Jump to content


Spartacus

Its a Kennedy,find MUD throw MUD


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,616 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 June 2012 - 01:28 PM

http://www.nypost.co...&obref=obinsite

#2 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 24 June 2012 - 01:49 PM

“I want to make it clear I am not out to do a hit job on this guy."
Jerry Oppenheimer


Translation: "I'm out to do a hit job on this guy, and I hope it won't look too obvious."

#3 Dawn Meredith

Dawn Meredith

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,483 posts
  • Location:Austin, Tx.
  • Interests:political justice, conspiracy/truth, music, law, Bible prophecy

Posted 24 June 2012 - 03:49 PM

“I want to make it clear I am not out to do a hit job on this guy."
Jerry Oppenheimer


Translation: "I'm out to do a hit job on this guy, and I hope it won't look too obvious."



Exactly. All the trash that fits. Sounds like it will be an update of the hitjob in 84 "The Young Kennedys". I never read the book, just the parts serialized in Playboy. David Kennedy would tragically die of an overdose shortly after that trash came out. I wrote an angry letter to the editor of Playboy and to this day have never purchased another copy.

Trashing Kennedys sells books. What does that say about the public's reading habits?

Dawn

#4 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 24 June 2012 - 04:15 PM

“I want to make it clear I am not out to do a hit job on this guy."
Jerry Oppenheimer


Translation: "I'm out to do a hit job on this guy, and I hope it won't look too obvious."


What makes you so sure it will be a "hit job"? Do you think all of Joe K. Sr's descendants are above scrutiny?

He is an anti-Vax loon, i.e. a backer of the conspiracy theory that kills.

PS - WTF does this have to do with the JFK assassination? Shouldn't this be in the PC, PD or RFK forums?

Edited by Len Colby, 24 June 2012 - 04:23 PM.


#5 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:15 AM


“I want to make it clear I am not out to do a hit job on this guy."
Jerry Oppenheimer


Translation: "I'm out to do a hit job on this guy, and I hope it won't look too obvious."


What makes you so sure it will be a "hit job"?

<Sigh> Because he said he wanted to make it clear it wouldn't be. It's akin to say "Read my lips. There will be no new taxes..."

Do you think all of Joe K. Sr's descendants are above scrutiny?

No one in politics, business or religion should be above scrutiny. But if you think the works of people like C. David Heymann constitute "scrutiny", then I feel sorry for you; you're a truly lost soul.

He is an anti-Vax loon, i.e. a backer of the conspiracy theory that kills.

I know virtually zero about the guy. A quick google showed he is against things like mercury in vacs. They all carry some risk. It's a matter of getting the balance right. When you go too far one way, you're in danger of creating epidemics of for example, autism - too far the way, and you're in danger of bringing back whooping cough epidemics. Nothing in the (albeit relatively small amount) of information I just trawled through spoke of his being flat, across the board anti-vax - which I agree is an extreme and dangerous position. Do you advocate drug companies being given free reign to put whatever the hell they feel like in their products?

PS - WTF does this have to do with the JFK assassination? Shouldn't this be in the PC, PD or RFK forums?

Why ask me? That should be directed to a mod. I might add that I recall the use of acronyms and letter spaces to indicate swearing became added to the verboten list at some stage, so wtf can't you follow the simple rules of free speech?



#6 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 25 June 2012 - 06:45 PM



“I want to make it clear I am not out to do a hit job on this guy."
Jerry Oppenheimer


Translation: "I'm out to do a hit job on this guy, and I hope it won't look too obvious."


What makes you so sure it will be a "hit job"?

<Sigh> Because he said he wanted to make it clear it wouldn't be. It's akin to say "Read my lips. There will be no new taxes..."


So anytime someone says they won't do so something you automatically assume the opposite?


Do you think all of Joe K. Sr's descendants are above scrutiny?

No one in politics, business or religion should be above scrutiny. But if you think the works of people like C. David Heymann constitute "scrutiny", then I feel sorry for you; you're a truly lost soul.


Unfortunately some people on this forum seem to think members of the family can do no wrong and that even applies to extended relatives like Skakel but no I assume to the 'Governator'. What does Heymann have to do with this book?


He is an anti-Vax loon, i.e. a backer of the conspiracy theory that kills.

I know virtually zero about the guy. A quick google showed he is against things like mercury in vacs. They all carry some risk. It's a matter of getting the balance right. When you go too far one way, you're in danger of creating epidemics of for example, autism - too far the way, and you're in danger of bringing back whooping cough epidemics. Nothing in the (albeit relatively small amount) of information I just trawled through spoke of his being flat, across the board anti-vax - which I agree is an extreme and dangerous position. Do you advocate drug companies being given free reign to put whatever the hell they feel like in their products?


No but his article was very thoroughly shown to be full of errors leading Salon and Rolling Stone to correct and eventually drop it. Undaunted he posted the uncorrected version on his website without bothering to address his errors.

http://www.salon.com...erous_immunity/
http://www.rollingst...deadly_immunity
http://web.archive.o...deadly_immunity
http://retractionwat...m-vaccine-link/

PS - WTF does this have to do with the JFK assassination? Shouldn't this be in the PC, PD or RFK forums?

Why ask me? That should be directed to a mod. I might add that I recall the use of acronyms and letter spaces to indicate swearing became added to the verboten list at some stage, so wtf can't you follow the simple rules of free speech?




I added that as an afterthought it was sorta me thinking out loud, I didn't mean to direct it at you. Sorry that I did NOT make that clear.

Edited by Len Colby, 25 June 2012 - 06:46 PM.


#7 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:54 AM

So anytime someone says they won't do so something you automatically assume the opposite?

Len, when politicians or political biographers say they won't do something, look for the weasel words, fine print, or (as in this case) the denial being unsolicited.

Unfortunately some people on this forum seem to think members of the family can do no wrong and that even applies to extended relatives like Skakel but no I assume to the 'Governator'.

Then address your concerns to those people. Nothing to do with me.

What does Heymann have to do with this book?

More than I have to do with what you think other people think. He was an example of someone who does hatchet jobs as opposed to legitimate historical fact-based scrutiny.

The point being that it is wrong to automatically dismiss anything negative written about the Kennedys. But the reverse also applies: it is wrong to automatically accept everything negative written about them. You have to decide based upon the quality if the evidence. But you may disagree.

[...] his [RFK, Jr's] article was very thoroughly shown to be full of errors leading Salon and Rolling Stone to correct and eventually drop it. Undaunted he posted the uncorrected version on his website without bothering to address his errors.

http://www.salon.com...erous_immunity/
http://www.rollingst...deadly_immunity
http://web.archive.o...deadly_immunity
http://retractionwat...m-vaccine-link/

Hmmm. I note the main scientist dismissing the link to autism is in a spot of legal bother for fraud:

http://www.science20..._fraud_so-78339


PS - WTF does this have to do with the JFK assassination? Shouldn't this be in the PC, PD or RFK forums?

Why ask me? That should be directed to a mod. I might add that I recall the use of acronyms and letter spaces to indicate swearing became added to the verboten list at some stage, so wtf can't you follow the simple rules of free speech?




I added that as an afterthought it was sorta me thinking out loud, I didn't mean to direct it at you. Sorry that I did NOT make that clear.

Gotcha. Thanks.


Edited by Greg Parker, 26 June 2012 - 01:01 AM.


#8 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:38 AM

My latest comments.



So anytime someone says they won't do so something you automatically assume the opposite?

Len, when politicians or political biographers say they won't do something, look for the weasel words, fine print, or (as in this case) the denial being unsolicited.

Let's wait for the book (or at least excerpts) to come out before rushing to judgment..


Unfortunately some people on this forum seem to think members of the family can do no wrong and that even applies to extended relatives like Skakel but no I assume to the 'Governator'.

Then address your concerns to those people. Nothing to do with me.


I thought you MIGHT be one of them I still not entirely convinced you're not.

What does Heymann have to do with this book?

More than I have to do with what you think other people think. He was an example of someone who does hatchet jobs as opposed to legitimate historical fact-based scrutiny.

The point being that it is wrong to automatically dismiss anything negative written about the Kennedys. But the reverse also applies: it is wrong to automatically accept everything negative written about them. You have to decide based upon the quality if the evidence. But you may disagree.

If that is your opinion, then we agree.

[...] his [RFK, Jr's] article was very thoroughly shown to be full of errors leading Salon and Rolling Stone to correct and eventually drop it. Undaunted he posted the uncorrected version on his website without bothering to address his errors.

http://www.salon.com...erous_immunity/
http://www.rollingst...deadly_immunity
http://web.archive.o...deadly_immunity
http://retractionwat...m-vaccine-link/

Hmmm. I note the main scientist dismissing the link to autism is in a spot of legal bother for fraud:

http://www.science20..._fraud_so-78339

Hmmm. I note that once again you've posted a link that you have not bothered to read. Word to the wise you're better off owning up to it than unconvincingly claim otherwise.

PS - WTF does this have to do with the JFK assassination? Shouldn't this be in the PC, PD or RFK forums?

Why ask me? That should be directed to a mod. I might add that I recall the use of acronyms and letter spaces to indicate swearing became added to the verboten list at some stage, so wtf can't you follow the simple rules of free speech?




I added that as an afterthought it was sorta me thinking out loud, I didn't mean to direct it at you. Sorry that I did NOT make that clear.

Gotcha. Thanks.


Edited by Len Colby, 26 June 2012 - 02:40 AM.


#9 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:15 AM

Then address your concerns to those people. Nothing to do with me.


I thought you MIGHT be one of them I still not entirely convinced you're not.

Okay. That's fine, Len. I'm still not convinced you're not the mirror image of what you say of others. Your avoidance of what you think of Heymann's works doesn't help.


mmm. I note the main scientist dismissing the link to autism is in a spot of legal bother for fraud:

http://www.science20..._fraud_so-78339

Hmmm. I note that once again you've posted a link that you have not bothered to read. Word to the wise you're better off owning up to it than unconvincingly claim otherwise.

Gee. You got me there. Any denial of a claim you make up based on your own proclivity for conclusion jumping, will be unconvincing.

The article confirms exactly what I said - Thorsten is in trouble for fraud.

It appears your conclusion jumping is based on the appearance that the article supports your view, and not what you perceive (or wish?) was mine.

The article, along with the comments following it, just underscores my previous statement to you: both extremes of this argument are potentially dangerous.



#10 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:21 AM


Then address your concerns to those people. Nothing to do with me.


I thought you MIGHT be one of them I still not entirely convinced you're not.

Okay. That's fine, Len. I'm still not convinced you're not the mirror image of what you say of others. Your avoidance of what you think of Heymann's works doesn't help.


LEN: I didn't avoid anything, I was not asked and since I haven't read any thing he's written I don't have an informed opinion. However based on what I've read about him and his writtings he is a sleazy s****** (condom).

mmm. I note the main scientist dismissing the link to autism is in a spot of legal bother for fraud:

http://www.science20..._fraud_so-78339

Hmmm. I note that once again you've posted a link that you have not bothered to read. Word to the wise you're better off owning up to it than unconvincingly claim otherwise.

Gee. You got me there. Any denial of a claim you make up based on your own proclivity for conclusion jumping, will be unconvincing.

The article confirms exactly what I said - Thorsten is in trouble for fraud.

It appears your conclusion jumping is based on the appearance that the article supports your view, and not what you perceive (or wish?) was mine.

The article, along with the comments following it, just underscores my previous statement to you: both extremes of this argument are potentially dangerous.


LEN: Yes you are right '[t]he article confirms exactly what [you] said - Thorsten is in trouble for fraud' however it also clearly indicated contrary to your claims he was NOT "the main scientist dismissing the link to autism" next time read past the 2nd paragraph especially after someone has told you the article contradicts you. From YOUR cited source:

'Involved' is the term that seems to be confusing CoMed. Anyone knows if you are not the first author (did the work) or the last author (own the lab) they aren't your studies. But they insist Thimerosal is linked to autism (disproven) and 'mitochondrial' damage, impossible to prove much less disprove, so if a criminal's name is on them, they must be scientifically invalid - and they claim "inappropriate involvement of employees at the CDC", whatever that means.

They go even farther down the chain, calling for the retraction of the 2004 Institute of Medicine report rejecting the causal relationship between Thimerosal and autism, because it cited the Danish studies in which Thorsen participated. That's a darn tenuous link.

Sure, the guy used taxpayer money to buy a house and a motorcycle. He'll probably go to jail for that. It does not mean every paper with his name buried somewhere in the middle is wrong.

People were right to be cautious when a connection between Thimerosal and autism was unclear. Parents want answers and would prefer to be conservative when it comes to the health of their kids and both John McCain and Barack Obama reflected that concern (to the detriment of their science credibility) in 2008 when they stated concern about vaccines but the issue is settled. Continuing to try and raise money fomenting fear is not helping kids.



In any case Thorsten was not mentioned in either of the retraction articles, he is just one of many authors of many studies showing there is no 'connection between Thimerosal and autism' and he seems not even to have been the lead author of any of them. Nor AFAIK has he ever been charged with scientific fraud



EDIT - Formatting & typos

Edited by Len Colby, 26 June 2012 - 04:27 AM.


#11 Don Jeffries

Don Jeffries

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,082 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Writing fiction- my first work, the sci-fi/fantasy novel "The Unreals," is in Barnes & Noble bookstores across the country and has been purchased by hundreds of public and college libraries in the United States and around the world. I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a second novel, "Front Row At The Loony Bin," as well as working on a sequel to "The Unreals."

