Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD

2 views
Skip to first unread message

john

unread,
Jul 8, 2006, 2:25:04 PM7/8/06
to
http://www.whale.to/v/rimland2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Rimland

I was the first to announce the "autism epidemic", in 1995, and I pointed
out in that article that excessive vaccines were a plausible cause of the
epidemic. As you know, an enormous amount of clinical laboratory research
(as opposed to epidemiological research), has been accumulated since that
time, supporting my position. (I did not know then that the vaccines
contained mercury, although I had been collecting data since 1967 from the
mothers of autistic children, on any dental work they may have had during
their pregnancy.) The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the
misinformation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
American Academy of Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine. The
(Pretending to) Combat Autism Act By Bernard Rimland


Jeff

unread,
Jul 8, 2006, 2:48:19 PM7/8/06
to

"john" <s...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5Y6dnQ_i3O7...@bt.com...

Yet medical experts who actually understand medicine, vaccines, the brain
and immunology have looked at the data and determined that it is very
unlikely that autism is caused by vaccines. These experts include people
from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, FDA and Institute of
Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.

Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these
claims with peer-reviewed research.

Jeff


john

unread,
Jul 8, 2006, 3:23:56 PM7/8/06
to

"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T5Trg.5524$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the
>> misinformation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the

>> American Academy of Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine. ------
>> Bernard Rimland


>
>These experts include people from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
>CDC, FDA and Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.
>

LOL.


john

unread,
Jul 9, 2006, 12:15:02 PM7/9/06
to

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ayoub_h.html

I am no longer "trying to dig up evidence to prove" vaccines cause autism.
There is already abundant evidence, the same conclusion made by a 2003 U.S.
Congressional Committee. This debate is not scientific but is political. I
am trying to encourage physicians who have been badly misled by nothing less
than spin and propaganda to review the extensive scientific evidence for
themselves showing the vaccine-autism link, even though "experts"
disagree.. --- [July 9, 2006 Blog/letter] Discovering the causes, treatment
of autism ----David Ayoub, MD


Jeff

unread,
Jul 9, 2006, 3:13:54 PM7/9/06
to

"john" <s...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:LfmdnTRjDuP...@bt.com...

Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
caused by mercury in vaccines.

That conclusion is made by people who are not practicing science, like 2003
Congressional committee and the idiot "doctor" in Florida.

Jeff


David Wright

unread,
Jul 9, 2006, 6:30:32 PM7/9/06
to
In article <LfmdnTRjDuP...@bt.com>, john <s...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ayoub_h.html
>
> I am no longer "trying to dig up evidence to prove" vaccines cause autism.
>There is already abundant evidence, the same conclusion made by a 2003 U.S.
>Congressional Committee.

Let me guess. That's be the committee chaired by Dan Burton, who is
already convinced that vaccines cause autism. He then commissioned
the Geiers, who also believe it, to find evidence to support their
belief. Golly gee, they found it. What a surprise.

If evidence this biased came from the "vaccines don't cause autism"
researchers, the anti-vaxers would be screaming the house down. But
bias is only bad when they think their opponents are showing it.

>This debate is not scientific but is political.

True. There's no real scientific debate about the worthlessness of
the typical anti-vaxer "evidence."

>I am trying to encourage physicians who have been badly misled by
>nothing less than spin and propaganda

Put forth by organizations like "Defeat Autism Now!" for which Ayoub
is a shill.

>to review the extensive scientific evidence for themselves showing
>the vaccine-autism link, even though "experts" disagree.. --- [July
>9, 2006 Blog/letter] Discovering the causes, treatment
>of autism ----David Ayoub, MD

I assume the word "experts" is in quotations because someone like
Ayoub would mean, say, Bernard Rimland.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

Jan Drew

unread,
Jul 9, 2006, 9:52:12 PM7/9/06
to

"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Szcsg.5952$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>
> "john" <s...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:LfmdnTRjDuP...@bt.com...
>>
>>
>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ayoub_h.html
>>
>> I am no longer "trying to dig up evidence to prove" vaccines cause
>> autism. There is already abundant evidence, the same conclusion made by a
>> 2003 U.S. Congressional Committee. This debate is not scientific but is
>> political. I am trying to encourage physicians who have been badly misled
>> by nothing less than spin and propaganda to review the extensive
>> scientific evidence for themselves showing the vaccine-autism link, even
>> though "experts" disagree.. --- [July 9, 2006 Blog/letter] Discovering
>> the causes, treatment of autism ----David Ayoub, MD
>
> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
> caused by mercury in vaccines.

ACTually, you have!

http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm

Jan Drew

unread,
Jul 9, 2006, 10:13:54 PM7/9/06
to

"David Wright" <wri...@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:csfsg.168403$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

> In article <LfmdnTRjDuP...@bt.com>, john <s...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ayoub_h.html
>>
>> I am no longer "trying to dig up evidence to prove" vaccines cause
>> autism.
>>There is already abundant evidence, the same conclusion made by a 2003
>>U.S.
>>Congressional Committee.
>
> Let me guess. That's be the committee chaired by Dan Burton, who is
> already convinced that vaccines cause autism. He then commissioned
> the Geiers, who also believe it, to find evidence to support their
> belief. Golly gee, they found it. What a surprise.

http://www.house.gov/burton/dan.htm

Dan Burton is currently serving his twelfth term as a United States
Representative from
Indiana's Fifth Congressional District. His first term in Congress began in
January of 1983. The Fifth District lies in the heart of central Indiana
and includes all of Tipton, Grant, Miami, Wabash, Huntington, Hamilton, and
Hancock Counties, as well as parts of Marion, Shelby, Howard and Johnson
Counties.

