From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: RE:research in medicine
Originator: itsmine@cahaba
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:19:24 GMT


>
>From article <mhulsey-201192093840@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>mh> Another pagan dance.  If you have evidence for a double-standard 
>mh> on my part, let's see it.  Either way, stop questioning my credentials.

Russell writes:>
>I'd suggest that you begin to focus on the facts and rational 
>arguments presented by your opponents, in lieu of addressing what 
>you perceive to be their lack of credentials/honesty/intelligence 
>and various other personality attributes (ie "bozos").  
>Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to point out that you don't have 
>a medical degree, and hence should think twice about criticizing 
>MD's.  And that you don't have a degree in philosophy, and hence, 
>should refrain from criticizing philosophers.  And that you're 
>not a registered dietitian, and hence, should refrain from 
>commenting on the safety of milk, meat, etc.  

Russell, I don't recall Martin as mentioning honesty or intelligence.
What he is attempting to point out is that in order to properly evaluate
an experiment one must have some training in the practice of investigating
biological phenomena.  Preferably experience in the particular field in
question.  If I have a plumbing problem in my house I'm not going to call
a carpenter or electrician to fix it.  Or if I wish to prepare a will I'm
not going to hire a divorce lawyer.  A small percentage of M.D. are
trained in non-clinical research methidology or even clinical methodology.
As for Martin's degrees, well I'll let him answer that.

Russell writes:
>..., Martin,
>your misuse of groundless material from the (now retracted) McCabe
>article that had been published by the (now apologetic) _Washingtonian_
>magazine.  In retrospect, I'm sure you realize that McCabe was
>"unqualified" to criticize the animal rights movement.
>

I'm not sure what information Martin cited to the McCabe article.  
(I remember him saying that in fact he didn't use information from it)
Regardless, the entire article was not retracted.  Retractions only
involved
1) The statement regarding Pacheco's photographs and his responsibilities
in the lab.
2)Statements regarding the use of PETA funds to pay the fine and legal
fees of a man convicted for breaking into and vandalizing a lab. (PETA
didn't pay his fines as expressed min the article but they did pay his
legal fees.)
3) Statements accussing PETA of a having "slush fund" of unreported
contributions.. (Though the lastest investigations by the federal grand
jury into PETA and possible racketeering charges may shed some light on
the issue..
>
>> ...
>rl> Do you have a degree in philosophy, Martin?  If not, please 
>rl> explain how/why you feel qualified to call someone "bozo", simply 
>rl> because he/she believes that animals should have rights.  

 know I have nothing to do with this, and since Russell has not answered
 any of my inquiries into his philosophical stance on animal use and his
 actions in every day life (i.e. How do you justify your belief in animals
 rights if you continue to eat meat , wear leather etc...)Ihad to answer.
 Russell I have no degree in philosophy and I do not base my opinions of
 someone based soly on their belief (or non-belief) in animal rights.
 But, I do feel confident in saying that YOU are a bozo.  You bounce
 around from thread to thread spouting your beliefs and or philosophy on
 animal rights.   And whenever cornered or asked for clarification
 you delete lines and hope that the question is forgotten, or redirect the
 arguement.  You spend most of your time speaking half-truths, throwing
 punches and then run back to your corner before the bell rings.


Example 
>...
>mh> [75% probability that Russell will continue to ignore requests to provide
>mh> more info about the LSU "cat-shooting" experiment.]
>
>rl> I'm not ignoring such requests, Martin. 
>
>mh> Yes you are.  Greg Popken asked you twice if not thrice for 
>mh> more info.  Since you claim to be well-informed about this case, 
>mh> I too would like to see more info.  If you really hold 
>mh> "intellectual standards" dear, it's time to put up or retract 
>mh> your claims.  
>
>If you'd like to go ahead and do your own research, you'll find 
>references in the _Times Picayune_ newspaper, _The Washington Post_,
>_The New York Times_, _Science_, _JAMA_, _American Medical News_, 
>and _PCRM Update_.  Otherwise, you'll have to wait until I have
>time to keyboard the material.   

Thanks Russell, you've narrowed my search down from somewhere between
2,000,000 and 100,000,000 articles.  I have told twice I would do the leg
work.  But, I do need as starting point.  You must know something of the
project off the top of your head if you are so well informed about it to
use it as an example.  Again A date, A name, A volume number, A title. I do
need a starting point. 
>
>mh> Here is a list of questions that I have asked you previously, 
>mh> and obtained no reply...  [personal questions deleted]

From Martin's article:  

mh>Here is a list of questions that I have asked you previously, and obtained
mh>no reply.  My newsreader has dropped a few posts here & there, so forgive
mmh>e if I missed an answer.  I would appreciate an answer to these questions
mh>at any time in the near future.  Optionally, you may admit that you simply
mh>have no viable answer for any particular question (and explain why).  I
mh>will repost remaining and new unanswered questions periodically to remind
mh>you.  Your evasive tactics will either end, or shall be made clearly
mh>evident to everyone.

mh>Lest you again accuse me of a double standard, I encourage you to do
mh>likewise.  If you have not obtained an answer to any question that you
mh>asked me, I would appreciate a second chance.  I have not purposefully
mh>avoided any question that you have asked with one exception:  I will reveal
mh>my degrees *only* after you reveal yours.

+++++++++++++++++   Russell's unanswered questions  ++++++++++++++++++++

Are you *really* suggesting that scientists who publish many papers are
"mediocre," while those who publish few are "excellent?" 

BTW, what was your major?  What degree did you obtain there?

I already told you what sort of research I would allow.  Why 
can't you return the favor?  All you have indicated was that you 
would like to review proposed experiments on a case-by-case 
basis.  Did you mean that you wanted to review every experiment 
personally, or did you just want them reviewed by someone?  How 
would you modify the _status quo_ to simultaneously protect the 
interests of human and non-human animals?  Would failing to 
perform a critical experiment be worse than performing one that 
proved trivial?  How do we determine, in advance, which 
experiments are critical and which are trivial?  

If you purchased "cruelty-free" mascara for your daughter (assuming you had
one), and it caused severe eye ulceration and subsequent blindness, would
you sue the company for damages?  Would you care more about your daughter's
eyes than those of a rabbit?

Do you honestly expect me or anyone else to accept a "fact sheet" from PETA
as a _bona fide_ reference?

Have you ever flipped a bit of toothpaste into your eye while brushing your

teeth?  Would it comfort you that the company producing your toothpaste had

determined in advance that its product wouldn't cause severe eye damage in 
case of such an event?

How much of the research that PCRM (and PETA) opposes today might save 
human lives tomorrow?

<Re: John Orem>
Using ten cats per year to seek a cure for a disease that kills 8,000
infants per year sounds like a wise investment to me.  Barnard apparently
disagrees.  Is this an example of PCRM's lofty ethics with regard to animal
research?

Given your obvious familiarity with PETA, why don't we cut to the chase?  
Can you tell me exactly what kinds of animal research that Pacheco, 
Newkirk or yourself would support?

For example, has any Nobel prize been awarded in Physiology or Medicine for
"involuntary human research?"

<Re: -- the use of poorly educated human subjects in third world countries>
Again, are we unethical to collect data while we give aid to persons in 
the Third World?  

<Re:  -- the use of retarded persons in research>
Again, if we are trying to study retardation and help the retarded, why 
not?
 
Do you propose that Christian Scientists refuse medical care because they
believe the information is tainted?

<Re: the validity of my discussing Singer without having read his works>
If you truly wish to expose the cruelties or needlessness that you perceive
in animal research, don't you think it might be wise to first read the
published
methods and results?  If you rely on PETA's assessment of Robert Taub or
Ted Altar's assessment of Banting & Best, why couldn't I rely on someone
else's assessment of Singer?



***************RUSSELL'S REPLY TO THE LAST 20 SOME QUESTIONS********


>
>If you think it's reasonable to concentrate on the personal lives
>of your opponents, I'd be happy to prepare some personal questions
>for you to answer, Martin.   Would that please you?
>
>-- 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

What in the hell is this Russell.  These are legitamate questions
concerning animal rights and past discussions.  I'm not even going to try to
compile my list of unanswered questions.  I'm sure Martin doesn't have
time to burn and I want to finish my graduate work before I become
eligible for social security.  I don't know how he managed to compile his
list.  
I'm truely sorry that I have to resort to this level in order to get a
point across.  This is a forum for the exchange of ideas in an open,
sincere, and "intellectual" manner.  My purpose in this forum is not to
get into shouting matches and name calling.  I like many others here feel
that this is an important issue in our society.  Important enough to take
time out of our schedules in order to delve into the issue in hopes of
gaining a better understanding of all sides of the issue. 
In those lines I am interested in and attempt to present information based
on fact.  In addition, I do not intentionally skirt issues I find
difficult to answer.

To the other readers please forgive my personal outburst.  Luckily I have
seen evidence of attitudes like mine on both sides of the issue.
Indicating to me that this "game playing" is not indicative of all AR
believers.  

			 Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore
				   Greg Popken 
-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals