Sign in to follow this  
Still_Small_Voice

Hydroxychloroquine touting doctor says she has been fired after appearing in viral video

Recommended Posts

July 31st 2020

Doctor Simone Gold, the Los Angeles-based physician behind America's Frontline Doctors, a group advocating for hydroxychloroquine to be used in the fight against COVID-19, says she has been fired for expressing her medical opinion.

Gold shared the news in an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson Thursday night, saying she was removed from her job due to her appearance in a viral video touting the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine.

"I'm a board-certified emergency physician for 20 years, and in fact, it seems like until five minutes ago I was considered a hero and people would be clapping and glad that I was doing what I was doing, and then the video came out and I was summarily fired for appearing in what was told to me is an embarrassing video," Gold told Carlson.

Gold, who graduated from Chicago Medical School in 1989 and completed her residency at Stony Brook University Hospital in New York, appeared in the controversial "White Coat Summit" video earlier this week, organized by her organization and conservative political organization, Tea Party Patriots.

A 40-minute video of a news conference that took place during the summit was posted across social media platforms and quickly garnered millions of views. In the video, one of the doctors, Dr. Stella Immanuel, a Houston pediatrician and religious minister, referred to studies that claim hydroxychloroquine doesn't work as "fake science."

The video was shared widely on Facebook and Twitter by many, including President Donald Trump and his son, Donald Trump Junior.

Shortly after the video was posted, however, it was removed by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube for allegedly making false and dubious claims related to the coronavirus.

Gold said that in addition to the social media giants censoring the video, website host SquareSpace also shut down her organization's website.

Read more at:  https://www.theblaze.com/news/hydroxychloroquine-touting-doctor-fired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I am afraid we are losing or have lost our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech.  Person after person has been attacked, murdered or fired from their work because they supported a cause that was not in line with other people's opinions recently.

The first amendment protects free speech from the government's involvement.  It doesn't prevent a private business from firing an employee for their speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I am afraid we are losing or have lost our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech.  Person after person has been attacked, murdered or fired from their work because they supported a cause that was not in line with other people's opinions recently.

I think that's up for debate right now (for those following current events) in regards to whether what happened is free speech, or whether it is not.

Currently, companies are allowed to fire people (or many companies, non-profits, corporations, and even government entities) if employees say something that they do not approve of or feel puts the company in bad light.

What is even more controversial currently is what is going on in congress.  Just as these companies above can censor employees (though they cannot do true punishment, the extent they can punish is normally firing the employee, ejecting an unwanted customer, or at worst, a lawsuit), the question has come on how much online companies can pursue these same ideas.  You have anti-trust hearings currently in congress, but in these hearings another question was brought up yesterday (or was it the day before).  It was pertaining to censorship and if they are quelling the conservative viewpoints.

The points were brought up that there is little scientific studies to show this, but there are many who point to a common thought among conservatives that this is occurring, as was reflected by at least one congressman's line of questioning.

Just like these forums have the ability to say what is or is not allowed, as it is owned by someone privately, do other online businesses (especially those in the line of social media such as facebook or twitter) have these rights as well.  If or when they take something down or do not allow it, is it stopping freedom of speech, or is it their legal constitutional rights due to private property and the pursuit of happiness regulations?

I'm leaning that it is still their constitutional rights on what to or what not to allow.  If we start stating what a company must allow or not allow in regards to speech or print on their site, in theory that will extend to other sites (which could include this one).  How far are we going to go with this idea?

On the otherhand, when a company is so far wide spread it is more common than some utilities, is it then more of a public source and public usage domain rather than a private corporate legality, and if so, when they do censor, is it breaking the ideas or thoughts regarding the right of freedom of speech?

I'm not sure if it will be answered in the current hearings, but it has been brought up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dprh said:

The first amendment protects free speech from the government's involvement.  It doesn't prevent a private business from firing an employee for their speech.

But this is a big problem in our society.  Somebody does something off the job like fly a flag another person does not like or says something someone else dislikes and then the vengeance begins.  The offended person researches the person and finds out where they work and then complains to their employer.  The politically correct or cowardly employer then decides to fire the person.  It is despicable behavior that is silencing freedom of speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The website is back up:  https://americasfrontlinedoctorsummit.com

Interesting quote from the references page:

Quote

The safety of HCQ is irrefutable. The evidence supporting HCQ efficacy against Covid-19 is also overwhelming. All negative HCQ studies have used either: too much, used it alone (it needs Zinc), or used it late (it should be early.) The treatment dose is 200 mg HCQ twice a day for five days + Zinc 50 (elemental) daily. The prophylactic dose is 400 mg HCQ weekly + Zinc 50 (elemental) daily. (There are studies right now to see if HCQ 200 mg. weekly is sufficient.) This is very low dose. (The usual dose of HCQ in Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis is 400 mg. daily for years.) There are telemedicine physicians who are aware of the facts and if you are concerned about this, please see one. It is also over the counter in many places in the world including Indonesia and most of South America.

