Post by Admin on Jul 24, 2021 12:02:11 GMT -6
Originally posted on FaceBook Dec 17, 2020 with article link (may be dead) - moved here July 24, 2021
So, did the AMA rescind their stance against Hydroxychloroquine as an early treatment regimen for COVID-19 as Rush Limbaugh reported?
Ultimately, no, the AMA delegates decided not to pass Resolution 509 that was part of their Nov 2020 agenda.
However, in getting the resolution on the agenda at all, they had to make the case for it. If you read all of the Whereas items laying out the reasons for the resolution, it makes you wonder why the answer to the false allegations of rescinding was only "The delegates decided against passing this resolution" and nothing to address WHY the delegates chose that way?
The why is the most important part, but the media just took "we didn't actually do that" as answer enough and no one followed up with why?
So odd to me! I'm going to link the AMA agenda memo here. It's a pretty good case, especially the parts about the retractions and the front line applications. The relevant part starts on page 16.
www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-10/nov20-handbook-addendum.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2nMK9IhJKnDgRDKJKgF-minGdbSF2DZbnKOk1cZbsHRFjIsK9zLIh-fbM
So, did the AMA rescind their stance against Hydroxychloroquine as an early treatment regimen for COVID-19 as Rush Limbaugh reported?
Ultimately, no, the AMA delegates decided not to pass Resolution 509 that was part of their Nov 2020 agenda.
However, in getting the resolution on the agenda at all, they had to make the case for it. If you read all of the Whereas items laying out the reasons for the resolution, it makes you wonder why the answer to the false allegations of rescinding was only "The delegates decided against passing this resolution" and nothing to address WHY the delegates chose that way?
The why is the most important part, but the media just took "we didn't actually do that" as answer enough and no one followed up with why?
So odd to me! I'm going to link the AMA agenda memo here. It's a pretty good case, especially the parts about the retractions and the front line applications. The relevant part starts on page 16.
www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-10/nov20-handbook-addendum.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2nMK9IhJKnDgRDKJKgF-minGdbSF2DZbnKOk1cZbsHRFjIsK9zLIh-fbM