The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history. ‒ George Orwell
In the Soviet Union, there was a bitter joke that the future was known ‒ it was the past that changed. The future was a socialist paradise, though in 74 years, the Soviets couldn’t get it quite right. But the past kept changing.
When associates of Stalin fell out of favor, they were airbrushed out of photos, and their names were erased from history books. Censorship and alteration of history were also widely used by Hitler and Mao ‒ whom most of us would not consider role models.
Lancet is a leading British medical journal. Its long-time editor makes no pretense of objectivity when it comes to the socio-economic aspects of health care. He consistently praises Britain’s National Health Service, and compares it favorably to the American system.
But Lancet’s dim view of America is not limited to health care. Some time ago, a Lancet editorial condemned the United States for its lax gun-control laws, but went on to claim that the U.S.A. has “the highest homicide rate in the developed world.” This claim was so baseless that the editors felt obliged to publish my letter, exposing this fabrication. (Lancet Vol. 357, No. 9253, p. 390, Feb. 3, 2001)
In an editorial, Lancet excoriates President Trump by comparing him to President Reagan. In what respect, you ask? “Progressives,” who despised Reagan when he was alive, now claim to see him as an ideal conservative in comparison to Trump ‒ whom they see either as a conniving Nazi or a bumbling idiot, as the mood strikes them.
Lancet compares Trump to Reagan because both “ignored a humanitarian crisis.” Trump is ignoring the “refugee” crisis by attempting to screen immigrants before admitting them. Lancet believes that humanitarians would admit anyone who wants to come. You know, like the two Muslim fanatics who murdered and almost beheaded Private Lee Rigby on a London street. Surely people like that will be valuable additions to any nation. Rigby survived a tour in Afghanistan, but not one in his native land. Perhaps there is a lesson here.
We only win when we play on the road; we lose when it’s a home game. – Oliver North, Lt. Col., USMC (Ret.) referring to terrorists
It gets worse. Lancet quotes without comment that Reagan “slashed AIDS funding” (it increased every year), and that “Adolf Reagan…murdered more gay people than anyone in the entire history of the world.” This goes beyond the counter-factual and reaches the delusional. To quote this monstrous fabrication without comment would be inexcusable in a newspaper. To do so in a “scientific” journal is execrable in the literal sense: deserving to be cursed.
The attached table shows federal AIDS funding for each year during the time in question. AIDS was first identified as a new disease in mid-1981, Reagan’s first year in office. He couldn’t have “slashed” AIDS funding, because of course there wasn’t any before the disease was identified. As the table shows, AIDS funding went up every year of Reagan’s presidency, from 1981 to 1989. And it continued to go up each year of the presidency of Bush the Elder, from 1989 to 1993.
Funding also went up during the presidency of Bush the Younger. In addition, Bush 43 initiated a huge program to combat AIDS in Africa. When did you last hear AIDS activists or gay activists mention that fact? Oh wait, I almost forgot – many AIDS activists and gay activists are leftists first and activists second.
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL3073103232005.pdf
That either Reagan or Bush 41 “cut” AIDS funding is a lie. It is a big lie. AIDS was first identified as a new disease in mid-1981. In 1984, the AIDS or HIV virus was discovered jointly by American and French scientists. In 1985, a blood test for HIV was developed. Also in 1985, AZT, the first drug to show activity against HIV, was tested, and it was approved by the FDA in 1987.
In all of medical history, from ancient Egypt until today, I am unaware of such a rapid pace of events for any other newly discovered disease:
(1) Identification of the causative agent.
(2) Development of a blood test to identify infected patients.
(3) Discovery of a partially effective treatment.
To denigrate these rapid and life-saving scientific advances is inexcusable. To fabricate lies about AIDS research funding being cut by Republicans is a sin. Bearing false witness in so important a case is utterly reprehensible. But I expect these lies to enter school and college textbooks – if they haven’t already. They surely have entered “scientific” journals like Lancet.
Would you patronize a restaurant where the chef could not distinguish between steak and baloney? Similarly, would you rely on a “scientific” journal where the editor could not distinguish between facts and baloney? I wouldn’t.
Another complaint by gay activists is that Reagan spoke little about AIDS. He also spoke little about type I diabetes, to which I lost a colleague. And he said nothing at all about Churg-Strauss syndrome, to which my wife lost a colleague.
These activists, like most leftists, confuse talk with action. While Reagan was in office, AIDS research proceeded with unprecedented speed. For this, he gets no credit. But Reagan said little about AIDS. For this, he is excoriated in the vilest language. Perhaps this is why leftist activists loved Obama ‒ he talked very smoothly, and very often. So what?
What Reagan did was his job – to foster a congenial environment for medical research, and then shut up and get out of the way. As a result, progress on AIDS proceeded at a record pace. America is responsible for the majority of advances in health care, and over 60% of recent Nobel Prizes in Medicine. American cancer-survival rates are the best in the world, far exceeding those of Britain’s National Health Service. But they say our system is “broken.”
Source: The Telegraph
As the proverb tells us, a lie goes halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on. Isn’t it possible to read a “scientific” journal and not be subjected to political propaganda that is utterly untrue? No, regrettably, it isn’t possible. Thanks so much, leftists, for your contributions to the annals of propaganda. Perhaps, at the Oscars, they could give a special Goebbels Propaganda Award for the most egregious political lies. The competition would be stiff indeed.
Alteration and fabrication of history are not amusing foibles. They are signs of budding totalitarianism. Like cancer, totalitarianism must be diagnosed and treated at an early stage to avoid terrible suffering and eventual death. Like a rising PSA or a suspicious spot on a mammogram, altering and fabricating history are danger signs. If we are foolish, we can ignore them. But we can’t escape the consequences.
●
Author’s Note: Lancet is hardly the only scientific journal subject to bias, error, and political correctness. For a review of one year of the New England Journal of Medicine, read “False Positive” by Theodore Dalrymple.
●
Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.