Dr. Feldman Comments at Irregular Times, Gets Called a Terrorist

Originally published at American Third Party Report

On the Irregular Times article “Is America Not Safe?” by ,  Dr. Marc Allan Feldman, a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s 2016 presidential nomination, disputed the premise of the article that the United States is perfectly safe.  Feldman argued:

America is not safe.
In Ohio, so far this year alone, there have been nearly one thousand traffic fatalities. Why do Americans risk their lives simply to drive from point A to point B?
Our food environment is polluted with toxic high caloric density, high simple sugar, low fiber products that cause obesity with associated hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Childhood obesity, in particular is epidemic.
Physical activity levels are down, with central air conditioning, cable TV, internet, video games, and fewer attractions within walking distance to home.
It is only by raising consciousness and confronting these serious threats to our citizens that we can make America safe.

Regular Irregular Times contributor J Clifford characterized the above as a “terrorist argument,” speculating Feldman wanted to “make people afraid, and maybe they’ll support [his] little presidential campaign[.]” He then attacked the substance of Feldman’s point on traffic fatalities:

There are 8 million registered drivers in the state of Ohio. http://www.statista.com/statistics/198029/total-number-of-us-licensed-drivers-by-state/

That means, if there are one thousand traffic fatalities in Ohio this year, there is a mortality rate for drivers of about one-hundred-thousandths of one percent.

Is that what you call a “serious threat”, Marc?

Can we please stop the hyperbole?

Feldman countered:

8 million drivers.
10 percent is 800,000
1 percent is 8000.
so 1000 is one eight of one percent.
it’s not hard to do in your head if you take it one step at a time.

a mortality rate of one-hundred-thousandth of one percent would be 8000/100,000 or 8% of a person.
So you are off by a factor of 10,000, th risk is 10,000 times what you said it was.

I’m guessing you went to public school?

My bad.
1 percent is 80,000
1000 is one eightieth of one percent.
so you are only off by a factor of 1,000 times.

I went to Public School too.
But the risk per year of death is still 1 in 8000, or about 12.5 deaths per 100,000 people.

J Clifford replied:

Marc, the risk of death from traffic accidents on any given drive is close to zero.

This is not to say that traffic deaths don’t happen, but that the death rate from traffic accidents is not a “serious threat”.

You’re encouraging fear, exaggerating a risk of death in order to gain attention for your political campaign.

Don’t you think that’s a problem, Marc?

Feldman retorted:

“the risk of death from traffic accidents on any given drive is close to zero.”

That statement would be relevant if few people drove, or if they drove very rarely. But many people drive, and they drive a lot. So although the risk of death from any one given drive is small, the risk of death from car accidents is considerable. To claim that the risk is “close to zero” is irresponsible. This is not an issue of fear, because much of the risk is controllable with appropriate behavior. Texting while driving, drunk driving (or buzzed driving), teens driving with a large number of passengers, all increase the risk several-fold.

Traffic accidents are a “serious threat”, and driving or riding in a car is probably one of the most dangerous things most people do on a daily basis.

“You’re encouraging fear, exaggerating a risk of death in order to gain attention for your political campaign.”
I am encouraging rational concern and respect for risks that are real and measurable. I am a physician with training in public health. You would know this if you read the article about me written here by . . . you.

“Don’t you think that’s a problem, Marc”
Yes, I do.

Thereafter, Feldman’s fellow Libertarian presidential candidate Robert Milnes, an anti-Semite who often comments at Irregular Times, chimed in with something completely off topic:

Feldman is one of about 6 million latent jewish American terrorists.

Feldman did not respond.

Irregular Times covered the Feldman campaign in January with the article “Understanding the Marc Allan Feldman for President Campaign.”

24 thoughts on “Dr. Feldman Comments at Irregular Times, Gets Called a Terrorist

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    That was kind of a weird interaction.

    I was actually just taking some time to research Dr. Feldman today, and hadn’t noticed any specific “public health” connections (that’s an interest of mine — my spouse works in epidemiology), but I see that he’s a patent holder on some TV tech, as well as a certified expert in Nationbuilder, IIRC the same software the LNC is preparing to blow a bunch of money on.

  2. Thane Eichenauer

    Interesting article. Emotionally arresting title. I learned more about Dr. Feldman. I can only hope the price of mentioning he whose name I choose not to utter is worth it for the greater good of humanity.

  3. Gene Berkman

    1 per cent of 8 million is 80,000, not 8,000. So 1000 is one eightieth of one percent of 8 million.

    (Perhaps Dr Feldman got confused, after noting 10% of 8 million is 800,000, he then took 1 percent of that 800,000 to get 8,000.)

  4. Andy

    “Thereafter, Feldman’s fellow Libertarian presidential candidate Robert Milnes, an anti-Semite who often comments at Irregular Times, chimed in with something completely off topic:

    ‘Feldman is one of about 6 million latent jewish American terrorists.'”

    William Saturn, why are you so interested in what Robert Milnes says about anything?

  5. paulie

    As to Irregular Times, they have a history of being hostile to Libertarians and Greens.

    They do a lot of positive articles on Greens also, as well as some negative. As far as the LP they are usually negative.

  6. Losty

    Um, Mr. Feldman has about as much chance of getting elected the next president as I do.

    But, At the same time,

    ‘Feldman is one of about 6 million latent jewish American terrorists.’”

    If you can use initials on here…
    WTF!!!!!!

    Not Liking someone’s politics completely is one thing. Going There, Wherever there is?
    My God.

    I may not want him to get the nomination. And I don’t think if Jesus Christ got the LP Nomination he would be elected.

    But to go from disagreeing with someone’s politics to calling him a terrorist?
    Then Alleging there are 6 Million Terrorists in there country in general? Then A Jewish Terrorist?

    And This Mr. Milnes, He’s a serious LP Candidate? A serious Anything?

  7. Thane Eichenauer

    Losty commented “He’s a serious LP Candidate? A serious Anything?”

    I also cast my vote for “No.”

  8. Andy

    “Jed Ziggler

    December 4, 2015 at 00:30

    Andy,

    To me they seemed unhealthily obsessed with Americans Elect, but it is true that they cast a lot of light onto the subject”

    They had the best coverage of Americans Elect of any news outlet in my opinion.

  9. William Saturn Post author

    “William Saturn, why are you so interested in what Robert Milnes says about anything?”

    Unless I’m mistaken, the last time I mentioned Milnes in an IPR article was April 1, 2014. The only reason I did so here was because I wanted to use an attention-getter in the title to emphasize how the Irregular Times community treated Dr. Feldman. The first commentator there did not explicitly call Feldman a terrorist but Milnes did and so I included his ridiculous comment to make the headline accurate. Originally I was only going to post this story at A3PR and to my blog but I was encouraged to post it here as well. See https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/12/judge-jim-gray-liberty-and-freedom-from-speech/#comment-1275743. Plus it may direct some readers to A3PR.

  10. Andy


    William Saturn Post author

    December 4, 2015 at 01:45

    ‘William Saturn, why are you so interested in what Robert Milnes says about anything?’

    Unless I’m mistaken, the last time I mentioned Milnes in an IPR article was April 1, 2014.”

    Milnes seems to pop up on your website.

    You seem to be interested in some very odd characters, Milnes, Nathan Norman, Vernon, etc…

  11. Marc Allan Feldman

    @Thomas L. Knapp
    After I finished medical school, internship, residency in anesthesiology, and fellowship in Neuroanesthesia and Neuro Intensive Care, I completed a Master’s program in Health Finance and Management in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins (Now Bloomberg) school of Public Health,. I was the lead anesthesiologist and Site Principle Investigator in the Study of Medical Testing for Cataract Surgery, a randomized prospective study of over 19,000 cataract procedures at 9 sites to measure the benefit, if any, of pre-op EKGs and blood tests prior to cataract surgery. Results of the study were published in several Journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine.

  12. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dr. Feldman,

    Interesting! In one of those cases of weird serendipity, right after doing some reading up on you yesterday at e.g. LinkedIn (I’m researching the candidates and will be “reviewing” them over the next few months on my podcast) and noticing your time at Johns Hopkins, I went to my wife’s employer’s annual dinner last night (University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professionals). One of the new faculty members who was introduced came from Johns Hopkins and, I’m pretty sure, Bloomberg specifically.

    If I might make two suggestions regarding your campaign site:

    – More about you specifically on the “about” page; and

    – A specific “issues” or “platform” page where people can quickly start getting a fix on your policy positions.

    Your “votes not for sale”/$5 limit are interesting hooks, but the two things above would help set those hooks to let you reel in supporters (I’m saying this as a reasonably experienced campaign technician who wants to see a good, idea-driven fight for the nomination, not to opine one way or another on the content of your positions).

  13. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Doesn’t seem to me like Dr. Feldman was seriously called a terrorist. Just internet hyperbole that no one intends or expects to be taken literally.

  14. paulie

    Doesn’t seem to me like Dr. Feldman was seriously called a terrorist. Just internet hyperbole that no one intends or expects to be taken literally.

    He wasn’t called a terrorist in the sense of some person who goes out and kills and injures people and destroys property to inspire terror so as to achieve some ideological aim. The author of the original IRT article was making the point that some people – a lot of people actually – exaggerate the risks people in the US typically face, inspiring a climate of overblown fear which is also used to influence the debate on public policy. The author was trying to make the point that the manipulation of fear (terror) to achieve policy goals, not terroristic violence, is the defining feature of terrorism. So when Dr. Feldman said that “we” (Americans) are in fact unsafe in various public health aspects he was called a “terrorist” in that sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *