Drop That Sound
Well-Known Member
soyshi
Vaccinated stay contagious longer than Unvaccinated
- Thread starter ActionianJacksonian
- Start date
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Is Paul Offit's position on boosters a "great exception"? Should he have his license revoked because he disagrees with the "consensus"?
Paul Offit, Philly’s most vocal vaccine advocate, on science, truth, and why he’s not a fan of the latest COVID boosters
Paul Offit says he is standing up for science, but was in the minority on the FDA panel of scientists who recommended the bivalent COVID vaccine now being offered across the nation.
www.inquirer.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Since I was talking about science, I do not see a testable hypothesis in an opinion piece about a nonscientist published in a newspaper. So, not in category.Is Paul Offit's position on boosters a "great exception"? Should he have his license revoked because he disagrees with the "consensus"?
Paul Offit, Philly’s most vocal vaccine advocate, on science, truth, and why he’s not a fan of the latest COVID boosters
Paul Offit says he is standing up for science, but was in the minority on the FDA panel of scientists who recommended the bivalent COVID vaccine now being offered across the nation.
When some science gets published (in the appropriate places) that lies outside of consensus, the thing to do is test it andor wait for others to test it and examine their results. At that point, what I posted comes into play. True lateral advances in science, ones that stand up to extended test, are distinctly uncommon.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Paul Offit is a "nonscientist"? He is Director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, is an FDA vaccine advisory committee member, and has published over 160 papers in medical and scientific journals in the areas of rotavirus-specific immune responses and vaccine safety.
Paul A. Offit, MD
Paul A. Offit, MD, is the Director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
He is an MD. Doctors are practitioners of a discipline. They partner with scientists for things like clinical trials that require science. I believe I laid this out earlier. I am not sure why you are aggressively employing fallacy. In this instance, appeal to authority.Paul Offit is a "nonscientist"? He is of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, is an FDA vaccine advisory committee member, and has published over 160 papers in medical and scientific journals in the areas of rotavirus-specific immune responses and vaccine safety.
Paul A. Offit, MD
Paul A. Offit, MD, is the Director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.www.chop.edu
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
So the fact that he's written articles in scientific journals doesn't make him a "scientist"? I'm curious what definition of "scientist" you are operating under, because a quick google search comes up with this, which would indeed confirm Dr Offit as a scientist.
- a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I tire of your game of gotcha.
Tell me then of his Ph. D. work and his papers in journals of science, not medicine.
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
The new law you cited would not apply to Paul Offit. The law is very specific; According to the statute, disinformation is misinformation that is “deliberately disseminated [by a physician or surgeon] with malicious intent or an intent to mislead.”
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
Misinformation is defined in the legislation as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”
California Governor's own words: “However, I am confident that discussing emerging ideas or treatments including the subsequent risks and benefits does not constitute misinformation or disinformation under this bill’s criteria,”
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't apply to Offit because it's a California law, and he practices in Philadelphia.
As far as your quote of the law, it seems that you cherry-picked there. If you look at the entire section, "misinformation" is specifically prohibited separately from "disinformation", and is defined as I previously described. Here is the complete section 2 of AB 2098, for your review:
SEC. 2.
Section 2270 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:
2270.
(a) It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.
(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Board” means the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, as applicable.
(2) “Disinformation” means misinformation that the licensee deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead.
(3) “Disseminate” means the conveyance of information from the licensee to a patient under the licensee’s care in the form of treatment or advice.
(4) “Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.
(5) “Physician and surgeon” means a person licensed by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2000).
(c) Section 2314 shall not apply to this section.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Right, that's what I said previously.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
It's not a game of gotcha. You decided that a scientist was a "nonscientist", simply because you'd rather not debate the core concern. It's one of your classic topic-avoidance tactics, of which you use all too often.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I'm fairly certain that medicine is a science.
Here's one example of his past work: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/513939?resultClick=1
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
But it's not what you said previously. You left out an important detail from my understanding;
You wrote [ In California a law was just passed which doesn't allow doctors to give any covid advice to patients which is outside of "contemporary scientific consensus" ]
vs
(4) “Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I'm fairly certain that under that pretense anything "contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus" would be considered "false information", as "contemporary scientific consensus" (whatever that even means) effectively defines what is considered true or false. Back in early 2021 when I was saying that the vaccines did not stop transmission of covid, that would have been considered "false information", but now less than two years later, we know that it is indeed true.
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
No.Is Paul Offit's position on boosters a "great exception"? Should he have his license revoked because he disagrees with the "consensus"?
Paul Offit, Philly’s most vocal vaccine advocate, on science, truth, and why he’s not a fan of the latest COVID boosters
Paul Offit says he is standing up for science, but was in the minority on the FDA panel of scientists who recommended the bivalent COVID vaccine now being offered across the nation.
