Doctors Spreading COVID-19 Misinformation Should Have Licenses Revoked, Medical Board Says

PFC David Foster That would be like asking a politician not to talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Does the constitution, specifically the amendment for the freedom of speech, make an exception for speaking what some believe to be misinformation? I must have missed that part of it. Uncertainty of the technology that was used in this vaccine, the fact that no other vaccine has ever used this mechanism, the mRNA mechanism, should be voiced. The other vaccines that we have all had use a weakened form of the virus or a dead form of the virus that teach our immune system what to fight. This vaccine uses a technology like no other and we don't have long term evidence of what this does in the body. No, 10 months is not a long time when most of plan on living decades longer. We just don't know what the "long" term effects are going to be. Being skeptical is only natural. People have different opinions on the vaccine.. It's not a crime. Our constitution says nothing about "freedom of speech but only if we agree with what you say." Or, in the words of Ice-T from his album in the early 1990s, "Freedom of speech, just watch what you say!" It's incredibly horrific to watch people think that they have a right to silence every idea that they don't agree with. That's NOT our country.

SPC Jasen E. - Doctors take an oath, so do politicians, if they break their oath, they don't deserve their position.

PFC David Foster - And that oath is to do no harm. Some of them genuinely believe that this vaccine has the potential to cause harm and that the public as a whole has been chosen to be test subjects to it. We don't know the long term effects of a vaccine with this technology. And before you tell me that the government says it's safe. keep in mind that the government has told the public that before, even when they knew a drug was doing incredibly heinous things. Think back to the drug called Thalidomide. Turned out not to be so safe. While forms of it are still in use, it can only be used by some people and only after being told of the risks. So if they believe, with all their experiences and training that something is dangerous, their oath requires them to tell people about the danger. Oath fulfilled. Their oath has nothing to do with obeying the government, a government of non-doctors, or about toeing the party line. I'd rather my doctor tell me his beliefs based on everything he knows, than simply being a good little minion and ignoring a not-so-stellar history of full disclosure that our government has in a great many things. Maybe if the government had a bit more of a steady message and didn't constantly move the goal post, more would be ready to get jabbed. But so far nothing they have promised us about getting vaccinated has come to pass. I'm fully vaccinated and I still have to wear a mask. I'm fully vaccinated but keeping an unvaccinated person safe is now MY responsibility!?!? We do not make these types of restrictions a requirement with any other vaccine we get. "You won't need vaccine passports." Tell that to New Yorkers and tell that to people wanting to fly...ANYwhere, and more places are talking about making them a requirement for many more aspects of life. The government can't even tell us the truth about these thigs and we're supposed to trust them when they "guarantee" the untested vaccine tech is safe. It's pure speculation on their part and will be for decades. So yes, doctors to take an oath. But it's not an oath to obey the government, just to do no harm. And many believe this vaccine harms.

Just a note, the revised oath which most recite today specifically says in the first line is that they will fulfill the following oath to "the best of my ability and judgement." Keyword is judgement. As long as they are doing that, there is no conflict.

The classic oath is pretty much the same in that they will upkeep the following oath "to the utmost of my ability and judgement." Keyword again is judgement.

So you would be taking their license, not for breaking their oath, but for keeping it. Might want to look it up before using it to support your point, because it doesn't.