Two weeks ago, I attended Dr. @dockaurG’s long-awaited appeal of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (@cpso_ca) to censor her for her advocacy against many of Canada’s draconian covid policies. A longish 🧵on medical Lysenkoism in Canada.
1/10
Dr. Gill is a physician-leader with an excellent track record of patient care. She has never had a single patient complaint. She devotes her life to her patients. In 2020, she tweeted against the Canadian lockdowns. For this crime, @cpso_ca is threatening her license.
2/10
Dr. Gill’s tweets in early 2020 focused on few themes, supported by scientific literature: (1) the harms of lockdown; (2) the importance of t-cell immunity; (3) the folly of ignoring age-stratification of covid mortality risk; etc. She was prescient & right about it all.
3/10
In August 2020, a coordinated campaign to smear Dr. Gill resulted in the @cpso_ca opening seven separate complaints about identical tweets. Five were dismissed, including a tweet about HCQ for covid. The @cpso_ca accepted two complaints on a very shaky basis.
4/10
Here’s the first tweet. Dr. @dockaurG was spot on here. The damage done by lockdowns to children, the poor, and the working class is incalculable. In any case, at the very least this is a legitimate opinion, not misinformation.
5/10
In its decision against Dr. Gill, @cpso_ca cited the “success” of the lockdown in China as a reason to doubt the accuracy of Dr. Gill’s tweet. Even at the time, this was ridiculous. Subsequent events have proven @cpso_ca’s position even more laughable.
6/10
Here’s the second tweet. Note the date – August 2020 before the vaccines were introduced. In context, Dr. Gill was arguing that we did not need a vaccine to lift lockdown, which was legitimate opinion (witness Sweden), not misinformation.
7/10
The @cpso_ca’s position is that all Ontario doctors must align their public utterances with the Canadian government, even if medical ethics and scientific facts cut against the govt position. Ontario doctors are not protected apparently by the Canadian charter.
8/10
Dr. Gill’s experience with the dystopian actions by @cpso_ca is a harbinger of what doctors in California can expect under the new #AB2098, which imposes a similar regime. Patients will wonder whether their doctor has their interest or the government's at heart.
9/10
These @cpso_ca actions against Dr. @dockaurG have already done considerable damage to Canadian science & medicine. They are deeply unjust, and I hope the appeals board reverses them. Dr. Gill is a Canadian hero.
10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I am all done for now with my tweets decrying the #antiscience of covid policy. Some thoughts in a short thread.
1. My framing of the issues as science vs. anti-science was meant ironically. Covid policy necessarily involves values, morals, & trade-offs as well as science.
1/5
2. Science by itself is not fit for navigating these trade-offs involving values. Scientists should advise policymakers, not substitute for them. In doing so, scientific institutions should be politically neutral or risk alienating the public.
2/5
3. Scientific bureaucrats who foisted these nonsensical policies on the world have done so much damage to the poor, to children, and to working-class people. They have damaged the reputation of science and public health. 3/5 newsweek.com/how-fauci-fool…
This post by @houmanhemmati is important. It foreshadows what patients will face in response to medical censorship laws, like the one just passed in California.
The twitter algorithm is acting strangely on Houman's post. Wouldn't it be a shame if many people 'liked' and RT'd it?
@houmanhemmati Here's a screenshot of the post at the moment. So many more RT's than likes just doesn't make sense. Why is twitter suppressing criticism of medical censorship?
If it's true that AB2098, the dystopian California bill, really is limited to taking away licenses from bad doctors who directly harm patients, why is California legislator @DrPanMD singling me out for criticizing the bill he co sponsored? The real aim is to silence dissent.
@DrPanMD Check out the replies that @DrPanMD his to his incendiary tweet (there's a small button on the lower right of his tweet that shows you to see then). Dr. Pan would love a California Ministry of Truth, with him as chief minister.
@DrPanMD Here;s a direct link to the hidden replies for Dr. Pan's tweet:
Four Hopkins epidemiologists replied to this piece, starting their letter by saying, in effect, that the very fact that Mikko and I wrote our article was "potentially deadly", presumably because they thought people might find our argument persuasive. 2/4
You can read our reply to Gurley et al. at the link. The key thing I want to emphasize here is: The way our interlocutors started off their letter poisoned the well of scientific discussion. Their rhetoric sought to silence us, rather than engage us. 3/4 inference-review.com/letter/contact…
During the first two years of the pandemic, I served as a pro-bono expert witness in countless anti-lockdown, anti-mask mandate & anti-vax mandate cases. The norm was incompetence by "experts" and judges:
1/4
The typical "expert"
➡️vastly overestimated the efficacy of covidian policies & the accuracy of covid modeling,
➡️did not understand that delaying cases is not the same as eliminating them, and
➡️were blind to lockdown harms.
Shocking naivete in the credentialed class.
2/4
The typical judge:
➡️was unable to assess scientific data or argument
➡️gave undue deference to @cdcgov and public health sources despite obvious flaws in recommendations
➡️seemed personally scared of covid
➡️thought that civil liberties were dispensible
3/4
Ten ethical principles for public health. 1. All PH advice should consider the impact on overall health, rather than solely concerned with a single disease. It should always consider both benefits and harms from PH measures and weigh short-term gains vs. long-term harms.
1/11
2. PH is about everyone. Any PH policy must first and foremost protect society's most vulnerable, including children, low-income families, persons with disabilities and the elderly. It should never shift the burden of disease from the affluent to the less affluent.
2/11
3. Public health advice should be adapted to the needs of each population, within cultural, religious, geographic, and other contexts.
3/11