One Thousand Dollars to Prove Electrosenstivity
March 10th, 2010
|
| Share |
Recently the magazine Popular Science ran a major story on individuals who believe they have electrosensitivity or electrohypersensitivity. I’m sorry to say that it was an example of horrible reporting that really only talked about the issue as if it were proven real. It stated the claims of the various individuals who claimed to have the condition without once considering that it might be “all in their head” and not real at all. (I’m working on a post with a more definitive and full report on all the problems with the PopSci article.)
While it did contain some language about how long term harm, such as cancer, is not proven to be related to RF radiation, it reported about being “Allergic to radio Waves” is if it were conclusively proven as fact. Not surprisingly, the story has generated a lot of hype and has been championed by those who insist that the condition exists.
Well then, I’m going to make an offer. I contend that electrohypersensitivity is not real. The condition is psychosomatic. RF fields do not produce nausea, headache, fainting, skin rashes or any other acute effect on the human body. No person can, under controlled conditions, show that they manifest these symptoms more often around a low power rf transmitter than when away from radio sources.
Do you think I’m wrong? Then prove it. I’m willing to put up one grand of my own money to be proven wrong. Honestly, I’m so confident about this, I’d put up more than that, but I want this to be a credible challenge and so I’ll put up an amount I know I can provide if I need to. I’m very serious and I’m willing to make the effort of setting up a test to conclusively and fairly settle the issue. And I will eat my words and fork over the money if you can prove me wrong!
The Challenge:
To prove that you manifest symptoms of electrohypersensitivity and that these symptoms are reliably linked to RF radiation by demonstrating the ability to detect the state of RF transmissions in a controlled enviornment.
The Reward:
1. One thousand US Dollars, provided in the form of a certified check, money order or other mutually acceptable monetary instrument.
2. I will admit I was wrong about electrosenstivity / electrohypersensitivity not existing.
3. Your case will be brought to the attention of researchers, with whom I am in communication, and efforts will be made to report your condition and the verification in peer reviewed journals.
The Test Setup:
A number of sources of consumer-level RF emissions will be used, these will include such things as a wifi router, a cell phone signal amplifier, a smart phone, which is programed to begin transmitting as soon as it is turned on, a local FM transmitter and/or various other devices. These will be placed in boxes which are relatively transparent to radio signals but which will hide any lights or other activity indicators on the devices. They will be connected to a single power cord which will be connected to a single switch.
The switch will be connected to a power source located in another room, away from view of the room where the test will be conducted. The individual being tested will not know whether the power supply is actually hooked up or not, the observer in the room with the subject will also not be aware whether the power supply is connected or not. If the power supply is connected then closing the switch will result in the transmitters coming on, but if the power supply is not connected, the switch will do nothing and the transmitters will remain off.
Those in the room will not know whether or not the session was a dry run or whether the transmitters actually did come on.
The switch will be turned off after five minutes or may be switched off sooner if the test subject believes they know whether the transmitters are on or off. After the test session, the individual will be asked to report whether or not they experienced any symptoms that would indicate the transmitters were on or not.
The test will be repeated a number of times to demonstrate that the individual can indeed detect whether the transmitters were on or off signifficantly better than they could by sheer chance alone. The default number of test sessions will be ten, and each test will be randomly selected as being either a power-on test session or a power-off test session.
Additional Rules and Information:
1. If the individual does not believe that they can detect the state of the transmitter with 100% accuracy, then it is possible that we can negotiate a test protocol in which they are only required to determine the state of the transmitter with a high, but not perfect, reliability. However, this will require more than ten sessions to verify. I’m willing to consider an extended series of sessions to determine this reliably.
2. If the individual believes that their electrohypersensitivity is so severe that they will not be able to do one test session immediately after another, a rest period can be provided,as long as it does not prevent the test series from being completed in a reasonable amount of time. If absolutely necessary, this does not all have to be done in one day, but more than three or four days will not be acceptable.
3. I’m willing to be somewhat flexible about the devices used. As long as they are consumer level RF sources that don’t produce a sound or other indication of their operation, they should be acceptable. If you believe that there is a certain type of phone or device that is especially prone to causing symptoms, it may be considered. Alternatively, if you feel that your EHS is so severe that having all those transmitters on at once would be intolerable, then lower power sources can be used. However, higher power sources than consumer level will not be accepted – broadcast level transmitters will not be allowed.
4. This is subject to availability on location. If you live on the US eastern seaboard, you can be accommodated. I will be traveling in the future to Europe, Australia, the West Coast, Florida and elsewhere, but this may take some time to happen. I’m also willing to have a third party conduct this test at a location closer to the subject. Regardless of the subject’s location, an effort will be made to accommodate them, but this can’t be guaranteed.
5. Since the claims regarding this alleged condition are that it can be triggered by devices signifficantly above ambient rf levels and because the test subject will have a chance to acclimate themselves to the ambient level with the devices powered off, it is presumed that an RF isolated area will not be necessary. The devices will produce a much higher RF flux than would exist in the area when they are not powered on and this will be confirmed with an isotropic power meter.
However, if the test subject believes that an RF isolated area is necessary to insure they can accurately determine if the transmitters are indeed on or off, arrangements can be made. This will, of course, depend on the location of the test subject and whether or not they can travel. If the test is conducted locally (in Connecticut, United States) then I have access to a professional RF test laboratory which includes a verified isolated RF test room. If the test is to be done elsewhere, efforts will be made to find a similar location, but this can’t be assured.
If you believe that electricity such as mains AC current will cause these symptoms and therefore must be excluded, then we can take steps to use a test room that does not have other electricity service active.
6. No devices of any kind, which could indicate RF emissions (such as field meters, wifi detectors etc) will be permitted. If used, they will be considered cheating and you will be dismissed.
7. This test is only to determine the acute physical effects of RF radiation and establish acute hypersensitivity. Information about long term exposure or chronic issues is irrelevant and won’t be considered.
8. Independent observation, verification and other such protection for the subject taking the challenge can be arranged, but ultimately this is my challenge and I reserve the right to stop the challenge and/or cut short the test if i believe that there is cheating involved, that there is a of harm to property, if the test subject becomes violent or unruly or if for any other reason, I deem it necessary.
Remember, this is a challenge. I’m issuing it. I make the rules. I’ll do what I can to accommodate the needs of anyone who wants to apply, but I make the rules. Every effort will be made to treat you fairly, but I am not going to open myself to any unreasonable liability.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 10th, 2010 at 8:59 pm and is filed under Announcements, Bad Science, Good Science, inverse square. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
November 16th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
“Braifart,”
I’ve made it a point to maintain a respectful dialogue here despite our disagreements. It’s obvious that you’re operating with an angry, unscientific bias.
“You have nothing if you can’t prove it, and no one is going to rely of your self-reported symptoms”
I’ve listed numerous proofs. That you haven’t bothered to answer them is, to quote you, “very telling.” And as it happens, there are other self-reported conditions that a medical practitioner will treat, Lyme being one example. And how about your own example of somatoform disorders? You would have no problem with a psychiatrist treating me for my self-reported symptoms.
“. . . simply because there is no way to distinguish them from psychosomatic disorders and somatoform disorders, it is that simple.”
Somatoform disorder is not there as a catch-all for difficult to explain illnesses. There are specific criteria for a somatoform disorder and MCS to not meet them. It’s ironic that someone who presumably demands scientific proof is going to ignore objective data in favor of the least scientific of the medical sciences.
As Per Dalen, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Gothenburg put it:
“It is interesting that another blind spot can be found in the area of placebo. Somatization and placebo are like the two sides of a coin. Both are believed to possess great power, the one of causing disease, the other of restoring health. Their mechanisms of operation are essentially unknown, and systematic studies have in fact yielded little or no evidence in clinical situations.
“There is no denying it; medicine uses a double standard in relation to scientific evidence. The placebo has been an integral part of our medical culture since the 1950s. Somatization gained prominence relatively recently. Scientific ideas normally have an interesting history, including a genealogy and a record of arguments pro and con. Important ideas rarely enter the scene fully fledged and unruffled by controversies, but somatization was presented even without a reference to psychoanalysis.
“Today we are sometimes told that somatization is the disease process to consider when physicians fail to explain the symptoms of the patient. The rather too flattering implication would be that medical science can now explain so many things that most of the remaining problems can be bundled together under a collective psychiatric label without further investigation.”
“Your demands, and those of others like you, are telling us to drop everything we have learned in science, and accept that you suffer from an untestable malaise.”
I’ve done nothing of the kind. On the contrary, I’ve entreated you to keep the open mind of a scientist and consider scientific evidence. You would have been the one imprisoning Galileo.
“Worse you contend that you have the right to dictate the way the rest of us use common technology, and have the right to draw on insurance payouts, from a pool of funds the rest of us pay into.”
Where have *I* attempted to dictate how you use common technology? And yes, I have the right to draw on insurance payouts that I’ve paid into for coverage. And as it happens, my medical treatment for MCS is nothing compared to what psychiatric treatment would cost. It amounts to medicine for migraine, as that’s the only symptom I can get relief from any kind of treatment. There is also the matter that there are no cases where psychiatric treatment has cured or significantly relieved MCS. There ARE cases where MCS has gone into remission due to avoidance and treatments associated with Martin Pall’s theory.
“Now I think we are all more than willing to give you support, if you accept you have a physiological disorder, but there is absolutely no way we are pandering to you fantasies without proof.”
The proof is there as I’ve said many times here already. It isn’t going to go away because you don’t want to look at it.
“Look, years ago there was a condition referred to as Sick Building Syndrome. At the time manyu dismissed it as imagination at best, attempts at medical fraud at worse. However it was found that adjustments made to HVAC systems done in the 70’s in response to the first energy crises, where responsible for poor air quality due to fungal growth, bacteria, and VOCs, and indeed this could negatively effect people in the structure. The point being is that they proved it. That’s why double-blind testing is needed, an rather than attack it as some sort of trick, people claiming to be suffering should embrace the chance to prove that there is something there.”
I’m glad we finally agree. From WebMD:
“What Is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?
“Other names for this condition are “environmental illness” and “sick building syndrome.””
http://www.webmd.com/allergies/multiple-chemical-sensitivity
And from Martin Pall, a scientist who has kept an open mind long enough to discover how the physiological etiology of MCS works:
“One of the most interesting examples of MCS/sick building syndrome occurred about 15 years ago when the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency remodeled its headquarters and some 200 of its employees became chemically sensitive.
“The obvious interpretation of this pattern of incidence of MCS is that pesticide or high level or repeated organic solvent exposure induces cases of MCS. This interpretation has been challenged by MCS skeptics but they have, in my judgment, no plausible alternative explanation.”
. . .
“Thus a plausible physiological model of MCS must be able to explain each of the following: How can MCS people be 100 to 1000 times more sensitive to hydrophobic organic solvents than normal people? How can such sensitivity be induced by previous exposure to pesticides or organic solvents? Why is MCS chronic, with sensitivity typically lasting for life? How can the diverse symptoms of MCS be explained? Each of these questions is answered by the model discussed below. . . .
http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=9228
That explanation describes why the VOCs you acknowledge causes Sick Building Syndrome/MCS.
“The fact that this offer by Steve keep drawing negative comments, to me, is very telling.”
Please copy and paste all the negative comments about his offer that I apparently keep making.
Quote Comment
November 16th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Oh, I almost forgot: I would appreciate it if you would point me to the double blind studies that they used to explain Sick Building Syndrome.
It’s also worth noting that the double-blind study is far less prevalent than you think; it is NOT the only way medical science is advanced and understood. Someone who has familiarity and trust in western medicine should know that.
Quote Comment
November 16th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
You are suffering from a delusional physiological condition that has made you incapable of reasoned thought, and I am sick and tired of arguing with crazy people.
This nonsense will pass, as similar nonsense about possession by evil spirits, curses by witches, and similar imagined conditions passed, undoubtedly to be replaced by yet other things of a similar nature.
I hold people like you in deep contempt, your demands for attention reminds me of an ill-behaved child who can’t stand not being the center of attention.
I am finished with this conversation. You have not tabled anything that serves as any proof, and as I recently learned on these pages, debating scientific topics with those who do not have a background in the fundamentals is a fool’s errand, especially when they think they know the subject.
I will not reply to any more of your posts Brainfart. You are a waste of time.
Quote Comment
November 16th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
“You are suffering from a delusional physiological condition”
This is the second time you’ve mistakenly used “physiological” instead of psychological. It’s becoming clear just how limited your familiarity with medicine is.
“that has made you incapable of reasoned thought,”
My responses to you have been well-reasoned and directly to the point, at least when you’ve decided to post anything of substance as opposed to your standard childish retorts. You’ve shown a need to avoid responding to details and the reason is clear: you are entirely out of your element.
“and I am sick and tired of arguing with crazy people.”
