Posts Tagged ‘doctor’

You Can’t Reform Islam Without Reforming Muslims

by Daniel Greenfield on Wednesday, October 22nd, 2014

This is article 7 of 10 in the topic Islam

Every few years the debate over reforming Islam bubbles up from the depths of a culture that largely censors any suggestion that Islam needs reforming.

But Islam does not exist apart from Muslims. It is not an abstract entity that can be changed without changing its followers. And if Islam has not changed, that is because Muslims do not want it to.

Mohammed and key figures in Islam provided a template, but that template would not endure if it did not fit the worldview of its worshipers. Western religions underwent a process of secularization to align with what many saw as modernity leading to a split between traditionalists and secularists.

The proponents of modernizing Islam assume that it didn’t make the jump because of Saudi money, fundamentalist violence and regional backwardness. These allegations are true, but also incomplete.

If modernizing Islam really appealed to Muslims, it would have taken off, at least in the West, despite Saudi money and Muslim Brotherhood front groups. These elements might have slowed things down, but a political or religious idea that is genuinely compelling is like a rock rolling down a hill.

It’s enormously difficult to stop.

Muslim modernization in the West has been covertly undermined by the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood, but for the most part it has not been violently suppressed.

It suffers above all else from a lack of Muslim interest.

Muslims don’t spend much time fuming over a progressive mosque that allows gay members or lets women lead prayers. Such places occasionally exist and remain obscure. They don’t have to be forcibly shut down because they never actually take off. The occasional death threat and arson might take place and the average ISIS recruit would happily slaughter everyone inside, but even he has bigger fish to fry.

The best evidence that Muslim modernization has failed is that even the angriest Muslims don’t take it very seriously as a threat. The sorts of people who believe that Saddam Hussein was a CIA agent or that Israel is using eagles as spies have trouble believing modernizing Islam will ever be much of a problem.

They know instinctively that it will never work. Instead Muslims are far more threatened by a cartoon mocking their prophet for reasons that go to the heart of what is wrong with their religion.

Islam is not an idea. It is a tribe.

Talking about reforming the words of Islam is an abstraction. Islam did not begin with a book. It began with clan and sword. Even in the modern skyscraper cities of the West, it remains a religion of the clan and the sword.

The left has misread Islamic terrorism as a response to oppression when it is actually a power base. It is not the poor and downtrodden who are most attracted to the Jihad. Instead it is the upper classes. Bin Laden wasn’t a pauper and neither are the Saudis or Qataris. Islamic terrorism isn’t a game for the poor. It becomes the thing to do when you’re rich enough to envy the neighbors. It’s a tribal war.

To reform Islam, we can’t just look at what is wrong with the Koran or the Hadiths.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

America’s true predicament is too scary to contemplate

by John Myers on Wednesday, October 15th, 2014

This is article 2 of 6 in the topic Ebola

AIDS! I remember reading about it in The Wall Street Journal like it happened yesterday. The truth is it was back in 1985 and Rock Hudson had it. An insidious disease was carried by one of Hollywood’s great leading men.

I was in my late 20s and a researcher for an investment letter, which meant I read every day, usually eight hours a day. That gave my mind plenty of time to wander. I wasn’t happy with my life at that time. I had been a feature writer back home, but I was told I was too young and inexperienced to write about markets and the economy. My wife was homesick for her parents; we had a newborn and two toddlers, a big mortgage and a boss with whom I didn’t get along.

So I immediately assumed the worst. I knew if Hudson could get AIDS, anyone could get it — even me. It didn’t matter that I was not a homosexual and I had never injected a drug. The WSJ was writing about AIDS on the front page. It even said that while Hudson may or may not be gay, you didn’t need to be homosexual to be infected with it. It also said that it was first identified in North America in the 1970s and that it could lay dormant for years before some deadly symptoms showed and then you died a terrible, shriveled-up death. It even said an infected person might easily infect his loved ones, not even knowing he was carrying the deadly virus.

I was a blue-blooded young man before my marriage, and I calculated that I was feeling listless and unhappy because my blood was coursing with a terrible virus from the darkest part of Africa.

There was only one thing to do, drive like a bat out of hell and barge in on the family doctor. When I walked in and told him I needed a blood test then and there, he started laughing. To humor me, he asked me personal questions about my total intimate history. Then he started laughing again.

“You know the chances of you getting killed in a car crash coming to see me were 1,000 times greater than you testing positive for AIDS.”

My doctor suggested I start exercising five days a week and that I take my wife on a vacation. After I did that, my worries about AIDS were eradicated. A year later when I bought some life insurance and had blood work, I knew I was simply stewing in worry to ever think it was possible that I had the AIDS virus.

For years, I was embarrassed about that neurosis. But I began to appreciate something my mother used to say: “Our biggest hopes and worst fears are seldom realized.”

She was right, but what should be added is that our biggest hopes and worst fears are often played upon. In the case of hopes the lottery serves as a good example. Your chances of being run over in the parking lot buying a lottery ticket are higher than your chances of winning a million-dollar lottery.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Propaganda is force!

by Bob Livingston on Monday, September 29th, 2014

This is article 461 of 469 in the topic Government Corruption

LiesPropaganda can be words and phrases that collectivize and mold the public mind so that subtle or overt force is made easier or becomes unnecessary.

Carefully chosen words by the establishment are the basis of mass mind control leading to acceptance of force. Until the people accept collectivism under some pretext, they are not docile and completely subdued.

But, Bob, you say, you have written this before. Well, a whole volume could easily be written demonstrating the twisting and distortion of words and phrases along with outright lies to manipulate the public mind. Really, few people escape this psychological warfare.

Words are created and repeated, which expands the collective psyche to accept and repeat some more. People who freely use those terms are not in control of their own thinking process.

Following are some examples of establishment words and phrases used as propaganda:

See your doctor

It is oh, so evident that this phrase channels the crowd toward pharmaceutical control. The doctor is only the medium. Few doctors suspect that “medical orthodoxy” is a rigidly controlled system in the medical schools and practiced by the pharmaceutical companies.

We have long held that so-called modern allopathic medicine is a very esoteric witchcraft — a deceptive practice that has little or nothing to do with curing or healing, but it does have to do with a multitrillion-dollar industry. But don’t just take my word for it.

Read the words of Marcia Angell, M.D., former editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, from her book “Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.”

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

This fraud is becoming increasingly visible in the wake of the revelations by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention whistleblower William Thompson and the establishment’s reaction to the revelations.

In case you missed it, and it’s likely you did because there is a full-on mainstream media blackout on it and circling of wagons by the establishment, Thompson has revealed that he and other CDC researchers have been falsifying data for years in order to cover up a link between vaccines and autism.

In a recorded call between Thompson and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Thompson is heard to say:

The CDC has put the [autism] research ten years behind. Because the CDC has not been transparent, we’ve missed ten years of research [on the autism-vaccine connection]… CDC is…they’re paralyzed. The whole system is paralyzed right now… I have a boss who’s asking me to lie…if I’m forced to testify, I’m not gonna lie. I basically have stopped lying… Really, what we need is for Congress to come in and say, “Give us the data and we’re gonna have an independent contractor do it,” and bring in the autism advocates [who understand the vaccine-autism connection] and have them intimately involved in the studies.

The attempt to stem the damage has reached the absurd. State Farm insurance recently fired comedian Rob Schneider over his anti-vaccination stance. This is common practice by the establishment to shut down any dissenting views.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

My newest piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Armed doctor saved lives"

by John Lott on Tuesday, July 29th, 2014

This is article 546 of 594 in the topic Gun Rights
My newest piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer starts this way:

On Thursday afternoon, Dr. Lee Silverman undoubtedly saved many lives. Using a handgun, the Delaware County psychiatrist stopped what both police and the district attorney described as a certain mass killing at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital.

The attacker, Richard Plotts, is a convicted felon, which bans him from legally owning a gun. But Pennsylvania’s universal background check law did not stop him. Neither did the hospital’s signs banning guns.

The proposed federal law on expanded background checks that President Obama continually pushes is similar to Pennsylvania’s and would not have stopped Plotts either. Indeed, it is hard to see how it would have stopped any of the other mass shootings during his presidency.

At Mercy Fitzgerald, caseworker Theresa Hunt was killed when Plotts opened fire during a regularly scheduled appointment with Dr. Lee Silverman. Fortunately, the doctor had his own gun and returned fire, hitting Plotts three times and critically wounding him.

After firing all the bullets in his gun, Plotts still had 39 bullets on him, bullets that he could have used to shoot many other people. Silverman’s three hits, however, made it possible for two other hospital employees to tackle the wounded attacker and secure his .32-caliber revolver. Plotts has since been charged with murder and attempted murder.

Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux was clear: “Without a doubt, I believe the doctor saved lives. … Without that firearm, this guy [Plotts] could have went out in the hallway and just walked down the offices until he ran out of ammunition.” . . .

The rest of the piece is available here.

Go straight to Post

Fortunately, doctor with a gun critically wounded shooter who attacked hospital, gun-free zone sign didn’t stop attack

by John Lott on Thursday, July 24th, 2014

This is article 545 of 594 in the topic Gun Rights
This attack apparently occurred in a gun-free zone.  Here is a great quote from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“There’s a sign on the door that says you have to check your weapons at the front,” she said, “But you can’t expect every crazy person to do that.”

From Fox News about an attack at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Darby, PA:

A doctor who was grazed by gunfire from a patient in his office at a suburban hospital on Thursday helped stop him by apparently returning fire with his own weapon and severely injuring him, but not before a caseworker was killed, authorities said.

The patient opened fire after entering the office with the caseworker, District Attorney Jack Whelan said. Witnesses reported hearing yelling before the gunshots.

Several hours after the shooting, investigators had only limited information on what happened inside the closed office but believe the doctor, a psychiatrist, “from all accounts, would have acted in self-defense,” Whelan said.

The doctor, who suffered a graze wound to his head, “faced a situation where his life was in jeopardy,” Whelan said. . . .

Another doctor and a caseworker were among those who helped wrestle the patient to the floor of a hallway and grabbed his weapon after he had already been critically wounded from several gunshots, Whelan said. . . .

CBS News has some more details:

The patient, who had psychiatric problems, opened fire after entering the doctor’s office with a caseworker Thursday afternoon, Whelan said. The female caseworker was killed. The doctor appears to have suffered only a graze wound and was expected to be released from treatment later in the day.

Authorities have not publicly identified the gunman or his two victims. CBS Philly reports Whalen said the gunman was shot three times. Both the doctor and the suspect were taken to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania for treatment, according to the station. . . .

The name of the attacker appears to be Richard Plotts.

Go straight to Post

Veterans Are the Healthcare Canary in a Coal Mine

by Michael R. Shannon on Wednesday, June 4th, 2014

This is article 682 of 699 in the topic Healthcare

Between today and June 6th’s 70th anniversary of the D–Day landing I want you to find a veteran and talk to him. This doesn’t mean cornering some unsuspecting vet and ambushing him with the latest insipid leftist cliché: ‘Thank you for your service,’ which manages to be both pretentious and condescending.

(However, it is an improvement over the left’s former greeting for vets: ‘How many babies did you kill today?’ But it’s still rote trivialization.)

Ideally your vet should be a veteran of either the Korean Conflict or the Vietnam War. Not because the fighting was far enough in the past be non–controversial, but because this vet has had plenty of time to experience the tender mercies of the Veterans Administration health care system.

And that system should be the main topic of conversation, because if the left has its way, everyone will experience this type of health care under the coming Obamacare regime. Don’t make the mistake — encouraged by the cheerleading mainstream media — of believing the VA is a problem unto itself and has no relation to civilian health care and certainly no relevance to the future of Obamacare.

That is spin and it is completely untrue. The VA hospital system is essentially the pilot program for Obamacare. It’s been a single–payer system from the beginning and single–payer is the ultimate goal for Obamacare. The VA system was designed to accommodate a smaller subset of the population and it was immune to competition from the private sector. Think of it as the United States Postal Service with syringes.

The theory is after the bugs have been worked out of the pilot program, then a benevolent government can expand it to accommodate the entire country. Unfortunately with leftist big government, when a pilot program fails the verdict is always the failure was due to a lack of resources. The cure is to take the same program, bulk it up with taxpayer dollar injections and make it mandatory for the entire country.

So the VA is very relevant to Obamacare

Our veterans have been used as guinea pigs since 1930 when the VA was founded. One would think 84 years is long enough to get the kinks worked out of the program, but one would be wrong. VA hospital horror stories have been a staple of government scandal coverage for years.

If you fall for the ‘it’s just the VA and won’t affect civilians’ cover story then you are believing what the Obama administration wants you to believe. The goal of the White House is to keep the VA scandal bottled up in a silo off to one side. Obama wants you to think it’s just a rogue VA hospital in Arizona that cooked the books.

But it’s not just Arizona. It’s Florida, it’s West Virginia, it’s Missouri, it’s all over the country. And the problem can’t be solved because there is no real penalty for failure and no competitive pressure to excel. And the same government that runs the VA will soon be running Obamacare if the left can expand it into a single–payer system.

My family has it’s own story of an encounter with the Oklahoma – Texas VA administration.

Click to continue reading “Veterans Are the Healthcare Canary in a Coal Mine”
Go straight to Post

Exciting new cancer treatment wipes out woman’s cancer that was viewed as otherwise untreatable

by John Lott on Monday, May 19th, 2014

This is article 679 of 699 in the topic Healthcare

This is an amazing case.  Hopefully it is just a matter of time before other types of cancer can be treated and they refine it to be effective on more people.  From the Washington Post:

Her name is Stacy Erholtz. For years, the 50-year-old mom from Pequot Lakes, Minn., battled myeloma, a blood cancer that affects bone marrow. She had few options left.

She had been through chemotherapy treatments and two stem cell transplants. But it wasn’t enough. Soon, scans showed she had tumors growing all over her body.

One grew on her forehead, destroying a bone in her skull and pushing on her brain. Her children named it Evan, her doctor said. Cancer had infiltrated her bone marrow.

So, as part of a two-patient clinical trial, doctors at the Mayo Clinic injected Erholtz with 100 billion units of the measles virus – enough to inoculate 10 million people.

Her doctor said they were entering the unknown.

Five minutes into the hour-long process, Erholtz got a terrible headache. Two hours later, she started shaking and vomiting. Her temperature hit 105 degrees, Stephen Russell, the lead researcher on the case, told The Washington Post early Thursday morning.

“Thirty-six hours after the virus infusion was finished, she told me, ‘Evan has started shrinking,’” Russell said. Over the next several weeks, the tumor on her forehead disappeared completely and, over time, the other tumors in her body did, too. . . .

Go straight to Post

Eros and Estrogen on the Front Line

by Michael R. Shannon on Wednesday, April 30th, 2014

This is article 285 of 304 in the topic US Military

This December it will be 42 years since the last male was drafted into combat, but it looks like the fun is just starting for women. Not that they will be going to the post office to register anytime soon. Instead woman already in the military — who thought they were being all they can be by typing 130 WPM or checking PowerPoint presentations for typos — will find themselves assigned to combat arms to meet a quota designed by a wide–load Member of Congress whose most strenuous activity is the Pilates class she makes once a month.

Still, they won’t be seeing the elephant overnight. Right now only a handful of the 203,000 women currently in the military can pass the physical for combat infantry or Marines. When faced with the reality that women can’t pass the test, Congress and Pentagon paper–pushers will change the test until they can pass.

(For details see the shifting metrics that define Obamacare. Currently the administration has ruled that if a patient is able to get an appointment with the foreign–born medical professional she’s stuck with in the new, severely limited health care network — and the doctor doesn’t recommend bleeding as a cure — the program is a success!)

Unfortunately, when you lower standards by definition you get substandard material. This is not to say women as a group are substandard. I’m married to one that’s outstanding, but even in her twenties she wasn’t ready for combat.

The Marine Corps, which I was counting on to maintain standards, is showing signs of going wobbly. CNS News reports the Corps has delayed a requirement that female Marines do a minimum of three pull–ups. The postponement came after 55 percent of females in boot camp couldn’t meet the standard. By comparison, only 1 percent of the males failed.

This test is important for the future of our military’s combat effectiveness because upper body strength is vital both in combat and on the front line where soldiers carry ammunition, lift the wounded, manhandle sandbags and tote weapons.

I suppose we could allow women to push a shopping cart into combat or issue ‘spinner’ luggage. But that won’t work either because after she fills the bag with shoes there won’t be any room for equipment.

The deadline for degrading the combat arm is 2016 and as the date approaches, and the lack of qualified women becomes obvious enough for even a Democrat to see, that’s when the pressure to change the test will be the most severe.

Pentagon mouthpieces may continue to reassure an anxious public that physical standards won’t be lowered to pass females into the combat arm, but recruiters also telling female recruits they can keep their doctor.

What’s really strange in all this is the left’s inability to maintain a consistent story line. On one hand every female recruit is a potential Lt. Ellen Ripley. On the other, current female troops are already engaged in hand–to–hand combat with members of the opposite sex and they’re losing. The female that’s ready to put her life on the line in defense of her country is evidently incapacitated by a pat on the behind.

Click to continue reading “Eros and Estrogen on the Front Line”
Go straight to Post

My trip to the pot shop

by Michelle Malkin on Thursday, March 27th, 2014

This is article 665 of 699 in the topic Healthcare

mariMy trip to the pot shop
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2014

PUEBLO WEST, Colo. — It’s 9 a.m. on a weekday, and I’m at the Marisol Therapeutics pot shop. This is serious business. Security is tight. ID checks are frequent. Merchandise is strictly regulated, labeled, wrapped and controlled. The store is clean, bright and safe. The staffers are courteous and professional. Customers of all ages are here.

There’s a middle-aged woman at the counter nearby who could be your school librarian. On the opposite end of the dispensary, a slender young soldier in a wheelchair with close-cropped hair, dressed in his fatigues, consults with a clerk. There’s a gregarious cowboy and an inquisitive pair of baby boomers looking at edibles. A dude in a hoodie walks in with his backpack.

And then there’s my husband and me.

The dispensary is split in two: “recreational” on one side, “medical” on the other. Medical customers must have state-issued cards and doctor’s approval. The inventory is not taxed, so prices are lower on that side. On the recreational side, where I’m peering at mysterious jars of prickly green goods, “Smoke on the Water” is thumping from stereo speakers. Yes, there’s a massive banner advertising a Tommy Chong appearance, and issues of “High Times” are on display. But the many imposing signs posted on the wall emphatically warn: No smoking, no open drug consumption, and absolutely no entry allowed into the locked lab where the cannabis plants sit under bright lights.

Before I tell you how and why my hubby and I ended up at Marisol Therapeutics, some background about my longtime support of medical marijuana: More than 15 years ago in Seattle, while working at The Seattle Times, I met an extraordinary man who changed my mind about the issue. Ralph Seeley was a Navy nuclear submarine officer, pilot, cellist and lawyer suffering from chordoma, a rare form of bone cancer that starts in the spine. He had undergone several surgeries, including removal of one lung and partial removal of the other, and was confined to a wheelchair.

Chronically nauseous from chemotherapy and radiation, weak from a suppressed appetite, and suffering excruciating pain, Seeley turned to marijuana cigarettes for relief.

Contrary to cultural stereotype, Seeley was far from “wasted.” While smoking the drug to reduce his pain, he finished law school — something he couldn’t have done while on far more powerful “mainstream” narcotics, which left him zonked out and vomiting uncontrollably in his hospital bed after chemo. Seeley had the backing of his orthopedic doctor and University of Washington School of Medicine oncologist Dr. Ernest Conrad. He took his plight to the Washington state supreme court, where he asserted a constitutionally protected liberty interest in having his doctor issue a medical pot prescription.

The court rejected Seeley’s case for physician-prescribed marijuana, arguing that the government’s interest in preserving an “interlocking trellis” of costly and ineffective War on Drug laws trumped his right to individual autonomy and physician treatment. After a decade-long battle with cancer, Seeley died in 1998. But his spirit persevered. Seeley bravely paved the way for medical marijuana laws in nearly two dozen states, including Washington’s Initiative 692, approved by voters 10 months after he died, and Colorado’s Amendment 20, passed by popular referendum in 2000.

Click to continue reading “My trip to the pot shop”
Go straight to Post

Detailing PolitiFact’s continued efforts to protect Obama and Obamacare

by John Lott on Wednesday, January 1st, 2014

This is article 641 of 699 in the topic Healthcare
I have had real problems with Politifact’s objectivity on the gun issue (see also here), but apparently it doesn’t do a better job when it comes to Obamacare.  Avik Roy at Forbes details how Politifact constantly covered up Obama’s false statements about Obamacare.  What is now the “lie of the year” was originally rated by Politifact as “True” when it should have been obvious to everyone (not just the Congressional Budget Office) that it was impossible to be true.  Roy notes that even as late as the summer of 2012 Politifact was still rating the promise that you could keep your plan as “Half True.”  So what happens

USA Today has put together a very partial list of Democrats who made the same promise about Obamacare as Obama:

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, June 10, 2009: We here in the Senate are working on legislation that will protect people’s choice of doctors, will protect their choice of hospitals, will protect their choice of insurance plan. If you like what you have today, that will be what you have when this legislation is passed. (Source: Remarks on the Senate floor.)
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, July 28, 2009: The reform we are pursuing … not only means making sure you can keep your family’s doctor or keep your health care plan if you like it but also that you can afford to do so. (Source: Remarks on the Senate floor.)
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, July 30, 2009: Many people say: I like my health insurance right now. I don’t want to change. I don’t want to go into Medicare or Medicaid. I like what I have. Would you please leave people alone. The answer is yes. In fact, we guarantee it. We are going to put in any legislation considered by the House and Senate the protection of you, as an individual, to keep the health insurance you have, if that is what you want. What we are trying to create are voluntary choices and opportunities. (Source: Remarks on the Senate floor.)
President Obama, Aug. 15, 2009: At the same time — I just want to be completely clear about this; I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren’t listening — if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. (Source: Remarks from town hall on health care.)
Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, Dec. 24, 2009: Alaskans who have health insurance now, and are happy with it, can keep it. (Source: Press release.)
President Obama, March 25, 2010: From this day forward, all of the cynics, all the naysayers — they’re going to have to confront the reality of what this reform is and what it isn’t. They’ll have to finally acknowledge this isn’t a government takeover of our health care system. They’ll see that if Americans like their doctor, they’ll be keeping their doctor. You like your plan? You’ll be keeping your plan. No one is taking that away from you. (Source: Remarks in Iowa City, Iowa.)
Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, Sept. 29, 2010: From the beginning, the law has been about preserving what is good about American health care. That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important.

Click to continue reading “Detailing PolitiFact’s continued efforts to protect Obama and Obamacare”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin