<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What media err professional journal bias?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/02/what-media-err-professional-journal-bias/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/02/what-media-err-professional-journal-bias/</link>
	<description>Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:27:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Metulj</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/02/what-media-err-professional-journal-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-208081</link>
		<dc:creator>Metulj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:38:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=18767#comment-208081</guid>
		<description>That article isn&#039;t freely available online, is it? (Note: don&#039;t link it if you have the PDF, the IRIS/iLink people don&#039;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&#039;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&#039;s the &quot;guns are a public health&quot; problem argument and a set up for regulation via public health mechanisms. The author is not a physician, BTW.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That article isn&#8217;t freely available online, is it? (Note: don&#8217;t link it if you have the PDF, the IRIS/iLink people don&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s the &#8220;guns are a public health&#8221; problem argument and a set up for regulation via public health mechanisms. The author is not a physician, BTW.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ravenshrike</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/02/what-media-err-professional-journal-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-208065</link>
		<dc:creator>ravenshrike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:50:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=18767#comment-208065</guid>
		<description>What&#039;s really sad is that the entire piece isn&#039;t any more coherent than any number of bad newspaper editorials.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s really sad is that the entire piece isn&#8217;t any more coherent than any number of bad newspaper editorials.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lyle</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/02/what-media-err-professional-journal-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-208060</link>
		<dc:creator>Lyle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:41:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=18767#comment-208060</guid>
		<description>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 &quot;gun violence&quot; was to be declared a national &quot;health care&quot; 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 &quot;health&quot; 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&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The AMA has been a socialist front group for many years.  This is just a small piece of that saga.</p>
<p>Back when Hillary-care was on the table, part of that nationalization strategy was that &#8220;gun violence&#8221; was to be declared a national &#8220;health care&#8221; 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&#8211; physicians as home &#8220;health&#8221; 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&#8217;re still working on it.</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

