 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2005Re: The Truth About Peer Reviewed
"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message news:Ofrie.22830$ya2.15320@tornado.socal.rr.com... > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote in message > news:lmpie.2780$V2.1586@attbi_s72... >> >> "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:RZhie.22735$ya2.13105@tornado.socal.rr.com... >>> >>> Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed >>> research is more convincing > > This is what peer review is really all about. If you can suggest a process > that would be more fair and accurate for selecting manuscripts and grant > proposals, please do. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review > > --Rich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fraud Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Suppression/non-publication of data A related issue concerns the deliberate suppression, failure to publish, or selective release of the findings of scientific studies. Such cases may not be strictly definable as scientific misconduct as the deliberate falsification of results is not present. However, in such cases the intent may nevertheless be to deliberately deceive. Studies may be suppressed or remain unpublished because the findings are perceived to undermine the commercial, political or other interests of the sponsoring agent or because they fail to support the ideological goals of the researcher http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2002/02JF/02jfgoo.htm Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/peerReview.pdf) (Warning: 469 kB PDF) >>>> Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed >>>> research is more convincing [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > commercial, political or other interests of the sponsoring agent or > because they fail to support the ideological goals of the researcher Yes, scientific fraud does sometimes happen. Construction contractors sometimes defraud people, too. Perhaps we should throw out the contractor system and build houses some other way? Children have sometimes been abused at day care centers. Obviously the day care system is not working and we should do away with day care. --Rich > >>>> Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed > >>>> research is more convincing > >> > >> This is what peer review is really all about. If you can suggest a > >> process > >> that would be more fair and accurate for selecting manuscripts and grant [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > remain unpublished because the findings are perceived to undermine the > > commercial, political or other interests of the sponsoring agent or > > because they fail to support the ideological goals of the researcher > > Yes, scientific fraud does sometimes happen. Construction contractors > sometimes defraud people, too. Perhaps we should throw out the contractor > system and build houses some other way? Children have sometimes been abused > at day care centers. Obviously the day care system is not working and we > should do away with day care. > > --Rich This is an example of a "straw man" argument. Your rebuttal is not reciprocal to the posted material. IF she had said she wanted to see an end to the scientific discovery process, your "analogies" might have merit. If you want to engage in aristotelian argument, deal only with the material as presented. Clearly, her point was to highlight the lack of integrity in at least some published scientific research. Since you agree with that observation, why create a peripheral argument? Could it be that your purpose here is not what you claim? >> >>>> Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed >> >>>> research is more convincing [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Since you agree with that observation, why create a peripheral > argument? Could it be that your purpose here is not what you claim? The point is that Jan DOES want to see an end to the scientific discovery process. The analogies are to point up the absurdity of her knee-jerk reposting of the "Peer review in the grant giving process is . . ." cut-and-paste snippet every time the words "peer review" are mentioned here, and her unwillingness to actually defend her revulsion for the scientific method other than to repost the borrowed material again and again as if it is the final word. --Rich --Rich > >> >>>> Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed > >> >>>> research is more convincing [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > The point is that Jan DOES want to see an end to the scientific discovery > process. The analogies are to point up the absurdity of her knee-jerk > reposting of the "Peer review in the grant giving process is . . ." > cut-and-paste snippet every time the words "peer review" are mentioned here, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > --Rich Since Jan herself makes ocassional reference to scientific articles in support of her positions, I would find this suprising. Can you reference a post in which she actually stated this, or even argued that scientific research is entirely worthless? >> >> >>>> Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed >> >> >>>> research is more convincing [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > reference a post in which she actually stated this, or even argued that > scientific research is entirely worthless? Jan seldom "makes reference" or "states" anything, preferring to communicate by borrowing the words of others. In fact, I expect an "I never said that!" response from her in this thread very soon. When she does express an opinion though, it's usually a one-line exclamation in the form of "It's called EXPERIENCE!" [why anecdotal evidence trumps peer-reviewed research studies], and [in referrence to peer review itself] "It's not working!". Yes, Jan does sometimes post links to scientific material, and particularly likes to cut bits out of context, particularly when they appear to cast a bad light on science-based medicine or science itself. Take the above bit on "Science Fraud". This is a small section of the Wikipedia article on peer review which is generally supportive of the process. Jan, of course, jumps on the "Science Fraud" like a chicken that has found a ladybug, and pastes it here as if it sums up science as fraud. Her favorite referrences, though, are the whacko anti-amalgam, anti-vaccination, anti-milk, or pro anything labeled "alternative" sites that are usually selling something. --Rich > >> >> >>>> Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed > >> >> >>>> research is more convincing [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > --Rich So how many rebuttals before you convince Jan to do and see things your way? If you believe her arguments are so weak, what do you gain by trying? You must know that most readers here spend 85% of their time *AVOIDING* the flame wars. Even worse, 90% of the references in these threads relate to comments posted so long ago, no one can even place them into meaningful context. However, if distraction is your goal, then your mission is brilliantly accomplished. PeterB > So how many rebuttals before you convince Jan to do and see things your > way? If you believe her arguments are so weak, what do you gain by > trying? You must know that most readers here spend 85% of their time > *AVOIDING* the flame wars. Even worse, 90% of the references in these > threads relate to comments posted so long ago, no one can even place > them into meaningful context. Most of that results from Jan's habit of starting a new thread whenever the old one contains comments that make her uncomfortable by pointing out facts that she cannot effectively refute.. > However, if distraction is your goal, > then your mission is brilliantly accomplished. > > PeterB Distraction? I just want to discuss the topic of this thread. Discussion is not distraction, and peer-reviewed references as authoritative sources as opposed to anecdotes and case histories is a topic pertinent to this newsgroup. Where it has come up in other threads, it has always been Jan who started it by once again pasting in distracting material in response to someone's request for peer reviewed evidence. --Rich >> So how many rebuttals before you convince Jan to do and see things your >> way? If you believe her arguments are so weak, what do you gain by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the old one contains comments that make her uncomfortable by pointing out > facts that she cannot effectively refute.. Then there is Rich, who states, I do not wish to debate it. >> However, if distraction is your goal, >> then your mission is brilliantly accomplished. >> >> PeterB > > Distraction? Yes ,distraction I just want to discuss the topic of this thread. W R O N G. Perhaps we should throw out the >> > contractor >> >> system and build houses some other way? Children have sometimes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > we >> >> should do away with day care. Discussion is > not distraction, and peer-reviewed references as authoritative sources as > opposed to anecdotes and case histories is a topic pertinent to this > newsgroup. Where it has come up in other threads, it has always been JEFF > who started it by once again requesting peer reviewed evidence. > > --Rich There, I changed it to the *truth* LL/Jan >>> >>>> Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed >>> >>>> research is more convincing [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > The point is that Jan DOES want to see an end to the scientific discovery > process. Quite wrong. The point is, the scientific progress that has been made needs to be SEEN and not DENIED. When the *truth*is presented, the words like knee-jerk, and off topic subjects flow. The subject gets lost. The analogies are nothing more than belittling and personally slamming because the truth hurts. Then lies are thown is such as the word *revulsion*, an utter lie. I just had surgery on my neck. I appreciate the very best lastest and wonderful scientific method. Furthermore, Rich does NOT know what I want. His opinion is just that, it isn't mine. LL/Jan The analogies are to point up the absurdity of her knee-jerk > reposting of the "Peer review in the grant giving process is . . ." > cut-and-paste snippet every time the words "peer review" are mentioned [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > --Rich >>>> >>>> Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed >>>> >>>> research is more convincing [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Quite wrong. The point is, the scientific progress that has been made > needs to be SEEN and not DENIED. Who is denying scientific progress? Certainly not me. > When the *truth*is presented, the words like knee-jerk, and off topic > subjects flow. May I presume that by "*truth* is presented" you mean your paste of "Peer review in the grant giving process is . . ."