When Congressman Burton assumed the Chairmanship of the House Committee on
Government Reform in the 105th Congress, he became the first Hoosier
Republican to Chair a full House Committee in more than sixty years. The
last was Congressman William Robert Wood, who chaired the Committee on
Appropriations during the 71st Congress (1929-1931). Congressman Burton
currently serves as Chairman of the House International Relations
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

Dan Burton was born on June 21, 1938, in Indianapolis, Indiana. He graduated
from Shortridge High School in 1957, and attended Indiana University and the
Cincinnati Bible Seminary. Congressman Burton received the Honorary Degree
of Doctor of Humanities from Capitol University of Integrative Medicine on
December 17, 2000. As a proud veteran of our Armed Forces, Dan served in the
U.S. Army and the U.S. Army Reserves (1957-1962). Before his election to
Congress, Mr. Burton held office in the Indiana State Senate (1969-70 and
1981-82), as well as in the Indiana House of Representatives (1967-68 and
1977-80). The Burton family resides in Indianapolis, Indiana.

COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (www.house.gov/international_relations)
Senior Member
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Chairman
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Vice Chairman

GOVERNMENT REFORM (www.reform.house.gov)
Former Chairman (1997 - 2002)
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International
Relations
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources

VETERAN'S AFFAIRS (veterans.house.gov/)

CAUCUS MEMBERSHIPS:

a.. Autism
b.. Automotive
c.. Bipartisan Disabilities
d.. Biotechnology
e.. Coalition for Autism Research and education (CARE)
f.. Complementary Alternative Medicine (CAM) - Co-Chairman*
g.. Complementary Alternative Medicine (CAM) - Co-Chairman*
h.. Congressional Bipartisan Cerebral Palsy - Founder & Chairman
i.. Congressional Anti-Terrorist Financing Task Force
j.. Congressional Caucus on the European Union
k.. Congressional Diabetes
l.. Congressional Fire Services
m.. Congressional Cuban Democracy
n.. Congressional Taskforce Against Anti-Semitism
o.. Distributed Energy
p.. Farmer Cooperative
q.. French
r.. Friends of Denmark
s.. Friends of New Zealand Congressional
t.. Friends of Norway
u.. House Republican Israel
v.. Human Rights
w.. Hungary
x.. Immigration Reform
y.. Indonesia - Co-Founder and Co-Chairman*
z.. Insurance - Chairman
aa.. International Conservation
ab.. I-69
ac.. Malaysia Trade, Security, and Economic Cooperation
ad.. Manufacturing
ae.. Medical Malpractice Crisis Task Force
af.. Methamphetamine
ag.. Missing and Exploited Children's
ah.. National Guard & Reserve Components
ai.. National Republican Congressional Committee
aj.. National Retail Sales Tax
ak.. Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition
al.. Public Service
am.. Real Estate
an.. Republican Study Committee (RSC) - Co-Founder*
ao.. Serbia - Co-Founder and Co-Chairman*
ap.. Singapore
aq.. Spina Bifida
ar.. Taiwan
as.. Textile
at.. US-Israel Security
au.. Victim's Rights
av.. Zoo
AWARDS:

Congressman Burton has received special recognition from several
organizations for his voting record and leadership in Congress. His honors
include:

a.. 2005 National Foundation for Women Legislators (NFWL) Leadership Award
on behalf of the NFWL for Congressman Burton's tireless work on health care
issues.
b.. 2004 True Blue Award presented by the Family Research Council for
Congressman Burton's 100% voting record on behalf of American families.
c.. 2004 Benjamin Franklin Award from the 60 Plus Association for efforts
to permanently repeal the estate tax, more commonly referred to as the death
tax.
d.. 2004 Friend of the Farm Bureau Award from the American Farm Bureau
Federation for voting to protect the interests of our nation's farmers.
e.. 2004 Small Business Advocate Award from the Small Business Survival
Committee for voting to help keep small businesses stay strong thru
continued innovation, improved investments, and creating new jobs.
f.. 2004 Friend of the Shareholder Award from American Shareholders
Association for demonstrating an avid commitment to protecting Indiana
shareholders and enhancing economic growth in America.
g.. 2004 Hero of the Taxpayer Award from Americans for Tax Reform for
siding with taxpayers on crucial tax and economic issues in the 108th
Congress.
h.. Twenty Spirit of Enterprise Awards, including for 2004, from the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce for voting in support of free enterprise and a strong
economy.
i.. Twelve Golden Bulldog Awards from the Watchdogs of the Treasury for
voting to cut wasteful Federal spending and reduce taxes.
j.. Twelve Taxpayers' Friend Awards from the National Taxpayers Union for
fiscal responsibility.
k.. Ten National Security Leadership Awards for supporting a policy of
peace through strength. The American Security Council, the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, and the Reserve Officer Association give the awards jointly.
l.. Eight Guardian of Small Business Awards from the National Federation
of Independent Business for supporting small business.


>
> If evidence this biased came from the "vaccines don't cause autism"
> researchers, the anti-vaxers would be screaming the house down. But
> bias is only bad when they think their opponents are showing it.
>
>>This debate is not scientific but is political.
>
> True. There's no real scientific debate about the worthlessness of
> the typical anti-vaxer "evidence."
>
>>I am trying to encourage physicians who have been badly misled by
>>nothing less than spin and propaganda
>
> Put forth by organizations like "Defeat Autism Now!" for which Ayoub
> is a shill.

That's a lie.

http://www.healthgrades.com/directory_search/physician/profiles/dr-md-reports/Dr-David-Ayoub-MD-4839DF74.cfm

Specialties
Diagnostic Radiology, Vascular and Interventional Radiology

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=23480

Jeff

unread,
Jul 9, 2006, 10:51:30 PM7/9/06
to

"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

(...)

>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>
> ACTually, you have!
>
> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm

Wrong on two counts:

1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.

2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
doesn't mean they are.

Jeff

HCN

unread,
Jul 9, 2006, 11:07:10 PM7/9/06
to

"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> (...)
>
>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>
>> ACTually, you have!
>>
>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/BUYfromUS.htm

>
> Wrong on two counts:
>
> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>
> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
> doesn't mean they are.
>
> Jeff
>

Even worse she shilling for a company that sells quack meds to desperate
people!

Jan Drew

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 2:43:46 AM7/10/06
to

"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> (...)
>
>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>
>> ACTually, you have!
>>
>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
>
> Wrong on two counts:
>
> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.

Get you one that works...NOT kidsdoc.


>
> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
> doesn't mean they are.
>
> Jeff

Not a matter of what I think. Facts are facts.

Jan Drew

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 2:44:52 AM7/10/06
to

"HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:l9udnTOBD_T9WSzZ...@comcast.com...

>
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>>
>>> ACTually, you have!
>>>
>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/BUYfromUS.htm
>>
>> Wrong on two counts:
>>
>> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>>
>> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
>> doesn't mean they are.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
> Even worse she shilling for a company that sells quack meds to desperate
> people!

Liar.

Peter Bowditch

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 3:23:09 AM7/10/06
to
"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>"HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:l9udnTOBD_T9WSzZ...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>> (...)
>>>
>>>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>>>
>>>> ACTually, you have!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/BUYfromUS.htm
>>>
>>> Wrong on two counts:
>>>
>>> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>>>
>>> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
>>> doesn't mean they are.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>
>> Even worse she shilling for a company that sells quack meds to desperate
>> people!
>
>Liar.

What does Dr Haley do for a living, Jan? What is the web site where he
sells what provides that living, Jan?

Oh, that's right, Dr Haley sells testing and treatments, and he does
it through the Altcorp site.

Now, who's doing the lying ... ?

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That conclusion is made by people who are not practicing science, like
>>>>> 2003 Congressional committee and the idiot "doctor" in Florida.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
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

Peter Bowditch

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 3:25:26 AM7/10/06
to
"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>>
>>> ACTually, you have!
>>>
>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
>>
>> Wrong on two counts:
>>
>> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>
>Get you one that works...NOT kidsdoc.

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site
might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to
adjust your browser settings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

Click the Refresh button, or try again later.

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is
spelled correctly.

To check your connection settings, click the Tools menu, and then
click Internet Options. On the Connections tab, click Settings. The
settings should match those provided by your local area network (LAN)
administrator or Internet service provider (ISP).
See if your Internet connection settings are being detected. You can
set Microsoft Windows to examine your network and automatically
discover network connection settings (if your network administrator
has enabled this setting).
Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options.
On the Connections tab, click LAN Settings.
Select Automatically detect settings, and then click OK.
Some sites require 128-bit connection security. Click the Help menu
and then click About Internet Explorer to determine what strength
security you have installed.
If you are trying to reach a secure site, make sure your Security
settings can support it. Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet
Options. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Security section and check
settings for SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, PCT 1.0.
Click the Back button to try another link.

Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer

Are you familiar with the expression "Shove it up your arse, Jan"?

>>
>> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
>> doesn't mean they are.
>>
>> Jeff
>
>Not a matter of what I think. Facts are facts.

What has the word "facts" go to do with Dr Haley's commercial web
site?

john

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 4:28:43 AM7/10/06
to
Unequivocally, There is Strong Evidence Linking Thimerosal to Autism
Open Letter to Gov. Linda Lingle
By Richard C. Deth, PhD, 7/3/2006 11:45:51 AM
I am a neuropharmacologist and Full Professor at Northeastern University in
Boston who has been investigating the molecular origins of
neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders. For the past few years
much of my lab's work has focused on autism, including an evaluation of the
possible contribution of thimerosal, the ethylmercury-containing vaccine
preservative. Based upon my expertise in this area I have testified to
Congress on several occasions, appeared on NBC Nightly News and in several
documentaries and presented our findings at numerous scientific conferences.

I understand that you are currently evaluating legislation to removal
thimerosal from vaccines used in Hawaii. Let me state unequivocally that
there is strong scientific evidence linking thimerosal to autism, so taking
steps to remove it from vaccines is a true "no-brainer". Moreover, it is
vital that states indicate their expectation of thimerosal-free vaccines in
order to shift the pharmaceutical industry to this safer form. Public
confidence in the vaccination program will be greatly increased when mercury
is removed, allowing the full public health benefits without the unnecessary
mercury burden.

Our research has shown that very low concentrations of thimerosal, typical
of those found in the blood following vaccination, cause strong inhibition
of metabolic processes that are crucial to neuronal cell well-being and
survival. The most sensitive of these processes involves sulfur metabolism,
including the anti-oxidant defense mechanism that is critical to all cells.
The effect of thimerosal is to significantly lower levels of glutathione,
the primary cellular antioxidant. Studies of autistic children clearly show
that they are suffering from oxidative stress and their glutathione levels
are reduced by 40-50%. Thus the toxic metabolic actions of thimerosal are
paralleled in clinical studies of autistic children.

In further studies we showed that thimerosal inhibits a key cellular process
called "methylation", in which various activities, including gene
expression, are controlled by the transfer of a single carbon atom.
Methylation is closely linked to oxidative stress, and when thimerosal
induces oxidative stress, it also causes impaired methylation. Again, blood
tests in autistic children show that they have impaired methylation.
Furthermore, metabolic therapies that help restore methylation have been
able to improve the clinical symptoms of many autistic children, strongly
indicating that this metabolic dysfunction plays a central role. Genetic
studies have also revealed a higher frequency of risk-inducing polymorphisms
and mutations affecting methylation and sulfur metabolism. Our most recent
research indicates that the brain has a particularly higher vulnerability to
oxidative stress, which helps explain why neurological problems occur with
low doses of thimerosal.

The point of all this scientific background is to reinforce the common sense
logic of reducing mercury exposure by all possible routes, including
vaccine-related. It is illogical to inject mercury into anyone, at any age,
and you will be doing a service to all Hawaiians by helping to restrict
their exposure by signing SB2133 part II.

If I can help provide any further background, please feel to contact me. I
am eager to assist.

Richard C. Deth, PhD is a Professor of Pharmacology for Northeastern
University in Boston, Massachusetts

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6262fd9c-3e87-4331-90d3-8439e50ac607


Jeff

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 6:48:03 AM7/10/06
to

"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:pkv3b2p4bhg7q4huh...@4ax.com...

There is an old saying; "Never attribute to malice what you can attribute
to stupidity."

I will let the reader determine if it applies here.

Jeff


Jeff

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 6:49:44 AM7/10/06
to

"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:CGmsg.1719$2v....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

>
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>>
>>> ACTually, you have!
>>>
>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
>>
>> Wrong on two counts:
>>
>> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>
> Get you one that works...NOT kidsdoc.

My computer works just fine. For some reason, the ISP doesn't connect to the
site. I can't ping the URL, either. I can ping google.com, so it is not a
problem with my computer.

>>
>> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
>> doesn't mean they are.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Not a matter of what I think. Facts are facts.

And the fact is that they are not "experts." They/re Idiots or shills.

Jeff


Jeff

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 6:59:29 AM7/10/06
to

"john" <s...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:VrqdnWHcD9k...@bt.com...

I read Deth's one paper in the peer -reviwed literature on autism.
Appparently, the comments above came from this research. Unfortunately, the
research he talks about is in a cancer cell line. It is not applicable to
developing human brain cells in humans. It is fatally flawed:
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v9/n7/pdf/4001522a.pdf

Jeff

Mark Probert

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 10:08:43 AM7/10/06
to
HCN wrote:
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>> ACTually, you have!
>>>
>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/BUYfromUS.htm
>> Wrong on two counts:
>>
>> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>>
>> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
>> doesn't mean they are.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
> Even worse she shilling for a company that sells quack meds to desperate
> people!

Altcorp is owned by Boyd Haley, and with the recent court decision on
Haley's usefulness as an "expert" witness, I hope that Haley has a day
job somewhere. Both he and Geier were seriously criticized by a very
learned judge.

Mark Probert

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 10:12:18 AM7/10/06
to


The best choice is "idiots" since this decision by a US District Court
Judge:

http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf

Both Haley and Geier were given the old heave ho out of court. I suspect
that their days as "expert" witnesses are numbered.

Mark Probert

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 10:12:57 AM7/10/06
to

Bryan Heit

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 4:57:02 PM7/10/06
to
Jeff wrote:
> Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these
> claims with peer-reviewed research.
>
> Jeff


He can't. Any any time he is challenged he just posts stuff like his
reply to your e-mail. Or he'll attack you personally. Or he'll link
you to material unrelated to the topic in question.

Simple reality is he cannot support his position with any medical or
scientific literature produced in the last decade. All he has in
science from the 1960's, his webpage (whale.to), and his imaginary friends.

We're still waiting for him to explain away the results of a recent
study which showed that a decade after mercury was removed from all
childhood vaccines in Quebec, autism rates have remained unchanged
(they've actually increased, but not to a statistically significant
level). His response so far was to slander the authors of the study and
cite unrelated material.

Bryan

Mark Probert

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 5:29:10 PM7/10/06
to

That report is being discussed in the Blogosphere and the vicious
attacks of the anti-vac liars are being destroyed.

Jan Drew

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 5:39:14 PM7/10/06
to

> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>> (...)
>>>
>>>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>>>
>>>> ACTually, you have!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
>>>
>>> Wrong on two counts:
>>>
>>> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>>
>>Get you one that works...NOT kidsdoc.

