Everything about Kirsch's argument is irrational, his "data" are nonsensical, his conclusions are wildly off base, and his recommendations are beyond preposterous. To fly 30 people somewhere to argue with the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society isn't going to happen. Rational physician and pilot groups are communicating with the FAA and…
Everything about Kirsch's argument is irrational, his "data" are nonsensical, his conclusions are wildly off base, and his recommendations are beyond preposterous. To fly 30 people somewhere to argue with the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society isn't going to happen. Rational physician and pilot groups are communicating with the FAA and DOT, who hopefully will continue to ignore Kirsch's ravings.
As I have said ad nauseam, while the data do not come close to supporting Kirsch's wild claims about the harm caused by the vaccines, let alone his unhinged, misdirected and unjustifiable assault on Dr. Northrup, I agree that the mandates were never justifiable. But the FAA had nothing to do with originating, implementing or enforcing those mandates, ever.
There are a myriad of medical treatments, approved by the FDA and accepted by the FAA for pilots, that have potential side effects. Within the past few years, just for example, new anticoagulants ("blood-thinners") like Eliquis, Xarelto and Pradaxa, were approved by FDA for life-threatening blood clots. FAA allows pilots to take those. All anticoagulants can, occasionally, cause serious bleeding, even catastrophic hemorrhage. Is is your contention that FAA should be involved in testing, treating, and regulating those, too? How about common blood pressure medications, all of which can have side effects? The logical conclusion of your position is that only perfectly healthy, probably 25-year-old pilots who have never been sick and have never taken any medication of any kind should ever be allowed to fly airplanes. Everything about Kirsch's and your premise is nonsensical.
If your data and conclusions are the best than you should easily be able to inform the pilots and doctors who disagree using logic. Sounds like you are afraid they have more data that you or your colleagues could not explain.
It doesn't have to be 30 people flying somewhere - it could be just a few people in a virtual zoom environment.
Everything about Kirsch's argument is irrational, his "data" are nonsensical, his conclusions are wildly off base, and his recommendations are beyond preposterous. To fly 30 people somewhere to argue with the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society isn't going to happen. Rational physician and pilot groups are communicating with the FAA and DOT, who hopefully will continue to ignore Kirsch's ravings.
As I have said ad nauseam, while the data do not come close to supporting Kirsch's wild claims about the harm caused by the vaccines, let alone his unhinged, misdirected and unjustifiable assault on Dr. Northrup, I agree that the mandates were never justifiable. But the FAA had nothing to do with originating, implementing or enforcing those mandates, ever.
There are a myriad of medical treatments, approved by the FDA and accepted by the FAA for pilots, that have potential side effects. Within the past few years, just for example, new anticoagulants ("blood-thinners") like Eliquis, Xarelto and Pradaxa, were approved by FDA for life-threatening blood clots. FAA allows pilots to take those. All anticoagulants can, occasionally, cause serious bleeding, even catastrophic hemorrhage. Is is your contention that FAA should be involved in testing, treating, and regulating those, too? How about common blood pressure medications, all of which can have side effects? The logical conclusion of your position is that only perfectly healthy, probably 25-year-old pilots who have never been sick and have never taken any medication of any kind should ever be allowed to fly airplanes. Everything about Kirsch's and your premise is nonsensical.
If your data and conclusions are the best than you should easily be able to inform the pilots and doctors who disagree using logic. Sounds like you are afraid they have more data that you or your colleagues could not explain.
It doesn't have to be 30 people flying somewhere - it could be just a few people in a virtual zoom environment.