with the Oregon Medical Board decision?
Link: https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/94593
Basically, these types of practices are living on borrowed time. The state licensing authorities use whatever is available to do what needs to be done. Per the very limited information provided, it appears that the meat of the issue was his “mismanagement of chronic pain patients”. They threw in several other issues to try to make sure it would stick.
As a great doctor, I am always bothered by charlatans - whether they have licenses like this guy (if the charges are proven to be true), or whether the do not, like you. There tend to be a lot of these licensed charlatan types in opioid practices and abortion clinics from my observation, and a lot of the even less accomplished unlicensed types on message boards (that’s you with or without your evening out with the “ICU doctor” you claim to know).
charges outlined in the MedPage article...specifically in regard to his lack of mask usage as well as gross mis-information about them.
If you don't mind me asking...and IMO you're justified in not responding...but do you require your patients to be masked as well as your staff and yourself? Also, do you agree with his claims regarding the 'deleterious' effects of mask usage?
BTW, you needn't resort to 'strawman' inferences...I'm not a doctor...but when needed, I can speak directly with two family members who are...a senior ICU Doc, and an Infectious Disease Specialist.
(no message)
"They threw in several other issues to try to make sure it would stick."...addresses the article's thrust (i.e. COVID mis-information, and poor patient/staff protection), then you are mistaken. A doctor's license to practice, and earn a living, has been revoked, in large measure because of his views and practices on protecting himself and others from an airborne pathogen.
My follow-on questions are IMO highly relevant to the issue in the original post...a doctor, who obviously does not believe in the value of masks as a COVID transmission mitigator, gets his license revoked...a big deal, I'd say...then there's you, another doctor who has consistently downplayed the use of masks...it naturally makes me wonder if you conduct your own practice in the same manner...it would be informative and helpful for all who read this board to know what standards you actually implement...hopefully, you are proud enough of them to state them.
risk settings?
where you firmly stated masks should be worn in medical offices (like yours)...that's very good news to my eyes. As for the other listed opinions and concerns, we can at least have a discussion on them...for instance...
Since masks have true value in the locations you mentioned...would they not have "some" mitigating value when used by non-professionals in others? To me, that's what most of this 'rancor' is all about...appealing to the general public to do as much as can reasonably be expected to make it harder for this airborne pathogen to propagate and thereby save a fair number of lives among a population of 330 million souls...what is the harm in that?
As for politicization of this pandemic...IMHO it is 100% on Donald Trump and all those who seek to gain the support of those who follow that deeply flawed person...as evidence, I present his recorded interviews with Bob Woodward in which he acknowledged the deadly seriousness of COVID-19 in late January, 2020...yet, continued to downplay it...to the public's lethal peril...even terming it a "Hoax" perpetrated by the Democratic Party.
I'm glad you (and your family) got vaccinated...I'm glad you conduct your practice appropriately...let's continue to discuss what true Conservatism and Liberalism mean...and why we need to ensure they both are accepted and acknowledged...since those concepts define who we all are, and will never depart from our midst.
said not to wear masks in a high risk setting.
And there is no way this guy gets his license revoked without the opiod issue. My original response is on point. They needed to weed out this bad apple, so they threw a bunch at him...some of which (masks) would influence some in a hearing if it came to that.
when they visit you...maybe not even your staff members...or you...yet, you aren't objecting, like the Oregon Doc and are 'toeing the CDC line...so why do you not see the value (as noted in the MIT Report/Study) of masking in all indoor facilities with what's available to the general public...especially when vaccination status cannot be established?
Masks have a function...to block the transmission of virion particles..pretty simple, isn't it...so, why have you repeatedly spoken out against their use (and Social Distancing...there are Open Forum 'tapes')...absent the caveat of 'high risk' locations being mentioned?
Bottom line...you fail to acknowledge the value of masking in ALL risk settings...not just the "High Ones"...that's your unexplained 'Blind Spot'.
The expert panel of both the CDC AND the FDA which its politically appointed director overruled.
I don't ever just follow a bureaucratic organization's recommendations without the evidence to back it up...because they are SO political these days.
Masks are a waste of time in the general public setting because they don't use them correctly, they reuse them, they touch their faces which is more counterproductive than not wearing a mask in many cases, and because they don't use effective masks so frequently - the benefits are outweighed by the negative side effects and impact. This does not even consider the massively negative environmental impact of nonbiodegradeable masks which will now be floating in our waters and blowing across our land.
