Review of Spingola's SH book: http://memoryholeblog.com/2015/09/13...anna-spingola/
September 13, 2015
on a Rolla: A Review of “Screening Sandy Hook” by Deanna Spingola 12
by James Tracy • Guest Posts • Tags: government conspiracy, public opinion, Sandy Hook Elementary
Submitted by “Lophatt”
I recently received a call from a friend who asked,”Did you hear about Screening Sandy Hook by Deanna Spingola”? My answer decried my ignorance, as I had not even heard of Ms. Spingola to begin with. After a brief discussion, I learned that Spingola was a radio personality of sorts who hosted a regular podcast on
“American Free Press.” I was advised that she had https://memorygapdotorg.files.wordpr...ngsh.jpg?w=474previously been a skeptic of the official story of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre (SHES), but had recently done an about face on the issue. Indeed, it seemed that Ms. Spingola had rather suddenly begun to launch radio diatribes at various researchers involved with SHES. What could have happened to affect such a sudden and complete rejection of her earlier position and compel her to target fellow researchers in such a belligerent manner?
Not having any preconceptions of Spingola or her work, my friend suggested I might be a good candidate for the task of looking into this mystery. So I began to visit Spingola.com and to listen to some of her earlier podcasts to get a feel for her past and current dispositions. I ordered a copy of “Screening Sandy Hook” ($23.44) and began to read.
It is indeed a weighty tome, (581 pages) replete with copious footnotes (1497), and various manufactured acronyms and pejorative buzzwords. The stated thesis of the book is that “Adam” Lanza, poisoned by pharmaceutical drugs, went on a murderous rampage that resulted in 26 deaths. Spingola cites several sources who at least suggest that such a possibility exists. In the tradition of Ann Coulter, she uses footnotes as evidence of research. Remarkably, the only citations listed are from those who tend to agree with her, (at least partially).
Up to approximately the midpoint of the book, Spingola continues a tedious monologue against all things corporate, government, professional, and the media. Anyone who has ever been trapped at a bar with someone who is doing a total “mind dump” on the world will be familiar with the narrative. It isn’t that I necessarily disagree with a lot of what she says: such a diatribe seems too vast and depressing to be the subject of one book. Many of us already know all about the subjects she raises, although, carrying on as she does, Spingola seems unaware of that fact. While she acknowledges the work of others in some of the fields she discusses, those writers whom she deems unworthy are unceremoniously dismissed. It isn’t so much that she disagrees: she rejects the person as well as their idea. Anyone who holds a contrary view to her own is a paid agent of the pharmaceutical industry or an ignorant dupe.
As an example of her tortured logic, we have her assessment of Robbie Parker:
Robbie Parker is a physician’s assistant originally from Ogden, Utah. who relocated to Connecticut after living in Oregon and New Mexico. Connecticut’s Department of Public Health has a licensing verification website, which allows people to search the credentials of any service provider who is required by the state to be licensed, including physician assistants. According to the website, Parker has a license to practice in that state although his license has a New Mexico address because he lived there when he received his license, issued on September 28, 2011. A person cannot become a PA-C until he or she has passed the NCCPA-administered Physician Assistant National Certifying Exam, which allows the individual to practice in all fifty states. Parker lived in New Mexico prior to finding a position in Connecticut. He is not an actor. Earning a degree as a certified physician assistant requires passing a rigorous certification exam in addition to obtaining one hundred Continuing Medical Education (CME) hours and reregistering their certificate with the NCCPA every two years.
There you have it. He’s too well educated to be an actor. Spingola appears to have a ready, dismissive answer for anyone questioning the Sandy Hook event. Evidence that cannot be easily dismissed is simply “excused” as mistakes made in the heat of the moment. Early anomalies, such as the alleged call to the “Newtown Bee” from Dawn Hocksprung are simply excited reporting. Criticism by Dr. James Tracy, and others, is deemed “premature” and out of context. Researchers of long standing are simply “hoaxsters” and “disinformation agents.”
https://memorygapdotorg.files.wordpr...pg?w=300&h=225“Screening Sandy Hook” author Deanna Spingola. Source: spingola.com
As a running testament on her personal beliefs and the world in general, I suppose this isn’t the first instance of a self-absorbed, self-published “me book.” Generally, such books are written by people who through their reputation, many wish to know better. Someone who has established a following and is noted for their expertise in a subject might be expected to use their book to clarify their known positions. There are no revelations or keen insights to be found among the ponderous and hypercritical narrative offered here by Spingola, whose website is titled “Spingola Speaks,” I might add. The book could have been titled: “My Judgement on Everything”. It isn’t that she is necessarily wrong about much of what she says (with the exception of her serious misunderstandings of Sandy Hook research and the motives of the researchers), it is her annoying lack of any stated logic for her absolutism that begins to wear on the reader. She is contemptuous of the medical profession, but amazingly, relies on it to support her theories!
Part Five of “Screening Sandy Hook” is reserved for ridicule of all who have questioned the official media story. While Spingola refers to many researchers indirectly (by way of the ever-present footnotes), she unleashes a special degree of vehemence for Tracy. She also targets Dr. Jim Fetzer, Alex Jones, Wolfgang Halbig and others as examples of KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) — a buzzword/acronym invented by her and used the way truck drivers might refer to bad drivers encountered on the roads. Another favorite term of hers is “hoaxologist”. This is reserved for those KOLs not in leadership positions. When referring to certain others, she makes a point of bracketing “researcher” in quotation marks. This, no doubt, is to distinguish such miscreants from herself.
It seems that Spingola believes (or says she believes) that all of these mass shooter events are real. They are all caused by pharmaceutical poisoning. The pharmaceutical industry, in league with government and media, have conspired to hide this fact. Those in the alternative media and researchers into the recent staged shooting events are either knowing accomplices, working in collusion with “Big Pharma” or ignorant dupes and sensationalists seeking an audience. Those who discuss their findings online are “hoaxologists”. Spingola makes some small distinction between “disinformation” and “misinformation” — a matter of motive and knowledge. She gives no credence to any who either differ with her drug-induced causation theory or the truthfulness of the events themselves. I suppose this isn’t too surprising in light of the fact that the object of her personal theory in this case may be a phantom. It wouldn’t do to have poisoned madmen turn out to be fictional characters or for deadly rampages to become manufactured drill scenarios.
In support of her position that researchers appearing in the alternative media are illegitimate or agents of hidden interests she cites none other than Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This is especially interesting, in that her other views on other subjects, such as 9-11 would surely be openly condemned by this individual.
….millions of people believe in conspiracy theories and to counter them, (1) the government must understand how they flourish and (2) how it might undermine the ‘identifiable cognitive blunders’. They said attempts to persuade theorists to abandon their ideas only provided “further proof of the conspiracy”. Officials decided that they could be most effective by “cognitive infiltration” into such groups and introduce [sic] “diverse viewpoints” and “informational diversity”…to expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such
She even has a section on Anderson Cooper whom she finds very professional. She claims that the official report of the Sandy Hook incident is thorough, professional and comprehensive. She chastises others for not reading the report and refusing to rely on official sources.
None of this would be noteworthy but for her former expressed views on SHES. There are several “hoax busters” on the internet who specialize in ridiculing research. Indeed she cites W.C. Wade as a reliable authority several times throughout her book. Those familiar with “American Free Press” may note that it is known for its unorthodox positions on several issues. Notwithstanding that, Spingola herself was known for her support of Sandy Hook research. She interviewed several Sandy Hook researchers previously with favorable commentary. Suddenly, there is a total reversal. It isn’t simply a rejection of the researcher’s ideas, it is a rejection of the researchers themselves. What to make of it all?
I confess that I have not reached a conclusion on the original question. The search has resulted in being introduced to Ms. Spingola’s work in a general sense, and perhaps more importantly, her style. She seems a decent interviewer. She allows the interviewee to talk. Unfortunately that skill does not overcome her tendency to judge and negate others and their information in a capricious and dismissive manner. She is not discussing ideas; she is judging others’ ideas and finding them wanting. One gets the sense of a self-satisfied elitist entertaining herself. Ironically, this is exactly what she accuses the “hoaxologists” of doing — basing opinions on speculation and group think.
It seems that Spingola became aware of the Delphi Method in her readings. This obviously struck a nerve, and she ascribes all manner of nefarious policies and reactionary conspiracy theories to the machinations of those skilled in its use. Being no stranger to the method and its uses, I find her concerns overstated and even misapplied. What Spingola is implying in her tedious way is that conspiracy theories involving media manipulation of reality are all imaginary. This is hard to square with her other theories that seem not to differ much from SHES research, other than the subject matter.
So, was I able to answer my friend’s question? Alas, no. I was able to discern that Deanna Spingola’s method for reaching her conclusions is rather simple. All she does is declare it so! If a person’s research leads in another direction, he or she is simply wrong. The reason for her reversal is not apparent in her book, although she has based it on the one shooter hoax most easily exposed. Her earlier position confirms that she knew of the controversy before deciding to use SHES as her example. It is beyond question that this (reversal / about face?) is what she has done. She has simply stated that “Adam” Lanza was either high on drugs or coming off of them and went on a murderous rampage. Those who think otherwise are simply wrong. As an example of her superior powers of perception she states that she is not a doctor, but she has diagnosed “Adam” as (initially) the victim of mercury poisoning. So there! The rest is more of the same.
As to the original question, it seems apparent that Ms. Spingola may be a product of the company she keeps. For my money her company can certainly keep her and her book.
comments here: http://memoryholeblog.com/2015/09/13...anna-spingola/
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Amanda
. Yeah I meant to return to update/clarify that article. In skimming it I thought, what's 'new' about any of this? >1.5 year old stuff. But there was the 2015 date at the top clear as day, so I posted it here. After, I thought to check the reader comments, and saw they begin Jan '14, the real publication time. 
