...from people defending 911 on America who support Hamas and David Duke. The Lancet defended the letter and that letter was full of lies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=82100

Also, in the past they published among other things that Israel was to blame for Palestinian men beating their wives and that Arafat died due to Israeli polonium poisoning.

... any evidence of lies published in Lancet.

...by the Lancet.

Here's the Rebuttal Letter...
http://fathomjournal.org/a-reply-to-the-lancets-open-letter-for-the-people-in-gaza/

All you're going to get is a string of off-color adverbs, paired with some noun or other that is supposed to make you so angry that you stop even thinking about it.

That's the Shira version of debate - "Just scream invective until people give up."

You should be ashamed of your defense of Israel's atrocities.

The following was written at the end of their disgusting letter:

... is that they claim to care about the welfare of people? And you're saying they shouldn't? Wow.

The conflict of interests of gutter antisemites who support Hamas, David Duke, and 911 is pretty damned big.

The Open Letter insinuated Israel used poison gas, with absolutely no proof. One of the 5 authors of that letter falsely accused Israel in 2009 of using DIME weapons.

What else do you need?

medical advancement, treatments, research, etc

Not to involve itself in global politics

That is the purpose of such journals

and collaborate regardless of their countries feelings toward each other.

You believe that scientific journals should discuss global politics? There is a forum and place for that, and scientific and medical journals are NOT the forum for it, and never have been

don't want to go to bed and will make ip excuse after excuse. I expect that from children, but perhaps I have been arguing with 4 year olds all along. It would explain a lot.

It reminds me of a child in the grocery store aile, complaining that his mom hates him 'cause she won't buy him a candy bar

It's future is in jeopardy.

I cancelled my subscription too.

People seem to be oblivious to the fact that actions have consequences.

reality based community sent them:

http://concernedacademics.org/

You are apparently a student who spends most of your money on club entry fees, android apps, and drinks that glow under a blacklight.

Did your parents subscribe you in the hope that a quality medical journal might sway you from your decision to major in bowling chasing management? The subscription ran out, didn't it?

Correct

What I'm questioning is the likelihood of a college freshman who spends all day yelling at people with his thumbs having a (fairly expensive) subscription to it.

No offense Dave but I just can't imagine you sitting back in the dorm reading a five-page article about the biology behind the formation of a teratoma. (DO NOT google that. Just don't. Seriously, don't.)

or, at least I hope to hell you didn't, if "gynecology" was your come-away.

Culinary school? not a bad idea. I'd suggest avoiding the mass-market schools like Cordon Bleu. Your best bet would be to try to find a chef to apprentice under and have him point you in the direction of a school or program.

Single?

besides, it'd be a rocky relationship, you know. Lots of sharp knives and high heat

their letter?

In addition, here's a letter the Lancet refused to publish. It's a rebuttal signed off and supported by >500 Doctors and Healthcare professionals...
http://fathomjournal.org/a-reply-to-the-lancets-open-letter-for-the-people-in-gaza/

I asked YOU to show me where they allegedly lied. This is your post, shira.

Can't you back up anything?

This is your thread, shira.

Can't you back up anything without looking counterfeit?

Or are you going to fall on your face once more?

With a heavy dose of anti-Palestinian hatred thrown in.

Israel is accustomed to the fawning coverage that the US media typically provides whenever Israel commits war crimes. If a media outlet dares to actually speak about Israeli war crimes that outlet must be attacked as being anti-Semitic.

But as has been asked here already, provide specific examples of inaccurate coverage. Your post conflates the making of as being "proof" that the claim is correct. So if I claim that you are an Israeli provocateur does the making of that claim "prove" that you are one?

As to the protesting academics, academics can be found who will testify that there is no link between smoking and cancer, that there is no such thing as climate change, that nuclear energy is clean energy, and a variety of other positions. Academics can be bought.

and ALL of the links associated with the post. Many people agree that the pressure is a crude form of intimidation because the Lancet dares to tell the truth about Israeli conduct.

I am glad you posted the article, but you are arguing with abundantly documented fact. Your opinion about motivations is just that, an opinion. But there were no counter facts presented by the would be censors.

That's not reality, and yet it's far and away THE most important thing you believe Israel is required to follow.

Once you can acknowledge the RoR is fiction, we can proceed with reality - like the putrid Lancet letter.

Until then...

Just a general "any thing critical of Israeli conduct must be motivated by anti-Semitism?

A definition for you:
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1.Person A makes claim X.
2.Person B makes an attack on person A.
3.Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Your post is a textbook example of an ad hominem argument.

Everybody worth their salt is on to your vaudevillian routine.

Credibility is not something that I would say if I was asked to describe you.

It's like you've set aside the Thunderbird of your usual fare, and have instead turned to a don Melchor cabernet sauvingnon to get blind puke-drunk off of.

and the driver is just willfully ignorant of the approaching disaster: smiling as the wall approaches at 80mph.

Freakishly sad.

Stick with cooking methinks

So what we have is an OP that states a medical publisher us guilty of being bad to the poor Israelis for criticizing them for their Gaza offensive. I read The Lancet letter after doing a search.

The letter was mysteriously absent by the OP author for some reason, but if one reads the article it becomes apparent that The Lancett editor, Richard Horton, has made some people angry since he speaks out in defense of the Palestinian people.

From the article.

That's it? That's your universe shattering revelation? What farce, but what does one expect from your low-calibur gutter attacts?

I don't expect you to acknowledge it.

All of a sudden, you don't seem interested in the letter's lies.

Benghazi? Hmmm...

Your rants are becoming more unhinged by the day.

In other words a lie.

unconfirmed
Also found in: Legal, Financial.
unconfirmed (ˌʌnkənˈfɜːmd)
adj
1. not confirmed; uncorroborated: unconfirmed reports.
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Adj. 1. unconfirmed - not finally established or settledunconfirmed - not finally established or settled; "an unconfirmed letter of credit"; "unconfirmed rumors"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unconfirmed

...somewhere that Mr. BDS, Omar Barghouti, is a child molester, based on some anonymous source. Sure, it's unconfirmed but so what? When the confirmation comes in, Barghouti is going to prison for his crimes.

Nice reporting, right?

Not problematic in the least.

Last edited Sat Apr 25, 2015, 05:04 AM - Edit history (1)

I checked the Lancet editorial at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)61044-8/fulltext

And then I checked the Letter of Complaint at:
http://concernedacademics.org/

The Lancet editorial is rightly concerned with Israel’s treatment of civilians in Gaza, and supporting less killing and suffering of civilians isn’t support for terrorism. The Letter of complaint is full of BS Hasbara (tautology?), and links up to NGO-Monitor, which can best be described as a BS factory.

So basically, this is an attempt to distort the truth.

Edit:My link to the Lancet letter is a dud. the link provided by azurnoir below is correct.

when you click the link to the full letter it comes up as an untitled page but when you follow it from from the link below it works just fine

http://www.thelancet.com/gaza-letter-2014

when you go to the full text page the url is the one you posted

got news for ya it ain't

And “Egyptian ruler General Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi is a Jew.”

"Zionists" behind Boston Marathon bombing

Posting articles by Gilad Atzmon

===============

Got any excuses for those?

Last edited Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

....they wouldn't quote trash from David Duke, call Egypt's Sisi a Jew, or insist there's a RoR based on Int'l Law.

They wouldn't have to lie about having no conflict of interest or lie about Israel using poison gas. They certainly wouldn't write a sincere open letter supporting Hamas' resistance (terror) efforts while masquerading as humanitarians.

except the Davis Duke thing and a guess you must think everyone on the planet knows who he is and last the real quote isn't conflict of interest it's "We declare no competing interests." and it's from the rebuttal letter you posted

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2961232-0/fulltext

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134101586#post57

....with all sorts of fabricated claims trumps all.

Now back to the reality based world...

It's not.

At this point everyone's pretty certain of who's lying, and it's not the Lancet.

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush," quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

The authors of the letter had to lie just to get it published:

And that one can stage a flotilla to Tibet.

and that Caroline Glick regularly "nails it"

And that Kenneth Meshoe is a "man of God."

Shira, you are about as far from an arbiter of the nature of reality as DU has.

