TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs  (Read 19110 times)

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« on: November 26, 2008, 08:00:36 AM »

NOCH ist er drin bei Scienceblogs, der Bert Ehgartner. Aber das werde ich ändern... Mit Ehgartner habe ich nämlich noch ein Hühnchen zu rupfen. Und das weiß er auch...


http://www.scienceblogs.de/lob-der-krankheit/2008/11/neues-diagnoseverfahren-bestatigt-hirnschaden-bei-adhs.php
 
[*QUOTE*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ScienceBlogs.com » Lob der Krankheit·
 
Profil
Bert Ehgartner ist Wissenschaftsjournalist, Dokumentarfilmer und Autor
mehrerer Sachbücher zu Gesundheitsthemen ("Das Medizinkartell" mit Kurt
Langbein, Piper 2003, "Die Lebensformel", Piper 2006). Sein aktuellstes
Buch "Lob der Krankheit - Warum es gesund ist, ab und zu krank zu sein"
erschien kürzlich im Verlag Lübbe.
Näheres auf: www.ehgartners.info

22.11.08 · 11:33 Uhr
Neues Diagnose-Verfahren bestätigt Hirnschäden bei ADHS
Kategorie: Medizin · Kommentare: 45

Mit einem neuartigen Verfahren der Magnet-Resonanz-Tomografie gelang es
nun, Hirnveränderungen bei Kindern mit Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit
Hyperaktivitäts Störung (ADHS) bildlich darzustellen. Offen bleibt die
Frage, was diese Anomalien verursacht.

Das Team des "Kennedy Krieger Institute" in Baltimore/Md. verglich die
Gehirnstrukturen von 47 ADHS-Kindern mit jenen von 66 Kindern ohne
Entwicklungsstörung. Dabei fanden sich bei den Knaben eindeutige
Formunterschiede und ein verringertes Volumen im Bereich der
Basalganglien. Die betroffene Hirnregion ist besonders bei der Kontrolle
der Motorik involviert. Bei Mädchen wurde keine signifikanten
Veränderungen festgestellt, was abermals auf den starken Einfluss des
Geschlechts bei dieser Krankheit hinweist. Die Arbeit wurde im "American
Journal of Psychiatry" publiziert.
Die Ergebnisse hatten sich auch in vorangegangenen Studien bereits
angekündigt. Allerdings brauchte es das neue technische Verfahren, um die
Volumsbestimmung zu präzisieren. Zuvor hatten die Messungenauigkeiten
konkrete Aussagen nicht möglich gemacht, auch wenn bereits ein Trend
sichtbar war.
Ob die Hirnveränderungen von Geburt an bestehen, oder ob sie,
beispielsweise über entzündliche Prozesse oder Vergiftungen im frühen
Lebensalter hervorgerufen werden, ist unklar - und bezeichnet das
Grundrätsel von ADHS. Seit Jahrzehnten wird heftig über alle möglichen
Ursachen dieser Störung diskutiert. Manchmal sogar über die Frage, ob es
sich dabei überhaupt um eine Störung handelt, oder ob nicht bloß eine
gestörte Gesellschaft mit "den besonders aktiven und frechen Kindern"
nicht mehr zurecht kommt - und diese deshalb "mit Psychopharmaka
ruhigstellt".
Aussagen wie diese kommen meist von Personen, die noch nie näheren Kontakt
mit ADHS-Betroffenen hatten.
Wesentlich ernsthafter sind wissenschaftliche Überlegungen, die ADHS zum
Krankheitsbereich des Autistischen Spektrums zuzählen. Auch hier gibt es
etwa das selbe Geschlechterverhältnis (dreimal mehr betroffene Knaben als
Mädchen), die selbe Bedeutung der genetischen Komponente, und etwa das
selbe Manifestationsalter.
Bei Autismus besteht das Kernproblem in einer "Vernetzungsstörung" im
Gehirn, wo bestimmte wichtige Areale nicht miteinander in Kontakt sind,
isolierte Areale aber à la "Rain Man" besonders hoch entwickelt sein
können.
ADHS wäre somit ein Spezialform von Autismus. Welche Krankheit sich
manifestiert, hängt demnach von Art und Ausmaß der Hirnschädigungen ab.
Nach dieser These muss also irgendwo ein Umwelteinfluss bestehen. Die
erbliche Komponente wirkt sich bloß in einer höheren Empfänglichkeit für
die Auswirkungen dieses unbekannten Faktors aus.
Für dieses Argument spricht, dass sich eine Erbkrankheit über die
Jahrhunderte in der Prävalenz recht stabil verhält, sich die Fallzahlen
bei Autismus und Hyperaktivität aber im Lauf der letzten Jahrzehnte
vervielfacht haben. Von Autismus ist heute laut Untersuchungen der
US-Behörde CDC etwa eines von 150 Kindern betroffen. An ADHS leiden etwa 4
Prozent der Kinder in Deutschland. Im Schnitt befindet sich also bereits
in jeder Schulklasse ein Zappelphilipp.
Worin aber besteht dieser fatale Umwelteinfluss?
Manche vermuten den Schuldigen in der fortgeschrittenen Reizüberflutung im
Kindesalter mit Dauerfernsehen, Computerspielen und Mobiltelefonen. Andere
in der Strukturlosigkeit mancher Familien oder in den überfordernden
Leistungs-Ansprächen der Schule.
Ältere Thesen identifizierten Erziehungsfehler, Vernachlässigung oder
frühkindliche Traumata als Auslöser. Dass daraus organische Hirnschäden
entstehen, wäre allerdings ungewöhnlich.
Im Journal Lancet thematisierte vor einem Jahr eine Studie den Einfluss
von Lebensmittel-Zusätzen auf Hyperaktivität. Als problematisch erwiesen
sich dabei bestimmte Farbstoffe sowie das Konservierungsmittel
Natriumbenzoat (E 211)
Mir persönlich erschiene es wichtig, endlich auch den möglichen
Einfluss  der Impfungen im Babyalter unvoreingenommen zu untersuchen.

Konkret geht es dabei um die Aluminiumsalze, die in zwei Drittel der
derzeitigen Kinderimpfungen als Hilfsstoffe enthalten sind. Dass diese
Substanzen beträchtliches toxisches Potenzial haben, zeigte erst kürzlich
eine kanadische Studie.
Anstatt die Ursachensuche ernsthaft zu forcieren, beschäftigen sich
Wissenschaft und Medizin aber lieber mit der Verwaltung und Vermarktung
von ADHS. Ritalin und Co. sind heute Magaseller. Und die ADHS-Experten gut
im Geschäft.

