Thanks Ish, in general, I figure if anyone has the time and is interested, they will take the trouble to dig a little. If not, then I haven't imposed something on 'em!
I remember seeing Moore on tv back when there was one of the first run ins with Gupta..Larry King show I believe. He has defended his facts on his website quite well all along in my view. And, if anything, I found the movie "Sicko" to be understated. Even so, I helped advertise it at my own websites for long after it stopped playing. And, the few who own the media certainly didn't want anyone to think that the US health industry was corrupt!...even though we all know it is. From Gupta to William McGuire...few have the ability to look outside of their own brainwashed views. Perhaps if I had spent as long, as much money and gone with almost no sleep while studying something that I now charge way too much to do, I too would hold a bias for it rather than look at things more openly...perhaps. On Jan 10, 5:07 am, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > Orn, > > I went to that web page and didn't see this at first so I thought that > I would post it so others wouldn't have the same problem. Here are > followed by the text. > > http://www.michaelmoore.com/ > > 'Are You Experienced?'; "I join in opposition with respected Noble ... > Prize award winning economist Paul Krugman, who has very serious > concerns with having Dr. Gupta be the nation's Surgeon General." – > Rep. John Conyers, Jr. | 'Dear Colleague'; There are "highly > experienced medical professionals who question whether Dr. Gupta has > the necessary experience or even the medical background ..." | 'Sexy > Man'; "I am unaware of any public health experience or qualifications > he has to be the leader of the nation's public health service > > http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=13027 > > January 8th, 2009 5:37 pm > Sanjay Gupta's House problem: Conyers > > By Mark Silva / Chicago Tribune > > Sanjay Gupta may have one more House call to make. > > Before he heads to Capitol Hill for confirmation as surgeon general -- > though the problem that the well-known tele-doctor has may not be so > much in the Senate, where President-elect Barack Obama's candidate > should get a light check-up for confirmation. His problem is in the > House Judiciary Committee, apparently. > > Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the committee, has circulated a letter > to colleagues suggesting that Obama's prescription for surgeon general > is misguided. The Huffington Post has picked up on the anti-Gupta > missive that Conyers has fired. > > Columnist Paul Krugman, a prize-winning economist, already has spoken > out against Gupta, star medical correspondent for CNN and CBS. "I join > in opposition with respected Noble Peace Prize award wining economist > Paul Krugman, who has very serious concerns with having Dr. Gupta be > the nation's Surgeon General.," Conyers writes. > > "Also, there are highly experienced medical professionals who question > whether Dr. Gupta has the necessary experience or even the medical > background to be in charge of some 6,000 physicians or more who work > in the United States Public Health Service," Conyers writes. > > "Gerard M. Farrel, executive director of the Commissioned Officers > Association, stated in the Jan. 7, 2008 Washington Post that Dr. Gupta > will certainly face a 'credibility gap' because he never served in the > National Health Service Corp, and furthermore, does not have the > "experience or qualifications to be the leader of the nation's public > health service." Clearly, it is not in the best interests of the > nation to have someone like this who lacks the requisite experience > needed to oversee the federal agency that provides crucial health care > assistance to some of the poorest and most underserved communities in > America." > > Yet, as the Huffpost notes, at least one esteemed medical professional > believes Gupta is an inspired pick: Outgoing Democratic National > Committee chairman Howard Dean, who is a physician, notes that > "Gupta's responsibilities would be much the same as those in his > current job: Explaining medical issues of public concern in a manner > that the public could understand." > > Krugman's problems have to do with Gupta accusing filmmaker Michael > Moore of inaccuracies in his documentary on the health care industry, > "when the truth was that on every one of the allegedly fudged facts, > Moore was actually right and CNN was wrong." > > Gupta and CNN acknowledged making a mistake and apologized on air, the > HuffPost notes > > On Jan 10, 12:25 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > And now for 'the rest of the story'! > > >http://www.michaelmoore.com/ > > > On Jan 8, 11:03 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Isparklaria, > > > > I know you personally and like you but in my opinion you are being > > > extremely dishonest and irrational. If there is someone that FC > > > helped, the researchers from those journal articles would approve of > > > it. The problem is that those faith healing like cases are often > > > supported by anecdotal stories. You are also being utterly ridiculous > > > with the accusation that I am advocating censorship. I never even > > > suggested that Gupta or CNN should not cover FC. That is fantasy that > > > only exists in your head. I only stated that Gupta is not the right > > > person for the Surgeon General position and explained why. > > > > Jason > > > > PS--I hope this gets you fired up. The