November 26, 2013 § Leave a comment
Something in your interview with Randi Zuckerberg really resonated with me. You know how she mentioned that she needs her “hit” of info from her mobile device every morning? Well that’s exactly what life was like for me when I was deepest in the clutches of tobacco addiction — the last thing I did before going to sleep and the first thing I did when I woke up was smoke a cigarette. She later makes light of the apparent fact that people get together at restaurants and stare at their phones rather than being social with the people they are sitting with. Remember when restaurants used to be filled with smokers and cigarette smoke? (ie. people engaging in antisocial behaviour in public because they’re addicts.) 98% of women would rather forgo sex for a year than shut off their phone for a weekend?? Can you think of a more glaring sign of the apocalypse? These devices are clearly very addictive, and if women would rather fiddle with their phones than engage in the natural, life-giving act of coitus we are in big trouble as a society and as a species.
We need to face the fact that mobile devices are addictive. They act like drugs in the brain much like gambling does, and the designers of these devices and social networking sites know this and exploit it. These devices are rewiring the teenage brain, provide access to porn to children and teens 24/7, are used to facilitate deadly bullying and harassment (think Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons), are not proven safe for human health and their manufacture necessitates environmental destruction and human exploitation.
I don’t care if I’m the only person in the world willing to say it: but we really need to rethink the proliferation of “smartphones” in our society. They do far more harm than good, and just because they are available on the market doesn’t mean every man, woman and child should have one. I think that, at least, there should be a legal age to own a “smartphone”. If there’s a legal age for tobacco and alcohol, why wouldn’t there be a legal age for a product that can give you cancer, debilitates your ability to pay attention, is destructive to the earth and society, provides free pornography to children and is very, very addictive?
[Sent by email Nov 25. Q is an excellent cultural affairs show on CBC Radio]
November 22, 2013 § Leave a comment
Dear Dr. Brian Goldman,
I do not really have time to write this letter, but I was so disappointed by a segment on your recent broadcast “When Stars Get Sick: Celebrities and Medicine” that I’m taking time out of other things to write to you. First of all, I tend to enjoy your show and I listen on purpose. It think it’s valuable for people to hear about the inside of the medical industry. However, when I heard the segment where you allowed your show to become a mouthpiece for the zealot who runs the “Jenny McCarthy Bodycount” website I started shaking with disgust.
For one, I would like to point out to you that, despite many interesting advances, mainstream medicine is a dogmatic, elitist system, that has been dominated by the pharmaceutical industry for a very long time. Dogmatic systems rely on assumptions. In this case, the pharmaceutical company controlled mainstream medical system pushes the assumption that vaccines are safe and effective, so to people within this dogmatic system any notion contrary to this assumption is immediately shunned as “unscientific” or otherwise untrue.
Let me remind you though, that doctors once prescribed or recommended cocaine, heroin, tobacco and sugar among other things. I’d also like to remind you that hundreds of thousands of people die each year from taking prescription drugs.
Here’s another example of how dogmatic the mainstream medical system can be. Fat is bad for you, right Dr Goldman? Most people think this is common knowledge, but it turns out that the studies suggesting that fat is bad for people were based on bad science — on studies that inferred cause and effect. In fact, while trans-fats are actually quite bad, other fats like saturated fat are not only good for you, they’re essential. If you don’t believe me, pick up a copy of The Diet Cure by Julia Ross or Protein Power by Michael R. Eades and Mary Dan Eades. To this day though, the majority of doctors will still tell you that fat is bad for you and harmfully recommend a low fat diet to people who are obese or are at risk of heart disease.
I’m telling you this to show to you how once something become assumed as fact by the mainstream medical system it is treated as truth even if it is wrong, and that someone like me, an informed citizen, is perfectly capable of collecting and interpreting information about health, even though I haven’t been indoctrinated by the medical system. The system you are a part of has an ivory tower type attitude, whereas citizens are deemed incapable of interpreting information on their own and encouraged to defer to those of you who have been indoctrinated and follow them blindly. In my view, someone who hasn’t been indoctrinated by your big pharma controlled industry will actually be more likely to find the truth because they will be more likely to look at multiple angles relating a particular issue.
As for the segment in question on your radio show, firstly, you claim that only one study, initially published by The Lancet, suggests that there is a connection between vaccines and autism. This is demonstrably untrue. There have actually been at least 21 studies suggesting this link. I’ve included links to theses studies below. The author of the study in The Lancet, Andrew Wakefield, has been made an example of by the British medical authorities for going against the current medical dogma that vaccines are safe and effective. He has been very publicly attacked, much like your guest publicly attacks Jenny McCarthy, to set an example to anyone else who might consider questioning the safety of vaccines. At this point I’d like to point out that the vaccine industry is at least a 40 billion dollar industry and has a very powerful lobby behind it. They try very hard to convince the public that vaccines have saved humanity from every disease under the sun, when it can be argued that sanitation has halted the spread of disease, not vaccines, and the diseases the vaccine industry claims to have cured were already almost eradicated by the time the vaccines came on the scene. As a small example of the vaccine industry’s lobbying activities, Merck has donated money to legislators in California to pressure them to approve a law allowing preteen children to be injected with their vaccine, Gardasil, without parental consent, which is essentially bribery. This vaccine has been shown to actually pose a far greater harm to people than the disease it purports to prevent (see the link below).
Secondly, your guest said he gets the numbers for his website by looking at the CDC website and adding up all the diseases that could supposedly be vaccine preventable. Well, even vaccine proponents will tell you that you can still get the flu if you have received the flu vaccine, and, as the link below will show you, virtually all the whooping cough cases in the USA last year occurred in people who had actually been vaccinated. Vaccine proponents jump on any report of a rise of incidences of disease as an indicator that un-vaccinated people are the cause, rather than an indicator that vaccines are not actually effective. Seeing how your guest doesn’t take into account the number of people who get diseases they’ve already been vaccinated for, his numbers and his website as a whole are incorrect and misleading.
I also feel the need to mention that the CDC is dominated by people with connections to the pharmaceutical industry, so it cannot be taken as an unbiased organization acting in the public interest. This being said, the CDC did recently issue a press release admitting that the polio vaccine contained a cancer causing virus called SV40 (see links below).
Thirdly, by associating a “body count” to Jenny McCarthy your guest shows himself to be a condescending elitist. He is suggesting that parents and concerned citizens only listen to celebrities when making health decisions for themselves and their families. This is insulting to the intelligence of the general public and clearly not true. I think a responsible person will look at many sides of a particular issue before coming to a conclusion, rather than simply listening to a celebrity, or simply following the orders of someone indoctrinated by a dogmatic, elitist, corporate controlled, medical system for that matter.
This is the most disgusting thing about your segment to me, that you’ve willfully participated in scapegoating. Jenny McCarthy (I scarcely even know who this person is, by the way) and Andrew Wakefield are obviously being made into scapegoats by the vaccine industry as a way to threaten anybody who might question the safety and effectiveness about vaccines. This culture of fear is not something our world needs more of, and I think if the vaccine industry had nothing to hide they wouldn’t so emphatically attack people who question their products. I want to remind you that autism is a very serious issue, is on the rise and is obviously caused by something in the environment since it is such a new disease. And since it is such a new disease, no one person is expert enough to say for sure what exactly it is or isn’t caused by. If we’re going to tackle new diseases like this we’re going to have to keep all avenues of information open to us and not shut out any possibilities that could affect big pharma’s bottom line.
Before you dismiss any person or notion that questions vaccines as “unscientific”, I challenge you to ask yourself whether vaccines themselves are scientific. I take it you’ve heard of homeopathy. Well, homeopathy has been effective for many people in treating all sorts of disorders. It’s also recently been shown by triple-blind studies that homeopathy is simply the placebo effect. Can you show me any triple-blind studies showing that vaccines are not actually placebos? The placebo effect is very powerful, and the more a patient, their doctor and society as a whole believes in the placebo the more powerful it is. In the case of homeopathy though, the placebos are harmless; they are not filled with mercury, formaldehyde and who-knows-what-else and don’t have a history of adverse reactions.
In conclusion, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to read this letter. While I was disgusted by the aforementioned segment on your radio program, and I’m very disappointed with you for airing it, I believe in you as a person, so I trust that you will issue a retraction on a future show, particularly regarding the demonstrably false information you provided when you said that only one study, which appeared in The Lancet, suggests a link between vaccines and autism. Please do let me know if you will be issuing this retraction, and I encourage you to look into this issue more deeply, perhaps even dedicating a whole show to it.
Links to 21 studies associating vaccines to autism:
A study on the relative dangers of Gardasil and the Judicial Watch search page on the subject:
An article about the resurgence of whooping cough:
An archived version of a now deleted CDC fact sheet admitting that the polio vaccine contained SV40, and related articles: