Richard Schultz wrote:
> In rec.arts.movies.past-films PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> : Richard Schultz wrote:
> :> This is not a question of me "doing my homework" -- it is a question of
> :> *you* doing *yours*. I'm not quite sure why you enjoy so much making a
> :> fool of yourself, but I will say it one more time, speaking as a person
> :> who has actually published papers in peer-reviewed journals.
> :
> : Then provide references to what you've published.
> References to my most recent publications can be found at
> http://tinyurl.com/ykuhtf. I have neither the time nor the patience to
> format my complete publication list for posting to Usenet.
Why not? You have plenty of time to defend the drug makers against
anonymous posters like me in a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives.
You're not only pompous, pharmboy, you're a pimp for industry. What's
really amusing is that you wanted to prove it.
> You can find
> my publications via any number of search engines (although beware -- the
> Richard H. Schultz who publishes on medical topics is *not* me). All of
> my papers have "Richard H. Schultz" as an author and will have been submitted
> from the University of Pittsburgh; the University of California, Berkeley;
> the University of Utah; or Bar-Ilan University. If you still can't figure
> out how to find my publications, I'll be happy to email you a PDF version
> of my complete publication list.
Unfortunately for you, the "Young Faculty Development Award" from TEVA
isn't an argument (except to other pharmboys) that you are here *not*
representing the interests of industry. Your willful distortion of
medical research and efforts at evasion are ample evidence that I was
right about you all along. You have only yourself to blame for laying
your cards on the table so wrecklessly, pharmboy.
> : It isn't surprising that some of our resident PR grunts have medical
> : backgrounds, but their claims are never proven.
> I have never claimed to have a medical background -- in fact, I have
> specifically claimed that I do *not* have a medical background. Nor do
> I have any scientific or monetary connection to the medical or pharmaceutical
> industries.
Your behaviour here belies your ties to industry. Your efforts to
distort the truth about the medical issues under discussion prove you
are not to be trusted. Your credentials not only do not absolve you of
bias, they explain the intellectual dishonesty you have displayed here
in the newsgroups.
> : This tells me that their efforts here in the
> : newsgroups are conflicted by their ties to industry.
> You, on the other hand, are a shill for a $27 billion (your number) industry.
> Why should we assume that you have no conflict of interest?
Have I asked you to believe anything about me? I do not *care* what
you think of me. If what I say here is useful, then take it. If it is
not, leave it. I am not the subject of my posts.
> : Don't make an assertion you think will leverage your argument unless
> : you are prepared to back it up.
> I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you think that I was lying
> when I claimed to have published in peer-reviewed journals. All I can say
> to that is that if you think that a faculty member at a university would
> never have published in refereed journals, you are even dumber than I
> had previously thought -- no easy task.
Mixing the truth with lies does not make you more credible, pharmboy.
You must also realize that your sponsors are offering to sacrifice you
on the altar of my anonymity.
> :> . . .That explains why I couldn't find the reference, and is yet further
> :> proof that you never read the reference that you cited by misspelling
> :> the authors' names (which are "McKinlay, J. B." and "McKinlay, S. M." --
> :> you spelled both of their names with an "e" in place of the "a").
> :
> : That would not have prevented you from finding the reference, for one
> : simple reason. The misspelling of this citation is common throughout
> : the medical literature.
> According to the ISI Web of Knowledge, the paper by McKinlay and McKinlay
> has been cited 113 times. How many of those citations misspell their names?
The links I provided did, and there were several others, as you must
have also seen.
> The book to which you referred me certainly didn't. As soon as I figured
> out the correct spelling (no thanks to you), I was able to find the
> reference.
Have you shed enough tears now? I have corrected my own database
reference, as well.
> : I rarely transcribe from handwritten notes
> : (though in this case, I had created one, but preferring to cut-n-paste
> : from an online reference, the error was then carried along.)
> Which demonstrates that you personally never read the article in question,
> or else you would have known that your own reference contained a
> misspelling of the authors' names.
Since I don't remember how you spell your last name, given all the
possible variations, is that evidence I have not read your absurd and
irrational posts? SCHULTZ, SCHULTZE, SCHULZE, SCHULZ, SHULTZ, SCHOLTZ,
SCHOLZ. Now for the surname of the study authors: MacKinley,
MacKinlay, MacKindlay, MacKinly, MacKindley...
> :> Now that I have found (no thanks to you) the correct citation...
> :
> : Saying this *after* I provided the chapter reference does not make you
> : look too bright.
> I think that you have pretty much demonstrated that (a) you do not understand
> the purpose of citations in scholarly work; (b) you do not understand how
> to cite articles correctly; (c) you do not understand that I found the
> correct citation *in spite* of your inability to provide it rather than
> because of anything that you did. I'm not sure why, if *you* provide an
> incorrect citation, *I'm* the one who looks "not too bright" for not being
> able to find it.
Because you could have found it even *with* the spelling error, as I
demonstrated in the links to online material which revealed the error
being propogated online. How do you think *I* found the online
reference? Did I magically know that someone had misspelled the study
authors' names? No, dumbass, I searched on the title of the study.
> :> . . . I assume that what you
> :> were referring to was the following passage from page 43 of the book, ref.
> :> 72 being the study by McKinlay and McKinlay:
> :>
> :> The development of effective medical measures was too late
> :> to make a major contribution to the mortality decline in
> :> Europe and other western countries. For example, it has
> :> been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline
> :> in mortality in the United States of America between 1900 and
> :> 1973 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for
> :> the major infections diseases.[72] On the other hand,
> :> targeted public health interventions including vaccination [sic],
> :> personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health care
> :> services, were of major importanc.[3,85]
> : Your effort to distort the facts is truly becoming desperate.
> How can my providing a *direct quotation* from a citation that *you*
> provided be an "effort to distort the facts"? And anyone who thinks that I
> might be misquoting the book, or misrepresenting the context, can easily
> check for himself or herself. Just go to the book's page at amazon.com,
> use the "Search this Book" feature, look up "vaccination," and check out
> the text on page 43.
The statement in the book reads exactly as I said: "...it has been
estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in
the United States of America between 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to
medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases." The
distortion is your claim that it does not mean what it says.
> : For the record, here is the paragraph in which I cited the study:
> :
> : "Researchers found that 3.5%, at most, of the decline in infectious
> : disease mortality during the period 1900 to 1975, was concomitant with
> : use of vaccine. Put simply, there is no evidence that vaccine is
> : responsible for even the majority of such declines."
> What page of what book contains that text? It's certainly not _Public
> Health at the Crossroads_. And how do you explain how the authors of
> the book chapter came to such a radically different conclusion from the
> authors of the study that you are quoting?
Do explain what "radically different" conclusion you believe the
authors came to. Read the actual excerpt and then read my paraphrase,
and tell us where they differ.
> : Not only is the
> : study result fairly represented by what I said, but my later statement
> : that "...even the severity of such diseases were in substantial decline
> : before vaccine campaigns came along...") is entirely consistent with
> : the study conclusion.
> Apparently, the other people who cite the article -- and remember, that's
> a citation that *you* provided -- do not agree with you.
Your claim is without merit, pharmboy. If you cannot bother to
demonstrate it by some analysis of the facts, you have not demonstrated
it at all.
> :> If you want to present yourself as a coward and a liar,
> :> that's really not my problem.
> :
> : I'll let readers decide who is the coward and the liar. Your obsession
> : with knowing my identity says far more about you than my anonymity does
> : about me.
> I have no "obsession" with knowing your identity. I do not know who you
> are, and do not particularly care. I am only pointing out that someone
> who posts anonymously to Usenet is almost always someone with something to
> hide.
My anonymity is meaningless. If what I say is not substantive, feel
free to killfile me.
> :> I don't need to "control" anyone. As a scientist, I am kind of forced to
> :> believe that objective truth exists independently of our feelings about it.
> :
> : Neither you nor your sponsors know yourselves. The truth is not in
> : you.
> I have no "sponsors", as you well know.
Your words belie your motives.
PeterB
--- Richard Schultz' reply ---
In misc.health.alternative PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
[nothing of interest]
Yawn.
-----
Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
-- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard
Times_
The Post that Pharma-blogger Richard Schultz Could Not Respond to 
Linear Mode