Autor: Bert Ehgartner· 45 Kommentare· Permalink· Trackback-URL
Tags: ADHS· ADS· Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit Hyperaktivität Störung·
Kinderpsychiatrie· Ritalin· Syndrom
Social-Bookmarks: Del.icio.us· Mister Wong· Yigg· Webnews
Trackbacks (1)
Bildgebendes Verfahren zeigt Hirnveränderungen bei ADHS · ScienceBlogs ·
24.11.08 · 06:40 Uhr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 09:03:41 AM by ama »
Logged

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2008, 08:01:24 AM »

.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kommentare (45)
Ulrich· 22.11.08 · 16:12 Uhr
Mir persönlich erschiene es wichtig, endlich auch den möglichen Einfluss
der Impfungen im Babyalter unvoreingenommen zu untersuchen. Konkret geht
es dabei um die Aluminiumsalze, die in zwei Drittel der derzeitigen
Kinderimpfungen als Hilfsstoffe enthalten sind. Dass diese Substanzen
beträchtliches toxisches Potenzial haben, zeigte erst kürzlich eine
kanadische Studie.
Endlich der nächste vaccine scare!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871632
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9
http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finja· 22.11.08 · 22:11 Uhr
Hm, man kann aber doch nachweisen, dass einschneidende Erlebnisse im
frühen Kindesalter die Hirnstrukturen tatsächlich verändern - insofern
halte ich den Zusammenhang mit Vernachlässigung und Traumata gar nicht
für so abwegig.
Es gibt doch sicher bereits Studien, die sich damit beschäftigen - ein
statistischer Zusammenhang zwischen erlebten Traumata o.ä. und ADHS?
Würde mich mal interessieren!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ulrich· 23.11.08 · 02:16 Uhr
ich glaub, mein kommentar hängt im spamfilter...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ludmila· 23.11.08 · 14:11 Uhr
Wissenschaftsjournalismus alá Bild:
Mir persönlich erschiene es wichtig, endlich auch den möglichen Einfluss
der Impfungen im Babyalter unvoreingenommen zu untersuchen. Konkret geht
es dabei um die Aluminiumsalze, die in zwei Drittel der derzeitigen
Kinderimpfungen als Hilfsstoffe enthalten sind. Dass diese Substanzen
beträchtliches toxisches Potenzial haben, zeigte erst kürzlich eine
kanadische Studie.
1. Man wird ja wohl noch fragen dürfen? Nicht wahr?
Bild würde schreiben: Ist dieser Mann ein Mörder?
Sie schreiben: Vergiften diese Impfstoffe unsere KInder?
An sich nicht zu beanstanden, aber in Verbindung mit weiteren "Argumenten"
wird aus einer Frage einfach eine Unterstellung.
2. Wir bedienen uns weit verbreiterter Vorurteile.
Bild würde schreiben: Dieser arbeitslose Aswylbewerber aus dem Irak.
*Zwinker* Wir wissen ja alle, dass die kriminell sind *Zwinker*
Konkret geht es dabei um die Aluminiumsalze
Uh!*Zwinker* Chemie! Das ist Chemie! Wir wissen doch alle: Chemie böse,
Natur gut.*Zwinker*
3. Wir lassen den Leser sich bereits ein fertiges Urteil bilden, ohne
zusätzliche Informationen zu liefern, die dieses Bild relativieren
würden. Das ist nicht gelogen. Nur sehr, sehr einseitig.
Ja klar, die ach so natürlichen Gifte, die Viren und Bakterien bei einer
schweren Erkrankung im Körper ausschätten, die sind natürlich im Vergleich
zu den bösen, bösen Chemiesalzen absolut ungefährlich. Die haben keine
weitaus schlimmeren Nebenwirkungen als der hier sehr, sehr dünne
propagierte Zusammenhang mit ADHS.
Ach und eine einzige Studie führen Sie an, die was beweisen soll? Dass
Soldaten während eines Krieges einigen Stoffen ausgesetzt waren und
dadurch krank wurden.
Aber ist das so? Ist es wirklich entschieden, dass das Golfkriegssyndrom
durch Aluminiumsalze ausgelöst wird? Komisch, wenn ich mir so gewisse
Artikel ansehe, dann scheint es bei weitem nicht so klar zu sein, wie sie
das hier darstellen, was genau die Ursachen für die Vielzahl der
Beschwerden war.
Und selbst wenn? Hey ja, kontrollierte Impfstoffe und Kriegsgeschehen
haben ja total viel miteinander zu tun.
Wissen Sie was? Wir wissen doch alle, dass Dihydrogen-Monoxid gefährlich
sein kann und dass diese Substanz ganz sicherlich mit Impfstoffen als
Hilfsmittel eingesetz wird. Wie wäre es denn, wenn wir diese Substanz mal
aus allem verbannen.
Und "unvoreingenommen" soll man sein. Dasss ich nicht lache. Sie
konstruieren sich hier aus den unzähligen Umweltaspekten, denen ein Kind
so ausgesetzt ist, an den Haaren herbei einen Zusammenhang, weil Sie
unbedingt wollen, dass ein Zusammenhang bestehen soll.
Herr Ehgartner, meiner Meinung nach verdient diese Passage nur eine
Bezeichnung: Bad Science.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marcus· 23.11.08 · 14:44 Uhr
War Golfkriegssyndrom nicht die Tage erst als weitgehend geklärt
abgehandelt:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,591208,00.html
"Mehrere Studien weisen übereinstimmend darauf hin, dass das
Golfkriegs-Syndrom nicht auf die Kampfhandlungen oder Stress
zurückzuführen ist", schreibt das vom US-Kongress beauftragte Gremium in
einem am Montag in Washington veröffentlichten, 450 Seiten starken Papier.
"Das Golfkriegs-Syndrom ist real und durch den Kontakt mit Neurotoxinen
während des Golfkriegs entstanden."
Zum Abschlussbericht geht's hier (ich hab ihn nicht gelesen):
http://sph.bu.edu/insider/images/stories/resources/annual_reports/GWI%20
and%20Health%20of%20GW%20Veterans_RAC-GWVI%20Report_2008.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elphaba· 23.11.08 · 15:40 Uhr
Herr Ehgartner, von Impfungen haben Sie schon keine Ahnung, aber von ADHS
noch viel weniger!
http://chaosimkopf.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/schuster-bleib-bei-deinen-leisten/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Klopstein· 23.11.08 · 16:02 Uhr
Und ohne so einen dummen (um es höflich zu formulieren) Schlusssatz
"Anstatt die Ursachensuche ernsthaft zu forcieren, beschäftigen sich
Wissenschaft und Medizin aber lieber mit der Verwaltung und Vermarktung
von ADHS."
geht es wohl wieder nicht.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 23.11.08 · 20:09 Uhr
Bei einer Substanz, die millionenfach gesunden Kindern injiziert wird,
sollte alle Nachfrage, aller Zweifel erlaubt sein.
Und anstatt hier beleidigt, oder aggressiv zu reagieren, sollte es ein
leichtes sein, die umfassenden Sicherheitsstudien zu zitieren, die
bezüglich Aluminiumsalzen durchgeführt worden sind.
Ein patziger Hinweis, wie am Ende der zitierten Cochrane Analyse a la "die
Arbeiten zur Sicherheit der Aluminium-Hilfsstoffe in Impfstoffen sind zwar
samt und sonders von schlechter Qualität, dennoch meinen wir, dass in
dieser Angelegenheit nicht weiter geforscht werden soll", ist genau das
Gegenteil von seriösem Umgang mit Verantwortung.
Was ist eigentlich los mit Euch?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ludmila· 23.11.08 · 20:29 Uhr
@Bert Ehgartner:
Sie rechtfertigen sich sogar wie die BILD-Zeitung. *Moralisch entrüstet tu
*"Wo so viele Kinderleben auf dem Spiel steht, wird es doch möglich sein,
auch mal zu fragen, ob..."
Ein typisches Totschlagargument.
Das Dumme ist aber: Ihre Fragen sind genauso wie bei der BILD-Zeitung
keine echten Fragen sondern Unterstellungen. Weil Sie das Urteil bereits
vorwegnehmen.
Bei einer Substanz, die millionenfach gesunden Kindern injiziert wird,
sollte alle Nachfrage, aller Zweifel erlaubt sein.
Ach je weil ja kein Mensch darüber wacht, was die böse, böse
Pharmaindustrie und die bösen, bösen Ärzte den Kindern spritzen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 09:05:41 AM by ama »
Logged

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2008, 08:02:08 AM »

.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 24.11.08 · 08:15 Uhr
@Marcus
Etwa ein Viertel der Soldaten, die 1990/91 am ersten Golfkrieg von Bush
sen. beteiligt waren sind vom Gulf-War-Syndrom betroffen.
Das sind beinahe 200.000 Veteranen, die zum Teil bis heute an den
verschiedensten Krankheits-Symptomen leiden.
Noch nie in der Geschichte war die Beteiligung an einem Krieg mit einem
derartigen Gesundheitsrisiko - abseits der herkömmlichen Gefahren, denen
Soldaten ausgesetzt sind - verbunden.
Und deshalb gab es während der letzten 17 Jahre auch jede Menge Studien,
die sich mit den Ursachen dieses Phänomens befassten.
Das besondere am Gulf War Syndrome ist ja, dass davon nicht nur die
Soldaten, die konkret im Irak dienst taten, betroffen waren, sondern auch
jene, die nur das Vorbereitungs-Programm mit machten, dann aber gar nie im
Irak eintrafen.
Insofern ist die Spiegel-Meldung falsch:
"Das Golfkriegs-Syndrom ist â ¦ durch den Kontakt mit Neurotoxinen
während des Golfkriegs entstanden."
Damit wird vermittelt, dass es den Irakern doch irgendwie gelungen ist,
den Amerikanern - so wie zuvor kurdischen Zivilisten - mit Nervengift auf
den Leib zu rücken.
In Wahrheit hat diese Vergiftung die eigene Army besorgt.
Die US-Rekruten wurden einem extremen medizinischen Vorsorgeprogramm
unterworfen. Einige der Medikamente und Impfstoffe waren von der Army
selbst entwickelt worden und außerhalb des Militärbereichs gar nicht
zugelassen.
Und hier lag das wirkliche Risiko, wie es auch der von Dir zitierte
Bericht - entgegen der Spiegel-Ãœbersetzung - darstellt:
Evidence strongly and consistently indicates that two Gulf War neurotoxic
exposures are causally associated with Gulf War illness:
1) use of pyridostigmine bromide (PB) pills, given to protect troops from
effects of nerve agents, and
2) pesticide use during deployment.
For several Gulf War exposures, an association with Gulf War illness
cannot be ruled out. These include low-level exposure to nerve agents,
close proximity to oil well fires, receipt of multiple vaccines, and
effects of combinations of Gulf War exposures.
Die von mir zitierte kanadische Arbeit von Petrik et al. war eine von
hunderten Studien, die sich mit möglichen Zusammenhängen befassten.
Sie untersuchte zwei verschiedene Adjuvantien im Tierversuch. Bei jenen
Mäusen, denen Aluminiumsalze gespritzt wurden, fanden sich alarmierende
Folgen. Die Autoren berichten über zahlreiche andere tierexperimentelle
Ergebnisse, die das Risikopotenzial dieser Adjuvantien beschreiben:
Several possibilities may explain the neurotoxic effects of these
adjuvants demonstrated in the current results. First, the adjuvant
compounds may exert direct toxicity on some neural cell populations in the
CNS (Bilkei-Gorzo, 1993; Gajkowska et al., 1999).
Aluminum in particular has long been associated with neuronal degeneration
and neurodegenerative diseases (Rao et al., 1998;
Savory and Garruto, 1998), and aluminum adjuvanted vaccines have been
shown to increase aluminum levels in the murine brain (Redhead et al.,
1992; Sahin et al., 1994). Aluminum treated animals have also shown severe
anterograde degeneration of cholinergic terminals in cortex and
hippocampus (Platt et al., 2001).
und schließen mit der Warnung:
If a significant fraction of the military and civilians vaccinated develop
neurological complications, the impact on U.S. society would be profound.
Whether the risk of protection from a dreaded disease outweighs the risk
of toxicity is a question that demands our urgent attention.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 24.11.08 · 09:16 Uhr
@ Ludmilla
Sie dürften Sie das Wesen des kritischen Journalismus nicht ganz begriffen
haben. Es geht dabei nicht um das Pflegen eines Vorurteils einer
bösen-bösen Pharmaindustrie im Sinne einer Weltverschwörung, wie Sie das
aus Ihrer Sternengucker-Perspektive suggerieren.
Es geht um die kritische publizisitische Begleitung der Medizin ganz
allgemein. Ich sehe das als ganz normale Tätigkeiten meines Berufes an.
Über meine Buchverträge habe ich vielleicht die Möglichkeit längerer und
intensiverer Recherche als andere Kollegen, die einen täglichen Output
vorweisen müssen. Doch an sich gehört die "unvoreingenommene kritische
Berichterstattung" zur Stellenbeschreibung und sollte unterschiedslos alle
Bereiche der Medizin umfassen.
Ich habe das im Bereich der Hormonersatztherapie zu Zeiten gemacht, als
noch die "Hormonpäpste" in allen Talkshows ihren Sermon abließen. Ich habe
gemeinsam mit Konsumentenschützern und Ernährungswissenschaftlern
Produkt-Tests organisiert, um den Transfett-Gehalt in den Nahrungsmitteln
festzustellen. Ich habe die Hintergründe des Low-Fat und Cholesterin-Wahns
beschrieben, ebenso wie die unsägliche Abzockerei in vielen Bereichen der
Alternativ-Medizin.
Der Bereich der Impfungen soll aber sakrosankt sein???
Dass es im Bereich der Adjuvantien bei Impfstoffen ein Sicherheitsproblem
gibt, ist allen Insidern bekannt und es wird mit großem Aufwand an der
Entwicklung neuer weniger problematischer Hilfsstoffe gearbeitet.
Dafür, dass Ihnen das bislang verborgen geblieben ist, kann ich nichts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

sil· 24.11.08 · 10:30 Uhr
Na klar kann man nachschauen, woher gestiegene Fallzahlen kommen.
Auf die Idee, dass es das Aluminium in den Impfungen ist, kommen
allerdings nur "Experten" wie die Indigo-Mom Jenny Mc Carthy:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=256
Epidemiologie ist schwierig. Da gibt es eine Menge Rauschen um die Signale
herum.
Alumium ist ein häufiges Element in der Nahrung und wird seit Jahrzehnten
als Adjuvans eingesetzt. Das Sicherheitsprofil ist exzellent.
Hier werden die Mengen, um die es geht, aufgelistet:
______________________________________
The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter
(about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants
receive about 4.4 milligrams of aluminum in the first six months of life
from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet.
Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest
about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost
117 milligrams of aluminum during the same period.
______________________________________
http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=88655
Die Dosis macht das Gift. Das wird seit 80 Jahren als Hilfsstoff
eingesetzt. Wann gingen die diagnostizierten Fallzahlen hoch?
Aluminium ist erst ein Thema geworden, nachdem Thiomersal als
Impfgegnerargument nicht mehr ging, da es in den Impfungen nicht mehr drin
ist und der MMR-Impfstoff auch nicht als Auslöser in Frage kommt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 24.11.08 · 11:20 Uhr
Nicht nur die Dosis macht das Gift, auch die Verabreichungsweise. Es macht
einen enormen Unterschied, ob eine Substanz gegessen oder getrunken wird,
oder ob sie unter Umgehung der normalen Abwehr- und Entgiftungsmechanismen
des Körpers unter die Haut bzw. ins Muskelgewebe injiziert wird.
Ein Thema sind die Aluminiumsalze seit langem. Beispielsweise wegen ihrer
bekannten Eigenschaft als Trigger für eine Th2 Reaktion des Immunsystems.
Dass Aluminiumsalze seit vielen Jahrzehnten in den Impfstoffen enthalten
ist, dient wirklich nicht der Beruhigung. Im Gegenteil. Denn zum einen
wird heute viel mehr geimpft, als in den letzten Jahrzehnten, zum anderen
beobachten wir eben auch einen parallel dazu laufenden starken Anstieg der
Krankheiten, die mit einem fehlentwickelten Immunsystem zu tun haben.
Dass heute in den Industrieländern weitgehend quecksilberfreie Impfstoffe
für Kinder vorhanden sind, ist eine positive Entwicklung, die wohl die
meisten Impfexperten begrüßen. Eine Schande ist es hingegen, dass diese
toxischen Inhaltsstoffe noch immer in vielen Impfstoffen enthalten sind,
die für die 3. Welt bestimmt sind.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

sil· 24.11.08 · 11:38 Uhr
Dass Thiomersal verschwunden ist, liegt an der Hysterie, nicht an den
Fakten.
Hauptsächlich haben die Impfungen dafür gesorgt, dass die Hersteller von
eisernen Lungen, Rollstuhlhersteller und die Hersteller von Kindersärgen
heftige Umsatzeinbußen hatten. Das beruhigt mich sehr.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joerg· 24.11.08 · 11:55 Uhr
@Bert: Belegen Sie eigentlich irgendeine ihrer wurstigen allumfassenden
Aussagen mit Zitaten oder müssen wir dafür ein Buch kaufen?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Elphaba· 24.11.08 · 12:06 Uhr
Wie ernst Deine KRitik zu nehmen ist sagen schon Deine beiden letzten
Sätze. Wenig Ahnung, aber davon viel!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

RainbowNet-Blog· 24.11.08 · 12:23 Uhr
Einmal mehr wundere ich mich über die Art und Weise der Diskussion. Ist es
denn so daneben, wenn eine medizinische Form in Frage gestellt wird? Warum
so bissige Reaktionen? Mir sind in den letzten Jahren verschiedene
Pressemeldungen in die Finger gekommen, in denen behauptet wurde, dass
Quecksilber beispielsweise als mögliche Ursache von Alzheimer verdächtigt
wurde. Es geht mir nicht darum, diesen Standpunkt zu vertreten, ich kenne
mich damit nicht aus, aber ist es sooooo böse von einem
Wissenschaftsjournalisten, wenn er es wagt, solche Fragen zu stellen? Es
fällt mir immer wieder auf, dass in der Wissenschaftswelt teilweise ein
geradezu päpstlicher Dogmatismus herrscht. Wenn etwas mal als absolute
Wahrheit festgelegt wurde, dann darf man nicht einmal mehr daran denken,
dass es anders sein könnte. Ich würde mir hier wirklich mehr Offenheit
wünschen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 24.11.08 · 12:31 Uhr
@sil
dass Impfungen eine ganze Menge positive Einflüsse hatten/haben, ist
unbestritten.
Doch diese Ansicht von Dir ist wohl in keiner Impfexperten-Community
mehrheitsfähig:
"Dass Thiomersal verschwunden ist, liegt an der Hysterie, nicht an den
Fakten."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Artmann· 24.11.08 · 12:45 Uhr
Trotz aller Liebe für Verschwörungstheorien und mystische Salze sollte man
doch einmal ganz nüchtern konstatieren, was ADHS wirklich ist:
Eine Ausschlussdiagnose!
Das heißt also: Kinder mit ADHS sind primär keine Autisten, nicht
depressiv gestört, keine Maniker, keine Schizophrenen und auch keine
Psychotiker!
Bei mir im Blog wollte mal ein Fachmann erklären, dass man die Erblichkeit
dieser Ausschlussdiagnose wissenschaftlich berechnen kann. Aber das ist so
hilfreich, wie die Wahrscheinlichkeit zu berechnen, dass jemand in diesem
Jahr keinen Schnupfen bekommt.
Kommen wir also zum eigentlichen Problem zurück und zur Frage, was man auf
den MRT-Bildern von Qiu et al. in diesem Sinne sieht.
Man sieht die gemeinsame Grundlage der Ausschlussdiagnose!
Also eine Veränderung, die in erster Linie alles, was klar definiert ist,
NICHT darstellt.
Meine Prognose: Bei höherer N-Zahl (hier 66:47) würde sich schnell zeigen,
dass die aufgefundenen Unterschiede im Bereich der Basalganglien,
statistisch nicht signifikant sind.
Meiner Ansicht nach ist das Paper daher ... überflüssig.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

sil· 24.11.08 · 12:50 Uhr
Wenigstens ist die EMEA meiner Meinung:
http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/press/pus/119404en.pdf
"In March 2004, the CPMP reviewed the latest evidence relating to the
safety of thiomersal- containing vaccines. A number of well-designed
population-based epidemiological studies documenting the safety profile of
thiomersal are now available. These studies show no association between
the vaccination with thiomersal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental
disorders such as speech disorders and autism. Furthermore, new data in
infants indicate that ethylmercury is more rapidly excreted and therefore
has substantially different pharmacokinetics than methylmercury. The new
data suggest that ethylmercury may be less toxic than previously assumed,
and therefore caution is needed in extrapolating the toxicity profile of
methylmercury to ethylmercury."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rincewind· 24.11.08 · 13:50 Uhr
zit Ehgartner:
"Nicht nur die Dosis macht das Gift, auch die Verabreichungsweise. Es
macht einen enormen Unterschied, ob eine Substanz gegessen oder getrunken
wird, oder ob sie unter Umgehung der normalen Abwehr- und
Entgiftungsmechanismen des Körpers unter die Haut bzw. ins Muskelgewebe
injiziert wird."

Lieber Herr Ehgartner,
diese grandiose Erkenntnis dürfte sogar schon Allgemeinwissen sein, dass
man nämlich z.B. nach einer Hautabschürfung zur Desinfektion hin agiert.
Auch Ihre sensationelle persönliche Erkenntnis, dass verschiedene
Verabreichungsformen verschieden wirken können, ist nicht unbedingt das,
was man als Neu bezeichnen kann.
Ihren üblichen Agitationen gegen Chemische Verbindungen könnte man ganze
Kapitel widmen, sollte mal jemand diese masochistische Lust verspüren.
Ich habe da noch einen Tipp für Sie: Noch viel schlimmer als Quecksilber
in Impfstoffen ist Chlor im Kochsalz. Das müsste doch für Sie als als
medizinisch-investigativer Journalist ein brandheißes Thema sein.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 09:23:40 AM by ama »
Logged

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2008, 08:02:45 AM »

.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

RainbowNet-Blog· 24.11.08 · 14:49 Uhr
Meine Güte, ich bin heilfroh, dass heutzutage keine Scheiterhaufen mehr
brennen, ich befürchte, Ihr würdet Bert Ehgartner heute noch abfackeln.

@Rincewind: Wenn jemand wie oben das Quecksilber Argument damit abtut,
dass man ja eh viel mehr davon im Essen aufnimmt als bei Impfungen, dann
ist es sehr wohl sinnvoll darauf hinzuweisen, dass die Verabreichungsform
ein wesentlicher Faktor ist. Der Zynismus würde also eher dem gelten, der
das Quecksilber im Essen in die Diskussion einwarf. Offenbar ist dieses
Allgemeinwissen zumindest hier in den ScienceBlogs noch nicht überall
durch ;-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elphaba· 24.11.08 · 14:53 Uhr
Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen, sagte Tolzin.

