What media err professional journal bias?
3 Responses to “What media err professional journal bias?”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
The AMA has been a socialist front group for many years. This is just a small piece of that saga.
Back when Hillary-care was on the table, part of that nationalization strategy was that “gun violence” was to be declared a national “health care” issue, which would in effect have made a new federal gun control authority of the health care system. To this day, a kid taking a sports physical for school gets asked if there are any firearms in the house, and if any of them are loaded. The rationale is the same– physicians as home “health” case-workers would have tremendous power, especially as coupled with CPS and similar organizations. That no physician has any training in firearms, self-defense, home risk assessment, or home risk management, and that they’re not certified or insured to offer such advice or services, is rarely considered. This is about a massive power ploy and nothing else, and they’re still working on it.
Therein we get only a tiny little clue as to why health care nationalization (and nationalization of anything else they can get their paws on) is so attractive to the left.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 am
What’s really sad is that the entire piece isn’t any more coherent than any number of bad newspaper editorials.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:38 am
That article isn’t freely available online, is it? (Note: don’t link it if you have the PDF, the IRIS/iLink people don’t like that at all). He gives only the first paragraph of the extract and the abstract. I just read through via my JAMA access. It’s a commentary, not a scholarly article (like a research finding on AIDS or something like that.) It does have references, but any and all of them are well known to the community. Much ado about nothing. It’s the “guns are a public health” problem argument and a set up for regulation via public health mechanisms. The author is not a physician, BTW.