Taking a stand on a political matter is fine for persons, but it is not fine for clinicians or scientists.
In a previous article titled Medical Conservatives: Mixing Politics and Medicine is a Bad Idea, If I Disagree with Your Politics, I discussed an article by Dr. John Mandrola, a so-called “medical conservative”, titled Politics and Medicine is a Bad Idea. In his article, Dr. Mandrola reprimanded doctors and advised them to engage in self-censorship when it came to political issues. He wrote:
As private citizens, we can and should have ideas on policy. But our medical training provides us no expertise on policy.
Dr. Mandrola provided three examples where he felt doctors should keep their thoughts private: nuclear war, the environment, and gun violence. He wrote:
There are many downsides when healthcare professionals overstep our expertise. Spending time on things that have no bearing on learning and practicing the craft of medicine or public health distracts people from their actual job. People who get sick depend on their clinician to be trained in health and disease, not climate or nuclear policy. There is only so much time. Why not spend it on being better at helping sick people…
Another downside of these forays into policy is the possibility of reducing trust—which is already at a low level. Climate, gun, and nuclear issues are inherently political. Taking a stand on a political matter is fine for persons, but it is not fine for clinicians or scientists.
Recently, Dr. Mandrola decided the day the Democratic VP candidate was announced and celebrated was an appropriate occasion for him to repeat his calls for physician self-censorship on social media. He said:
It’s going to be difficult in the coming weeks but I think clinicians should try hard to stay apolitical in the public sphere. We owe it to our patients.
Of course, a doctor who sends an enthusiastic political tweet while waiting for the hospital elevator, is not betraying the patients she will soon be rounding on.
Dr. Mandrola was not the only “medical conservative” who, instead of getting better at helping sick people, spent time scolding doctors for voicing their opinions. At the start of the pandemic, Drs. Vinay Prasad and Jeffrey Flier wrote an essay titled Scientists Who Express Different Views On Covid-19 Should Be Heard, Not Demonized, whose purpose was to shield Dr. John Ioannidis’s misinformation from stringent criticism. Likening mean words to a virus that was overflowing morgues, Drs. Prasad and Flier wrote:
Society faces a risk even more toxic and deadly than Covid-19: that the conduct of science becomes indistinguishable from politics. The tensions between the two policy poles of rapidly and systematically reopening society versus maximizing sheltering in place and social isolation must not be reduced to Republican and Democratic talking points, even as many media outlets promote such simplistic narratives.
These critical decisions should be influenced by scientific insights independent of political philosophies and party affiliations. They must be freely debated in the academic world without insult or malice to those with differing views.
Dr. Prasad would later write an article titled When Doctors Become Political – The 2016 Shift in he warned that “science and medicine must avoid naked partisan politics.” He wrote:
I worry that this problem is larger today than ever before. More and more questions are becoming political… And at top universities, the politics is uni-directional. Most of the faculty and students are liberal, and the goals of the left are increasingly becoming the goals of medicine… School closure of course hurt poor, minority kids. A good liberal should have opposed it. But because Trump wanted schools open, liberals had to go the other direction. They have destroyed a generation of kids. Teachers unions and the democratic nominee worked to keep schools closed in 2020 and beyond. The harms are yet to be fully tallied.
He concluded:
Science and medicine must aspire to be less political and aspire for better evidence. If we continue in this direction, we are doomed. Sadly, many are along for the ride.
Dr. Prasad wasn’t wrong when he wrote “many are along for the ride”.
POLITICIANS ARE LITERALLY TRYING TO SEND DOCTORS TO PRISON FOR PROVIDING STANDARD OF CARE MEDICAL TREATMENTS. WHY ON EARTH ARE WE SUPPOSED TO NOT HAVE AN OPINION.
In my discussion of these sentiments, I agreed that doctors, especially those with large platforms, should be thoughtful when voicing political opinions, however, medical school graduates do not forfeit their right to speak their mind on issues that affect their lives and the lives of their patients. Noting that politics invaded medicine, Dr. Ashley Winter had this response to Dr. Mandrola.
Politicians decided to insert themselves in the doctor patient relationship and we need to speak up until we get them the hell out of it. And no, when a patient is in front of me in a care setting I never initiate political discussions. But in the public sphere you better believe this is our lane. POLITICIANS ARE LITERALLY TRYING TO SEND DOCTORS TO PRISON FOR PROVIDING STANDARD OF CARE MEDICAL TREATMENTS. WHY ON EARTH ARE WE SUPPOSED TO NOT HAVE AN OPINION.
Of course, Dr. Mandrola feels it’s fine for doctors to have strong opinions. He just wants people like Dr. Winter to keep their thoughts to themselves. He literally doesn’t want to hear from people like her. Even though Dr. Winter is not being alarmist-Abortion Ruling Keeps Texas Doctors Afraid of Prosecution– Dr. Mandrola suggests doctors who share their thoughts on this topic and its relevance to the presidential election are unprofessional and letting down their patients.
My article also noted that the sanctimonious admonishments of Drs. Mandrola, Prasad, and Flier were directed only at certain doctors who expressed certain opinions. This is because Drs. Mandrola, Prasad, and Flier don’t really believe that mixing politics and medicine is a bad idea. Their protestations were just an act, a show, a performance, more bad faith engagement.
In fact, Drs. Mandrola, Prasad, and Flier were happy to mix politics and medicine, often with insult and malice towards those with differing views- idiot, STUPID, bunch of fools, total morons. Dr. Prasad, for example, made a political video for a libertarian organization titled You’re Right Not To Trust Public Health and has over 50 rageful Tweets directed at teacher’s unions. I’ve been much more private about my political beliefs than this.
“Science and medicine must avoid naked partisan politics.”
It is unfortunate and ironic that my Republican colleagues selected Dr. Bhattacharya as a witness for our COVID-19 misinformation hearing when he himself is a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.
Drs. Mandrola, Prasad were also totally silent when certain doctors mixed politics and medicine. This silence was notable.
Indeed, many We Want Them Infected doctors mixed politics and medicine openly and freely since the start of the pandemic. Scientists, namely Dr. Ioannidis himself, tried to influence politicians as early as March 2020, as Stephenie Lee documented in her article An Elite Group Of Scientists Tried To Warn Trump Against Lockdowns In March. Remember, in March 2020, Dr. Ioannidis was writing sentences like this:
If only part of resources mobilized to implement extreme measures for COVID-19 had been invested towards enhancing influenza vaccination uptake, tens of thousands of influenza deaths might have been averted.
At the same time that Drs. Prasad and Flier were chastising Dr. Ioannidis’ critics for supposedly mixing politics and medicine, Dr. Ioannidis himself was directly reaching out to politicians to deliver his misinformation message and advance his favored policies.
Imagine that.
He was not alone in trying to influence politicians at that time. According to the House Report, The Atlas Dogma:
Dr. Scott Atlas began attempting to influence federal pandemic policy soon after the start of the coronavirus crisis. New evidence obtained by the Select Subcommittee shows that Dr. Atlas reached out to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma on March 21, 2020, arguing that the federal government’s pandemic response was “a massive overreaction” that was “inciting irrational fear” in Americans. Dr. Atlas estimated that the coronavirus “would cause about 10,000 deaths”—a number he claimed “would be unnoticed” in a normal flu season—and said, “The panic needs to be stopped.”
This outreach was undeniably effective. It paved the way for We Want Them Infected doctors to directly influence political matters at the highest level.
“Taking a stand on a political matter is fine for persons, but it is not fine for clinicians or scientists.”
As the pandemic progressed, several We Want Them Infected doctors teamed up with a libertarian, pro-tobacco, child-labor advocate to advance their political objectives. Some formally endorsed and openly campaigned for certain politicians, while blasting other politicians. You don’t have to wonder about which politicians they cheered for and which they blasted.
“Science and medicine must aspire to be less political”
We Want Them Infected doctors cheered for certain policies and blasted other policies. You don’t have to wonder about which policies they cheered for and which they blasted. Several We Want Them Infected doctors became celebrities in the right-wing media, blending their medical and political opinions on Fox News, in the Wall Street Journal, and in discussions at the Cato Institute. They were involved in lawsuits against Democratic politicians. They lost. They testified in courts (getting mocked by judges in the process) to advance their political agenda. They testified before both the Senate and House (getting mocked by congressmen in the process), to advance their political agenda. One congressman wisely said:
It is unfortunate and ironic that my Republican colleagues selected Dr. Bhattacharya as a witness for our COVID-19 misinformation hearing when he himself is a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.
Drs. Marty Makary, Maryin Kulldorff, and Jay Bhattacharya take a stand on a political matters
Dr. Tracy Hoeg takes a stand on a political matters
Many We Wanted Them Infected doctors did more than just voice their political opinions. Some, including Dr. Prasad, formed advocacy groups, such as the Urgency of Normal, which provided an “advocacy toolkit” so parents could lobby for policies that permitted the mass infection of unvaccinated children. They got everything they wanted. It’s been years since communities tried to control the virus.
Other We Wanted Them Infected doctors directed policy in key places. They served as formal advisors to powerful politicians, such as Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Glen Youngkin, who enacted their policies, often with tragic consequences that were obvious to doctors who actually worked in hospitals. This seamless blending of politics and medicine was not just limited to the US. The failed We Want Them Infected movement was international, and we might be at the beginning of this story. It is likely some of these doctors might again be appointed to positions of influence if political winds go in their favor.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with doctors advising politicians, of course. In fact, politicians need input from doctors, preferably those who actually treat sick people, when dealing with medical issues. However, these politicians and We Want Them Infected doctors also shared a political agenda. Indeed, We Want Infected Doctors, who resented being called “fringe” in private emails, had nothing to say when their favored politicians generated headlines like this:
Anthony Fauci Says He Still Needs a Security Detail After Ron DeSantis Threatened To ‘Grab That Little Elf and Chuck Him Across The Potomac’
We Wanted Them Infected doctors were hardly neutral scientists, simply reporting the facts so the people could decide the best policy. They happily took stands on political matters. In fact, for several of them, their political activism dwarfed their scientific output. These weren’t doctors who occasionally dabbled in politics. They were political activists who occasionally dabbled in medicine. While other doctors treated COVID patients, they functioned as lobbyists for the virus, defending it against allegations it was dangerous or something to be avoided.
Thanks For Reading David
Yet, they got a free pass.
Drs. Mandrola, Prasad, and Flier either said nothing or lavished praised on these doctors. This is because Drs. Mandrola, Prasad, and Flier agreed with the politics of We Want Them Infected doctors, and so they didn’t care when they took a stand on a political matters. The rules didn’t apply to them. The naked political activism of We Want Them Infected doctors was deemed normal and appropriate, unlike doctors who merely discussed gun violence or sternly criticized Dr. Ioannidis’ misinformation. Those doctors deserved to be publicly scolded.
Doctors who sincerely believe medicine should be separate from politics apply their standards equally and consistently. Drs. Mandrola, Prasad, and Flier do not. Their disingenuous admonitions not to mix politics and medicine were nothing more than a tactic to shame and silence unwanted voices and preemptively discredit unwanted opinions, all by doctors who claim to value “free and open debate.”
And this was not an isolated incident. It was just a small part of a large pattern I’ve discussed many times previously.
- Doctors who scolded you for supposedly minimizing rare, generally mild vaccine-side effects, also scolded you for worrying about literal death from COVID.
- Doctors said a low rate of myocarditis from the vaccine was “deeply concerning”, also said a high rate of myocarditis from the virus “good news”.
- Doctors who claimed only large RCTs could demonstrate vaccine benefits, lauded a VAERs dumpster dive that purported to show vaccine harms.
- Doctors who advocated for the open disclosure of financial conflicts of interest, hid their own.
- Doctors who demanded the utmost civility when they were critiqued, routinely engaged in juvenile name-calling, blatant dishonesty, and even veiled threats when they criticized others.
- Doctors who declared that vaccines were perfect and herd immunity had arrived in spring 2021, later said this was the “worst misinformation” and blamed others for a loss of trust in medicine.
- Doctors who said only stupid people talked about COVID, still talk about it constantly.
- Doctors who warned against the “panic-driven, horror-driven, death-reality-show type of situation” with regards to the virus, warned that measures to contain it could lead to “financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric“.
- Doctors who spread pro-infection, anti-vaccine misinformation with regards to COVID, performatively lamented the loss of confidence in routine vaccinations.
- Doctors who rejected using children as “shields” when it came to the vaccine, which no one proposed in the first place, embraced using children as shields when it came to the virus.
Rules and standards were for thee, not for me.
But the bigger issue wasn’t just these doctors’ hypocrisy, it’s how obvious and transparent it all was. They made no effort to hide it. Dr. Prasad’s essay, which concluded science and medicine must aspire to be less political, also said liberals, the left, teachers unions, and the democratic nominee destroyed a generation of kids. A whole generation of kids- destroyed!
“Science and medicine must aspire to be less political”
These doctors also didn’t care when their hypocrisy was exposed. That was an occasion to make a joke. They knew they exempted themselves from the standards they set for others, their audience knew it, and they knew their audience knew it. Everyone was in on the game. And thus it becomes clear, hypocritical articles on politics and medicine weren’t about politics and medicine at all, they were a message- the standards we set for you don’t apply to us, and everyone knows it.
The hypocrisy was the point.
