Franco Terrazzano, of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), delivered this presentation on GOVERNMENT WASTE to the federal Standing Committee on Finance on October 22, 2022.
I don't see how any government employee would have respect for any Canadian taxpayer given the the government takes money from taxpayers without their explicit consent.
That oath is too imprecise too subjective, similar to doctors' "hypocratic oath". They can easily pledge it, and mean it - their interpretation of it. Most of them believe censorship and narrative building "serves the public", to combat misinformation, to promote perceived social benefits, to blunt social tensions, etc.
First, I believe most doctors first priority is to serve their patients, not "the public," whatever that means. And they will do so to the best of their knowledge and ability. They have spent many years learning what is best for their patients' problems. Unfortunatley, much of the "knowledge" is provided by the pharmaceutical industry. They may be sued if they harm a patient, but the medical profession has a substantial fund (paid for by doctors) to fight such cases.
On a one-on-one basis, I agree with you. However, the collective power and influence of the pharma industry and medical licensing institutions put them in the impossible position to make choices between protecting their licence and livelihood or “putting their patients first”. You can’t serve patients in Ontario without a medical licence. I typical MD will choose to live another day rather than advice patients with any protocol that is not “authorized”. Ivermectic was one example of this during Covid.
And as you point out in a subsequent article, it is the government authorized/appointed CPSO that puts them in this conflict of interest. Once they complete the required course of study and internship satisfactorily, their licence should only be removed if they are found guilty of malpractice or at risk if complaints are found to be valid.
I don't see how any government employee would have respect for any Canadian taxpayer given the the government takes money from taxpayers without their explicit consent.
That oath is too imprecise too subjective, similar to doctors' "hypocratic oath". They can easily pledge it, and mean it - their interpretation of it. Most of them believe censorship and narrative building "serves the public", to combat misinformation, to promote perceived social benefits, to blunt social tensions, etc.
(There's no such thing as "the public".)
First, I believe most doctors first priority is to serve their patients, not "the public," whatever that means. And they will do so to the best of their knowledge and ability. They have spent many years learning what is best for their patients' problems. Unfortunatley, much of the "knowledge" is provided by the pharmaceutical industry. They may be sued if they harm a patient, but the medical profession has a substantial fund (paid for by doctors) to fight such cases.
On a one-on-one basis, I agree with you. However, the collective power and influence of the pharma industry and medical licensing institutions put them in the impossible position to make choices between protecting their licence and livelihood or “putting their patients first”. You can’t serve patients in Ontario without a medical licence. I typical MD will choose to live another day rather than advice patients with any protocol that is not “authorized”. Ivermectic was one example of this during Covid.
And as you point out in a subsequent article, it is the government authorized/appointed CPSO that puts them in this conflict of interest. Once they complete the required course of study and internship satisfactorily, their licence should only be removed if they are found guilty of malpractice or at risk if complaints are found to be valid.