Der Herr Ehgartner ist Spitze darin, Fakten so zu verbiegen, dass sie ihm
in den Kram passen. Die Studie über die Lebensmittelzusätze ist ein nettes
Beispiel. Es gab keinerlei Hinweise darauf, dass da ein Zusammenhang zum
ADHS besteht. Das verschweigt er aber gekonnt, oder warum Methylphenidat
wirkt oder die Anzahl der diagnostizierten ADHSler wirklich gestiegen ist,
vielleicht weiß er es aber auch nicht, dann würde ich ihm allerdings
raten, einfach mal still zu sein und nicht irgendwelche hanebüchen
Zusammenhänge zu konstruieren. Oder soll das hier ABM für Wissenschaftler
werden?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rincewind· 24.11.08 · 17:00 Uhr
Zit RainbowNetblog: Meine Güte, ich bin heilfroh, dass heutzutage keine
Scheiterhaufen mehr brennen, ich befürchte, Ihr würdet Bert Ehgartner
heute noch abfackeln."

Liebes Rainbownetblog,
Ihre Unterstellung ist an Dürftigkeit nicht mehr zu unterbieten. Was fällt
Ihnen eigentlich ein, alle hier als potentielle Mörder hinzustellen?

Wie viele Tassen müssen aus dem Schrank fallen um soviel Sprünge in der
Schüssel zu bekommen, dass man Teilnehmer in diesem Blog dermaßen
beschimpft?

Zu Ehgartner: Ich mag ihn nicht. Er ist ein eitler Geck ohne große
Recherchefähigkeit. Halt ein großer Schwurbler vor dem Herrn.
Trotzdem würde ich natürlich auch so jemanden weder Essen, Trinken und
Unterkunft verwehren, wenn er an meine Türe klopfen würde.

Er hält mich vermutlich für einen Ar..., ich ihn auch. Das ist aber weit
jenseits von dem, was Sie suggerieren, das unsereins Leute wegen einer
anderen Meinung töten würden.

Schämen Sie sich!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ludmila· 24.11.08 · 17:36 Uhr
@Ehgartner: Was ist denn bitte eine "Impfexperten-Community"? Geht es
vielleicht noch ein bisschen unkonkreter? Immerhin machen sich hier viele
Leute die Mühe und untermauern ihre Aussagen mit Studien zum Thema.
Was haben Sie dagegen anzubieten? Sie ziehen ein Golfkriegssyndrom-Paper
als Beleg für angebliche Impfschäden heran und Studien, die nicht ihrer
persönlicher Meinung entsprechen tun sie ohne ein sachliches Argument als
lächerlich ab. Das ist ja alles - nur kein kritischer Journalismus.
Jedenfalls so wie ich das verstehe. Aber was weiß ich schon ;-)
Diese unsaubere Arbeitsweise zu rechtfertigen, indem Sie sich hinter
Kindern verstecken, ist ja wohl völlig daneben.

@Rainbow: Ja ne, ist klar.*Sarkasmusmodus an* Wer andere Menschen mit
rationalen Argumenten und wissenschaftlichen Studien bewirft und Belege
einfordert, ist natürlich zum Schlimmsten fähig.*Sarkasmusmodus aus*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 24.11.08 · 18:15 Uhr
@Finja
mir ist noch keine derartige Studie untergekommen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

RainbowNet-Blog· 24.11.08 · 18:30 Uhr
@Rincewind: Ich bin davon ausgegangen, dass mein offensichtlicher Zynismus
als Solcher erkennbar ist, da Zynismus hier ja scheinbar zum guten Ton
gang und gäbe ist. Natürlich nehme ich nicht ernsthaft an, dass hier
Mörder herumlaufen, aber die Art und Weise, wie man hier mit kontroversen
Meinungen umgeht, wirkt auf mich als Leser wirklich inquisitorisch (was
ebenfalls wieder bildhaft gemeint ist).
Wer bissig austeilt, muss gelegentlich auch mal einstecken können ;-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

RainbowNet-Blog· 24.11.08 · 18:36 Uhr
@Ludmila: Es geht mir nicht um die rationalen Einwände, genau diese
erhoffe ich mir von so einem Portal, was aber niemanden weiter bringt sind
Angriffe unter der Gürtellinie. Es lohnt sich, so eine Diskussion mal in
Ruhe von oben nach unten durchzulesen, die Gehässigkeit die einem hier
entgegen tritt. ist zumindest für aussenstehende Leser mehr als
befremdend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 24.11.08 · 18:45 Uhr
@Ludmila:
Thiomersal war ein Konservierungsmittel, das in den 40er und 50er Jahren
gute Dienste tat. Die Ärzte impften tagsüber, zogen ihre Spritzen aus
einem Behälter auf und stellten abends, das gut verschlossene Impfglas
wieder in den Kühlschrank. Die Toxizität von Quecksilber hielt
währenddessen Bakterien oder Pilze von einer Besiedlung ab.
In der Impfexperten-Community gibt es meines Wissens niemand, der für eine
Wiedereinführung von Thiomersal eintritt, weil Konservierungsmittel in
Zeiten der Einweggebinde ("spritz & weg") weitgehend unnötig sind.
Eine Studie, wie die Impfexperten zur Wiedereinführung von Thiomersal
stehen, kann ich Ihnen leider nicht anbieten. Ich melde mich aber, sobald
der erste öffentlich für eine Wiedereinführung kämpft.
wg Adjuvans-paper und weiteren Studien: Wenn Sie Zeit und Interesse haben,
schicke ich Ihnen gerne aktuelle Arbeiten.
Einige verlinke ich auch in anderen Blogeinträgen.
Z.B: Interview mit Ex-PEI Impfexperten Klaus Hartmann:
http://med.blogger.de/stories/1035014/
Was macht Aluminium in Impfstoffen?
http://med.blogger.de/stories/1057716/
Aluminium fördert Fehlorientierung des Immunsystems
http://med.blogger.de/stories/1080292/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 24.11.08 · 18:52 Uhr
@Joerg
welche wurstigen Zitate meinen Sie denn konkret?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ludmila· 24.11.08 · 19:03 Uhr
@Bert Ehgartner:
1. Den Unterschied zwischen Quecksilber und einer Verbindung aus einer
Ethylgruppe und Quecksilber oder den Unterschied zwischen Quecksilber und
Thiomersal scheinen Sie aber nicht nicht zu kennen. Oder wie sehe ich das?
2. weil Konservierungsmittel in Zeiten der Einweggebinde ("spritz & weg")
weitgehend unnötig sind. "Weil es unötig ist" ungleich "weil es
gefährlich ist".
3. Auf sich selbst zu verlinken, damit andere sich aus ihren Texten die
Studien raussuchen können, ist ganz, ganz schlechter Stil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joerg· 24.11.08 · 19:18 Uhr
z.B. "Dass es im Bereich der Adjuvantien bei Impfstoffen ein
Sicherheitsproblem gibt, ist allen Insidern bekannt und es wird mit
großem Aufwand an der Entwicklung neuer weniger problematischer
Hilfsstoffe gearbeitet."

