Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

(Beth) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message m...

As a follow-on, Beth - and the example has nothing to do with kids.

Okay. I'm taking a break, so I'll post a quick response.

Here's a news report from February 23rd - CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/condi....ap/index.html

It details some data analysis from the Nurses Health Study.

Two questions for you - is the news report accurate and if so, if you
were taking hormones right now, would you stop because of this study?

Is it accurate? Depends on how you define accurate doesn't it?

Accurate - complete and not misleading in any particular. That's how
the FDA defines accuracy, by the way, not me (they use the term full
disclosure).

I
didn't see anything that would cause me to question the veracity of
what was in the article, but it did not include lots of relevant
information.

This didn't strike you at all "suspicious"?

"For women who have severe asthma that develops later in life, they
may want to consider a trial of stopping hormone replacement therapy
to see if this alleviates their condition," Barr said."

Anyone remotely familiar with the NHS (nurses health study) would
immediately jump on that one with a big question mark. It was what
bothered me immediately and I'm not an endocrinologist or a
pulmonologist.

So it doesn't have all the information you want. It isn't complete,
then. And you didn't question anything? Yikes, as they say.

I haven't checked the source material, so it possible
it's even completely false (rare in legimate news stories). It could
be misleading (common even in legimate news stores). I wouldn't
necessarily know, so I'd reserve judgement until I had more knowledge.
Believe it or not, there is a middle ground between accepting
information at face value and rejecting it outright.

Please remember that.

Would I stop taking hormones because of it? No. If I were taking
hormones, and if what I read disturbed me, I would seek out more
information and discuss it with my physician. I don't think it wise
to make such a decision based on so little information. In addition,
my understanding is that it isn't wise to discontinue any prescription
medication without first consulting the physician who prescribed it.
This doesn't mean that, were I faced with deciding to embark upon such
a treatment, I wouldn't include that information in making the
decision. It only means that I wouldn't base a decision solely on that
information. This is what I've said previously.

Then go read the article and you'll start to get a feel for the
quality of the information.

Here is the tagline for the newspaper report:

"A study found that women who use hormones during menopause run double
the risk of developing the respiratory ailment."

Without reading the actual article, how confident are you that the
results presented in the newspaper report are correct and sufficient
for a person to make a good decision regarding if they should start
hormone therapy or, if they are on therapy, they should stop. What if
this person is non-white? What if this person is over 65? What if
this person is taking just estrogens?

As I said before, I wouldn't recommend basing a decision like that on
a single newpaper article. That holds regardless of age, race, and
applies to all the questions you've asked. I'm going to skip most the
remaining questions. They seem rather repitious to me.

All of a sudden, your penchant for newspapers as a source of unbiased
medical information has waned a bit.

Thanks for making my point. You cannot effectively assess the
accuracy, validity, or biases of an article in the newspaper. You can
if you read the medical literature.

What is the most interesting, and I haven't noted it with you, is that
some posters will scream about allopathic medicines deficiencies and
rant about what idiots their doctor is all because they read this off
the AP wire. I'll paraphrase: How can any doctor in good conscience
actually prescribe this crap -must be because they are in the pocket
of the big bad pharma companies.

That, Beth, is what makes this journalistic foray into medicine so
disgusting.

Can (does?) duration of exposure change the relative risk? Does the
newspaper article imply this? Does the journal article confirm this?

Assume you are taking hormones and you are experiencing asthma, would
you follow Dr. Barr's recommendation? Is the recommendation valid
based on her data?

"For women who have severe asthma that develops later in life, they
may want to consider a trial of stopping hormone replacement therapy
to see if this alleviates their condition," Barr said."

What about other respiratory ailments? COPD? Is there a
relationship?

This is an example of what likely is a well intentioned newspaper
report - how good is it? Obviously I think it sucks - what about you?

I didn't notice any serious problems on a quick read.

Because you didn't bother to read the actual journal article.

