Top Canadian Doctors Challenged to a Debate

[longjonsilver]

There has been far too much emotion and far too little reason expended on the Covid emergency. Its time for the best Canadian doctors to have a public debate. These health officials are paid with tax dollars and Canadians deserve to hear from them the rationale for their policies.


Here is the Media Release:

OTTAWA – Doctors in support of the freedom convoy are inviting senior health officials to participate in a public scientific forum with subject matter experts in COVID-19, medicine, immunology, epidemiology, and virology, including Dr. Byram Bridle, Dr. Paul Alexander, and Dr. Roger Hodkinson to an
open and fair discussion, with senior Health Administrative representatives of the Federal Government, Dr. Theresa Tam and Dr. Howard Njoo and the Chair of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, Dr. Shelley Deeks.

Given that the government claims we are in a state of emergency, we feel this discussion needs to be expedited and brought before the Canadian
public.

i urge you to attend and to watch the discussion as it unfolds. Endless assertions of "the science" need to be tested by other qualified scientists. This is how science works - not by censoring other scientists.

https://viralimmunologist.substack.c...utm_medium=web

[tkeithlu]

Debates over science only really work when both sides stay within the science. I'm reminded of the debates between William Shockley (Nobel for the transistor) and experimental psychologists (I'm one) over the intelligence of blacks versus whites. Shockley misused the statistical evidence in ways that would take me fifteen minutes in a class of freshmen to explain. All he had to do was hold up a graph showing a 15 point difference in the means of Stanford-Binet intelligence tests for blacks versus whites - completely true, but not due to a difference in intelligence.

So, a debate on covid restrictions may or may not be warranted. We were warned not to debate Shockley, because he would cheat in ways that could not be countered within the framework of three minute answers at a debate podium.

Science is complicated. That's why we have scientists. Scientists debate among themselves - it's called peer review - where everyone knows the topic and the rules. Debating in front of the general public is problematic. They may form opinions from the debate that are unwarranted because they don't understand, for example, virology.

[goboatingnow]

Correct , public scientific debate is largely theatrics. Remember if youre explaining you’re loosing.

[Mike OReilly]

More childish theatrics. This whole protest has the maturity level of a six year old who is having a temper tantrum because it is raining and the can't go outside.

[Sailorman97]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

More childish theatrics. This whole protest has the maturity level of a six year old who is having a temper tantrum because it is raining and the can't go outside.

Yes the whole thing is ridiculous. The reason for vaccines and for the lockdowns has nothing to do with freedom.

It is to take the load off hospitals. If we had no vaccines and no lockdowns the hospitals would be completely plugged and people who needed none covid care would be out of luck. That means people who have had heart attacks, strokes, trauma from accidents, broken arms and any other reason you might need to go to the hospital.

[MicHughV]

what about $$$.
Covid is a big $$$ business..ask Pfizer what they've coined over the past two years...??

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by MicHughV

what about $$$.
Covid is a big $$$ business..ask Pfizer what they've coined over the past two years...??

Ask the private snow plowing contractors how much extra they make with each major blizzard. Yes, big pharma is loving this. That doesn't make the reality of the pandemic any less -- real.

[Lodesman]

I'm reminded of the Twain aphorism "Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

The head idiot of this challenge doesn't have much support from his peers: https://www.wormsandgermsblog.com/fi...y_UoGuelph.pdf

[Island Time O25]

We are mixing up several separate issues. One is scientific - the origins and epidemiology of covid. Second - more political - the cost and efficasy of lockdowns and mask theatrics. There is also a third related issue - the price of lockdowns for the millions worldwide whose other medical problems have been aggravated by them not seeing their doctors on time. All these questions should be openly and vigorously debated in supposedly free society.

And the fact that some (many)? are making up excuses not to debate these issues tells me all I need to know about those people's positions and integrity.

As far as analogy with snowplow drivers - it would only apply if the government prohibited any potential Joe the Plowman from installing a plow on his Jeep and joining the snowplowmen ranks just prior to the expected storm. The market for pharmaceuticals is so highly regulated as to constitute a highly entry restricted oligopoly. Which together with government strong arm tactics allows for fleecing the consumers of their products and services.

[Shrew]

Originally Posted by longjonsilver

There has been far too much emotion and far too little reason expended on the Covid emergency. Its time for the best Canadian doctors to have a public debate. These health officials are paid with tax dollars and Canadians deserve to hear from them the rationale for their policies.

The foundation of science isn't debate. It's empiricism and reproducibility. Debate is a foundation of Philosophy which IS NOT a science. This entire premise is misguided.

What benefit would there be in debating the science of a virus. There are only two camps here (Science Vs Joe Rogan).

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by tkeithlu

Science is complicated. That's why we have scientists. Scientists debate among themselves - it's called peer review - where everyone knows the topic and the rules. Debating in front of the general public is problematic. They may form opinions from the debate that are unwarranted because they don't understand, for example, virology.

True. Scientist do debate, usually the interpretation of experimental outcomes or observations. Often, they create “models” to forecast outcomes based on experiments or observations. Except for supporting a favored theory with excess passion, the debates seek to explain outcomes and observations without prejudice. But when the discussions pertain to some societal issue such public health or environmental health, the debates become entirely prejudiced and the science, as it were, becomes a prop of the debaters.

Vaccines, quarantines, and mask mandates are public health polices. Epidemiologists and politicians (government health departments) put them in place b/c historically that’s how societies have met public health crises. But as soon as a politician runs a national campaign on vaccine/mask mandate and wins, it’s political. That’s what drives it going forward. The “science”, whatever was there, succumbs to urgency. Many people believe the politicians and the science labs of the government are not paying any real attention to “science” at this point. “Follow the science” has become just another hollow election slogan. And no, you cannot debate the veracity of election slogans. Better for the government to stonewall. To those folks protesting, the overbearing application of the PH policies looks like political suppression of their freedoms (read—life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness) b/c ultimately it appears largely about the politicians staying in power. Peculiar how the “scientific need” for masks begins to fade when enough citizen voters start to resist it, etc.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

We are mixing up several separate issues. One is scientific - the origins and epidemiology of covid. Second - more political - the cost and [efficacy] of lockdowns and mask theatrics. There is also a third related issue - the price of lockdowns for the millions worldwide whose other medical problems have been aggravated by them not seeing their doctors on time. All these questions should be openly and vigorously debated in supposedly free society.

And the fact that some (many)? are making up excuses not to debate these issues tells me all I need to know about those people's positions and integrity.

Let's break that down:
Origin and Epidemiology - what is the point of debating origin? Origin doesn't change a single thing, except to satisfy people whose ideology is more important than pragmatism. And very few of us understand epidemiology. It's not something to vote on.

Cost and Efficiency of Lockdowns, Masks and other restrictions - ok... but only if we can price both sides of this. What's the dollar value of an avoidable death? We must note that different countries have assigned different values here... a story told by their different death rates.

Many who early on decried the potential cost of lockdowns were wildly wrong. There hasn't been a wave of increased suicides. The majority of people and businesses have been weathering this. Economies are still chugging along.

And who gets to decide? Curiously, those who are most negative about the COVID restrictions tick most of the following boxes: younger, healthy, financially secure, white, conservative. Which means they are really putting others at risk, not themselves.

The millions worldwide whose other medical problems have been aggravated by them not seeing their doctors on time - sorry, what?? Medical procedures have been postphoned/delayed because of COVID patients taking too many resources. Increasingly these are people who didn't get vaccinated or don't observe precautions, and/or who were infected by others who didn't cooperate. There is only ONE way to make more resources available to those in need of those other treatments: do everything possible to avoid getting and spreading COVID! Get vaccinated, and take precautions. Period.

As far as analogy with snowplow drivers - it would only apply if the government prohibited any potential Joe the Plowman from installing a plow on his Jeep and joining the snowplowmen ranks just prior to the expected storm.

Well, you're kind of making my point for me. Those who own 4x4s and can afford to buy a plow kind of resent paying for the government's plows. No surprise there. But that's not how a functioning society works.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Auklet

...To those folks protesting, the overbearing application of the PH policies looks like political suppression of their freedoms (read—life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness) b/c ultimately it appears largely about the politicians staying in power. Peculiar how the “scientific need” for masks begins to fade when enough citizen voters start to resist it, etc.

I find it even more peculiar that the "resistance" seems to be gathering some steam now... right when the restrictions are starting to ease in most places ANYWAY. Not very brave, seems to me. It's like protesting against night... when it's 30 min before sunrise. And all the political actors climbing aboard the protest bus, claiming kinship with those who are genuinely concerned... What a circus.

The 90+% of us [in Canada, anyway] who held our tongues and got with the programs have held things together for the 10% who feel hard done by. And we've kept enough of them out of the hospitals and cemeteries that they feel the COVID measures were unnecessary. I guess that's a mark of success.

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Let's break that down:
The millions worldwide whose other medical problems have been aggravated by them not seeing their doctors on time [/U]- sorry, what?? Medical procedures have been postphoned/delayed because of COVID patients taking too many resources. Increasingly these are people who didn't get vaccinated or don't observe precautions, or who were infected by others who did the same. There is only ONE way to make more resources available to those in need of those other treatments: do everything possible to avoid getting and spreading COVID! Get vaccinated, and take precautions. Period.

It’s the centuries’ old debate playing out. Freedoms and rights are individual freedoms and rights, not collective ones. Collective philosophy is to surrender those freedoms for the benefit of the collective. It’s not going to be settled with a “scientific debate” between the government and the protesters. It’s naive in my opinion to maintain this “has nothing to do with freedom.” Give those folks some credit. In my experience, sailboaters have been amoung the most adamant defenders of their “freedoms” on the waterways; read damn the rules and regulations (there for good of all)!, etc. Similar principle here, IMO.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Auklet

It’s the centuries’ old debate playing out. Freedoms and rights are individual freedoms and rights, not collective ones.

And here's the age-old part that always gets left out: the flip side of freedom is responsibility. You can't maintain freedom for all if nobody acts responsibly.

When there's a pandemic (or a war, or some other widespread emergency), we have to work together to overcome it.

The core of current protests is a belief that they don't like shouldering any of the responsibility for helping end the pandemic.