? This is only a half truth or less. That's why the analogies pointing out that the fact that a system is sometimes flawed does not negate the value of the system. > The subject gets lost. The analogies are nothing more than belittling and > personally slamming because the truth hurts. What truth hurts? Yes there is sometimes dishonesty in the peer review process, but that neither hurts me nor diminishes my respect for the many distinguished reviewers who volunteer their time and expertise to provide honest and forthright opinions of the material submitted. > Then lies are thown is such as the word *revulsion*, an utter lie. I just > had surgery on my neck. Sorry to hear that. Are you still wearing a collar? Damned uncomfortable, isn't it? I had a C4,5,6 fusion with cadaver graft and titanium plate done two years ago. > I appreciate the very best lastest and wonderful scientific method. Surgical technique and scientific method are not the same thing. > Furthermore, Rich does NOT know what I want. His opinion is just that, it > isn't mine. Please state clearly, then whether or not you believe that peer review is a valuable component of the scientific method and should continue. > LL/Jan > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> --Rich > >>> >>>> Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed > >>> >>>> research is more convincing [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > When the *truth*is presented, the words like knee-jerk, and off topic > subjects flow. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > LL/Jan Do you think, Jan, that differences in life experience, background, and approach are being used to distract the newsgroup? What if the flame wars are intentionally fanned to create such an effect? I'm always happy to find someone who shares my views, even if we reach those positions in very different ways. As a science major, I have my own approach and it isn't always understood, or it is challenged, and that forces a decision as to how best to respond. I don't pretend to have the answers to this in every situation. I want you to know I appreciate your support, and that I acknowledge the areas in which we agree. Please think carefully, however, about the "private war" routine. Industry bloggers really have no interest in changing YOUR mind, it's all about distracting readers from meaningful information so they never have a chance to make up THEIR minds. I don't believe getting the "last word" with these guys amounts to a victory (I tried.) If I'm right, the battle is not about who makes the best argument, or even how opinions are arrived at, it's about keeping the light on health issues and information that will sway casual readers. If visitors no longer have a clue what the original discussion is even about, that's how the newsgroup loses. Take care, PeterB >> >>> >>>> Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed >> >>> >>>> research is more convincing [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > Take care, > PeterB Thanks Peter, here is what you don't know, Everything in the books and some not there, has been tried to run me off. This has worked in the past, it has failed with me. It is a message that is not believed by convention medicine and dentistry. I will post it, then I will post. a list of those who have thanked me for helping them. I have helped others and I will continue. (Expect to hear from a few stalkers who have even used my ill and even dead parent/s to try and belittle me) My message: *IF* you have an unanswered health problem,,,,,,,,CHECK THE TEETH! NOT by a mainstream dentist, but an Alt. dentist who KNOWS the dangers of metal in the mouth and root canals, and follows correct protocol. I did, it saved my life . Mercury is Poisonous. There is NO safe form of Mercury in living tissue. The mercury vapor from dental amalgam alone is a bigger source than all the other sources together. U151 identifies mercury as a toxic waste.Mercury is also recovered from discarded products and wastes such aschlor-alkali wastes, dental amalgams, fluorescent light tubes, electronicdevices, and others. The mercury is vaporized in a retort and collected by condensation. Condensed mercury is then distilled to remove impurities.* The Environmental Protection Agency is working to reduce the amount of mercury in the environment http://www.ehs.ucsf.edu/Manuals/CSM/Csm_Chapter9.htm 17. DENTAL AMALGAM Dental amalgams are mixtures of mercury with silver tin alloy. Cal-EPAregulates them as ***chemical waste.*** Submit Chemical Waste Removal Form for its disposal. ========== Subject: Thanks to Jan,,,, >From: "Rod" deniece...@hotmail.com >Date: 7/31/02 7:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <00S19.49685$Hj3.148...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>>Hi to all, >I wish to express gratitude to Jan for making me aware of Dental issues. >I suffer from Rheumatoid Arthritis and have done so since 1994. Having this [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >with consent of my Dentist, changed over a three month period. the majority >of my fillings to what is called "Composites" >I am happy to report that since that change that my feet and hands have >improved noticeably and that I suffer less with the morning stiffness so [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >improvement >in their well being since changing their amalgams to composites. >So a sincere "Thank you Jan" for making me look at the issues regarding >Dental Health. Believe me I have implemented these things "Aussie" Style >and have enjoyed the benefit despite the "she'll be right" attitude of my >Dentist. (Amalgam flying everywhere) >Deniece and I are to shortly visit Canada and the US during the next eight >weeks and I am most thankful of being able to make this trip, due to >improved health. >Incidentally I won the trip in a competition and it included the Canadian >Rockies tour as well as the Alaskan cruise. Wow! so we extend it all to >include Hawaii , North West USA and Hong Kong. >So good things still happen which makes it all so much worthwhile. >Many thanks Jan, >Sincerely, Rod >============================>Jan - don't let them get you down. You never >know how many people you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >anything. They will never learn. >But others will - and you are reaching them. >Good Work! >=============================>I have read a lot of your postings with great >interest. From other sources [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >canal/crowns is flaring up with an infection at the tip of the root. First >time in my life, something like this has happened. >At my age, my teeth have started cracking. In light of what has been >researched and written, I see no reason to continue on with modern >dentistry. >I will get the tooth pulled. The idea is to not have any more root canals >or >crowns. Just start pulling and in the years ahead, get false teeth. When I >run out of enough natural teeth. >You were very brave to do your postings on the internet. I commend you for >them. >===========================>Subject: Kudos to Jan Drew >From: "Lance Mannion" lancemann...@nospam.net >Date: 11/12/02 9:57 AM US Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <7F8A9.27789$y45.97195...@news.primus.ca>>Long time lurker, >first time poster. >I have watched with amusement the idiocy of the dentists here on >this NG, especially Joel, who attack Jan, and ignore her postings. >The power of "groupthink" is quite amazing when viewing it from >the outside as an unbiased observer. >It is particularly amusing how powerful bias can be, when a group >cannot recognize that something that is hazardous waste by the >EPA's definition, is ok in the mouth. This should at least open >one's mind to the *possibility* that amalgams are hazardous in >*some* (not all) people. But noooooooo, the supposedly educated >dental professionals here are all-knowing. >I am a well educated, reasonable person, with a background in >statistics. I had my amalgams out, and yes, it did cure several >lifelong, chronic health conditions. It was *not* easy, and in >fact, is probably a risky procedure, since you do expose yourself >to lots of Hg upon removal. The detox has taken a long time, and >has been extremely unpleasant. >Re: Rich's postings - it is possible that some of Jan's improvement >was due to placebo. Heck, I felt better immediately after my amalgam >removal. That quickly changed as the Hg flooded into my body. Even >if Jan had some improvement due to placebo, that doesn't preclude >her from having Hg poisoning. >Re: Joel - this guy is an idiot. His posts do nothing for the credibility >of the "pro amalgam" side. I don't think he could handle a real debate. >All he does is post stupid articles and one-liners - what a dolt ! >So Jan, keep up the good work, fight the good fight. Time will prove >us correct. Don't give up. It's tough, and usually lonely, being on the >cutting edge, and going against the conventional wisdom >===============================>> Lance, >> Kudos to you for trying to argue with this crowd. Last year I posted >> some questions here and was promptly attacked by the usual suspects. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> cover their gluteus max. They know they will be sued the hell out of >> them soon, and are trying their obnoxious best to delay the inevitable. >> I had 17-year slow downward spiral that was only stopped last year by >> taking out amalgam fillings and going through chelation therapy. Only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> recovering and I don't feel like I am living in the Twilight Zone >> episodes anymore. >> Don't let these bozos annoy you, they just cannot help being themselves >> when it comes their wallet. >> qborba >P.S. And of course Kudos to Jan Drew. She did more service to >> Hg-poisoned people than anyone else I know. >============================>Hi Jan >Ive been reading some of your posts on alternative med support and now the >dental site. I'll spare you my long story but ive had horrendous bilateral [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >done DMPS chelation with much improvement. Still have a ways to go but im >getting there. Keep up the fight! >And I have received a few others, and was asked not to post them as the >poster >didn't wish to be harassed by the dentists here. >This one I received recently. >The people on the NG seem very hostile. Chances are my dentist is dead, so >I can't sue him, even if I wanted to. I have been suffering from something [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >site address. Couldn't get on. I'll try later. > thanx 4 > help Keep up the fight. I emailed you back a while ago. The Canadian dentists haven't been using mercury since about 2000. My dentist told me that they have to wrap it up in special containers and send them to a toxic waste place, but at the same time it's still ok for the American Dentist's to put it in your mouth......sounds kinda funny to me. I had one of my fillings extracted today, after a root canal, 4 fillings left to go. I hear you're only supposed to do one at a time........lotsa fun.......anyway, have a good XMAS...good luck with your crusade..........plenty of people on your side............. ================ Thanks agiain, Peterb LL/Jan >*IF* you have an unanswered health problem,,,,,,,,CHECK THE TEETH! > >NOT by a mainstream dentist, but an Alt. dentist who KNOWS the dangers of >metal in the mouth and root canals, and follows correct protocol. > >I did, it saved my life Jan knows that removing the mercury in her mouth did not save her life. Jan said that she was dying of mercury poisoning from amalgams. She said that she was in pain and bedridden due to the mercury poisoning. Within hours of having eight of twelve amalgams removed Jan Drew said she felt better than she had in two years. A week later when her mercury level was likely the highest in her life, she said that the pain went away and she was able to go out line dancing. Of course the pain soon returned as placebo response are often short lived. Jan DRew is unable to reconcile how she could have gone from bedridden and dying of mercury poisoning to line dancing when her mercury level was HIGHER than when she said she was bedridden. So what Jan Drew does is distract attention from her own bogus claim by attacking the messenger, in this case me. Just watch how, IF, she responds to my post she makes a personal attack. She is a stalker who has been repeatedly posted what she believes is my name, address and phone number and then admitted that she called the number. Jan Drew is a very sick woman who cannot deal with people who disagree with her. She endlessly badgers them and tries to harass them in their personal life. It is quite sad. Aloha, Rich PS: I give a hundred percent guarantee that IF Jan Drew responds to my post that it will be to attack me. Just watch. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance Great testimonials, Jan. Anecdotal experience has a place in both traditional and conventional medicine, and doctors rely on them more than some think. You probably already know my views about chemical exposure and their impact on health. Mercury is a serious contaminant and their use in amalgams defies logic. In my view, anything that causes birth defects in unborn children cannot be safe for adults. As one well-known doctor said, "It is of interest that the studies proving mercury's toxicity often come from the journals of conventional dentistry and medicine. Even so, orthodox dentistry continues to assure us that the mercury in our mouths is safe. This disconnect between our long-standing assumption that mercury amalgams are nontoxic and the evidence showing otherwise reminds us of an important principle: What has been accepted as true is not always so scientifically." PeterB > Great testimonials, Jan. Anecdotal experience has a place in both > traditional and conventional medicine, and doctors rely on them more [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > PeterB Very well said. Thanks Peter. Jan >Great testimonials, Jan. Anecdotal experience has a place in both >traditional and conventional medicine, and doctors rely on them more >than some think. You probably already know my views about chemical >exposure and their impact on health. Mercury is a serious contaminant >and their use in amalgams defies logic. In my view, anything that >causes birth defects in unborn children cannot be safe for adults. Accutane? Rubella? And if it's not 100% safe, does that mean we need to outlaw it? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor >>Great testimonials, Jan. Anecdotal experience has a place in both >>traditional and conventional medicine, and doctors rely on them more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Accutane? Rubella? And if it's not 100% safe, does that mean we need > to outlaw it? No, it means, you are diverting, as usual LL/Jan > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a > deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty > clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor > >Great testimonials, Jan. Anecdotal experience has a place in both > >traditional and conventional medicine, and doctors rely on them more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Accutane? Rubella? And if it's not 100% safe, does that mean we need > to outlaw it? I think they tried outlawing Rubella but it didn't work. Maybe it came from France. Accutane, on the other hand, is relatively safe because it's use is typically short term. In referring to mercury, I was pointing out the long-term exposure that a person faces over many years if an amalgam is leaching. But the argument can be expanded to include a host of prescription and OTC drugs, as well. Personally, I accept the legal premise that _Informed_Consent_ gives adequate protection to consumers as long as the risks of exposure are known AND the medical benefits outweigh the potential for harm. In the case of Vioxx and many, many other prescription drugs, these data are not known. To those who complain that this would place too great a financial burden on the drug makers, my response is that industry profits are secondary to human life. >> >Great testimonials, Jan. Anecdotal experience has a place in both >> >traditional and conventional medicine, and doctors rely on them more [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >from France. Accutane, on the other hand, is relatively safe because >it's use is typically short term. On the contrary, if the user is a pregnant woman, the odds of birth defects are enormous. Therefore, in your view, Accutane cannot be safe for adults. >In referring to mercury, I was pointing out the long-term exposure >that a person faces over many years if an amalgam is leaching. But [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >potential for harm. In the case of Vioxx and many, many other >prescription drugs, these data are not known. We could easily argue, and many do, that in *all* cases these data are not known, because new data may come out tomorrow, or next year, or twenty years from now, that completely revise what we think we know today. >To those who complain that this would place too great a financial >burden on the drug makers, my response is that industry profits are >secondary to human life. But at what point do you decide that *enough* is known? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor > >> >Great testimonials, Jan. Anecdotal experience has a place in both > >> >traditional and conventional medicine, and doctors rely on them more [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > defects are enormous. Therefore, in your view, Accutane cannot be > safe for adults. To say that Accutane is "relatively safe" in those for whom use is not contraindicated is not the same as saying it is "safe." The potential for toxicity in short-term use drugs is much lower than in other drugs. I would not say it makes them safe, but safer. > >In referring to mercury, I was pointing out the long-term exposure > >that a person faces over many years if an amalgam is leaching. But [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > twenty years from now, that completely revise what we think we know > today. The data gap between a 3 or 6-mth toxicology and a 12 or 18-mth toxicology could make a huge difference in whether a drug is approved, however. This should reduce the number of drug recalls. Also, the first year of use should be confined to a limited roll-out, with strict monitoring by doctors, and their reports submitted to FDA (or other agency) for review prior to a drug's full approval. This could save thousands of lives. > >To those who complain that this would place too great a financial > >burden on the drug makers, my response is that industry profits are > >secondary to human life. > > But at what point do you decide that *enough* is known? That's the trickiest question of the day. Without third party research and oversight that is free of influence from the drug makers, however, meaningful improvement is unlikely. >> >> In article ><1116509202.700836.218460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >for toxicity in short-term use drugs is much lower than in other drugs. > I would not say it makes them safe, but safer. The word "relatively" did not appear in your original posting. >> >In referring to mercury, I was pointing out the long-term exposure >> >that a person faces over many years if an amalgam is leaching. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >agency) for review prior to a drug's full approval. This could save >thousands of lives. At what cost? I'm not talking only about the greater cost of a much longer trial period, but the delays in drug availability to those who are in dire, immediate need (AIDS drugs, for example). >> >To those who complain that this would place too great a financial >> >burden on the drug makers, my response is that industry profits are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >and oversight that is free of influence from the drug makers, however, >meaningful improvement is unlikely. The idea that you can be "free of influence" is also a pipe dream. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor > >>>> Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed > >>>> research is more convincing > >> > >> This is what peer review is really all about. If you can suggest a > >> process > >> that would be more fair and accurate for selecting manuscripts and grant [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > remain unpublished because the findings are perceived to undermine the > > commercial, political or other interests of the sponsoring agent or > > because they fail to support the ideological goals of the researcher > > Yes, scientific fraud does sometimes happen. Construction contractors > sometimes defraud people, too. Perhaps we should throw out the contractor > system and build houses some other way? Children have sometimes been abused > at day care centers. Obviously the day care system is not working and we > should do away with day care. > > --Rich This is an example of a "straw man" argument. Your rebuttal is not reciprocal to the posted material. IF she had said she wanted to see an end to the scientific discovery process, your "analogies" might have merit. If you want to engage in aristotelian argument, deal only with the material as presented. Clearly, her point was to highlight the lack of integrity in at least some published scientific research. Since you agree with that observation, why create a peripheral argument? Could it be that your purpose here is not what you claim? PeterB This is an example of a "straw man" argument. Your rebuttal is not reciprocal to the posted material. IF she had said she wanted to see an end to the scientific discovery process, your "analogies" might have merit. If you want to engage in aristotelian argument, deal only with the material as presented. Clearly, her point was to highlight the lack of integrity in at least some published scientific research. Since you agree with that observation, why create a peripheral argument? Could it be that your purpose here is not what you claim? PeterB "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:lAMie.4936$WG.354@attbi_s22... "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:lmpie.2780$V2.1586@attbi_s72... Jeffs suggestion that a referrence to peer-reviewed research is more convincing This is what peer review is really all about. If you can suggest a process that would be more fair and accurate for selecting manuscripts and grant proposals, please do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review --Rich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fraud Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Suppression/non-publication of data A related issue concerns the deliberate suppression, failure to publish, or selective release of the findings of scientific studies. Such cases may not be strictly definable as scientific misconduct as the deliberate falsification of results is not present. However, in such cases the intent may nevertheless be to deliberately deceive. Studies may be suppressed or remain unpublished because the findings are perceived to undermine the commercial, political or other interests of the sponsoring agent or because they fail to support the ideological goals of the researcher Yes, scientific fraud does sometimes happen. Construction contractors sometimes defraud people, too. Perhaps we should throw out the contractor system and build houses some other way? Children have sometimes been abused at day care centers. Obviously the day care system is not working and we should do away with day care. --Rich This is an example of a "straw man" argument. Your rebuttal is not reciprocal to the posted material. IF she had said she wanted to see an end to the scientific discovery process, your "analogies" might have merit. If you want to engage in aristotelian argument, deal only with the material as presented. Clearly, her point was to highlight the lack of integrity in at least some published scientific research. Since you agree with that observation, why create a peripheral argument? Could it be that your purpose here is not what you claim? The point is that Jan DOES want to see an end to the scientific discovery process. Quite wrong. The point is, the scientific progress that has been made needs to be SEEN and not DENIED. This email was cleaned by JD Who is denying scientific progress? Certainly not me Oh, but you do, you deny, ALL the scientific studies and evidence that amalgams can and do cause mercury poisoning. When the *truth*is presented, the words like knee-jerk, and off topic > subjects flow. May I presume that by "*truth* is presented" you mean your paste of "Peer review in the grant giving process is . . ."? There are many *truths* you deny, and you can knock off the paste bit. This is only a half truth or less. *In your opinion* That's why the analogies pointing out that the fact that a system is sometimes flawed does not negate the value of the system. NO, that's NOT why. Your analogy was aiming for a flame war. The subject gets lost. The analogies are nothing more than belittling and > personally slamming because the truth hurts. What truth hurts? Yes there is sometimes dishonesty in the peer review process, but that neither hurts me nor diminishes my respect for the many distinguished reviewers who volunteer their time and expertise to provide honest and forthright opinions of the material submitted. That's super, however those are not the ones that get published in medical journals, nor the ones Jeff keeps asking for. Brings us back to where we started. Then lies are thown is such as the word *revulsion*, an utter lie. I just > had surgery on my neck. Sorry to hear that. Are you still wearing a collar? Damned uncomfortable, isn't it? I had a C4,5,6 fusion with cadaver graft and titanium plate done two years ago. Oh, no, it was back in January, actually didn't have to wear the collar very long, sounds about the same as what I had done, one spur didn't show on x-ray, it was sitting on the nerve at times, took several trips to the ER. I appreciate the very best lastest and wonderful scientific method. Surgical technique and scientific method are not the same thing. I didn't say it was. The technicque is right there is the precious hands of my precious doc. The scientific studies of how to do it are in his head. Furthermore, Rich does NOT know what I want. His opinion is just that, it > isn't mine. Please state clearly, then whether or not you believe that peer review is a valuable component of the scientific method and should continue. Clearly the whole of *organized medicine, includung peer reviewed* needs revamped! As it is now, it is E V I L the lies, the suppression of alternative methods that work are causing people to still SUFFER and stiill SEARCH for their *unanswered* health problems. The DRUGGING, the NEEDLESS DEATHS AND MISTAKES. And,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, The love of money is the root of all evil. LL/Jan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.