From: Mike on
D. C. Sessions wrote:
> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>
>> Another example, a cancer researcher whose funding was denied due to
>> "experts" wooifying his work and who, having exhausted almost all
>> avenues for funding was lucky enough to get a grant from Monsanto
>> which allowed him to complete his work, successfully and
>> open up a new field in cutting off the blood supply to kill cancer.
>
> I gather that you're trying to rewrite the history of the late
> Judah Folkman?
>

Speaking about Judah Folkman or anybody receiving research
money from the business: had he publicly stated that
Agent Orange is a carcinogen, would he get funding
from Monsanto? Very unlikely.

One researcher (Richard Doll) was stating AO is not a carcinogen.
Incidentally, he also collected several million $$$ for unspecified
services from AO manufacturers, including Monsanto.

My point is that no researcher, good or mediocre, honest
or not-so-honest can afford offending a powerful business
entity with vested interest in his/her research. Certain
truths are off-limits.


From: D. C. Sessions on
Mike wrote:
> D. C. Sessions wrote:
>> Citizen Jimserac wrote:

>>> Another example, a cancer researcher whose funding was denied due to
>>> "experts" wooifying his work and who, having exhausted almost all
>>> avenues for funding was lucky enough to get a grant from Monsanto
>>> which allowed him to complete his work, successfully and
>>> open up a new field in cutting off the blood supply to kill cancer.
>>
>> I gather that you're trying to rewrite the history of the late
>> Judah Folkman?
>
> Speaking about Judah Folkman or anybody receiving research
> money from the business: had he publicly stated that
> Agent Orange is a carcinogen, would he get funding
> from Monsanto? Very unlikely.

I'm always tremendously impressed when people use their own
suppositions as "evidence" in support of their arguments.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> -+
From: Mike on
D. C. Sessions wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>> D. C. Sessions wrote:
>>> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>
>>>> Another example, a cancer researcher whose funding was denied due to
>>>> "experts" wooifying his work and who, having exhausted almost all
>>>> avenues for funding was lucky enough to get a grant from Monsanto
>>>> which allowed him to complete his work, successfully and
>>>> open up a new field in cutting off the blood supply to kill cancer.
>>> I gather that you're trying to rewrite the history of the late
>>> Judah Folkman?
>> Speaking about Judah Folkman or anybody receiving research
>> money from the business: had he publicly stated that
>> Agent Orange is a carcinogen, would he get funding
>> from Monsanto? Very unlikely.
>
> I'm always tremendously impressed when people use their own
> suppositions as "evidence" in support of their arguments.
>
My point is conveniently snipped.

And what eveidence are you talking about - your post seems to be out of
place.
From: D. C. Sessions on
Mike wrote:
> D. C. Sessions wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>> D. C. Sessions wrote:
>>>> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>>
>>>>> Another example, a cancer researcher whose funding was denied due to
>>>>> "experts" wooifying his work and who, having exhausted almost all
>>>>> avenues for funding was lucky enough to get a grant from Monsanto
>>>>> which allowed him to complete his work, successfully and
>>>>> open up a new field in cutting off the blood supply to kill cancer.
>>>> I gather that you're trying to rewrite the history of the late
>>>> Judah Folkman?
>>> Speaking about Judah Folkman or anybody receiving research
>>> money from the business: had he publicly stated that
>>> Agent Orange is a carcinogen, would he get funding
>>> from Monsanto? Very unlikely.
>>
>> I'm always tremendously impressed when people use their own
>> suppositions as "evidence" in support of their arguments.
>>
> My point is conveniently snipped.

The "no researcher can afford to offend powerful business
interests" thing? You state that as axiomatic. Patently
untrue, for instance:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/359/11/1097

Or for that matter Marshall and Warren's Nobel Prize work
on peptic ulcer diseases, which turned a huge money-spinner
of a chronic condition into a cheap course of antibiotics.

Or the huge number of studies over decades showing that
expensive radical mastectomies are no more effective for
most breast tumors than much more conservative surgery.

> And what eveidence are you talking about - your post seems to be out of
> place.

Right above: you fantasized about an alternate history and then
tried to present the events of your fantasy as though they proved
something.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> -+
From: Mike on
D. C. Sessions wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>> D. C. Sessions wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> D. C. Sessions wrote:
>>>>> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>>>>>> Another example, a cancer researcher whose funding was denied due to
>>>>>> "experts" wooifying his work and who, having exhausted almost all
>>>>>> avenues for funding was lucky enough to get a grant from Monsanto
>>>>>> which allowed him to complete his work, successfully and
>>>>>> open up a new field in cutting off the blood supply to kill cancer.
>>>>> I gather that you're trying to rewrite the history of the late
>>>>> Judah Folkman?
>>>> Speaking about Judah Folkman or anybody receiving research
>>>> money from the business: had he publicly stated that
>>>> Agent Orange is a carcinogen, would he get funding
>>>> from Monsanto? Very unlikely.
>>> I'm always tremendously impressed when people use their own
>>> suppositions as "evidence" in support of their arguments.
>>>
>> My point is conveniently snipped.
>
> The "no researcher can afford to offend powerful business
> interests" thing? You state that as axiomatic. Patently
> untrue, for instance:
>
> http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/359/11/1097

And what powerful business is affected? Surgeons are not
a powerful business.

>
> Or for that matter Marshall and Warren's Nobel Prize work
> on peptic ulcer diseases, which turned a huge money-spinner
> of a chronic condition into a cheap course of antibiotics.
>

Huge money spinner? For whom - for doctors? They are
not a powerful business.

> Or the huge number of studies over decades showing that
> expensive radical mastectomies are no more effective for
> most breast tumors than much more conservative surgery.

Again: doctors are not a powerful group. They are not
a single organized multibillion-dollar entity. Your
examples are irrelevant.

Of course, going against a medical dogma has its risks too even
when it does not offend powerful businesses. In the case of peptic
ulcers there were many physicians before Marshall/Warren who had seen
spiral bacteria in the stomach but whose work had languished or been
erased from scientific memory.

>
>> And what eveidence are you talking about - your post seems to be out of
>> place.
>
> Right above: you fantasized about an alternate history and then
> tried to present the events of your fantasy as though they proved
> something.
>
What alternate history did I fantasize about??? You confused me with
somebody else.