• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New England Journal of Medicine Editorial

Virginiaplanter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
402
Location
, ,
imported post

The last time I looked the opinions of doctors do not determine the happiness, safety, and security of a free state, as the people themselves have expressed their sovereign will in the form of the Constitution and not in the form of doctors opinions.

Guns and Health


I wonder what the Weather Channel has to say about the Heller decision? Meteorologists have as much claim to know what is in the best interest of public health. They are Doctors after all! There has got to be some kind of global warming angle they can use to infringe on the rights of the people. Just ask Dr. Heidi "I know what's best for you and the world" Cullen.
 

Dutch Uncle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,715
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

The NEJM's take on guns has always been predictably anti-gun, and their editorial board is predictably left-wing. They are quick to publish any study that speaks against firearm ownership, no matter how poorly designed. (I believe they were the first to breathlessly publish the long-discredited Kellerman study that claimed "a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a loved one than an intruder".)

Funny how they've never managed to find a pro-gun article to publish, even though there's plenty of evidence that guns save many lives a year. Laughably, they state at the end of the article that none of the authors had any conflict of interest to divulge. How about revealing the political affiliation of the authors, since the article was clearly more political than medical.

Over-educated fools, all.
 

falcon1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
124
Location
, Tennessee, USA
imported post

And the next time I need medical advice, I will be certain to write a letter to the editors of Guns and Ammo.... :banghead:
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Here's something that has a bearing on the matter.

It has to do with how reliable articles, papers, etc. really are. Even the ones that cite the sources. Especially the ones that cite the sources.

http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/07/08/citation

I learned about it from a gun blog by a very pro-2A lawyer who was one of the Heller amici, David Hardy. www.armsandthelaw.com
 
Top