It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Doctor Banned For Questioning Efficacy of Masks Wins High Court Case

page: 1
41
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+13 more 
posted on Dec, 6 2021 @ 12:03 PM
link   
A doctor in the UK who was banned from using social media by the General Medical Council for claiming “masks do nothing” has won his case in the High Court.

Story


 



Starting a New Thread ?

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites;
*please post one or two paragraphs,
*a link to the entire story,
*AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.


edit on Mon Dec 6 2021 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 6 2021 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Smigg

Excellent
But I don't expect the mask mandates to lift or sheep to stop wearing them alone in their cars.



posted on Dec, 6 2021 @ 12:33 PM
link   
There is no better mask than the one's fashioned out of t-shirt material in the shape of a mask. This is the predominant mask and has been since the beginning of the pandemic and it will keep you from having others piss on your leg. Fauci was lying when he said masks did no good. The Surgeon General to the United States was lying when he said the masks did no good. They are all telling the truth now, and the fact that they previously lied should have no bearing on their ability to tell the truth now.

This is the word of the science lord.


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 6 2021 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Dr Sam. Had his licence revoked too last year for speaking out against the you know what. One his court case and had his licence re-instated, Judges ruling.
Rainbows
Jane



posted on Dec, 6 2021 @ 12:53 PM
link   

White took his case against the GMC to the High Court on the basis of his freedom of expression “to engage in medical, scientific and political debate and discussion,” White’s barrister, Francis Hoar, told a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Hoar added that White’s opinions were “supported by large bodies of scientific and medical opinion” and had been “statements of fact and opinions about pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions in response to the pandemic.”

GMC’s Alexis Hearnden claimed that White’s views were not only misinformation, but posed a “risk” to the public because they didn’t align with official pronouncements.

However, the court ruled in favor of White, asserting that the tribunal which banned him from speaking had violated the 1998 Human Rights Act.

The ruling concluded that the tribunal’s decision was “an error of law and a clear misdirection,” meaning the decision was “clearly wrong and cannot stand.”


Not sure what "clear misdirection" means in legalese but at least human rights triumphed.



posted on Dec, 6 2021 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: angelchemuel
Dr Sam. Had his licence revoked too last year for speaking out against the you know what. One his court case and had his licence re-instated, Judges ruling.
Rainbows
Jane
e


I believe the Scot is eating some crow pie about now. Or should be. We keep finding the established Pharma side are pulling the levers to stop the discussions on CV and control what is spoken on the cures and the reasons for infection rates. "Masks, distancing and boosters for everyone or bust!



posted on Dec, 6 2021 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: angelchemuel
Dr Sam. Had his licence revoked too last year for speaking out against the you know what. One his court case and had his licence re-instated, Judges ruling.
Rainbows
Jane


He didn't have his licence revoked.



posted on Dec, 6 2021 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: angelchemuel
Dr Sam. Had his licence revoked too last year for speaking out against the you know what. One his court case and had his licence re-instated, Judges ruling.
Rainbows
Jane


He didn't have his licence revoked.


Well this says they forced his resignation however.

It appears they took his license by this BBC article


The General Medical Council (GMC) placed the interim conditions on Dr White's registration following a tribunal in August.

edit on 6-12-2021 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2021 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: angelchemuel
Dr Sam. Had his licence revoked too last year for speaking out against the you know what. One his court case and had his licence re-instated, Judges ruling.
Rainbows
Jane


He didn't have his licence revoked.


Well this says they forced his resignation however.

It appears they took his license by this BBC article


The General Medical Council (GMC) placed the interim conditions on Dr White's registration following a tribunal in August.


He chose to resign due to his political beliefs since he was still working as a GP they clearly didn't revoke his licence.



He had been a partner at a Hampshire practice but quit in February.

In the seven-minute video posted on Twitter and Instagram, Dr White, who is now a locum GP, said he had been unable to continue in his role at The Denmead Practice because he could no longer "stomach or tolerate" those "lies", London's High Court heard.


edit on 7-12-2021 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2021 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Smigg

How can a government "ban" someone from using social media?



posted on Dec, 7 2021 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

its the dark ages all over again you know



posted on Dec, 7 2021 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
Well this says they forced his resignation however.

It appears they took his license by this BBC article

There is nothing there that says anything about his license at all.

Those of us on the side of truth should be extra careful about making claims like this.



posted on Dec, 7 2021 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




He chose to resign due to his political beliefs since he was still working as a GP they clearly didn't revoke his licence.


It had nothing to do with his political beliefs, this is about proper medical practice. It says in your own quote “no longer stomach or tolerate those lies” now what lies do you think he is referring to exactly?

There was also another British doctor of Pakistani heritage that spoke out and was suspended for 6 months. People who work in care and for the NHS are being forced to take the jabs or lose their jobs, but you won’t be fired until April because they will be needed for the busy winter period!!

Can’t you see this is tyranny? Can’t you say something positive about a victory for human rights? It’s one thing to be a skeptic and another to be a total...



posted on Dec, 7 2021 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: ScepticScot




He chose to resign due to his political beliefs since he was still working as a GP they clearly didn't revoke his licence.


It had nothing to do with his political beliefs, this is about proper medical practice. It says in your own quote “no longer stomach or tolerate those lies” now what lies do you think he is referring to exactly?

There was also another British doctor of Pakistani heritage that spoke out and was suspended for 6 months. People who work in care and for the NHS are being forced to take the jabs or lose their jobs, but you won’t be fired until April because they will be needed for the busy winter period!!

Can’t you see this is tyranny? Can’t you say something positive about a victory for human rights? It’s one thing to be a skeptic and another to be a total...


Proper medical practise would be to follow medical advice and scientific research. The opposite of what he did.



posted on Dec, 7 2021 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


Proper medical practise would be to follow medical advice and scientific research. The opposite of what he did.

I'm confused... care to elaborate? How can one follow "scientific research" when "scientific research" is not allowed to be performed?

Also, isn't the doctor supposed to give "medical advice"? Yet you are saying the doctor is supposed to follow "medical advice." Where does this "medical advice" come from if not from doctors and researchers who cannot research?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 7 2021 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




Proper medical practise would be to follow medical advice and scientific research. The opposite of what he did.


Are you living in your own reality bubble?


Hoar added that White’s opinions were “supported by large bodies of scientific and medical opinion” and had been “statements of fact and opinions about pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions in response to the pandemic.”


Now

because they didn’t align with official pronouncements.


Does that make statements of fact supported by large bodies of scientific and medical opinion wrong somehow? Are official pronouncements like the word of the almighty or something? Well thank god the court didn’t think so.

While I’m at it, how is it that both secretary’s of health since the pandemic, egg head and lover boy, have no background in health or medicine? Why do people listen to these and the likes of Bill Gates whose only real world experience with virus’s and bugs are mostly in his own software?

Pull the other one.

edit on 7-12-2021 by surfer_soul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2021 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: ScepticScot




Proper medical practise would be to follow medical advice and scientific research. The opposite of what he did.


Are you living in your own reality bubble?


Hoar added that White’s opinions were “supported by large bodies of scientific and medical opinion” and had been “statements of fact and opinions about pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions in response to the pandemic.”


Now

because they didn’t align with official pronouncements.


Does that make statements of fact supported by large bodies of scientific and medical opinion wrong somehow? Are official pronouncements like the word of the almighty or something? Well thank god the court didn’t think so.

While I’m at how is it both secretary’s of health since the pandemic, egg head and lover boy, have no background in health or medicine? Why do people listen to the likes of Bill Gates whose only real world experience with virus’s and bugs are mostly in his own software?

Pull the other one.


That would be Hoar as in White's barrister arguing in court. Not exactly an impartial summary of the weight of medical knowledge regarding covid.

The opposing side in this case was the GMC, not the Health Secretary, his qualifications ate irrelevant and UK ministers rarely have qualifications specific to their department.

ETA The court decision had nothing to do with his claims.
edit on 7-12-2021 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2021 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2021 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Actually, Mr. Socko makes a great mask.



Sock monkeys work equally well.
www.amazon.com...=asc_df_B0013JEAO4/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312098717259&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&h vrand=9378190262170825157&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9014913&hvtargid=pla-422487472233&psc=1



posted on Dec, 7 2021 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Smigg

How can a government "ban" someone from using social media?



The NHS is two thirds female if that answers your question.



posted on Dec, 7 2021 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


UK ministers rarely have qualifications specific to their department.



And... you're OK with this?

O..... K.....

TheRedneck




top topics



 
41
<<   2 >>

log in

join