If a person came in wearing a neckerchief or a homemade mask, I tell them it is placebo because it is.
the authors believe aerosols are the biggest risk...not 'fomites' on surfaces...so, again...masks are the mitigation mechanism of choice. Just as the MIT report told us...using masks (even by un-trained, sloppy users, I would assume) reduces transmission by an order of magnitude.
Show me one study that says masks shouldn't be used...and includes any of the 'failings' you mentioned in support of that contention...I've already shown you some that extoll the use of masks without hesitation or requirement of perfect usage...me thinks you are out on a limb...all alone on this issue.
btw, the CDC does provide advice on proper mask materials...as a physician you could use your position to educate patients on proper mask usage...as per the CDC...do you do that?..
Link: https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/92564
This gem of yours is precious:
[These studies show hat masks are effective] “EVEN BY UNTRAINED, SLOPPY USERS I WOULD ASSUME”.
Yeah, and how would they study that? Care to tell me how they can control those variables, and how they did so?
You see science doesn’t work on your assumptions. In fact, it is supposed to eliminate them. You a faux expert with no actual medical knowledge. You embarrass yourself.
repeatedly called for the use of masks in indoor settings...they made no mention of what type, or how 'expertly' they were employed...forgive me for getting too causal with my words, but I was hoping you'd get the picture...a simple act of wearing a mask was enough for the authors to observe - through a highly technical and scientific process, btw - that doing so produced an 'Order of Magnitude' reduction in COVID transmission...simple as that.
The MedPage article buttresses that MIT observation...in fact, I detected a possible reference to it in it's verbiage.
Bottom Line...this is a very serious pandemic that needs literally everyone to do whatever they can to thwart its transmission through the populace...masking has been shown to be remarkably effective (see above) and it's incredibly easy to implement...so why on earth do you spend one moment trying to undermine its usage?...what's the 'Upside' benefit of that?...please answer.
Everything that was documented in the article you posted would have been perfectly normal for any other disease, just not with the Covid frenzy.
The Oregon folks who are in charge of licenses are free to do as they wish. He should accept the consequences of his actions.
(no message)
I should have said support instead of agree. What I mean is that you hold up the opinions of science and doctors who say what you believe as solid fact. You support them.
This guy, who you obviously do not agree with, is still a far more qualified individual than you in the realm of medicine considering his education and licensing credentials in comparison to your lack of them. He has made his own informed opinion, similar to Baron, who you also do not agree with, and yet you are obviously not in any way going to support them.
You have your opinion, and no matter what Baron says, you will not be swayed. I can understand you discounting his opinion a little since he is just someone who claims to be a doctor on a message board, and you apparently have two doctors who you can speak to, who I would imagine you trust far more than a message board doctor who you cannot verify.
However, this guy in the article is obviously a real doctor, and you seem to me to be rather gleeful that his licensed was pulled. His opinion is better than yours, regardless of where you got yours from, because he is actually a doctor, and his opinion is that masks are useless.
You ignored the statements I made in my original post, that he did require masks for people who were showing actual symptoms, which is far more than anyone would have required of flu patients, and that it would have been acceptable in any other situation other than the Covid craze.
You continuously bring up this MIT report, but I have serious doubts as to if you actually read it or have any idea of anything in it other than the "order of magnitude" that you continuously spout about. I did read the study a few weeks back when you posted it again, and with an N95 mask that is properly fitted, sure, it could significantly reduce the spread of Covid if everyone wore one properly. As I recall the study did not test someone wearing a mask, just the materials used in masks, which should have been a huge red flag for you as to how much that study actually means. It means jack and shit honestly. No one wears a mask properly, most especially these double layered cloth ones. They are ill-fitted, and most people that I see wearing them don't even cover their nose half the time, or remove them to talk to people because they are muffled. I would like to see the numbers from the study that correlate to usage like that, you can look, but I don't believe that they are there. If anything the study showed more that those types of masks really are a placebo, because they really had little benefit in comparison to the N95, and no one wears them properly.
I'm not a medical doctor though.
(Had to throw that in ;-))
Yes, indeed, I'm not a doctor and the other two individuals are...or at least, one of them still is. Nonetheless, as an ND grad with graduate degrees in engineering and business, I don't consider myself "unarmed" when it comes to a discussion that doesn't require knowledge of anatomy, microbiology, pharmacology, etc...just an ability to read technical reports that deal primarily with accumulated data and numerical findings...as in the MIT Report you mention...which, btw, I read every word of...In addition, I do have the unique benefit of having two close family physicians that I can query if necessary...what's more, one happens to be an Infectious Disease Specialist who had deep knowledge of the nature and dynamics of this COVID-19 pandemic, while the other is a senior Attending Pulmonary/Critical Care (ICU) Doc who deals daily with the treatments (and deaths) of those patients...so, again, I'm not "unarmed" should there be a need for more knowledge when posting here.
Now, on to your points of contention...
As to the credibility of the Oregon doc...it wasn't me who took his license away...it was a board of medical doctors who, after repeated warnings and admonitions over his mis-information comments and behavior regarding best practices for dealing with COVID-19, finally imposed their ultimate penalty...btw, there were complaints as well with his primary practice (Pain and Opioid Treatment), which our other physician, Baron, chooses to put all the onus on...that's his opinion...I'm just going by what was reported.
Am I "gleeful" that the Oregon doc had his license taken away...absolutely not...I'm dismayed that someone with that responsibility was harming his patients and any others that put faith in his statements..shame on him...and I'm comforted by the knowledge that such people can be removed from the medical community. Hopefully, this event serves as a deterrent to others who engage in such behavior.
As for Baron, I 100% accept his declarative statement that he is not only a fellow ND grad, but also a practicing physician...however, in my observations of doctors throughout their training, from Med School, through Residency, Fellowship and Practice, and in consultation with the family docs I mentioned above, I have come to appreciate what they mean when they use terms like "Best Practices" or "Evidence Based Medicine"...and in the case of our subject matter...'Mask Wearing'...it is abundantly clear that Baron does not believe in those "Best Practices" borne of "Evidence Based Medicine" studies...like the MIT Report which includes the following statement...
"Finally, the fact that face mask directives have been more effective than either lockdowns or social distancing in controlling the spread of COVID-19 (22, 33) is consistent with indoor airborne transmission as the primary driver of the global pandemic."
As for that report...once again, I read every word...not sure if you did...and there was no 'caveat' that their findings were dependent on expertly fitted and maintained mask usage...to try and make the above finding turn on such a distinction is nothing more that introducing a "red herring"...but you're free to assert that if you so choose...I'll leave it to the vast majority of reasonable observers. Oh, and just because people don't always use them properly doesn't invalidate the recommendation that they be used...just imagine what would happen to case loads if no one ever used masks...especially in indoor settings...in fact, if you do read the full report, you'll see some numbers that address that circumstance...which is why I roll my eyes every time Baron downplays mask usage.
BTW, you were doing just fine with your comments until you let that little four letter word slip out...kind of gives away the true animus in your reply...hopefully, it was just a momentary lapse...but thanks again for replying and giving me a chance to re-iterate Baron's failings on this matter.
But, pulling his license over covid misinformation is not justifiable. The so called "science" is changing on a daily basis. Masking is very much a debated topic and given what the general public wears as a mask, I would say they have very little benefit.
otherwise...as does the entire worldwide medical community...with the exception of charlatans like the Oregon doc.
The only 'debate' on masking is 'How Effective' can it be...again, the MIT report repeatedly extols the use of masks, without nitpicking what type of mask is being used...
Link: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118
In a hospital have to wear surgical masks. Cloth masks are no longer allowed. 18 months into a pandemic and they are making changes like that?
with an edit...nonetheless, we are talking techniques and measures of efficacy...not fundamentals...i.e. masks or no masks...
HC professionals are actually trained on how to effectively use N95 masks, and they typically adhere to that training...the general public is unlikely to follow suit...however, even cloth masks will stop large sized 'virions', which is better than nothing at all and a step in the right direction...also, much easier for the general public to adopt...and as the MIT report noted...actually, quite effective in reducing transmission.
The "act" wore out years ago... and now this seems like pure desperation.
Link: https://twitter.com/i/status/1442993085798039559
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/opinion/nyc-covid-cases-us.html
(no message)
(no message)