Edited by person0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

But this is a big problem in our society.  Somebody does something off the job like fly a flag another person does not like or says something someone else dislikes and then the vengeance begins.  The offended person researches the person and finds out where they work and then complains to their employer.  The politically correct or cowardly employer then decides to fire the person.  It is despicable behavior that is silencing freedom of speech.

But they still are able to speak.  They aren't being silenced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dprh said:

But they still are able to speak.  They aren't being silenced.

I believe the point being made is that the more this happens the less people will speak up > in fear of some consequence > thus free speech begins to be silenced. Isn't this one of the reasons why we have this amendment. People being prosecuted for what they say. I can fully understand if it affects the business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2020 at 2:31 PM, dprh said:

But they still are able to speak.  They aren't being silenced.

Believe that if you want to but it is not true.  There are many people being threatened or intimidated by others attacking them for their opinions. 

One example I just watched a story recently about a black man who was holding a vote for Trump sign on public streets.  He was killed and they are investigating his murder.  Very likely he was killed for just expressing his opinion which was not popular with others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fether said:

I wonder if the founding fathers knew that one day it would be the people suppressing their own speech and not the government.

I think this says it better than I've been able to. The first amendment protects speech from government interference, not consequences from other individuals or businesses. 

Yes, getting killed for what you say is awful. But I don't think it's a first amendment issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dprh said:

Yes, getting killed for what you say is awful. But I don't think it's a first amendment issue. 

No, but if the government refuses to prosecute it or otherwise deter such actions, it’s most definitely a fourteenth amendment issue.

As far as doctors being fired for espousing unpopular opinions:  I happen to support, in theory, the right of employers to fire employees who are undercutting their business’s core mission or values, even if all the employee is doing is creating bad publicity and even if it’s being done via speech, or religion, or politics, or “moral lifestyle choices”.  But that’s not the world that the progresives want to play in, or the world that had been created under our current statutory regimen.  So we may as well make ‘em live up to their own principles. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dprh said:

I think this says it better than I've been able to. The first amendment protects speech from government interference, not consequences from other individuals or businesses. 

Yes, getting killed for what you say is awful. But I don't think it's a first amendment issue. 

I remember listening to a podcast about the founding of our nation and one comment made was that the government was set up in such a way to allow the people stand up against their government should it start doing things they witness as undesirable.

Sounds good on paper, but what happens when the people desire wickedness rather than righteousness.

the argument was that this country wasn’t built to maintain its original values, but rather built to be overthrown when the values of the people change. Though this wasn’t the intention of the founders, it is what resulted in their creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Fether said:

I wonder if the founding fathers knew that one day it would be the people suppressing their own speech and not the government.

Ironically, there was what people would call suppression of speech alive and well during the days of the founding fathers, even after the creation of the Constitution.

The Constitution protected the people and their rights from Federal Tyranny (Something some of the Founding Fathers probably would say was occurring today, in that the Federal Government was entirely tyrannical in what it does), and the States from Federal over reach.  The States had a LOT more ability to govern than they do today.

Many of the things people say are guaranteed today were not necessarily guaranteed when the Constitution first was implemented.  They were protected FEDERALLY, but not necessarily locally.  States had a lot more freedom to restrict or force certain things (for example, freedom of religion was more in reference to the Federal Government, States still had official state religions-though diminishing and normally not enforced, restrictions on speech and press and other items under the Bill of rights, etc).  During that time period employers could still fire employees for speaking in ways they did not like, and many of the things we think the constitution guarantees today were not even thought of back then (court cases that resolved some of these issues had not arisen yet). 

Of course, without the internet, social media, and many other facets, such opportunities for people to highlight themselves to employers, or employers to see what their employees were doing on their individual time were not as explicitly available or visible, and thus such things were not as commonplace, or as commonly known to occur, but man of the things we see occurring today in regards to employers and restricting what employees can or cannot do trace back to the roots of the nation.

Employers taking a vested interest in the safety or many other items are a more modern idea.  Previously Employers may not even care if their employees had safe working conditions.  They may fire them for whatever reasons, and work them to death and many other things.  The rise of Unions in the US gave rise to the thought of employers engaging their employees in a more employee focused way then had been given consideration in previous decades/centuries.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this