I’m fed up with these nit-wit conspiracy theories too.
LOL. The irony is amusing!
One story like that does what?
Doctors Now Rebelling Against COVID 19 narrative Get Banned From Youtube After Appearing On Fox . . .
And another source here . . .
Quacks profiting off conspiracy theory are a worldwide problem.
Diverts this thread from the topic, of course.
I sympathize with this doctor. I too tired of the ignorant that think themselves wise because they internet. As much as the internet is a valuable resource for those who use it to learn, it is also mind-numbing for those who use it only to advance and confirm their ignorance.
I am glad he said it. He still remains heroic in my estimation and I will not judge this outburst of frustration.
This story is another example of how poor and biased our media is.
The headline is Docs fed up with conspiracy stories ravaging ERs, but then the main physicians they talk to are a cardiologist and an epidemiologist, neither of which work in an ER.
ER providers deal with conspiracy stories every day in the ER. Oh, 5G gave you cancer? Okay, I’ll refer you to oncology.
BTW - ED visits across the nation are down almost 50% since the pandemic began. Other than a few hotspots (like NYC, which is again over-represented in this story), most EDs are laying off staff or cutting their hours.
When you go to an ER when you are sick, they either treat you and send you home if you’re well enough or admit you to the hospital, where you see further doctors and specialists.
My cousin is a cardiologist, and she’s treated covid patients.
Nothing new in this. It comes with being a doctor, and probably has ever since the pyramids were built. There’s probably a laetrile clinic still treating cancer patients somewhere in Guyana. Companies still advertise the “joint soothing” effects of copper, it’s just that it’s now copper thread in socks instead of solid copper in bracelets “guaranteed” to cure carpal tunnel syndrome. I have no doubt sassafras tea is still sold in “health food” stores, and is used for any number of maladies. Even in legitimate pharmacies there is nearly always a fairly substantial counter full of herbal remedies for every condition known to man.
Never mind the truly bizarre third world maladies like “impacho” (caused by guilt, usually of sexual sins), for which one needs to consult a “curandera”. It’s not limited to the third world. People still cure “run arounds” (fungus infection of the nails) with “tar” (iodine & baby oil) in factories right here in the U.S.
The internet didn’t start bogus or folk remedies, and if the internet disappeared overnight, the number of them probably would not decrease. And I’m sure doctors have, for millenia, had to deal with them. Probably there is a papyrus complaint about it by an Egyptian doctor written in 2300 B.C.that was used with other scrap paper to stuff the empty skull of a yet-undiscovered mummy in Faiyum.
And only one man, under God, indivisible, should have authority? With liberty and justice, for him.
Is it a leftist model?
I think it is a dignity of life issue. A pro-life issue.
I say this because we don’t evaluate pro life/ pro choice fairly and globally, no matter where you stand on the issue. There are lots of reasons we don’t but my argument focuses on one.
Pro life believers ultimately do little more than declare belief.
From an experiential standpoint, their " belief"is not accompanied by any hardship or choice of hardship. It is a position of almost all benefit and no skin in the game experientially. The potential mother faces all of the potential experiential issues. And they can be very real. Birth of a child of rape and incest is real and I select that example because it is easier to imagine the issues one will face if they make the Catholic choice. One can " try" to imagine of course. For " declarer’s" of pro life, you will never " experience" the choice itself. People who simply
" declare" have no skin in the game. They are Interlopers in someone else’s hard choice on the way Sunday breakfast.
Pro life in this virus choice infuses the pro life decision with skin in the game.
We are deciding pro life and we also are going to live with negative consequences. Or not. If not, well, you now have some insight into why women talk about the choice as a personal right to do what they want with their bodies. They prefer not having the incest baby.
Anyway, I view this debate as having these difficult issues. The economy and losses, are not unlike the very real thoughts of the putative mother contemplating the consequences of her choice.
Pro choice people very much see the choice as a right. Theirs because consequences are real and theirs. They cannot understand voices from the cheap seats and likely feel antagonistic. IT IS SO EASY, AND PLEASURABLE, TO TELL( shout) ANOTHER They must ENTER HARDSHIP, a lifelong choice, AND THEN wollow in ONES own feelings of Catholic worthiness, having invested nothing in terms of consequences. That’s a good deal!
If I were to say this is a right wing thing, it would be uncharitable. The pro life here and not their would be predictable. Choice if I suffer hardship with life. And life if I suffer nothing. Plus always get a tax cut .
That would be a stereotype.
I disagree with life site news. This is not an isolated disagreement. It is interesting, because I view participation as I wrote. At least my parallel is not just my observation.
This virus does not involve us making our own choice to face risk and our own consequences. Our choice creates risk for others. If I am a healthy strapping 20 year old, my focus on my rights, to do what I want with my body, to persue my own happiness, contributes to the risk of death to others. THE CHOICE directly contributes to the volume of infection, and foreseeable risk of consequences for others. Risk we know that has a direct causal link. The 20 year olds consequences is not the consequences he spreads to the vulnerable.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.