/
/
{Update – flak for Malhotra, and for Dr Malik (also for Andrew Bridgen MP). Include Nass}
26/5/20 Put somewhere – Gorski’s extreme rudeness towards Raoult, on his calling out Lancet. Never any apology.
And Gorski believed, or said he believed, the fake data.
https://filiperafaeli.substack.com/p/yes-hydroxychloroquine-is-scientifically
Flak {See file/page Flak}
Hostility in the sense of abuse, censure, or condemnation. Not so much official punishment.
Characteristics of flak in discourse.
This may allow many media attack pieces to be viewed through a framework.
False claims. Heavy Rhetoric or Tone. Personal Attacks or smears.
Misleading – the public/readership are misled into condemnation, and away from making up their own minds.
Evidence tricks – missing, not presented, simply claimed, or that is deliberately false or misleading.
{False claims, Rhetoric, Attacks, Misled, Evidence. FRAME}
Can be a mixture, as when evidence is clearly implied, that is absent or false. So in a kind of mark II version, elements can jumbled up. Eg, evidence can be implied by rhetoric, a likely indicator of adhom at least.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Use of Flak to Stop Debate
Lead with NYT hit piece, attacking Senate presenters as quacks. All the FRAME elements are present!
Flak for Risch (TV clip), and for three. Also for C19study, worth mentioning.
Monty Python.
Netherlands, orchestrated. By the medical system. Simply refer to Threats and Suspensions? {And in this menu, refer back to Use of Flak}
Media propagates flak as a matter of routine.
√ 1/1/22 In Western nations, many doctors who dare to publicly question the covid-19 narrative, or to prescribe early Covid-19 treatments (based on clinical trials that the media have failed to report) have been openly censured and ridiculed; <hounded> and <hunted> even.
For example, three top-of-their-field, award-winning physicians who testified at a US Senate Hearing in November 2020 were attacked as “snake-oil salesmen” in a bizarre New York Times opinion piece.
That was how Dr. Ashish Jha, health policy professor at Brown University, described Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch (on the editorial board of the American Journal of Epidemiology for decades), Baylor’s Vice Chair of Medicine Dr. Peter McCullough, and California’s “rural physician of the year,” Dr. George Fareed.
None of these Drs have conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. But the NYT did not mention that this is not true of Dr. Jha, who regularly advocates for vaccines in the media, who has never treated a Covid patient, and who has far less impressive academic qualifications than Risch or McCullough. (See Jha’s comparative citation rating in Google Scholar.)
https://www.onedaymd.com/2021/05/dr-peter-mccullough-harvey-risch-george-fareed.html
√ C_m file. Flak for Risch in TV clip, for three and for C19study
√ Monty Python.
{Adoration, expanded in 5F link. (This one?) Prob not in flak though.}
√ Flak was officially orchestrated in the Netherlands, where both the public and pharmacists are asked to report doctors who kill patients? prescribe HCQ or ivermectin or who disagree with policy.
(also hostile speculation on C19study in
https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/i0np9i/whos_behind_c19studycom_a_lot_of_the/, flannel in:
√ Dr Urso reported to board over use of HCQ, P10(12 now)
√ The media were happy to get in on the act; eg when Dr Simone Gold was jailed, ostensibly for attending the Jan 6 insurrection, headlines like Anti-vaccine doctor who pushed hydroxychloroquine pleads guilty for entering Capitol on Jan. 6 left little doubt what the real message was (and here, here** and here).
**This was a piece posted in the BMJ by a non-medic; ostensibly about Gold’s jailing, but mainly devoted to criticizing the White Coat Summit Drs. 100,000 views – that’s up to 100,000 medics that may note that dissenting covid voices might find themselves jailed.
Raoult called a quack on TV, and formally accused of charlatanism.
Medika site. Moved the substance to its own file. Here, need to summarise and interpret it.
Back to C_more file…P12.
Fletcher, Cochrane, tries to draw a line under HCQ, no mention of early. Also under studies, of course)
CDC study 2005. CQ abolished HCQ. Ignored since, = suppression.
Jackson and Coker, 65% of US physicians would give HCQ to own family to treat covid. Also thousands of doctors on P21 of C_m.
P26 21% prescriptions off-label
Michigan Gretchen Whitmer’s Licensing dept threatens Drs using HCQ
Also ignored Belgian Drs, C_m file
C file
On the other side. “disgusting…”
He started it….”quack cures”
{This belongs in <flak>. Raoult is referred to as a quack, or promoting quack medicine. Touting it. He was formally accused of being a charlatan.
Objectively speaking early treatment studies, in the complete absence of any negative outcomes[.], have always supported Didier Raoult’s view on HCQ.
Therefore the purpose of using pejorative language to describe his advocacy of the drug should be clear, i.e. to discredit him, or deflect from the message – hardly a scientific approach.
Similarly, claiming there is NO evidence, repeatedly ignoring the distinction between early and late treatment, and ignoring the high success rate in studies of early treatment are all ways of avoiding confronting the truth.}