Archive for Conspiracy Theories


Posted in U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , on December 19, 2016 by drjgelb

It’s a Myth that Trump Called for the Russians to Hack anyone! It all Started with Katy Tur!

Obama repeats media creation that president-elect called on foreign government to hack Clinton!

It has become an unshakable article of faith on the Left that President-Elect Donald Trump asked Russia to hack computer systems in order to defeat his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton. Of course Russia hacks, the People’s Republic of China hacks, North Korea hacks, and every country that gathers intelligence hacks, with varying degrees of efficiency.

At what was billed as President Obama’s final press conference Friday, the outgoing president said he was confirming Russia tried to interfere in the Nov. 8 election.

“This happened at the highest levels of the Russian government,” Obama said. But there has never been any evidence that Trump called upon Russia to hack anybody. It simply never happened. And this is not an arguable point. It is not a close call. Yet eyewitnesses say they saw and heard something that didn’t actually take place.

“I personally saw President-Elect Trump say, go ahead and hack Hillary Clinton,” liberal pundit Juan Williams said Thursday on “The Five” on Fox News Channel. Williams seemed to be referring to a July 27 press conference in Doral, Florida, at which the mainstream media hallucinated then-Republican candidate Trump was inviting Russian President Vladimir Putin to use cyberterrorism to help him win the White House.

On Wednesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a matter-of-fact tone that Trump asked Russia to use cyber warfare against Clinton. “There’s ample evidence that was known long before the election and in most cases long before October about the Trump campaign and Russia — everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent,” Earnest said. “It might be an indication that he was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he had available to him, that Russia was involved and their involvement was having a negative impact on his opponent’s campaign.” “That’s why he was encouraging them to keep doing it,” Earnest said.

Where did these people come up with a dangerous, provable falsehood that is undermining both the American electoral system and the incoming administration?

Take a look at the video footage of Trump’s July 27 press conference!

At the press conference, Trump, half-jokingly, urged the Russians to hand over those supposedly personal emails from Hillary’s accounts that had disappeared into the ether. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said.

He added sarcastically: “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Remember that Clinton admitted to grabbing some 66,000 emails and then returning about half of them which she claimed didn’t touch upon personal matters. She said those personal emails were deleted.

A few minutes later in the press conference, NBC reporter Katy Tur shouted a loaded question at Trump to introduce into the mainstream media ecosystem the Big Lie that Trump had personally invited Russia to interfere in U.S. elections.

“Do you have any qualms about asking a foreign government — Russia, China, anybody — to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody in this country?”

Trump was understandably dismissive of Tur’s question without specifically denying the premise underlying it — which was the false assertion that Trump asked a foreign government to engage in hacking. Tur restated her question replacing the word “qualms” with “pause.”

“Hey, you know what gives me more pause, that a person in our government, crooked Hillary Clinton — here’s what gives me more pause,” Trump said.

He continued:

“Be quiet, I know you want to, you know, save her. That a person in our government, Katy, would delete or get rid of 33,000 emails. That gives me a big problem. After she gets a subpoena. She gets subpoenaed, and she gets rid of 33,000 emails. That gives me a problem. Now, if Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.” Trump reinforced his point on Twitter a few minutes later. He tweeted: “If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted e-mails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!”

In the meantime, The New York Times wrote on July 27: “Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen, essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyberespionage against a former secretary of state.”

The New York Times and CNN then vigorously promoted the lie. And so Katy Tur’s strategically placed Big Lie was carved into the Left’s narrative and repeated so many times that the mainstream media now treats it as indisputably true. It is now regurgitated almost continuously by journalists, editorial writers, Democrats, Republicans, left-wingers, and even some conservatives who don’t know any better.

So-called liberals and progressives use the power of narrative — of telling a story — in order to alter the public’s perception of reality. They take real facts and then they distort them or put a plausible spin on them until the truth is massaged to serve their interests.

In other words, they lie. Yet not everyone who swears up and down that Trump asked Vladimir Putin to interfere in the recent U.S. elections is lying.

Lying requires dishonest intentions. A sincerely held belief cannot be a lie.

But it’s important to remember that this ugly lie began with one person and her name is Katy Tur.

Matthew Vadum is senior vice president at Capital Research Center, an investigative think tank in Washington, D.C.


ISIS AND THE LEFT by J.R. Dunn, American Thinker, 19th September 2014

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , on September 20, 2014 by drjgelb

   ISIS AND THE AMERICAN LEFT    by J.R. Dunn, American Thinker, 19/09/2014


Since the appearance of ISIS, the usual suspects on the left — those in politics and the media in particular  — have bent over backwards to argue that it has nothing to do with President Obama, that his silly foreign policy, undergrad strategic considerations, and infinitely collapsible notion of American responsibilities, unfolded in a vacuum and could not possibly have had any effect on anything! No, the fault, of course, according to Obama, is that of George W. Bush and his neocon comrades.  By this twisted narrative, if it weren’t for Bush, a strong, wise, and humane Saddam Hussein would be present to destroy this Jihadi upsurge, exactly the way Gadhafi and Mubarak did.


This chatter has redoubled since ISIS tightened its hold on Syria and northern Iraq and Obama demonstrated himself incapable of mounting any sort of coherent resistance.  It can be found anywhere from the NYT to HuffPo to CNN, but I saw put most succinctly by Ron Fourier of the National Journal:

“Called again to confront a threat in the MiddleEast, Americans keep tripping over the baggage of George W.  Bush. In 2003, we trusted.  Not again.  The president vowed retribution against terrorists who slaughtered Americans. The Defense secretary and secretary of State spoke of imminent threats. The intelligence community leaked word of Americans-turned-terrorists and sleeper cells.  Those actions echo today, but Americans are of a different mind—not nearly as credulous, or as willing to fight.”


Utilizing foreign policy, whether successes or failures, to manipulate domestic politics is mostly an exercise in self-delusion, since there is rarely any one-to-one correlation involved. That is clearly the case with the Bush-wrecked-the-Middle-East argument. The Mideast being what it is, nobody ever comes out a clear winner.  The best that can be done is to control the latest blowup while preparing for the next.  Hoping for permanent closure in the sand-belt is a wish-fulfillment daydream.


That said, one thing that is utterly clear is that the current Mideast situation is not only largely the fault of Barack Obama, but of the entire American left, including politicians, academics, the media, and the entertainment world.  It was leftist policies (often non-policies) that triggered today’s chaos, that channeled it, and that has rendered solutions both difficult and ephemeral.  The Mideast today is an indictment of both Obama and the entire leftist cohort.  Compared to this crew, George W., whatever his errors and shortcomings, looks gigantic.  Whatever his mistakes, whatever he did wrong, we know this: when somebody finally nukes Manhattan, it won’t be Saddam Hussein. 


We’ll start the video rolling at 9/11, remaining fully aware that the operation itself was the direct result of Bill Clinton’s finickiness and timidity.  (Not to mention Jamie Gorelick’s obsessive tinkering with the nation’s counter-intelligence system.)


Even as the national reaction to the attack gathered force, the left set out to undermine it.  Recall the Californian politician whose first thought was to screech, “America, what did you do?”Those who joined him — and there were plenty — were blown back by the public response, deciding that momentary silence was the best policy. 


Except for Michael Moore.  The day after the attack, Moore blogged one of the most infamous phrases ever written about 9/11 (possibly excepting those of Ward Churchill). 


‘’If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him. Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes’ destination of California — these were the places that voted AGAINST Bush.”


This set the tone for further leftwing responses.  Bush was the story — not the terrorists, not the victims.  9/11 was simply more ammunition.  Bush was not going to be allowed a success.  The United States was not going to be allowed a victory.  While the left might not be capable of much in the way of positive achievement, it has always been great guns at destruction.  The U.S.  was going to feel the full force of that tendency. 


One development that for some reason stuck in my mind was a quickly staged New York performance of Bertolt Brecht’s Arturo Ui, the cast headed by Al Pacino and Steve Buscemi.  Brecht’s play was a satirical attack on Hitler, reworked to target Bush and the war effort, which was depicted as little different from Hitler’s takeover of Europe.  


This continued throughout the post attack period…..CHECKPOINT, a novel by high-class porn writer Nicholson Baker, a film, and at least two plays were published calling for the president’s assassination.  As a full revelation of the enormity of the Bush tyranny, the authors, directors, and publishers were immediately struck with… nothing.  No effort whatsoever was made to silence or even address these people.  If you tried such a thing concerning Obama today, the black suits and helicopters would descend upon you like hail.


The apotheosis was reached with Fahrenheit 911, a fake documentary by none other than Michael Moore himself, utilising the Bush/Hitler thesis to create doubt in the public mind and disrupt efforts against the Islamist threat. 


The left were clearly out to duplicate the experience of Vietnam.  In so doing, they gave direct encouragement to the Jihadis through assurances that the United States would not see the effort through, that it would be sabotaged from within, and that the Islamists would escape full retribution for their actions and eventually achieve their goals.  (As Michael Moore  himself put it: “They are minutemen. And they will win.) Much of this exact program, needless to say, was put into effect by the Obama administration. 


The first strike against the Jihadi strongholds,targeting Taliban Afghanistan, occurred too swiftly for the left to muster effective opposition.  (Ironically, I was on a panel the very day the campaign opened, persuading several left-wing feminists that such a strategy would favor Afghan women.  News of the attack came just as the panel was ending.  One of them raised her fist and shouted, “For the women ofAfghanistan!”)


The Bush administration’s greatest error of the campaign now unfolded — rather than take down Hussein’s Iraq in short order, the U.S.  paused for a year and a half.  The reasons remain unknown,though they probably involved mollifying the Cabinet’s more moderate members by kowtowing to the UN and a spineless Europe.  


This pause allowed the left to gather its forces, build up steam, and attack on a broad front.  This was the period of “blood for oil” mythology, along with the pseudo-Freudian interpretation that Bush was attempting to make up for his father’s failure in Iraq.  (At the same time, the left was praising Bush 41 as a great man who knew when to stop.) 


The most blatant effort involved direct personal support for Hussein, one of the foulest tyrants of the late 20th century. Leading the parade here were three Democratic representatives, Jim McDermott, David Bonior, and Jim Thompson, who, as the Coalition gathered its forces, flew to Baghdad at Saddam Hussein’s expense.  The three met personally with the dictator, though what was discussed remains unclear. 


At the same time hundreds of other sandal-wearers appeared in Iraq offering to serve as “human shields” for probable targets, demonstrating considerable faith that American pilots would be more humane than the Jihadis behind the September 11th attacks.  Though widely covered and praised by America’s patriotic media, these people vanished just before hostilities broke out.  (Many evidently made a mad dash across the country to the friendly Jordanian border.)


The Second Gulf War ended with victory, though serious flaws arose during the post-conflict occupation.  Media jumped on these failings while ignoring everything else.  Western reporters worked hand-in-glove with the Ba’athist resistance.  Palestinian stringers were utilised  few of whom, it goes without saying, had a constitutional revulsion against manipulating the facts.  Rocket attacks by insurgents were scheduled for the benefit of media cameras, and attacks were carried out with due regard for reporters’ deadlines.  You can examine major media outlets for the entire period of the war and not find a single reference to any of this. 


Scandals were inevitable amid the complexities of military occupation and national reconstruction and the media took full advantage of them when they appeared.  The most virulent involved Abu Ghraib, the main prison in Baghdad, where a National Guard MP unit largely composed of backwoods types tormented and humiliated a number of prisoners.  This was presented not as an isolated failure, but as a direct result of administration policies, and beyond that, the entire American effort.  Never did major media report that the problem lay in a command failure — the prison commander, Colonel Janet Karpinski, an affirmative-action promotion out of the Clinton era, scarcely set foot in the prison itself, allowing ill-disciplined and badly-led troops to run riot.  Mark this oneup to the feminists.


The same type of coverage was given to the main terrorist prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.  Gitmo was relentlessly characterized (by Senator Richard Durbin, among others) as a concentration camp on the same level as the Nazi camps or the Soviet Gulag.  Repeated reports– almost entirely fabricated — described torture, starvation, and petty harassment such as tossing Korans into toilets.  This received wisdom became one of Obama’s major campaign themes, leading him to promise to close the camp down within a year (six years later, that promise abides in Limbo along with many others.)


The true measure of Gitmo can be gained from the fact — universally both acknowledged and ignored — that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is a Gitmo grad, released in the stampede to let go “harmless” prisoners in hopes of bringing the numbers down.  (A process-easily picture: “We gotta let go ten! That’s what the DOD PR people say.  How about… Baghdadi.  Yeah — throw him in too!”) How many of his comrade mujahedin share his record is unknown, but the number is likely to be very high.  You will fail to find mention of this in any of the analyses of ISIS, but dude, it was, like, seven-eight years ago, right?

When the surge strategy was introduced to save the faltering Iraq occupation, both media and political leftists turned on its most capable advocate, Gen. David Petraeus, with a vengeance.  He was pilloried as a traitor, a fool, a front for the Bush administration.  No less a figure than Hillary Clinton called Petreaus a liar in the Senate on national television.  Following the success of the strategy, Petraeus was at last brought down by a cabal of corrupt, grasping females, none of whom should have been in the positions they were occupying. 


All this had two purposes: the destruction of an American president, first, and beyond that, the crippling of the United States as a whole in the face of a dramatic and global threat. 


Obama’s actions are merely icing on thecake.  He contemptuously tossed aside a recommendation by President Bushto maintain 20,000 troops in Iraq while refusing to negotiate a correlation of forces agreement with the Maliki government.  Iraq became the sole nationliberated by the U.S. in the past century with which no militaryconnection was maintained.  As a result, the incompetent Noori al-Malikiwas allowed to give full play to his more brutish instincts, quickly unravelingeverything the Coalition had built.  While it would be going too far tosay that this was what the Obama administration intended, the possibility wasprobably not overlooked either.


Beyond this we have the shadowy and ill-reported“Arab Spring” strategy evidently cooked up by a coven consisting of HillaryClinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice, the chief outcome of which has beenchaos in Libya and a massacre at Benghazi, near civil war in Egypt, and overallcollapse across the Mideast culminating in the rise of ISIS.  The Americanmedia has done nothing to expose or even allude to any of this.  We willlearn how it all actually unfolded at some point farther down the line –perhaps in twenty years or so. 


Obama’s full response was to insist that ISIS isactually called something else and to make a speech the content of which was evidentlycleared with none of our allies beforehand.  There it stands: a non-strategy featuring a non-alliance aimed at non-goals.  And it’s all George W. Bush’s fault.

As is almost always the case, none of the priceis being borne by the individuals responsible.  Thousands are dying under the most horrific circumstances conceivable.  Small children have been beheaded.  Entire villages buried alive.  Vast areas are in abjectchaos, with entire countries in danger of sliding into the sinkhole the regionhas become.  But Jim McDermott remains in office.  Steve Buscemi isstar of a successful cable series.  Hillary Clinton is on the verge ofannouncing her run for president.  Not a single word of regret has beenheard from any one of them.  Why should there be — do you think that Tina Fey has lost a minute’s sleep over providing cover for Vladimir Putin? (Thoughit should be added that ISIS victim James Foley was in effect a propagandist for Islam. His executionwas a calculated kick in the teeth for his leftist allies.)



There have been plenty of mistakes in dealingwith the Jihadi threat.  There are always mistakes in any complex effort,and there is something deeply wrong with the claim that this is not the case,and that the counterterrorism policy represents some kind of anomaly in anotherwise unsullied parade of triumphs.  But it’s also true that theactions of the left cannot be defined as “mistakes.” The American leftdeliberately undermined this country’s campaign against Islamist terrorists insupport of their own agenda.  Every element of the left — the feminists,the multiculturalists, the pacifists, the anti-militarists, the Marxists — hasplayed a part. 


So there’s considerableirony in seeing the ball at last in their court.  There can be littledoubt as to how badly they will handle it, with their “smart diplomacy,” their“soft power,” their “leading from behind.”  The inevitable result will beyet more unspeakable human suffering, as far as the eye can see, and the mindcan encompass.




Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 15, 2014 by drjgelb

Comprehensive article on the history and origins of Islamic hatred of Jews and the incorporation of this bigotry within the constitution of HAMAS. The details of 1500 years of massacres, pogroms, assassinations and constant degradation and cruel subjugation are presented and contextualised so that the reader gains an informed understanding of the intractable religious basis for the impossibility of Israel ever being accepted as a peace partner by its Islamic neighbours. Hatred of the Jews is mandated by Islam to such an extent, that a 21st century approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is impossible. If Arab Muslims accept the presence of Jews in their midst, they would have to turn their backs on one of the most central tenets of Islam, that Jews are the spawn of Apes & Pigs, that they are hellish servants of Satan and that it is the sacred duty of every Muslim to eliminate every last Jew from the Earth in order for Islamic Messianic times to become possible. These concepts pepper the speeches & sermons of contemporary Imams and the public pronouncements of current Muslim politicians & leaders, when speaking in Arabic. They are redacted from any public communications delivered in English. Ignorance of these core Islamic beliefs has led to an almost universally held false belief that Jews are responsible for the Arab/Israeli conflict. Could you reach a peace agreement with people that want to kill you & your family?


Posted in ONLINE DEBATE with tags , , , , , , , , on February 12, 2014 by drjgelb

Hats off to Mark Joseph Stern and his recent article in Slate, entitled “The Cruelty of Creationsim”. The article finally pitches itself at the Creationists not only for their delusional fundamentalism but also for their depraved goal of indoctrinating children to take their twisted logic into the future. Here is the article. Please share it with your friends.

Intellectual freedom is one of humanity’s greatest gifts—and biggest burdens. Our ability to ask questions, to test ideas, to doubt is what separates us from our fellow animals. But doubt can be as terrifying as it is liberating. And it’s the terror of doubt that fosters the toxic, life-negating cult of creationism.

That fear is on full display throughout HBO’s new documentary Questioning Darwin, which features a series of intimate interviews with biblical fundamentalists. Creationism, the documentary reveals, isn’t a harmless, compartmentalized fantasy. It’s a suffocating, oppressive worldview through which believers must interpret reality—and its primary target is children. For creationists, intellectual inquiry is a sin, and anyone who dares to doubt the wisdom of their doctrine invites eternal damnation. That’s the perverse brilliance of creationism, the key to its self-perpetuation: First it locks kids in the dungeon of ignorance and dogmatic fundamentalism. Then it throws away the key.

And that dungeon is much darker than most Americans realize. The creationists interviewed in Questioning Darwin—including their abominable doyen, Ken Ham, a wily businessman who is already fundraising off his ill-conceived recent debate with Bill Nye—returned again and again to the same depressing subjects. Death, suffering, pain, sorrow, disease: These, creationists inform us, are what await any skeptic, anyone who questions the word of God. Pastor Joe Coffey neatly sums up their objections to natural selection:

If all we are is a product of this random mutation process, then where does morality come from? Where does hope come from? Where does love come from? Where does anything that makes us a human being really come from?
The answer, to creationists, is simple: There is no love, no humanity, in a world with evolution. Humans must have been designed by God; if we weren’t, then we’re mere animals, lacking in morality and dignity, consigned to a pitiful and pointless life of struggle and dolor. Evolution, one true believer informs us, is “incompatible with biblical Christianity” because it recognizes the permanence of death and leaves no room for a second coming. Creationists are consumed by repressing the existential panic that often attends acceptance of reality. Instead of confronting that terror, they’ve retreated into an elaborate fantasy.

So deep is their delusion, in fact, that many creationists are perfectly willing to acknowledge their abandonment of reality—on camera. “Truth is not an assimilation of information,” insists one fundamentalist in Questioning Darwin, explaining why no amount of evidence could change his mind about human evolution. “There’s one truth, and that’s found in the Bible.” A creationist pastor takes this illogic to its harrowing extreme, freely conceding that he would perform endless mental gymnastics to justify the seemingly unjustifiable conclusions of biblical text.

Creationists brainwash their own children and push their creed into public schools across the country.
“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that says two plus two equals five,” the pastor states plainly, “I wouldn’t question what I’m reading in the Bible. I would believe it—accept it as true and then do my best to work it out and to understand it.”

This ideology might seem fairly benign. And it’s true that, by itself, creationism damages only those who choose to believe it. But here lies the true peril of the dogma: No creationist is content to keep her beliefs to herself. Creationists don’t merely proselytize; they brainwash their own children and push their creed into public schools across the country. Creationists teach their children not only that evolution is evil, but that studying evolution, even thinking about it, is a sin that leads the soul to eternal damnation.

“What [Darwin] has done is worse than murder,” proclaims one creationist in the documentary. “All the death and suffering we see here isn’t the result of a creator God,” says another. “It’s sin”—such as the acceptance of evolution. (He doesn’t explain how so much death occurred before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.) Creationists spend countless hours telling their children that scientists and biology teachers are spouting the devil’s lies. Creationism is a mental prison with no hope of release, for the only escape hatch—intellectual inquiry—has been sealed off by years of suppression.

The conflict between creationism and evolution is, to many believers, an all-out war between God’s word and humans’ sins. That’s why parents are so determined to prepare their children for battle. One mother in Questioning Darwin home-schools her children to prepare them to defend their creationist beliefs against secular “attacks.” We see pastors casting an ominous eye over their congregations, warning them of the horrors of the Darwinian worldview and the hellfire that awaits those who are lured into its trap. Creationists discuss evolution with a combination of abject fear and muffled rage, ranting that natural selection sounds “crazy” while calmly asserting that Adam and Eve shared Eden with vegetarian dinosaurs. They blame Darwin for Hitler (a time-honored smear) as well as for drug use, murder, and an endless parade of horribles. Question the Bible, creationists tell their children, and you will soon be drowning in barbarity.

This view isn’t benign or wacky: It’s poisonous and medieval. Creationists reject not just evolution but most of the Enlightenment and pretty much all intellectual development since. Rather than celebrate the brilliance of the human mind, they disparage free thought as dangerous and sinful. Instead of extolling the virtues of creativity and imagination, they malign all unorthodox ideas as immoral and wicked. For all creationists’ insistence that evolution denigrates humanity, creationism is fundamentally anti-human, commanding us to spurn our own logic and cognition in favor of absurd sophism derived from a 3,000-year-old text. It turns our greatest ability—to reason—into our greatest enemy. Using our brains, according to creationism, will lead us to sin; only mindless piety can keep us on the track to salvation.

It’s easy to scoff at all this, to giggle at the vivid weirdness of young Earth creationism and then shrug it off as an isolated cult. But the 40 percent of Americans who reject evolution, as well as the tens of thousands of children or more who are being brainwashed with it in publicly funded classrooms, aren’t laughing. Creationism is built to metastasize; those who believe it won’t rest until everyone else believes it, too. True believers yearn for the rest of us to be locked up in the same mental prison where they have consigned themselves and their children. They insist that evolution has robbed us of our humanity. But in reality, it’s their twisted gospel that aims to strip us of the very thing that makes us human.


Posted in ONLINE DEBATE with tags , , , , , , , , , , on May 29, 2013 by drjgelb

I just have to put this link up for all to see. The AVN has outdone itself by cruelly bullying and harassing a young couple whose 4 week old baby died from Whooping Cough…..Pertussis…..due to the presence of the bacteria in the under-vaccinated children of the Anti-Vaccination activists, whose conspiracy theory is that all medical advocates of vaccination are on Big Pharma’s payroll! They are dangerously deluded! Thankfully, Bill Gates was in Canberra, Australia’s Capital, today and at a Press Club Luncheon, he explained how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was gratefully accepting an $80 million donation from Australia to complete vaccination and elimination of the Polio Virus from the last Four countries where the terrible scourge still exists. Gates said he is a champion of vaccination and credits it for saving 5 million lives each year that would otherwise be lost in the third world alone!


Posted in ONLINE DEBATE with tags , , , on May 9, 2013 by drjgelb

Lots of recent articles, recycling the so called debate re vaccination, quackery and pseudoscience!

I made this comment to Paul Smiths article in Medical Observer, 23rd April 2013:

“Why are too many doctors so reluctant to raise their voices and stridently call a spade a spade? I fear that an entire generation is growing up with political correctness hard-wired into their brains by constant repetition of that mantra throughout their childhood & adolescence. Anti-Vaccination activists are ignorant, conspiracy theorists who commonly hold multiple unfounded beliefs & who have a broad mistrust of science, bordering on paranoia. They easily find sectors of the community who are unschooled in being able to differentiate between science and pseudoscience. Even Paul Smith makes assumptions about Richard Dawkins & the Big Bang Theory without finding out about the close friendship between Dawkins, Isaac Asimov & Carl Sagan & the numerous & extensive discussions these men have shared. Rather than make assumptions, write to Dawkins & ask him on what basis does he accept his various beliefs. In my experience, he is careful not to be dogmatic where it is unsafe for him to do so. Not so the anti-vaxers, many of whom I met on the Sunshine Coast when I lived there from 1996-2006. They quoted anecdotes & rumours, railed against scientists as all being in the pocket of Big Pharma & considered Western Medicine generally as a fraud. When a friend with a totally unvaccinated 12yr old brought him around newborns, I explained the danger & was poo-poo’d by a roomful of vegan, yoga loving, Neo-Buddhist, Anglo-aussies who believed far more earnestly in crystals & craniosacral readjustment as the path to good health! I left that Sunday coffee & cake afternoon simply shaking my head in disbelief & vowing not to subject myself to such stupidity again! And I told them that their ignorant & false beliefs may well lead to the death of innocent infants! Wasn’t I popular…….not!!