Boom. Right there IMMEDIATELY.

The Medical Experts Speak Out on the Dangers of Thimerosal and the Possible
Link Between Administration of Multiple Thimerosal Containing Vaccines and
Autism

Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, MD, FAAFP

Director
International Child Development Resource Center
1663 Georgia Street
Suite # 700
Palm Bay, Florida 32907
Tel: (321) 953-0278


pdf Slide Show

New Evidence Points to an Link Between Environmental Poisons and
Learning Disabilities


Written Supplement to Dr. Bradstreet's Oral Testimony at the Hearing
of the Government Reform Committee, Congress of the United States, US House
of Representatives

pdf file

Dr. Neal A. Halsey, MD

Director
Institute for Vaccine Safety
Johns Hopkins University
Suite # 700
Palm Bay, Florida 32907
Tel: (321) 953-0278


pdf Slide Show

Commentary on Potential Risk from Thimerosal for Infants

Dr. Jane Maroney El-Dahr

Chief, Section of Pediatric Allergy/Immunology/Rheumatology
Tulane University Health Sciences Center
New Orleans, Louisiana

pdf Slide Show

Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes

Dr. David S. Baskin, MD

Professor of Neurosurgery and Anesthesiology
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, Texas

pdf Slide Show

Neuropathological, Neurochemical and Clinical Considerations

rule.gif
pdficon.gif

Jan Drew

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 5:45:15 PM7/10/06
to

"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Szcsg.5952$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>
> "john" <s...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:LfmdnTRjDuP...@bt.com...

>>
>>
>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ayoub_h.html
>>
>> I am no longer "trying to dig up evidence to prove" vaccines cause
>> autism. There is already abundant evidence, the same conclusion made by a
>> 2003 U.S. Congressional Committee. This debate is not scientific but is
>> political. I am trying to encourage physicians who have been badly misled
>> by nothing less than spin and propaganda to review the extensive

>> scientific evidence for themselves showing the vaccine-autism link, even
>> though "experts" disagree.. --- [July 9, 2006 Blog/letter] Discovering
>> the causes, treatment of autism ----David Ayoub, MD
>
> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
> caused by mercury in vaccines.

ACTually, you have!

http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm

The website with RESEARCH.

Unlike..Peter Bowditch's sicko websites.


Jan Drew

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 5:47:32 PM7/10/06
to

"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:chqsg.6597$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

The Medical Experts Speak Out on the Dangers of Thimerosal and the Possible

rule.gif
pdficon.gif

Jan Drew

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 6:07:58 PM7/10/06
to

"Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:mftsg.15$3u...@fe08.lga...

Dr. Geier was not qualified becuase his cuasation theory was filled with
*speculation the is directly contary to the conclusions reached in well
respected and numberous epidemiologicand medical studies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Same goes for Dr. Haley.

speaking of heave ho.

In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

92-02731

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747

November 9, 1992, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
Probert.

DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,

HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings

Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.

COUNSEL:

Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.

JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.

Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.

OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.

OPINION: [*282]

[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee.

[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.

The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.

The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.

Source:

NY UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, ATTORNEY REGIST. UNIT

Currency Status:

ARCHIVE RECORD

NAME & PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION

Name:

MARK PROBERT

Date Of Birth:

11/XX/1946

Gender:

MALE

Address:

1698 WEBSTER AVE

MERRICK, NY 11566

County:

NASSAU

Phone:

516-968-5572

EMPLOYER INFORMATION

Employer:

MARK S PROBERT ESQ

Organization:

PERSON

LICENSING INFORMATION

Licensing Agency:

NY STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION

License/Certification Type:

ATTORNEY

License Number:

1253889

Issue Date:

00/00/1978

License Status:

DISBARRED

License State:

NY

Jeff

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 6:26:08 PM7/10/06
to

"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:LTzsg.118523$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>

(...)

>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>
> ACTually, you have!
>
> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
>
> The website with RESEARCH.
>
> Unlike..Peter Bowditch's sicko websites.

Actually, I am unable to load the page you indicate. So I haven't see it. If
you think I have seen it because you think you can read minds, you better go
back to the hocus-pocus school of magic and take the mind-reading course
again.

Jeff


Peter Bowditch

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 9:27:00 PM7/10/06
to
"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

The next time you are checking out the length of Dr Haley's "CV", Jan,
please ask him to fix his web site. That's the commercial web site
where he sells things. (And no, he's not blocking my IP address. The
anonymous proxy at The Cloak can't get to it either.)

A question about the length of Dr Haley's "CV". Is the "CV" related to
the French expression "coq vital"? I assume that if he is using French
he is measuring it in centimetres rather than inches. This can lead to
disappointment for those unfamiliar with the metric system, as they
hear a number which is two and a half times greater than what their
usual measuring system would give.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

HCN

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 10:00:18 PM7/10/06
to

"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4uAsg.5676$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:LTzsg.118523$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>
> (...)
>
>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>
>> ACTually, you have!
>>
>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
>>
.... Result when I click on it:

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site
might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your
browser settings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


.................................................................................................

