Rotten To The Core

H/T Margo for pointing out an article by Rob Lyons in Spiked:

Last Tuesday, members of the American Medical Association (AMA), the body that represents US doctors, voted to recognise obesity as a disease in its own right. The notion that a third of the US population is now to be designated as sick is daft – but daft ideas are not exactly new ground for the elite of the medical profession.

Trying to help people tackle weight problems seems like a good idea. ‘Recognising obesity as a disease will help change the way the medical community tackles this complex issue that affects approximately one in three Americans’, said AMA board member, Dr Patrice Harris, in a press release.

It’s not just ‘daft’. It’s utterly poisonous and evil. They’re saying that anyone who is overweight is sick. That makes lepers of fat people. And it’s the prelude to demonisation and social exclusion. All of which is already happening with smokers, of course, also largely thanks to the medical profession.

I’ve said before that these doctors need to be kicked out of the medical profession. There needs to be a thorough purge. And not just in the USA, but in the UK, and in the WHO, and everywhere else these Nazi doctors have infiltrated.

In a comment under Margo’s comments, Harley remarked that 60% of US doctors had quit the AMA, although he didn’t provide a link to any evidence. But if that is actually what’s happened, then it could well be that the AMA is getting towards the end of its natural life. Because what’s to stop US doctors setting up some some rival institution to represent them, if 60% of them have quit the AMA?

I read once, 10 or 15 years ago, that Britain’s BMA was ‘taken over’ during the 1990s, around about the same time the WHO was ‘taken over’ by the likes of Gro Harlem Brundtland. And I could well believe it.

But how did these nutters manage to take over the BMA? Well, probably most practising doctors simply don’t have the time or inclination to get much involved with the organisation that represents them. They’re probably more interested in treating sick people – ones with real illnesses. But although Gro Harlem Brundtland qualified as a doctor, she never actually practised as one for any length of time, but became a politician instead. Much the same was true of Sir Richard Doll. And it was also true of my bête noire, Dr W. At the time that I knew him he was a District Health Officer, and very active in the BMA (the last time I saw him alive was on TV being interviewed outside the BMA). So real hands-on doctors probably gradually ceased to be represented by the BMA (and the AMA) because they didn’t have the time or energy to get involved, and it was gradually taken over by people who did – people like Brundtland, Doll, and Dr W, and many others (George Godber, for example). And these people were more bureaucrats than doctors. And once they’d taken over the BMA and the AMA and the WHO, they probably made sure that no real doctors got any say at all any more. Instead they brought their own separate statistics-based culture. And this culture was a form of eugenic group-think that had developed over decades.

And these are the people who now control the NHS, and no doubt demand smoking bans outside hospitals while the patients inside them are dying under surgeons’ knives.

It’s a scandal. They should all be kicked out. They are a disgrace to their profession, every single one of them.

But nobody ever seems to breathe a word about it. And that’s probably because much the same has happened everywhere else. The Royal Society, for example, is now a global warming stronghold. And the Labour party no longer represents the working man. And the Conservative party is no longer conservative. And the Liberals aren’t in the least bit liberal either. And so on, and on, and on.

It’s all rotten. Rotten to the core.

Anyway, here’s Steve Stevens (Billy Idol’s lead guitarist), smoking.

And here he is at his day job. I wonder how the drummer managed to catch those sticks?

 

 

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Rotten To The Core

  1. cherie79 says:

    You explain very well how it happened just wonder what we can do to change things? I am sure the next generation of them are in place already. My GP who is great is so sick of it all he is taking early retirement and I will miss him, he hates all the stupid things he has to enforce and the intrusive questions. It is not what he went into medicine for and he has had enough, in his opinion adults should be allowed to live their own lives and his job is to treat the sick not lecture them. Where will I find another one like him?

    • Frank Davis says:

      It’s just one possible explanation of how it might have happened.

      And I’m glad to hear that at least one GP is thoroughly sick of it all. But why aren’t there more?

      I think that I probably know the answer to that too. And it’s that they daren’t speak out, for fear of losing their jobs or funding. It’s the same everywhere else too (e.g. universities). Only retired people can speak out, because they’ve got nothing to lose.

  2. jaxthefirst says:

    Whenever I read/see/hear about an organisation (and there are countless numbers of them, these days) which “started good” but somehow – usually relatively suddenly in the great scheme of things – has “gone bad,” I can’t help but think “Common Purpose” in the back of my mind. It’s exactly the way Common Purpose graduates work, as I understand it – they infiltrate a successful, or “good” organisation and sabotage it from inside and turn it into something which no longer resembles its original form and no longer works towards the same – usually laudable – aims that it started out with.

    It’s easy to blame the shift on human nature – scum floating and all that – and I’m sure that there’s an element of that, too, but human nature alone (which after all, has been around for millennia) doesn’t explain why so many organisations managed to keep their integrity intact and hold onto their erstwhile laudable and worthy aims, often for centuries, only for virtually all of them to go to the dogs pretty much all at the same time, i.e. over the last 20 years or so. Such a rapid turnaround in so many large organisations in so many different spheres of life smacks too much of some kind of deliberate action to me. It certainly sounds a bit too coincidental for my liking.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I don’t believe in Common Purpose (another name for the Communist Party, CP). My view is more that of the Slog.

      So at the moment, there are many things we can see this self-styled ‘élite’ of hogs doing to save themselves. But I see them as doing so, as I say, largely on an individual and small-group basis: I don’t perceive a globally organised plot to enslave all the rest of us. More to the point – even if there was, I don’t see how they’d stand the ghost of a chance of pulling it off. These people are not cool plotters: they are narrow, dysfunctional, greedy, desperate people who can see scales falling from citizen eyes everywhere.

      To me it looks like an ordinary process of corruption. Bad apples, and all that. It’s something that just happens all the time, in every sphere of life, all the time. There doesn’t need to be a plot.

      The same happens in non-human systems, like ecosystems. Or even with computers or cars. They go wrong, or stop working. All because there’s a screw loose somewhere.

      • jaxthefirst says:

        “To me it looks like an ordinary process of corruption. Bad apples, and all that. It’s something that just happens all the time, in every sphere of life, all the time. There doesn’t need to be a plot.”

        I don’t doubt that these greedy self-oriented people are around, and I don’t doubt that they “get in there” at any opportunity to amass as much wealth and power for themselves as they can. And I don’t doubt that good old-fashion corruption hasn’t played a nasty part in our history for centuries. But that still doesn’t explain why so many decent organisations have gone bad so suddenly in the last few years. Surely if the demise of a good organisation were down solely to the troughers in our midst (who have, after all, always been around) they would have been doing so sporadically down through history on a fairly regular, but probably less frequent, basis – not all in the space of a few short decades.

        “I don’t believe in Common Purpose (another name for the Communist Party, CP).”

        Common Purpose certainly exists – it’s got its own website, it’s registered with Companies House, it has its own Board of Directors etc and it describes itself as a “training organisation.” I’m not sure I’d subscribe to the idea that it’s the Communist Party in disguise (or a branch of it), because so many of the organisations which it’s most thoroughly subverted (if you suspect they’re at the root of it), are ones which anyone of a left-leaning persuasion wouldn’t want to destroy – charities (e.g. the NSPCC), professional bodies (like the BMA), unions, public service departments etc etc, and it seems to have been generally less successful in disembowelling private enterprises, which one would think that any secret communist sympathisers would be most keen to bring to their knees.

        Maybe it’s a combination of the two – a bit like the fact that anti-Semites and eugenicists had always existed throughout history, too, but it was only once they had the banner of National Socialism, and a strong, authoritative organisation to support them, that they were able to bring their vile fantasies into reality. Similarly, self-serving troughers have always been around, too, but under the auspices of a well-regarded (by the PTB) training organisation like Common Purpose they’ve found a way to merge their selfish aims with others like themselves and work in a very influential way which furthers their own self-centred, greedy aims – but at the expense of the wider general public who would otherwise benefit from the services offered by the organisations which they corrupt.

        “The same happens in non-human systems, like ecosystems. Or even with computers or cars. They go wrong, or stop working. All because there’s a screw loose somewhere.”

        Precisely my point. A computer or a car can go on working for years and years – it might get slower or need more maintenance, but it’s usually just one, single thing which causes it to cease to function at all. And it’s just that – the speed and suddenness with which so many organisations have “morphed” which intrigues me. Where – to continue the analogy – is the loose screw here? There have always been bad people about, but their effect has always been diluted by the greater number of generally decent-ish other people who make up the rest of society. Maybe it isn’t down to Common Purpose. Maybe it’s down to something else. But it must be down to something – some organisation, some mindset, some shift in human psyche which is the “loose screw” which has so suddenly broken this particular system. Because the question remains – how were we able to live with the greedy troughers amongst us and keep them in check, by and large, for thousands of years, but suddenly – just in the last few decades – found ourselves helpless to stop them from taking over everything that’s good and worthwhile and sensible, and completely subverting it into something that is at best pointless and at worst downright wicked?

        I think that to put this all down to good old-fashioned “human nature” is to resign oneself to more of the same. After all, a loose screw can be tightened up or replaced with a newer, better one – but only if one looks for it in the first place.

        • Tony says:

          John Brignell (in Sorry wrong number?) puts a lot of this down to an alteration in the way academic success was re-engineered from around 1980 onwards, both in the UK and US (I hope I’m not misrepresenting his position here) .I agree with that although I have no personal knowledge.

          What happened is that academic career advancement began to be measured by publication success rather than by quality. The upshot was that if you spent years or decades researching and then made a major breakthrough you’d be scored as only producing 1 published paper. So the route to success was to quickly run off some junk and with a bit of mutual back scratching, get it peer reviewed. New journals starting popping up to accommodate the torrent of papers.

          The academics would also get additional credits each time their paper was cited regardless of whether it was simply being cited in order to point out that it was junk.

          No academic with integrity would publish junk so they tended to be weeded out of the system.

  3. junican says:

    It is really weird how politicians only seem to be interested in ‘crisis’. Again and again, they seem to be caught unawares. Is it any wonder that the real government (the departments) can manipulate them at will? The ONLY reason that we have the smoking ban is because the politicians, (who should have been defending the people against totalitarianism and ‘one size fits all’) failed in their duty.
    How is it possible that Patricia Hewitt, Health Minister at the time, was able to say: “OK then. Let’s go for a full ban”? How could she possibly do so, knowing that 20% of the population enjoy a pint and a fag? Even more so, why did the Prime Minister at the time, Herr Blair, not scupper the idea of using GREAT FORCE to make publicans etc do the dirty work? And why did he not investigate the motives and organisation and funding of the Zealots?
    Only because of the 2006 Health Act do we have this massive, destructive alien sucking the life-blood out of the nation.
    There is a simple answer – just stop wasting money on them.

    • Frank Davis says:

      From what little I’ve heard, Blair had very great reservations about a smoking ban. But the then Government Health Officer (whose name eludes me right now – Scottish name) threatened to resign if the proposed partial ban didn’t become a total ban. And of course the UK had signed up for the FCTC. And the Labour health minister at the time (another Scottish name, which also eludes me) was strongly against a complete ban, and he got replaced by Hewitt.

      • Rose says:

        Well, their names are all etched in my mind, Frank.

        Smoke and Mirrors
        “The then secretary of state for health, John Reid (an ex-smoker), publicly stated that banning smoking in public places was not on his agenda. “Show us the votes,” said his political adviser, when we tried to convince him of the public health arguments.

        But Reid overreached himself. His description of smoking as a “working-class pleasure” created a media firestorm that we could exploit, pushing him further than he wanted to go on the road to comprehensive legislation.

        His compromise on the issue – exempting non-food pubs and clubs from smoke-free legislation – made its way into the manifesto and simply made his long-term position worse.

        After the 2005 election, Reid became the defence secretary but remained wedded to his compromise and fought for it in the cabinet.

        Every part of the subsequent ministerial row became public knowledge – provoked, in part, by Ash’s well-informed political briefings”

        The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we “knew” we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side. But it was only five minutes before the vote that the political adviser to the health secretary phoned us to let us know Patricia Hewitt was supporting our position, and we only found out after the vote that the prime minister and Gordon Brown had followed her through the lobby.”
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

        Tony Blair’s 10 Years Of Tobacco Control 2007

        “The Comment concludes: “Blair promised much for tobacco control but required considerable pressure before he delivered.”

        “The Bloomberg initiative helps to translate the principles of the FCTC into action, with particular focus on the 15 countries where two-thirds of the world’s smokers live (which include China, India, Indonesia, and Russia).

        But as the sorry delays in the UK illustrate, signing up to the FCTC was the easy bit.
        Implementation of all effective tobacco control policies requires sustained unwavering governmental commitment.

        The short-term political costs may seem substantial, but the potential health gains are huge.”
        http: //www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75557.php

        FCTC Ratification Planning Worksheet

        1. Describe your advocacy objective as specifically as possible.

        Get your country to ratify the FCTC by December 31st 2004

        2. Who has the direct authority to make it happen [identify the target audience]

        4. What do they need to hear to persuade/cause/force them to make it happen?

        6. Who are the most effective messengers for our target audience? Who will the authorities most trust or listen to?

        Perhaps the Prime Minister, or a member of her family, has had successful surgery from a prominent heart or cancer surgeon.

        Perhaps the Health minister is particularly ambitious to be recognized and appreciated by the WHO Director General.”
        http: //www.ctcpak.org/docs/fctc/rat_wrksht.pdf

        WHO Director-General names Sir Liam Donaldson envoy for patient safety

        “Sir Liam, who served as England’s Chief Medical Officer between 1998 and 2010, will help the Organization promote patient safety as a global public health priority.”
        http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2011/patient_safety_20110721/en/

        Previously.

        Public ‘must be protected from passive drinking’

        “PEOPLE should be protected from “passive drinking” in the same way they are protected from second-hand smoke, Britain’s top doctor said today.

        Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer for England, called for society to recognise the consequences of one person’s drinking on another’s well-being – a phenomenon he labelled passive drinking.”
        http: //www.standard.co.uk/news/public-must-be-protected-from-passive-drinking-6937798.html

        Sir Liam Donaldson quits the NHS… but his critics say resignation is two years too late

        “They called on him to go two years ago after the introduction of a botched online application system for junior doctors, which led to hundreds of candidates not being interviewed for jobs.

        More than 15,000 doctors failed to find posts and some were forced to seek work abroad.

        Head of policy Dr Richard Marks said: ‘We were after his blood. His review of doctors’ training was done so hamfistedly and it was rushed. We were very annoyed that he messed up but refused to go.

        ‘He was never independent enough of government. His number one loyalty was always to government than to doctors.”
        http: //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236179/Sir-Liam-Donaldson-quits-NHS–critics-say-resignation-years-late.html

        • Frank Davis says:

          Thanks, Rose. Sir Liam Donaldson, and John Reid.

          I didn’t know that he’d been pushing ‘passive drinking’ too. I’d vaguely heard of the botched online application system. But there was also the (swine?) flu epidemic that he trumpeted, which was supposed to threaten millions of deaths, and for which the government bought millions of vaccine shots (which were never used). And I seem to remember that wasn’t the only phantom epidemic.

        • Rose says:

          Sars: top doctor’s U-turn – 2003

          “Britian’s most senior doctor performed an astonishing Uturn over the Sars epidemic yesterday.

          Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson admitted that Sars could be made a notifiable disease, meaning that suspected victims could be held against their will.”

          “Whitehall sources said Health Secretary Alan Milburn might make Sars notifiable as early as tomorrow. That rank it with the most serious diseases, including cholera, smallpox and typhoid”.
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-178535/Sars-doctors-U-turn.html

          Bird flu pandemic ‘will hit UK’ – 2005

          “He told the BBC’s Sunday AM show it would probably kill about 50,000 people in the UK, but the epicentre of any new strain was likely to be in East Asia.

          The UK has so far stockpiled 2.5m doses of anti-viral drugs – and may restrict travel if there is an outbreak.”
          http: //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4346624.stm

          Swine flu could kill 65,000 in UK, warns chief medical officer

          “Up to 65,000 people could die from swine flu in the UK in a worst case scenario set out by the chief medical officer as the government launched a national service for patients to obtain antiviral drugs over the internet and telephone.”
          http: //www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/16/swine-flu-pandemic-warning-helpline

          The pandemic that never was: Drug firms ‘encouraged world health body to exaggerate swine flu threat’

          “The Council of Europe inquiry heard allegations that the WHO had downgraded its definition for declaring a pandemic last spring – just weeks before announcing there was a worldwide outbreak.

          Critics said the decision to remove any need to consider the deadliness of the disease was driven by drug companies desperate to recoup the billions of pounds they had invested in developing pandemic vaccines after the bird flu scares.”
          http: //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284133/The-pandemic-Drug-firms-encouraged-world-health-body-exaggerate-swine-flu-threat.html?ITO=1490

          “Scientists who drew up the key World Health Organisation guidelines advising governments to stockpile drugs in the event of a flu pandemic had previously been paid by drug companies which stood to profit, according to a report out today.

          An investigation by the British Medical Journal and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the not-for-profit reporting unit, shows that WHO guidance issued in 2004 was authored by three scientists who had previously received payment for other work from Roche, which makes Tamiflu, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), manufacturer of Relenza.”
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/04/swine-flu-experts-big-pharmaceutical

          But we really did get Foot and Mouth

          “An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 2001 brought the countryside to a standstill. Controversially instead of vaccination, a mass cull was ordered which led to 10 million animals being slaughtered.”
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16872822

          And again in 2007

          Foot and mouth lab failure causes outbreak

          “The effects of the new crisis are already being felt up and down the country. Agricultural shows in Northumberland and Cumbria have been cancelled, while there will be no livestock at shows in Norfolk, Shropshire and Lancashire.

          In Bedfordshire, Woburn Abbey’s deer park and safari park were shut yesterday, while Whipsnade Zoo closed its drive-through section. The strain of the disease infecting the Surrey farm is thought to be a relatively mild version, less virulent than the pan-Asian strain that swept the country in 2001.

          The Government has imp-osed a 1.9-mile (three-kilometre) “protection zone” following confirmation on Friday of infection at the farm in Elstead, near Guildford, and a 6.2-mile (10-kilometre) “surveillance zone”. A nationwide ban on the movement of all cattle, sheep and pigs is in force.
          http: //www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559471/Foot-and-mouth-lab-failure-causes-outbreak.html

          Foot-and-mouth outbreak ’caused by a petty government dispute about a leaky drain’

          A petty dispute about fixing a leaky drain could have allowed foot and mouth disease to escape from a high- security research base, it has been revealed.

          The official inquiry into last month’s outbreak found that staff at the Institute for Animal Health at Pirbright, Surrey, knew the drain – which carries virus- contaminated waste – needed repairs four years ago.

          But they failed to carry out the work because of a row with the neighbouring vaccine factory about how to split the £50,000 bill.”
          http: //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480447/Foot-mouth-outbreak-caused-petty-government-dispute-leaky-drain.html

          But as far as I know we didn’t get a plague of frogs.

        • Rose says:

          Yes, Sars, Bird Flu and Swine Flu, but they are in the spaminator due to an unbroken link.

        • Jay says:

          Ah, yes, Liam Donaldson – who, like so many anti campaigners, looked as if he was no stranger to a bottle of whisky or a regular Big Mac – but he didn’t smoke so it’s all good!

          John Reid (bless ‘im) played into the hands of the self-righteous by saying that smoking was the only pleasure of single mums on sink estates – that was the green light for the zealous to determine to save said single mums.

        • Rose says:

          Opponents fume over John Reid’s smoking gaffe – 2004

          “John Reid, the Health Secretary, was strongly criticised yesterday after describing smoking as one of the few pleasures available to the poor.

          Opposition politicians and anti-smoking groups accused Mr Reid of patronising the working class because he said he was opposed to the idea of banning an activity enjoyed by people living on “sink estates”.

          “Claiming that cigarettes might be one of the few forms of enjoyment available to the poor, Dr Reid criticised “the learned middle class” for being obsessed with banning smoking.

          “I don’t think the worst problem in our sink estates by any means is smoking,” he said.

          Deborah Arnott, director of Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), said: “If John Reid’s contribution to the White Paper on smoking is let the poor smoke, then his policy on obesity must be let them eat cake.”

          She pointed out that 34 per cent of working-class men smoke, compared with 17 per cent of professional men, and that this was the single biggest reason for the working class having a lower life expectancy.

          “Second-hand smoke kills more poor people than any other group in society,” she said.

          Paul Burstow, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said: “This is yet more evidence that the Health Secretary has no clue when it comes to public health. His statement is patronising, damaging and based on weak assumptions.”

          “Andrew Lansley, the Tory health spokesman, accused Mr Reid of undermining the Government’s health promotion message.

          “It is impossible to see how the Government can promote a consistent public health strategy when with one hand it is funding the British Heart Foundation’s ad campaign against smoking and with the other John Reid makes remarks like these.”

          But a Tory spokesman confirmed that the party was opposed to banning smoking in public because, like Mr Reid, it did not favour compulsion in this area.”
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1464111/Opponents-fume-over-John-Reids-smoking-gaffe.html

          But that was before the Heir to Blair became party leader instead of David Davis.

          I heard not a word about any smoking policy change before the 2010 election.

      • Tony says:

        Donaldson’s statement on his considering resignation was actually an extremely vague one. Although the general context is smoking bans he was not very specific. Here is the actual text of the exchange that made the headlines.
        From the Health Select Committee report on Smoking in Public Places Dec 2005 (HSC3)
        I’d like to provide a link but it seems to have disappeared from the Government website.

        “Q455 Mike Penning: In the seven years you have been in post clear medical advice to our ministers has been ignored completely. Does that not put you in a very difficult position?

        Professor Sir Liam Donaldson: It has put me in a difficult position and I have had to think hard about what I want to do about that position. There are some areas where if your advice is ignored and it damages the public health you would have to consider resignation if you were in my position. I have thought very, very carefully about that….

        And then:
        “Q457 Dr Naysmith: Like everyone else, Sir Liam, I am very impressed with your frankness. This is one of those kinds of electric moments that happen from time to time and I think we are all recovering a little bit from the shock…”

  4. Walt says:

    “...the Labour party no longer represents the working man. And the Conservative party is no longer conservative. And the Liberals aren’t in the least bit liberal either.” Sums it up perfectly. But I agree with Junican that “bureaucrats are forever” and they and the media and the jiggered polls have a lot to do with it. I could add, too, that Marriage is no longer marriage, that Tolerance is no longer tolerant, that Law is no longer law (unless the Ruling Class decides it is by actually enforcing it), that Capitalism is no longer capitalism (but rather “crony capitalism” which is another word for fascism), and that one by one, every amendment in the US Bill of Rights has lost its meaning if not yet quite turned into its diametric opposite.

    BTW, the guy from yesterday actually answered me, politely too. Said he doesn’t like campfires either because (quote) “I hate how I smell afterwards.” Said he knew little about SHS and therefore didn’t think he’d been “brainwashed by propaganda,” adding, “I’m just not a fan of smoke in general.” So I guess I didn’t cause him to particularly think. But I do wonder about guys who fret about “how they smell afterwards.”

  5. [PRESS RELEASE 7 March 2013] The Board of Research has appointed two new honorary doctors, who will be formally appointed at a ceremony to be held in the Stockholm City Hall on 17 May 2013. Every year, Karolinska Institutet confers honorary doctorates on people who have made vital contributions to the university. The honorary doctors are to receive their cap, diploma and ring from the dean of research as testimony to their new status.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    In a comment under Margo’s comments, Harley remarked that 60% of US doctors had quit the AMA, although he didn’t provide a link to any evidence. But if that is actually what’s happened, then it could well be that the AMA is getting towards the end of its natural life. Because what’s to stop US doctors setting up some some rival institution to represent them, if 60% of them have quit the AMA?

    I read the 60% mark somewhere a year or so back but heres a quick google run

    AMA losing members in droves, less than 20 percent of US doctors …
    http://www.naturalnews.com/033766_AMA_members.html‎
    Oct 4, 2011 – (NaturalNews) The significance and credibility of the American Medical Association (AMA), an organization that allegedly backs physician …
    AMA loses 12000 members in 2010 – Featured Articles From The …
    articles.chicagotribune.com › Featured Articles › Health Insurance‎
    Jun 19, 2011 – The American Medical Association lost 12000 dues-paying member physicians last year, a drop that some are blaming on the Chicago-based …
    Why the AMA is in decline, and should doctors care? – KevinMD.com
    http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/…/ama-decline-doctors-care.html‎
    by Kevin Pho – in 3,281 Google+ circles
    Jun 20, 2011 – According to MedPage Today, the AMA “saw another steep drop in its membership in 2010 — this time losing about 12,000 members or 5% of …
    AMA: Once Again Fewer Doctors Choose AMA – MedPage Today
    http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AMA/27147‎
    Jun 20, 2011 – CHICAGO — The American Medical Association saw another steep drop in its membership in 2010 — this time losing about 12,000 members or …
    American Medical Association – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association‎
    In the 1930s, the AMA attempted to prohibit its members from working for the … are only those that exceed the actual costs of healthcare and lost income.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Health | Health-care law blamed for AMA’s falling membership …
    seattletimes.com/html/health/2015369884_webama20.html‎
    Jun 19, 2011 – The American Medical Association said Sunday that it lost 12,000 member physicians last year, which some blamed on the group’s support of …
    AMA Doesn’t Speak for Most Doctors | Human Events
    http://www.humanevents.com/2010/01/05/ama-doesnt-speak-for-most-doctors/‎
    Jan 5, 2010 – During the last twenty plus years, the AMA has progressively lost members, and this slide continues. Like many doctors, as a medical student I …

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    American Medical Association: Information from Answers.com
    http://www.answers.com › Library › Business & Finance › Hoover’s Profiles‎
    In the early 1970s the AMA began to lose members when several state chapters stopped requiring their members to be AMA members as well. Mostly as a result …
    Doctors And AMA Split Over Contentious Issue Of ObamaCare …
    http://www.forbes.com/…/doctor-and-ama-split-over-contentious-issue-of-oba…‎
    Sep 26, 2011 – Some doctors are even dissociating themselves from the AMA. Of those who have terminated their membership, 47% cited the organization’s …

  9. Frank Davis says:

    Here it is: The 60% drop is presumably 75% – 15%.

    CMAJ

    The decades-long membership decline at the American Medical Association (AMA) shows no signs of slowing, which has some doctors worried that the national voice of their profession may one day fall silent.

    If that were to happen, the medical profession in the United States would lose its biggest advocate in Washington, DC, says AMA President Dr. Cecil Wilson.

    “What the AMA does, and does best, is in the advocacy arena,” says Wilson. “And all doctors benefit from this.”

    In the early 1950s, about 75% of US physicians were AMA members. That percentage has steadily decreased over the years. In June, at the annual meeting of its policy-making body, the House of Delegates, the AMA announced that it lost another 12 000 members last year.

    That brings total membership below 216 000. Up to a third of those members don’t pay the full $420 annual dues, including medical students and residents. Not counting those members, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15% of practising US doctors now belong to the AMA.

    The atrophy of the AMA has been attributed to several factors. Most recently, the association’s backing of President Barack Obama’s health care legislation, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” may have cost it some members. The decision to support mandatory medical insurance, in particular, does not sit well with many physicians. But such things are to be expected in the advocacy arena, suggests Wilson.

    “When you take a position, there is a target on your back from some, though others will think it is great,” he says.

    A more general factor in the AMA’s membership woes is that society as a whole has shifted away from belonging to large groups. This is reflected by plummeting memberships in once-strong organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America. The focus in modern society tends to be on the individual rather than community, suggests Wilson.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      In the early 1950s, about 75% of US physicians were AMA members. That percentage has steadily decreased over the years.

      So as the smoking rates decreased and the anti-tobacco movement increased the AMA lost its membership in droves! BTW my family doctor smokes!

    • garyk30 says:

      75% down to 15% is an 80% drop in membership coverage.

  10. lizzie says:

    Liam Donaldson, swine flu? Lots of scare tactics and scary words like pandemic. I had the swine flu and I wouldn’t touch Tamiflu with a barge pole.

  11. Frank Davis says:

    Another explanation for how these bodies become ‘radical’ may be that, as they lose members – for whatever reason -, they cease to be representative of doctors who aren’t members – which is most US doctors. They represent instead a minority of doctors.

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

    Fascist Ecology:
    The “Green Wing” of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents
    Peter Staudenmaier

    “We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.” 1

    In our zeal to condemn the status quo, radicals often carelessly toss about epithets like “fascist” and “ecofascist,” thus contributing to a sort of conceptual inflation that in no way furthers effective social critique. In such a situation, it is easy to overlook the fact that there are still virulent strains of fascism in our political culture which, however marginal, demand our attention. One of the least recognized or understood of these strains is the phenomenon one might call “actually existing ecofascism,” that is, the preoccupation of authentically fascist movements with environmentalist concerns. In order to grasp the peculiar intensity and endurance of this affiliation, we would do well to examine more closely its most notorious historical incarnation, the so-called “green wing” of German National Socialism.

    Despite an extensive documentary record, the subject remains an elusive one, underappreciated by professional historians and environmental activists alike. In English-speaking countries as well as in Germany itself, the very existence of a “green wing” in the Nazi movement, much less its inspiration, goals, and consequences, has yet to be adequately researched and analyzed. Most of the handful of available interpretations succumb to either an alarming intellectual affinity with their subject.” 2 or a naive refusal to examine the full extent of the “ideological overlap between nature conservation and National Socialism.” 3 This article presents a brief and necessarily schematic overview of the ecological components of Nazism, emphasizing both their central role in Nazi ideology and their practical implementation during the Third Reich. A preliminary survey of nineteenth and twentieth century precursors to classical ecofascism should serve to illuminate the conceptual underpinnings common to all forms of reactionary ecology.

    Two initial clarifications are in order. First, the terms “environmental” and “ecological” are here used more or less interchangeably to denote ideas, attitudes, and practices commonly associated with the contemporary environmental movement. This is not an anachronism; it simply indicates an interpretive approach which highlights connections to present-day concerns. Second, this approach is not meant to endorse the historiographically discredited notion that pre-1933 historical data can or should be read as “leading inexorably” to the Nazi calamity. Rather, our concern here is with discerning ideological continuities and tracing political genealogies, in an attempt to understand the past in light of our current situation — to make history relevant to the present social and ecological crisis.
    The Roots of the Blood and Soil Mystique

    Germany is not only the birthplace of the science of ecology and the site of Green politics’ rise to prominence; it has also been home to a peculiar synthesis of naturalism and nationalism forged under the influence of the Romantic tradition’s anti-Enlightenment irrationalism. Two nineteenth century figures exemplify this ominous conjunction: Ernst Moritz Arndt and Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl.

    While best known in Germany for his fanatical nationalism, Arndt was also dedicated to the cause of the peasantry, which lead him to a concern for the welfare of the land itself. Historians of German environmentalism mention him as the earliest example of ‘ecological’ thinking in the modern sense. 4 His remarkable 1815 article On the Care and Conservation of Forests, written at the dawn of industrialization in Central Europe, rails against shortsighted exploitation of woodlands and soil, condemning deforestation and its economic causes. At times he wrote in terms strikingly similar to those of contemporary biocentrism: “When one sees nature in a necessary connectedness and interrelationship, then all things are equally important — shrub, worm, plant, human, stone, nothing first or last, but all one single unity.” 5

    Arndt’s environmentalism, however, was inextricably bound up with virulently xenophobic nationalism. His eloquent and prescient appeals for ecological sensitivity were couched always in terms of the well-being of the German soil and the German people, and his repeated lunatic polemics against miscegenation, demands for teutonic racial purity, and epithets against the French, Slavs, and Jews marked every aspect of his thought. At the very outset of the nineteenth century the deadly connection between love of land and militant racist nationalism was firmly set in place.

    Riehl, a student of Arndt, further developed this sinister tradition. In some respects his ‘green’ streak went significantly deeper than Arndt’s; presaging certain tendencies in recent environmental activism, his 1853 essay Field and Forest ended with a call to fight for “the rights of wilderness.” But even here nationalist pathos set the tone: “We must save the forest, not only so that our ovens do not become cold in winter, but also so that the pulse of life of the people continues to beat warm and joyfully, so that Germany remains German.” 6 Riehl was an implacable opponent of the rise of industrialism and urbanization; his overtly antisemitic glorification of rural peasant values and undifferentiated condemnation of modernity established him as the “founder of agrarian romanticism and anti-urbanism.” 7

    LOTS MORE IN THE LINK…………………….

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    UKIP are getting stonger says party leader Nigel Farage
    http://www.journallive.co.uk
    UKIP is on course to win seats in the North East following its strong showing in the South Shields by-election, party leader Nigel Farage has predicted.

    http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2013/06/29/ukip-aren-t-going-away-and-they-re-looking-to-our-region-61634-33541099/#.Uc66l7leqzh.twitter

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    Walmart gave my son a new title at work……..with a pin

    Senior cart pushing advisor!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Thats a no shit for real title I kid you not!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Son we congradulate you on your new and first promotion at work!
        It shows complete unadulterated work ethic.
        You exceeded your parents expectations out maneuvering your siblings who only sought PHD’s and Bachelor of sciences degrees.

        Today your the new Obama worker the one of the few to maintain a full partime job in todays new culture. Of this you have surpassed all in this family. You have earned a promotion while your siblings were only able to aquire employment at McDonalds under 20 hours a week even with all their degrees. You have excelled!

        Signed your parents and a presidential citation is forth comming.

  15. garyk30 says:

    Here are some reasons the AMA might be losing members.

    The war against Obesity is both racist and sexist.

    The people carrying out this war are racist,sexist scum.

    Obesity rates are highest for blacks and American Indians, especially black women.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States

    Obesity Rates:

    White total = 26.8%.

    male = 27.5%

    female = 24.5%

    Black total = 36.9%

    male = 31.6%

    female = 41.2%

    American Indian total = 39.6%

    • garyk30 says:

      http://xnet.kp.org/newscenter/pressreleases/nat/2009/062309bmiandlongevity.html

      Underweight people and those who are extremely obese die earlier than people of normal weight — but those who are overweight actually live longer than people of normal weight.

      The study examined the relationship between body mass index and death among 11,326 adults in Canada over a 12-year period. (BMI uses height and weight to estimate body fat.)

      Researchers found that underweight people had the highest risk of dying, and the extremely obese had the second highest risk.

      Overweight people had a lower risk of dying than those of normal weight.

      For this study, researchers used data from the National Population Health Survey conducted by Statistics Canada every two years.

      During the study period, from 1994 – 95 through 2006 – 07, underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die, and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die.

      But overweight individuals were 17 percent less likely to die.

      The relative risk for obese people was nearly the same as for people of normal weight.

      The authors controlled for factors such as age, sex, physical activity, and smoking.

      (Note: There are 3 levels of Obesity- mild thru extreme…..GK)

      • garyk30 says:

        The ‘overweight/obesity’ crisis is overstated by at least 16 million people.

        Here:
        http://www.aota.org/DocumentVault/Surveys/2011-PQRS/128.aspx

        we find that normal BMI for persons over the age of 65 is 23-30.

        The about 16 million persons over the age of 65 that are classified as ‘overweight’ are actually ‘normal weight’

        and the ‘overweight/obesity’ crisis is overstated by at least 16 million people.

        • garyk30 says:

          T’was magic!!!!!
          In1998, when they changed the BMI standards, I went from being normal weight to overweight without gaining a pound.

          When I turned 65, overnight, I went from being overweight to being normal weight without losing a pound.

        • garyk30 says:

          What do they mean by ‘normal BMI’?
          One would be excused for thinking that it is the BMI that describes the most people.

          They tell us that 2/3’s of adults have a BMI over 26, that is overweight or obese.
          The ‘normal’ BMI should, therefore, fall in that range.

          But no, ‘normal’ only means what the nannies/bullies want it to mean.

    • beobrigitte says:

      The war against Obesity is both racist and sexist.

      The people carrying out this war are racist,sexist scum.

      What about the war against smokers?

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    Tobacco nazis can’t win

    Posted by honcho on June 22nd 2013 @ 12:35 pm

    The problem with the draconian tobacco control act is that besides being draconian and stepping on people’s individual rights to smoke conveniently in their own homes, or in a roomful of consenting adults, it is also dumb.

    Banning anything makes that thing a contraband. Contraband of any type, like forbidden fruit, increases in demand. When that happens and thanks to the premium added to the price by the extra tax, prices people that people are willing to pay also rises, thereby creating a good black market.

    So, while the tobacco act has been accused of putting innocent monks in jail, or other ordinary smokers with just a few extra sticks than is legal, they have tried to ‘vindicate’ themselves to pointing to the ‘legitimate’ offenders that the act has put behind bars. By ‘legitimate’ of course they mean people, those with large stashes of tobacco clearly meant for selling for profit.

    However, they must remember that most of these smugglers actually became smugglers only after the tobacco act created a market for them.

    So, to put it in a nutshell, both small time victims and those big time smugglers are the creation of the act itself.

    https://www.bhutantimes.com/2013/06/tobacco-nazis-cant-win/

  17. Pingback: Decline and Fall | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.