Dr. Cheshire, Dr. Whelan and Many Questions
The attack on the Dr. Cheshire's troubling affidavit in a Tech Central column by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan troubles Hugh, who says:
As for his other point, about dismissing other neurologists, possibly, possibly not. As it turns out I like the premise behind ACSH (which Dr. Whelan founded, and still heads) and what it's trying to do most of the time, which is to debunk junk science, especially in the area of chemicals used in food and around the house. What's not to like about someone who can post something like this on the history of the organization she formed?
And why would this champion of scientific knowledge side with those who would rush the death of the subject before the research is completed? Where in the scientific literature does it say that research should end when questions are posed, yet unanswered? Do you dump the petri dish before the culture is complete?
I doubt very much whether Dr. Whelan is experienced at PVS diagnostics, or in the literature Dr. Chesire cites. I suppose she would likely be as dismissive of the other neurologists who have cast doubt on the PVS diagnosis.He's right on the first point; she does not have credentials in neurosurgery, as noted on the ACSH Web site:
Dr. Whelan is president and founder of the American Council on Science and Health.Her bio also states that she is a life-long Republican.
Professional Experience
She is the author or co-author of over two dozen books, including:
- Panic in the Pantry
- Preventing Cancer
- Toxic Terror
- A Smoking Gun - How the Tobacco Industry Gets Away with Murder
As for his other point, about dismissing other neurologists, possibly, possibly not. As it turns out I like the premise behind ACSH (which Dr. Whelan founded, and still heads) and what it's trying to do most of the time, which is to debunk junk science, especially in the area of chemicals used in food and around the house. What's not to like about someone who can post something like this on the history of the organization she formed?
Sometimes, if reporters complain about our corporate funding, I remind them that they are funded by corporations and advertisers as well. Phil Donahue was stunned into silence when I pointed that out on his show, and Ed Bradley once threw down his microphone and stormed out of an interview with me. The important thing, though, is not the source of your funding but the accuracy of the points you make, and ACSH's scientific advisors and use of peer review keep us honest.Or this:
And ACSH runs a tight ship. Consider these comparisons:
• it costs ACSH approximately $5,000 a day to operate (based on 260 working days per year divided by ACSH’s annual budget of approximately $1.3 million).
• it costs CSPI, with their campaigns to scare us about the safety of our food, approximately $52,584 a day to operate (based on their annual budget of $13.6 million).
• it costs the NRDC—with its programs to convince us, without scientific data, that "chemicals" in our environment are making us sick—approximately $166,809 a day to operate (based on their annual budget of $43.3 million).
Still, her Tech Central dissection of Dr. Cheshire makes me ask, "Why?" Was it written out of her passion for scientific accuracy, and if it was, why didn't she acknowledge some of the basic faults in the position of the pro-kill-her lobby, such as the lack of any recent MRIs or PETs, or the denial of any rehabilitation programs by her so-called husband?
And why would this champion of scientific knowledge side with those who would rush the death of the subject before the research is completed? Where in the scientific literature does it say that research should end when questions are posed, yet unanswered? Do you dump the petri dish before the culture is complete?
posted by Laer at 11:07 AM
<< Home