I don’t see the slightest irony here.
Malone didn’t attack the guy for expressing an opinion contrary to his own. He attacked the guy for attempting to harm him personally. Not remotely comparable.
A complaint to a medical board is the same as threatening harm? The previous posts don’t show that.
He posted the complainant’s name and workplace and link to his Twitter profile online, resulting in a harassing medical board complaint being filed against that physician. The article states that Malone did not initiate that complaint but knew about it beforehand and didn’t discourage it. Further, the article notes that physicians who are the subject of complaints to the Maryland board of medicine are not supposed to contact or harass a complainant.
The article also details a researcher and mRNA vaccine co-developer’s account of Malone e-mailing her “to accuse her of inflating her accomplishments. “This is not going to end well,” he told her in the email.”
Is that irony enough for you?
A Frontiers journal editor was quoted in the story about Malone trying to intimidate the publisher into giving him editorial control in connection with an article.
I’m having trouble seeing Malone as a victim of cancel culture.
No. None of this addresses the point I made.
This guy attempted to harm Malone personally, and whatever Malone did was in response to that. Malone did not attack the guy for having an opinion which differed from Malone’s, which is what “Malone and his supporters” are “wailing” about.
You don’t find it ironic that someone who boasted that he “literally invented mRNA technology” would accuse another researcher of exaggerating her accomplishments?
From Wikipedia:
“Malone claims to be the inventor of mRNA vaccines, and while Stan Gromkowski, an early mRNA vaccine researcher and cellular immunologist, views Malone as “an underappreciated pioneer” who could be in contention to win a Nobel Prize for his work,[1] credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman[17][3] or Moderna co-founder Derrick Rossi,[11][18][19] and was ultimately the result of the contributions of hundreds of researchers, including Malone.”
Do you dismiss all complaints to state medical boards about physicians as mere attempts to personally harm them, or does that view only apply to this one case?
I don’t know. But that wasn’t your original claim and the one I responded to. I’m not looking to expand the discussion to this new issue you’re raising.
I don’t know what you mean by “dismiss” or “mere” in context here. Or what you’re saying altogether, frankly.
Again, a guy who responds to being reported to a state medical board by attacking the one who reported him is not comparable to someone who attacks someone else for having a different opinion about some medical issue. So there’s nothing ironic about complaining about one while engaging in the other. This seems pretty straightforward.
“All I was doing was attempting to embezzle a substantial amount of money, and this guy called the cops on me! He was trying to harm me personally!”
“I was simply trying to burn down the public library, and this guy pulled the alarm and brought the firefighters and they put a stop to my arson! It’s clearly a personally motivated attack!”
“So there I was, running around the kindergarten, punching all the kids in the face, and this guy jumps in and grabs my arm and twists my shoulder a bit! I mean, could he be any more of a psycho with an axe to grind?”
Did you miss the part about a physician who’s the subject of a complaint to his medical board (in Maryland, at any rate) NOT being allowed to harass the complainant? If someone feels they were wrongly and unprofessionally targeted, it might be acceptable to counter-complain to the other physician’s medical board*, but posting a bunch of identifying info online so that one’s followers can retaliate against the complainant might well be viewed as going over the line.
*which brings up the issue of physicians being discouraged from reporting malfeasance by colleagues for fear they’ll be retaliated against. Not a good situation.
Can we fast forward to just after several rounds of SpacemandSpiff_II emphasizing he just meant he didn’t consider it ironic, by his narrow definition of irony, responders insisting that doesn’t matter, SS_II insisting it does and this tangent peters out?
Another instance of Canceled Brave Maverick Doctors retaliating against fellow health professionals who cross them (or with whom they just disagree):
Mary Bowden is the ENT doc suspended by Houston Methodist Hospital for spreading harmful Covid-19 misinformation and refusing to treat vaccinated patients at her practice, and later resigned. She has recently posted names and office contact info of pharmacists on her Twitter account - in one case after the pharmacist refused to fill an ivermectin prescription, in another instance for warning a patient against risking death by taking the drug for Covid-19.
That seems horribly unprofessional to me.
IMO
The way science was, is and will continue to work, is for everyone to critically analyze any opinion using the scientific method.
Science’s limitation is that it assumes everyone has the time, mental inclination, ability and the desire to use the scientific method. This is a big mistake of “science” / scientists because humans have always relied on heuristics / “expert” opinions. And who is an actual “expert” cannot be determined by Scientific Methods.
Maybe a 100 years back science worked great, because there was only a few 100 people who were “scientists” and had access to the wider society through scientific publications. Science woefully cannot keep up with the internet and the knowledge dissemination.
In my minority opinion, I would say, its a limitation of Science that it needs to overcome.
I fully agree. What would be the best way to do so, in your opinion?
Honestly, I don’t understand this post at all. Are you saying that scientists don’t use the scientific method?
“Science” whatever that means in quotes, doesn’t require everyone to use the scientific method, and no scientists understand all of science, of course.
I remember watching her give a press conference. She said something along the lines of: when I saw data indicating that a third of my COVID positive patients had taken Ivermectin, I had an epiphany.
From her blog:
Blindingly absent from her little talk was even the unsupported assertion that these people had a different outcome from any kind of control group. Neither did she opt to make the similarly illogical supposition that ‘it was the melatonin’ or to explain how she ‘decided’ that the effective treatment, among so many, was Ivermectin.
IIRC, she did her residency at Stanford. I was slack-jawed watching her utterly fail at rationally asserting even her own horribly flawed premise – a task performed no better even in her own blog post.
Good question. I’d like to hear your opinions and I may then answer.