Germ Theory
15 views
Skip to first unread message
George Schiro
Feb 25, 2015, 10:25:14 PM2/25/15
to gg
The topic of vaccination is very important. I felt that way when I first
wrote about it after reading the autobiography of Ben Franklin and long
before the current measles outbreak (see "New Dark Age?",
http://tinyurl.com/m2h8fc6 ). I felt the same way again more recently (see
"New Dark Age?", http://tinyurl.com/l6xsnpf ).
Vaccination is important enough that the accuracy of what we write on this
topic matters more than most. Why? It matters because new parents may make
decisions to vaccinate or not based on what they read in a forum like this.
The health of children may be at risk as a result.
This perspective is why I was so surprised when Stacy McCland wrote (see
"Expanded Spam Moderation Policy", http://tinyurl.com/ltbt8kw ):
Dave's "ramblings" were all sourced from independent,
scientific research studies that use sound principles
of pre-determined, non-biased analytics.
Yet anyone looking into Dave's sources even in a cursory way can see that
"independent, scientific research studies that use sound principles of
pre-determined, non-biased analytics" bears little resemblance to what Dave
actually referenced. His sources demonstrate neither sound scientific
principles nor an unbiased representation of the facts.
Two of the three sources analyzed are the epitome of bias (bereaved and
angry parents) while the third is a snake oil salesman who uses anti-science
to sell alternative healthcare products (see "Examples of Disreputable
Sources", http://tinyurl.com/lmko83k ).
My point is that Stacy needs to be much more specific and accurate in what
she writes. She also needs to include specific references to support her
positions, not just blanket pronouncements.
I was also surprised to read this (see "Expanded Spam Moderation Policy",
http://tinyurl.com/lxae4y4 ):
To you, the proponents of vaccines are qualified and
reputable sources. They are not quite educated,
knowledgeable, or credible enough to fit that criteria
in my book.
SMQ1) What are your sources on this pronouncement Stacy?
My sources tell me exactly the opposite. Here are a few examples:
ACP Statement on Immunizations
http://tinyurl.com/jvnv3bx
The American College of Physicians expresses its full
support for the evidence-based recommendations of the
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
regarding immunization against measles, rubella, and
mumps (MMR) (see
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6204a1.htm
and http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2107750).
The scientific evidence clearly supports the benefit of
the MMR vaccine and the lack of any association with
autism.
SMQ2) Stacy, is it your position that members of the American College of
Physicians are "not quite educated?"
Emergency Rooms Prepared For Measles Outbreak
http://tinyurl.com/n29k4sx
"Vaccinations are essential to decreasing the risks of
serious diseases and infections, like the measles,"
said Dr. Gerardi. "These vaccines not only help keep
children safer and healthier, but they also help stop
the spread of deadly, preventable diseases."
The nation's emergency physicians urge all parents and
guardians to work with their primary care physicians,
including pediatricians, to make sure everyone in their
family is up-to-date on all necessary vaccinations and
to set up a vaccination schedule.
SMQ3) Do you believe that members of the American College of Emergency
Physicians are also "not quite educated, knowledgeable?"
How to answer patients' questions about vaccinations
http://tinyurl.com/ll9bdhq
If you're talking to patients about the MMR vaccine,
it's likely that they will ask you about links between
the vaccine and autism. All reputable scientific
studies have found no relationship between the vaccine
and autism. Most concerns stem from a 1998 study
published in the Lancet in the United Kingdom, in which
an author claimed that MMR vaccine could contribute to
the development of autism. Data in this article were
proven to have been fabricated, the article was
retracted, and the author discredited. This article was
followed by many large, well-designed population-based
studies that found no link between the MMR vaccine and
autism.
The AMA supports the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's (CDC) policy on vaccinations, including
use of the MMR vaccine, and endorses the comprehensive
vaccine recommendations developed by the Advisory
Committee for Immunization Practices. The following
information can help you set the record straight with
your patients.
SMQ4) Is it also your position Stacy that members of the American Medical
Association are "not quite educated, knowledgeable, or credible enough?"
I was also surprised to read this (see "Expanded Spam Moderation Policy",
http://tinyurl.com/lxae4y4 ):
As a biochemist, my standards are quite high.
We all know you are a lawyer Stacy and I think many may also know that you
have an undergraduate degree in biochemistry. But I was completely unaware
that you also work as a biochemical scientist.
Please reply with links to your most recently published peer-reviewed papers
in biochemistry or links to peer-reviewed journals where they are published.
I will spend my own money to acquire copies as needed. If it turns out that
you really are working as a biochemist (while also lawyering), I will
apologize for doubting you and, with your help, I will completely reevaluate
my position on vaccination.
Stacy wrote (see "New Dark Age?", http://tinyurl.com/mrnraav ):
Specifically, germ theory was developed in the 1600s.
Again, it was not widely accepted for centuries and those
few doctors that pushed its idea were highly criticized.
George responded (see "New Dark Age?", http://tinyurl.com/mzms8so ):
Regarding germ theory, perhaps your biochemistry
background gives you access to sources unknown to us.
What I recall from school and from what I am now
finding online, germ theory developed coincident with
medical science in general and started in the 1800's
with Bassi, Schwann, Semmelweis, Pasteur and Lister,
not during the 1600's. Please reply with a source for
your claim.
Stacy then wrote (see "Expanded Spam Moderation Policy",
http://tinyurl.com/lxae4y4 ):
Yes, germ theory was developed in the 1600s -- this is
historical and factual, not an opinion. No, it wasn't
called "germ theory" until much later, but that is the
time period when the theory that some type of particles
that could not be seen by the human eye were causing
diseases.
Although my "please reply" statement above didn't actually include a
question mark, it was indeed a question which you ignored Stacy. So I will
ask it again.
SMQ5) What are your sources for claiming that germ theory originated in the
1600s?
Here's what I found:
The Joy of Science: An Examination of How Scientists Ask and
Answer Questions Using the Story of Evolution as a Paradigm
http://books.google.com/books?id=Aj-blKKcKKwC&pg=PA139
CLASSICAL EXPERIMENTS
Antonie von Leeuwenhoek
We will describe below a few classical experiments for
which, in addition to the ones above, you should
identify the elements of evidence, logic, and
falsification.
...
Remember that, before this time, 1675, no one had ever
seen an organism smaller than the eye could resolve.
Although it was clear that diseases could propagate,
bad air ("malaria") or vapors from water were
considered likely causes. Also, Leeuwenhoek was an
extremely skilled craftsman, and the lenses that he
made were far superior to those of anyone else. Thus,
when he attempted to publish his findings in the
proceedings of the prestigious London-based Royal
Academy of Sciences, he received what may have been the
worst rejection letter ever written:
"When I observed for the first time in the year 1675
very tiny and numerous little animals in the water, and
I announced this in a letter to the Royal Society in
London, nor in England nor in France one could accept
my discovery, and so one still does in Germany, as I
have been informed." In a letter, Hendrik Oldenburg,
the Secretary of the Royal Society, London, wrote the
following to Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Delft, Holland,
20th of October, 1676:
"Dear Mr. thony van Leeuwenhoek, Your letter of October
10th has been received here with amusement. Your
account of myriad 'little animals' seen swimming in
rainwater, with the aid of your so-called 'microscope,'
caused the members of the society considerable
merriment when read at our most recent meeting. Your
novel descriptions of the sundry anatomies and
occupations of these invisible creatures led one member
to imagine that your 'rainwater' might have contained
an ample portion of distilled spirits—imbibed by the
investigator. Another member raised a glass of clear
water and exclaimed, 'Behold, the Africk of
Leeuwenhoek.' For myself, I withhold judgment as to the
sobriety of your observations and the veracity of your
instrument. However, a vote having been taken among the
members—accompanied I regret to inform you, by
considerable giggling—it has been decided not to
publish your communication in the Proceedings of this
esteemed society. However, all here wish your 'little
animals' health, prodigality and good husbandry by
their ingenious 'discoverer".
There was little concept of the ability of a lens to
magnify, and no concept of microscopic life; a group of
prestigious scientists simply could not accept the idea
that an unseen world existed. Of course it did, and
improvements in microscope manufacture and many
confirmations of van Leeuwenhoek's findings finally won
out. This rejection of not-obvious new findings has
often been repeated.
...
Let us therefore look at four classical experiments
that are in one sense related, in that they form a
sequence documenting that germs are living creatures
and that they can cause disease. The experiments are as
follows: Redi's demonstration that maggots do not
generate spontaneously; Pasteur's demonstration that
spoiling of broths was caused by bacteria; Koch's
establishment of rules for identifying disease caused
by bacteria; and Snow's tracing of cholera to a living,
water-borne organism.
The above account means that while Leeuwenhoek's "little animals" were known
as early as 1675, the correlation between microscopic organisms and disease
was not hypothesized until much later. Pasteur (1822-1895), Koch (1843-1910)
and Snow (1813-1858) didn't do their work until the 1800s.
Perhaps Stacy has sources detailing the correlation between microorganisms
and disease sometime between 1675 and 1699. If so, she needs to produce
them.
wrote about it after reading the autobiography of Ben Franklin and long
before the current measles outbreak (see "New Dark Age?",
http://tinyurl.com/m2h8fc6 ). I felt the same way again more recently (see
"New Dark Age?", http://tinyurl.com/l6xsnpf ).
Vaccination is important enough that the accuracy of what we write on this
topic matters more than most. Why? It matters because new parents may make
decisions to vaccinate or not based on what they read in a forum like this.
The health of children may be at risk as a result.
This perspective is why I was so surprised when Stacy McCland wrote (see
"Expanded Spam Moderation Policy", http://tinyurl.com/ltbt8kw ):
Dave's "ramblings" were all sourced from independent,
scientific research studies that use sound principles
of pre-determined, non-biased analytics.
Yet anyone looking into Dave's sources even in a cursory way can see that
"independent, scientific research studies that use sound principles of
pre-determined, non-biased analytics" bears little resemblance to what Dave
actually referenced. His sources demonstrate neither sound scientific
principles nor an unbiased representation of the facts.
Two of the three sources analyzed are the epitome of bias (bereaved and
angry parents) while the third is a snake oil salesman who uses anti-science
to sell alternative healthcare products (see "Examples of Disreputable
Sources", http://tinyurl.com/lmko83k ).
My point is that Stacy needs to be much more specific and accurate in what
she writes. She also needs to include specific references to support her
positions, not just blanket pronouncements.
I was also surprised to read this (see "Expanded Spam Moderation Policy",
http://tinyurl.com/lxae4y4 ):
To you, the proponents of vaccines are qualified and
reputable sources. They are not quite educated,
knowledgeable, or credible enough to fit that criteria
in my book.
SMQ1) What are your sources on this pronouncement Stacy?
My sources tell me exactly the opposite. Here are a few examples:
ACP Statement on Immunizations
http://tinyurl.com/jvnv3bx
The American College of Physicians expresses its full
support for the evidence-based recommendations of the
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
regarding immunization against measles, rubella, and
mumps (MMR) (see
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6204a1.htm
and http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2107750).
The scientific evidence clearly supports the benefit of
the MMR vaccine and the lack of any association with
autism.
SMQ2) Stacy, is it your position that members of the American College of
Physicians are "not quite educated?"
Emergency Rooms Prepared For Measles Outbreak
http://tinyurl.com/n29k4sx
"Vaccinations are essential to decreasing the risks of
serious diseases and infections, like the measles,"
said Dr. Gerardi. "These vaccines not only help keep
children safer and healthier, but they also help stop
the spread of deadly, preventable diseases."
The nation's emergency physicians urge all parents and
guardians to work with their primary care physicians,
including pediatricians, to make sure everyone in their
family is up-to-date on all necessary vaccinations and
to set up a vaccination schedule.
SMQ3) Do you believe that members of the American College of Emergency
Physicians are also "not quite educated, knowledgeable?"
How to answer patients' questions about vaccinations
http://tinyurl.com/ll9bdhq
If you're talking to patients about the MMR vaccine,
it's likely that they will ask you about links between
the vaccine and autism. All reputable scientific
studies have found no relationship between the vaccine
and autism. Most concerns stem from a 1998 study
published in the Lancet in the United Kingdom, in which
an author claimed that MMR vaccine could contribute to
the development of autism. Data in this article were
proven to have been fabricated, the article was
retracted, and the author discredited. This article was
followed by many large, well-designed population-based
studies that found no link between the MMR vaccine and
autism.
The AMA supports the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's (CDC) policy on vaccinations, including
use of the MMR vaccine, and endorses the comprehensive
vaccine recommendations developed by the Advisory
Committee for Immunization Practices. The following
information can help you set the record straight with
your patients.
SMQ4) Is it also your position Stacy that members of the American Medical
Association are "not quite educated, knowledgeable, or credible enough?"
I was also surprised to read this (see "Expanded Spam Moderation Policy",
http://tinyurl.com/lxae4y4 ):
As a biochemist, my standards are quite high.
We all know you are a lawyer Stacy and I think many may also know that you
have an undergraduate degree in biochemistry. But I was completely unaware
that you also work as a biochemical scientist.
Please reply with links to your most recently published peer-reviewed papers
in biochemistry or links to peer-reviewed journals where they are published.
I will spend my own money to acquire copies as needed. If it turns out that
you really are working as a biochemist (while also lawyering), I will
apologize for doubting you and, with your help, I will completely reevaluate
my position on vaccination.
Stacy wrote (see "New Dark Age?", http://tinyurl.com/mrnraav ):
Specifically, germ theory was developed in the 1600s.
Again, it was not widely accepted for centuries and those
few doctors that pushed its idea were highly criticized.
George responded (see "New Dark Age?", http://tinyurl.com/mzms8so ):
Regarding germ theory, perhaps your biochemistry
background gives you access to sources unknown to us.
What I recall from school and from what I am now
finding online, germ theory developed coincident with
medical science in general and started in the 1800's
with Bassi, Schwann, Semmelweis, Pasteur and Lister,
not during the 1600's. Please reply with a source for
your claim.
Stacy then wrote (see "Expanded Spam Moderation Policy",
http://tinyurl.com/lxae4y4 ):
Yes, germ theory was developed in the 1600s -- this is
historical and factual, not an opinion. No, it wasn't
called "germ theory" until much later, but that is the
time period when the theory that some type of particles
that could not be seen by the human eye were causing
diseases.
Although my "please reply" statement above didn't actually include a
question mark, it was indeed a question which you ignored Stacy. So I will
ask it again.
SMQ5) What are your sources for claiming that germ theory originated in the
1600s?
Here's what I found:
The Joy of Science: An Examination of How Scientists Ask and
Answer Questions Using the Story of Evolution as a Paradigm
http://books.google.com/books?id=Aj-blKKcKKwC&pg=PA139
CLASSICAL EXPERIMENTS
Antonie von Leeuwenhoek
We will describe below a few classical experiments for
which, in addition to the ones above, you should
identify the elements of evidence, logic, and
falsification.
...
Remember that, before this time, 1675, no one had ever
seen an organism smaller than the eye could resolve.
Although it was clear that diseases could propagate,
bad air ("malaria") or vapors from water were
considered likely causes. Also, Leeuwenhoek was an
extremely skilled craftsman, and the lenses that he
made were far superior to those of anyone else. Thus,
when he attempted to publish his findings in the
proceedings of the prestigious London-based Royal
Academy of Sciences, he received what may have been the
worst rejection letter ever written:
"When I observed for the first time in the year 1675
very tiny and numerous little animals in the water, and
I announced this in a letter to the Royal Society in
London, nor in England nor in France one could accept
my discovery, and so one still does in Germany, as I
have been informed." In a letter, Hendrik Oldenburg,
the Secretary of the Royal Society, London, wrote the
following to Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Delft, Holland,
20th of October, 1676:
"Dear Mr. thony van Leeuwenhoek, Your letter of October
10th has been received here with amusement. Your
account of myriad 'little animals' seen swimming in
rainwater, with the aid of your so-called 'microscope,'
caused the members of the society considerable
merriment when read at our most recent meeting. Your
novel descriptions of the sundry anatomies and
occupations of these invisible creatures led one member
to imagine that your 'rainwater' might have contained
an ample portion of distilled spirits—imbibed by the
investigator. Another member raised a glass of clear
water and exclaimed, 'Behold, the Africk of
Leeuwenhoek.' For myself, I withhold judgment as to the
sobriety of your observations and the veracity of your
instrument. However, a vote having been taken among the
members—accompanied I regret to inform you, by
considerable giggling—it has been decided not to
publish your communication in the Proceedings of this
esteemed society. However, all here wish your 'little
animals' health, prodigality and good husbandry by
their ingenious 'discoverer".
There was little concept of the ability of a lens to
magnify, and no concept of microscopic life; a group of
prestigious scientists simply could not accept the idea
that an unseen world existed. Of course it did, and
improvements in microscope manufacture and many
confirmations of van Leeuwenhoek's findings finally won
out. This rejection of not-obvious new findings has
often been repeated.
...
Let us therefore look at four classical experiments
that are in one sense related, in that they form a
sequence documenting that germs are living creatures
and that they can cause disease. The experiments are as
follows: Redi's demonstration that maggots do not
generate spontaneously; Pasteur's demonstration that
spoiling of broths was caused by bacteria; Koch's
establishment of rules for identifying disease caused
by bacteria; and Snow's tracing of cholera to a living,
water-borne organism.
The above account means that while Leeuwenhoek's "little animals" were known
as early as 1675, the correlation between microscopic organisms and disease
was not hypothesized until much later. Pasteur (1822-1895), Koch (1843-1910)
and Snow (1813-1858) didn't do their work until the 1800s.
Perhaps Stacy has sources detailing the correlation between microorganisms
and disease sometime between 1675 and 1699. If so, she needs to produce
them.
Stacy McCland
Feb 26, 2015, 6:37:58 AM2/26/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com
George,
I don't really have enough time to go through all of this and do the research you have requested, but I will hit the high points:
1.) All of Dave's "ramblings" as you call them are based on sound, scientific studies, regardless of the url that quoted them. If you go back and look at the websites, they footnote the actual research. I have been researching these types of studies for close to 20 years, so I can quickly determine whether or not they are legitimate. There is no way for me to cite that particular skill for you. It is likely that an angry parent would come across this more accurate, yet less popular (because the drug companies don't make money off of not selling drugs) research in their desperate attempt to find out what happened to their child.
2.) No, I do not believe the College of Physicians or the College of Emergency Physicians are educated enough to make those type of decisions. Medical doctors receive very little research training, if any. The entire medical curriculum is based on "if this symptom, then this prescription or surgery". They learn basic anatomy, basic biochemistry, and a philosophical viewpoint of research, but not much more. It is a mostly rote memorization course of study. It is also a very militaristic type of study. Those who ask too many questions and don't fit it many times move on to a PhD program in research where questions are allowed and encouraged. I have a close friend from college who told me that his 3 years in medical school were much easier than the 4 in undergrad because all he had to do was memorize and repeat. (He went to the University of Florida medical school in case you are wondering.) I also have a family friend who became a medical doctor around the 1950s. When his son entered Duke's medical school, he decided to leave the medical field. His Dad said it wasn't the same profession or schooling he had entered so many years before.
3.) Yes, I work in Biochemistry. My parents have a plant tissue culture lab and are currently the only laboratory in the United States able to clone Phalaenopsis orchids commercially. I review and look over all of the research. I also direct much of the research myself. We are currently "playing" with cytokinins to improve rooting on recalcitrant plants. I also do research on fertilizers, pesticides and nutritional elements for the plants growing outside. http://www.betterbloomingorchids.com/our-lab.html
I typically start my day at 4:00am and work as an attorney until about 9:00am. Then, I got to the nursery for a few hours and spend some time with the plants and people. Then, I come back home and become an attorney again until the evening. I enjoy both of these positions so much that I wouldn't want to have to pick just one.
4.) I don't possibly have enough time to research for you the beginnings of germ theory. This is something you should really do on your own if that interested. Your cite constitutes basic research for elementary school children -- it is not a true composite of what happened during that time. It reminds me of the descriptions we learned about wars in school. Wars were actually much more complicated than described and had a few more impactful players. There is much literature that references the subject of germs and their potential cause of disease that was written during the time. You might want to start there.
Stacy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HarmonyFL" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to harmonyfl+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/harmonyfl/D4774B3430E4443C80DE69C4AA1D5887%40MAIN.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
George Schiro
Feb 26, 2015, 8:29:47 AM2/26/15
to gg
Stacy
wrote:
I don't really have enough time to go through
all of
this and do the research you have requested, but I will
hit the high points:
this and do the research you have requested, but I will
hit the high points:
Sorry
Stacy, that's not an acceptable answer. You can't go on to write that you
start your workday at 4am and then claim that you don't have time to back up
your claims. If you have time to make the claims, you should have time to
substantiate them.
Stacy
wrote:
All of Dave's "ramblings" as you call them are
based on
sound, scientific studies, regardless of the url that
quoted them.
sound, scientific studies, regardless of the url that
quoted them.
No, I'm
afraid not. That's not how it works Stacy. A website is either reputable or it
is not. The owner of a disreputable website can make up any footnotes or
citations at will. Only external reputable sources can pass judgment on the
credibility of other sources. That's why the peer-review process is so critical.
If you or Dave can't find a reputable website that links to what you claim are
reputable sources then your claim cannot be substantiated and is therefore
false. You can't just dismiss the Purdue research method Stacy (see "Using
Research and Evidence", http://tinyurl.com/kwstomp , the same
method embraced by reputable news organizations and research institutes). I
don't see how you can claim to be a scientist yet apparently not understand the
peer-review process. BTW, I didn't use the term "Dave's ramblings", you quoted
Ryan. We are actually two different people. That's the kind of inaccuracy that
won't work here anymore Stacy.
Stacy
wrote:
There is no way for me to cite
that particular skill for you.
that particular skill for you.
Yes there is.
Find reputable sources with the same references. Making pronouncements that we
should simply trust your judgment won't cut it Stacy. Should shouldn't take my
word for it. The same applies to you.
Stacy
wrote:
No, I do not believe the College of Physicians
or the
College of Emergency Physicians are educated enough to
make those type of decisions. Medical doctors receive
very little research training, if any.
College of Emergency Physicians are educated enough to
make those type of decisions. Medical doctors receive
very little research training, if any.
Wow! How can
anyone argue with that? The presumption is that you are more knowledgeable and
more educated than your typical emergency room doctor Stacy and that training in
a specific field like biochemistry is required to know how to think clearly and
evaluate evidence. That's just silly, IMHO.
Let's see.
Your typical doctor takes 3 years of undergraduate "pre-med" courses.
Then they spend 5 years more earning a medical degree (medical science),
followed by a 1 year internship, followed by 4 years of residency. That's a
total of 13 years of college level education Stacy. As a lawyer and an MBA I
think you attended undergraduate school 4 years, then 2 years for your MBA
followed by 3 years for your JD. That's a total of 9 years of college level
education for you Stacy. I'm not sure how you can tout yourself as being more
educated than a typical emergency room doctor (or any other kind of medical
doctor) Stacy. That's just hubris in my opinion.
Stacy wrote
(now):
Yes, I work in Biochemistry. My parents have a
plant
tissue culture lab and are currently the only
laboratory in the United States able to clone
Phalaenopsis orchids commercially.
tissue culture lab and are currently the only
laboratory in the United States able to clone
Phalaenopsis orchids commercially.
