ad hominem attack
"Knowledge is power; but who hath duly Considered the power of Ignorance?Knowledge slowly builds up what Ignorance in an hour pulls down. Knowledge, through patient and frugal centuries, enlarges discovery and makes record of it; Ignorance, wanting its day's dinner, lights a fire with the record, and gives a flavor to its one roast with the burned souls of many generations." — George Eliot, from the author's last novel, Daniel Deronda
"Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort that most thinking humans experience when a deeply held belief is challenged by new information that disproves the old belief. Since it is impossible for most people to simultaneously hold two mutually exclusive beliefs, anxiety, confusion, anger and denial can result, including the urge to harm the messenger of the new truth."

"Libel is published defamation of character, as opposed to spoken defamation, which is slander. Libel can expose a person to hatred, shame, disgrace, contempt or ridicule; injure a person's reputation or cause the person to be shunned or avoided; or injure the person in his or her occupation. Libel is by definition false."— www.thoughtco.com
"Ad hominem - short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person...rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."Wikipedia
"Ad hominem - an attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion. Ad hominem attacks are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence." - Urban Dictionary
"An ad hominem attack often is an important signal indicating that the attacker is wrong, very wrong indeed. It is nothing else than an open admission by 'the other side' that they have no more reasonable arguments, that they are resorting to unreasonable notions, and that they have lost not just the plot but also the debate. In other words, being personally attacked in this way is a compliment and an unfailing sign of victory - and, if that is so, we should be proud of every single ad hominem attack we get after a well-reasoned debate." — Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." - Johnathan Swift
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." - George Orwell
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary (or his profession or honor - ed. note) depends upon his not understanding it." — Upton Sinclair
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dislike being duped by anybody, especially war-mongers, fascists, racists, politicians, narcissists, megalomaniacs, sociopathic entities, the over-privileged/ultra-wealthy or anybody in a position of power and wealth that uses deception and lies in order to maintain their power, wealth and "honor". And that includes the powerful pharmaceutical and medical industries that had so much influence over my profession of medicine and which put so much effort into influencing me and my physician-colleagues into becoming high-volume prescription-writers. It should be mentioned that Big Pharma and Big Medicine have grown so top-heavy with high-priced administrators, bureaucrats, marketing agents and other non-care-givers that they now consider themselves to be "too big to fail and too big to criticize".

And so, in order to keep their shareholders happy with increased profits, increased growth and a rising stock price, they have had to resort to duping their employees and customers into believing provably false (but very profitable) myths that have grown up like weeds over the last two generations.

I also dislike being lied about. But I really despise being libeled (see definition above).

Over the last several weeks I have been publicly demeaned and defamed in the Reader's "In Box" letters to the editor section. One person asserted that what I was writing about was unsupported (thus doubting my unassailable proof about the dangers of America's infant and childhood over-vaccination schedules that mandate the intramuscular injections into tiny immunologically-immature infants of up to 8 unproven-for-safety cocktails of neurotoxic vaccines at a single sitting at the 2, 4 and 6 month well-baby visits).

One of the writer's issues appeared to be the series of Gardasil injections for pre-pubertal girls which has resulted in the widely documented neurologically injuries, even deaths of previously healthy young girls - because of the yet-to-be-proven theory that cancer of the cervix might be averted 20 - 30 years after the shots.

One of the readers called my columns false, scientifically unsupported and then used as her source the darling of the multinational corporate vaccine industry, the multimillionaire Dr Paul Offit. Offit is an academic pediatrician with very deep financial and professional conflicts of interest. He is not primarily a clinician, meaning that he has not dealt significantly with the grief of the parents of vaccine-injured kids like a lot of us compassionate caregivers - who really listen to, and believe, their patients. (Dr Offit, incidentally, became a multimillionaire after he invented and patented a vaccine - so he couldn't be expected to bite the hands of those entities that have fed him so lavishly.) He is too deeply invested in vaccines to even want to learn about their dangers. He is a victim of terminal cognitive dissonance.

Offit is notorious for his ignorance about the basic science that refutes much of what he writes about. In a 2008 lecture on youtube, he is quoted as saying :
"I think conservatively, one could say that, based on their caveats, that one could probably respond to about 100,000 different vaccines at one time."... "I would say you probably could get 100,000 vaccines every day."

My second attacker was from Bemidji, MN. He called me a conspiracy theorist, an uncritical thinker, living in cloud-cuckoo land, not to be believed and a disseminator of garbage. He has obviously not honestly read my columns or watched the recommended lectures of other scholars and experts that I have recommended; nor has he tracked down the documentation I have often provided. If he did and still holds his viewpoint then he probably also is in terminal denial due to his unresolved cognitive dissonance.

What seemed to be especially problematic for the second critic is the fact that, after issuing the unfounded, personal insults against me, he revealed that he was irrationally libeling several of the websites that occasionally re-publish my columns. In his attack on those fine websites, he was trusting the veracity of one of the most notorious fake "fact check" websites on the web (read the expose below of mediabiasfactcheck.com, especially the critique of the owner of the site).

Neither of the critics mentioned having any professional credentials that could back up their criticism. They apparently only knew what the most prevalent - and ubiquitous - propaganda told them to believe. Nevertheless, please be assured that everything I have written concerning vaccines and psychiatric drugs - which refutes a lot of what the once honorable (and now deeply conflicted) CDC, FDA, NIH, NIMH, AMA and AAP have claimed - is provably true. What I have written is also documentable, even though Google has made it hard to search for the information and Wikipedia has censored much of it out of existence. But one can be sure, even if if the two critics were honest, open-minded and educable, that they did not do justice to the information I provided.

In their defense, it should be said that they have not had the advantage of reading the dozens of books on the topics that I have read (and that 99% of practicing physicians have also not read or have not had the time to read).

Following the Hippocratic Oath and the Precautionary Principle

Of course the reality of the situation is that I have spent hundreds of hours reading and researching the issues that I have written about, and I have done a lot of documentation that backs up each column. In addition, contrary to Big Pharma, Big Medicine, the CDC, the FDA, the AMA, the APA, the AAP, Big Media, et al (all of whom are making a lot of money on the over-vaccination of infants program, the over-diagnosing of so-called "mental illnesses" and the over-prescribing of dangerous and addictive chemicals), I have no conflicts of interest or other ulterior motives (financial or professional or otherwise) in my advocacy warning about treatments. As a devotee of the Hippocratic Oath and the Precautionary Principle, I feel compelled to exercise my solemn duty to warn others about the potential for harm from some of the vaccines and some of the drugs that can easily do more harm than good.

As a caring physician who has seen the dark under-belly of Big Pharma and Big Medicine, I have no choice but to speak out.

In addition, I have often had the privilege (or burden?) of listening to the sobering stories of many patients, including stories about their children who have become autistic or physically or neurologically maimed - or even killed - because of vaccines (or psychiatric drugs). I truly believe the old post-911 public relations campaign that said: "if you see something, you should say something" (even though the original context was to convince people to be willing to rat on their neighbors).

Read more here.