Recently I was contacted about a media opportunity that sought to shed some light on the relationship between medical practices and “going green,” as they say.  I was too busy to comply with the short deadline, but here were some of the questions.

Every business does its best to be as environmentally friendly as possible. But do customers actually care? I’m looking for sources to address these questions as it relates to medical practices: With a growing emphasis on sustainability, how important is it for a medical practice to be green itself? Why would patients care how green your medical practice is? How does it benefit them? How does it benefit your practice? What image does it portray? Can a patient actually distinguish between “greenwashing” and a practice that truly cares about the environment? Can you provide a specific example or two as to how your medical practice or your client have made their practice greener and seen positive benefits as a result.

I have mixed feelings about missing this opportunity, for I have no doubt that he would have found my answers somewhat different from whomever he eventually found.  You see, I believe that research funded by the government is politically tainted and therefore suspect.  Government funded research in my mind, therefore, is false, until proven otherwise.  Think about it.  If you are studying a vaccine to cure a disease, and you know that if you find such a vaccine your government grants are finished, what is the likelihood that you are going to discover said vaccine any time soon?  How can the results of government studies not keep in mind what the agency paying for the study’s results wants to hear?  How can you do government research and not keep an eye toward conducting it in a way that promotes the continuation of the grant money?

It is the same with this greenhouse gas hoax.  The hucksters at the East Anglia research facility were busted with emails that proved that they had eliminated data that wasn’t conducive to their conclusion that the earth was warming.  More and more scientists are having a crisis of conscience and calling this the hoax that it is.  As Rothbard would ask, “Cui bono?”  All you need to do is follow the money to find out that those promoting these lies serve to financially benefit from them.  Governments love this insanity as it lays the basis for their “carbon tax.”  

Now we come full circle back to my point.  The Surgery Center of Oklahoma doesn’t endorse the global warming greening sustainability insanity that is made of lies and at best conjecture, not science…certainly not unbiased science.  Even if the earth was warming (not likely, as proof now exists that scientists have deceitfully covered up data that shows otherwise!), there is no proof and no way to prove that man’s activity has anything to do with it.  One small volcanic eruption spews more trash into the atmosphere than man has in the entirety of his existence.  In answer to the journalist’s questions above, I think our facility has even more credibility having rejected the false teachings of radical environmentalism.  Ah…transparency…not just in prices!

A recent news article was making the case that “research had shown”…I love that…that all red meat was bad for us.  What insanity.  This is such a broad and irresponsible statement.  All I needed to see to prove to me that the researchers were biased with the usual agenda was at the end of the article.  They said that what’s good for our bodies (the elimination of red meat) was also good for the planet.  Fewer livestock would reduce the CO2 containing greenhouse gas methane (cow farts, basically) and wasn’t that a great thing, too.  

I think many readers are more discerning than the fools that write this junk have any idea.  Let’s hope so.

G. Keith Smith, M.D.