by Colin Ector
On Wednesday 5th August 2020 a short clip of an interview of both Scott Morrison (Australian Prime Minister) and acting Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly was posted online.
This comes 2 days after Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly asked the question online whether the Victorian Premier and others could face jail time for preventing doctors from being able to prescribe the drug Hydroxychloroquine to patients suffering with Covid19.
The Australian reported the question was asked on Monday 3rd and that Mr Kelly was condemned for his online comments by Labour leader Anthony Albenese.
What can we learn from Scott Morrison and Paul Kelly’s responses?
Journalist (Tim Lester, political reporter for 7 news) 5th August
“On hydroxychloroquine. Can I ask you both If I might first professor”
The interviewer addresses them both and directs the first part of his question to the professor.
Scott Morison
“Not a subject I’m an expert in so I will have to leave it to the pr..to the chief medical officer.”
1. Morrison interrupts the interviewer even though the first part of the question is not being directed towards him.
2. He begins in the negative without a pronoun making it sensitive, important and giving us unnecessarily the reason why he will not be answering.
3. Morrison has a need to distance himself. What caused this need? Answer. The introduction of the subject hydroxychloroquine.
Journalist
“Well the chief medical officer if I could ask you professor if you’re happy with the current settings that prevent prescription of the drug in Australia and prime minster can I ask you if you’re happy with your MP Craig Kelly promoting it to the point where he says that Dan Andrews could be jailed because he bans the drug in Victoria.”
The questions posed to the two subjects.
Question to Chief Medical Officer “professor if your happy with the current settings that prevent prescription of the drug in Australia”
Question to Scott Morrison
“if your happy with your MP Craig Kelly promoting it to the point where he says that Dan Andrews could be jailed because he bans the drug in Victoria.”
Morrison
“Well I, I’m not going to get onto what people talk about on facebook on a day like this but on the medical issues I’m happy for the Chief medical officer to speak to it.”
1. Morrison pauses to think (“well”), before going into the negative again to tell us what he is not going to “get onto”.
2. He does not answer the question about MP Craig Kelly.
3. He avoids using MP Craig Kelly’s name and even reduces it to the passive “people” rather than even one specific person. This is likely an indication that the relationship between himself and MP Kelly is not good at this point in time.
4. “On a day like this” What is he referring to? If the date these words are spoken is correct, he may be referring to the first full day of the stage four lockdowns in Victoria. He gives this as the reason why he will not be “getting onto” this subject. This is unnecessary language and leads to the question is there another reason why he does not want to talk about it.
5. Is he chastising the reporter for asking this question “On a day like this”?
Acting Chief medical officer Paul Kelly
“So er hydroxychloroquine has been used for many, many years for various er er er things including for malaria prevention. I took it myself for many years when I worked in Africa um and very safe for for that particular er way of using that drug and oth other things er currently involved in terms of er of er arthritis and er other matters but in terms of its use for this particular disease er the jury’s pretty much out, it doesn’t work.”
A reminder of the question posed to Mr Kelly
“professor if your happy with the current settings that prevent prescription of the drug in Australia?”
This is a yes or no question. The simplest and expected answer is either “yes” or “no”. The subject may then elaborate on their answer.
The subject does not answer the question.
Instead of answering the “yes” or “no” question the subject is going into a lengthy description of hydroxychloroquine whilst avoiding answering the question that was posed. This is common in deception in that the deceptive subject prefers to keep talking about something they feel more comfortable saying, rather than getting to the part where they will try to deceive. Lying is stressful to the brain, even to habitual liars.
“So er hydroxychloroquine has been used for many, many years for various er er er things including for malaria prevention. I took it myself for many years when I worked in Africa um and very safe for for that particular er way of using that drug and oth other things er currently involved in terms of er of er arthritis and er other matters but in terms of its use for this particular disease er the jury’s pretty much out, it doesn’t work.”
1. Notice it is used for various “er er er things”. The unusual amount of “errs” or pauses is a likely indicator of an increase in stress as the subject tries to think of what to say whilst not answering the yes or no question.
2. The subject reliably reports that he took the drug himself and that it was very safe.
3. Notice the subject distances himself from hydroxychloroquine with his use of the word “that”. It is now “that drug”. We use “that” for what we don’t want close.
4. What has caused the change of language from “things” to now “matters”. These aren’t the medical terms that would be expected from a chief medical officer.
5. “way of using that drug”. Is the subject avoiding the expected word “treatment”? Is he in effect minimizing or distancing the drug to “use”, rather than “treatment”? “Use” being a more derogatory word for the use of a drug?
6. “this particular disease” is passive. He is avoiding making the direct commitment to Covid19.
7. “the jury’s pretty much out” is passive. It removes the identity and the responsibility of whom the subject is referring to. It is a saying that weakens the subject’s words in context. If we are in a global pandemic where people are dying, people have been locked down in their homes and many have lost their livelihoods a passive response is not expected. The expected is clear evidence based scientific opinion on whether the subject is happy with the current settings preventing doctors from prescribing hydroxychloroquine.
8. The inclusion of the qualifying language “pretty much” weakens the subject’s words further.
9. Lastly, we do not know what the “it” is in the subject’s final sentence “it doesn’t work”. This is unreliable language. We do not interpret it to be hydroxychloroquine. Those who are deceptive wish us to interpret their words for them. If they cannot say it, we will not do it for them. This is weak, passive language from the subject where we expect clear linguistic commitment with detail. Is zinc needed for it to work against viruses?
Conclusions
Scott Morrison
1. Morrison is uncomfortable with the question about hydroxychloroquine.
2. Morrison demonstrates a need to distance himself from this topic and is likely concealing the reason why.
3. The relationship between Morrison and MP Craig Kelly is not good at this point in time.
Professor Paul Kelly
1. Kelly’s language indicates he is likely not happy with the current settings preventing prescription of hydroxychloroquine.
2. Kelly’s language is indicative of a subject who does not believe his own words.
3. Kelly may be under instruction and restricted on what he is permitted to say.
5 comments:
Three things stand out for me from this enormous denouement:
- HCQ studies that have been outright designed to fail.
- The media campaign against HCQ, which all the real evidence suggests is safe, cheap and effective.
- The TOTAL SILENCE from any medical authorities, anywhere, of anything whatsoever to do with the ability of how individuals can strengthen and support their own immune system. To me this is such an enormous red flag it's hard to describe.
As Colin said we see Paul Kelly totally avoids answering the question asked. He starts his statement with the word “so”, which alerts us that he feels he has need to justify something. As he has said nothing prior to the word “so” to guide us to what that is, it suggests that he has thoughts in his mind connected to the topic at hand which are causing him to go into a defensive mode. He then goes on to explain how long the drug has been used for and how safe it is.
"I worked in Africa um and very safe for for that [particular] er [way] of using [that] drug and oth, other things er currently involved in terms of er of er arthritis and er other matters"
From what he has told us the drug is used for multiple (“various things”). He is an expert yet the best details he can give include –
“various er er er things”
“other things”
“other matters”
This language from an alleged expert is worrying. He fails to provide specific information which we expect would roll off his tongue if he was fully versed in the subject matter.
We note that he needs us to know that there is a “particular way of using that drug”, and “of its use for this particular disease”. Repeated words signal sensitivity, and here it should be viewed as a need to convince. By saying “that” drug he seeks to distance himself from it. It is a drug for “other things” and “other matters”.
The drug which has been in use for many years and used for “various things” (although we will need to do our own research to find out what they are), is “very safe”.
“[but] in terms of its use for this particular disease”
After all the build-up and praise of the drug Kelly then uses the word “but” to minimise all which came before it which begs the question why say it all in the first place. We know for him to go to all that trouble it was important to him that he got his words to the listener. Extra words take extra effort and his use of so many surely required a great deal of effort on his part.
“very safe for for that [particular er way] of using that drug”
A “way” is a method, and Kelly has qualified the method by saying “particular”. In terms of drug administration a method would be the way it was used such as manner taken, dosage, and time intervals between dosages. He doesn’t speak to its effectiveness only to usage. We understand it is “very safe” if used in the right way.
“but in terms of its use for this [particular disease] er the jury’s [pretty much] out, it doesn’t work.”
He doesn’t say it isn’t safe. Note, “the jury’s [pretty] much out” is a weak statement as they are not out, but only “pretty” much out. He himself will not say the words “it doesn’t work” and needs to use a “jury” (passive), to say what he can’t say. This signals deception as we expect if he believed it doesn’t work he would tell us.
“this [particular disease]”
The topic is obviously C19 yet he fails to name it. He goes the extra yard to use the word “particular” which singles it out from all others. It is not named and it is not simply “this disease”, but is “this [particular] disease”.
Adrian.
Civil servants in Australia are very circumspect of saying anything which might embarrass their political masters unlike how Dr Fauci will do so in front of Pres Trump.
“..but in terms of its use for this particular disease er the jury’s pretty much out, it doesn’t work.”
“The jury’s out” usually means that the jury is still deliberating, therefore a verdict has not yet been reached.
It would be helpful to know the CMO’s personal understanding of the phrase “the jury is out”. As a verdict “it doesn’t work” is presented following “the jury’s pretty much out”, it could be that the CMO takes “the jury’s out” to mean that the jury is out of its deliberations, and has reached a verdict. If he does hold that understanding, it is not what he says.
He says the jury is “pretty much out” . However he understands the phrase, he does not actually say that the jury has reached a verdict - the statement is passive and lacks conviction. “it doesn’t work” is not directly attributed to “the jury”, though the listener might infer that it came from the jury. Further, “the jury” is not identified, so while coming from the acting CMO, it is not a statement about the medical profession’s view of hydroxychloroquine.
Might he be considering possible future lawsuits, as he chooses an undecided jury as a metaphor for the medical profession?
It’s surprising that he does not mention the medical profession, rather he uses a personal anecedote regarding his own use of hydroxychloroquine, and gives a couple of its many uses. He repeats “many years” - it has been used for “many, many years”, and he took it for “many years” - he also acknowledges it is “very safe” in that particular use - he is able to speak from personal experience.
He’s not comfortable talking down a drug of which efficacy he is well aware; he avoids attributing the statement “it doesn’t work” to the medical profession in general, or to himself.
but in terms of its use for this particular disease er the jury’s pretty much out, it doesn’t work.”
"the" jury,
known 'peers'
If you take the comma out of the statement, it sounds like he's saying the jury is out deliberating even amongst his peers re the drug's efficacy. But not him. He has used it for many years, for other things before this novel virus, and it worked. He is deliberating avoiding giving his opinion on HQC's efficacy making his opinion on the matter sensitive.
Post a Comment