25 Replies to “Dr Zelenko challenges officialdom for over-reaching

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Dr Zelenko challenges officialdom for over-reaching, he speaks to “sociopathic oligarchs.” HT LCD

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    It sounds to me like Dr Zelenko is placing his religious beliefs above current best medical practice which could be unethical.

  3. 3
    zweston says:

    Seversky, what your standard for something being unethical?

  4. 4
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Zweston
    Seversky, what your standard for something being unethical?

    To talk against lethal shot is unethical.
    https://rumble.com/vyr2w1-whose-fault-smelly-shoe-or-vaccine.html

  5. 5
    jerry says:

    above current best medical practice

    Care to specify what that is.

    could be unethical

    Letting people die seems to be ethical according to you.

  6. 6
    zweston says:

    The materialist has no objective standard for ethics or morality. it’s just preference or mob rule. I didn’t read the article, and I’m not commenting on whether something is ethical or not…just saying the materialist has no dog in the fight in reality. Who cares? They do….because they are made in the image of God and have a conscience.

  7. 7
    chuckdarwin says:

    Zweston
    Any licensed professional, and particularly those in the medical and legal professions, have detailed rules of ethical conduct and best practices requirements, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, “materialist” (as you call them), Darwinist, Scientologist, Mormon, or some as of yet undiscovered religious belief. The rules are the same for everyone practicing in a given profession. In other words, they are as objective as objective gets. Those rules are not merely “personal preferences or mob rule.” Nor do they come from Yahweh, Allah, or the Great Pumpkin.

  8. 8
    zweston says:

    CD, what is the objective basis for the ethical rules put forth in various industries?

    There isn’t one… it’s just a preference…therefore it’s just by consensus (mob rule) or personal preference. I know that you are a deist of sorts, so at least you have that going for you, but a materialist atheist has no actually foundation to rest any moral judgement (or knowledge claim) on. Just assumptions or assertions or claims that are undercut by their own worldview’s conclusions of lack of free will and them as God.

    Everyone wants to be their own God… and as a result we have people wanting to be the law interpreters of the land who can’t interpret that someone with a penis is a man, because they aren’t a biologist.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, it seems rather that Dr Zelenko is sitting on thousands of cases worth of proof by his direct practice that show officialdom willfully suppressed effective treatment protocols on repurposed drugs, and his protocol was key to the Uttar Pradesh breakthrough, though IVM — even more effective than HCQ — was mainly featured. He is further sitting on the worrying incidence of vaccine adverse events with serious questions on long term consequences esp as heart tissue is hard to recover from damage. In that context he is speaking to, implicitly, the Nuremberg Code, which is not merely an ethical code but a codification of decisions made by international tribunals in addressing the nazi doctor abuses. IIRC, some of same were hanged or sentenced in absentia. He speaks from a judaeochristian perspective on sociopathical oligarchy and has grounds of fair comment to do so. KF

  10. 10
    chuckdarwin says:

    Zweston
    The objective basis for professional rules is the decades-long (sometimes centuries long) development of rules through study of professional behavior and best practices by governing bodies, such as state boards of medicine, state bar associations, state supreme courts, the ABA, the AMA, requests for feedback from practitioners and patients or clients before rules are adopted. Some ethical rules are codified as laws, for example, the unauthorized practice of medicine or law or HIPAA.
    This whole “personal preference” nonsense from Christian apologists to trivialize concerted efforts to produce moral and ethical principles is a huge red herring. Professionals don’t simply abide by their “personal preferences” in practice, they conform their conduct to well-established ethical codes.

