You stepped up in response to my comments, so I will do the same.
Let me start with a clarification. I did not comment on the connection between hydroxychloroquine and rentinopathy. That was someone else. I am not qualified to comment on that issue, so will not do so here.
What I did comment on was the numerous claims you made. I will address those.
Or at least the only one you cared to reply about - that doctors have been suing various others.
The most important thing to note is that anyone can sue anyone else about virtually anything. The simple fact that a suit was filed is mostly meaningless. What is important is the contents and merit of the suit. So lets look at the ones you mention.
Your first link - to the BMJ - talks about 4 doctors suing the Washington State Medical Commission. They are suing because that commission has disciplined the doctors. Here is what purports to be the suit:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23890884-turner-et-al-v-washington-medical-commission
I was not able to find information from the Superior Court in Washington about their cases. The gist of the case as I can figure out is that these doctors were disciplined and they are suing to have the discipline removed because the discipline limits their free speech rights. While I’m not a lawyer, my lay persons reading of the suit doesn’t give me warm fuzzies about their chances of success. The Commission has the right to discipline doctors. If they didn’t have that right, they would be rather powerless as a regulating body.
Bottom line for me on this one - not very persuasive.
Next - Fox News on Newsom being sued. Time for some open bias on my part. I refuse to even click on links to Fox News for reasons irrelevant to the discussion. So I’m working from other sources - mainly Reuters - who seem to be discussing the same suit.
The gist here is a suit seeing to overturn AB 2098, a law passed by the CA state legislature and signed by the Governor which allows medical boards to restrict doctors speech on various leading edge medical topics - which would include COVID-19 treatments.
It’s in Federal court, and I don’t subscribe to PACER (the system to obtain various federal court filings). I’m also not finding open copies of the suit online. But from reading articles, it seems that this is more about overturning a badly written law than anything else. The Judge in the case has already stayed the implementation of the law, which is usually a bad sign for the defendants. It’s also a prospective case in that no one has yet been affected by the law. The law has not gone into effect yet, and the stay will prevent it from doing so until the case is resolved.
Your next link it to Beckers Hospital Review and covers the same case as above.
Globe News Wire is next up. This one is a CA plastic surgeon who was investigated by the CA state medical board over public comments he made about COVID-19 and vaccinations, seeking free speech protections. While it’s hiding behind the Lexis paywall, it appears that the judge in the case dismissed the case. I also found a link back into PACER that indicates the case was dismissed with prejudice.
Next up - AAPS. Not finding a lot here. Once again, a PACER subscription would be useful to see the current status of the case. If you know anything more about where the case stands, I’d appreciate a link to the update.
However, the article includes a link to the original complaint filed in federal court. And the filing itself reads like a political screed, dragging various and sundry politicians into their background information.
I’d really like to know the current status of this case.
On to Oregon and the William Sullivan article. The issue here is an Oregon doctor who didn’t use masks during the height of the pandemic and urged patients and others entering his office to remove their masks if they were wearing one. It appears that Oregon required all workplaces to require masks be worn at that time. So the Dr was in violation of this requirement. The Oregon Medical Board suspended his license.
Yet again, this is a case that doesn’t seem to be in the news. I did find one tidbit at Pacer Monitor that seems to show the case was dismissed.
Now we get to travel to the ease coast and Bangor, Maine. This one is firmly behind a paywall, so I have no idea what the article says. But a bit of searching on the doctor’s name turns up this. Nass v. Me. Bd. of Licensure in Med., No. CV-2022-38 | Casetext Search + Citator This doctor didn’t want to comply with the medical board’s subpoena for records. So she sued. And lost, summarily.
And finally, Twitter. Nothing is done until you tweet about it. (Or is that X about it, these days?) Doctors sued. Doctors lost their suit. End of story.
https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?SessionID=A7B2FE8E7E6429FD77C869C746F502BA783EF26B&URL=https%3A%2F%2Fimgquery.sftc.org%2FSha1_newApp%2Fmainpage.aspx%3FWeb_Server%3Dimgquery.sftc.org%26MINDS_Server%3Dhoj-imx-01%26Category%3DC%26DocID%3D08344611%26Timestamp%3D20230928124813%26Digest%3D26bb2d49f2abb7d15f6d620a8d45ac2c304c2e8e
Note, not sure the link will actually work. You might have to go through the San Francisco Superior court https://sf.courts.ca.gov/ and look for civil case CGC-22-600397 . At any rate, this one is the poster child for “anyone can sue anyone else about anything.”
So let’s recap. Eight suits (9 articles, but two covered the same suit). The doctors lost 4 of them. One - the CA law - I’ll concede looks like a good case. The remaining two are unknown, but seem pretty sketchy to me. I suspect the doctors will lose those cases as well.
As for what I’ll now call your Gish Gallop of cases, not very persuasive for your argument.
And that still leaves several other questions of fact un-responded to.
–Peter <== exhausted and has to get back to work