Surely this is just stereotyping? The implication seems to be that, because a doctor is a paedophile, paedophilia is widespread in the field of medicine, and there is a cover-up culture. It seems obvious to me that, in reality, paedophiles come from all walks of life.
In some cases- the Catholic Church and the BBC, for example- the problem was known about, and covered up. In others, I doubt it.
Furthermore, at least two of the examples in the picture are wrong. "The Norwegian government" paedophile ring consisted of only two elected officials- out of 169 members of Parliament- of the 51 arrested.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...phile-ring-police-arrest-51-men-a7432441.html
Sir Leon Brittan was cleared, though tragically after his death, with the police saying the supposed witness had lied, and another saying he had 'gpne along with' the allegations, even though he knew they weren't true.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/police-apo...-over-false-rape-claim-before-he-died-1523038
So saying that mockery of obviously fake stories like Pizzagate is wrong because it allows real paedophiles to go unnoticed and unprosecuted is just silly. Each accusation needs to be looked at on its own merits, not judged because of the job, political affiliation, associates or social status of the accused. I haven't seen anyone antwhere saying that Democrats can't be paedophiles because Pizzagate is false, nor that Pizzagate is justified because there actually are paedophiles out there.