Dr. Jay Gordon Responds to Dr. David Gorski and the Anons

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/08/dr-jay-gordon-r.html

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/orac_h.html

In article ,
JOHN wrote:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/08/dr-jay-gordon-r.html

Gordon only wrote this one. It's pretty lame. Even whiny. He
mentions that he doesn't make a vast amount of money, brags about all
the hospitals he works at, and so on. But my favorite part was this:

We both agree that Wakefield's original study was too small, not
well enough done and should never have led to the conclusions which
were published. Move on.

Why move on? The anti-vaxers all still treat Wakefield as though his
original travesty of a study was handed down by the gods. Not to
mention the soft-pedalling of 'not well enough done.' It was total
crap from beginning to end, the lab results were utterly invalid and
WAKEFIELD KNEW IT BEFORE THE STUDY WAS PUBLISHED. So the man has no
excuse, and neither does Gordon.

He's going to be known by the company he keeps, and the company he
keeps is the high-profile anti-vaxers. By the way, his whole
complaint, the one whose URL appears above, was also included as a
comment on Orac's blog. Not to mention that he supplied additional
comments to the same posting later on.

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/orac_h.html

This one is a Scudamore product; it has his usual combination of
marginal literacy, extensive ad hominem, numerous quotations from
other people, and nothing resembling a coherent argument.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"John McCain votes with Bush 95% of the time. That's not a
maverick - that's a sidekick!" -- Bob Casey Jr.

David Wright wrote:
In article ,
JOHN wrote:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/08/dr-jay-gordon-r.html

Gordon only wrote this one. It's pretty lame. Even whiny. He
mentions that he doesn't make a vast amount of money, brags about all
the hospitals he works at, and so on.

Whiny? He is just being polite. Too polite because for a bully it is
a sign of weakness.

But my favorite part was this:

We both agree that Wakefield's original study was too small, not
well enough done and should never have led to the conclusions which
were published. Move on.

Why move on? The anti-vaxers all still treat Wakefield as though his
original travesty of a study was handed down by the gods. Not to
mention the soft-pedalling of 'not well enough done.' It was total
crap from beginning to end, the lab results were utterly invalid and
WAKEFIELD KNEW IT BEFORE THE STUDY WAS PUBLISHED. So the man has no
excuse, and neither does Gordon.

Why move on? The answer is in the next sentences:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't support Wakefield's conclusions. I've told you this before but
you persist in your dishonest attempt to tie me to the small MMR study.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


He's going to be known by the company he keeps, and the company he
keeps is the high-profile anti-vaxers.

This is called "guilt by association". As he said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling me "anti-vaccine" is a lot simpler and might even have enough
accuracy to stick: I am very much opposed to the way vaccines are
formulated with aluminum as the chief adjuvant, thimerosal as a
preservative in many if not most influenza vaccines and I truly am
"anti" the increasing number of combinations of vaccines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, his whole
complaint, the one whose URL appears above, was also included as a
comment on Orac's blog. Not to mention that he supplied additional
comments to the same posting later on.


Yes, there were responses to his posting, so he replied to them.

irrelevant stuff snipped

Speaking of favorite parts, here is mine:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am damn sure that Dave/Orac does not have a real job: It takes hours
to write and edit this stuff and mine's nowhere near as good as Orac's!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In article HTYxk.899$Af3.429@trnddc06, Mike wrote:
David Wright wrote:
In article UmCwk.756$393.148@trnddc05, Mike wrote:
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:01 pm, Mike wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
You dare to overlook the life's work of a practicing pediatrician, the
thousands of births, the lives saved, the illneses cured?
Not at all. Howver, that does not equate with an academic oncological
surgeopn who is actively researching cancer.
I would say the opposite. An oncologist does not come close to a
practicing pediatrician on the issues of childhood vaccinations
even if he has a Nobel prize for cancer research.
I agree.
It is an example of the inexperience, ineptitude and
general stupidity of the attack dogs, Bowditch and Probert.
No, they are not stupid. Probert deliberately lies and distorts.
He is definitely a pharma shill. It is less clear about the other
one, his only remark in this thread was just silly.

Labelling someone a "pharma shill" is a cheesy attempt to discount
what that person says, just because it doesn't toe the altie party
line. Unless you can demonstrate (cancelled checks would be good)
that the object of your ire is indeed being paid by the pharma
industry, put a sock in it.

U.S.Government with all its legal and law-enforcement powers could not
track the income of Al Capone, do you think I can pull such a trick???

They put him in jail for income tax evasion, which strongly suggests
that they could indeed do it. So there goes one claim up in smoke.

What I can do is post what I consider the evidence based on the posts.

Oh, right. The "evidence" being that you don't like what he says.

Whoopee.

Based on the same sort of "evidence," *you* are a pharma shill,
planted here by Big Pharma to make alties look like cretins.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"John McCain votes with Bush 95% of the time. That's not a
maverick - that's a sidekick!" -- Bob Casey Jr.

David Wright wrote:
U.S.Government with all its legal and law-enforcement powers could not
track the income of Al Capone, do you think I can pull such a trick???

They put him in jail for income tax evasion, which strongly suggests
that they could indeed do it. So there goes one claim up in smoke.

They could not track the source of his income.


What I can do is post what I consider the evidence based on the posts.

Oh, right. The "evidence" being that you don't like what he says.


I can repeat. The evidence in the case of Mark P is that after
expressing his opposition to vaccinating children without parents'
knowledge (see, I liked what he said) he on several occasions
refused to disapprove the provision of New York bill 10942 that
prescribed that.
This looks weird. An assumption that he is not free to voice
a negative opinion about such a bill would explain that.
This explanation may sound far-fetched but I am not aware
of a better explanation.

In your case, I have no evidence and I am not saying anything
about you.

Whoopee.

Based on the same sort of "evidence," *you* are a pharma shill,
planted here by Big Pharma to make alties look like cretins.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"John McCain votes with Bush 95% of the time. That's not a
maverick - that's a sidekick!" -- Bob Casey Jr.