DMG said ...
Hello D.V., I checked your site out a few days ago after seeing a link on CNu's page. Just thought I'd be polite and introduce myself before commenting.Denmark Vesey said ...
Hello DMG. Welcome to the blog. Glad to have you.DMG - About the Daniel Hauser case. The child suffers from Hodgkins Lymphoma, which is a VERY HIGHLY treatable cancer...on the order of 90% 5-year survival (80% in adults), if treated with chemo. The regiment works. Why would a parent risk their child's life on some unproven "alternative" method?
DV - Good question. But first I would like to establish, that whatever the reason, the choice ... to treat the child with chemicals or not to treat the child with chemicals... is up to the parent and not the state. It is not an issue of popular consensus. The decision is not the product of mob rule. The decision belongs to the parents.
Secondly, why is seeking natural treatments for a child considered alternative? Alternative to what? Alternative to a For-Profit State Mandated Medical System? DMG, personally I would seek an "alternative" treatment for my child because I do not trust a vertically integrated medical industry that has a money incentive to keep my child sick. 
You say the chemo regimen for Hodgkins Lymphoma works. Says who? The same people who sell the chemo drugs for Hodkins Lymphoma? Ultimately they are the same people, right? Well, this For-Profit medical industry has made mistakes before. They've been wrong in the past about the best ways to heal people. As far as I am concerned the entire medical profession has about the credibility of AIG, Enron and the auto-industry. You saw what just happened to Chrysler and GM.
DMG - The real quacks are those who claim their nuts and berries alternative method works when they've performed absolutely NO reproducible peer reviewed double blind published studies.DV - Says who? Human beings have been treating illness and healing each other for thousands of years before "peer reviewed double blind published studies". Didn't these same peer reviewed double blind published studies produce horrible statin drugs for cholesterol and drugs like Vioxx which killed 27,000 people recently? Evidently DMG, these peer reviewed double blind published studies are not without flaws.
DMG - Why would anyone take their word on it? Testimonials can't be counted as data. If the nuts and berries crew subjects their method to a higher level of scrutiny and it turns out to be better...guess who will be the first one to prescribe it? Me. Until that day, they should stop pushing their nonsense and stop being so reluctant to have it analyzed properly.
DV - That's fair enough DMG. I feel you. But let me hold up a mirror for you. The vast majority of Americans rely upon the For-Profit Conventional Medical System. The vast majority of Americans are obese, sick and will be dependent upon prescription drugs / chemicals for the rest of their lives. Why would anyone in their right mind trust the current medical paradigm?
DMG - It was a crime for those parents to keep that boy away from proper medical care as the tumor continued to grow slowly impinging on his trachea.But by all means if you want to choose alternative medicine, and not vaccinate your kids do so. But if your child suffers horribly or dies from some easily preventable disease, be prepared to take full responsibility.
DV - Agreed. Feel free to subject your children to the growing list of drugs and chemicals characterized as "vaccines" by the likes of Merk, Pfizer, Amgen and Genentech. Be prepared to take full responsibility if your children develop autism, or AIDS or God knows what because they ingested some concoction invented by men desperate to make money.
(Brother please review my post on the connection of the polio vaccine and AIDS in Africa. I'd appreciate your perspective. I'm awed at how little coverage this story receives in the corporate media and by corporate medical doctors. Thank you.)
51 comments:
they didn't have double blind studies for quinine but it certainly was used successfully to treat malaria for centuries. See this link.
DV,
Let me take your comments one at a time.
"the choice ... to treat the child with chemicals or not to treat the child with chemicals... is up to the parent and not the state."
Here you are incorrect. Parents get quite a bit of leeway on this, but the line is drawn in life or death situations, when a well established standard treatment is available that would save the child's life. In other words, a child shouldn't suffer because of his parents bull-headed beliefs. Just go ask the Jehovah's witnesses. I've transfused a Jehovah's witness under the age of 18 before.
"Alternative to what? Alternative to a For-Profit State Mandated Medical System?"
Alternative to well established and accepted standard of care, that has been proven efficacious. Profit doesn't come into the equation. The funny thing is, many of the alternative treatments practitioners are motivated more by profit than care for their patient.
"You say the chemo regimen for Hodgkins Lymphoma works. Says who?"
You don't really want me to cite the papers do you? First DV, let's establish something. Not all research is created equal. The evidence I cite is peer reviewed by experts in the field, who have no financial incentive. You need to understand how medical research works, before you ask the "says who" question. I don't deal with dogma, I deal with evidence that is statistically significant. If you want to chant that mantra of profit being the driving motivation behind everything in medicine...you are free to do so, but it sounds pretty silly when you at the same time advocate for so called "alternative" treatments that have never been tested, have no rational mechanism of action are unregulated, and line the pockets of entrepreneurs pushing cure alls, that are "good for the (insert body system here). I just wanted to be clear about that.
"As far as I am concerned the entire medical profession has about the credibility of AIG, Enron and the auto-industry."
OK. So if you experience 12 hours of vague abdominal pain centered around your navel, which suddenly turns into sharp pain in your right lower abdomen with fever, and chills, I suppose you won't be running to see me? Or maybe you'll say my Cardiology have no credibility if one of your loved ones suddenly clutches her chest and gets all sweaty?
"DV - Says who? Human beings have been treating illness and healing each other for thousands of years before "peer reviewed double blind published studies".
Says the scientific community. Sure, we've been treating illnesses for thousands of years. We also used to have a pretty damn high infant mortality rate, and lived relatively short lifespans compared to now. (and no I'm not buying the inflated lifespans quoted in the Bible).
(continued)
Continued here:
"Didn't these same peer reviewed double blind published studies produce horrible statin drugs for cholesterol and drugs like Vioxx which killed 27,000 people recently?"
Actually the statin drugs I've prescribed have been proven to save peoples lives. And there's more to the Vioxx story than what was reported in the media.
"The vast majority of Americans are obese, sick and will be dependent upon prescription drugs / chemicals for the rest of their lives."
The vast majority of Americans who are fat and nasty eat too much grease and sit on their fat asses watching too much American Idol. The prescription drugs are the only thing keeping some of them OUT of my Intensive Care Unit. We tell the VAST majority of our patients before we have to start them on those "evil" prescription drugs, to lose weight, exercise, and eat a healthy balanced diet. They give us the finger, and continue stuffing Ho-hos and Super Sized meals into their gut. Do you think I'm new at this? Place blame where it belongs, cause I'm tired of cutting peoples toes and legs off.
"Feel free to subject your children to the growing list of drugs and chemicals characterized as "vaccines" by the likes of Merk, Pfizer, Amgen and Genentech. Be prepared to take full responsibility if your children develop autism, or AIDS or God knows what because they ingested some concoction invented by men desperate to make money."
I will, and I have, and neither he, my wife, sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews, parents, school friends or the VAST majority of my patients who have been immunized have any of the ailments you've listed. Don't blame AIDS on vaccines, blame it on unprotected sex and needles. We know how this virus is transmitted, but if you think you know more about retroviruses than the people at UCSD, Harvard, UCSF, and other world famous science institutes...tell the world. Look all joking aside, every medication comes with risk of a side effect. However, if the risk of dying from the disease is an order of magnitude greater than the risk of getting a minor illness and you DON'T vaccinate, then you are fool, because dying from something preventable is a bad way to go out, and a total waste.
I advise you to pick up a basic pharmacology book to understand how medications are metabolized and eliminated from your body, and the spectrum of action. Don't go by random people claiming to have the truth, while pushing some conspiracy crap. There are alot of big mouth doctors, do you really think we could all keep something like that secret?
Now about the connection of AIDS and polio vaccine. If you want my true perspective at first glance: It's highly improbable, if not downright ludicrous. And you know what, it makes me angry, because in my lifetime I have NEVER seen a child with polio, but if an irresponsible story comes out about a "connection" and people stop vaccinating their children, having polio in Sub-Saharan Africa can be a death sentence. If you send me a link to the study, I'll dissect it for you.
By the way thanks for the Charles Drew picture. I aspire to be as famous a surgeon as Dr. Drew. Although Daniel Hale Williams,MD would have also worked, or even honorary Dr. Vivien Thomas who worked with Alfred Blalock, MD. I may not agree with you, but I like how you lay out your blog.
Good stuff DMG.
I'm glad you are here. What a wonderful opportunity to discuss these important issues with someone who appears both qualified and willing to address these serious questions about both conventional medicine and so-called alternative therapies.
I've found many main stream practitioners and consumers of traditional medicine to react rather defensively when the fundamental tenets of their faith were challenged.
Your level headed approach is greatly appreciated.
The following are some interesting insights that challenge what I call the Vaccine Myth.
I promise to address your answers to my earlier assertions. In the mean time, please review some of these assertions about the real value of vaccines:
“People often ask, ‘But what about polio?”
Polio was a dangerous disease and an epidemic and did disappear. But there is no proof that the vaccine had anything to do with it’s disappearance.
According to Dr. Robert Mendleson, a well known pediatrician:
“It is commonly believed that the Salk vaccine was responsible for halting the polio epidemics…if so, why did the epidemics also end in Europe, where polio vaccine was not so extensively used?”
Mendelsohn R. How to raise a healthy child…in spite of your doctor. Chicago: Contemporary Books. 1984:210.
One of the most common side effects of vaccines is meningitis, however, this fact is routinely ignored by health officials:
A meningitis outbreak in Brazil was linked to MMR vaccination 3 weeks after “National vaccination Day.”
American Journal of Epidemiology. 2000;151:524-530.
For years it was noticed that meningitis outbreaks would occur in military bases, among the freshly vaccinated recruits. Many members of the military have become seriously ill from vaccinations.
Question: Can vaccines cause damage month or years later?
According to U.S. representative Dan Burton who was charged with investigating vaccine safety said this:
“Instead of hiding our heads in the sand to protect the status quo, it is time to admit that [there are] no adequate studies to determine the long-term effects of vaccines on our children and future generations.”
We don’t know if a vaccine given to your child today may cause a disease in 5, 10, 20 or more months or years! How long do they observe children given new, experimental vaccines? What should be done? A controlled study: You take two large groups of people, match them by age and other factors, vaccinate one group and don’t vaccinate the other. Then compare incidence of disease over a period of several years. That’s a long-term study.
Short-term studies don’t give us any information about vaccination efficacy. How many long-term controlled studies are there for all vaccines for all diseases in the world since the beginning of science? Zero! How do I know this? I have seen the paper insert that comes with vaccines, they are very similar to the warning/side effect sheet that comes with many medications.
In the Hep B vaccines it says “All subjects were followed for 4 days post administration” . Four days, and they determined that there were no long term side effects. Four days is a far cry short of long term study, unless you are studying fruit flies.
Dr. William Torch was Director of Child Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Nevada School of Medicine.
In his study Dr. Torch found that out of 103 children who died of SIDS, 70% received the pertussis vaccine within three weeks. 6.5% died within 12 hours of the vaccine, 13% died within 24 hours, 26% died within three days.
As he wrote:
“DPT vaccination may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death…the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits.”
At a government meeting Dr. Harris Coulter (a well known medical historian) asked a distinguished meeting of international scientists and medical doctors, “What is the difference between vaccine death and crib death?”
Dr. Coulter said the panelists looked like a deer caught in headlights. Totally dumbstruck. The Americans got their voice first and said that that question was a question for pathologists, that there was a difference but we’d have to ask pathologists.”
“The Europeans were more honest,” said Dr. Coulter. “The Swedes and Germans commented, ‘Indeed, we know of no way of distinguishing between the two groups and it’s a very real concern for us.’”
“In fact,” said Dr. Coulter, “Crib death and vaccine death are mostly the same thing.”
If you have any doubt about the correlation between SIDS and vaccines, the following study from Japan should clear it up for you:
In 1975 Japan raised the minimum age of vaccination from 2 months to 2 years. Crib death, infantile seizures, meningitis and other infectious diseases in infants virtually disappeared. Japan went from 17th in infant mortality to 1st. (This means Japan has the fewest number if infant deaths in the world)
However serious infectious diseases such as meningitis sharply increased in 2 year olds.
Since 1988 Japanese parents have the choice to vaccinate under the age of 2, SIDS dramatically increased.
Question: Did vaccines eliminate disease?
We’ve heard it said, ‘Before childhood vaccinations, thousands of children died every year from measles and whooping cough.’
And they’ll give you a statistic from 1910, 1920 or 1930 to prove it. It’s true, thousands of children died from these diseases in 1910, 1920 and 1930, but is vaccination the reason why these diseases are no longer the scourge they once were?
The quote from Dr. Ivan Illich, the world famous sociologist was based on extensive analysis of health data.
“Nearly 90% of the total decline in mortality (scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, and measles) between 1860 and 1965 occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization.” Illich, I. Medical Nemesis. Chapter 1-The Epidemics of Modern Medicine, NY: Bantam Books 1976
DMG,
What state interest is being served by forcing a mother to insure that her child gets "live-saving" chemotherapy other than to say as radical liberals we must contradict our position on abortion.
So in life or death situations, we have a nefarious alliance between the state and its doctors that says we will facilitate a mother in killing her child in utero without regard to the father and we will also force a mother to put her child through a regiment of cellular destruction in order to save his life.
What principle weaves these two incoherent positions together?
It's like the public school teachers and their unions. If the general collective favor abortion and claim it to be a "fundamental right" then they have no credible foundation on which to posit the assertion that they have the "best interests" of the children in mind.
The situation that you are advocating for-the state mandating medical treatment to "save a life"-just makes the state and its doctors look really cowardly and sinister in regards to abortion where they literally conspire to terminate thousands of healthy human lives.
But perhaps you are anti-abortion and I am actually referring to the other doctors?
Thordaddy,
"So in life or death situations, we have a nefarious alliance between the state and its doctors that says we will facilitate a mother in killing her child in utero without regard to the father and we will also force a mother to put her child through a regiment of cellular destruction in order to save his life."
There is nothing nefarious about the relationship between physicians and the state with regard to safeguarding the life and well-being of a child (which is not the same as a fetus or embryo...). It's funny that you talk about the consent of the "father". Would you want me to seek consent of the father if he were a rapist? A relative? Mentally and sexually abusive? The woman's body is not the property of the man with whom she had sex. He cannot force her to occupy her uterus with his genetic material unless she consents. And that consent is not implied by the act of intercourse, as coercion is always a possibility.
Anyway, you can't turn everything into an abortion debate you know.
You want to discuss chemotherapy for Hodgkins Lymphoma, tell me what you know, and we'll discuss it.
Now, let me ask you something. Would you think it OK for a parent to use faith healing for his 14 year old who has an obvious case of appendicitis? Or allow practitioners of some other animistic religion to shake chicken bones over their 17 year old who has obviously been shot? Parents have rights, but thankfully there are limits.
The word quack came from "quacksalvers" who used to sell "snake oil" salves containing quicksilver (mercury).
The irony is that neo-quacksalver mainstream doctors (dentists) today who still routinely use mercury fillings - deride anti-mercury activists as the "quacks."
But now you know who the real quacks are.
Thank God for the knowledgeable, rationale voice of DMG. Makes a refreshing change!
DMG you are wrong. You say a fetus isn't a the same thing as a human being. How you are able to split hairs and reconcile this position with logic makes no sense whatsoever. So you are saying that one second, the baby is not a baby but then the next second it is?
CONSENSUAL sex is always carries the tacit implication of possible pregnancy. if you are saying most people don't understand this, then we have a serious issue in our society with people being literate and accepting personal responsibility.
If you are talking about a case of rape or incest, then those acts weren't consensual and could certainly present a danger to the life of the mother, which is the only justifiable cause for an abortion in the first place.
What is interesting is that you pro choicers always cite the most egregious example of a woman being violated then say abortion should be legal.
I believe your whole paradigm needs dusting off. Elective abortions, that is abortions that occur without the mothers' life being in danger are the scourge of our society. These abortions are performed simply for the convenience of the mother. Why is it okay to fuck but not okay to accept responsibility for the fuckin? why is it okay for someone to feel ready for sexual activity when they aren't ready for its possible consequences?
The women who I've met and been close with who've had abortions all made the decision and regret it to this day. If we weren't talking about babies, why do you think they feel so damned guilty?
Incidentally with my friends who had abortions, the only thing I did was be there for them and show them the love that a friend need show, despite disagreeing with their decisions.
Your whole position is tenuous at best.I say that abortion should be used only when the mother's life is in danger. And such cases are exceedingly rare.
The statistics say that most abortions are elective. That means that wholesale slaughter of innocent children is legal. As I said on my blog, doctors who perform elective abortions are no different then concentration camp administrators because they both conduct their EVIL with the veiled blessings of the law.
The women who I've met and been close with who've had abortions all made the decision and regret it to this day. If we weren't talking about babies, why do you think they feel so damned guilty?
PREACH!!!!!
DMG,
How can we take your "doctoring" seriously if you don't actually take it seriously?
If one day you conspire with the state to force a mother to insure that her son receives a regiment of cellular destruction called chemotherapy with the pretense of saving his life...
Then how can you the next day conspire with the state and mothers to kill her child in utero?
Do you save children's lives or terminate children's lives...?
In reality, you ("you" meaning doctors in general) do both and so why be surprised when the rest of us sit back in a perplexed state wondering what "doctoring" is all about?
Of course, your out is simple.
You just assert that the thing inside the mother's womb is not a human being or a child.
You didn't get this "knowledge" from a medical textbook or scientific study. You didn't get this "knowledge" from anywhere.
This "knowledge" is simply liberal dogma and you offer it up as though no negative consequence should befall the "doctoring" profession because of its embracing of modern liberalism.
But I will agree that parents are morally and legally prohibited from abusing their children.
But in the case of abortion, the thing is not a child and so its killing is not abuse.
But is it really not a child and is killing a child not abuse?
Thordaddy, I'll take you first. Oh, I take my profession seriously, that's why I don't suffer fools for long who would put their child in danger because of a misguided belief. My patient is the one with a birth date, who may have other children at home depending on mommy. My duty is to save the life of the patient who is here, not the one who is yet only potential.
You talk about cellular destruction, like you know what it actually means. The alternative to him not getting chemotherapy is...help me out here. No, can't do it? OK, DEATH.
Have a look, it's easy to read: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hodgkins-disease/DS00186
A preview from Mayo Clinic: Advances in diagnosis, staging and treatment of Hodgkin's disease have helped to make this once uniformly fatal disease highly treatable with the potential for full recovery.
Thordaddy, you are killing me with your the cellular destruction stuff, like you are speaking to a novice who doesn't know the difference.
"You didn't get this "knowledge" from a medical textbook or scientific study. You didn't get this "knowledge" from anywhere."
Actually, that's precisely where it can be found.
As a physician, I could just dismiss you as some misguided soul who believes in fairy tales. However, my belief is that if I engage you seriously, and present you with the facts (and of course if you are a rational person), you'll see the light. I don't require any leaps of faith, just an analysis of evidence. And I'm doing all of the heavy lifting by pre-digesting it for your consumption.
Does this sum you up: you are for withholding medicine that will cure a patient 9 out of 10 times in favor of unproven and untested treatment wasting time while the tumor begins to grow onto the child's trachea, but you are against aborting a fetus with no chance to survive outside of the womb even if it were allowed to grow to 40 weeks. Strange.
Derek,
You didn't refute anything I said.
If chemotherapy isn't a regiment of cellular destruction then what is it?
And when I asked DMG where he obtained his "knowledge" referencing the thing inside a mother's womb as NOT a human being, I wasn't speaking of chemotherapy.
The question is simple?
Are doctors in the profession of saving children or killing them...? And why do they conspire with the state in both cases if their motives are pure?
And if they do both, as is the case, aren't they necessarily undermining the "doctoring" profession and the public's ambivalence or outright distrust of the profession is both rational and highly probable?
Your question has a false choice.
Sperm does not equal a child
Ovum does not equal a child
Blastocyst does not equal a child
Embryo does not equal a child
Fetus does not equal a child
These are all potential.
You can have all of these and wind up with an anecephalic, or other malformations that could mean a slow painful death within a year or so after birth. Or if they are truly unlucky they'll survive until 15 or 20 in diapers, blind, prone to infections, fed through a tube in their side while suffering massive convulsions from time to time. With a mother who has been raising a very sick infant for almost 20 years. This mother suffered and watched her child never grow up, or speak, or feed herself, but rather witnessed multiple hospital admissions, surgeries, near deaths, etc. bankrupt, divorced and lonely. Unable to take time off. Majorly depressed, and probably suicidal herself. She finally withdrew care after another long hospital stay. That's no way to live for patient or mother. That last one was a patient of mine when I was a medical student, as I helped replace the gastric tube and perform a tracheostomy.
Thordaddy, like I told DV, you may mistrust me all you want. I'm here for the people who want my services. If you'd rather suffer that's up to you. However, you can't force your child to suffer if there is an established alternative. That's called neglect.
DMG,
You just got done telling me how a doctor should have put a person out of their misery before birth while at the same time trying to convince me that your alliance with the state to force chemotherapy on a diseased boy is an attempt to save his life.
You advocate for termination in one instance and continuation in the other.
So in a nutshell, YOU, the state and mothers get to decide the fate of the rest of us from conception until natural or unnatural death.
Who gives you that authority and how are we to know that your motives are pure?
You seem unable to recognize that your dual roles as both killers and healers is a tough one for rational-minded people to accept as they are in complete contradiction to each other.
DMG,
If the thing inside a mother's womb is not her child then what is it?
Brother got game.
Doc,
Before you squander too many cycles on this waste of skin, be aware that he's an obsessive propagandist and an odd combination of hardcore racist and assemblies of god type bibtard.
He's not going to argue facts, rather, he'll argue odd semantic coinages and other constructions he's gleaned from bibtard fringe sources.
As much as I would enjoy seeing you dissect this malevolent metastatic nodule, (a feat which I
believe you accomplished many comments ago) don't allow yourself to be too distracted from the big game here which is our friend the new jack meme hustler Denmark Vesey.
DV's game is actually similar in certain regards to Cobbski's. However, instead of simply trying to do reachout and support for the plaid flannel set, DV seems to be constantly testing and pushing the bounds of exactly what kind of fitty-page book material he can package and foist on on a demographic cross-section.
Brah'man a professional propagandist - and richly deserving of your focused attention. Matter fact, when you press him hard enough, that's when he'll reliably and predictably call out a contingent of flying monkeys (like Josh "Thordaddy" Farst) to flail away at you and buy him a block of time to leisurely construct a "cool pose" retort to whatever it was that you made that left him looking like daffy duck on the receiving end of a bugs bunny schooling.
Thordaddy,
Seriously man, what part of 90% did you not understand? I'll break it down so that you can understand:
Hodgkins Lymphoma without treatment (no chemo): enlargement of tumor, slow suffocation, and death.
Hodgkins Lymphoma with treatment HIGHLY curable, 90% 5 year survival in his age group.
No chemo=death, chemo=very high likelihood of survival. You can't pray it away, and it's not due to a vitamin deficiency, and doesn't respond to herbs, spices, or prayer.
Please tell me you aren't deluded enough to think that working for a child's survival rather than allowing him to go through a slow painful death has some ulterior motive. Stop being insulting. I don't turn people away who have empty wallets. With the cost in time (11-15 years after high school), money ($75-200,000+ of debt, low wages as a resident), effort (12-16 hour days, studying, practicing, and mastering very difficult material under demanding circumstances), sleep (sometimes going 36 hours without) and relationships (little time to date or socialize) being so high, there are very few physicians who got into this business for the sole purpose of making money. Child has disease. I know how to treat the disease. I give treatment. Child is better. What is so strange about that?
There is NO dual role. You have your terms mixed up, kind of like that idiot who murdered Dr. Tiller. Terminating a pregnancy is not murder. You need to get your definitions straight. Ask yourself what life is. Is the brain dead woman on a respirator alive? No. Is the fetus delivered who does not have a brain alive, even though it's heart beats? No. You cannot apply the term alive to a blastocyst, or embryo, or even fetus. It's an imprecise term, and I understand the confusion with how you are using it.
Abortion isn't used like condoms. It takes an emotional toll over the lost potential. We work hard to minimize the need for abortion, but you same people try to thwart these efforts at every turn. Whining about condom commercials on TV, teaching about sexual health in schools, and demanding asinine abstinence only teaching. The way to lower abortions is to not allow sperm to meet egg. Put a condom on. Of the thousands of condoms I've used in my lifetime I have NEVER had one fail, slip, or leak. Never, not one time. Why? Because I learned about them in 5th grade, started using them in 12th grade and beyond.
So which is it? You want to continue with your moaning and crying (and killing) over abortion, or are you all going to pull your collective heads out of the lower portion of your GI tract and promote the teaching of safe sex to avoid unwanted pregnancies? If the answer is no, quit whining about abortion. The drive to mate is strong in our species. Some pious preacher saying no on Sunday doesn't do a whole lot of good on Saturday night.
Damn Cnu,
How many "Ken's" ARE there running around. This is getting ridiculous. Thanks for the heads up.
As frustrating as this may sound, the right Rev. Ken is actually sincere and well meaning.
Ken is married to a sister, and while he's clearly got a lot of wack ideas, he's just severely confused though not intentionally malevolent.
"thordaddy" otoh is operating from an existentially adversarial position.
On a separate note, have you previously encountered my man Submariner? Brah Sub a most respected correspondent and an ER physician.
Sub, DMG a surgeon and former marine - and a regular at Cobb's joint.
DMG,
When you say that that thing in a mother's womb is "potential" you tell us exactly nothing other than YOU, the state and mothers believe in the "fundamental right" to kill potential.
Don't you think that brings your professional credibility into question?
Is the "right" to kill "potential" grounded in some medical or scientific text?
Do you kill "potential" simply because others want it?
Is it even rational to kill "potential?"
You know DMG.
If you don't mind me saying. You may want to come to your own conclusions instead of having CNulan spoon feed you the products of his little self-serving exercise in masturbation.
At my spot aint shit sacrosanct.
Whether a cat claims moral authority because he is a physician or because he's read a few obscure books means very little here. The fact one used to write for the Washington Post or at one time promoted Public Enemy concerts, carries little weight.
Just because you might be a lawyer doesn't mean you know shit about the law. It just means you are part of a system that funnels black men to prison.
All memes stand on their own.
Everything is on the table. All presumptions are subject to review.
If your shit adds up. It floats. If it doesn't. It won't. No holds barred.
With all due respect ... until mainstream physicians start producing large numbers of healthy Americans I will treat much of your dogma with great skepticism.
As long as obese, mentally deranged, drug addicts and cancer victims keep spilling out of your hospitals and stumbling out of your clinics, don't expect me to hold corporate medicine's 'best practices' in very high esteem.
If I break my leg, Kaiser Permanente can put a cast on it.
When it comes to managing my children's diets and immune systems - I aint tyring to hear it.
I practice what I preach. The health of my children speaks for itself. Anytime anybody wants to skip all this arguing and let actions speak louder than words - I'm your man.
Get your kids. I'll get my vaccine free young lions. We can compare their relative mental and physical health pound for pound and toe to toe.
Now, CNulan is my man. The Most Dynamic Intellect On The Internet. No doubt.
But I call 'em like I see him. The brotha is scared of ThorDaddy.
Thus all the distractions. The bitchy refusal to address the cat directly. The punkish impulse to associate him with past adversaries. The introduction of irrelevant personal information like the dude's real name. Who cares?
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Cats start playing God. TD calls it Radical Autonomy.
And his meme rings true.
Who got shook up? My man CNu.
With the suggestion that a human child is less than a person until "it" turned 7 years old, a deep cat painted himself into a Babylonian Talmudic corner.
Which helps explain why very smart black men, are defending something as stupid and contrary to their own self interest, as the organized destruction of unborn black children.
rotflmbao....,
like turning on the lights at 3:30am in a mumbai kitchenette...,
meme roaches go flying ever which-a-way looking for the nearest available cover.
that shit funny as hail....,
(444 words and memetic Ricky Ross din't say jack shit)
Brother DV,
I'll of course come to my own conclusion. Believe it or not, things rarely get personal with me. As much as I threw down with Cobb (and on one occasion had a knock down drag out with my man Cnu...), I really had some affection for him.
"With all due respect ... until mainstream physicians start producing large numbers of healthy Americans I will treat much of your dogma with great skepticism."
We can't produce if the public doesn't cooperate and take an interest in their own care. If a man wants to die obese and ignorant that's his choice. I told him to exercise, eat right, and even went out of my way to print out a detailed plan, set his fat ass up with a nutritionist, and gave him an exercise plan, referred him to smoking cessation and said limit his couch surfing...on MY dime. If a patient doesn't want to change his diet, and take a medication that will ease his diabetes, I can't change that. If y'all don't want to listen to us about vaccines and you come running (whoops) to the hospital talking about your kid has polio...what do you want me to do? We've been sending out warnings for years.
The majority of my colleagues follow the evidence, not dogma. If you can't prove it works, I'm not using it.
My boy? Almost 12. 95% in height, 75% weight, smart as they come and can knock out 75 push-ups on command, runs with his mom at night, speaks 2.5 languages, and is as we speak is perusing one of my surgical texts and discussing reconstructive hand surgery. And did I mention how good looking he is? (Damn, I got the good stuff...)I don't think the vaccines hurt him.
As far as abortion goes, I think the black community (and all communities) would be better served if young people were presented with facts rather than fiction about reproduction, and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. What is the point of having a child if he or she is going to be neglected and beaten? Let's be real about this. Abortion isn't the thing hurting black folks, it's what goes on when a newborn is taken home.
DMG,
You still aren't facing the issue.
You want to condemn the public for not showing the kind of deference and respect traditionally afforded to doctors from an earlier time even though that lessening admiration and growing cynicism is a direct result of the medical profession adopting a liberal worldview.
If you say that ethical doctors MUST conspire with the state to usurp the right of a mother to see to the health of her child in life and death situations then you CAN'T say that that same mother, in conspiring with the state and her doctor, has a "fundamental right" to kill said child in utero. But YOU do say this.
And so if you don't believe in a fundamental right to life as a doctor then why be surprised when others scoff at the notion that you have this boy's best interests in mind?
If you are not merely neutral on the existential question, but rather, downright hostile-meaning you DON'T believe one has the "right" to exist from the beginning-then why does this boy have a "right" to exist if his mother says otherwise? Afterall, you assert that the mother had a "fundamental right" to kill that child in utero. How and why did she lose this "right?"
But further, if you, like Tiller, come to the point where your liberalism is so corrupting that you believe that terminating life is every bit as beneficial and noble as saving life then perhaps it is time to move to a different profession? Or you, like other liberal doctors, can continue to pretend that Tiller's targeted killing was not the logical consequence of performing a prolific amount of human killing.
If you say that ethical doctors MUST conspire with the state to usurp the right of a mother to see to the health of her child in life and death situations then you CAN'T say that that same mother, in conspiring with the state and her doctor, has a "fundamental right" to kill said child in utero. But YOU do say this.
wow!
Thordaddy,
I'm beginning to believe Cnu about you.
"You want to condemn the public for not showing the kind of deference and respect traditionally afforded to doctors from an earlier time"
So, you somehow believe that it's my fault that you can't keep a chimichanga, cigarette, or crack-pipe out of your mouth? I say this, if you don't want to follow my learned advice, stay out of my office, get your disease, then go see Submariner in the ER. He'll call me down anyway, then I can operate on you and you'll stay in the hospital longer...at a greater expense to YOU, while I'll likely not be paid appropriately for the enhanced services I provided your non-compliant ass.
Thordaddy, a fetus in utero has NO rights as a living person. Period. Why? Because an embryo or fetus may spontaneously abort itself for a number of "god-given" (if you prefer) reasons. But, I know you only want to talk about abortion, since it seems to be your obsession.
I'm not going to explain this to you again. Stop being DENSE. Without medication that boy would D-I-E a horrible and painful death. That's how I know what his best interest is. His parents don't know dick about Hodgkins Lymphoma, and until their kid got the disease, probably had never even knew the lymphatic system existed.
Providing a medically necessary and legal service has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. Please get off the internet for 10 minutes and look around, there is more to life than partisan politics. The vast majority of society does not think in those narrow terms. And thank Jeebus, physicians don't think in your twisted logic, because if we did operating rooms might be turned into prayer centers and the morgues would be over capacity.
You, sir are a terrorist sympathizer. You have rationalized Dr. Tiller's murder by the Domestic Terrorist Roeder. You are no better the those Jihadist wannabes who sympathize with Al-Qaeda. When I was in the military, I swore to protect the country from ALL enemies, foreign and Domestic. You have become the enemy with your Fundamentalist fanaticism. I look forward to the incarceration of the lot of you.
DMG,
So now you joined the military so Tiller could have the "freedom" to be the most prolific killer of innocent human life known to man?
What is it with liberals that make them so deluded that they can't even fathom why someone would kill the most infamous and prolific killer of human life.
Can you really not conceive of a rationale, i.e. reason, why someone would kill Tiller?
And if you say a mother has a "fundamental right" to decide the fate of her child then why are you now saying she doesn't?
What magical moment can one glean from the medical text that turns the thing inside a mother's womb from fodder slated for termination to human being forced to live because you want to save him with your technology?
What is the principle that says you can save lives and also terminate them?
And if you can come up with such a principle, how are the rest of us supposed to view this contradiction?
Come on DMG... Don't be like Nulance and avoid every pinpoint question I throw your way.
Thordaddy,
Sorry, youngster (yeah, I was surprised to when I saw your age listed as 35 on your blog...you write like a crotchety old man, without the wisdom). You've been deemed unworthy of engagement. You go on now and enjoy your willful ignorance.
You see the problem with you, is that you don't have "pinpoint" questions. Your questions are irrational and avoid established facts. You don't care about the stages of development, when the brain is formed and functioning. You don't care to know any of the reasons a woman would choose to end a pregnancy. You are like the nutjob who murdered Dr. Tiller. You have justified your terrorism with some twisted religious dogma. The only thing I'm happy about is that your words and contact information are immortalized on this blog. And if your name comes up having participated, and/or aided domestic terrorists I will be more than happy to testify against you. Cheers, bubba. Maybe I'll see you marching around with an anti-abortion sandwich board around UCSD when I come back to visit this summer. Be sure to wave.
DMG,
Here are the established facts:
YOU don't believe in a fundamental right to life because you believe in a mother's "fundamental right" to kill her child in utero.
And so when you assert that it is necessary for doctors to conspire with the state in order to "save" this boy's life, you DON'T do so because you care about his existence!
This is the consequence of your belief system.
So the question is...
Why do you want to save the boy when you care nothing for his existence?
I think the answer is clear and one only need look at your belief system to understand your motives and misdirection.
You believe that doctors should conspire with the state to usurp a mother's fundamental right to decide the fate of her child when that child is dying from disease.
I think Occam's Razor says that you are highly offended by those ignant types that don't accord you the type of respect that doctors have traditionally been entitled to because of all the hard work and training that doctors have to do. This lack of respect compels you to conspire with the state and assert that you desire to save the boy's life. But we already know what your fundamental belief is about the life of this boy.
So because you care not for the actual existence of anyone including yourself (all pro-abortionists are theoretically self-annihilators) then your desire "to save" this boy is rooted more in the quest for power and status. This explains your devil's deal with the state in usurping a mother's right to decide the fate of her child.
Oh wait, a mother no longer has that fundamental right to kill her child even by way of no action at all other than the act to stay away from the state and its doctors.
But why...?
Did the magic of birth transform a human non-being into a human being and therefore put it out of the range of termination?
Is the act of birth important enough to retract a mother's fundamental right?
What is a human non-being and why can we kill them?
Are doctors even allowed to talk about "beings?"
Where in the medical text does it tell us when the human non-being evolves into a human being?
These are the perplexing questions that a rational and inquisitive mind asks itself when confronted by a "doctor" that would assert that his wife had the "fundamental right" to kill that lil' baller of his. And then this "doctor" fool can't even conceive of the idea that someone with far greater love might take it upon themselves "to save the boy" by any means necessary.
That's what DMG does, right?
thordaddy suffers a logic error in line two of his program;
"Here are the established facts"
There are no "facts" established at all. Instead, there is an obvious fault in which thordaddy pretends that his descriptive statements are equivalent to empirical facts.
It all goes down hill from there.
The error is simple and obvious.
thordaddy's statements pretend that a fetus (even a non-viable or congenitally deformed fetus) is the equivalent of a person who has reached the age of reason.
One wonders why thordaddy feels so strongly about this issue that he must commit such an obvious logic error and engage in fallacious argumentation therefrom?
Where is thordaddy's passion for adoption or foster parenting of neglected, abused, or orphaned children?
Why attempt to slander or harrass a doctor who routinely saves lives?
What do you do thordaddy that qualifies you to pass judgement on somebody who empirically wrestles with these issues every single day?
"pretend that a fetus (even a non-viable or congenitally deformed fetus) is the equivalent of a person who has reached the age of reason." Anonymous
age of reason?
Please elaborate.
What does that mean, and what is that age?
thank you.
anon,
It is a FACT that DMG does not believe in a fundamental right to life because DMG believes in the "fundamental right" of a mother to kill HER CHILD in utero.
It is also a fact that DMG believes that doctors may conspire with the state to usurp the rights of a mother to determine the fate of her child in a life and death situation.
It is also a fact that DMG, like you, claim that the thing inside a mother's womb is a human non-being vulnerable to termination on a mother's whim.
What ISN'T established as fact is how you or DMG came to the conclusion that the thing inside the mother's womb was actually a human non-being?
I mean, if the jury couldn't figure out whether the defendant was guilty of capital murder, would this uncertainty necessitate the implementation of the death penalty?
A doctor who doesn't believe in a fundamental right to life "routinely saves lives."
WHY?
"age of reason?
Please elaborate.
What does that mean, and what is that age?"
How old was that beautiful daughter of yours when she started reasoning with you?
"It is a FACT that DMG does not believe in a fundamental right to life because DMG believes in the "fundamental right" of a mother to kill HER CHILD in utero."
It is a fact that thordaddy conflates "Child" and "fetus" in order to construct factually incorrect and logically fallacious arguments.
Thordaddy,
The only fact that I can see is that you have no idea what the term "fact" means. Therefore your post is invalid.
Tensai-teki anonymous.
You took out DV and his favorite winged monkey with two elegant short strokes.
Arigato CNu.
Nulance and DMG,
In order for one to conflate, he must be referencing multiple entities. It is not a conflation to refer to a single entity by two entirely appropriate labels.
If by some power of technology I was able to go back to the month before Nulance and DMG's wives were ready to birth their first fetus, I might ask...
Are those your children or the milkman's?
To which both busters immediately stop frontin'.
Imagine two dudes looking you straight in the face and telling you their wives had the right to kill their children in utero while at the same time these fools were saving the white boy?
It's almost to ridiculous to contemplate if it weren't exactly what these fools do.
"The drive to mate is strong in our species. Some pious preacher saying no on Sunday doesn't do a whole lot of good on Saturday night." DMG
LOL!!!!! Preach!!!!!!
Thordaddy,
In my old days as a young Marine NCO, I might take offense to your suggestions about my wife and son. But, I'm a respectable physician now, so I just have to smile and ignore your comments. However, I am planning a trip to San Diego this summer to meet some old Marine buddies. You are more than welcome to meet us and our wives at the bar. Perhaps you'll even repeat your assertions. You do live in San Diego, don't you? I'm hoping your weekend is pleasant.
DMG,
In your old days, if you were to take offense to the "suggestions" about your wife and son, I would ask what suggestions are those...?
But I have a better idea. How about you meet me at my bar and have a few cocktails and we'll discuss those assertions.
In the meantime, why don't you just tell me whether my assertions about your belief system are true or false?
Is that too much to ask from a respectable doctor?
Thordaddy,
Why don't you give me the name and address of your bar, and I'll stop by. You DO serve Guinness don't you?
DV ive been reading your health blogs for a long time i would like you to put something about the positive and negative effects of marijuana... my favorite plant ;)
Damn.
What was initially an interesting discussion about vaccines and health care got derailed into another pointless debate about abortion.
That was a damn shame.
DMG
Abortion isn't the thing hurting black folks, it's what goes on when a newborn is taken home.
AMEN!
and let the choir also say
AMEN!!!!
Post a Comment