop the spread of discredited medical falsehoods from their platforms to save lives.” But “discredited” scientific theories often turn out to be current, such as the lab-leak hypothesis for the origin of COVID-19 and delegating to the government the authority to pre-determine scientific reality is a slippery slope, to say the least.

Ivermectin an open question

Our well-credentialed, well positioned doctors opine that “at stake in this case is what tools the government and public health agencies have at their disposal to combat medical misinformation. Without getting into the legal arguments on both sides, one thing is clear: to strip away government power to raise the alarm about patently false information on life-saving vaccines -- when illness and lives hang in the balance -- would be a devastating outcome.”

Using ivermectin as an example, they note that the government issued a warning of “serious adverse events” from the drug and unequivocally conclude, despite the mixed evidence, that “numerous studies showed it was entirely ineffective against the virus.” The ivermectin question is especially contentious, with the FDA recently settling a case by agreeing to take down its internet warnings against using the drug for COVID-19.

In concluding, the doctors offer that:

“Stopping the spread of medical misinformation is an enormous task, and we cannot expect any single entity to accomplish this challenge. Those of us who have taken an oath to protect the health and well-being of patients share the responsibility to separate fact from fiction.

Anything less than a comprehensive effort to prevent the dissemination of medical misinformation -- using the powers of the federal government, public health agencies, healthcare
organizations, social media companies and media outlets.”

Government truths to challenged facts

This unabashed call for the US government to continue its role as truth arbiter in the COVID-19 context is misguided and dangerous to civil rights and just plain stupid given the unfolding facts—both known generally to the public and those that will emerge.

The government told us the vaccines would present infection and spread; both of these claims turned out to be wrong. The World Health Organization first informed the world the 70% vaccination target was to achieve herd immunity because the vaccine would stop viral transmission. Of course, they were incorrect and they had to adjust the messaging. Frankly, the WHO was against coercive measures by state actors such as vaccine mandates.

On the other hand, WHO acted coercively if they found out a  developing nation authorized ivermectin on an emergency basis. We had more than one national government representative or their proxy contact TrialSite asking us to take a story down out of fear of WHO reprisal.

How about the WHO’s move celebrating  the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh’s success in its spring 2021 battle against Delta, an unprecedented public health effort that turned an absolute crisis around in months. Part of the multi-faceted regimen was a home medicine kit including ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc. WHO omitted that from their celebratory press release and U.S. media when asked about it lied and said ivermectin was not involved. Merely mentioning this truthful piece of news brought immediate censorship on platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter (pre-Musk) and others.

Bill Gates has gone on the record that it’s time to find vaccines that are actually sterilizing in effect. But listen to Drs Hoffman and Ehrenfeld, if he [Gates] were a doctor, they would be muzzled. By January 2023, as reported in TrialSite Bill Gates all but announced the current COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as dead on arrival. Gates had managed to earn a fortune on his pre-pandemic bet on the BioNTech mRNA vaccine, however, —as that was the experimental asset selected by Pfizer to commercialize. But Mr. Gates was surprisingly candid about the lack of vaccine durability, although he kept away from the vaccine injury topic. But regardless, Hoffman and Ehrenfeld would have him muzzled if he were a doctor for raising his frustration about the durability and breadth challenges with the current vaccines.

If we allowed authorities or their proxies to dictate truth and fiction, no one would be free to contest what in some cases appear to be exaggerated benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines, for example.

And let’s not forget that while the pharmaceutical industry is very important—our news media platform is dedicated to tracking breakthroughs that ultimately pharmaceutical companies must invest in to turn to medicines—they have been in the past entangled in horrible scandals or illicit schemes that hurt society.

We only need to point to recent incidents such as Merck and Viox or Purdue Pharma and Oxycontin. How many people became addicted to opiates because government agencies fell hook line and sinker for corporate science? When will these doctors espousing such dangerous talk realize what the implications are if you muzzle criticism? Pfizer’s revenues derived from the pandemic approach $100 billion, an unprecedented amount of money. TrialSite analyzed Public Citizen’s Pfizer’ Power, finding that the company in many cases pursued profit over people and health during the pandemic. We remind Drs. Hoffman and Ehrenfeld who ever had the gold tend to impose their will.

At the confluence of power and big money comes a tendency for corruption, and without a free and open press, which includes independent physicians making their opinions known, we could easily slip into a dark non-democratic reality.

Who is Hoffman and Ehrenfeld?

Benjamin Hoffman is the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics for 2024. He is a professor and pediatrician at both Doernbecher Children’s Hospital and Oregon Health and Science University. After studying Anthropology at UC Berkeley, he attended Medical School at Harvard University. Notably, Harvard is an epitome of an elite institution, and since 9-11, our CIA has re-upped its interest is hiring Anthropology graduates.

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, became president of the American Medical Association in June 2023, and he was voted onto the American Medical Association Board of Trustees in 2014. Dr. Ehrenfeld is a consultant to the WHO and was co-chair of a Navy Surgeon General’s Taskforce. His work has been funded by the DoD, NIH, and others. As to academic credential, the doctor “is a graduate of Phillips Academy, Haverford College, the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine and the Harvard School of Public Health.” Last, Ehrenfeld is a combat veteran of several campaigns in Afghanistan, and for that we are grateful.

What about MedPage Today?

What about MedPage Today? The medical focused media site is owned by Everyday Health Group, which is in turn indirectly owned by J2 Global Inc., an American technology holding company based in Los Angeles, California. The company changed its name to ZiffDavis in 2021. According to Ziff Davis’s annual investor disclosure, MedPage Today is considered their flagship professional property. Ironically, the top two institutional shareholders of Ziff Davis, Blackrock and Vanguard Group, are often among the top five institutional owners in most of the largest publicly traded pharmaceutical companies.  

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/elite-doctors-support-government-censorship-in-the-name-of-public-safety-c86d6f16

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************