It alerts
people to a potential problem.

No, it is not an alert - it is a warning that hormones cause asthma!

If it affects them, they can always
read the journal article, discuss it with their physician, or get
additional information in other ways.

You don't get it, do you. Some of these people will stop taking their
HRT BECAUSE of this or decide NOT to use HRT because of this newspaper
rendition when it is completely medically unnecessary or even
medically damaging to do so.

I repeat, I've never
recommended making decisions based on a single newpaper article. I've
only said that I include information received from news sources in
making my decisions.

Well, then you don't know much about human nature.

If it wasn't for such articles, most people would have no idea that
such research was done and would not seek out further information even
it if was pertitent to them. If you hadn't pointed it out to me, I
likely would have missed this study altogether. I'd rather have some
knowledge - i.e. that a study has shown a relationship between hormone
therapy and asthma - than none if and when I am faced with making such
a choice. At least I would know to make a search for further
information and/or discuss it with my physician.

Like I said - the article sucks. But then again I read the journal
version.

Beth

js

(abacus) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message

Sir, I must doff my metaphorical hat to you. This is absolutely the
most work anyone has ever put into a response to one of posts. 'tis a
real shame that you missed the main thrust of my argument. I feel I
must make at least a token response to acknowledge the effort you have
put forth. However, I must make this a short post.

Please accept the brevity of my response.

Now that makes three times I failed to read in between the lines.

My apologies sir. I'm sure it is due solely to my own ineptitude in
expressing myself clearly and precisely.

Clearly.

And I posted a quote from her:

"Despite the many temptations modern scientists face, they still
believe their discipline is self-correcting because it is open,
verifiable and subject to close review by scientific peers. In
American
medicine, however, all three of these pillars are deteriorating."

And I asked for the proof - to which you replied:

"Yes, of course. The reason she made such a statement must be due to
her own bias. It can't possibly be because what she says is true."

My point here, sir, was regarding your own bias. You assumed she was
biased rather than considering the possibility she was correct. Then
you assumed I agreed with her. I do NOT assume she is correct. I
merely regard it as plausible hypothesis.

Competing data and personal experience plus prior knowledge of
sinmilar diatribes gave me reasonable suspicion to suggest that her
hypothesis is incorrect.

You, on the other hand, immediately jumped to the conclusion that such
a statement revealed her bias rather than entertaining the notion that
such a hypothesis might be true.

As I said, previous information and experience already provided
evidentiary support thatt her 1994 hypothesis was (is) incorrect.

That, in my opinion, was a sign of
your own bias.

It is an unbiased estimator based on data. Unfortunately, her
hypothesis is hardly testable in the empirical sense.

Been pleasant chatting with you sir.

Yeh - sure. Next time, defend your position - don't be such a wimp.

I made the effort to read the book - now you defend your
charawcterization of it:

"Cynthia Crossen's "The Tainted Truth" is an excellent expose what can
result
from the unconscious bias of honest researchers."

"The idea that accepting funding for research won't taint the results
is
IMO a big part of the problem. For more information on this
particular issue and how it can bias results, may I suggest the book
"Tainted Truth : The Manipulation of Fact In America" by Cynthia
Crossen, a reporter and editor for the Wall Street Journal."

Like I said - her anecdotes do NOT show this - the three primary
anecdotes she proports to show this are innacurate - as I have pointed
out.

Her conclusion is unsubstantiated.

The bulk of her book involves the misuse of research by the MEDIA.

Next time when you parade out the journalistic evidence you might
first want to check that in fact the evidence is supported and
consistent with your argument.

js

"CBI" wrote in message
hlink.net...
JG wrote:
"CBI" wrote in message

hlink.net...

[...CBI's denial of setting up a straw man argument deleted...]

I've simply questioned (asked) how
extensively Wakefield had developed his "MMR theories" and
how much
research he (and his colleagues at the RFH) had done
*before* the
lawyers knocked on his door
with their money. Jonathan (and perhaps Mark) apparently
believe
virtually
all, if not absolutely all, occurred *after* Wakefield had
accepted
the lawyers'
money; hell, Jonathan even created a "likely timeline"
based on the
publication date of the Lancet article.

In his reply to this post be gives a pretty convincing one.

Okay, I went to Google and found it.

He actually has done so in previous posts but you seemt o
prefer not to see it.

The timeline I saw (before killfiling him) was entirely speculative,
nothing more than a conjecture (as to when the receipt of money from the
legal aid group occurred) arrived at by working backwards from the
date--'98--Wakefield's Lancet article was published.

Suffice it to say that the Lawyers
cash was involved very early - if not at the very beginning.
His exact dates are alot more convincing than your "mid
'90's".

Uh, Chris, what I'm looking for is some concrete evidence of *when* the
(first) payment to Wakefield occurred. Jonathan didn't include this key
item in his timeline, and your "Suffice it to say that the Lawyers (sic)
cash was involved very early - if not at the very beginning" comment is,
well, downright comical given that *it* is considerably less precise
than even "the mid-1990s."

Comment: Wakefield's theory of an MMR-intestinal disorder
link was
clearly his own, and it appears that adding autism (as
another
possible MMR-induced
disorder), "by the mid-1990s," was as well.

Comment: His reseacrh seems to have looked at wild type
virus and Crohn's, not MMR. He seems to have made that leap
in the absence of data and was soundl;y trashed for it.

IIRC, subsequent research (e.g., by John O'Leary at Trinity University)
has shown that the measles virus (in the intestines of kids with autism)
is the vaccine strain.

Then
he moved on to the autism link and it is pretty clear that
his interest wasa ccelerated if not inspired by the lawyer's
money.

Perhaps.

...that have instead tried to take us
into this littel side trip about funding of conflict of
interest in general.

Hey, Chris... Jonathan's the one who seems intent on
prolonging a
debate about "conflict of interest" and "potential
conflict of
interest," despite the
fact that everyone who's weighed in (including you, if
I've understood
your views correctly) has tried to explain to him that the
disclosure
of a conflict of interest DOESN'T annul that conflict of
interest.

I understand his point and I think the difference between
his and mine is largely semantic or theoretical. That isn't
the side trip i was talking about. I was referring to
bringing in Cherry as a counter example without ever making
a concrete statement of what he is an example of

???? Cherry is an example of a researcher/author with a (big-time!)
conflict of interest. If I didn't make that clear, the excerpt from the
"Money" article certainly should have.

....and then
demanding that others do your research for you.

No; I've simply asked Jonathan to prove that Cherry has invariably
disclosed his financial ties to Lederle (Wyeth) when he's submitted
articles for publication. (I don't doubt that he has when he's
testified on Lederle's behalf in vaccine-injury lawsuits; i.e., I don't
doubt plaintiffs' attorneys have made the relationship known to the
court.) Look, the number of articles he's written is finite, so it's
not an impossible task. (Where you got the idea that I was asking him
to "prove a negative" is beyond me...)

But you have brought us back to the
original issue. That is that Wakefield hid his conflict
of
interest.

Yes, he undoubtedly did. Again, what I've questioned is
the timeline,
because it's pertinent, IMO, to the *degree* of guilt:
Which came
first, Wakefield's theory of an MMR-intestinal
disorder-autism link or
his receipt of funds from the legal aid group? (If the
latter, I
suppose it could be claimed that it's entirely the
"lawyers and
parents theory," *not* Wakefield's. If the former--as the
BBC report
indicates--Wakefield looks a bit better, though certainly
his receipt
of funding for a separate, concurrent study should have
been divulged
*alongside every MMR-related paper/research report he
submitted*, to
anyone, from the time he accepted the funds onward.)

I don't think the BBC study gives enough detail to make any
determination. Jonathan's post pretty much nails down his
public disclosure about the same time as the legal interest.

The "mid-1990s" is less vague than "about the same time"? ....Sure.
Uh-huh.

of course, ti si not possible to know wha he was working on
and not publishing

Certainly.

but his lack of mention of any data in
letters to editors is somewhat telling since it is usuall to
cite personal data in such venues if you have it.

Very, very weak argument.

Only fools would
*unquestioningly* accept it if they, or someone for whom
they're
responsible, might be affected by the information
(conclusions/recommendations) presented.

And nly fools would unquestioningly reject it just because
the guy took a speakers fee.

Straw man.

I've killfiled the guy.

That's interesting. I gotta wonder about the motive.

I don't have the time to respond to his tediously protracted posts. He
frequently tries to set up hypothetical, "What would you do/say
about..."--typically straw man arguments--to either divert attention
from a discussion in which he's making little/no headway to one about a
tangential topic he [apparently] feels more comfortable discussing.
He's insufferably pretentious. We have nothing (more than his own
assertions) to show that he has experience in the fields in which he
claims to have been involved "in a previous life." He makes wild
assumptions about people based on nothing more than his imagination, and
he's usually (in my case, thus far *always*) wrong. He's egregiously
insulting to anyone who disagrees with (or questions) him (e.g., abacus,
Beth). In short, I think he has a huge chip on his shoulder and
responding to his diatribes simply isn't worth the time/effort; I have
better--more productive--things to do.

than to admit that
this sacred cow of the anti-vac comunity has turned out
to
be full of ****.

*Might* be, Chris; MIGHT be. (Why would Wakefield be more
so than
Cherry, who's also accepted funding from *very* interested
parties,
esp. Lederle?

No - definately is.

You stil don't get the difference. Wakefield took money and
THEN found what they wanted witht he promise of much more to
come. Cherry found what the drug companies wanted and THEN
took money to tell people about his findings. In one case it
seems that findings were purchased. In the other what was
purchased was the report of the previous findings.

Still speculative (regarding both men).

Do you agree with Jonathan; i.e., do you think that
simply disclosing a conflict of interest nullifies that
conflict of
interest, and that failing to disclose a conflict of
interest
automatically and invariably renders the information
"bogus"?) The
allegations at hand concern only a undisclosed conflict of
interest,
not the findings of Wakefield's studies.

I don't think you get what he has said. Maybe if you would
stop ridiculing him and read what he has to say you would.

Bwahahaha! Who ridicules whom, Chris? Get real!

And your tendancy to use innuendo rather than plain
speach
and then back away from your words when challenged has
also
been noted. (it has also been noted that it is a trick
you
appear to have learned from Schlafly.)

Seems we've discussed "implied" vs. "inferred" a few times
already.

I understand the difference. What you don't seem to want to
admit is that sometimes the inference is so clear that it
can be taken as proof of the what is being implied.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

You didn't say his
opinion has been purchased but you sure have implied it.

Look, Chris, Cherry's opinions regarding pertussis
vaccines and
vaccination *have* been purchased--he's testified for the
defense
(i.e., for Lederle) in more than a dozen court cases in
which the
plaintiffs have alleged (DPT) vaccine-induced
damage/death.

See above.

Wakefield's opinions have been purchased.

Conjecture. Circumstantial evidence, nothing more.

Cherry's opinions were formed based on good science (unless
you have proof to the contrary) and what was purchased was
to have him show up and talk about them. - Get it?

Yes, but *I* don't think *you* do. You seem to be looking at both
situations with an incredible amount of bias. We don't--can't--truly
know what either man believed (or the sincerity/depth of his belief),
when he first believed (theorized) it, and what prompted his belief.
It's *all* speculation/conjecture.

3) Attack the other poster personally.

Oh, puhleeze, Chris! I'm a libertarian. I don't believe,
as a rule,
in the initiation of force (including personal--ad
hominem--attacks).
Read a few of Jonathan's posts (this thread and others),
then go look
up "double standard" in a dictionary.

Oh puuuuuuhhhleeese - you regularly resort to ad hominem
attacks without provocation.

I disagree.

Huh? When I have "declared the other people are too
dense..." (and
"sulked" off)?

You just did it earlier this post.

I did?

Your accusations are quite tiresome; shall I add this
to your "JG thinks physicians and their associations
should be
censored" (still unsubstantiated, btw) assertion?

No, it was substantiated.

I think others would disagree (but then you'd discount their opinions,
too).

You just refuse to follow any
logic more than one step long.

Picking up "tricks" from JS? g

1) You claim that the AAP pronouncements dictate government
policy.

Huh? Sorry, but I'd never (*never*!) claim that a bunch of
pediatricians had the power to dictate policy. (Attempt to, yes.)

2) You say there are certain areas where the government
should stay out.

Damn right. There are numerous such "areas." The gubmnt should confine
its activities to those enumerated in the Constitution.

3) Therefore you don't think the AAP should comment on those
areas.

I've previously explained the difference between "should not" and "must
not."

I posted links for all of it.

Again, you seem to like to express ideas and then try to
hide behind the fact that you didn't use specific words.

Again, I disagree. I love the English language, including the very
precision of certain words. I choose my words carefully/deliberately
(especially when debating), and if you don't perceive the nuances, that,
IMO, is *your* problem.

Non-answer to JS's comments noted.

Non-answer? Look, "Money," as I stated, *is* highly
regarded.

For investment advice - yes. For commentary and reporting on
biomedical science - no.

Then point out specific, verifiable errors in Rock's article, for
heaven's sake!
This "my profession's journals are superior" argument is ridiculous.

I've
no doubt the article was gone over by at least a few
editors as well
as the magazine's legal advisors. I don't recall hearing
of anyone
(e.g., Cherry) bringing a libel case in the wake of its
publication.

What kind of standard is that? I fthe don't sue they admit
it's true?

In a case such as this, where facts and figures are involved, yes.
(Bringing suit is rather extreme. I imagine "they" would simply ask for
a public retraction/clarification/apology.)

Besides, I am sure what they said is true. I take
issue with your interpretation of it. You have made it
painfully clear that you don;t know the first things about
research grants, gift, and other funding.

Actually, I do. I was raised (in large part) in academia, and I served
a term on my university's alumni association's board of directors. I
also (many years ago, "in a previous life," as JS might say) took a
course in accounting for non-profit organizations. A basic issue
regarding gifts and grants is who determines how they're used, the donor
(restricted grant/gift) or the recipient.

You call him
pigheaded butthen refuse to back down and drop this area of
obvious ignorance.

*Sigh*. Consider it dropped.

Either way, there is no
way your request for information translates into an
obligation for JS to do research for you. Besides, the
request is unreasonable on the face of it as it is
generally
considered impossible to prove a negative.

"Prove a negative"? *What* negative? Jonathan seems to
think
Cherry's work (his pertussis vaccine research/related
opinions) is
"pure"; I've simply asked him to provide evidence that
it--by *his*
definition that there's no conflict of interest if an
author divulges
his/her funding sources, for heaven's sake!--is.

Right - you are asking him to prove that there is no
conflict of interest. That is a negative.

No, Chris; I'm asking him to prove that a disclosure of Cherry's ties to
vaccine manufacturers (specifically Lederle) has always accompanied his
published articles/research studies; i.e., that Cherry's conflict of
interest wrt Lederle has regularly been divulged. You've simply twisted
it into a negative. Perhaps you don't think JS is up to this herculean
task?

And besides, like I have said a few time, Cherry is an issue
you raised. You have no right to demand that others do yuor
research for you. If you wish to say that he has been
affected by his conflicts of interest then you should
provide evidence.

Such as the incontrovertible proof you've provided that Wakefield was
"affected" by his conflicts of interest? Goose/gander, Chris! There
are simply some things that cannot be proven short of a confession (and
then your attorney steps in to have you declared non compos mentis
g).

If you do not wish to make that claim then
the whole thing is a non-sequitur.

[...]

JG

I'm dropping this thread. Enough is enough.

....we are entitled to make almost any reasonable assumption, but should
resist making conclusions until evidence requires that we do so. --
Steve Allen

"JG" wrote in message ...
"CBI" wrote in message
hlink.net...
JG wrote:
"CBI" wrote in message

hlink.net...

[...CBI's denial of setting up a straw man argument deleted...]


In his reply to this post be gives a pretty convincing one.

Okay, I went to Google and found it.

He actually has done so in previous posts but you seemt o
prefer not to see it.

The timeline I saw (before killfiling him) was entirely speculative,
nothing more than a conjecture (as to when the receipt of money from the
legal aid group occurred) arrived at by working backwards from the
date--'98--Wakefield's Lancet article was published.
...and then
demanding that others do your research for you.

No; I've simply asked Jonathan to prove that Cherry has invariably
disclosed his financial ties to Lederle (Wyeth) when he's submitted
articles for publication. (I don't doubt that he has when he's
testified on Lederle's behalf in vaccine-injury lawsuits; i.e., I don't
doubt plaintiffs' attorneys have made the relationship known to the
court.) Look, the number of articles he's written is finite, so it's
not an impossible task. (Where you got the idea that I was asking him
to "prove a negative" is beyond me...)

I've killfiled the guy.

That's interesting. I gotta wonder about the motive.

I don't have the time to respond to his tediously protracted posts. He
frequently tries to set up hypothetical, "What would you do/say
about..."--typically straw man arguments--to either divert attention
from a discussion in which he's making little/no headway to one about a
tangential topic he [apparently] feels more comfortable discussing.
He's insufferably pretentious. We have nothing (more than his own
assertions) to show that he has experience in the fields in which he
claims to have been involved "in a previous life." He makes wild
assumptions about people based on nothing more than his imagination, and
he's usually (in my case, thus far *always*) wrong. He's egregiously
insulting to anyone who disagrees with (or questions) him (e.g., abacus,
Beth). In short, I think he has a huge chip on his shoulder and
responding to his diatribes simply isn't worth the time/effort; I have
better--more productive--things to do.

For someone you killfiled, you certainly spend a lot of time
justifying yourself. Speaking of chips on shoulders, JG.

Besides, I am sure what they said is true. I take
issue with your interpretation of it. You have made it
painfully clear that you don;t know the first things about
research grants, gift, and other funding.

Actually, I do. I was raised (in large part) in academia, and I served
a term on my university's alumni association's board of directors. I
also (many years ago, "in a previous life," as JS might say) took a
course in accounting for non-profit organizations. A basic issue
regarding gifts and grants is who determines how they're used, the donor
(restricted grant/gift) or the recipient.

Which of course is all relevant to the 1990's.

You call him
pigheaded butthen refuse to back down and drop this area of
obvious ignorance.

*Sigh*. Consider it dropped.



Right - you are asking him to prove that there is no
conflict of interest. That is a negative.

No, Chris; I'm asking him to prove that a disclosure of Cherry's ties to
vaccine manufacturers (specifically Lederle) has always accompanied his
published articles/research studies; i.e., that Cherry's conflict of
interest wrt Lederle has regularly been divulged. You've simply twisted
it into a negative. Perhaps you don't think JS is up to this herculean
task?

All original research published by Cherry met the disclosure
requirements of the journals in which it was published. Every
original research article - every last one of them where Cherry is an
author. Every original research article. Not the editorials or the
letters to the editor - which of course is not required - these are op
eds and reflect the opinion of the author, not the data from a study.


JG

I'm dropping this thread. Enough is enough.

Run and hide - you've been completely and entirely trounced - again.

js

JG wrote:
"CBI" wrote in message

hlink.net...

Suffice it to say that the Lawyers
cash was involved very early - if not at the very
beginning.
His exact dates are alot more convincing than your "mid
'90's".

Uh, Chris, what I'm looking for is some concrete evidence
of *when*
the (first) payment to Wakefield occurred.

Considering that until recently he was denying that they
occured at all I think that that degree of precision in the
information is not lilely to be forthcomming. JS's time line
does narrow it down to a likely date of a year or so.



I understand his point and I think the difference between
his and mine is largely semantic or theoretical. That
isn't
the side trip i was talking about. I was referring to
bringing in Cherry as a counter example without ever
making
a concrete statement of what he is an example of

???? Cherry is an example of a researcher/author with a
(big-time!)
conflict of interest. If I didn't make that clear, the
excerpt from
the "Money" article certainly should have.

We were discussing a guy who took money from lawyers to make
a particular finding, found it, and then lied about it. As a
counter example you cite a researcher who did his research
and then got paid to talk about his findings.



...and then
demanding that others do your research for you.

No; I've simply asked Jonathan to prove that Cherry has
invariably
disclosed his financial ties to Lederle (Wyeth) when he's
submitted
articles for publication.

What is the difference. You brought him up. You are saying
he is an example of something undesirable. How on earth does
that translate into anyone else having to research his
actions? It is your point - you research it.


Look, the number of articles he's written is finite, so
it's not an impossible task. (Where you got the idea that
I was
asking him to "prove a negative" is beyond me...)

You ahve asked that he prove he has never hidden sources of
bias. That is a negative.

You are losing coherence.



But you have brought us back to the
original issue. That is that Wakefield hid his conflict
of
interest.

Yes, he undoubtedly did. Again, what I've questioned is
the timeline,
because it's pertinent, IMO, to the *degree* of guilt:

????? Now who should be laughing? Your grasping at straws
is just getting silly. Now you are trying to defend his
lying as not being proved to be a big lie - maybe it is just
a medium size one? THAT is your defense of the man? Then as
a further rebuttal you point to a well respected researcher,
point out the obvious (that he has funding), and demand that
others prove he is innocence of the same offense as
Wakefield? While we are at it should we prove that he
doesn't beat his wife as well?


but his lack of mention of any data in
letters to editors is somewhat telling since it is usuall
to
cite personal data in such venues if you have it.

Very, very weak argument.

It only seems weak to someone with a weak grasp of the
process. To anyone who has made a carreer of doing and
interpretting research it is obvious.



Only fools would
*unquestioningly* accept it if they, or someone for whom
they're
responsible, might be affected by the information
(conclusions/recommendations) presented.

And nly fools would unquestioningly reject it just
because
the guy took a speakers fee.

Straw man.

I agree. That is why I turned it around on you.



I've killfiled the guy.

That's interesting. I gotta wonder about the motive.

I don't have the time to respond to his tediously
protracted posts.

Time (and inclination) to create and respond to tediously
protracted posts does not appear to be something you are
short of. There must be something else.


He frequently tries to set up hypothetical, "What would
you do/say
about..."--typically straw man arguments--to either divert
attention
from a discussion in which he's making little/no headway
to one about
a tangential topic he [apparently] feels more comfortable
discussing.

You mean like when we are discussing the sins of Wakefield
and you bring up Cherry?


He's insufferably pretentious. We have nothing (more than
his own
assertions) to show that he has experience in the fields
in which he
claims to have been involved "in a previous life."

That makes him just like everyone else on usenet.


He makes wild
assumptions about people based on nothing more than his
imagination,

And a smattering of facts.


and he's usually (in my case, thus far *always*) wrong.

No, I find him to be pretty much spot on. Maybe if we were
discussing a topic that your were more familiar with you
would see it. Face it, the ins and outs of funding, doing,
and reporting research is just not something you have a lot
of personal experience with. Others do.


He's
egregiously insulting to anyone who disagrees with (or
questions) him
(e.g., abacus, Beth).

Seems to be a lot of that going around.


In short, I think he has a huge chip on his
shoulder

A lot of that too.

and responding to his diatribes simply isn't worth the
time/effort; I have better--more productive--things to do.

Apparently not.



You stil don't get the difference. Wakefield took money
and
THEN found what they wanted witht he promise of much more
to
come. Cherry found what the drug companies wanted and
THEN
took money to tell people about his findings. In one case
it
seems that findings were purchased. In the other what was
purchased was the report of the previous findings.

Still speculative (regarding both men).

No, one has signifiant evidence about he issue (not the
least of which is lies to cover it up) and the other has
absolutely no evidence of wrong doing.


I don't think you get what he has said. Maybe if you
would
stop ridiculing him and read what he has to say you
would.

Bwahahaha! Who ridicules whom, Chris? Get real!

Thanks for making my point for me


Wakefield's opinions have been purchased.

Conjecture. Circumstantial evidence, nothing more.

Where there is smoke there is fire. If his funding was on
the up and up why did he lie about it?



Cherry's opinions were formed based on good science
(unless
you have proof to the contrary) and what was purchased
was
to have him show up and talk about them. - Get it?

Yes, but *I* don't think *you* do. You seem to be looking
at both
situations with an incredible amount of bias. We
don't--can't--truly
know what either man believed (or the sincerity/depth of
his belief),
when he first believed (theorized) it, and what prompted
his belief.
It's *all* speculation/conjecture.

No, but we know one of them lied about it.


1) You claim that the AAP pronouncements dictate
government
policy.

Huh? Sorry, but I'd never (*never*!) claim that a bunch
of
pediatricians had the power to dictate policy. (Attempt
to, yes.)

Oh yes you did. And this time you did use exactly that
phrase. I posted a link to the post in the previous thread
where you challenged me on the issue (and then you whined
because I posted the link to just that post and not the
whole thread).


Again, you seem to like to express ideas and then try to
hide behind the fact that you didn't use specific words.

Again, I disagree. I love the English language, including
the very
precision of certain words. I choose my words
carefully/deliberately
(especially when debating), and if you don't perceive the
nuances,
that, IMO, is *your* problem.

Oh, I never said the words were not careflly chosen. I think
they are very carefully chosen. I give you a lot of credit
for your skill in constructing arguments in such a way that
you can later wiggle away from them. You learned from the
master well.


For investment advice - yes. For commentary and reporting
on
biomedical science - no.

Then point out specific, verifiable errors in Rock's
article, for
heaven's sake!
This "my profession's journals are superior" argument is
ridiculous.

JS and I have already explained that to you. I'm sure his
article is factually correct. What we take issue with is
your intepretation of certain terms - mostly your lack of
understanding about what different sources of funding mean.


I've
no doubt the article was gone over by at least a few
editors as well
as the magazine's legal advisors. I don't recall
hearing
of anyone
(e.g., Cherry) bringing a libel case in the wake of its
publication.

What kind of standard is that? I fthe don't sue they
admit
it's true?

In a case such as this, where facts and figures are
involved, yes.
(Bringing suit is rather extreme. I imagine "they" would
simply ask
for a public retraction/clarification/apology.)

Oh, please. You have completely lost it. So you believe
everything you read unless the subject sues?



Right - you are asking him to prove that there is no
conflict of interest. That is a negative.

No, Chris; I'm asking him to prove that a disclosure of
Cherry's ties
to vaccine manufacturers (specifically Lederle) has always
accompanied his published articles/research studies; i.e.,
that
Cherry's conflict of interest wrt Lederle has regularly
been
divulged. You've simply twisted it into a negative.
Perhaps you
don't think JS is up to this herculean task?

Explain the difference between proving he has always
disclosed his ties and proving that he has never failed to
do so?



I'm dropping this thread.

I would think you should.

--
CBI, MD