By the way, she is doing a very poor job of shilling for Boyd Haley's
business. His business being to give "the business" to folks who think they
have some mysterious disease... or worse selling sham cures to desperate
parents of children he claims are have "Mad Child" disease. What a
despicable person he is, and only a truly evil person would try to spam his
business for business:
http://www.neurodiversity.com/haley_reply.html


Jan Drew

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 11:35:05 PM7/10/06
to

Jan Drew

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 11:42:11 PM7/10/06
to

"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6Ozsg.118522$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

Rich

unread,
Jul 10, 2006, 11:49:21 PM7/10/06
to

"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:J%Esg.129406$dW3.1...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>

"I posted it with the permission of the author."

>
> Lie exposed.
>
>
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/


Jan Drew

unread,
Jul 11, 2006, 12:04:18 AM7/11/06
to

"Bryan Heit" <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
<snip>

> Jeff wrote:
>> Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these
>> claims with peer-reviewed research.
>>
>> Jeff

http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm

Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
by David F. Horrobin

Abstract

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review
system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific
research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking
the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.


The U.S. Supreme Court has recently been wrestling with the issues of the
acceptability and reliability of scientific evidence. In its judgement in
the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow, the court attempted to set guidelines
for U.S. judges to follow when listening to scientific experts. Whether or
not findings had been published in a peer-reviewed journal provided one
important criterion. But in a key caveat, the court emphasized that peer
review might sometimes be flawed, and that therefore this criterion was not
unequivocal evidence of validity or otherwise. A recent analysis of peer
review adds to this controversy by identifying an alarming lack of
correlation between reviewers' recommendations.
The Supreme Court questioned the authority of peer review.

Many scientists and lawyers are unhappy about the admission by the top legal
authority in the United States that peer review might in some circumstances
be flawed [1]. David Goodstein, writing in the Guide to the Federal Rules of
Evidence - one of whose functions is to interpret the judgement in the case
of Daubert - states that "Peer review is one of the sacred pillars of the
scientific edifice" [2]. In public, at least, almost all scientists would
agree. Those who disagree are almost always dismissed in pejorative terms
such as "maverick," "failure," and "driven by bitterness."
Peer review is central to the organization of modern science. The
peer-review process for submitted manuscripts is a crucial determinant of
what sees the light of day in a particular journal. Fortunately, it is less
effective in blocking publication completely; there are so many journals
that most even modestly competent studies will be published provided that
the authors are determined enough. The publication might not be in a
prestigious journal, but at least it will get into print. However, peer
review is also the process that controls access to funding, and here the
situation becomes much more serious. There might often be only two or three
realistic sources of funding for a project, and the networks of reviewers
for these sources are often interacting and interlocking. Failure to pass
the peer-review process might well mean that a project is never funded.
Science bases its presumed authority in the world on the reliability and
objectivity of the evidence that is produced. If the pronouncements of
science are to be greeted with public confidence - and there is plenty of
evidence to suggest that such confidence is low and eroding - it should be
able to demonstrate that peer review, "one of the sacred pillars of the
scientific edifice," is a process that has been validated objectively as a
reliable process for putting a stamp of approval on work that has been done.
Peer review should also have been validated as a reliable method for making
appropriate choices as to what work should be done. Yet when one looks for
that evidence it is simply not there.
Why not apply scientific methods to the peer review process?

For 30 years or so, I and others have been pointing out the fallibility of
peer review and have been calling for much more openness and objective
evaluation of its procedures [3-5]. For the most part, the scientific
establishment, its journals, and its grant-giving bodies have resisted such
open evaluation. They fail to understand that if a process that is as
central to the scientific endeavor as peer review has no validated
experimental base, and if it consistently refuses open scrutiny, it is not
surprising that the public is increasingly skeptical about the agenda and
the conclusions of science.
Largely because of this antagonism to openness and evaluation, there is a
great lack of good evidence either way concerning the objectivity and
validity of peer review. What evidence there is does not give confidence but
is open to many criticisms. Now, Peter Rothwell and Christopher Martyn have
thrown a bombshell [6]. Their conclusions are measured and cautious, but
there is little doubt that they have provided solid evidence of something
truly rotten at the core of science.
Forget the reviewers. Just flip a coin.

Rothwell and Martyn performed a detailed evaluation of the reviews of papers
submitted to two neuroscience journals. Each journal normally sent papers
out to two reviewers. Reviews of abstracts and oral presentations sent to
two neuroscience meetings were also evaluated. One meeting sent its
abstracts to 16 reviewers and the other to 14 reviewers, which provides a
good opportunity for statistical evaluation. Rothwell and Martyn analyzed
the correlations among reviewers' recommendations by analysis of variance.
Their report should be read in full; however, the conclusions are alarmingly
clear. For one journal, the relationships among the reviewers' opinions were
no better than that obtained by chance. For the other journal, the
relationship was only fractionally better. For the meeting abstracts, the
content of the abstract accounted for only about 10 to 20 percent of the
variance in opinion of referees, and other factors accounted for 80 to 90
percent of the variance.
These appalling figures will not be surprising to critics of peer review,
but they give solid substance to what these critics have been saying. The
core system by which the scientific community allots prestige (in terms of
oral presentations at major meetings and publication in major journals) and
funding is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little
better than does chance. Given the fact that most reviewers are likely to be
mainstream and broadly supportive of the existing organization of the
scientific enterprise, it would not be surprising if the likelihood of
support for truly innovative research was considerably less than that
provided by chance.
Objective evaluation of grant proposals is a high priority.