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, reliably, when you get dismissive, you don’t have the merits. The point is, the IS-OUGHT gap and linked issues on responsible, rational freedom are truly fundamental, and tied to issues of ethics and of course justice. Where, the only place the gap can be bridged, post Hume, is the root of reality. Further to which, the currently dominant evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers cannot bridge the gap, there is no basis for freedom and duty to govern it. So, they are left to preferences, of the autocrat, of the elite, of the oligarchy, of the manipulated majority, of the individual. As your dismissiveness shows, you know those are unsatisfactory: relativism, subjectivism, delusionism etc. At the same time, as was pointed out — and predictably dismissed — even objectors cannot but sit on the same branch with us and appeal to first duties of reason. That shows, pervasive first principles so self evident and we NEED to bridge the is-ought gap. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to warrant and wider prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour so to fairness and justice, etc. We need the inherently good and utterly wise as reality root. KF

  12. 12
    chuckdarwin says:

    KF
    With all due respect, I was responding to Zweston’s specific question regarding the source of professional ethics after he had challenged Sev’s reference to best practices in medicine. I challenge you to point out where, on this topic, I “don’t have the merits.”

  13. 13
    Seversky says:

    On Dr Zelenko’s ethics

    Meanwhile, Dr. Zelenko has been making claims like this:

    Zelenko is one of a handful contending it should be in widespread distribution to people at higher risk of having a serious case of Covid-19 with mid-level symptoms, most often without even confirming their illness is in fact connected to coronavirus.

    He wrote in the emails sent on Friday that his clinic had so far given 669 outpatients the drug cocktail, and that none had died. He attached a spreadsheet in which he listed 54 high-risk cases, including three who required hospitalization.

    In an interview Friday, Zelenko encouraged doctors to resist calls from infectious disease experts to prescribe the drug only as part of clinical trials and to critical patients.

    “This is a World War III situation — it’s the virus versus humanity,” he said. “If we were to adopt their approach, there would be an extra million dead people.”

    There is, of course, zero evidence that withholding hydroxychloroquine from mild cases of COVID-19 will result in an extra million deaths. Dr. Zelenko’s actions and words have been truly irresponsible and unethical. It’s made him very famous, though:

    Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, quickly promoted Dr. Zelenko’s claims on his TV and radio shows. Mark Meadows, the incoming White House chief of staff, called Dr. Zelenko to ask about his treatment plan. And Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, praised him in a podcast interview this week for “thinking of solutions, just like the president.”

    And:

    In a phone interview from his home, where he has been in self-isolation, Dr. Zelenko, who goes by Zev, described a dizzying week filled with calls from media and health officials from countries including Israel, Ukraine and Russia, all seeking information about his treatment. Some world leaders, including Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, are also talking up some of the same drugs as a cure.

    “It’s a very surreal moment,” said Dr. Zelenko, who has been practicing medicine for 16 years. “I’m a simple country doctor, you know. I don’t have connections.”

    I love the whole “simple country doctor” shtick. Dr. Zelenko is anything but. He has, if anything, shown himself to be a master of Trumpian self-promotion, having become a social media (and old media) star almost overnight by promoting Didier Raoult’s cocktail (plus zinc). He’s even appeared on Rudy Giuliani’s video podcast. There is, however, an interesting update in the NYT article. In earlier videos, Dr. Zelenko has bragged that none of his patients had required a ventilator. In this article:

    While dealing with his newfound fame, Dr. Zelenko, who has been practicing telemedicine from his home office, is working to keep his coronavirus patients alive. He said his team had seen about 900 patients with possible coronavirus symptoms, treating about 350 with his regimen. None had died as of Thursday, he said, though six were hospitalized and two were on ventilators

    Can you say “selection bias”? Sure, I knew you could. I predict that, as the pandemic continues, more and more of Dr. Zelenko’s patients will wind up hospitalized, with more winding up on ventilators. He’s been treating patients with mild disease, and, as time goes on, more of those will progress to severe disease.

    Here’s the thing. All Dr. Zelenko has is a spreadsheet of some of his patients. I found an image of it, and, as data, it’s a joke. The lack of detail, specifically whether a patient tested positive for COVID-19 or was “clinically diagnosed,” is woeful. Basically, you can’t tell anything from it. It doesn’t even qualify as a well-documented case series. Worse, the combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine can cause fatal cardiac arrhythmias. Dr. Zelenko’s actions are profoundly unethical, as he is prescribing drugs willy-nilly to everyone with COVID-19-like symptoms that are not without risk. That spreadsheet is also a major violation of patient privacy. (HIPAA violation, anyone?)

