As Sullivan stated above, he reserves “Dr” for “treating physicians”.

I see no end of mischief coming from this policy.

Every person should be evaluated by the value of the evidence which they bring to the table.

I do not see any value in a priori judgements of the value of evidence based on the qualifications of the person.

Yes, there is some value to expert opinion based on qualifications. But the use of expert opinion is so limited, and it is only really applicable in situations where behaviour or development is predictable from a known set of circumstances. That just does not apply to autism. This is a debatable point, but I do not think that the current state of the science allows anyone to have an “expert opinion” on autism in the manner that it would be accepted in a court of law. We have experts, but they will all have different ideas. In my own field, a person with an expert opinion is recognised as such by just about everybody else in the field. In autism, an “expert”, is likely to be opposed by most of the field.

So I simply see no grounds whatsoever in crediting “treating physicians” (DAN doctors?) with an honorific and denying it to actual researchers.

I think the better approach is to “bust” the myth that the title “Dr” gives the holder any special powers. Some Drs are credible, and some are dodgy. Let’s bust the myth that the title means anything more than Daddy had enough money to fund 7 years of med school (or however long it is in the US), (the hard-working ones who paid for it, and the smart ones who got scholarships will be pissed off, but the daddy’s boys are coasting on your hard work).

So it is the quality of their work/evidence that counts. Just as a lot of practising family doctors are swayed by the drug company salesmen, others are courted by the bio-med industry salesmen. This needs to be told.

Drawing a line between PhD researchers – many of whom will be grounded in evidence-based science – and practising physicians- many of whom will be bio-med stooges is just not a good idea in my opinion.

I think “natural news” has a recent article up as well. They are flashing back to when this work was presented at IMFAR, years ago.

The activity makes me wonder if perhaps Ms. Hewitson is about to release another paper. Or perhaps Sackett (who was funded to continue the work “A PRIMATE MODEL OF GUT, IMMUNE, AND CNS RESPONSE TO CHILDHOOD VACCINES”)

I’ve actually been chastised for referring to doctors (be they M.D.’s or Ph.D.’s) by “Mr” or “Ms”. The statement being that I am disrespectful. I chose to use “Dr.” only for treating physicians.

vaccines for human use are risky , but thats our future , why take those risks

Because the risks of not getting vaccinated and catching the diseases are far greater. Vaccines are orders of magnitude safer than the sicknesses they prevent.

there is pleanty of stuff on the net and youtube whereby we can all get a clear look at eugenics and social engineering.

Riiiiight. And everything on the internet is truthful, honest and accurate. Oh wait.

i say to them i was born perfect .

If that was so, something went dreadfully wrong in the meantime.

McD, Hewitson isn’t an MD, she’s a PhD in obstetrics.