Dr. James Gruntvig, as best I can tell, isn't a doctor of any sort. His background is in construction engineering. This is a very confidence inspiring video:



He claims to be an investigative journalist (mainly focusing on vaccines, duh) and the founder of a blockchain company called Myntum.

Dr. Nancy Burks is a Clinical Psychologist.

She has not kept up with her continuing education requirements. Maybe she's going to get the board to allow CEC's for watching Youtube.

More people can’t help themselves and act as if forum guidelines and posts like the above do not apply to them.

Thankfully again their efforts have been answered with more patience than should be reasonably expected.

Obviously since Biden has taken over the satanic deep state has gained the upper hand.
Stand back and stand by.

Dr. Amandha Vollmer is "doctor" of naturopathy, not a M.D.

She is best known for promoting the therapeutic benefits to humans of DMSO. DMSO has very limited medical uses. It is, however, widely used as a liniment for horses.

As an aside, DMSO is a very strange substance. If you get it on your skin, you very quickly will have a very strong and unpleasant taste of metal and garlic in your mouth.

Remember, if the tittygyrations are over 45 it's a worthless test.

Dr. Kelly Brogan is a psychiatrist. She is best known for peddling the idea that psychological factors are the main cause of illness. She has mocked the idea of "little invisible pathogens . . . that randomly jump around from person to person."

I really appreciate these posts Rococo

Dr. Roby Mitchell, who now goes by the nom de guerre Dr. Fitt, may be the best yet.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/4ag9...ld-with-autism

Lol. Dr. Ben Carson was on that list.

+1

Except Bernie is old enough to remember when almost nobody had a tee-vee.

+1

Besides quacks weighing in about covid, there are also legitimate doctors who don't really have the necessary expertise. I would think they would need to be very well versed in molecular biology and I am sure they have to know probability and statistics to the point that they are not confused by some tricky notions. (In the new book Rationality, by Steven Pinker, the author, on page 150, mentions a situation where the evidence indicates a 10% chance a patient is "positive" while most doctors think it's close to 90%. The Harvard doctors who put out the Harvard Health Letter made a statement which showed a complete misunderstanding of statistical significance, which they admitted in a reply to my letter about it.)

Exactly how the public proclamations about covid from these unqualified doctors are erroneous, or how they harm the public I am not sure. But I think they may be almost as dangerous as the known quacks, since almost everyone underestimates the possibility that they screwed up their analysis.

For someone who is not sure, that is some really audacious both sides-ing from you, yet a very on brand, awful take. Your non-example is not in the same level of existence as the guy moonlighting as an investigative journalist or the milk cures all man

ItÂ’s also really harmful to post this take following the person who posted that list who seemed to believe these people were an authority on anything. ThereÂ’s the harm. This person thinks that someone who advises injecting a cow with your blood to then drink its milk is a MEDICAL GENIUS and there are people out there just like him who believe the same. ThatÂ’s measurable, actual harm. I genuinely question your wellness and what youÂ’re trying to achieve with that post. Anyone with a brain will acknowledge that misinformation from varying sources can be harmful. You only feed into misguided peoples mindsets with your dumb post. It doesnÂ’t ask any interesting questions or provide any 100IQ insight like IÂ’m sure you think it does

The more credible the source of the error, the more dangerous it is and I doubt it's remotely close.

Mostly because it really doesn't matter what the obvious quacks say as anyone who is interested in the science isn't listening to them except for kicks. Parlty because it undermines anything credible.

Doesnt matter? This guy just listed more “doctors” than the full cast of General Hospital. He clearly has an “interest for science” and gets more than entertainment from the views

oh yes. Big interest in science

He is more or less stating that be skeptical of analysis/claims. I hate to use the word “skeptical” because my experience is that most people associate it with disputing and dismissive. That isn’t what I mean. Do more than read the headlines is another way to put it.

The percentage of MDs who have expressed skepticism about vaccines generally or the COVID vaccines specifically is of course very small. I would need a lot more evidence before I accepted that numerical illiteracy was a significant driver of views among this group of MDs.

Willful blindness, grifting, conspiratorial orientation, and politically motivated skepticism about the validity of data strike me as more likely explanations. You don't need to be a math wizard to understand the basic statistics associated with vaccines.

It is also true that most MDs in this group lack specific expertise in infectious diseases, but I doubt that is the reason why they claim to believe that vaccines are dangerous or ineffective.

That is the feature and not the bug. Combine that with Candace Owens cure and you are good to do.

Candace Owens is selling Colloidal Silver, which is a 'mystery cure' that pops up over and over in self help circles and literally turns the skin blue (yes that picture below is real).

Colloidal Silver Turns You Blue—But Can It Save Your Life?

There was some sort of study many years ago where MDs where asked a medical question similar to:

If 95% of people have a vaccine that's 90% effective at preventing hospitialisation then what %age of hospitalisations will be vaccinated?

I dont recall the result but MDs were hopeless and I'd bet they still are (althought they might get the very specific vaccine question correct as it's been such a hot issue). Whether this matters when people shouldn't be getting advice on such things from MDs* is debatable.

*by which I mean that MDs should be passing on expert advice and not doing the maths.

That's a common math error that many people make when asked to give an answer off the cuff. It's almost a parlor trick at this point. After you show an educated person the basic math, their response almost invariably is to say "Ah. I got it." Also, this isnt the sort of error you would find in a discussion of data in a real medical journalor or in an expert report in court.

I think you're very wrong about it being a parlour trick - give them all the time they want - and how easily educated people get the maths when it's explained. They can be persuaded of the result - especially if you get them to consider 100% of people being vaccinated but they will get then get it wrong again when it comes up in a different scenario (which it does all the time hidden in various situations)

There have been some howlers in court - some DNA probablity iirc as an example, but yes we would expect better from experts than from MDs ( or judges)