first sentence is nearly a > > > direct quote from (or at least model after) your post about me. > > > > On Jan 8, 10:14 pm, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > One of the reasons that I don't like Gupta is that he seems to make > > > > sound byte news and also I know of him having an out and out error > > > > that he refused to admit in the case of Michael Moore's movie sicko. > > > > I > > > > am reading the same thing from you. I know you personally and like > > > > you, but in my opinion you are not being sufficiently honest. Gupta > > > > did not advertise FC. He did not endorse in the stories I read. > > > > Maybe I missed something. If I didn’t miss anything are you > > > > advocating that the press be censored and no information by on the air > > > > about FC unless it conforms to the most negative opinion about it? > > > > > Here are the facts as I see them. > > > > > 1. There have been several studies on FC. > > > > > 2. The results don't look good for FC. For the most part it has been > > > > discredited but there are some reasons to believe that the studies > > > > had > > > > a problem. How you treat people is important and does effect their > > > > performance on something like this, especially people with autism. > > > > Nevertheless, FC does not look like an effective treatment in nearly > > > > all cases. > > > > > 3. There are a few notable exceptions where someone was definitely > > > > helped by FC. > > > > > 4. In my opinion, the people who were helped might have been helped > > > > by > > > > any quality human contact and help with their communication. However > > > > that has yet to be determined. Besides that is one good thing about > > > > FC, it requires one on one human contact and help with communication. > > > > If someone is basically intelligent and has certain problems (I don't > > > > know what they are) then FC did help them. These individuals might > > > > never have been helped except for by FC. It seems to me that > > > > researchers should be trying to figure what worked about the FC and > > > > how to figure out who might benefit from FC or a modified version and > > > > also how to identify those people. > > > > 5. If I had a child that has autism, I would want to try what I could > > > > that could help them and not hurt them. FC it seems can only hurt if > > > > it deprives someone of another treatment that might help. It seems > > > > that in most cases it is simply a waste of time and money. If time > > > > and > > > > money and issue than another treatment would probably be the way to > > > > go. > > > > > 6. From what I read Gupta reported numbers 1 though 3 correctly. He > > > > did not advertise FC, he simply reported a story in the news. If I am > > > > right about numbers 1 through 3 and the evidence that I have seen > > > > indicates that I am right, then in my opinion Gupta should have > > > > summarized in some way similar to number 4 above. > > > > > 7. Although I don't like Gupta, I don’t know much about him. I will > > > > not email Obama unless I see that Gupta really did actively promte > > > > FC. > > > > In my opinion he didn't so the best job on theses stories, > > > > but that's all. FC is not totally discredited, but I would say it is > > > > a > > > > waste of time and money for the vast majority. Gupta is not as > > > > responsible as I would like him to be, but he appears to be more > > > > honest than most. I still don't like him but I don’t have a sound > > > > reason to oppose his nomination. > > > > > 8. The "skeptics" are partly correct but they are dealing in sound > > > > bytes and bullying tactics which is often the case. They also don't > > > > seem to be interested or capable of dealing with the nuance of > > > > criticism about the quality of the research and expect animals and > > > > humans to behave in as predictable fashion as gears, pulleys, levers > > > > and other simple machines regardless of unfamiliar, unfriendly > > > > environment. > > > > > On Jan 8, 10:11 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Gupta is advertising FC that has been discredited by careful > > > > > research. Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. Take are > > > > > search design class. What more do you need? For example, anyone can > > > > > calm that daily masturbation cures cancer and people can have > > > > > anecdotal stories about the power of masturbation in curing cancer. > > > > > However, those anecdotal statements do not make masturbation a > > > > > validated scientific treatment of cancer. Yes, those "few unusual > > > > > people who have unquestionably benefited...[by jerking off and have > > > > > cured their cancer by this treatment]". What kind of argument is > > > > > that? Someone with that type of judgment (or lack thereof) should not > > > > > be a Surgeon General--that is my opinion. Claiming that snake oil > > > > > will help in some cases is not what should be said. It is ridiculous > > > > > because the person jerks off and forgo other treatments. Just like > > > > > children exposed to FC and are sometimes not exposed to other > > > > > treatments that have a history of effectiveness. > > > > > > On Jan 8, 1:37 pm, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Jason, > > > > > > > I have looked at three of those CCN links and I did not find that > > > > > > Gupta was actively promoting facilitated communcation. Maybe I > > > > > > missed > > > > > > something. It seemed that he reported that > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
