In the comment section of my last column a person who goes by the alias Couchman wrote:
“Mrs Mandaville, it’s clear Mr. Traxler wants to argue and continue to insist science is a Chinese menu where one can pick and choose what parts of science should and should not be trusted. Climate scientists use the same chemistry, physics and biology that people who build jets, skyscrapers, bridges, medical devices and pharmaceuticals.
“A while back Mr. Traxler wrote about his treatment for prostate cancer and praised the doctors who were treating him and the advanced science used in his treatments. Given Mr. Traxler’s propensity to challenge some science, I am left wondering why he didn’t seek out someone who would treat him with mercury, arsenic or give him a few good bleedings if modern science is so suspect.”
Please note I used complete paragraphs and did not take the Couchman’s words out of context.
The first paragraph missed the point of the column, but that that is not unusual for Couchman. The column’s point was that, if true, if we take the climate change folks at their word, then it is all over for humans on Earth. The point was that taking them at their word, believing in them 100%, totally accepting the science, the explosive growth in the third world will end human life.
Couchman has a habit of never reading the column before he/she comments. He/she has placed quotes around things I never said, taking them out of context. A very cowardly and unethical thing to do.
It is the second paragraph that is contemptible, actually below contempt. I wrote of my treatment for advanced, aggressive, prostate cancer to help others, to urge men to get tested and to not fear treatment. Stories of the side effects of treatment being worse than the cancer are all over the chat rooms. I had a friend tell me he would never undergo radiation as it was more painful than the cancer and did not help, it just made money for the medical corporations. I found the treatment to be difficult but hardly painful or even very unpleasant, no worse than a cold. I wrote of the side effects and treatment with full candor. Again, with the goal of helping others.
Walking the readers through the process and telling all I hoped would calm irrational fears and men would be more active in testing and aggressive in treatment. Well that was before the Townbroadcast became a publication that condones, even encourages mocking and ridiculing those who dare attempt to help others. Management will deny this of course.
The mockery must be directed at a conservative columnist, however. Bleeding, arsenic, mercury, really? No good deed goes unpunished. The editor could have added a note after the truly contemptible comment made by Couchman as he has done dozens of times for the four liberal columnists, to include the column in question; he jumped in twice on the side of the leftist, but condoned wholeheartedly Couchman’s vile attack.
Couchman mocked me for not believing in “science” and believing my doctors. If they had given me the wrong diagnosis four times in the past, as the climate change folks have, I would have questioned them. The east and west coasts are not underwater as Vice President Al Gore promised in his 1992 bestselling book Earth in the Balance, nor is all life destroyed by acid rain, fried by the sun because of the hole in the ozone layer, or frozen from global cooling.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. So just when did questioning scientific theories become a bad thing?
I will never again attempt to help educate folks in the pages this publication nor recommend others do. The entire series of columns on treating prostate cancer was totally nonpolitical, again with the goal of helping and educating. Being attacked while trying to help others is sad, and even worse is the editor embracing contemplible actions.
AB,
Please don’t take what these liberals say personal. Unfortunately when they have no argument they resort to personal attacks. Please continue to educate us both politically and medically. You are very much appreciated by most.
Cheers!!
Mr. Wilkens,
John,
Cheers, indeed. Thank you for the comment.
Mr. Wilkens, please don’t lump all liberals together like this. Please say “this liberal.” I happen to be a flaming liberal who agrees with Mr. Traxler that anyone who advocates for the education and betterment of his fellows and fellowettes in the health arena is to be applauded for his efforts. I hope he does not cease in this endeavor.
I think I detect an accusation of a lapse of journalistic integrity on the part of the editor of Town Broadcast. I strenuously object. An apology to David Young is in order. Your educational columns were both brave and commendable. I understand angry response. Young, however, is a man of utmost integrity, as I think you know as well as I.
Mr. Basura,
Sir,
Any person of “utmost integrity” would not play favorites. He has condemned/corrected comments directed to you and the other progressives many times. a “Couchman you were out of line” would have done it. It takes more integrity to stand for those you disagree with than those you agree with.
Thank you for the comment.
AB,
You 100% correct.
Cheers!
I have no ” ponies in this race” ….as one on the side lines, you all may not want to ” throw boulders,but stick to stones ” in criticism of your fellow journalists and the editor.
The quickest way to destroy anything is to have uncontrollable desention in what someone wants destroyed.
If this publication ever disappears due to ” in fighting” We who comment will never be able to express our opinions on matters that concern this area.
Noone has to agree with any opinion, but we do need a way to get these options and issues out .
Let’s agree to disagree, but do it in a civil manner.
Bob, Since David Young is in our genealogy library (Then and Now) every Wednesday, gleaning articles from the old Wayland papers for his Town Broadcast; we have had many conversations. These often include your name. I know he felt your articles chronicling your Cancer treatments and advise to others were very helpful. Just because Couchman doesn’t know his — from a hole in the ground does not speak for everyone. Dave has praised your work on the township planning commission more than once and has stood up for you in that position. I know he considers you a friend. He has said more than once how much he agrees with what you say. He just doesn’t agree with you politically. I don’t agree with my own Brother politically, but I’m not going to disown him for that. I don’t know what transpired between you two that made you so disapproving of him. But, it seems a shame to throw away the friendship. Maybe you two can, as Harry Smit put it, agree to disagree. Don’t let Couchman win this argument.
I know I appreciated your efforts to educate people about Prostate Cancer. My Father died of Prostate Cancer in 1971. Education such as yours may have been helpful.
I hope to continue reading your submissions to Town Broadcast. I don’t always agree with you, but your comments are always given without any extra malice. There will always be jerks like Couchman.
I’ll stand by my reply. I see Mr. Traxler’s views on science bifurcated. When it comes to human medicine and tratment of disease we should trust scientists and doctors but climate scientists are to be doubted. I was unaware that commenters were required to stay on specific points of Mr. Traxler’s regular commentaries and not comment on how scientists should be believed and trusted in some fields of study but questioned regarding their conclusions on climate science.
I’m no stranger to cancer. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer when I was a HS freshman and she died from liver cancer when I was a HS senior approximately 15 months after she had been declared cancer free. My paternal grandmother and fraternal grandfather both died from cancer. All three of my mother’s siblings, her brothers died from cancer. Two of my fathers three siblings, all females died from cancer.
Recently a friend’s wife finished treatment for breast cancer and the treatment is light years ahead of what my mother had experienced. Hunting cancer with cell specific treatment with direct injected pharmaceuticals to the affected site along with tiny area directed radiation and cold laser after a modified mastectomy. That was as opposed to the radical mastectomy and aggressivse wide area radiation treatments that did appear to work for a time.
No where did I challenge Mr. Traxler’s competence or desire to advocate for cancer survivors. If he wants to shift the topic so be it. I applaud everyone who takes time to aid cancer victims. Those are laudable efforts. What I did challenge was his questioning of climate science and the premise that climate science is flawed so we should just throw in the towel. Just keep on keepin’ on with what we are doing because the US isn’t the biggest polluter.
Mr. Traxler and I disagree on a myriad of topics and I will accept that he doesn’t view questioning climate science and all the areas of scientific study that goes into that the same way he respects oncologists and the science they use to fight and prevent cancer.
Couchman,
Your words, “No where did I challenge Mr. Traxler’s competence or desire to advocate for cancer survivors.”
In the original comment you said, “Given Mr. Traxler’s propensity to challenge some science, I am left wondering why he didn’t seek out someone who would treat him with mercury, arsenic or give him a few good bleedings if modern science is so suspect.”
I rest my case.
AB,
Please don’t try to reason with this liberal. This is an absolute waste of time and energy. There is no winning with this type. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Thanks for being you!!
Cheers!!!
Pat,
Thank you for the comment. it is much appreciated.