You’re sick and tired? Sounds like a somatoform disorder. You’d better see a shrink.
“This nonsense will pass, as similar nonsense about possession by evil spirits, curses by witches, and similar imagined conditions passed, undoubtedly to be replaced by yet other things of a similar nature.”
Like sick building syndrome?
“I hold people like you in deep contempt,”
If I had the slightest confidence that you knew what that meant I might cry.
“. . . your demands for attention reminds me of an ill-behaved child who can’t stand not being the center of attention.”
As opposed to this petulant whining now that you realize you’ve been owned?
“I am finished with this conversation. You have not tabled anything that serves as any proof, and as I recently learned on these pages, debating scientific topics with those who do not have a background in the fundamentals is a fool’s errand, especially when they think they know the subject.”
Just press your ears and say “la la la” and it will all go away.
“I will not reply to any more of your posts Brainfart. You are a waste of time.”
And besides, your ass is probably hurting from thinking too hard.
Quote Comment
November 16th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
brainfan said:
“sick building syndrome” is a very very poor term to use in this context. It has always been a problem because the definition is so nebulous as to be worthless.
they will say a “sick building” is one that makes people ill, and in many cases, once a building is labeled as being “sick” then no amount of cleaning, renovating and modifying will ever get rid of the fact that it has been branded as “sick” and people will believe they are sick when they are in it. It’s a psychological thing, there’s not really anything wrong with the building.
Of course, there are exceptions and circumstances where a building legitimately makes people ill. The most common reason would be mold. Mold growth in buildings can be a major problem associated with flooring, dampness or improper ventilation and the spores they produce can be circulated in ventilation systems.
There are other issues that can occur. Legionnaire’s Disease is another potential threat. The bacteria can grow in places like humidifiers and wet filters.
brainfan said:
Uh… actually it is. The use of blinded clinical studies started in the late 1800’s and is what brought us out of the dark ages of medicine. All drugs and procedures are evaluated in this manner. It’s the cornerstone of science-based medicine.
Quote Comment
November 16th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
““sick building syndrome” is a very very poor term to use in this context. It has always been a problem because the definition is so nebulous as to be worthless.”
That was really a rhetorical question because he brought SBS up as an example and I highly doubted he has actually read a double-blind study proving SBS. I agree with you.
“All drugs and procedures are evaluated in this manner. It’s the cornerstone of science-based medicine.”
Firstly, in my 20 years of working in a hospital I saw many cases of trying different modalities of treatment and the follow-ups to determine efficacy over various numbers of patients. The hospital simply applies for FDA approval to study it and there’s nothing blind about it. I was also responsible for a getting a company to pull a medical accessory that was FDA approved for the laser treatment of Barret’s esophagus and esophageal cancer because I explained to the inventor how his design did not consider how his plastic device reduced the laser output. His studies were published in medical journals and there were physicians using his device nationwide. His numbers were meaningless. Even after I explained to our chief physician why the device was jeopardizing outcomes, he was afraid to not use it because the guy who invented it was “the guru.” Companies perform their own studies and submit a form explaining them to the FDA. In many cases the FDA has absolutely no clue what the device does. They review the forms and if it sounds okay, it’s approved.
A company whose interest is in marketing a device is not necessarily an unbiased observer in the design of the studies that evaluate that product. Pharmaceutical companies have withheld data that does not show positive outcomes as well.
Lastly, the British Medical Journal is in the process of evaluating commonly performed medical procedures for efficacy. So far they’ve evaluated 2,500 of them and found that 51% have unknown effectiveness. They can hardly have been proven in double-blind studies.
http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp
Quote Comment
November 16th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
A company which knowingly markets an unsafe device has a very high probability of ending up in some serious litigation and losing whatever profits they got selling the device and then some and they know it.
Not to mention that the people who work at those companies are humans as well, many of who are there because they want to help people.
Quote Comment
November 16th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
“A company which knowingly markets an unsafe device has a very high probability of ending up in some serious litigation and losing whatever profits they got selling the device and then some and they know it.”
In most cases you’re right, but don’t tell that to the tobacco industry. What did they do when it was clear their product was unsafe and they had a very high probability of ending up in serious litigation? They used scientists to plant seeds of doubt about the dangers of cigarettes. This way they managed to continue to collect profits for years before truth and litigation finally started to succeed. Today it’s called “tobacco science.” “Science” that is bought to produce the desired result, no matter how wrong it may be. These people are like the lawyer that knows his client is guilty, but he’s paid to get him off. These scientists are paid to get these companies off the hook, at least for as long as the ruse can last.
MCS is to the chemical industry as lung cancer is to the tobacco industry. One difference in this scenario is that the chemical industry is far more powerful than the tobacco industry could hope to be, but the tobacco industry was useful for developing the method used today by the chemical industry.
In 1990, the Chemical Manufacturers Association vowed to work to prevent the recognition of MCS out of concern for potential lost profits and increased liability if MCS were to become widely acknowledged. One of the ways they did this, as with tobacco, is to create non-profit groups to fight against it, like Ronald Gots’ Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute, a “research” institute that doesn’t actually do any research. They are there to promulgate a myth, to plant seeds of doubt and they’re very successful.
The pharmaceutical industry is essentially one and the same as the chemical industry. What better placement for the chemical industry than to have the most powerful influence in medicine at its beckon call?
“Not to mention that the people who work at those companies are humans as well, many of who are there because they want to help people.”
The physician who invented that device? Yes, absolutely. The number crunchers who head the chemical/pharmaceutical industry whose only concern is to increase their bottom line? The shills like Gots, Barrett, Staudenmeyer, and their willing legions of educated people who are intelligent enough to see through their poorly arrived at conclusions?
Quote Comment
November 16th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Another interesting case is the physician who came up with the name multiple chemical sensitivity. He had clout and influence. He was instrumental in getting one of the first cases of SSDI for an MCS patient. People like that don’t go unnoticed by the chemical industry. He assists with legal cases, but is now a paid consultant for Monsanto.
Quote Comment
November 16th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
brainfan said:
Why is it that almost every conspiracy theory has to link their grievances to the evil “tobacco industry”?
There should be a version of Godwin’s Law that applies to connections to tobacco and another that applies to connections to “Big [fill in the blank].” When your case is so weak that you have to bolster it by linking it to a supposed “evil” organization, then your argument is already on life support. Let it go, already.
Such useful guidelines would go a long way to help quickly sort the tin-foil-hat nutjobs from the simply ignorant.
Quote Comment
November 17th, 2010 at 9:00 am
“Why is it that almost every conspiracy theory has to link their grievances to the evil “tobacco industry”?”
You apparently didn’t get the reason why I brought it up.
First, the contention I was responding to was this: “A company which knowingly markets an unsafe device has a very high probability of ending up in some serious litigation and losing whatever profits they got selling the device and then some and they know it.”
Tobacco provides no benefit and creates substantial harm. It’s a valid case that directly addresses the contention.
Second, it’s useful because it isn’t simply a comparison with the tobacco industry knowingly selling an unsafe product despite the likelihood of future litigation: the method that the tobacco industry used to prolong the process was to create and use “independent” non-profit groups to lobby for the industry. That provided a template that is being used by the chemical industry and I provided a clear example of this. It’s an entirely relevant scenario to discuss.
“There should be a version of Godwin’s Law that applies to connections to tobacco and another that applies to connections to “Big [fill in the blank].” When your case is so weak that you have to bolster it by linking it to a supposed “evil” organization, then your argument is already on life support. Let it go, already.”
Interesting that you would respond only to this facet of my discussion and use it to shoot everything else down. My argument is comprehensive enough that I don’t HAVE to use it at all.
“Such useful guidelines would go a long way to help quickly sort the tin-foil-hat nutjobs . . . ”
There should be a version of Godwin’s Law that applies to connections to “tin-foil-hat nutjobs” and “conspiracy theory”. When your case is so weak that you have to bolster it by linking it to a supposed delusional group of people, then your argument is already on life support. Let it go, already.
“ . . . from the simply ignorant.”
I think I’ve posted enough here to show that I am not ignorant, though you have not.
Quote Comment
November 17th, 2010 at 10:10 am
brainfan said:
On the contrary, I know exactly why you brought it up. It’s a clear case of introducing a red herring — specifically guilt by association — to try to bolster your argument by associating the target of your attacks with disreputable groups.
People with weak arguments do this all the time, which is my point. If you can’t convince, demonize.
This is exactly why it’s a red herring. If you felt that your argument is comprehensive enough, then you shouldn’t have needed to pull a guilt by association. That you did so anyway strongly hints that your argument is not as comprehensive or persuasive as you seem to think.
Quote Comment
November 17th, 2010 at 10:51 am
“On the contrary, I know exactly why you brought it up. It’s a clear case of introducing a red herring — specifically guilt by association — to try to bolster your argument by associating the target of your attacks with disreputable groups.”
No. I explained why I brought it up and you ignored my explanation. This is bad form: instead of addressing the details of what I’m saying, you construct a summary that suits your plan, that is, to keep attention diverted from the main point. You’re using a straw man as a red herring.
A red herring and guilt by association are not the same thing. A red herring is diverting attention away from your topic. I didn’t do that at all. You’re the one who’s keeping it in the forefront. Guilt by association? My explanation makes it clear that I’m exposing a tactic.
“People with weak arguments do this all the time, which is my point. If you can’t convince, demonize.”
This is why you refuse to discuss the bulk of my contentions: because your argument, such as it is, is weak. I’ve shown repeatedly that I’m willing to get into detail about the condition and the science, yet you pick out a brief, peripheral point and characterize it as significant.
“That you did so anyway strongly hints that your argument is not as comprehensive or persuasive as you seem to think.”
If you think the diversion isn’t applicable, fine. Move on and address my main points and ignore this straw man.
Quote Comment
November 17th, 2010 at 11:27 am
“A company which knowingly markets an unsafe device has a very high probability of ending up in some serious litigation and losing whatever profits they got selling the device and then some and they know it.”
The poster brought this up in response to a case I presented about how a company brought an ineffective, and harmful, product to market, which was presented in response to the idea that everything in modern medicine is doubled-blind tested. This is the nature of just about any long-running discussion. It is not uncommon to branch out in different directions. The fact that I expanded on these expansions of discussion does not refute my arguments.
Quote Comment
November 17th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
brainfan said:
Heh … now you demonstrate that you don’t know what a straw man is. For me to be setting up a straw man, I would need to misrepresent your position. However, since you have written
it’s pretty hard to represent that as anything other than a blatant attempt to paint guilt by association. It’s pretty cut and dry. If that’s not enough, however, you follow by adding an association with Big Pharma for good measure. At least you don’t hold back when you attack your targets with this fallacy.
Please go read the links that I posted above so that you might learn that guilt by association is a type of red herring. While you’re at it, you might want to read this, which describes another type of red herring, so that you finally know what it means.
I couldn’t care less about your hypochondriasis or your “contentions,” which is why I have not discussed the substance of your ramblings about MCS nor taken a position one way or another on the topic. Since you keep insisting that this is my purpose, I suppose we shall have to add paranoia to the list of your “charming” qualities.
Since you seem a bit slow on the uptake, please allow me to reiterate. I was merely commenting on your poor choice of rhetoric and insincere debating tactics. It has been my experience to observe that such tactics — associating something or someone with tobacco companies or “Big” whatever — are the hallmark of a crank trying to score cheap points through an argument that is driven more on emotion than substance.
Tobacco companies are the Nazi equivalent of the corporate world. Frankly, there’s not much difference between playing the tobacco card and playing the Nazi card.
Quote Comment
November 17th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
“Heh … now you demonstrate that you don’t know what a straw man is. For me to be setting up a straw man, I would need to misrepresent your position.”
You claimed that I’m using the tobacco industry example because I don’t have enough substantiation for my primary argument. That is a straw man, but here we are on yet another pointless path.
“However, since you have written
MCS is to the chemical industry as lung cancer is to the tobacco industry.
it’s pretty hard to represent that as anything other than a blatant attempt to paint guilt by association.”
If the chemical industry is using a tactic that was developed by the tobacco industry, it is truth. Just because you’ve got a hair across your ass about it doesn’t mean that pointing it out isn’t appropriate.
“It’s pretty cut and dry. If that’s not enough, however, you follow by adding an association with Big Pharma for good measure. At least you don’t hold back when you attack your targets with this fallacy.”
There IS an association between the chemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry as many of them are owned by the same companies. When a defendant is on trial, the prosecution points to the defendant’s motivation. My point is that there is motivation for both the pharmaceutical industry and the chemical industry to debunk the illness.
“Please go read the links that I posted above so that you might learn that guilt by association is a type of red herring. While you’re at it, you might want to read this, which describes another type of red herring, so that you finally know what it means.”
Mea culpa. It still doesn’t follow that there are guilt by associations in my argument.
“I couldn’t care less about your hypochondriasis or your “contentions,” which is why I have not discussed the substance of your ramblings about MCS nor taken a position one way or another on the topic.”
I mistakenly assumed that you were here to engage in some sort of meaningful discussion related to the web host’s post. That this demonstrates paranoia is a bizarre conclusion.
“Since you keep insisting that this is my purpose, I suppose we shall have to add paranoia to the list of your “charming” qualities.”
What’s charming is the complete inability for some of you people to discuss an issue without indulging your angry biases.
“Since you seem a bit slow on the uptake, please allow me to reiterate.”
That you need to resort to such petty retorts tells far more about you than me.
“I was merely commenting on your poor choice of rhetoric and insincere debating tactics.”
That you ignore my explanations for using this isolated example indicates YOUR insincerity.
“It has been my experience to observe that such tactics — associating something or someone with tobacco companies or “Big” whatever — are the hallmark of a crank trying to score cheap points through an argument that is driven more on emotion than substance.”
Because some are guilty of this tactic, you mistakenly assume that I am using this tactic, therefore motivations must be the same as what you assume their motivations to be. And did I say “big” anything? Is it my fault that tobacco is “big”? Are they now off-limits because they are “big”? This is another attempt at associating me with your bete noirs, the conspiracy theorists (as if people don’t conspire) and the “tin foil hat brigade”.
“Tobacco companies are the Nazi equivalent of the corporate world. Frankly, there’s not much difference between playing the tobacco card and playing the Nazi card.”
MCS denial is the skeptic’s equivalent of denying the holocaust. Now THAT accomplished a lot.
Way to derail a thread though.
Quote Comment
November 17th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
brainfan said:
Wow, I can add nothing to that. I’ll let your words speak for themselves.
Quote Comment
November 17th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Oh, I forgot to be transparent. I guess I should have types
Quote Comment
November 17th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
That should have been: typed [/sarcasm]
Quote Comment
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:19 pm
This is where the “MCS as psychogenic” meme has come from: bought and paid for fraudulent “science”. That they play into the hands of self-fashioned skeptics is just icing on the cake for them.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-scientists-significantly-publish-fake.html
Quote Comment
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:29 pm
brainfan said:
You do realize that this argument cuts both ways….
Quote Comment
November 22nd, 2010 at 7:58 pm
brainfan said:
I should start off by saying I have no tolerance for fraud in scientific studies. Poor quality controls or errors in the experiments are never a welcome thing, but they still are not in the same world as out and out lying. Forging data and publishing fradulant papers is just plain unforgivable. Huge amounts of time and money can be wasted on working with data obtained in good faith but that turns out to be fraudulent. And don’t even get me started on Andrew Wakefield – a criminal amongst criminals.
Given the number of scientific papers published in a ten year period in the US is 78 is an astoundingly low number to be retracted for fraud. In fact, I would suspect that, while fraud is probably reasonably uncommon, the real number of fraudulent papers in ten years is far more than 78.
That said, the fact that the US is number one could be taken two ways. It could also be seen as evidence that the US is doing a better job of policing papers and catching those which are fraudulent, forcing them to be retracted.
I don’t know, though. It does not give much context as to what the proportion is for the number of papers published.
Quote Comment
November 24th, 2010 at 8:42 am
“You do realize that this argument cuts both ways….”
Of course. The difference here though is the types of publications and researchers we’re speaking of. That opens up a whole different discussion though.
“I should start off by saying I have no tolerance for fraud in scientific studies. Poor quality controls or errors in the experiments are never a welcome thing, but they still are not in the same world as out and out lying.”
You’re right as well of course. Lying comes in multiple forms and lying by omission is a common form in the MCS arena, but here we enter the nefarious world of organizations like the American Council on Health and Science and Quackwatch, who somehow seem to have managed to influence otherwise respectable people/organizations.
There is also the issue of conflicts of interest and other abuses within the peer review system and journal advertising, articles ghost written by industry reps and “signed” by physicians, as well as the previously linked to BMJ study in a post above. That should be the context I suppose.
Medical science comes with a lot of baggage in the forms of competing interests, money, power, and huge, huge egos. It’s really just another business that hides behind a facade of scientific neutrality. The issue of MCS was never given a chance to be understood before being dismissed and once that happened, those egos made it extremely difficult to backtrack.
Quote Comment