Doctors of disinformation: Social media vs. medical professionals

A few years ago, I had a debilitating gout attack in my knees. Both times, I was basically immobilized for about 10 days. After the second one, in my right knee, even after I was able to stand up, straighten my leg, and walk, it was very painful for weeks afterwards. My co-workers noted that I appeared to be in misery when I hobbled across the parking lot from my car to the office.

I finally went to the doctor to see what could be done for the lingering pain. He prescribed a round of prednisone to eliminate the residual swelling, then another round to finish it off. He was a bit hesitant to do so because of the steroid's effect on blood sugar levels, but decided that the risk was worth it because of my pain and lack of ease of mobility.

That prescription did the trick. The last of the pain finally went away and I could move around without being in discomfort.

Now, imagine if my doctor had gone public with the details of my treatment. What if he had disclosed that prednisone is an effective treatment for gout that he had successfully employed? And what if the social media overlords basically called him a liar and removed any information he shared about how he'd done away with my problem and gotten me back to health?

That's exactly what's been happening to doctors who come forward with stories about how they've used hydroxychloroquine, either alone or in combination with other therapies, to treat the Wuhan Chinese virus. Facebook and Twitter have labeled this claim as untrue, misinformation, and even dangerous. Donald Trump Jr. found his Twitter account suspended for a few hours after retweeting video of a recent press conference in which several doctors announced their success using HCQ to treat the virus. Anytime some version of the press conference gets shared, it gets taken down with an admonition that the user shared false information.

Something like this, which happened when I shared a video of the America's Frontline Doctors press conference:

What makes social media the absolute arbiter of truth? Why should the judgments of technocrats override the actual experiences of doctors? Who should be trusted to determine what's accurate and what's not, medical professionals or Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg? Would it make any difference if the doctors showed their actual patient records (with names redacted, of course, to comply with privacy laws) to prove their assertions?

Hydroxychloroquine appears to be controversial merely because President Trump has been a proponent of its use. There are conflicting studies on just how effective it is, but the fact remains that doctors have successfully used it. Why do so many not want this information to be made public? Why do they not want to see an effective treatment deployed against a virus that so far has no cure and is said to be so dangerous that we have to crater the economy and drastically alter our way of life to respond to it?

HCQ is a generic medication. The only other drug mentioned as a possible treatment or cure for the virus, Remdesivir, is still under patent. So obviously, there's a financial stake in which solution is used. There's no money to be made by using HCQ; Gilead, the maker of Remdesivir, stands to reap huge profits if it's found to be the preferred way forward in treating the virus.

And, are there political ramifications in play? If the president is right about the effectiveness of HCQ, and if it's successfully deployed and the seriousness of the virus subsides, it benefits him in his re-election campaign. Would his haters seriously risk the health of millions of Americans just to get him out of office? Given the lengths to which they've gone the past three years, put nothing past them.

That's why, when a Democrat state lawmaker from Michigan announced that she'd been successfully treated for the virus with HCQ, her party moved to censure her, using language that basically said politicians belong to their parties, they don't belong to themselves, and aren't free to make their own decisions. It's almost as if they would have preferred that she die instead of taking a medication of which she became aware as a possible virus treatment when the president mentioned it.

Ponder this: What possible motivation could a doctor have to lie about how he or she successfully treated an illness? Why would a patient, especially a Democrat, lie about using a drug that a Republican president had touted? As we've seen with many other current events, there's a price to be paid for bucking the current popular or politically-correct narrative. Say "All Lives Matter" and you might lose your job or have your business vandalized. Say that you think the economy should reopen and people should be free to make their own decisions, and you'll be called a "covidiot." Freedom isn't free, and the truth is often costly.

Social media outlets actively serving as censors or gatekeepers is also contradictory to a position they've long held as they attempt to shield themselves from legal liability. For years, these services have claimed to be "dumb pipes" -- that is, they only serve as a conduit for user-supplied information and make no value judgments on what's presented. That's part of the argument Twitter recently used in defense of a lawsuit filed by California Congressman Devin Nunes over parody accounts. And their terms of service or community standards are extremely arbitrary. Spend any time at all on Facebook, and you'll see examples of content being removed and users suspended or pages banned while much more egregious and offensive posts are allowed to stay online. Indeed, the left clamors for Trump to be ousted from Twitter for his tweets, while they continue to make all sorts of outlandish claims about him that should offend the sensibilities of normal people.

In the case of COVID-19 posts, Facebook links to the World Health Organization in an attempt to correct what it deems to be misinformation. Recall that the United States is leaving the WHO over its failures to address the virus. The WHO is hardly a credible source of truth about the virus.

Like just about everything, there are informed opinions on all sides of the debate. Man-made climate change is not "settled science," as you can find plenty of scientists and experts who dispute that claim. And there's evidence that some of the data has been manipulated or is otherwise fraudulent. Google "East Anglia" for plenty of information on that subject.

So while some doctors and scientists dispute the effectiveness of hydroxycholoroquine and related combination therapies (zinc and the ubiquitous Z-pack), actual doctors have treated actual patients using some regimen of those drugs. They probably could prove it through their medical records. Why would they possibly lie?

And more importantly, what qualifies social media outlets, or the mainstream press for that matter, to say they're lying or challenge their credibility? When the proof is put right in front of them, why do they still continue to insist otherwise?

There's a reason alternatives -- MeWe for Facebook, and especially Parler for Twitter -- are gaining in popularity. They don't silence or censor views that go against the popular narrative. They don't make value judgments on user content. They let all sides be presented so the populace can make its own determination. In short, they trust their users to employ discernment. If a doctor or patient says HCQ was successful, trust them and their experience.

You're just going to have to take my word here that a couple of "pred-packs" eliminated my gout pain and restored my mobility. If I post it to social media, the "experts" there might deem me a liar and remove my post.