Scientists frequently become very angry about the public's rejection of the
conclusions of the scientific process. However, the Rothwell and Martyn
findings, coming on top of so much other evidence, suggest that the public
might be right in groping its way to a conclusion that there is something
rotten in the state of science. Public support can only erode further if
science does not put its house in order and begin a real attempt to develop
validated processes for the distribution of publication rights, credit for
completed work, and funds for new work. Funding is the most important issue
that most urgently requires opening up to rigorous research and objective
evaluation.
What relevance does this have for pharmacology and pharmaceuticals? Despite
enormous amounts of hype and optimistic puffery, pharmaceutical research is
actually failing [7]. The annual number of new chemical entities submitted
for approval is steadily falling in spite of the enthusiasm for techniques
such as combinatorial chemistry, high-throughput screening, and
pharmacogenomics. The drive to merge pharmaceutical companies is driven by
failure, and not by success.
The peer review process may be stifling innovation.

Could the peer-review processes in both academia and industry have destroyed
rather than promoted innovation? In my own field of psychopharmacology,
could it be that peer review has ensured that in depression and
schizophrenia, we are still largely pursuing themes that were initiated in
the 1950s? Could peer review explain the fact that in both diseases the
efficacy of modern drugs is no better than those compounds developed in
1950? Even in terms of side-effects, where the differences between old and
new drugs are much hyped, modern research has failed substantially. Is it
really a success that 27 of every 100 patients taking the selective 5-HT
reuptake inhibitors stop treatment within six weeks compared with the 30 of
every 100 who take a 1950s tricyclic antidepressant compound? The
Rothwell-Martyn bombshell is a wake-up call to the cozy establishments who
run science. If science is to have any credibility - and also if it is to be
successful - the peer-review process must be put on a much sounder and
properly validated basis or scrapped altogether.
David F. Horrobin, a longtime critic of anonymous peer review. heads Laxdale
Ltd., which develops novel treatments for psychiatric disorders. In 1972 he
founded Medical Hypotheses, the only journal fully devoted to discussion of
ideas in medicine.
References
1. Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993), 509, 579.
2. Goodstein, D. 2000. How Science Works. In U.S. Federal Judiciary
Reference Manual on Evidence, pp. 66-72.
3. Horrobin, D.F. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the
suppression of innovation. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263:1438-1441.
4. Horrobin, D.F. 1996. Peer review of grant applications: A harbinger for
mediocrity in clinical research? Lancet 348:1293-1295.
5. Horrobin, D.F. 1981-1982. Peer review: Is the good the enemy of the best?
J. Res. Commun. Stud. 3:327-334.
6. Rothwell, P.M. and Martyn, C.N. 2000. Reproducibility of peer review in
clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would
be expected by chance alone? Brain 123:1964-1969.
7. Horrobin, D.F. 2000. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. J. R.
Soc. Med. 93:341-345.

Llinks
International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Scientific
Publication - articles and abstracts from the third congress, held in 1997.
The fourth congress will be held in September 2001.
Peer-Review Practices at EPA - a section of the 2000 NAS report
Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Research-Management and Peer-Review Practices, which discusses the strengths
and limitations of the process.
Can Peer Review Help Resolve Natural Resource Conflicts? - suggests that a
modified form of peer review could be useful in policy-related decisions.
Evidence and Expert Testimony - includes many online references for
scientific evidence.
Peer Review Articles - an annotated bibliography covering scientific peer
review and its relevance to judicial proceedings.
Related HMS Beagle Articles:
Top Ten Reasons Against Peer Review and Top Ten Reasons For Peer Review -
arguments both humorous and serious.
Anatomy of a Rejection - strategies for improving the outcome of the peer
review process.

[All emphasis added]

Bryan Heit

unread,
Jul 11, 2006, 9:22:52 PM7/11/06
to
Jan Drew wrote:
> "Bryan Heit" <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>Jeff wrote:
>>
>>>Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these
>>>claims with peer-reviewed research.
>>>
>>>Jeff
>
>
> http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm
>
> Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
> by David F. Horrobin
>
>
>
> Abstract
>
> A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review
> system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific
> research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking
> the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.


And this is relevant how? Do you even know what peer-review is? I
actually agree with much of what was written here; having published
several scientific papers I'm well familiar with the peer review system.
And there is no question that some (not all) researchers use their
powers as reviewers to try and achieve their own ends.

In my experience, about 2/3rds of the reviewers provide valid critism
and useful suggestions. These people make the system as valuable as it
is - a second, new mind to find your holes and make the study better.
The other third uses their reviewer powers to slow your work, to try and
force you to make conclusions more to their liking, and to try and force
your study into their world view.

Thank god the good ones are still in the majority.

Bryan

Jason Johnson

unread,
Jul 11, 2006, 11:25:12 PM7/11/06
to
In article <e91it6$c1s$1...@news.ucalgary.ca>, Bryan Heit
<bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bryan,
One of the major problems that I have with the peer review system is the
way that system is used to screen out researchers that have alternative
points of view from the mainstream. Sharon Hope recently posted a report
indicating that JAMA refuses to accept any articles that pointed out all
of the dangerous side effects of statins. Please don't ask for proof since
I don't make hard copies of every post that I read. Does JAMA run ads in
their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? If so, can you see
that there is a conflict of interest. If you wrote a well researched
article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the
article would be printed in JAMA?
I doubt it. Feel free to disagree.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

cathyb

unread,
Jul 11, 2006, 11:49:47 PM7/11/06
to

Nor does anyone else, Jason. They are, however, archived and
searchable.

> Does JAMA run ads in
> their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? If so, can you see
> that there is a conflict of interest. If you wrote a well researched
> article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the
> article would be printed in JAMA?
> I doubt it. Feel free to disagree.

Jason, did you never hear of the article purporting to show a link
between MMR and autism printed in the Lancet?

Of course, it was disavowed by most of its authors in the end, and it
was of course a tad embarrassing for the Lancet when they discovered
that the main author, Andrew Wakefield, was receiving money from
lawyers for parents trying to sue a vaccine company. And that eight of
the 12 kids involved in the study were childrn of those parents.

But here's the thing. They printed it.

> Jason
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jason Johnson

unread,
Jul 12, 2006, 12:19:43 AM7/12/06
to
In article <1152676187.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"cathyb" <cathyb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cathy,
I don't recall reading about it but my memory is not 100% perfect. It's an
interesting story. I know of an interesting story related to a magazine
that I seem to recall was printed by the Smithsonian institute. They sceen
out from that magazine (and the review process) any articles written by
advocates of creation science. Somehow, the editor managed to print in the
magazine an article written by an advocate of creation science. The editor
was fired and I don't know what ever happened to him. Of course, the
article would have NEVER passed the peer review process since every member
was an advocate of evolution.
It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins. The peer review
process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

cathyb

unread,
Jul 12, 2006, 12:32:47 AM7/12/06
to

It wouldn't have passed the peer review process not because every
member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence
for creation science.
It's an untestable hypothesis.

> It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
> advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
> JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins.

I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just
said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here.

> The peer review
> process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.

No. It screens out research that is badly performed or reaches
unjustified conclusions in the opinion of experts reading it.

It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely
unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your
misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance,
the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before
finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and
ulcers.

But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the
Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day.

> Jason
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peter Bowditch

unread,
Jul 12, 2006, 3:59:43 AM7/12/06
to
ja...@nospam.com (Jason Johnson) wrote:

>Cathy,
>I don't recall reading about it but my memory is not 100% perfect. It's an
>interesting story. I know of an interesting story related to a magazine
>that I seem to recall was printed by the Smithsonian institute. They sceen
>out from that magazine (and the review process) any articles written by
>advocates of creation science.

As they should.

>Somehow, the editor managed to print in the
>magazine an article written by an advocate of creation science. The editor
>was fired and I don't know what ever happened to him. Of course, the
>article would have NEVER passed the peer review process since every member
>was an advocate of evolution.

No article advocating creation "science" could ever pass peer review
by real scientists, regardless of their opinions about evolution,
simply because it would not contain any science.

Why should a magazine devoted to science give any credibility to
something which is so obviously not scientific? Similarly, do you
think that MacWorld magazine should carry articles extolling the
wonders of Windows XP, or Biker Chicks carry articles by separation
feminists, or golfing magazines carry articles saying how good it is
to spend the weekends gardening, or gardening magazines carry articles
saying that golf is more important than aphid control, or Catholic
Weekly carry reviews of pornographic films?

Any publication has the right to refuse to publish material which
contradicts or disagrees with its charter or editorial policy. That's
what "editorial policy" means. The Smithsonian is a scientific
organisation, so you would expect to see only science in its
publications. JAMA is a medical journal, so you would only expect to
see properly conducted medical science reported in its pages. The fact
that The Lancet published Wakefield's crap shows that it is possible
for bad science to fall through the cracks at times, and JAMA (or was
it NEJM?) published the ludicrous "108,000 deaths" rubbish that the
quacks keep regurgitating.

>It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
>advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
>JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins. The peer review
>process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.
>Jason

JAMA's funding comes from a lot of subscriptions by a lot of doctors,
hospitals, universities and public libraries, plus some advertising.
The peer review panels are not employees of JAMA, so what would be the
advantage to the members to favour JAMA's advertisers?

Bryan Heit

unread,
Jul 12, 2006, 10:38:48 AM7/12/06
to
Jason Johnson wrote:
> Bryan,
> One of the major problems that I have with the peer review system is the
> way that system is used to screen out researchers that have alternative
> points of view from the mainstream.


This is far from the truth. My first scientific publication went
directly against over 20 years of studies. I had no more trouble
getting it through peer review the I have had getting papers through
which support existing theories.

Long story short is that most people who try to push through ideas out
of the mainstream areas of thought is that they do not have sufficient
data to support their claims. Big claims require lots of proof. I got
my paper through simply because we did enough experiments to make the
data as close to irrefutable as possible. If you're planning on
re-writing the science books this is what you need to do.

I've heard many people claim that they cannot get their papers
published, often blaming the peer-review process. But in all cases I
can think of off hand, I would have argued that there studies were not
complete.


> Sharon Hope recently posted a report
> indicating that JAMA refuses to accept any articles that pointed out all
> of the dangerous side effects of statins.


Complete and absolute bullshit. A quick pubmed reveals at least 165
articles published in JAMA on that very topic. Here's a few:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788130&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788124&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum