Michelle. This is a great post. Thank you for your clear elucidation of these important issues of which I hope Secretary Kennedy will take notice. One issue, however, that I have some concern about. Your suggestion that MSM must go through HHS fact-checking before airing their views, to me, smacks of too much government regulation. I’m my opinion, it is a slippery slope, a little reminiscent of “Newspeak” from Orwell’s 1984 or, in this case, we might call it “News Speak”. As Justice Brandeis said, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Point taken. When I walked away from my post, I had the disturbing thought that IF such a rule were in place during the Biden administration, they would have validated all of the misinformation that MSM was presenting, because it was coming from their lips. This concept only applies to honest, scientific, transparent research. Perhaps I should have said that MSM would have the option to get confirmation from HHS prior to writing any medical conclusions because if they choose not to take that step and IF their information is wrong and then misleads the public, there should be consequences. That would be an easier method to reduce the likelihood that MSM is providing misinformation, especially when public health issues of concern are reported on. It would require their scientific advisors to do a thorough review of the science before approving that information to be shared with the public. Would that be acceptable to you?
I'm not suggesting I have all of the answer, by any stretch. Reasonable consequences would need to be determined in advance so that everyone is aware of them. We lived with the decisions made by the past administration regarding misinformation. Perhaps we should consider using those very tactics going forward. If a physician, for example, makes false statements, then he /she should be referred to their licensing agency for suspension or removal of his license. Their published articles in peer reviewed journals should be revoked - you get the point I'm sure. Obviously fair and responsible consequences should prevail but there needs to be a way to ensure that accurate information is being presented to the public regarding public health issues that impact everyone.
Michelle. This is a great post. Thank you for your clear elucidation of these important issues of which I hope Secretary Kennedy will take notice. One issue, however, that I have some concern about. Your suggestion that MSM must go through HHS fact-checking before airing their views, to me, smacks of too much government regulation. I’m my opinion, it is a slippery slope, a little reminiscent of “Newspeak” from Orwell’s 1984 or, in this case, we might call it “News Speak”. As Justice Brandeis said, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Point taken. When I walked away from my post, I had the disturbing thought that IF such a rule were in place during the Biden administration, they would have validated all of the misinformation that MSM was presenting, because it was coming from their lips. This concept only applies to honest, scientific, transparent research. Perhaps I should have said that MSM would have the option to get confirmation from HHS prior to writing any medical conclusions because if they choose not to take that step and IF their information is wrong and then misleads the public, there should be consequences. That would be an easier method to reduce the likelihood that MSM is providing misinformation, especially when public health issues of concern are reported on. It would require their scientific advisors to do a thorough review of the science before approving that information to be shared with the public. Would that be acceptable to you?
Well... what if they don't take the option to get confirmation, and what might the consequences look like and who would rule on them and enforce them?
I'm not suggesting I have all of the answer, by any stretch. Reasonable consequences would need to be determined in advance so that everyone is aware of them. We lived with the decisions made by the past administration regarding misinformation. Perhaps we should consider using those very tactics going forward. If a physician, for example, makes false statements, then he /she should be referred to their licensing agency for suspension or removal of his license. Their published articles in peer reviewed journals should be revoked - you get the point I'm sure. Obviously fair and responsible consequences should prevail but there needs to be a way to ensure that accurate information is being presented to the public regarding public health issues that impact everyone.
Reposting on his X.
Thank you for helping to spread this message. I very much appreciate your efforts.