Congratulations on your parents' successful business Stacy. I
don't know anything about orchids, but I'm sure that cultivating them is not
easy.
Stacy wrote
(previously):
As a biochemist, my standards are quite
high.
The first
result from a Google search for "biochemist" yields "Biochemists are
scientists trained in biochemistry." While you were trained in biochemistry,
does that necessarily make you a scientist? I know that people with
undergraduate degrees in mathematics are not necessarily mathematicians. Why?
Because they don't actually do original research in mathematics. Just as a
mathematician would be known by his or her published research in mathematics, a
biochemist would be known by his or her published research in
biochemistry.
While you
indirectly referenced a very nice article about your parents (via their
website), an article written by the editor of FloraCulture magazine
("The business magazine for worldwide floraculture"), that says nothing about
your qualifications as a scientist trained in biochemistry.
SMQ6)
What are the links to your most recently published peer-reviewed
papers in biochemistry or links to peer-reviewed journals where they are
published Stacy?
Stacy
wrote:
I don't possibly have enough time to research
for you
the beginnings of germ theory.
the beginnings of germ theory.
That's not acceptable Stacy. You made a very specific claim about
germ theory. You put your claim in writing. I could find no references to
support your claim. So you need to find those references yourself and produce
them. If there simply are no such references to support your claim, that's fine.
Please just acknowledge that and we can move on.
Stacy wrote:
Your cite constitutes basic research
for elementary
school children -- it is not a true composite of what
happened during that time.
school children -- it is not a true composite of what
happened during that time.
If my cite is
inadequate (in your opinion), then it's your obligation to provide an
alternative citation to support your claim.
That said, I
know it's hard to resist, but you don't finally have to resort to denigration
Stacy. You may think of me and others as school children in the presence of the
omniscient one, but that's just your perception. I honestly don't see how
sharing such a perception publicly helps your cause. So please just stick to the
facts, facts supportable by clear and reputable sources of evidence. Anything
else is just noise.
To
view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/harmonyfl/CAJb4i_TCyFJ6uq9X0hx_MuKwXRSNUOFwtjoTk%2BqqrS6tjQV8DA%40mail.gmail.com.
Stacy McCland
Feb 26, 2015, 11:14:01 AM2/26/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com
Actually George, I can do whatever I choose. And I know longer choose to engage in this conversation with you. This is not an intellectual discussion. I am not sure exactly what it is...but productive or intellectual it is not. I hope you are able to find the answers you are looking for.
Stacy
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/harmonyfl/486680951894446D9814435D5498EAAD%40MAIN.
George Schiro
Feb 26, 2015, 12:48:25 PM2/26/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com
Stacy wrote:
Actually George, I can do whatever I choose.
And I know
longer choose to engage in this conversation with you.
longer choose to engage in this conversation with you.
For the most
part that is true Stacy. You are certainly free to ignore my questions. But for
the sake of future reference, here they are again with some additional
commentary.
George
asked:
Stacy wrote:
To you, the proponents
of vaccines are qualified
and reputable sources. They are not quite educated,
knowledgeable, or credible enough to fit that
criteria in my book.
and reputable sources. They are not quite educated,
knowledgeable, or credible enough to fit that
criteria in my book.
SMQ1) What are your sources on this
pronouncement Stacy?
SMQ2) Stacy, is it your position that members
of the
American College of Physicians are "not quite
educated?"
American College of Physicians are "not quite
educated?"
SMQ3) Do you believe that members of the
American
College of Emergency Physicians are also "not quite
educated, knowledgeable?"
College of Emergency Physicians are also "not quite
educated, knowledgeable?"
SMQ4) Is it also your position Stacy that
members of
the American Medical Association are "not quite
educated, knowledgeable, or credible enough?"
the American Medical Association are "not quite
educated, knowledgeable, or credible enough?"
SMQ5) What are your sources for claiming that
germ
theory originated in the 1600s?
theory originated in the 1600s?
SMQ6) What are the links to your most recently
published peer-reviewed papers in biochemistry or links
to peer-reviewed journals where they are published
Stacy?
published peer-reviewed papers in biochemistry or links
to peer-reviewed journals where they are published
Stacy?
Stacy's
answers (so far):
SMA1) No answer. It would appear that Stacy
doesn't
actually have any support for claiming that "[proponents
of vaccines] are not quite educated, knowledgeable, or
credible enough."
actually have any support for claiming that "[proponents
of vaccines] are not quite educated, knowledgeable, or
credible enough."
SMA2) No, I do not believe the College of
Physicians or
the College of Emergency Physicians are
educated enough
to make those type of decisions. Medical doctors
receive very little research training, if any.
to make those type of decisions. Medical doctors
receive very little research training, if any.
SMA3) No, I do not believe the College of
Physicians
or the College of Emergency Physicians are
educated
enough to make those type of decisions. Medical doctors
receive very little research training, if any.
enough to make those type of decisions. Medical doctors
receive very little research training, if any.
SMA4) Although Stacy did not answer this
question
directly, based on her previous two answers I think
it is reasonable to conclude that she would dismiss
the AMA as well. So her answer would likely be "No."
directly, based on her previous two answers I think
it is reasonable to conclude that she would dismiss
the AMA as well. So her answer would likely be "No."
SMA5) Stacy evaded this question with "I know
longer
choose to engage in this conversation." With no other
information from Stacy on this question I think it is
reasonable to conclude that she actually has no sources
for claiming that germ theory originated in the 1600s.
In other words, she just made that up. I suspect she
was simply not quite remembering her dates correctly.
choose to engage in this conversation." With no other
information from Stacy on this question I think it is
reasonable to conclude that she actually has no sources
for claiming that germ theory originated in the 1600s.
In other words, she just made that up. I suspect she
was simply not quite remembering her dates correctly.
SMA6) Stacy evaded this question with "I know
longer
choose to engage in this conversation." With no other
information from Stacy on this question I think it is
reasonable to conclude that she actually has no
peer-reviewed papers published in the field of
biochemistry. If this is true, I don't think it makes
sense for Stacy to claim the status of a biochemist
(and therefore a scientist in general) when she can
offer no body of evidence to show that her research
credentials somehow make her more qualified than a
medical doctor on the subject of vaccine science or
vaccine research.
choose to engage in this conversation." With no other
information from Stacy on this question I think it is
reasonable to conclude that she actually has no
peer-reviewed papers published in the field of
biochemistry. If this is true, I don't think it makes
sense for Stacy to claim the status of a biochemist
(and therefore a scientist in general) when she can
offer no body of evidence to show that her research
credentials somehow make her more qualified than a
medical doctor on the subject of vaccine science or
vaccine research.
The bottom
line is that none of us are qualified to claim superior judgement on the issue
of vaccination. We must defer to experts in the field and that includes the
doctors we trust with our healthcare decisions. Since none of us are vaccine
experts, the only evidence worthy of consideration must come from reputable
sources, including those consisting of highly trained and and expertly evaluated
medical doctors of various stripes.
George Schiro
Feb 26, 2015, 1:27:04 PM2/26/15
to harm...@googlegroups.com
***
CORRECTION ***
Answer
"SMA4" was written incorrectly as:
SMA4) Although Stacy did not answer this
question
directly, based on her previous two answers I think
it is reasonable to conclude that she would dismiss
the AMA as well. So her answer would likely be "No."
directly, based on her previous two answers I think
it is reasonable to conclude that she would dismiss
the AMA as well. So her answer would likely be "No."
It should have be written:
SMA4) Although Stacy did not answer this
question
directly, based on her previous two answers I think
it is reasonable to conclude that she would dismiss
directly, based on her previous two answers I think
it is reasonable to conclude that she would dismiss
the AMA as well. So her answer would likely be "Yes."
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HarmonyFL" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to harmonyfl+...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HarmonyFL" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to harmonyfl+...@googlegroups.com.
To
view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/harmonyfl/FB5EF2EC35494D51A2F0B22C4F93A924%40MAIN.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages