| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Moonbat "expert" sez war on terror saving few lives |
| 2005-09-09 |
| The U.S. "war on terror" is saving fewer lives than just spending the money on disease prevention and research, and has probably caused deaths by taking money away from basic services, an expert said on Thursday. The accusation is not new, but Dr. Erica Frank of the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta said she has calculated the cost, in terms of lives, of the Bush administration's terror policies. "The most recent effects of these diversions of funding have been seen in the unfolding tragedy of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the surrounding area," Frank wrote in a commentary published in the British Medical Journal. "Governments must protect their citizens, and anticipating these possible future threats is appropriate and could prove essential to Americans' health." Frank warned there is a threat that because of the U.S. government's policy, enormous numbers of Americans will die unnecessarily. On September 11, 2001, 3,400 people died because of the four intentional plane crashes in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. But 5,200 other Americans died that same day from common diseases, according to Frank. To estimate how many Americans died of routine causes on September 11, Frank used national estimates of mortality from various causes. "Predictable tragedies happen every day. We know strategies to reduce deaths from tobacco, alcohol, poor diet, unintentional injuries, and other predictable causes. And we know that millions of people will die unless we protect the population against these routine causes of death," she wrote. Yet more money is spent to protect against deaths that are not likely to happen. "For example, in September 2002, New York was awarded $1.3 million to reduce heart disease, the leading killer of New Yorkers, while $34 million was awarded for bioterrorism preparedness in the state," Frank added. Proponents have argued that bioterror preparedness would build up the public health structure in general. "If this is an improvement it sure is frightening to think what this might have looked like before," Frank said in a telephone interview. She cited numerous reports showing the federal government cut spending to reinforce the levees built to protect New Orleans from the flood that has devastated the city. "Since the point of investing in counterterror is to protect American lives, the question is a dollar better spent in Iraq or is it better spent here?" she asked. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #9 "And we know that millions of people will die unless we protect the population against these routine causes of death," Everyday terrorists preach "Death to all Infidels"...No Problem. But I have to drive 30 miles to find a bar where I can light up a cigarette. What's alarming to me is how many people believe this nonsense. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-09-09 12:33 |
| #8 The BMJ USED to be a well regarded. Leftism is a cancer destroying freedom. |
| Posted by: Ulereger Clavigum6227 2005-09-09 12:13 |
| #7 I demand Dr. Frank change her name.....Dr. Asshat or Idiot would be fine. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-09-09 11:11 |
| #6 This is BlameBush(TM) with an academic veneer. Exactly right - Dems love to complain about spending when it's being done by the military; bonus points for military spending by a Republican. They should just forward this to Howard Zinn and have him 'reissue' it in a few weeks. |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-09-09 10:35 |
| #5 Unfortunately all of us will pass away from one cause or another. Most of us all ready know that certain behaviors are unhealthy. Excessive amounts of fatty foods, alcohol plus cigarettes will cause health problems that will kill you. As always being stupid is still subject to capital punishment. But no matter how much money you pump into educational programs geared towards health people will still do stupid things. |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2005-09-09 10:33 |
| #4 On September 11, 2001, 3,400 people died because of the four intentional plane crashes in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. But 5,200 other Americans died that same day from common diseases, according to Frank. Here's the difference, Dr. Frank: 3,400 people didn't just coincidentally "die" in "intentional plane crashes". They were *MURDERED*. If you cannot tell the moral difference between dying from a disease and being murdered, then you should be spending the rest of your days in a mental institution -- as a patient -- rather than teaching. You're clearly a danger to your students and the patients they will eventually treat. "The most recent effects of these diversions of funding have been seen in the unfolding tragedy of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the surrounding area," Frank wrote in a commentary published in the British Medical Journal. Note that the coward didn't have the guts to publish her bile in the US, and that she' yet another maggot using the NO dead to push her political agenda. We know strategies to reduce deaths from tobacco, alcohol, poor diet, unintentional injuries, and other predictable causes. Anyone notice a common thread in what she wants the government to focus on? They're largely *personal choices*. I can choose to smoke, drink, or eat poorly; I cannot choose when someone will attempt to murder me. Yet she prefers government dictate to us how to live over it trying to prevent our murder by those who have declared their intention to do just that. Again, this woman is a dangerous lunatic. I'm sick of having her type held up as experts on anything but their own depravity. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-09-09 08:52 |
| #3 Governments make irrational choices, because electors make irrational choices. The reality is that people place a higher value on being safe from some kinds of threats than others. I could use the same argument to not fund climate change initiatives, or to spend the money currently spent on AIDS on developing a bird flu vaccine. In fact, I could raise money and improve public health by taxing the things known to contribute to heart disease, diabetes, obesity, etc. This is BlameBush(TM) with an academic veneer. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-09-09 02:01 |
| #2 She must be aspiring to replace Helen Caldicott as the world's screwiest peacenik doctor. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-09-09 01:30 |
| #1 After all, Osama built clinics and day care centers; why can't we? /sarcasam |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-09-09 01:01 |