From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:29:12 GMT

In article <BzFF52.9B3@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-171292145858@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> > In article <BzDGnL.18F@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> >> I've truly enjoyed your hand waving demonstrations, but the fact 
> >> remains that the Maryland State Court of Appeals overturned 
> >> Taub's conviction when it ruled that state anti-cruelty 
> >> statutes don't apply to federally financed animal experiments.
> > 
> > The fact, that you & PETA falsely deny, is that the conviction was
> > overturned for *more* than a jurisdictional technicality.  The appeals
> > court explicitly upheld Taub's claim that he did not mistreat his animals. 
> 
> According to an article on the Taub affair published by the 
> _Washington Post_, the conviction was overturned on a jurisdictional 
> technicality.  Can you corroborate your claims to the contrary without 
> resorting to the bombastic handwaving demonstrations that you often 
> employ to prove your points?  

The _Washington Post_ apparently relied on PETA for information rather than
reading the opinion of the Appeals Court.  As I have said, the
"jurisdictional technicality" was not the whole story.  My claim is
corroborated by the reference that I gave.  Check it out.

 
>[..]
> If they don't take you seriously, perhaps you could explain that 
> you have a "PhD" in nutrition science from the University of 
> Georgia at Athens whereas Benjamin Spock, Frank Oski, and Neil 
> Barnard -- the individuals who conducted the PCRM press 
> conference -- only have "MD" degrees.  When someone reminds you 
> that Benjamin Spock has written umpteen books on child care and 
> that Frank Oski is the Director of Pediatrics at Johns Hopkins, 
> you can tell them about your medline citations dealing with
> rat feeding.  

Again, Spock prefaced his remarks with the disclaimer that he "was not a
nutrition researcher."  Why do you suppose that Barnard did not do the
same?  Oski did not falsely argue that dietary recommendations should be
altered for adults and school-age children based on Dosch's PRELIMINARY
findings.

> > Some medical doctors are eminently qualified in matters of nutrition. 
> > Barnard is not one of them.
> 
> How do you know?  How much background expertise is required to evaluate
> the scientific data on the hazards of dairy consumption?

Obviously, more than Barnard has.
 
> [...]
> >> > I have no law degree, and yes, it is irrelevant.
> >> 
> >> Then perhaps it's irrelevant whether or not Neil Barnard has a degree
> >> in "nutrition science".
> > 
> > No.  Nutrition credentials are important for those who formulate or suggest
> > modification of dietary recommendations.  They are unimportant here in TPA.
> 
> This doesn't make sense.   Would you care to explain???

This has been explained to you numerous times by numerous people.

>[...]
> Your pretense that nutritionists ought to have a monopoly on the 
> discussion of the medical impact of dietary regimes doesn't make 
> much sense to me.  

I have no such pretense.  I stated that some physicians are well qualified
in the field of nutrition.  Barnard is simply not one of them.

>[...]
> 
> I'm not a hypocrite, Martin.

Yes you are.

>I'm merely expecting you to meet the
> same standards of proof that you've applied to your opponents.  If/when
> you address the pertinent facts and arguments of the discussion without
> resorting to credentials, then I'll be happy to forget that you don't
> have advanced degrees in medicine, in law, in philosophy, in history,
> etc, etc.
> 
> > 2.  Insisting that I answer your questions, less than 30 hours old,
> > "without further delay" when you repeatedly avoid my questions for weeks.
> 
> I consider your list of questions to be, either irrelevant to the 
> specific topics that interest me at the moment, and/or downright 
> stupid.

My questions are relevant.  Your avoidance of them is obvious.

>On the other hand, if you were to state that a particular 
> thinker has an "ABYSMAL PUBLICATION RECORD" [your caps], it's 
> neither irrelevant nor stupid for me to ask you to present the 
> evidence that you ALREADY have at your disposal.   Surely it doesn't
> require any homework for you to prove your point.

I consider having published only two papers in eight years abysmal.  Anyone
familiar with academia would agree.

>[...]
> Having affiliations with groups like PETA and PCRM doesn't belie a man's 
> claim to have interests in scientific research.   You yourself have
> admitted that Henry Heimlich is a scientist of significant repute, yet
> he has strong ties with PCRM.

Being PRESIDENT of PETA should indicate a disinterest in animal research.
Don't you agree?

Pacheco dishonestly indicated an interest in such research to Taub.  He
indicated an interest in *performing* animal research when his true
intentions were instead to *abolish* such research.  He clearly lied to
Taub about his intentions in order to infiltrate his laboratory.  He
admittedly falsified data while in Taub's laboratory.  He allegedly noted
substandard conditions of animal care in detail during Taub's presence, yet
did not report them to Taub.  He reported that the procedures in Taub's
laboratory were "cruel," but never once questioned the procedures during
his five month tenure at Taub's laboratory.  He noted substandard
conditions of animal care in detail during Taub's vacation in 1981, yet did
absolutely nothing to correct them.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals