Medical Forum / General / Alternative / January 2008
Fake Research
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Debbee - 18 Jan 2008 18:28 GMT Unbelievable. Yet believable, but why would people be this dishonest is beyond me. It makes one skeptical of who has told the truth in their peer reviewed journals and who has not.
http://www.rense.com/general66/newhigh.htm
drceephd@insightbb.com - 18 Jan 2008 20:09 GMT > Unbelievable. Yet believable, but why would people be this dishonest > is beyond me. It makes one skeptical of who has told the truth in > their peer reviewed journals and who has not. > > http://www.rense.com/general66/newhigh.htm Only in medicine can lying and cheating be rewarded with a prestigious position in big pharma where lying and cheating is pivotal to success.
I'd say they knew who they were hiring and WHY they were hiring him.
DrCee
Peter Moran - 18 Jan 2008 21:15 GMT > Unbelievable. Yet believable, but why would people be this dishonest > is beyond me. It makes one skeptical of who has told the truth in > their peer reviewed journals and who has not. > > http://www.rense.com/general66/newhigh.htm Yes, studies are easily faked. This is partly why the FDA requires replication of studies. At least three studies by different researchers are needed before most drugs are approved.
A recent innovation is the registration of all planned clinical studies, so that drug companies cannot hide them away if they give unfavorable results.
PM
drceephd@insightbb.com - 18 Jan 2008 22:16 GMT > > Unbelievable. Yet believable, but why would people be this dishonest > > is beyond me. It makes one skeptical of who has told the truth in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > PM I do not see this sort of thing in the "hard" sciences like chemistry, math, or physics. Why does lying and quackery continue to plague only the medical field?
DrCee
Petey the Moron is a deceiving Judas goat. You cannot believe anything he writes. When presented with the truth that 446 of 450 patients were cured of Lupus by using diet in Europe, he requested published data. When given hundreds of peer-reviewed, published articles in Journals like the Lancet, he ran for the hills like a dog with its tail between its legs. Do not believe anything this Judas goat writes. He is here only to lead the dumb sheeple to the hospitals for slaughter. Here is the link to the data: http://gerson-research.org/docs/SauerbruchF-1951-1/index.html
http://gerson-research.org/bibliography/index.html#SauerbruchF-1951-1
David Wright - 19 Jan 2008 21:24 GMT >> > Unbelievable. Yet believable, but why would people be this dishonest >> > is beyond me. It makes one skeptical of who has told the truth in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >math, or physics. Why does lying and quackery continue to plague only >the medical field? It's biology in general, not just the medical field. In chemistry or physics, you're dealing with inanimate things. They're much simpler than animate things. But fraud occurs in physics too -- witness the case of buckyball superconductors, for example. The question then becomes whether or not someone else tries to replicate the experiment.
Math is not a science, by the way, you dimbulb. But it isn't always cut and dried, either. I recall hearing of a case, when I was in college, of two different teams of mathematicians who were tackling the same problem. One proved it was true, the other that it was false.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
Debbee - 20 Jan 2008 04:23 GMT > It's biology in general, not just the medical field. In chemistry or > physics, you're dealing with inanimate things. They're much simpler > than animate things. But fraud occurs in physics too -- witness the > case of buckyball superconductors, for example. The question then > becomes whether or not someone else tries to replicate the > experiment. What is the sole purpose of "fraud," other to be deceitful???? How does one even know, David, how many of the alleged "scientific journals" or "peer reviewed journals" are really real??? When did they start he process of having more people review a study?
If I remember correctly, you are into children's issues---autism, right? What if the studies you believed in, turn out down the road to have been faked all of these years? I know you said you were not a doctor, but have an interest in children's health. How does one know what's real and what is not?
Peter Moran - 21 Jan 2008 06:12 GMT On Jan 19, 1:24 pm, wri...@l1000.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:
> It's biology in general, not just the medical field. In chemistry or > physics, you're dealing with inanimate things. They're much simpler > than animate things. But fraud occurs in physics too -- witness the > case of buckyball superconductors, for example. The question then > becomes whether or not someone else tries to replicate the > experiment. What is the sole purpose of "fraud," other to be deceitful???? How does one even know, David, how many of the alleged "scientific journals" or "peer reviewed journals" are really real??? When did they start he process of having more people review a study?
If I remember correctly, you are into children's issues---autism, right? What if the studies you believed in, turn out down the road to have been faked all of these years? I know you said you were not a doctor, but have an interest in children's health. How does one know what's real and what is not?
PM Actually a very good question. The default position should be one of trust, but with perhaps some allowances made for known biases. Most people in most walks of life are honest, and fraud or even sloppy research is very likely to be found out and fatal for conventional researchers, at least.
Why found out? Becasue of the sheer volume of medical research. On any important matter there are dozens of other researchers in the same field ready to repeat the experiments and see if they get the same results. If someone produces a new treatment a number of studies will follow, testing variations of it and comparing it to the old. Ultimately there can be hundreds of studies on any important treatment or question. This replication of results is the key to scientific truth.
PM
Debbee - 21 Jan 2008 06:24 GMT > Why found out? Becasue of the sheer volume of medical research. On any > important matter there are dozens of other researchers in the same field [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > PM Or in this case, "fake but accurate science."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/08/fake_but_accurate_science.html
David Wright - 22 Jan 2008 02:19 GMT >> Why found out? Becasue of the sheer volume of medical research. On any >> important matter there are dozens of other researchers in the same field [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/08/fake_but_accurate_science.html Not a publication in which I would have a great deal of confidence, however.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
Debbee - 21 Jan 2008 14:36 GMT > PM Actually a very good question. The default position should be one of > trust, but with perhaps some allowances made for known biases. Most people > in most walks of life are honest, and fraud or even sloppy research is very > likely to be found out and fatal for conventional researchers, at least. Peter, being from the land down under----are you aware of an organization called, The Campaign Against Fake Medical Research? This subject is so fascinating to me, why people would actually deliberately set out to defraud.
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/
Peter Bowditch - 21 Jan 2008 20:16 GMT >> PM Actually a very good question. The default position should be one of >> trust, but with perhaps some allowances made for known biases. Most people [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/ Just because some anonymous loon with a web site includes all medical research under the heading "fake medical research" doesn't make all medical research fake. This anonymous person appears to use the use of animals in the research process as the single criterion for declaring a line of research to be "fake", and the use of the archaic term "vivisection" is an indication of the mind set.
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
David Wright - 22 Jan 2008 02:30 GMT >> PM Actually a very good question. The default position should be one of >> trust, but with perhaps some allowances made for known biases. Most people [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/ Despite the name of the organization, they're primarily a bunch of anti-vax loons.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
rpautrey2 - 22 Jan 2008 02:55 GMT DW: Doesn't look like primarily the work of "anti-vax loons" to me. PA
Excerpt From: CAFMR Archives and Links
Vivisection or Science: A Choice To Make - By Prof. Pietro Croce - Excerpts from Croce's book of the same name, in which the former animal researcher details precisely why vivisection is unscientific and misleading. The Pharmaceutical Drug Racket - Part One - By CAFMR - Describes the poisonous nature of pharmaceutical drugs, their devastating affects on our health and economy, and the powerful interests behind this deadly industry. The Pharmaceutical Drug Racket - Part Two - By CAFMR - Exposes the massive fraud in drug testing that ensures the survival and proliferation of the highly dangerous and profitable drug industry. A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation - By Christopher Anderegg MD PhD, Murry J. Cohen MD, Stephen R. Kaufman MD, Rhoda Ruttenberg MD, Alix Fano MA, Medical Research Modernization Committee - The animal research community wishes the public to equate animal experimentation with medical progress, but increasing numbers of scientists and clinicians are challenging animal experimentation on scientific grounds. The Scientific Case Against Animal Experiments - By Dr Robert Sharpe - Former Senior Research Chemist says that the case against animal experiments is strongly reinforced by scientific arguments. This is because people and animals are different in the way their bodies work and in their response to drugs and disease. Doctors Against Vivisection - Quotes by doctors denouncing the scientific validity of animal research. Excerpted from the book 1000 Doctors (& many more) Against Vivisection, (Ed. Hans Ruesch). Perspectives On Medical Research - By Medical Research Modernization Committee - Scientific journal focusing on the use of animals in biomedical research. The History of Medical Progress - By Ray Greek MD, Medical Research Modernization Committee - Vivisectionists claim that animal experimentation is responsible for the major medical advances, however, an investigation of medical literature reveals an entirely different story. 50 Deadly Consequences of Lab Animal Experiments - By Americans For Medical Advancement and Europeans For Medical Advancement - Animal experimentation has misled researchers for centuries, confounding our understanding of the human body and the diseases that plague it. Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After - By David J. Rothman - Excerpted from the author's book Strangers At The Bedside. As soon as animal vivisection had become standard practice in modern medicine, vivisectors recognized that the only way animal research could really be validated for human medical problems was to finally conduct the experiment on human beings, for there is no assurance from animal research itself that a given drug would be valid for human application. Human Experiments: A Chronology of Human Research - By Vera Hassner Sharav, Alliance for Human Research Protection. AHRP is a national network of lay people and professionals dedicated to advancing responsible and ethical medical research practices, to ensure that the human rights, dignity and welfare of human subjects are protected, and to minimize the risks associated with such endeavors. Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry - By Dr John Braithwaite - Review of the book of the same name which shows how pharmaceutical multinationals defy the intent of laws regulating safety of drugs by bribery, false advertising, fraud in the safety testing of drugs, unsafe manufacturing processes, smuggling and international law evasion strategies. Why Do Pharmaceutical Drugs Injure and Kill? - By Robert Ryan BSc, CAFMR - Deaths due to the intake of pharmaceutical drugs have reached epidemic proportions. Is this because drugs are fraudulently tested? Death by Medicine - By Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD - A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that modern medicine frequently causes more harm than good. What Doctors Don't Tell You - Publisher of newsletters and books containing in-depth and cutting edge information exposing the dangers and short-comings of modern medicine and the availability of better alternatives. Conflicts of Interest In Clinical Trials - By Vera Hassner Sharav, Alliance for Human Research Protection. - Conflicts of interest have corrupted the soul of the American university, the ethics of medicine, the integrity of the scientific record, and the safety of patients who serve as human subjects in pre- and post-marketing clinical trials. Conflicts of interest in clinical trials result in deadly medicine. Adverse drug reactions in FDA-approved drugs are the leading cause of death in the United States. The Controlled Clinical Trial: An Analysis - By Harris L. Coulter PhD - Review of the book of the same name, in which the author critically examines the usefulness of randomised clinical trials. His thorough research reveals why the "controlled clinical trial" (CCT) cannot guarantee drug safety and efficacy. Click here to download book. DBAE's Third International Scientific Congress - For the first time, lawyers joined doctors to seriously question the validity of animal experimentation in relation to human health at Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments's Third International Scientific Congress, London, 10 May 1995. Why a Coalition of Doctors and Lawyers? - Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine, an alliance of medical and legal professionals, was formed out of Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments's 1995 international scientific Congress, at which medical speakers were joined by lawyers. Cancer Research - A Super Fraud? - By Robert Ryan BSc, CAFMR - Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues to increase? A Guide to The Problems With Animal-to-Human Organ Transplants - By Alix Fano MA, Murry J. Cohen MD, Marjorie Cramer MD, Ray Greek MD, and Stephen R. Kaufman MD, Medical Research Modernization Committee - There have been some 55 animal-to-human whole organ transplants attempted since 1906. All have proven unsuccessful, resulting in the suffering and death of all patients and donor animals. Doctors and Lawyers Unite to Oppose Transgenic Transplants - Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine called for a moratorium on transgenic transplants. Naked Empress or The Great Medical Fraud - By Hans Ruesch - Review of the book of the same name, which exposes vivisection as the racket that has become an endless source of profits and new diseases. The book explores the history and activities of the Drug Trust, an American-based, international drug cartel. Animal Experimentation: The Hidden Cause of Environmental Pollution - By Hoorik Davoudian BSc, SUPRESS/The Nature of Wellness - Exposes the scientific fraudulence of animal research and shows how it is routinely used and manipulated to make toxicants appear "safe" for human consumption. Slow Learners Or What? - Excerpted from the New York Times - Environmental regulation in the United States has been thrown into question after the National Institute of Environmental Health Services found upon reviewing their animal tests that these were inappropriate in identifying health hazards because chemicals frequently have wholly different effects between animals and humans. Scientific Toxicity Assessment - By Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine. The European Union Commission has proposed a strategy for a future Chemicals Policy, whereby some 100,000 different chemicals will be tested on animals. DLRM condemns this strategy as being totally irresponsible, since these animal tests are notoriously unreliable. Animal Experimentation: The Medico-Legal Alibi - Dr André Menache, speaking at the 10th World Congress on Law and Medicine, held at Jerusalem, Israel on 29 August, 1994. How Scientific are the ANU Monkey Experiments? - By Robert Ryan, CAFMR - A refutation of the scientific validity of primate experiments carried out the Australian National University. ANU Monkey Experiments: Science Or Science Fiction - By Robert Ryan, CAFMR - More on the unscientific ANU monkey experiments. Critique of NonHuman-Primate Research At Yerkes: A Summary - By Murry J. Cohen MD, Stephen R. Kaufman MD, and Brandon P. Reines MD, Medical Research Modernization Committee - Those who experiment on nonhuman primates have grossly exaggerated the role of nonhuman-primate studies in medical progress and significantly minimized the misleading data that results. A Critique of Maternal Deprivation Monkey Experiments at The State University of New York Health Science Center - By Murry J. Cohen MD, Medical Research Modernization Committee - The relevance and importance of maternal deprivation monkey experiments continue to be scientifically debated because of conceptual and methodological flaws in the experimental design. Science On Trial: The Human Cost of Animal Experiments - By Dr Robert Sharpe - Review of the book of the same name, in which the former Senior Research Chemist presents a powerful body of evidence and argument to demonstrate that, far from being scientific, animal research is methodologically flawed, and has retarded advances in human health. The Thalidomide Tragedy: Another Example Of Animal Research Misleading Science - By CAFMR - With the recent appearance of Thalidomide's dreadful effects being passed on to the children of the drug's victims, once again the issue has been raised of whether the drug tragedy in the 1960's could have been predicted and thereby averted by the manufactures' original animal tests. Shortcomings of AIDS-Related Animal Experimentation - By Stephen R. Kaufman MD, Murry J. Cohen MD, and Steve Simmons, Medical Research Modernization Committee - Animal experimentation consumes much of the funding for research aimed at addressing the AIDS epidemic. The Medical Research Modernization Committee has identified fundamental scientific problems with animal experimentation in general and AIDS- related animal experimentation in particular. Hepatitis C and Chimpanzees - By Ray Greek MD and Jean Greek DVM, Americans For Medical Advancement - Critique of the use of Chimpanzees and other nonhuman primates in Hepatitis C research. Health in Crisis - By CAFMR - Major afflictions such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, iatrogenic (doctor induced) disease, diabetes, birth defects, asthma, arthritis, leukaemia, mental disease, and an endless list of other old diseases along with many new ones, such as herpes and AIDS, are killing and damaging more and more Australians every day. World Without Cancer and The Politics of Cancer Therapy - By G. Edward Griffin - Review of the book and audio of the same name which expose the science and politics of the Laetrile cancer therapy. The materials give a remarkable analysis of the international drug cartel and its devastating impact on medicine. The Drug Story - By Hans Ruesch - Reports on Morris Bealle's 1949 classic book of the same name which looks into the history of the Drug Trust, its hidden ownership, profits, and impact on the health of the American people. In-Vitro Fertilisation - A Scientific Sham - By Robert Ryan BSc, CAFMR - The propaganda with which the IVF program is sold to the general public relies on its alleged usefulness in the treatment of infertility. However, IVF has only an approximate 10% success rate. In other words, it has a 90% failure rate! Divided Legacy: A History of the Schism in Medical Thought; Volume IV. Twentieth-Century Medicine: The Bacteriological Era - By Harris L. Coulter PhD - Review of the book of the same name in which the medical historian continues his analysis of the clashes between Empiricism and Rationalism which have dominated the history of medicine since ancient times. Poisonous Prescriptions - By Dr Lisa Landymore-Lim - Review of the book of the same name which describes the poisonous nature of pharmaceutical drugs and their adverse effects. The book details the relationship of asthma and diabetes to antibiotics and other drugs. SIDS and Seizures - By Harris L. Coulter PhD - Examines a number of studies in respect to vaccinations and SIDS and seizures. Shows how epidemiological statistics are manipulated to clear vaccinations of any causal effect. Vaccination Debate: Do Vaccines Cause Cot Deaths? - Harris L. Coulter PhD debates on the vaccination link to sudden infant death syndrome. Why a Satisfactory Solution to the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Has Not Been Achieved - By Dr Archie Kalokerinos - Eminent MD speaks out against the SIDS establishment. Red Nose Day - The Controversy Deepens - By CAFMR - More damning evidence has come to light about causes of cot death. Look at Cots to Isolate Possible Cause of SIDS - By Dr Jim Sprott - Babies are succumbing to cot death because of inadvertent gaseous poisoning by extremely toxic nerve gases generated by microbiological action on certain chemicals within the baby's mattress. The Cot Death Cover-Up? - By Dr Jim Sprott - Review of the book of the same name which details the poisonous gas-SIDS connection.
Disclaimer: The information on this website is presented for educational purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for the diagnosis, treatment and advice of a qualified licensed professional. Much of this information is from a non-CAFMR source. Although each of the articles has been carefully selected for its valuable content, we do not necessarily share all the views expressed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research P.O. Box 234 Lawson, New South Wales 2783 Australia Phone: +61 (0)2-4758-6822 URL: www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr
> In article <da1ed77e-fe7f-4ba8-858d-9991eb4f9...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -- David Wright David Wright - 25 Jan 2008 04:49 GMT >DW: Doesn't look like primarily the work of "anti-vax loons" to me. PA Well, they've branched out. They used to be more single-track anti-vax loons. Now they're also against any sort of animal medical research, too.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
>Excerpt From: >CAFMR Archives and Links [quoted text clipped - 254 lines] >> >> -- David Wright Debbee - 25 Jan 2008 06:01 GMT > In article <37391d90-7e18-4a80-96c9-9c96a8dfb...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anti-vax loons. Now they're also against any sort of animal medical > research, too. I understand from speaking to a researcher and animal advocate by the name of Pam Markle the other day, that there are still a number of people opposed to research using rats or mice. Do you know if that is true, David?
David Wright - 29 Jan 2008 04:08 GMT >> In article ><37391d90-7e18-4a80-96c9-9c96a8dfb...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >that there are still a number of people opposed to research using rats >or mice. Do you know if that is true, David? Oh, absolutely. Check out PETA, for example.
Personally, I think we should use PETA members for lab experiments, especially their top executives. We wouldn't have to worry about the researchers getting attached to them.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
rpautrey2 - 29 Jan 2008 04:21 GMT DW: Crude! PA
> In article <2ea0ec77-5047-40fa-997c-6367fed88...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -- David Wright D. C. Sessions - 29 Jan 2008 19:18 GMT > Personally, I think we should use PETA members for lab experiments, > especially their top executives. We wouldn't have to worry about the > researchers getting attached to them. Every now and then they volunteer, as when an "action group" broke into a medical research lab and "liberated" the experimental animals. The fact that some of them were already carrying human- infectious diseases? Not their problem.
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Debbee - 30 Jan 2008 00:45 GMT > Every now and then they volunteer, as when an "action group" broke > into a medical research lab and "liberated" the experimental > animals. The fact that some of them were already carrying human- > infectious diseases? Not their problem. DC, I was just having this discussion with a friend on the telephone the other night, I know someone that "liberated" some animals at a pet shelter...all of them when he was but a youth...he and his friend feared their destiny would not be pleasant, so he helped them run free....
D. C. Sessions - 30 Jan 2008 01:16 GMT >> Every now and then they volunteer, as when an "action group" broke >> into a medical research lab and "liberated" the experimental [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > pleasant, so he > helped them run free.... And for all he knows, it was a no-kill shelter that only takes in animals that they can place for adoption. So instead of being fed, protected, cared for, and eventually placed in loving homes he put them out on the street to be run over, starve, become coyote food, etc. -- and if they survive that, eventually picked up in such rotten condition that they never made it to the adoption list but instead went straight to euthanasia.
$HERSELF has done a good bit of work with shelters. There are lots worse fates for animals on the streets, and odds are that your friend helped them find them. But, hey! Not his problem.
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Peter Bowditch - 30 Jan 2008 01:20 GMT >> Every now and then they volunteer, as when an "action group" broke >> into a medical research lab and "liberated" the experimental [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >pleasant, so he >helped them run free.... A pet shelter isn't a medical research laboratory.
One of the classic pieces of hypocrisy and hubris came from one of the senior executives at PETA who justified using porcine insulin to treat her diabetes on the grounds that some people were so important that exceptions could be made.