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:45 AM

The use of the word "reckless" in describing RFK, Jr. is anti-Kennedy 101 stuff. That's the msm's favorite adjective for Kennedys. It's curious that anyone would write a biography about RFK, Jr. Does he really warrant this kind of attention? His older brother Joe has never had such a book written about him, and he served several terms in Congress.

The timing of this book is not accidental, imho. There has been talk of RFK, Jr. running for Governor for quite some time. From what is left of the fractured next Generation of Kennedys, he probably holds out the greatest hope for political success. First, his wife dies unnaturally (seemingly the only way the Kennedys die), and now this. I await the inevitable announcement that he will not be seeking political office.

To Len, those who question the links between vaccines and autism and other disorders are "loons." Needless to say, the medical and pharmaceutical industries have a vested interest in this subject. They aren't going to risk the public relations disaster and class action lawsuits from understandably irate parents, so they simply smear those like RFK, Jr., who think these vaccines may have irreparably harmed countless numbers of children.

Edited by Don Jeffries, 26 June 2012 - 05:46 AM.


#12 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:24 AM

Len.

I never said that article was my source for his being the main scientist involved in the research. Furthermore, if I had said exactly the same thing, but linked to an anti-vax site, you would not be getting your knickers all in a knot now - because that would conform to your need to put me into that neat little all-encompassing conspiracy box.

My sources for him being the lead scientist were ( 1 ) Reuters
http://www.reuters.c...E73C8JJ20110413
"He moved back to Denmark in 2002 to be principal investigator for the program."

And ( 2 )this Danish blog site which quotes the Danish media on the case:
http://nbjour.wordpr...r-poul-thorsen/
"The project was led by Poul Thorsen, who is a medical doctor."

You see, unlike you, I did not want to rely entirely or only upon what either extremes of the debate have to say. Here, I relied upon the above because of what I perceived to be a lack of bias.

The fact that you have jumped to another conclusion - that the pro-vac site is the most reliable, is your problem. But even other pro-vac sites don't make definitive claims about the order of author's names to a paper.

http://scienceblogs....vaccines-fraud/
"He was not the first author (usually the one who did the most for the study and is the corresponding author). He was not the last author (usually the senior author.. " Note the qualifiers, which I have bolded for your viewing pleasure?

He committed the fraud by simply asking for the money to be transferred to his account - which was mistakenly thought to be that of the research organization. Common sense tells me that someone without any importance or authority simply could not do that. But you go right ahead and keep automatically assuming everything in pro-vac sites is the Gospel Truth *(TM God) - because that is - like I've been trying to tell you all along - as wrongheaded as automatically believing the anti-vac lobby.


LEN: Yes you are right '[t]he article confirms exactly what [you] said - Thorsten is in trouble for fraud' however it also clearly indicated contrary to your claims he was NOT "the main scientist dismissing the link to autism" next time read past the 2nd paragraph especially after someone has told you the article contradicts you. From YOUR cited source:


'Involved' is the term that seems to be confusing CoMed. Anyone knows if you are not the first author (did the work) or the last author (own the lab) they aren't your studies. But they insist Thimerosal is linked to autism (disproven) and 'mitochondrial' damage, impossible to prove much less disprove, so if a criminal's name is on them, they must be scientifically invalid - and they claim "inappropriate involvement of employees at the CDC", whatever that means.

They go even farther down the chain, calling for the retraction of the 2004 Institute of Medicine report rejecting the causal relationship between Thimerosal and autism, because it cited the Danish studies in which Thorsen participated. That's a darn tenuous link.

Sure, the guy used taxpayer money to buy a house and a motorcycle. He'll probably go to jail for that. It does not mean every paper with his name buried somewhere in the middle is wrong.

People were right to be cautious when a connection between Thimerosal and autism was unclear. Parents want answers and would prefer to be conservative when it comes to the health of their kids and both John McCain and Barack Obama reflected that concern (to the detriment of their science credibility) in 2008 when they stated concern about vaccines but the issue is settled. Continuing to try and raise money fomenting fear is not helping kids.



In any case Thorsten was not mentioned in either of the retraction articles, he is just one of many authors of many studies showing there is no 'connection between Thimerosal and autism' and he seems not even to have been the lead author of any of them. Nor AFAIK has he ever been charged with scientific fraud


Edited by Greg Parker, 26 June 2012 - 08:13 AM.


#13 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 27 June 2012 - 02:37 AM

My apologies Greg for some strange reason I assumed your cited source was you source, how silly of me. Oh wait that was a normal assumption, you claimed “…the main scientist dismissing the link to autism is in a spot of legal bother for fraud” however your cited source said he was NOT “the main scientist”.

A Google Scholar search for Thimerosal autism yields 3550 hits a search for "POUL THORSEN" Thimerosal autism yields only 25 hits and without the quotation marks 90 either way some of the results are to papers that cite but were not authored by him and he only contributed to a minuscule percent of the papers on the topic. A quick scan of the results indicates the vast majority indicate there is no connection. Thorsen was not the first listed author of any of the papers. No matter how the search is configured the most widely cited paper which lists him is:

A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism


Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, M.D., Anders Hviid, M.Sc., Mogens Vestergaard, M.D., Diana Schendel, Ph.D., Jan Wohlfahrt, M.Sc., Poul Thorsen, M.D., Jørn Olsen, M.D., and Mads Melbye, M.D.


N Engl J Med, November 7, 2002


Note that Thorsen is the sixth of eight authors in a non-alphabetical listing. The order of the four other papers he is listed as an author of with over a dozen citations. He was not the first listed author of any of them. Regarding the order of authors a group of environmental scientists wrote the following for a biology journal:

Traditionally, the first author contributes most and also receives most of the credit, whereas the position of subsequent authors is usually decided by contribution, alphabetical order, or reverse seniority. Ranking the first or second author in a two-author paper is straightforward, but the meaning of position becomes increasingly arbitrary as the number of authors increases beyond two. Criteria for authorship have been discussed at length, because of the inflationary increase in the number of authors on papers submitted to biomedical journals and the practice of “gift” authorship [3,4], but a simple way to determine credit associated with the sequence of authors' names is still missing [4–7]


So you’ll have to bet your chips on the proposition he was the leader of the team despite being one of the least senior and consistently accepted being one of last listed authors for studies he was primarily responsible for. Since was dealing the grant funding it is possible his primary responsibility was bureaucratic especially when dealing with US government agencies. Since he’d worked for the CDC it’s reasonable to assume his command of English and understanding of the rigmarole in complying with grantswas better than those of the others. This could have led Reuters to incorrectly conclude he has the leader.

To make a long story short, he was only a co-author of a miniscule percent of the papers on the subject and does not seem to have been the main scientist of any of them.

It is interesting that Kennedy and other anti-vaxers are such a huff over Thorsen’s legal troubles because according to the NYT, ‘a British medical panel concluded last week that Dr. [Andrew] Wakefield [the lead author of one of the few (if not the only) peer reviewed papers finding a link between vaccines and autism] had been dishonest, violated basic research ethics rules and showed a “callous disregard” for the suffering of children involved in his research.‘ Wakefield also failed to disclose funding from those with a financial interest in finding a link. Kennedy cannot plead ignorance because he cited it in a piece he wrote for HuffPo.

I think Jim D., Don and you are right, being a Kennedy makes members of the family preferred targets for many authors and other media outlets, but it works both ways; it also opens numerous doors to them. Do you really think that Rolling Stone and Salon would have jointly published the article if he was Robert Kendal, son and nephew of truck drives? Don said he’d been spoken of as a gubernatorial candidate, he expressed interest in being appointed to Hillary’s senate seat, his cousin ended up being a leading contender for her seat, if they were anyone else no would consider them for such important posts. And since we’re on the subject do you think ‘George’ would have gotten off the ground or anyone would have cared about it wasn’t John-John’s baby? Maybe it’s collapse about a year and a half after his death.

SOURCES:
Google Scholar http://scholar.googl...l=en&as_sdt=1,5
NE J. OF Med paper http://www.nejm.org/...56/NEJMoa021134
PloS Bio. Paper http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1769438/
NYT article http://www.nytimes.c..._r=1&ref=health
Wakefield’s wiki http://en.wikipedia....efield_response
HufPo http://www.huffingto...c_b_494303.html

#14 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 27 June 2012 - 07:18 AM

My apologies Greg for some strange reason I assumed your cited source was you source, how silly of me. Oh wait that was a normal assumption, you claimed “…the main scientist dismissing the link to autism is in a spot of legal bother for fraud” however your cited source said he was NOT “the main scientist”.

Len, once again - I already had sources for his being the head of the project. That the site I used to point to the fraud issue stated he was not the "the main scientist" is beside the point. The author DID NOT KNOW THAT AS A FACT - HE ASSUMED IT TO BE A FACT BASED ON THE GOD-DAMN ORDER OF NAMES which another site showed was not a definitive method of proving anything. The link was for the fraud issue only. Should I cite every single phrase, fact, conjecture, sentence, word? Why stop there? I think citations should be provided for every syllable just so you don't make one of your infamous assumptions. Or you could just get over it. :ice

A Google Scholar search for Thimerosal autism yields 3550 hits a search for "POUL THORSEN" Thimerosal autism yields only 25 hits and without the quotation marks 90 either way some of the results are to papers that cite but were not authored by him and he only contributed to a minuscule percent of the papers on the topic. A quick scan of the results indicates the vast majority indicate there is no connection. Thorsen was not the first listed author of any of the papers. No matter how the search is configured the most widely cited paper which lists him is:

A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism


Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, M.D., Anders Hviid, M.Sc., Mogens Vestergaard, M.D., Diana Schendel, Ph.D., Jan Wohlfahrt, M.Sc., Poul Thorsen, M.D., Jørn Olsen, M.D., and Mads Melbye, M.D.


N Engl J Med, November 7, 2002


Note that Thorsen is the sixth of eight authors in a non-alphabetical listing. The order of the four other papers he is listed as an author of with over a dozen citations. He was not the first listed author of any of them. Regarding the order of authors a group of environmental scientists wrote the following for a biology journal:

Traditionally, the first author contributes most and also receives most of the credit, whereas the position of subsequent authors is usually decided by contribution, alphabetical order, or reverse seniority. Ranking the first or second author in a two-author paper is straightforward, but the meaning of position becomes increasingly arbitrary as the number of authors increases beyond two. Criteria for authorship have been discussed at length, because of the inflationary increase in the number of authors on papers submitted to biomedical journals and the practice of “gift” authorship [3,4], but a simple way to determine credit associated with the sequence of authors' names is still missing [4–7]


So that is the THIRD interpretation of order once we get past number one. Keep looking. We can probably find a dozen more.

1. Last name owns the lab
2. Last name most senior
3. Every author after the first "increasingly arbitrary".

So you’ll have to bet your chips on the proposition he was the leader of the team despite being one of the least senior and consistently accepted being one of last listed authors for studies he was primarily responsible for. Since was dealing the grant funding it is possible his primary responsibility was bureaucratic especially when dealing with US government agencies. Since he’d worked for the CDC it’s reasonable to assume his command of English and understanding of the rigmarole in complying with grantswas better than those of the others. This could have led Reuters to incorrectly conclude he has the leader.

To make a long story short, he was only a co-author of a miniscule percent of the papers on the subject and does not seem to have been the main scientist of any of them.

It is interesting that Kennedy and other anti-vaxers are such a huff over Thorsen’s legal troubles because according to the NYT, ‘a British medical panel concluded last week that Dr. [Andrew] Wakefield [the lead author of one of the few (if not the only) peer reviewed papers finding a link between vaccines and autism] had been dishonest, violated basic research ethics rules and showed a “callous disregard” for the suffering of children involved in his research.‘ Wakefield also failed to disclose funding from those with a financial interest in finding a link. Kennedy cannot plead ignorance because he cited it in a piece he wrote for HuffPo.

I think you'll find the anti-vax lobby believe Wakefield was the victim of <gasp> a conspiracy. Whether that's true or not, I haven't a clue, but I do wonder how such apparently shoddy work got past a peer review to begin with, and what financial imperative there could possibly by in finding a link to autism. The financial imperative narrative looks to belong all the other way.

I think Jim D., Don and you are right, being a Kennedy makes members of the family preferred targets for many authors and other media outlets, but it works both ways; it also opens numerous doors to them. Do you really think that Rolling Stone and Salon would have jointly published the article if he was Robert Kendal, son and nephew of truck drives? Don said he’d been spoken of as a gubernatorial candidate, he expressed interest in being appointed to Hillary’s senate seat, his cousin ended up being a leading contender for her seat, if they were anyone else no would consider them for such important posts. And since we’re on the subject do you think ‘George’ would have gotten off the ground or anyone would have cared about it wasn’t John-John’s baby? Maybe it’s collapse about a year and a half after his death.

Having a famous name opens up doors for you? Who'da thunk it?

SOURCES:
Google Scholar http://scholar.googl...l=en&as_sdt=1,5
NE J. OF Med paper http://www.nejm.org/...56/NEJMoa021134
PloS Bio. Paper http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1769438/
NYT article http://www.nytimes.c..._r=1&ref=health
Wakefield’s wiki http://en.wikipedia....efield_response
HufPo http://www.huffingto...c_b_494303.html

Hell's Belles. So we're going from the order of names on a paper - which usually indicates who has what level of importance (or to put another way, doesn't always show the level of importance) as proof he was a mere bystander - to now relying on the number of google hits!

I mean, apparently Reuters and the Danish Press are all idiots, and the fact that he was able to have the research funds transferred to his personal account without question, means exactly zero.

I don't CARE if he never went near the damn research facility, Len. Earl Warren rarely sat in on witness testimony. Does that mean he wasn't leading the commission, or had no control of it?

Gimme some PROOF man, NOT these wild arsed guesses about author order and google hits. Prove to me that Reuters and the Danish press have some vested interested in (falsely, according to you) reporting his being the leader of the pack.



#15 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 27 June 2012 - 03:55 PM

My latest
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My apologies Greg for some strange reason I assumed your cited source was you source, how silly of me. Oh wait that was a normal assumption, you claimed “…the main scientist dismissing the link to autism is in a spot of legal bother for fraud” however your cited source said he was NOT “the main scientist”.

Len, once again - I already had sources for his being the head of the project. That the site I used to point to the fraud issue stated he was not the "the main scientist" is beside the point. The author DID NOT KNOW THAT AS A FACT - HE ASSUMED IT TO BE A FACT BASED ON THE GOD-DAMN ORDER OF NAMES which another site showed was not a definitive method of proving anything. The link was for the fraud issue only. Should I cite every single phrase, fact, conjecture, sentence, word? Why stop there? I think citations should be provided for every syllable just so you don't make one of your infamous assumptions. Or you could just get over it. :ice

Let's not be silly Greg, Thorsen being the main scientist was one of the two legs your claim stood upon, it was reasonable to assume your only citation was in support of both claims. If you had the Reuters link why not post it initially. The only thing we know for sure is that he handled the paperwork for CDC funding whether be did be he had worked at the CDC and thus was probably the best qualified person to do or because he was the team leader or for other reasons is unclear. Reuters and the blogger said he was the leader but they could have assumed this because he was the person controlling the money coming from the US, the order in which his name was listed in the groups papers suggests otherwise. His name invariably appeared in the middle of the non-alphabetical lists

But you choose to ignore a more important point. Even if he was "the main scientist" of that particular project, 'his' paper's and he papers that cited them only constitute a small percent of the body of work showing there not to be a connection thus no matter how you slice it your claim he was “…the main scientist dismissing the link to autism..." was incorrect
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Google Scholar search for Thimerosal autism yields 3550 hits a search for "POUL THORSEN" Thimerosal autism yields only 25 hits and without the quotation marks 90 either way some of the results are to papers that cite but were not authored by him and he only contributed to a minuscule percent of the papers on the topic. A quick scan of the results indicates the vast majority indicate there is no connection. Thorsen was not the first listed author of any of the papers. No matter how the search is configured the most widely cited paper which lists him is:

A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism

Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, M.D., Anders Hviid, M.Sc., Mogens Vestergaard, M.D., Diana Schendel, Ph.D., Jan Wohlfahrt, M.Sc., Poul Thorsen, M.D., Jørn Olsen, M.D., and Mads Melbye, M.D.


N Engl J Med, November 7, 2002


Note that Thorsen is the sixth of eight authors in a non-alphabetical listing. The order of the four other papers he is listed as an author of with over a dozen citations. He was not the first listed author of any of them. Regarding the order of authors a group of environmental scientists wrote the following for a biology journal:

Traditionally, the first author contributes most and also receives most of the credit, whereas the position of subsequent authors is usually decided by contribution, alphabetical order, or reverse seniority. Ranking the first or second author in a two-author paper is straightforward, but the meaning of position becomes increasingly arbitrary as the number of authors increases beyond two. Criteria for authorship have been discussed at length, because of the inflationary increase in the number of authors on papers submitted to biomedical journals and the practice of “gift” authorship [3,4], but a simple way to determine credit associated with the sequence of authors' names is still missing [4–7]


So that is the THIRD interpretation of order once we get past number one. Keep looking. We can probably find a dozen more.

1. Last name owns the lab
2. Last name most senior
3. Every author after the first "increasingly arbitrary".

Yes and he was never first nor last

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

So you’ll have to bet your chips on the proposition he was the leader of the team despite being one of the least senior and consistently accepted being one of last listed authors for studies he was primarily responsible for. Since was dealing the grant funding it is possible his primary responsibility was bureaucratic especially when dealing with US government agencies. Since he’d worked for the CDC it’s reasonable to assume his command of English and understanding of the rigmarole in complying with grantswas better than those of the others. This could have led Reuters to incorrectly conclude he has the leader.

