Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / January 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Fake Research

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
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



©2008 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.