|
I note that you have refused to answer the questions I put to you and instead have embarked on tangential topics.
Why don’t you answer my questions instead of blurring the issues?
"how can someone even evaluate the risk/benefit of any chemical? You know it is a bogus, economic endeavor. You simply do not have all the facts."
You answered your own question and deny that there is an answer. Pure solipsism. Who is fooling whom here? You are not interested in a discussion based upon facts since you think you know all the answers already.
As to "all the facts," in every aspect of life, one uses what is available. That is all one can do when attempting to judge risks and benefits. You don't need a calculator to know that the benefits of digging a latrine downstream from drinking water is a better risk than digging them upstream from your drinking water, even if you have to walk a greater distance downstream to use them.
"If corporations are savvy enough to join forces to stop recognition of chemical injuries and illness (note the work of Ron Gots and his group ESRI, among others) they know full well that they are excluding necessary information from any safety analysis. How many people are affected? Is the number growing?"
Blaming ESRI is blatant nonsense. You are implying a grand conspiracy of chemical companies, public and private research scientists working in epidemiology, and physicians to deep six data. Show me what evidence you have for such a conspiracy.
ERSIs mission is as follows:
1) Track research, publications, meetings and other information sources including public policy arenas such as federal and state programs, including but not limited to; SSA, HUD, VA, EPA, ATSDR and Workers’ Compensation on environmental intolerance issues, and provide a monthly report to ESRI members and Scientific Advisory Panel members.
2) Support a Scientific Advisory Panel, which may be charged with reviewing research proposals on environmental intolerance issues, to provide a list of priorities to the Board of Directors for their consideration, and to address other issues that may be posed by the Board of Directors.
3) Support, encourage, fund and seek funding for research, based on input from the Scientific Advisory Panel, which promotes greater understanding of environmental intolerance issues.
4) As warranted, develop a State-of-the-Science update, to be posted on the ESRI WebPage, and to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
5) As warranted, sponsor a State-of-the-Science Symposium to promote sharing of research findings and evolving hypotheses on environmental intolerance issues.
The ”necessary information” that you decry which is rejected is usually by MDs, self-proclaimed experts in areas where no board certification is granted and who are making claims that are not accepted by the mainstream medical community.
A single stop at the ESRI web site and the linked court cases make this plain if you care to check the summaries of the court cases.
"How scientific is it to omit that information? Why aren't people like you even asking about that? Why aren't the stronger among you insisting that data be collected and used?"
The information collected is anecdotal, not clinical and any hypothesis does not pass Occum's Rule in such cases.
"How could it be that the government uses ESRI's so-called scientific advisor to craft the CDC's position paper? How could they have been allowed to create conclusions based on opinion that hold the terrible result of making sure no research on the subject should be done? Money that's how."
Maybe its because the ESRI is the considered expert. Their conclusions are based upon recognized criteria for facts not anecdotal evidence and in no way prevent research from being conducted on chemical hypersensitivity. Money is not the issue in this situation, it is a matter of "what is the science?" and "what does it reveal?"
"If you are not standing up for better data and a full accounting of all chemical illnesses then I hope some day you will realize your complicity in a market force that could very well end up destroying the viability of our population, as is already happening to other species."
I consider that statement a disgraceful attempt to put words in my mouth and beneath contempt; unworthy of wasting my time to reply.
"This comment of yours is another example of wacky science - do you know that for all the money that is poured into stopping even recognition of this problem, NO ONE is bothering to ask the injured about their experiences, NO ONE is taking their histories. What you know about it is NOT based on any collected data - it is based on opinion papers - and believe me corporations pay big money for those who promote ignorance on this subject."
It is you who are making a mockery of science; by attempting to corrupt scientific method with demands that the standard level of acceptable correspondence for factual statements is lowered and by refusing to deliver data that supports your hypothesis.
As to "all that money that is poured into stopping even recognition of this problem.” You are dead wrong, the battle in the courts is usually between insurer and injured party. The injured party is basing its case upon diagnoses made by physicians who themselves can not quantize the cause and affect of the chemicals, nor even in the cases cited on the ERSI web site, by which chemicals are actually causing the problems, except for latex sensitivity...and latex is a natural rubber, and not even synthetic.
"I repeat NO ONE is evaluating or treating such patients except those doctors who care enough to risk losing their licenses, and they are not published. If anyone bothered to listen - there are huge clues and you would likely be suprised at the consistency and the emergence of several chemical culprits. But like one dr said to me - the histories are all the same, I guess it takes dying on the sidewalk for anyone to notice."
What do you propose? What evaluation are you asking for? Do you want to smear chemicals on people to see if they cause harm, or do you want all chemicals removed from the marketplace?
I have asked you several times to state clearly just what you want society to do in this situation.
You have never replied to this simple question with a coherent answer.
Do you have one? If so, what is it?
You want evaluations of people who claim chemical hypersensitivity but their own doctors have stated in court that they don't know which particular chemicals cause the affects, and do not have any idea of what the levels are of the chemicals that are causing the affects, just that they see affects that are present in only a minute fraction of the general population.
Those doctors you cite and are cited on the ERSI site are making diagnoses that are claiming diseases that the mainstream medical sciences do not (yet, granted) recognize and thus are suspect according to medical ethical rules and thus civil courts. In the eyes of their colleagues, they are recognizing diseases that do not exist. Why should they not be criticized?
"Why aren't you asking questions if "chemicals and safety" is your job? Don't you care since your work could have an effect on the number of people whose lives have been devastated?"
The questions I have are the ones I have asked here, show me the numbers. And I have reviewed hundreds of environmentally studies in the course o my career. Have you done so? I would submit that my work has benefited humanity far more than your work ever has, so I might well ask of you what have you done for humanity that you can criticize the lifework of others.
"How do you KNOW that in ten years 80% of the population will not be so affected? You don't know!"
What can I say other than it has not yet, nor do I know if such chemicals actually make genetic mutations that will make humanity healthy and immortal. Nevertheless, common sense dictates that neither is true, because there is no evidence for widespread affects either way.
"I suppose that some of your comments were meant to be silly and insulting so I will not comment on them."
No, my comments are specifically cast so as not to insult you while at the same time make clear to you that your argument is an exhibition of nonsensical histrionics and is not based upon sound scientific or common sense reasoning.
You are in pain, and want to blame someone. That is your right, but is also your wrong.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
