Posted on 10/31/2004 9:54:08 AM PST by marktwain
Dr. Dean Edell, nationally syndicated radio talk show host and medical doctor, created his own "October Surprise" on the 29th of October, 2004. Dr. Edell highlighted the now discredited Lancet article which claimed that 98,000 civilians had been killed in Iraq since the invasion of March, 2003.
A caller challenged Dr. Edell on his promotion of these numbers, saying that it was political on Dr. Edell's part. Dr. Edell denied that it was political, because he was only citing a medical journal, that the numbers were simply a "fact" and that most of the victims were women and children. He then went on to say that he was not against war, but that we need to consider the costs and alternatives, listing a litany of DNC/Kerry talking points as the other considerations. He then claimed that he could name 10 dictators in the world that were worse than Saddam. The closest that I can come would be Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and he, in my opinion, is a distant second.
As Dr. Edell has built a large audience based on his medical knowledge and his claim to scientific objectivity, this blatant attempt to influence the election amounts to a boundary violation. In the medical profession, a boundary violation occurs when a medical professional attempts to use his power and influence as a medical professional in order to gain that which he would not gain without it.
While Dr. Edell is entitled to his opinon, and legally can promote it over the airwaves, I am going to let him know that I believe that he acted against his medical ethics, as I believe the authors of the Lancet article did.
Dr. Edell can be reached at comments@healthcentral.com.
Dr. Edell
I have been a faithful listener of your show for many years. I have been primarily attracted to your concern for scientific objectivity. This is why I was stunned by the blatant political turn your show took with the showcasing of the junk science Lancet article about the number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion. I do not say junk science without reason. Any "study" which gives a 95% confidence rating between 8 thousand and 200 thousand is junk. As with most junk studies, this one has a small sample size.
What convinced me of the political objective of the inclusion of this study in your show was the statement, in response to a caller, that the studies results were "fact", that he should accept them a fact because they were from a medical journal. As someone who has watched the politicization of the New England Journal of Medicine over the last 20 years, I no longer assume that they publish "fact" without concern for politics. The way this study was included in your show, and the response, was, given your reputation, essentially a boundary violation of medical ethics, using your medical reputation to promote your political agenda.
As part of your response to the caller, you claimed to be able to name 10 dictators who were worse than Saddam. Please do so. On reflection, the closest that I can come to is Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and he is a pretty distant second to Saddam.
I await your list. Until then, you have lost the respect of this listener.
I turned him off years ago for blowing liberal smoke up his listeners posteriors.
Great post. Thanks.
Could you provide links to articles which discredit the Lancet piece?
Many thanks in advance.
Then you know he is further to the left than the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
This is the only way the media will stop their partisan B.S. We have to slap them down every time!
Edell better hope Bush's side doesn't win...< /sarcasm>
Somewhere in America there's the worst doctor in America.
I turned him off years ago. He kept bringing up his vegetarian/vegan crap.
A proponent of infanticide....a stinking piece of shite.
I think he views himself an objectivist.
I loathe him....he and Larry O'Donnell need to get a room.
He's been a leftie for years and years.
Common sense discredits the Lancer piece.
The Iraqi war involved fewer collateral casualties than any other war I can think of.
Most of the people killed in Iraq over the past year were killed by Saddamites. You can be sure that if Saddam were still in charge and they were free to kill whoever they wanted, a lot more people would have died.
Finally, the 100,000 figure is simply incredible. There's simply no way that number could be reached by a few daily shootings and bombings. We don't keep a body count, but I would imagine that our troops have killed at most a few thousand terrorists, along with a few hundred bystanders whom the terrorists were using as shields. That is nothing like the daily murder rate under Saddam.
I never heard of him, but if he refused to consider the validity of the caller challenging him, then he didn't get any traction out of his false claim.
I've caught smelly whiffs of his liberalism lately and never listen anymore. (Not that I ever did much anyway...)
Dr. Edell's political expertise matches Terry McAulife's.
"Doctor" Dean hasn't seen a patient in decades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.