To make a long story short, he was only a co-author of a miniscule percent of the papers on the subject and does not seem to have been the main scientist of any of them.

It is interesting that Kennedy and other anti-vaxers are such a huff over Thorsen’s legal troubles because according to the NYT, ‘a British medical panel concluded last week that Dr. [Andrew] Wakefield [the lead author of one of the few (if not the only) peer reviewed papers finding a link between vaccines and autism] had been dishonest, violated basic research ethics rules and showed a “callous disregard” for the suffering of children involved in his research.‘ Wakefield also failed to disclose funding from those with a financial interest in finding a link. Kennedy cannot plead ignorance because he cited it in a piece he wrote for HuffPo.

I think you'll find the anti-vax lobby believe Wakefield was the victim of <gasp> a conspiracy. Whether that's true or not, I haven't a clue, but I do wonder how such apparently shoddy work got past a peer review to begin with, and what financial imperative there could possibly by in finding a link to autism. The financial imperative narrative looks to belong all the other way.

They are free to beleve whatever they want but it seems the only evidence they have is that he was their hero and they can't fathom any other reason for his downfall. You miss understand peer review, the reviewers don't verify the claims they only certify that the study as described followed certain standards. As for the finacial motive you are displaying a lack of imagination ad a failure to have read my cited sources (NYT and Wiki).

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

I think Jim D., Don and you are right, being a Kennedy makes members of the family preferred targets for many authors and other media outlets, but it works both ways; it also opens numerous doors to them. Do you really think that Rolling Stone and Salon would have jointly published the article if he was Robert Kendal, son and nephew of truck drives? Don said he’d been spoken of as a gubernatorial candidate, he expressed interest in being appointed to Hillary’s senate seat, his cousin ended up being a leading contender for her seat, if they were anyone else no would consider them for such important posts. And since we’re on the subject do you think ‘George’ would have gotten off the ground or anyone would have cared about it wasn’t John-John’s baby? Maybe it’s collapse about a year and a half after his death.

Having a famous name opens up doors for you? Who'da thunk it?

Yes and having some people write nasty things about you goes with the territory so the Kennedys and their supporters should stop whining.Actually from what I've seen the Kennedy's themselves rarely complain about this, its the sycophants who believe they can do no wrong and have a birth right to power and prestige who do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES:
Google Scholar http://scholar.googl...l=en&as_sdt=1,5
NE J. OF Med paper http://www.nejm.org/...56/NEJMoa021134
PloS Bio. Paper http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1769438/
NYT article http://www.nytimes.c..._r=1&ref=health
Wakefield’s wiki http://en.wikipedia....efield_response
HufPo http://www.huffingto...c_b_494303.html

Hell's Belles. So we're going from the order of names on a paper - which usually indicates who has what level of importance (or to put another way, doesn't always show the level of importance) as proof he was a mere bystander - to now relying on the number of google hits!

Google Scholar is a seperate database, perhaps the percetage of all published papers is different but it indexes most if not all the key medical journals. His group's papers are miniscule fraction of the total which reached the same conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean, apparently Reuters and the Danish Press are all idiots, and the fact that he was able to have the research funds transferred to his personal account without question, means exactly zero.

Living in Brazil I know a thing or two about such corruption, such scandals are frequent it is not uncommon for midlevel administrators to pull such scam, for example the person responsible for purchases at a public hospitals can arrange kickbacks or submit false invoices apparently without the knowledge of others. Reuters itself said "the university thought it was transferring the funds to a CDC account, not Thorsen's personal account". When did the Danish press ever say he was the lead scientist?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't CARE if he never went near the damn research facility, Len. Earl Warren rarely sat in on witness testimony. Does that mean he wasn't leading the commission, or had no control of it?

Not a very good analogy since it is known as the Warren Report, get back to me with anyone (besides anti-vaxers) calling it the "Thorsen Project" any of the papers the "Thorsen Report"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gimme some PROOF man, NOT these wild arsed guesses about author order and google hits. Prove to me that Reuters and the Danish press have some vested interested in (falsely, according to you) reporting his being the leader of the pack.

As noted above you've yet to establish that "the Danish press" have dubbed him the main scientist and even if he was that is largely irrelevant since yet to establish the Danish team were the main researchers dismissing a link, the rarity with which they were cited by others indicates otherwise. You are also presenting a false dichotomy there is a third option, Reuters and the blogger could have made a simple mistake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users