And no, advocacy is not a conflict o interest. A conflict of interest would be if they were being hired by another party to write, as with you know, The Tower (which is a wholly owned outlet of The Israel Project and serves as a media wing for that lobby group)

I knew you wouldn't do it.

In their reply back to the criticism they wrote:

Enter man of God, elected member of South African Parliament and victim of actual apartheid, Rev. Ken Meshoe.

You have a real knack for that sort of thing.

I tend to be somewhat forgetful and repetitive myself.

....when writing that I think al-Dura's alive and that his father killed him (an obvious contradiction - is he alive or did his dad kill him). You've repeated this dumb lie and many others over and over again in an effort to deflect from discussing the actual issues.

But you've got the answers you sought, Shira. Now maybe you could address all these nice people seeking answers from you?

Is it in the same place where you accuse me of being just fine with dropping a bomb or grenade into a crowd?

....or accepts all arguments articulated in the post, or even the title of the post?

At least you begrudgingly admitted the lie about the father killing his kid, but without saying you lied.

Even after several people informed you what bullshit it was, and hte sort of people behind it, you defended it.



You post shit you agree with Shira. It's pretty plain. if you don't like getting called on believing crazy shit, maybe don't show the rest of us how crazy your shit gets? Keep it to the +927 comments section, Ginger.

handed you your backside tied with a bow.

...forever more here as "Ginger".

Scoot says, so there. It's settled.

Besides, who are you to argue with such a superior intellect?

The authors say they are “appalled by the military onslaught on civilians in Gaza under the guise of punishing terrorists”.1 Far from this, the Israeli forces have specifically targeted a terrorist force, Hamas, which rained rockets indiscriminately on Israel's civilian population, actions that the European Union Council called “criminal and unjustifiable acts”.2

The authors decry the deliberate destruction of infrastructure, but this is because Hamas caches their bombs, rockets, and military forces in schools, hospitals, mosques, and residential areas.3 Hamas’ callous strategy of using human shields seeks to capitalise on the inevitable deaths of innocent civilians for propaganda purposes. While Israel drops leaflets and makes telephone calls to residents of areas being targeted for attack, exhorting civilians to leave, Hamas leaders in Gaza instruct their citizens to ignore these warnings, exposing them to mortal risk.4 Yet, Manduca and colleagues are unconscionably silent on this issue.

Manduca and colleagues state that “building materials have been blockaded so that schools, homes, and institutions cannot be properly rebuilt”.1 But they ignore the discovery so far of 31 complex tunnels (with many more believed to exist) used by Hamas to send terrorists into Israel, using up to 500 tons of concrete per tunnel.5 How many kindergartens, schools, hospitals, residences, sewage treatment plants, and office buildings could Hamas have built or rebuilt instead?

According to Manduca and colleagues “medical stock items in Gaza were already at an all time low because of the blockade” but the cause has nothing to do with Israel. According to Physicians for Human Rights–Israel, all pharmaceutical drugs can and do enter Gaza. However, according to WHO, there has been a shortage of drugs and medical equipment in Gaza over the past years, as a result of debts owed by the Palestinian Authority to pharmaceutical importers and traders.6 Why did Hamas divert billions of dollars to the building of tunnels and the purchase of rockets and other weaponry? Why did they not buy medicine for the sick?

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2961232-0/fulltext

Pretty much all anyone needs to know about the Open Letter to Gaza, from the factually inaccurate content to the racist backgrounds of the authors

http://www.thetower.org/article/a-serious-medical-journal-just-went-totally-clinical/

Short excerpt of lies by omission and commission

A radical who advocates 911 terror on the USA is an advocate for Hamas....

the letter you posted here contains the every day pablum of the ProIsrael community the leafleting part is especially rich because during Protective Edge IDF would bomb one area the residents would flee to another and IDF would then bomb that area and so on

as for the cement tell us exactly how many cubic feet can be gotten from 500 tons and how many cubic feet go into an average house that is built of cement

they admitted there was medical shortages the point was that Israel was innocent in fact that was the point of the entire letter

...the occupation and siege. Their terror, completely whitewashed.....