I respectfully ask Gilbert to note the following. --- Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Santosh objects because of my reference to > scientists, pseudo-scientists and mice. My apologies > to him and "his patients". >
Please note the reference to mice as "his patients" in quotes, which is another attempt at berating my profession. > > 1. Santosh's own research and current work (from his > bio) as posted by Mario on this bulletin board was > on mice. So I am a loss at his disagreement at, > "mouse experiment, and its apparent extrapolation to > the human situation". > I would love to explain in detail my disagreements about the description of the mouse experiment, if Gilbert wants me to. It is precisely because of my research experience with mice that I am qualified to comment on it. Better still, I can post the comments of an expert Goan cancer surgeon and researcher, if Gilbert gives me permission to do so. Regarding the inappropriateness of extrapolation of this specific mouse experiment to the human situation, as the article that I had provided implies, this mouse experiment has not been replicated in humans. > > 2. Santosh objects to negative reference to > scientists, as he states because he is one of them. > Yet, he has no qualms being demagogic to oncologist > with his statement, "The post appended below > propagates dangerous myths and misinformation > regarding cancer treatment in this public forum." > Please note that there is no reference to an oncologist, or more appropriately, to a radiation oncologist or a therapeutic radiologist, in the above quote of mine. There is only a reference to the contents of an appended post by Gilbert. By contrast, there are two pointed and explicit references to a pseudo-scientist in the two posts from Gilbert that preceded my response. Now in this latest post, itself, there appears to be another attempt by Gilbert at berating my profession by using a mocking reference to mice as my patients. > > 3. Santosh feels slighted at negative references to > scientists and pseudo-scientists. I hope he shows > the same consideration and sensitivity to other > professions that he berates: individuals and persons > (as in my case), and generally (as in the case of > religious institutions, leaders and followers). > I have already shown above that the claim that I referred to an oncologist in a manner similar to Gilbert's reference to a pseudo-scientist, is false. The rest is empty innuendo. > > Scientists measure and apply the same yardstick to > every situation. This yardstick does not change when > its applied to oneself. > Please note above yet another attempt at pointing out my inadequacy as a scientist. Cheers, Santosh _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
