Argument over a Card Game by Jan Steen (1625/26 - 1679), oil on canvas, 46.8"x35.4"
There are thousands of physicians around the world that have treated millions of severe outpatient COVID-19 patients with early, effective, and safe options utilizing a variety of vitamins, supplements, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, steroids, and other safe repurposed medications. Dr. Peter McCullough arguably the most well-studied and published physician in the State of Texas and author of over 600 peer-reviewed publications, has championed the safe and effective use of early outpatient treatment for COVID-19, including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other vitamins, supplements, and repurposed drugs.
My title comes from a newsletter I received from the NLFD (No License for Disinformation), an organization that targets doctors who spread “mis/disinformation” and attempts to get their medical licenses removed. Maybe they should have called themselves the Gestapo. I wrote an article about them back in January because Steve Kirsch challenged Taylor Nichols, MD to a debate. Guess what? Taylor Nichols, MD didn’t accept. They never do. I notice that their website has been updated. Their home page statement is laughable. I’m not going to comment on it as it would make this post twice as long, but I have reproduced it at the end of this post (and I made some brief comments—I couldn’t help myself).
In an ABC hit piece(opens new window) attacking Ivermectin, Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Peter McCullough, ABC talks to Nick Sawyer, MD who leads NLFD. Throughout the piece the reason viewers are told that they should accept the idea that Ivermectin is bad and the vaccines are good is because all the current authorities say so: CDC, FDA, NIH, AMA and WHO. Apparently, that’s because these organizations have such a good track record. This report came out on March 3, 2022 and we now know the CDC is essentially saying they screwed up and we were right all along advocating for early treatment and no lockdowns.
The newsletter directs you to a podcast from July of 2022. Nick Sawyer, MD, right at the beginning, attacks those who were against lockdowns, which is hilarious, because his side has started admitting that lockdowns were a mistake. I didn’t finish the podcast.
So essentially what NLFD asks visitors to their website to do is report doctors who do not agree with the current narrative. In other words, you are not allowed, in their world, to have different opinion than theirs. I’m perfectly fine with the NLFD believing the vaccines are safe and effective and that everyone should get them. You want to believe that? Knock yourself out. Go for it. I’m for freedom. My problem with the NLFD is that they want to force everyone into their belief system. They want to censor any dissenting voices. This is totalitarianism, not freedom.
So, Who Decides?
This question, who decides the truth in regard to the laws of the land or any laws, has always been, at least in my experience, an extremely legitimate philosophical question. It’s one of the reasons why free speech is so incredibly important. If only one body, or one entity decides the truth and there is no room for dissent who’s to say, that even if that “truth” espoused is actually true, that down the line, because an authority has said so, that it will not be considered a falsehood one day? No one, that’s who. That’s why that question is such an important one. And one that should be answered. In the NLFD’s newsletter they write this about that question:
A frequent rhetorical tactic deployed by doctors pushing COVID dis/misinformation – in order to refute the idea that a single evidence-based reality exists – seeks to push us all into a world best described by political philosopher Hannah Arendt where “Everything is possible and nothing is true.”[emphasis mine]
Notice that language, “in order to refute the idea a single evidence-based reality exists.” So what they’re saying is there is a single evidence-based reality and they know what it is. That’s the dangerous part: THEY KNOW. Science, real evidence-based science continues to change based on…get ready for it…the evidence. That’s why dissent is important. Sometimes dissenters are right. Look at history.
Invoking Hannah Arendt is disingenuous. Here’s the full quote from The Origins of Totalitarianism:
A mixture of gullibility and cynicism had been an outstanding characteristic of mob mentality before it became an everyday phenomenon of masses. In an ever-changing, incomprehensible, world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything is possible and that nothing was true. The mixture in itself was remarkable enough, because it spelled the end of the illusion that gullibility was a weakness of unsuspecting primitive souls and cynicism the vice of superior and refined minds. Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.[emphasis mine]
This describes the side of history the NLFD has decided to join (the wrong side). We haven’t quite reached this point, but the absurd statements week after week and month after month have been piling up. Look what has happened these past two-and-a-half years:
- Just live your life normally. Don’t worry about it.
- Just two weeks to flatten the curve. Promise.
- Wear a mask!
- Social distance.
- It’s going to take longer to flatten curve. Sorry.
- OMG people are dying all over the place of Covid.
- The vaccine is our only hope.
- The Left before the election: I’m not taking a Trump vaccine!
- The Left after the election: I’m taking this vaccine!
- If you get the vaccine, you won’t get Covid.
- Look at me everyone, I got the vaccine! You should too.
- If you get the vaccine, you will not spread Covid, you’ll protect grandma.
- Ivermectin is horse dewormer. Don’t be a horse.
- We’ll give you donuts to get the vaccine.
- You have to get the vaccine to work here.
- If you get the vaccine, you can still spread it. It’ll be okay.
- If you get the vaccine, you can still get Covid, but it won’t be as bad.
- Most of the deaths were people who had several comorbidities AND Covid. Sorry, we forgot to mention that.
- You won’t need a booster.
- You’ll probably need a booster.
- You need to get a booster, but you won’t need any more.
- You might need some more boosters.
- You’ll need more boosters.
- Probably for the rest of your life, you’ll need boosters.
- We don’t want you to see that for 75 years.
- Students need to wear masks.
- Look everyone, I got my booster, I’m really sick, but I could have died. Please get the vaccine.
- You don’t need to wear a mask.
- Don’t worry about social distancing.
- OMG Covid is killing everyone. Your kids need the vaccine.
- Climate change is causing SADS
- Sleeping positions are causing SADS
- Lots of things are causing SADS. Get your heart checked.
- Your youngest kids need the vaccine.
- Your kids will need boosters too.
- Masks are optional for students.
- You don’t have to get the vaccine to work here, we changed our minds. Sorry.
- Maybe kids don’t need the vaccine.
- You know, we were kind of wrong about a lot of this stuff, but we’ll do better next time.
- blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Now let’s look at the other side:
- Live your life normally unless you are at risk.
- The vaccine may be appropriate for those at risk.
- No lockdowns.
- Early treatments work.
- Masks don’t work.
- The vaccines are not appropriate for anyone.
Most of the doctors I follow have been very consistent and open to change. Dr. Malone early on said the jab might be appropriate for those at risk. He has changed his mind. Continuing research supports the above (even the CDC and others support some of these statements now). Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the NLFD is correct that there is a “single evidence-based reality.” Which side fits that better? Which side is more consistent?
But asking the question (Who decides what disinformation is?) is a “rhetorical tactic” according to the NLFD. It’s not even a real question. The newsletter goes on:
When challenged by doctors practicing science-based medicine, knowing they will lose on the merits of their evidence-free arguments, it leaves them with little choice but to challenge the idea of reality itself. This inevitably leads these doctors to ask some form of the question, “Who decides what dis/misinformation is?”[emphasis mine]
This is bullshit. These are lies. They create fictional doctors, like bad preachers creating fictional atheists. The real doctors I follow: Dr. Kory, Dr. Malone, Dr McCullough and many others all have plenty of evidence, they are science-based and yes, they may still ask this very important question! This is meant to persuade those who know no better. The doctors I follow are also willing to debate anyone and no one will accept. NLFD will not debate. Debate, as Dr. Kory points out, is a necessity for an “evidence-based reality.” The NLFD (No License for Disinformation) is afraid to debate. That’s not all you need to know about them, but it’s a big part of what you need to know. Then, to prove the above point they quote a doctor from Twitter:
Who says you’re “the truth”?
Post your stats. How did your patients do?
Because ours are mostly alive to talk about it when treated with iver-among other things.
I’ve seen needless suffering and death of people who believed the “vax” was good.
Great questions. Here’s how these useful idiots labeled this tweet:
A doctor on Twitter known for spreading disinformation about COVID and the vaccines challenging the idea that objective facts exist.
I love the way that’s written. I feel like I’m following a docent around at an art museum and we’ve just come around the corner to one of their most prized pieces of art and in hushed tones the docent begins, “This is a doctor spreading misinformation, circa 2022. We just acquired this, no photos please.”
There is NOTHING in that statement where this doctor questions objective facts. Nothing. Show me NLFD where that is? You guys work in emergency rooms? I don’t want you interpreting my chart. Nick and Taylor are either shills, unable to comprehend simple sentences or intellectually compromised by their own propaganda. I’d love to see the mental gymnastics they would go through to answer this question: Where does the doctor question the existence of objective facts?
This is the first time I’ve seen an attack on the question: “Who decides what dis/misinformation is?” or “Who decides what is truth?” NLFD says this is not a legitimate question, it’s a “tactic”, it is an ad hominem argument. Seriously? People have tried to answer this question on both sides…as they should. But who the hell would believe that it is not a legitimate question, that it is just a tactic? The answer is people who have already been so propagandized and bamboozled they will believe anything. It is a legitimate question(opens new window):
Another concern about trying to regulate disinformation is who decides what disinformation is. Science evolves, something we have seen firsthand with respect to wearing face masks. In fact, medical reversal — evidence-based guidance that is later changed — is not rare.
And this from another article(opens new window) about California AB 2098 a bill I’m sure Taylor and Nick are all in on:
Who approves the “consensus?”[in reference to the “approved COVID treatment consensus”]
The newsletter goes on to contend that “Knowledge is the result of information networks.” That’s part of it, but there have also been remarkable individuals too. Shouldn’t we be able ask who decides who is correct? They call it the “Reality based community.” Again, who decides which “reality based community” is correct? Who decides that a community is in fact “reality based”? Here’s what the newsletter says about their community:
Members of the reality based community have all implicitly agreed to use verifiable and reproducible empirical data as our shared source of information and thus is the foundation of our network of knowledge.
This includes nearly everyone working in:
- Professional scholarship, medicine, science, research
- Main-stream journalism
- World of government agencies which gather intelligence, perform research, compile statistics, and develop regulations
- World of Law and jurisprudence
No one who chooses to study these disciplines needs to be coerced, only persuaded, because for those of us who study it, the data speaks for itself.
This knowledge network is currently being undermined by U.S. licensed doctors pushing COVID pseudoscience.[emphasis mine]
But for many, many doctors the “data does not speak for itself.” There is other data. Lots of it. Dissent must be allowed in free society. So let’s have a debate. Oh wait, the NLFD and apparently everyone else on their side to a man and woman will not debate anyone who thinks the vaccines are not “safe and effective.” Kirsch has offered millions of dollars over the last year to get anyone to debate him and his team. No one will accept. No one. Not one. Including the NLFD. Think about that. Dr. Kory, in an excellent article(opens new window), talks about the vigorous debates that used to go on in the medical community, probably still do, but NOT about this. This is off limits. That alone speaks volumes.
Then the newsletter quotes one of the “disinformation” spreaders. They don’t give the name, but the quote is important:
Please consider this my response. Everything I say in public is accurate. It is astonishing that 2 people that I have never met are filing complaints against me for misinformation. It is even more astonishing that the Board has reviewed these complaints (which is what is done according to the board’s website) and decided to proceed with them. As I answered you earlier (and wrote to the two attorneys who work for the Board) I would like for you to inform me what constitutes misinformation or disinformation. I have not heard back regarding that request.
Here’s what our NLFD docent wrote after this one:
In the Maine Medical Board’s interim suspension order of a doctor spreading COVID mis/disinformation, they note the doctor posed the “Who decides?” question.
This is interesting too, because this doctor did not ask “Who decides?” What the doctor asked for was a definition of misinformation or disinformation. That’s quite different. Apparently, they wouldn’t answer. There’s definitely a reading comprehension problem at the NLFD.
Then out of the blue they resort to a book entitled: On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. They take one chapter heading: “Defend Institutions,” as some sort of proof. No explanation of what the author wrote in those chapters, just this heading. They then say:
The COVID19 pandemic has led to historically low levels of trust in institutions.
No shit, Sherlock. What did you expect? This is an observation I agree with. Oh wait, that’s right, for the NLFD (Nazi Lying Feckless Doctors) that’s a bad thing. So, what institutions should we defend? Should we defend all institutions? Just some of them? Are there some we definitely should not defend? Please forgive me, these are probably inappropriate questions we are not allowed to ask.
Here are some statements from the last part of the newsletter:
- “These doctors have created an alternative reality based on manipulated, fraudulent and in many cases no data at all.”
[Just make a statement with no evidence, that’s how that works. Here’s some evidence.]
- “Their knowledge network is not based in persuasion, but rather coercion. For example, they spread verifiably false conspiracy theories to instill fear, animosity and a sense of victim hood[sic].”
- “These doctor’s do not attempt to persuade the “Reality based community,” because their claims are completely unsubstantiated. Instead, they bully, harass and intimidate using things like frivolous lawsuits and other threatening language, including calling for Nuremberg 2.0.”
[LOL. Yes, we are calling for Nuremberg 2.0. I’m glad it pisses them off. Our doctors have been attempting to persuade the “Reality based community” for more than two years! No one will debate them.]
- “Having left the Reality based community, these doctors should no longer be viewed as doctors, but rather as political operatives…”
- “First, they are all highly educated, and yet have decided to ignore the evidence.”
[This is just laughable….intended for the already propagandized. Here’s some evidence these doctors are not ignoring.]
- “Third, all the disinformation doctors frequently appear alongside other high profile right wing political operatives on traditional and digital media as well in person events. This is the end result of a total lack of oversight.”
It’s a frequent tactic of the Left to accuse their enemies of exactly what they are doing. On that last point where they write, “This is the end result of a total lack of oversight,” what does that mean? Sounds like it means there should be someone or at the very least someone from the “reality based community” overseeing all public get togethers. You know, like how Twitter oversees dis/misinformation.
A couple of things in conclusion: I think they’re being funded by someone or some entity. It is possibly significant that this newsletter went out as California is getting ready to pass AB 2098. A horrific bill that will punish doctors who have a dissenting view to the madness currently going on.
Here’s the main thing about this newsletter that I’m wondering about: will the questions “Who decides what is disinformation?” or “Who decides what is truth?” become illegitimate questions to ask and will we start seeing this pushed in the MSM in the future? Did these two doctors (Taylor Nichols, MD and Nick Sawyer, MD) come up with this on their own or was it suggested to them? We shall see.
Note: I had hoped to link to the newsletter, but it apparently it has no online version that newsletters usually provide. You can find most of this on Nick Sawyer’s Twitter account, you know, because none of what he says is misinformation. I’m not going to link to these but here are their twitter urls if you are interested:
- https://twitter.com/NickSawyerMD/status/1538728479738372097 (the “rhetorical tactic” quote is here, along with most of the content of the newsletter)
From the NLFD’s (No License for Disinformation) home page (okay, I lied, my comments are in brackets):
There is a multifaceted anti-science, anti-government movement led by anti-vaccine advocates and a small group of well-funded and well-organized fringe doctors taking advantage of the trust the public places in physicians to push their harmful agenda.
[There are a hell of lot of us who agree with them.]
They have created a populist movement through the propagation of disinformation undermining well-respected American institutions.
[Oh, maybe they do understand. Yes, we are a large populist movement. And we are growing.]
They have been monetizing, institutionalizing and weaponizing disinformation.
[Actually, they have been arming us, the regular people, with facts and scientific data, so much so, that many of us know far more than most doctors about Covid and the vaccines.]
Their actions serve to sabotage the U.S. COVID19 response and prolong the pandemic. The result is overwhelmed hospitals, burned out healthcare workers, increased national health care costs and, most importantly, the unnecessary suffering and death of our community members, family, friends and loved ones.
[The policies of the current governments and institutions around the world are what caused all of this. They are responsible for millions of deaths.]
These physicians have violated their responsibilities vested in them as licensed physicians both in terms of their ethical responsibilities and black letter law under each state’s Medical Practice Act.
[These physicians have sacrificed their careers for the truth. They are the true heroes.]
The blatantly partisan and violent nature of these doctors’ rhetoric is becoming more explicit and violent as their bizarre conspiracy theories fail to convince the majority of Americans that COVID19 vaccines are anything but safe and effective.
[Man, you guys must really be losing. This is straight up, blatant lies. We will remember those whose policies killed and injured our friends, family and loved ones. We will never forget.]
State Medical Boards have failed to protect the public from these #disinformationdoctors. We need action on the Federal level now.
[State medical boards are a joke and yes, they have failed to protect the public. Hey, I guess on this we agree.]
We are fighting for all of our colleagues working in healthcare and we are fighting for you.
[Not for me.]
We’re not giving up. Join us.
[No chance of that. Why won’t you debate anyone from our side? That was a rhetorical question, in case it wasn’t obvious…a tactical move on my part.]
B & W Version
You are free to download and use 's meme wherever you want (for non-commercial use only).
Please give credit and link back to the site.
But who decides what disinformation is?
Take a wild guess, Doc.
Political commentator Robby Soave, a host of “Rising” on Hill TV, wrote in an article for Reason, as reported in The Defender:
“Science is a deliberative process, and medical professionals need to be allowed to dissent from mainstream orthodoxies and challenge dominant perspectives. Patients deserve expert care, but it’s unreasonable for the government to compel ideological conformity in this field.
“Besides, the state has shown no particular aptitude for discerning what constitutes genuine misinformation. On the contrary, government actors have frequently instructed social media companies to be wary of perfectly legitimate points of view.”
California Health Coalition Advocacy (CHCA), as reported in The Defender:
“The understanding of the data and science related to COVID-19 continues to change as more studies are done. Standards of care are being updated as new information and treatments emerge.
“Any attempt at determining ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ will be fleeting.
“Top doctors in their field from UCSF, Stanford, and other well-respected institutions are speaking out about their lack of support for COVID-19 vaccines for children. Would these respected doctors be disciplined if AB 2098 were to pass?”