Comments on: Thoughtful House acknowledges that chelation can be dangerous and not effective

By: Sullivan

Sullivan — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:00:52 +0000

Kat,

yes, I took the time to write this post. Just as you took the time to respond.

I am not being purposely misleading. I am noting that even ThoughtfulHouse acknowledges that chelation carries a risk, including death. How is that misleading? What is misleading is the large group of people who pretend that chelation carries no risk. And, yes, I have read many people state exactly that.

As to your assertion that I have no credibility, you are welcome to your opinion. I have formed my own opinion as to your credibility.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:06:12 +0000

Concern troll is concerned. If concern troll does not like what is written on a blog, concern troll does not have to read it.

By: KAT

KAT — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:59:50 +0000

Really. THIS is what somewhat took time to write about?? Obviously someone not educated in the medical field….or worse….someone who is educated in the medical field and purposely is being misleading. However you look at it, a consent form for a CT scan with contrast, MRI, or a simple biopsy all include “death” as a possiblity. Would you forgo a biopsy and just HOPE that you don’t have cancer?? Forgo a CT and just HOPE that it isn’t an appendicitis…yada yada yada.

No credibility for this author.

By: Sullivan

Sullivan — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:09:06 +0000

I’ve placed a number of posts in moderation until I can take the time to sort them out. When someone posts multiple comments in a short time, using multiple usernames and email addresses, I consider it spam.

By: Dedj

Dedj — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:34:15 +0000

Certainly someone with either no prior knowledge of this site, or no understanding of non-biomedical models of autism.

I’d certainly think about adding a few other new comers to the puppet pile.

Same logical errors, same difficulty in making clear open statements, same difficulty with sticking to the point.

By: David N. Brown

David N. Brown — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:08:07 +0000

Looks like “Gerry Spence Lives”, like “Leonoid Brezhnev” and “Anton Chekov”, go back to sites under construction. Undoubtedly puppets, maybe Tim Bolen himself.

By: Dedj

Dedj — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:30 +0000

As an aside, over at Respectful Insolence, I’m currently looking at a car ad and an ad for a networking site. I don’t see any cries of motor-shill coming from the, ahem, ‘pro-safe-vaxx’ camp.

I remember when he-who-is-never-wrong accused Orac of being paid by big-pharma, simply because an ad for a pharma product appeared. The slap-down from that was a beauty to behold.

By: Dedj

Dedj — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:56:19 +0000

“These conspiracy theories are a little bit entertaining, but they are not very well thought out, are they?”

Some aren’t, and some are.

Regardless of how well thought out they are, if they’re not evidenced, then they’re simply worthless.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:36:05 +0000

They practice research fraud and have been caught covering it up.

I’ll bite. What are you referring to exactly, jon?

You seem to be missing a very large list including Seed Media Group that he had linked to along with the plain and obvious fact that media groups largest source of advertisement revenue comes from pharma

This is a completely ridiculous appeal to motive. Web ads? Seriously? I’ve seen ads for Suzanne Somers quackery over at ScienceBlogs.

It also implies that Seed has editorial control over what bloggers write about. If they did, it’s impossible we wouldn’t know about it, and they wouldn’t have too many bloggers.

These conspiracy theories are a little bit entertaining, but they are not very well thought out, are they?

By: David N. Brown

David N. Brown — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:12:37 +0000

Jon,
1) What I demand, for anyone who continues to speculate “Big Pharma” coverups regarding vaccines, is a single example of a vaccine manufacturer suing a vaccine critic.

2) You are taking me too literally: To be sure, compounding pharmacies buy from a variety of sources. As a matter of probability, some of their products will come from major US manufacturers.

3) Allegations against “Big Pharma” consistently charge various forms of intentional wrong-doing. This goes beyond any point of scientific fact, or for that matter of product quality.

4) Whether bloggers are purely private individuals is exactly the issue raised by the comment I was responding to.

5) This is just continuing a cycle of mutual recriminations. The only point I think of much importance is this: The relationship between (ex) AoA and Lee Silsby is clearly “reciprocal” to a degree that will rarely if ever be seen on “ND” blogs. I, personally, have space for ads on my own site, but I have no say on what goes in there. In fact, following one of the ads to see what it is for could get me in trouble.

6) The first line of defense against fraud is free debate. Making lawsuits ought to be a last resort. Making unprovable allegations about conspiracies is refusing to participate.