The House of Medicine Is On Fire, Part 2

A short while ago, I posted a video of a presentation by Dr. Peter McCullough. He expressed grave concern about the direction of the field of medicine. I can give a few more examples.

A few weeks ago, I received from my own specialty society its quarterly newsmagazine. On the cover, there was a screaming headline: “Climate Change: The Biggest Health Threat Facing Humanity“. This was absolute balderdash, and yet it was the cover story on a publication circulated by a one of the recognized medical specialties. Then within the publication, there was another story: “Embracing Justice: Equity, Diversity and Inclusion within (name of specialty society)”.

It was quite obvious that the organization had been captured by the far left. It was very sad to behold.

But there are a number of other examples. I can cite at least a couple.

The American Academy of Pediatrics– long a left-wing organization– has been criticized for pushing transgender treatments for minor. This was grossly immoral, but it also harmed kids in a major way.

And the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists received $11 million from the CDC to encourage its members to push the Covid vaccine for pregnant women. This was the height of irresponsibility. The result has been large numbers of miscarriages (or spontaneous abortions). And when they pushed non-pregnant young women to take the vaccine, it resulted in large increases in infertility.

Beside the obvious substance of the bad decisions being made, what is the problem when these specialty societies take leave of their senses?

Practicing physicians rely upon these organizations for their continuing education. But when the well has been poisoned, how can one rely on the education being offered?


2 thoughts on “The House of Medicine Is On Fire, Part 2

  1. TC: The winsome witness approach reminds me of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement approach..

    You cite many examples . I would like to address the rubbish from your organizations magazine ; ” “Climate Change: The Biggest Health Threat Facing Humanity“.


    ” Climate science is a wild and woolly multi-disciplinary field in which virtually every proposition is controversial. It is only the politics that is settled; the science is up for grabs.

    A recent study in Climate illustrates the point, not by introducing new concepts but by measuring the obvious:

    A new study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, by 37 researchers from 18 countries suggests that current estimates of global warming are contaminated by urban warming biases.
    It is well-known that cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside.

    We all understand this. “Chance of frost in outlying areas.”

    While urban areas only account for less than 4% of the global land surface, many of the weather stations used for calculating global temperatures are located in urban areas. For this reason, some scientists have been concerned that the current global warming estimates may have been contaminated by urban heat island effects.

    There is no question that the Urban Heat Island Effect exists. The question is, how much does it skew current temperature readings in an upward direction?

    In their latest report, the IPCC estimated that urban warming accounted for less than 10% of global warming. However, this new study suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40% of the warming since 1850.

    Given the IPCC’s obvious bias, I find that conclusion highly plausible.

    But that’s not all:

    The study also found that the IPCC’s chosen estimate of solar activity appeared to have prematurely ruled out a substantial role for the Sun in the observed warming.

    One hundred percent of the energy that heats the earth–that prevents it from being a cold, dead rock–comes from the Sun. So the suggestion that variations in the Earth’s climate, which have occurred for millions of years, might relate to variations in solar activity, is an obvious one that Greenies have tried hard to obfuscate.

    When the authors analysed the temperature data only using the IPCC’s solar dataset, they could not explain any of the warming since the mid-20th century. That is, they replicated the IPCC’s iconic finding that global warming is mostly human-caused. However, when the authors repeated the analysis using a different estimate of solar activity – one that is often used by the scientific community – they found that most of the warming and cooling trends of the rural data could actually be explained in terms of changing solar activity.

    I don’t doubt that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has some small effect on global temperatures. But the models that are the sole basis for climate hysteria use wholly hypothetical feedback effects to transform a benign level of warming that can be accounted for scientifically into a supposedly catastrophic apocalypse. This study suggests that if we eliminate the Urban Heat Island Effect and properly account for variations in solar activity, what is left is the very modest increase in temperatures that science actually supports. (My conclusion, not necessarily that of the authors.) Or perhaps the small residual warming is due to something else entirely.

    In any event, if the West actually succumbs to Green nonsense and de-industrializes and impoverishes itself, so as to yield global domination to China and India, who have no intention of doing any such thing, it will be the dumbest action by any governments in world history. “

  2. Fred, I agree with your analogy about the “winsome witness” approach.

    And it is pretty clear that the society-wide emphasis on climate change is a huge hoax, except there are many passionate believers who are determined to decimate our nation and the relative prosperity and standard of living we have enjoyed. That will hurt and kill more people, and make them more poor.

Comments are closed.