Re: FOLLOW THE MONEY - Industry shill Elizabeth Whelan claims mercury fears unfounded

From: john (nospamoridiotss_at_vaccine.com)
Date: 12/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:43:15 +0000 (UTC)

 Putz the pharma shill http://www.whale.to/m/putz.html
 Journal article & peer review http://www.whale.to/w/journals1.html
 Junk Science http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ploy2.html

<nospam@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:sb57t096ion9s1a3r4ip5m48ttbiiqg2r0@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:08:25 -0800, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:6c86t05j6rqppolfpb5pm44vmgfhecr134@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:34:40 -0800, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yet, the fact remains that mercury fears ARE unfounded. If I am
incorrect,
> >>>please provide peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary.
> >>>
> >>>Jeff
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Peer reviewers like Quack Barrett is for ACSH????
> >
> >No, peer-reveiwers who are experts in their fields. They examine the
papers
> >before they are published and determine if the conclusions are supported
by
> >results and if the papers are of high quality.
> >
> >I don't mean to imply that Dr. Barret is or not qualified to be a
> >peer-reviewer. I don't know.
> >
> >Personal attack deleted.
> >
> >Jeff
>
> Do they check for accuracy? The reason I ask is because a doctor I know
of,
> announced that he was doing a study using a certain number of people.
When the
> study was published, the number of people was reduced by about 50% which
made
> the results different than they would have been otherwise.
>
> Ora
>
>