[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Health See other Health Articles Title: Pediatrician concedes vaccine debate to vaccine rights attorney! Pediatrician concedes vaccine debate to vaccine rights attorney! Monday, April 20, 2015 by: Alan Phillips, J.D. (NaturalNews) A live radio debate over whether or not vaccines should be mandated was scheduled to air on The Fairness Doctrine with Jennifer Sullivan of WMNF Radio in Tampa, Florida, on April 8, 2015. Both parties -- Pediatrician and Mt. Sinai Assistant Professor of Global Health Professor Dr. Annie Sparrow, and U.S. Vaccine Rights Attorney Alan Phillips (this article's author) -- confirmed weeks in advance, but late in the day before the debate, Dr. Sparrow cancelled. The debate took place anyway, with Ms. Sullivan taking Dr. Sparrow's place by reading pro-vaccine articles from Dr. Sparrow and Hastings Law School Professor Dorit Reiss. You can hear an online archive of the debate, here: (Sound.WMNF.org -- the debate show starts about 3 1/2 minutes in). You decide for yourself, but I heard only vague, unsupported assertions from the pro-vaccine side that were soundly refuted by my clear, referenced facts... Meanwhile, Dr. Sparrow's cancellation email stated, in reference to her debate opponent: He is not a doctor, is not a responsible participant in this incredibly important issue, and I prefer not to elevate him by giving him credence or legitimacy on air. This is unfair to the audience. I cannot participate in such a debate. First, we must identify Dr. Sparrow's cancellation for what it truly was: a classic information-control technique based on this principle commonly used by those who do not have the facts on their side: Disparage your opponent to avoid the facts. This is not an original comment on Dr. Sparrow's part, it's the classic reason that vaccine proponents always give for not debating vaccines, regardless of who the opponent is -- they don't want to "dignify" the opposing side. Dr. Sparrow apparently missed the memo prohibiting doctors from openly debating vaccines, and so she initially agreed to debate. In doing so, Dr. Sparrow committed the ultimate pro-vaccine faux pas -- she naively agreed to a vaccine debate, and then had to come up with a reason to withdraw when, apparently, one of her peers informed her that they are not allowed to debate vaccines. It doesn't matter what the opponent's credentials are, pro-vaccine doctors will never engage in a fair and open debate, for two simple reasons: 1) They can't win, and 2) medical science has yet to come up with an effective treatment for the more severe cases of kicked-butt-itis. The pro-vaccine position is not about truth; it's about maintaining a false pretense of public health to further covert agendas that have nothing to do with public health, and you don't further those agendas by debating vaccines. Let's move on to Dr. Sparrow's specific accusations: Actually, I am a doctor. OK, I'm a juris doctor (lawyer), but my independent vaccine research has been used in medical schools in three countries (Italy, UK and U.S.), was translated and published in several European countries as well as in Russia and China and was published in two homeopathic journals in India. But more importantly, the debate topic ("Should Vaccines Be Mandated?") is primarily a legal question. Legislators decide who has to get a vaccine and when, and who gets to refuse and how; and a complete understanding of the interpretation and application of laws falls squarely within the scope of legal expertise, not medical. The real question, then, is whether or not Dr. Sparrow, who has no training or expertise in law whatsoever, was qualified to participate in this debate. The fundamental vaccine questions are, of course, ultimately medical: "Are vaccines safe? Are they effective? Are they necessary?" But the vaccine controversy has a substantial legal component. For example, the Federal Court of Claims lists 140 attorneys in the U.S. who handle vaccine injury and death cases. Medical doctors may testify as expert witnesses in these cases, but the cases are managed by attorneys and adjudicated by Special Masters (judges). Next, vaccines are required by law in all 50 states and U.S. territories, and by the federal government for military members, immigrants and some federal employees; exemptions and waivers are available in all 50 states and U.S. territories, in federal statutes, and in federal EEOC, DOD, and USCIS regulations for employees, military members and immigrants, respectively. A complete understanding of the proper interpretation and application of these laws requires formal legal training and expertise. What is the correct exemption procedure in each instance? Which laws are unconstitutional and why? Who does or doesn't qualify for any given exemption and why? These are all purely legal questions that require formal legal training and expertise to address fully. So, if either debate participant was not competent to engage in the discussion, it was Dr. Sparrow. More important than Dr. Sparrow's lack of legal training, however, is the practical reality that the fundamental issue of the vaccine controversy is political, the underlying corruption of our political system by the pharmaceutical industry. While some aspects of the corruption involve medical and legal details, an understanding of the basics requires neither legal nor medical expertise. Many well-informed lay people with no medical or legal credentials could debate Dr. Sparrow into the ground with one hand tied behind their backs. Indeed, the very fact that Dr. Sparrow initially agreed to debate the matter on the pro-vaccine side reveals that she has no understanding of this most fundamental aspect of the issue. (Or perhaps her cancellation reveals that she understands it all too well?) Dr. Sparrow hoped, of course, that her cancellation would prevent the debate from happening, to avoid personal embarrassment followed by reprimand from her peers, and to prevent vaccine truths from being spotlighted. But in this instance, the technique backfired. The debate went forward anyway, not only "elevating" me personally, but also exposing the dark side of vaccines. The truth is, pro-vaccine advocates will NEVER participate in a fair and open debate, because that would risk exposing the truth about vaccines to a wider, mainstream audience, and that is not what the ruling pharmaceutical elites want. When the facts are not on your side, you can't control public perception in an open debate. You control public perception by ensuring that your communications are always one-sided, and by presenting them in forums that do not allow for rebuttal. And whenever your unsupported propaganda is challenged, you discredit the other side to avoid having to address the facts. We should not respond to these emotional attacks defensively, though, as that may actually reinforce the attacker's position. Instead, we should respond by calmly pointing out the technique being used: Emotional attack to cover up the lack of any real information. We can defeat emotional attacks by calling the pro-vaccine trolls out on what their attacks truly are: Shameless attempts to substitute a psychological control technique for real information. Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/04941...rician.html#ixzz3Xt0Hcoz3 Poster Comment: The vaccine debate NEVER gets proper attention in the media, or anywhere else. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
Sounds good to me.
Like doctors know everything or something. What a crock. Doctors, just like the average cross section of people, are no more analytical or critically thinking than anyone else, perhaps less so because they've sold or at least partially sold their souls to the Medical/Health Industrial Complex. People confuse effort, time, and money spent with intelligence. But hey, that's the beauty of America, the more money you have, the smarter you are. Clearly if you're poor, regardless of the reasons, then you're an idiot. Funny how many gazillionaires were once poor however. I'm curious how that workds. Ah well, why confuse a good argument with data.
agreed... However in this particular case, we would have a person educated in the law debating a person educated in science. The debate would be fruitless as would be a plumber debating an electrician. Waste of time. Proves nothing.
You mean.... doctors aren't omniscient? And wealth doesn't equal virtue? The sky is falling!!.....
LOL Imagine Of course try to tell that to the masses. Funny though, the "masses" miserably fail the civil knowledge tests including what the three branches of government are. Last poll I saw said that only 36% could. war of course is among the other 64% that believe that they're astute and intelligent otherwise.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||