    For a case series testing drugs like these on COVID-19 patients to be even minimally informative, there need to be: rigorous diagnostic criteria, rigorous criteria for who is treated, close followup with objective parameters measured (in this case, time to clear the virus would be useful information), and careful data analysis. Even then, observational case series provide the weakest form of evidence. There are rare cases when they can demonstrate efficacy of a treatment, for instance a normally 100% fatal disease in which a high percentage of the treated patients survive, but these sorts of situations are quite uncommon. The vast majority of the time, case series, even well-done and rigorously reported ones, are not very useful for answering the question of whether a treatment is efficacious, and Dr. Zelenko’s case series is anything but rigorous or well-reported.

  14. 14
    jerry says:

    #13

    One of the more despicable posts ever on UD.

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, you need to answer to the population level results — census not sampling, real world not games over gold standard fallacies of hyperskepticism — of Uttar Pradesh vs Israel, UK and US, where a Zelenko derived protocol stopped the Delta wave cold and went on to maintain suppressive effect. IVM works, proved through a population of 240+ millions where officials took courage in their hands and went with evidence from Zelenko, the Frontline Doctors etc and circulated treatment kits. There is further significant evidence that HCQ works, and there is an onward list of other treatments. These treatments, contrary to media hit campaigns, are well shown to be significantly effective and have decades long track records of reasonable safety. The US is now pushing for 4th jab, which is in place in Israel. Meanwhile evidence mounts of a significant, questionably high adverse event rate for vaccines, with heart and circulatory system damage of particular concern. No wonder people are reacting to what looks like an endless train of risky jabs. We need to pay attention to the Nuremberg Code. KF

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, done, the issue is foundations and it is clear from months of exchanges that there is a relevant challenge. What is the basis for ought as opposed to is? How do we escape from relativism, subjectivism, meaninglessness, nihilism etc? What is the foundation of justice, what are our first duties, are we responsible rational significantly free creatures and thus morally governed? And more. Let’s hear you answer to medical ethics in a pandemic age riding on statistically 1.4 billion ghosts of our living posterity in the womb, mounting at 1 million per week. Until medicine answers this, the whole system is fatally compromised. KF

  17. 17
    chuckdarwin says:

    KF
    There’s no challenge. I get that you want to source everything, including morality, in your Christian God. I get that you believe that without your Christian God the world is “slouching towards Gomorrah.” However, whether you agree or not, morality is always contextual. Take one of your favorite tropes, the “Nuremberg Code.” The code, at bottom, is a judge-made (human) creation without any true legal effect. It was originally rejected by the AMA as irrelevant to the ordinary medical practitioner and unworkable for researchers because of its unrealistic criteria.

    Professional associations don’t have the luxury of operating in the rarified air of moral absolutes, nor is it productive to indict the entire system as “fatally compromised” because of one issue upon which you disagree. Codes of conduct need to address the world as it is not how it ought to be. US medicine has addressed the issue of abortion, just not in a way that you prefer. The AMA’s official position on abortion:

    Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 4.2.7
    The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics

    This position recognizes the reality and legality of abortion in the US and guides physicians accordingly. As you will note, the guideline is worded in the negative, i.e., it does not prohibit physicians from performing abortions, nor does it require them to do so. Thus, it accommodates those who chose to exercise conscientious objection to abortion.

    I happen to agree with you that abortion is a tragedy. Believe me, I know firsthand. But it is not going away no matter what prohibitions are in place. That is the way the world is regardless of how you think the world ought to be.

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, confession by projection.

    You know that I have shown that even objectors to the ciceronian first duties are unable but to sit on the same branch with the rest of us, as you do, appealing to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness etc in hopes of overturning my pointing out that these are first principles. They are therefore obviously self evident, antecedents of proofs etc. These include duty to the first principles of right reason for example; which Epictetus famously showed are branch on which we sit first principles, see below.

    So, you undercut your argument.

    You further know that I then point out from Hume and Euthyphro that we need to bridge the is-ought gap in the root of reality, and that we need a root adequate to bear the weight of ought. Such would be inherently good and utterly wise. Lessee, that is four pagans [Plato behind Euthyphro] and one probably deistic skeptic, but the actuality is they help us to see that these things are indeed first principles, so their worldviews or other arguments are irrelevant. So, your marginalisation by projection fails and opens up: why the motive to project alleged Christian bias and lack of grounding?