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Richard Schultz - 30 Jan 2008 05:35 GMT : One of the classic pieces of hypocrisy and hubris came from one of the : senior executives at PETA who justified using porcine insulin to treat : her diabetes on the grounds that some people were so important that : exceptions could be made. This sort of hypocrisy goes back well over a century. I read once (in a piece by James Thurber) of a 19th-century _Punch_ cartoon in which a woman is saying to her husband, "Our daughter was bitten by a mad dog, take her for treatment," and to his reply "I thought that you objected to Pasteur's use of animals," she says "What is a rabbit or two compared to our only child?"
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
David Wright - 30 Jan 2008 02:21 GMT >> Every now and then they volunteer, as when an "action group" broke >> into a medical research lab and "liberated" the experimental [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >was but a youth...he and his friend feared their destiny would not be >pleasant, so he helped them run free.... Marvelous. Freed them to starve, probably. How humane.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
Debbee - 30 Jan 2008 02:44 GMT > Marvelous. Freed them to starve, probably. How humane. Absolutely not. If you knew where he freed them - they were headed into their last 12 hours - you would be impressed---right next door to another shelter that found homes no matter what---kind of like out one door and into another.......
David Wright - 30 Jan 2008 02:53 GMT >> Marvelous. Freed them to starve, probably. How humane. >> >Absolutely not. If you knew where he freed them - they were >headed into their last 12 hours - you would be impressed---right next >door to another shelter that found homes no matter what---kind of like >out one door and into another....... Why not just *take* them to the shelter? Freeing them nearby is not a guarantee they'd be found. As opposed to, say, being run over.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
Debbee - 30 Jan 2008 08:41 GMT .....
> Why not just *take* them to the shelter? Freeing them nearby is not a > guarantee they'd be found. As opposed to, say, being run over. These were two 14 year old boys--now grown men of 50 telling the story about their youth-------I thought it was kind of a neat story because they wanted to save the cats and dogs before their 12th hour was up and got to a place where made sure that they would not be done in when the bell rang 12.
David Wright - 30 Jan 2008 02:14 GMT >> Personally, I think we should use PETA members for lab experiments, >> especially their top executives. We wouldn't have to worry about the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >animals. The fact that some of them were already carrying human- >infectious diseases? Not their problem. As usual, the Onion nails PETA, and some of their fellow travellers:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39180
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28724
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
D. C. Sessions - 30 Jan 2008 02:27 GMT >>> Personally, I think we should use PETA members for lab experiments, >>> especially their top executives. We wouldn't have to worry about the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > As usual, the Onion nails PETA, and some of their fellow travellers: Have you seen Mercedes Lackey's short one on the "liberation" of Jurassic Park?
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
David Wright - 30 Jan 2008 02:53 GMT >>>> Personally, I think we should use PETA members for lab experiments, >>>> especially their top executives. We wouldn't have to worry about the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Have you seen Mercedes Lackey's short one on the "liberation" of >Jurassic Park? Something sort of similar happens in John Varley's "Mammoth."
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
D. C. Sessions - 30 Jan 2008 02:33 GMT >>> Personally, I think we should use PETA members for lab experiments, >>> especially their top executives. We wouldn't have to worry about the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28724 The problem is that the Onion can't top the Beeb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1617919.stm
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
vernon O - 22 Jan 2008 21:37 GMT > In article > <da1ed77e-fe7f-4ba8-858d-9991eb4f9e73@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Despite the name of the organization, they're primarily a bunch of > anti-vax loons. AWWWW. you're kidding :>)
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down > on?" > -- Bill Maher David Wright - 22 Jan 2008 03:07 GMT >> It's biology in general, not just the medical field. In chemistry or >> physics, you're dealing with inanimate things. They're much simpler [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >What is the sole purpose of "fraud," other to be deceitful???? How >does one even know, David, how many of the alleged "scientific journals" or "peer reviewed journals" are really real??? When did they star the process of having more people review a study?
Your first question isn't really on-target. Fraud may have many reasons. Someone may be trying to defend a deeply-held belief, or preserve their funding, or just self-deluded. Or it can be calculated deception.
Anyway, the process of having others review results is just peer review and it's been around for a long time. I've been a reviewer myself, both for journals and for conference papers.
>If I remember correctly, you are into children's issues---autism, >right? I don't have any special interest in children's issues, but I do take an interest in them.
>What if the studies you believed in, turn out down the road to have >been faked all of these years? I know you said you were not a >doctor, but have an interest in children's health. How does one >know what's real and what is not? The same applies with equal or greater force to all those testimonials we see for alternative "remedies," you know.
However, there is no godlike way in which we can magically say "this study is true, but this one is false." All we can do is have someone else try to repeat the results that the original claimant produces.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
D. C. Sessions - 22 Jan 2008 12:39 GMT > In article <0d725f6e-a349-4ef7-b313-a8f1e4437e21@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>>What if the studies you believed in, turn out down the road to have >>been faked all of these years? I know you said you were not a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The same applies with equal or greater force to all those testimonials > we see for alternative "remedies," you know. The question itself presumes a rather remarkable conspiracy, doesn't it?
The classic problem with all conspiracy theories is that they are so totally Aristotelian: they presume that since one person may be a liar, any arbitrary group of people may also be a collective liar. Somehow the difficulty of maintaining security for such a large effort is not a problem.
The problem with "what if they were all faked?" is basically twofold:
On the one hand, it is manifestly impossible for any of us to accomplish anything nontrivial without building on the work of others. Refusing to do so dooms us to reinventing the wheel -- at best.
On the other hand, the plausibility of *ALL* of such a large body of work being faked is vanishingly low [1]. It would be low if it were only literary, but it's not: it's all, ultimately, about independently verifiable objective reality. A great many of those studies are being replicated daily in hospital labs around the world, for instance.
Before you know it, this line of argument soon requires a conspiracy among tens of millions of people all over the world, from lab techs to students in high-school biology classes. Carole may be standing out alone in citing the Illuminati as being behind it all, but she's just more frank about taking the whole system to its inevitable conclusion.
> However, there is no godlike way in which we can magically say "this > study is true, but this one is false." All we can do is have someone > else try to repeat the results that the original claimant produces. I think that there's a serious amount of Descartes still in circulation: the desire to discover, by unaided reason, the fundamental truth of the Universe. Maybe it's connected to the Mysterious Island syndrome where people imagine that an educated Frenchman, dropped on a desert island, can recreate all of the artifacts of modern civilization and eventually be rescued by posting a message on the Internet.
In medicine, this translates into a need for certainty that doesn't depend on anyone else.
[1] When I write "vanishingly low," keep in mind that I do so in the context of a profession that measures the probability of errors in transmitted information by orders of magnitude. A probability of error of 1E-15 is considered barely acceptable for raw data; when I write "vanishingly low" I'm dealing with probabilities much, much smaller than that. I'm not fool enough to expect those who believe in the Illuminati to understand how unlikely "1E-30" really is, though.
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Mark Probert - 22 Jan 2008 13:18 GMT >> In article <0d725f6e-a349-4ef7-b313-a8f1e4437e21@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > smaller than that. I'm not fool enough to expect those who believe > in the Illuminati to understand how unlikely "1E-30" really is, though. Excellent post
Debbee - 22 Jan 2008 23:55 GMT > Excellent post Kind of sounded like a post hole digger to me...<smile>
Debbee - 23 Jan 2008 01:32 GMT .
> The question itself presumes a rather remarkable conspiracy, doesn't > it? I'm not really surprised of your comment, on the subject matter of "conspiracy," that individuals from the predominately alternative medicine group haven't pursued the angle of using the RICO Act against conventional medicine and their supporters. You know that would be an interesting case if that were to occur. Can you only imagine the money that would suddenly pour in from out of nowhere if this were to occur to try and prove that the alternative health care therapies can work? I think we would see a lot people backpedalling, and explaining that they got caught up in something that they had no real knowledge about but had been told that alternative therapies were "evil," and it was their job to fight off "the evil," using any means that they could.
Where would your stance be on this DC? Seriously, if you got caught up in something because you believed the story teller, instead of investigating the real story to see if it was something that was worth getting involved with? Would you be backpedalling too, or would you stand firm in your believe that the majority of alternative medicines are "evil," and it was your job to attempt to do away with it, and the people involved in it?
That's why I use the best of both worlds. The last thing I would want to be accused of is siding with one avenue of medicine, and belittling anyone for their choice of healthcare.
Mark Probert - 23 Jan 2008 13:22 GMT > . >> The question itself presumes a rather remarkable conspiracy, doesn't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You know that would be an interesting > case if that were to occur. First time that a judge died of laughter.
Can you only imagine the money that would
> suddenly pour in from out of nowhere > if this were to occur to try and prove that the alternative health > care therapies can work? Cannot happen. The experts would not survive Daubert.
I think we would see a lot
> people backpedalling, and explaining that they got caught up in > something that they had no real knowledge about [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to be accused of is siding with one avenue > of medicine, and belittling anyone for their choice of healthcare. Debbee - 23 Jan 2008 14:10 GMT > First time that a judge died of laughter. I have a cousin that is a judge. We had this same conversation back in October.
jurimed2@yahoo.com - 23 Jan 2008 16:36 GMT > In message <qvidndKxn9JAwAjanZ2dnUVZ_gOdn...@comcast.com>,DavidWrightwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but trywww.santaclaus.com. | > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ Gee whiz...
Douglas can talk in "psuedo-intellectual, psuedo-skeptic, psuedo- scientific, psuedo-psychological barf lingo" ad nauseum.
How impressive. Not.
Gee, a reference, in the same message to Aristotle and Descartes all within inches of each other. Wow! (sarcasm intended)
And, the point of his poorly written soliloquy was what? To convince us that there is nothing wrong with the medical peer review system because long dead philosophers say everything's OK?
Yawning in Califoirnia...
Tim Bolen
Jan Drew - 19 Jan 2008 02:46 GMT >> Unbelievable. Yet believable, but why would people be this dishonest >> is beyond me. It makes one skeptical of who has told the truth in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > PM Then...we have the FDA who hides them.
http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/04/07/011.html
FDA Covers Up Its Misdeeds, Too While FDA has been involved in its share of cover-ups, the public rarely hears about such practices.
Carole - 19 Jan 2008 12:46 GMT > > Unbelievable. Yet believable, but why would people be this dishonest > > is beyond me. It makes one skeptical of who has told the truth in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > replication of studies. At least three studies by different researchers > are needed before most drugs are approved. So then we get three faked studies? That's an improvement -- not.
> A recent innovation is the registration of all planned clinical studies, so > that drug companies cannot hide them away if they give unfavorable results. It just makes them careful about what they do studies on, and get the wording right to cover their arses. Doesn't make their products any better.
Carole www.cellsalts.net
> PM Debbee - 20 Jan 2008 23:34 GMT > Yes, studies are easily faked. This is partly why the FDA requires > replication of studies. At least three studies by different researchers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > PM I am really having a hard time with peer reviewed journals. For instance, I just pulled up this girl/guys website, and he/she is reviewing the same people's "stuff" over and over and over. I have a real problem with people being 'too cozy" with each other.
http://www.orgs.utulsa.edu/trapt/Accomplishments.htm
rpautrey2 - 19 Jan 2008 01:55 GMT It never changes for the better, it always gets worse. PA
Allegations Of Fake Medical Research Hit New High By Martha Mendoza AP National Writer 7-12-5 http://www.rense.com/general66/newhigh.htm
Allegations of misconduct by U.S. researchers reached record highs last year as the Department of Health and Human Services received 274 complaints - 50 percent higher than 2003 and the most since 1989 when the federal government established a program to deal with scientific misconduct.
Chris Pascal, director of the federal Office of Research Integrity, said its 28 staffers and $7 million annual budget haven't kept pace with the allegations. The result: Only 23 cases were closed last year. Of those, eight individuals were found guilty of research misconduct. In the past 15 years, the office has confirmed about 185 cases of scientific misconduct.
Research suggests this is but a small fraction of all the incidents of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. In a survey published June 9 in the journal Nature, about 1.5 percent of 3,247 researchers who responded admitted to falsification or plagiarism. (One in three admitted to some type of professional misbehavior.)
David Wright - 19 Jan 2008 02:45 GMT >Unbelievable. Yet believable, but why would people be this dishonest >is beyond me. It makes one skeptical of who has told the truth in >their peer reviewed journals and who has not. > >http://www.rense.com/general66/newhigh.htm That's why a single study can never be considered definitive. You need someone else to replicate the results.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher
vernon O - 19 Jan 2008 20:04 GMT > In article > <6d814f5c-2cf1-4875-9d6b-361360885d28@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's why a single study can never be considered definitive. You > need someone else to replicate the results. Preferably with a differernt target in mind. It's tough, but closer to truth.
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down > on?" > -- Bill Maher
|
|
|