Here’s another big stnk.

From: Peter Johnson
posted Thursday, February 21, 2019

Hello Reader.
This is not intended for publication and it may contain mistakes that have not been edited out so please read it when you can.

“I just checked the comment section at the end of Gary Kohls article where someone apparently claiming to be Dr. Gorski. as well as Dr. Offit. Are both quoted as saying things they didn’t say which is reminiscent of some being kind of organized mafia threat that was not even written in the same style as Gorski’s Science Based Medicine blog and seemed like an effort to discredit him by pretending to sink to the level of so many anti-vaccine advocates who are so prevalent on social media threads. But, I doubt any of it is truly written by Gorski or Offit, and is rather, the work of some unethical person claiming to be Gorski, who is supposedly behind attempts, to discredit me by asking that I contact him on his blog. However, I have no interest in trying to convince others by proving that Gorski and Offit are not really creative and dedicated men of science whose work has paved the way for new treatments as well as new medicines and vaccines, which have saved millions of lives in the third world and elsewhere.. I simply desire to dispense the truth without wading deeply into the territory where so many of these angry poison pen critics live. Rather, because they are practitioners of pseudo-science, and we, as a society, need to censor people who seem to dispense and spread lies intended to destroy Dr. Gorski’s and Dr. Offit’s reputations.

Personally, I think the fact that Reader publishes so many different points of view (is a good thing)—and as long as others remain free to disagree with them, contributors will make comments of their own! But in reality, it was Gary who asked “Reader” to retract my article and make me apologize for simply writing one of my own, which provided links to websites and quoted evidence. But, the goal of many anti-vaccine advocates seems to be to misinform readers about the history of vaccines and deny the amazing ways that they have saved countless lies.

Gary’s activists are trying to turn the tables and make it seem like Gorski is the one who is making demands of “Reader? But not so! It was really Kohls himself who likely made such a bizarre request. And in reality, that seems to be the way that so many proud and self-righteous conspiracy believers try to deflect their own shortcomings onto others.

Dr. Gorski has already written a short comment that criticizes Gary for publishing such a slandrous piece, but in the comment he actually wrote, he does not sound hateful or manipulative—he just tells Gary that he has been lying about things Gorski never said--and for that attempt to set the record straight—Gorski has been portrayed as public enemy number one?

Its still my hope that Reader will also publish my article about the misinformation, disinformation, and immoral ways that Kohls and his followers, have been bearing false witness to implicate Readers editors of doing wrong. So, they must be convinced that God has given them an exemption, or some sort of get our of jail free card, that entitles them to bear false witness against their neighbors while believing their cause is just?. It’s ironic that so many who scream about their rights to free speech being violated, will not respect the rights of those who utilize their expertise and experience, as well as their credential and contributions to medicine itself! Both commenters, and/ or journalist are also free to let their words speak about those have tried for so long to make a difference in the lives of poor and sick children around the world.

In Gary’s eyes this is not just about not adequately testing new drugs and vaccines, but is rather about everyone in the heath field--=including PhDs MDs, the microbiologists who discover new treatments, the sales men who share them with established physicians, the Registered nurses and the lowly orderlies who empty bed pans, give shots, and doctors who simply access vital information on their computers to check for side effect in the medicines they prescribe for their patients. So why does Gary want to condemn them all?—Because they supposedly know that certain vaccines are being used to kill babies, but don’t give a damn since they supposedly can become rich giving deadly vaccines to children?- –Really??

Anyway, go to the comment section after Gary’ Gary’s indictment of trolls in any given thread and see for yourself how anti-vaccine enthusiast are looking for Weapons of mass vaccinations? And good fortunes for having access to medical marvels. Gary is not going to get away with lies about drugs and vaccines that have actually been very successful at preventing many childhood and other infectious diseases.

There have always been some side effect involved with any kind of medicine but most vaccine critics are too young to remember when injections were given to millions of school kids during the 50s and 60s. There must have been at least a thousand children in my school district, some of whom passed out while waiting in line, or after hearing those in the front, hollering “Ouch!” or occasionally cried. But as far as horrendous reactions to vaccines---none of us heard a single such case among the more than 1000 kids that got vaccinated!

I can’t tell parents not to grieve if they believe that vaccine are responsible for killing their children and/or are the cause of autism in their children. But most children are first vaccinated about the time that symptoms of autism and seem to be affected by them before that they are as normal as can be and none of the double blind studies have ever established that kind of link. or because their parents had children who learned to vent their angers In ways that dedicated family practitioner just could not understand.

compare Dr.Gorski’s comment above in which he simply stated that Gary quoted him as saying things he never really said.

Sincerely Peter W Johnson
Superior, WI. 54880

Two thing to add for Gary Kohl's consideration;

Being of retirement age, and having spent many of my formative years during what the media called the "Hippie Revolution," I have known many people who where prescribed psychiatric drugs--either temporarily or for the long term, and I have never heard one of them complain about being "forced" to take certain medications.

The fact is that, many psychiatrists make sure that patients understand the possible side effects and dangers of using, or suddenly going off of the drugs they prescribe, and usually recommend something else, if the first option is not helping. most people with long term mental illnesses have experimented with others before settling one that helps the most and causes less side effect. This is actually the same process followed by medical doctors and their patients in regard to physical conditions also--if a doctor recommends Lipitor, for example, including any side effect it may cause. Then he or she let's the patient decide which one works best for them. In some cases there are also what have been called spontaneous remissions that take place occasionally, which allow them stay in reality and remain in a recovered state which allows their medications to discontinued. But not once did I heard any of my friends complain about being pushed to use certain drugs by either psychiatric, or conventional medical doctors. So, I am afraid that Gary's focus on MDs and Psychiatrist, has been stated far too dramatically and full of personal dislikes of conventional drugs used by, for instance, Bipolar people who experiment with different medication until they find something that works, and keeps them in touch with reality.

If certain medications were ever forced on them or anyone else, that would be a good time for Doctors to face being suspended and sued for malpractice.
Crooked physicians of course, do exist. However, most medical doctors including psychiatrists, sincerely want their patients to return to good health, even if their discharge calls for regular gifts of money paid them to the doctors that treated them. (sarcastic humor), that is not really legal, unless thier payments go directly to the people and facilities who treated them when they receive their bills!

Yes there are cases where Big pharma has not been diligent enough to refrain from marketing a new drug that shows promise, and have then had to recall it to keep unanticipated damage from being done. But almost all of them have received safe vaccinations and new drugs, in the course of their treatments, that they have been duly warned about.

This entire issue revolves around the common practice of knowing beforehand if a drug is potentially too harmful to risk taking. A large majority of patients do experiment with drugs that have unpleasant side effects, but are much better than the alternative--complete loss of contact with reality and/or being hospitalised for long periods of time. A person who is allergic to peanuts may like thier taste, but decides not to eat them once they are advised not to do by their doctors. its the same with mental illness--many unpleasant side effect are far better than having a psychotic episode which involves great trauma, and often, a great deal of embarrassment--never--the-less--competent doctors in every corner of the globe have advised their patients to experiment with beneficial drugs, and then narrows them down to those that work best and are what they prefer. If you've ever witnessed someone in a manic episode who cannot sleep for as long as 5 days at a time, you would be instantly convinced that the drugs that help them are far better than the alternative. And as far as incompetence and abusive behaviors, doctors are usually aware of the negative aspects of the drugs they recommend. You would not be so quick to discredit people in the medical profession, if you have ever realized how much good they do,

And what makes you think that doctors are not aware of holistic treatments or are unaware that conventional drugs can be overused and can cause very undesirable effects which MAY threaten their patients well--being. But, do you think Gary, that most doctors are independently wealthy and Like killing babies.? If that's what you think Gary, then you are far too biased to see the many great things that medical science has done for us all!

Perhaps big corporations are often unethical and greedy, but do you really think that practicing Doctors sit around and cackle over the lastest child they killed that day? Most of the time its just the opposite--they spend days working diligently to diagnose and treat patients that they really care about! Most of us who believe in the curative powers of SBM, have much better attitudes towards life and other people in general.

So when many readers who read Gary's columns are persuaded that holistic medicines are far better than science based medicine, and then go to their new holistic stores, Gary is not favored financially by their purchases, which may also make them decide to seek professional advice from Gary, and does not constitute a promotion that benefits Dr. Kohls?--NOT!

I'm not saying he can't promote any treatments that he recommends--just that its silly to think that none of his articles will convince anyone to try natural medicines and then make personal appointments with Gary?

Hi Forrest. Donald Trump is going to get re-elected because the socialist agenda is rightfully terrifying. The right wins by NOT promoting 5 year plans and allowing responsible people to govern themselves. Imagine that. Forrest, do you remember when a liberal was a person who wanted freedom from government? Maybe you're to young for that. You do come across as a tad childish in your beliefs. Failure to fly? Do you still live at home?

there is no alternative

unfortunately

I hope who ever supplied the photos to/via Gary isn't targeted

Wonderful account.... (reader in Oregon)

rr--

Fred was a cold, cold man. He ignored and belittled Donnie and sent him away
when he acted out. You couldn't write a better script for creating a monster. "Rosebud"!

what??? what in the hell are you writing?

"It was not just that, say, that eliminating diseases like diphtheria and the measles have helped safeguarded our collective health?--It's also that many years before vaccines, death rates also plummeted long before vaccines were used to help treat these diseases, without serious of negative consequences. But if one does a little detective work one will soon wonder what the attacks against vaccines are motivated by? Diphtheria began its decline in the 1930s, polio in the 1950s, measles in the 1960s, chickenpox in the 1990s and rotavirus in the 2000s--all after the new vaccines became available? And if better sanitation, nutrition, and healthy practices are almost completely responsible for the the positive results concerning Pre-vaccine infections illnesses, then why would all of the above diseases not begin to diminish at the same time? Our increases in health and sanitation happened in a linear fashion, so when those in Maine benefit from new health practices, that knowledge should also be passed along nationwide, in a relatively short period of time.

Even though all these facts testify for he safety of vaccines, I can't say that I too, wouldn't be very anxious and up in arms, about anything that might threaten the life of my child. However, when complications follow in a very small number of cases, let's not forget that in every drug and inoculation that our Doctors might prescribe, there are going to be risks involved. So, whatever course we choose to take, we should not loose sight of the fact that one sick child can infect hundreds of other children just by going to school. Therefore, it would seem logical that any parent who chooses not to vaccinate, should arrange for some kind of home schooling instead."

do you even read what you write or are you just paid by the word? what absolute garbage. you barely make any arguments--you barely make any SENSE. nothing you say contradicts ANY of the points he's made or refutes any points he makes, yet you start from the conclusion that he's wrong. i seriously hope you are a paid shill, otherwise i feel very sorry for you.

Love this! Great article, thank you for all the citations.

Good ol' garden variety "nice." (Smile)

Have you heard the scripture in Proverbs regarding " heaping coals on the heads of your enemies?" When taken out of context both by period and the surrounding words, it reads as brutal/ritualistic. But this scripture isn't about a curse, it is asking us to show kindness toward those who (we believe) are trying to do us harm by inviting them into our coal-heated homes to rest their heads. Hard to do/disarm, but it is what we are asked to do.

Not every Christian is in plot or judgement-mode. This is a myth.

My mother talks about this scripture all the time but she was taught that it was a Christian curse by her mother and "father." Sad, huh?

Prediction:Upcoming generations will not be satisfied by being "told" what to do by "the fuddy-duddies" of the past. Why? Cuz it was either mean, didn't work, or both. Scripture, families, facts, and politics will all be re-evaluated in the days & decades ahead due to the many sins of (all) our fathers. A revelation? Nope, nothing new.

P.S. I just sacanned this posting trying see the "red lines" that will be read/inferred into this "thread." Plenty of red meat for all "races" to peck on. Interpretations will always drive the narratives/agendas but they tend to reveal more about the character/heart of the interpretor than the actual meal.

And..... Have you heard the Yo' Moma joke about John the Baptist? NNNNAAAAYYYY! (Smile)

Jon, let me go right to the ad hominem attack: You're a moron. You can't take a federalists view of gun rights as representing the founding father(s). Jon, did you know that most delegates were for NO Federal government? They wanted most power to exist at the state level. Most were classical Liberal. I'd imagine that even Harry, if he was honest with himself, would disagree with your Analysis.

Here Jon. Now you can read about what a classical liberal is, and then become one. http://factmyth.com/factoids/americas-founding-fathers-were-liberals/

Ed, you're worse than Jon. Gun violence, and violence in general in the country is at an all time low. Your article is pure propaganda.

"Eight year’s later his cover was blown when the infamous Nixon tapes were made public. They were damning. ''They're [the Jews] the ones putting out the pornographic stuff,'' Graham told Nixon. ''The Jews stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,'' he continued." Harry, this is heady stuffy. I ask you - If the Jews HAD a stranglehold on this country, (through the media: movies, and news) would that be good or bad?

The rule of law is a wonderful thing in our country. of course people need to know the law, and not demand a right to make up their own version. Thanks for tirelessly helping all of us to understand what the laws actually say, John.

"How dare a loose dog go near somebody’s private property?"
That, John, is your "City Folk" view of the situation. The laws outside of cities are different. Further, the point you never concede which substantially lowers the threshold of evidence- Bruzzo does not have to kill a chicken, he simply needed to threaten to kill the chicken (livestock.)

How is that a City Folk view? And how are the laws different? Last I checked the state laws did not differentiate between city and rural areas for this subject. John's point is that there needs to be proof. If the dog was [simply] threatening the chickens, then the property owner actually then has the burden to prove other actions were attempted first and failed and/or that his only available choice was to resort to killing. This doesn't lower the threshold of evidence . . . but to your own point, there must be evidence. So in the end, you're admitting to agreeing with John that this all comes down to evidence (or in this case, the lack of). [clap,clap]

I could care less, but I must point out that the purpose of Leash Laws (which I personally abhor) is to specifically discourage, prevent and make illegal that "a loose dog go near somebody’s private property".

There is no evidence at all the dog is even dead! It could have just as easily been taken by another visitor and enjoying a happy life!