Letters to the Editor
MacDonald
Published Letters: 16
-
Polio.
[Read the article: What the Poling autism case means]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sue, fair enough all of it. But it's high time to have done with this polio rubbish. Although one would think otherwise from reading these comments, polio is not exactly a trump in the vaccine enthusiast's deck. Here's the wikipedia entry for polio, which on its own should raise a couple of red flags even in the mind of a liberal medical science cultist:
"major polio epidemics were unknown before the 20th century, polio was one of the most dreaded childhood diseases of the 20th century in the United States. (. . .) Polio had existed for thousands of years quietly as an endemic pathogen until the 1880s, when major epidemics began to occur in Europe; soon after, widespread epidemics appeared in the United States. By 1910, much of the world experienced a dramatic increase in polio cases and frequent epidemics became regular events, primarily in cities during the summer months. (. . .)In fewer than 1% of cases the virus enters the central nervous system, preferentially infecting and destroying motor neurons, leading to muscle weakness and acute flaccid paralysis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio
A couple of hints: Epidemics unknown before the 20th century. A childhood disease on the rise in the developed world in the very century where childhood mortality was steeply declining. Occurring in the summer months - unlike influenza. Less than 1% of infections serious.
There are dozens of diseases of the Central Nervous System, difficult to distinguish clinically. Meningitis is such a disease. Various poisons, such as DDT and arsenic cause polio-like symptoms. Now have a look at this:
http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/pol_all.jpg
-
The Old Book vs. The New Book
[Read the article: The difference between Jeremiah Wright and radical, white evangelical ministers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This was about time, Mr. Greenwald, and not nearly aggressive enough to my taste. I was very disheartened to see Barrack Obama's anemic response to this non-issue, even thanking Major Garrett for his time - on FOX News.
Obama made himself a liar - a politician - for no reason. Of course he knows the "radical" opinions of his pastor, and of course he makes up his own mind. Why deny the first when not the second?
I think you missed an essential difference between Reverend Wright and the preachers of hate. Despite the superficial similarity in style, there is a Book of difference between them: Dr. Wright's conditional condemnation of America is based on the philosophy of Jesus. The Hagee, Parsley, Inhofe, Robertson condemnations are based on the Old Testament, a few passages in the Gospels reflecting the regression that took place after the Event that was Jesus, and the Revelation. Hagee, Parsley, Inhofe, Robertson base themselves on Old Testament prophecies and prophetic pseudo-history. Reverend. Wright, in spite of all the Fire and Brimstone and outdated racial rethoric, bases himself on the gentle philosophy of the Christ.
"God damn America to the extend She kills innocents. God bless America to the extend She does good in the world."! If Barrack Obama is afraid of this message, it is not for him to denounce Reverend Wright, but for Reverend Wright to denounce him.
The "AIDS virus" conspiracy theory is a sad misconception but not that far off the mark as any informed, scientifically minded observer will know:
AIDS does not behave like a sexually transmitted disease.
HIV is not increasingly prevalent.
HIV and AIDS are not correlated geographically.
HIV and AIDS are not correlated chronologically.
HIV and AIDS are not correlated in their relative impact on
women and men.
**** HIV and AIDS are not correlated in their relative impact on white and black people.****
I challenge anybody to refute any of these and many more not so politically correct statements in a forum of his/her choosing.
Reverend Wright's "chickens come home to roost" speech was the wrong sermon at the wrong time. That's it - the wrong speech at the wrong time. Barrack Obama is right to apologize for the bad manners of his "uncle", but he need not lie or grovel on FOX News because of a dear doting "relative's" indiscretions.
Dr. Wright