    H’mm, that seems to be a confession that the dominant evolutionary materialism and/or its fellow travellers cannot bridge is and ought, leading to breakdown of both ethics and rationality, not to mention therefore rational, responsible freedom. And of course it is precisely because the world in key parts is not as it ought to be and we are not either that we need to have good guidance pointing us there, whatever logic of being consequences follow.

    Where, BTW, the proper name for what I am arguing is, natural law, rooted here in self evident first duties, law that as it addresses our nature as rational, responsible, significantly free, rights and duties bearing creatures, is of universal jurisdiction.

    As say the Nuremberg tribunals pointed out to the Nazi defenders they then proceeded to try, expose, convict and in key cases hang for crimes against humanity. BTW, after then turning to the Nazi doctors, and sentencing them, the tribunals summed up the principles of sound medical experimentation in the Nuremberg code, which is obviously now being ignored and breached in the global mismanagement of the fiasco we call a pandemic.

    Fail.

    KF

    PS; Abotion en mass is holocaust, mounting up at 1 million more victims per week on top of 1.4 billions, with Medicine implicated up to its eyeballs, so until this is fixed, the compromised state of medical ethics debilitates any attempt to construct codes of ethics. Which BTW, need to recognise, tada, said ciceronian first duties.

    PPS, now for Epictetus, a lesson on the pervasive nature of genuine first principles:

    DISCOURSES
    CHAPTER XXV

    How is logic necessary?

    When someone in [Epictetus’] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. We here see the first principles of right reason in action. Cf J. C. Wright]

  19. 19
    asauber says:

    “I get that you want to source everything, including morality, in your Christian God.”

    CD,

    That is only because He IS the source.

    Andrew

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    AS, that is a point, on logic of being behind creatures who are responsible, rational and significantly free so morally governed. However, before we ask that roots of reality question, we find that we are duty bound through self evident first duties of reason, in many ways. Not least, even the objector is appealing to said principles. That is why we have no excuse when we try to duck, dodge and obfuscate. KF

  21. 21
    jerry says:

    you want to source everything, including morality, in your Christian God

    Do you have an alternative?

    I suggest you either put up or shut up. Or take your show somewhere else.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, he is unwilling to acknowledge the difference between addressing self evident first principles accessible to all, and the onward question of roots of reality containing morally governed creatures. The implied inference that I failed in duties of reason only expose the futility of the objection. Then, he fails to realise that after Hume and Euthyphro, we do need the inherently good and utterly wise as characteristics of necessary being at reality’s root. But then, that probably casts a most unwelcome shadow across his door step. It would be interesting to see an attempt to pose an alternative candidate, KF

  23. 23
    jerry says:

    attempt to pose an alternative candidate

    There is no alternative candidate.

    With all his education, he surely know that. That’s why they all are silent on alternatives. They have nothing but at best wishful thinking and snarky remarks.

  24. 24
    jerry says:

    Description of an anti ID individual

    Ignorance is not a simple lack of knowledge but an active aversion to knowledge, the refusal to know, issuing from cowardice, pride, or laziness of mind.

    – karl popper

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, I have found that there are two types of ignorance. Type 1, simple blameless lack of awareness or exposure, so one simply does not know.* Type 2, willful hyperskeptical rejection of the in fact adequately warranted, due to adherence to crooked yardsticks posing as reference standards of truth, uprightness, accuracy. Ironically, there are two varieties of knowledge: first, direct, due to coming to acknowledge adequately warranted credible, reliable claims. Then, secondary, where the knowledge is instead that there is not an adequately warranted conclusion on a matter. Type 2 ignorance typically poses as secondary knowledge, though it can be active denial of knowledge. So, being responsible regarding warrant is pivotal, therefore it is vital to attend to principles and duties of right reason. KF

    * This includes known unknowns and unknown unknowns, at individual, group/organisational and community level.

Leave a Reply