ALLEN Insidern. Ahja, die geheimnisvollen insider. Dann sind wohl die
bemühten, großartigen Ärzte die z.B. auf sciencebasedmedicine.org bloggen
keine Insider. Seltsamerweise haben die aber riesige, ausführlich belegte
Artikel geschrieben. Hmm wem werde ich da wohl glauben?

"Dass Aluminiumsalze seit vielen Jahrzehnten in den Impfstoffen enthalten
ist, dient wirklich nicht der Beruhigung. Im Gegenteil. Denn zum einen
wird heute viel mehr geimpft, als in den letzten Jahrzehnten, zum anderen
beobachten wir eben auch einen parallel dazu laufenden starken Anstieg der
Krankheiten, die mit einem fehlentwickelten Immunsystem zu tun haben."

Mindestens vier Behauptungen, die man einfach per ordara mufti glauben
soll?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniela Rogat· 24.11.08 · 20:50 Uhr
Bravo Herr Ehgartner! Wie dem kollektiven Wutgeheul Ihrer Kritiker
unzweideutig zu entnehmen ist, haben Sie die autopilotgesteuerten
Mentalphlegmatiker sauber auf die Palme gebracht, indem Sie den Nutzen
tradiierter Noxen, Toxide und Toxine in (durchaus berechtigte)
Zweifel zu ziehen.
Ein Sakrileg! ... zumindest aus der Perspektive der Dogmatiker.
Ist Ihnen denn unbekannt, dass die pharmagesponsorte Leeermeinung der
Schuuulmedizin auf den hochdotierten 'Irrtümern' (meist selbsternannter)
Korryphäen basiert, die auch von Fachkollegen - zumindest zu Lebzeiten -
nicht in Frage gestellt werden dürfen? Ehrenkodex.
Sokrates Dialektik ist hier völlig deplaciert.
Wissenschaftliche Gegendarstellungen müssen oft selbst finanziert werden,
gelten in den erlauchten Kreisen der Ärzte"schaft" als unkollegial und
sind daher Raritäten; mit rigide befristetem öffentlichen Zugriff.
Wo kämen wir hin, wenn die Humanmedizin zu einer exakten Wissenschaft
mutierte? Wir könnten versehentlich gesunden. Uups, wenn kaum jemand krank
würde, wäre unser Gesundheitswesen ratz-fatz insolvent. Dank des
kongenialen Gesundheitsfonds wird dieser Status aber erst in etwa zwölf
Monaten realisiert.
Also bleibt uns noch ein wenig Zeit, den provitalen Nutzen diverser Wirk-
und Hilfsstoffe - als mögliche Konsumenten - kritisch zu hinterfragen.
Let's fetz!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 24.11.08 · 22:00 Uhr
@ Joerg
Scheinbar ist den "bemühten großartigen Ärzten" auf
sciencebasedmedicine.org das thema adjuvantien bislang keine "riesigen,
ausführlichen belegten Artikel" wert gewesen. Die Seitensuche ergab
jedenfalls null Treffer.
Falls Sie hier aber mehr wissen, immer her damit.
Zu Ihrer Verwunderung bezüglich der Vierfachbehauptung die man "per ordara
mufti" glauben soll:
Es ging um die Ansicht eines Posters, dass Aluminium ja bereits seit 80
Jahren in den Impfstoffen enthalten und folglich wohl harmlos sei.
Darauf entgegnete ich, dass diese Tatsache per se noch nicht der
Beruhigung dient.
Auch Quecksilber wurde Jahrhunderte lang für die schlimmsten Kuren (z.B.
der Syphilis-Therapie) eingesetzt. Und trotz dieser großen Tradition gilt
heute die These, dass diese Therapie a) unwirksam und b)
nebenwirkungsreicher und gefährlicher als die Krankheit selbst war.
Die Behauptung, dass heute mehr geimpft wird, als in den letzten
Jahrzehnten, ersuche ich anhand eines Vergleichs eines Impfplans z.B.
aus den 70er od 80er Jahren mit einem aktuellen selbst zu prüfen.
Ebenso die Tatsache, dass Krankheiten, die mit Störungen des Immunsystems
assoziiert sind, in den letzten Jahrzehnten häufiger geworden sind. (siehe
z.B. Wikipedia)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

sil· 25.11.08 · 10:10 Uhr
Haben Sie denn ein besseres und sichereres Adjuvans als Aluminiumhydroxid
in der Hinterhand, Herr Ehgartner?

Nur raus mit der Sprache!

Nur dann hat das Angstmachen Sinn.

Thiomersal ist in Einzeldosenbehältnissen nicht drin, weil unnötig. Das
stimmt.
Schlimme Schäden hat es nie angerichtet:
______________________________________
Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO), das amerikanische "Institute of
Medicine" sowie die europäische Arzneimittelbehörde (EMEA) sind
mittlerweile unabhängig voneinander zu der Einschätzung gekommen, dass die
vor einigen Jahren geäußerte Vermutung, das quecksilberhaltige
Konservierungsmittel Thiomersal könne die Entwicklung von Autismus
begünstigen, nach heutigem Kenntnisstand nicht haltbar ist.
______________________________________
Das ist vom RKI. Die englische EMEA-Meldung haben Sie ja übergangen.
Sie befinden sich in guter Gesellschaft von Playmates,
Hollywoodschauspielern und ähnlichen "Koryphäen":
http://www.healautismnow.org/.
Beifall aus der Fraktion der Frauenzeitschriftenleserinnen ist ihnen damit
sicher.
Die sind auch zahlreicher und unkritischer, als die Mitleser hier im Blog.
Aber auf Schulterklopfen aus der Wissenschaftlerfraktion brauchen Sie hier
nicht zu hoffen.
Bei seltenen Störungen lässt es sich immer trefflich über Ursachen
streiten. Dort stäßt die Epidemiologie immer an ihre Grenzen. Seltene
Krankheiten sind nun mal selten. Mäuse sind keine Menschen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joerg· 25.11.08 · 10:47 Uhr
Hier sind doch in den Kommentaren schon zwei Artikel auf
sciencebasedmedicine verlinkt worden zu dem Thema?!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

wolfgang· 25.11.08 · 16:19 Uhr
Bert- mal wieder dürftig- da gibts eine Studie von Petrik an Mäusen, die
Effekte von Aluminium misst.
Deswegen muss lt Bert Aluminium als Adjuvans beim Menschen ein Problem
sein?
Es wird pro Jahr in vielen Millionen Dosen angewendet.
Und wenn Menschen Aluminiumhydroxid über Wochen in Mengen von 1770 mg als
Antazidum einnehmen (und höhere Mengen von Magengeschwürpatienten früher
über Jahre eingenommen wurden) und es geschieht praktisch nichts - außer,
dass die Urin Konzentration der Probanden 10-20 mal höher war als in der
Kontrollgruppe,(Gräske A et al 2000) dann ist das für Bert natürlich nicht
interessant, weil mit Mäusen kann man ja Panik erzeugen. Und das will Bert
ja- er möchte Angst vor Impfungen machen.
Ich hab in Österreich bereits 1988 gefordert, dass Thiomersal aus
Impfstoffen raus kommt, weil es in Eindosenbehältnissen nicht notwendig
ist. Es hat damals keine Daten über eine mögliche Gefährdung gegeben, es
waren bei zunehmend verfügbaren Impfstoffen nur gewisse
Quecksilbergrenzwerte erreicht oder überschritten. Und von
Alkylquecksilberverbindungen (bes MethylHg) wußte man dass es irreversibel
neurotoxisch ist.Heute gibts die Daten, dass Thiomersal in diesen
Konzentrationen kein Problem darstellt. Es wurde trotzdem aus Impfstoffen
rausgeschmissen- ist ja auch gut so.
Und Bert genügt es schon den Anstieg von ADHS und den Anstieg der Zahl der
Impfungen zu verknüpfen und schon sind Impfungen etwas gaaanz böszes....

Bert hats du schon gemerkt, dass bis vor zwei jahren der Anstieg von ADHS
umgekehrt proportional dem Rückgang der Piraten auf den Weltmeeren ist,
oder die Erderwärmung hochsignifikant mit der Inzidenz von ADHS
korreliert?
Warum stellts du nicht die Behauptung auf ADHS wäre ein Hitzeschaden,
warum müssen es immer die Impfungen sein?
Schlechtes Gewissen, weil Töchterchen noch immer nicht mit HPV-4 Impfstoff
geimpft, von dem du ja trotz Plazebo doppel blind kontrollierter Studien
behautest, die Impfung wäre höchstwahrscheinlich unwirksam?
Oder ist das das Unverständnis von Bert Ehgartner, dass Placebo doppel
blind kontrollierte Studien mit dem HPV-4 Impfstoff an 25.000 ProbandInnen
mit bestem Erfolg auf Wirksamkeit geprüft, dass dieser Impfstoff nur weil
ein die Fakten verdrehender Medizinjournalist auf einmal
höchstwahrscheinlich unwirksam ist?
Wo ist die Evidenz für deine Behauptung? Oder hat dir das der Tolzin
gesagt, bei dessen Impfgegnerkongress Du Dein schwer fehlerhaftes Buch den
Impfgegnern präsentieren willst um noch ein wenig Kohle bei den
einschlägig Verwirrten zu machen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 25.11.08 · 17:10 Uhr
@Joerg
das stimmt, lang sind diese Artikel wirklich.
allerdings denke ich nicht, dass damit auch nur annähernd über die
Adjuvantien-Problematik informiert wird

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 25.11.08 · 17:24 Uhr
Zitat wolfgang
da gibts eine Studie von Petrik an Mäusen, die Effekte von Aluminium
misst.
Deswegen muss lt Bert Aluminium als Adjuvans beim Menschen ein Problem
sein?
Es wird pro Jahr in vielen Millionen Dosen angewendet.
Du weißt ganz genau, dass es nicht nur diese eine Studie gibt, die
problematische Effekte von Aluminium-haltigen Adjuvantien behandelt,
sondern zahlreiche.
Du kannst hier ruhig auch zugeben, dass Du - wie Du mehrfach betont hast -
dafür bist, dass Aluminium aus Impfstoffen verschwindet und durch
Alternativen ersetzt wird.
Dass Aluminiumsalze trotz Sicherheitsbedenken millionenfach angewendet
werden, halte ich nicht für beruhigendâ ¦

zitat Wolfgang
Ich hab in Österreich bereits 1988 gefordert, dass Thiomersal aus
Impfstoffen raus kommt,
das war zu Zeiten, als wir publizistisch noch an einem Strang gezogen haben ;-)

zit Wolfgang
Warum stellts du nicht die Behauptung auf ADHS wäre ein Hitzeschaden,
warum müssen es immer die Impfungen sein?

ich habe im Artikel mehrere Ursachen genannt, die als ADHS Auslöser
diskutiert werden.
ich habe nicht gesagt, dass Impfungen ADHS verursachen, sondern gefordert,
dass dies näher untersucht (z.B. in weiteren Tierversuchen) und dafür
öffentliches Geld zur Verfügung gestellt wird.
Denn auch wenn der Einfluss gering sein mag, so muss doch dieser Verdacht
ausgeräumt werden. Im Sinne der Impfstoffsicherheit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joerg· 25.11.08 · 18:01 Uhr
"das stimmt, lang sind diese Artikel wirklich.
allerdings denke ich nicht, dass damit auch nur annähernd über die
Adjuvantien-Problematik informiert wird"

Dazu muss man Ihre Bücher kaufen, ist schon klar...

Und: Woher kommt eigentlich dieser Begriff "Information" für "jetzt zeig
ich euch mal wie die bösen bösen Pharmaunternehmen euch das Geld aus der
Tasche nehmen"?

Es reicht mir jetzt hier, dass diese Blog auf Scienceblogs steht
ist purer Hohn, und der Titel "Wissenschaft" vor Journalist nur
brüllendes Gelächter wert!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

wolfgang· 26.11.08 · 09:19 Uhr
Zitat Bert Ehgartner
"Du weißt ganz genau, dass es nicht nur diese eine Studie gibt, die
problematische Effekte von Aluminium-haltigen Adjuvantien behandelt,
sondern zahlreiche."

Die eine hast du aber zitiert, und die zitierte Studie hat erhebliche
methodische Schwächen.

Zitat" Du kannst hier ruhig auch zugeben, dass Du - wie Du mehrfach betont
hast - dafür bist, dass Aluminium aus Impfstoffen verschwindet und durch
Alternativen ersetzt wird."

Schon allein deine Diktion "zugeben" unterstellt, dass ich etwas zu
verschleiern hätte. Das ist nicht der Fall. Und warum sollte ich neue
Entwicklungen, wie neue Adjuvantien, behindern, das wäre ja vollends
bescheuert.

Zitat Bert Ehgartner "Dass Aluminiumsalze trotz Sicherheitsbedenken
millionenfach angewendet werden, halte ich nicht für beruhigend"

Ist dass der Grund warum du deine Tochter noch nicht HPV-4 geimpft hast?

"zitat Wolfgang
Ich hab in Österreich bereits 1988 gefordert, dass Thiomersal aus Impfstoffen raus kommt,
Zitat Bert Ehgartner "das war zu Zeiten, als wir publizistisch noch an einem Strang gezogen haben ;-)"

Nein- ich habe den Bann von Thiomersal aus fachlichen Gründen gefordert-
du bist und bleibst ein Impfgegner- also nochmals wo ist die Evidenz für
deine Behauptung, dass der HPV-4 Impfstoff höchstwahrscheinlich unwirksam
ist ? Leg doch mal Belege dafür vor!

"ich habe im Artikel mehrere Ursachen genannt, die als ADHS Auslöser
diskutiert werden."

Bert du wirst es nie kapieren. Wenn man eine Ursache diskutieren will,
muss man eine Hypothese aufstellen- die fehlt. Man kann nicht aus dem
Blitzblauen heraus fordern, dass etwas untersucht wird. Warum forderst du
nicht den Zusammenhang zwischen Erderwärmung und Anstieg der Zahl der
Impfungen zu untersuchen?

"ich habe nicht gesagt, dass Impfungen ADHS verursachen, sondern
gefordert, dass dies näher untersucht (z.B. in weiteren Tierversuchen) und
dafür Öffentliches Geld zur Verfügung gestellt wird.
Denn auch wenn der Einfluss gering sein mag, so muss doch dieser Verdacht
ausgeräumt werden. Im Sinne der Impfstoffsicherheit."

Jetzt komm doch nicht daher mit der Impfsicherheit- du bist medial der
große Verunsicherer- in deinem grottenschlechten Buch schreibst du wieder
dein dummes Mantra "Masern bei guter Pflege harmlos" so wie du dich
wiederholt gegen Impfungen ausgesprochen hast. Und du hst auch kundgetan,
dass du deine Tochter gerne auf ne Masernparty geschleppt hättest- nur
gabs halt keine. Deswegen hast du sie schweren Herzens MMR impfen lassen.

Das Bert Ehgartner`sche Originalzitat hast du damals ins Gästebuch der
Impfgegnervereinigung AEGIS geschrieben. Das Gästebuch gibt es nicht mehr,
aber dein Zitat findet sich noch im www. Kann ja jeder nachlesen was ein
verwirrter Medizinjournalist schreibt- vorletztes Zitat, etwas scrollen :

http://www.impfinformationen.de/startseite/impfgegnerzitate.html

Bert sag mal- warum hast du dich eigentlich auf die science blogs verirrt?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 26.11.08 · 11:16 Uhr
zit Joerg:
"Es reicht mir jetzt hier, dass diese Blog auf Scienceblogs steht ist
purer Hohn, und der Titel "Wissenschaft" vor Journalist nur brüllendes
Gelächter wert!"

Dann lachen Sie mal.

Wie es um Ihr Verständnis von Toleranz und wissenschaftlicher
Diskussionskultur bestellt ist zeigt dieses aktuelle Zitat von Ihrer
twitter-seite recht gut:
"Wer ist eigentlich für Scienceblogs so zuständig, dass man mal fragen
könnte ob der Ehegartner mal gelöscht werden kann?"
http://twitter.com/JoergR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 09:51:23 AM by ama »
Logged

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2008, 08:06:07 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherina· 26.11.08 · 12:32 Uhr
Im Moment moderiert/löscht Herr Ehgartner anscheinend nur selber - man
fühlt sich ans Schutzzaunforum erinnert. Offensichtlich ist es zu
peinlich, wenn zu viele Besucher den Finger auf die Wunde (das allzu
freie, vom Fachwissen unbelastete, Assoziieren) legen.
Wissenschaftliche Diskussionskultur würde ja auch verlangen, dass
wenigstes so ein bisschen Evidenz vorgelegt wird. Die Basalganglien werden
bei Petrik et al jedenfalls nicht mal erwähnt und wenn die Injektion von
Aluminium was machen würde, hätten die das wohl finden müssen. Immerhin
hauen die den Mäuschen fast die Babymenge Impfstoff in den Nacken (Baby
min 3000 gr, Maus max 30 gr), aber die Basalganglien bekommen nichts ab?
Ich finde das überhaupt nicht zum Lachen, sondern nur traurig. Aber
anscheinend bedeutet "scienceblogs.de", hier darf jeder auch ohne
entsprechende Ausbildung und Verstand mal Wissenschaft machen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elphaba· 26.11.08 · 12:47 Uhr
Ich hatte hier einen Link zur Neurobiologie des ADHS eingestellt und
einen zu einer Studie von Dr. Huss über MPH, beides hat Herr Ehgartner
gelöscht, obwohl völlig seriös!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joerg· 26.11.08 · 13:04 Uhr
Ja das war eine ernste Frage, ich werde das auch rausfinden wem ich da
schreiben kann und mich beschweren.
Sie haben keinen Funken Wissenschaft in ihren Knochen und haben auf
Scienceblogs aber auch gar nichts verloren.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]

.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 08:06:32 AM by ama »
Logged

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2008, 10:24:09 AM »

Wow, da löscht aber einer. Bei Bert Ehgartner fliegt alles durcheinander...

Schnappschuß um 16.20 Uhr:


http://www.scienceblogs.de/lob-der-krankheit/2008/11/neues-diagnoseverfahren-bestatigt-hirnschaden-bei-adhs.php

[*QUOTE*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
wolfgang· 26.11.08 · 12:04 Uhr
@ Bert
wie stehts denn mit deiner "wissenschaftlichen Diskussionskultur" ?

Du hast am 21.9.2008 behauptet, dass der HPV-4 Impfstoff
hochstwahrscheinlich unwirksam ist.

Wir haben das u.a. hier diskutiert
http://www.parents.at/forum/showthread.php?t=483403

Ich habe damals deinen vollen Namen genannt- wie Du meinen dort vorher. Du
hast mich gemeldet, weil eine Namensnennung formal gegen die dortigen
Forumsregeln verstößt. Gleichzeitig hast du in deiner Signatur für dein
Buch geworben- klickt man drauf hat man deinen vollen Namen. Der Thread
wurde eröffnet von einem user, der auf deinen Profil Artikel hingewiesen
hat.

Wegen Deiner Namensnennung wurde ich dann ca 2 Wochen lang gesperrt.

Soviel zu Deinem Verständnis zum Thema Toleranz.

Offenbar magst du nicht, dass der Name Bert Ehgartner in google in
Verbindung mit sagen wir "merkwürdigen Ausserungen" von dir in Verbindung
gebracht wird. Dies damit potentielle Auftraggeber von dir die dich
googlen beispielsweise nicht draufkommen, dass du bei der AIDS-Leugner
Liste unterschrieben hast ( ca 2004 war das) - das sind die Leute, die
behaupten HIV wäre nicht die Ursache von AIDS.

http://www.rethinkingaids.com/

Die Unterschriftenliste hier-
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm

heute stehst immer noch drauf!

Weil wenn da jemand draufkommt wie du wissenschaftliche Papers in
eigenartiger Weise interpretierst, könntest ja keine Jubelartikel zum
Thema Impfungen mehr schreiben. Wie z.B. Wundermittel Impfungen im Profil
vor ca 1 Jahr.

Also nochmals zu deiner "wissenschaftlichen Diskussionskultur"- was ist
die Evidenz, dass der HPV-4 Impfstoff höchstwahrscheinlich unwirksam ist,
wie du behauptet hast?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catherina· 26.11.08 · 12:32 Uhr
Im Moment moderiert/löscht Herr Ehgartner anscheinend nur selber - man
fühlt sich ans Schutzzaunforum erinnert. Offensichtlich ist es zu
peinlich, wenn zu viele Besucher den Finger auf die Wunde (das allzu
freie, vom Fachwissen unbelastete, Assoziieren) legen.

Wissenschaftliche Diskussionskultur würde ja auch verlangen, dass
wenigstes so ein bisschen Evidenz vorgelegt wird. Die Basalganglien werden
bei Petrik et al jedenfalls nicht mal erwähnt und wenn die Injektion von
Aluminium was machen würde, hätten die das wohl finden müssen. Immerhin
hauen die den Mäuschen fast die Babymenge Impfstoff in den Nacken (Baby
min 3000 gr, Maus max 30 gr), aber die Basalganglien bekommen nichts ab?

Ich finde das überhaupt nicht zum Lachen, sondern nur traurig. Aber
anscheinend bedeutet "scienceblogs.de", hier darf jeder auch ohne
entsprechende Ausbildung und Verstand mal Wissenschaft machen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elphaba· 26.11.08 · 12:47 Uhr
Ich hatte hier einen LInk zur Neurobiologie des ADHS eingestellt und einen
Zu einer Studie von Dr. Huss über MPH, beides hat Herr Ehgartner
gelöscht, obwohl völlig seriös!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joerg· 26.11.08 · 13:04 Uhr
Ja das war eine ernste Frage, ich werde das auch rausfinden wem ich da
schreiben kann und mich beschweren. Sie haben keinen Funken Wissenschaft
in ihren Knochen und haben auf Scienceblogs aber auch gar nichts verloren.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 26.11.08 · 14:32 Uhr
Wie wärs denn, wenn die pressure-group von http://www.impfinformationen.de
mal zur süddeutschen spielen geht.

Dort hat eine Kollegin das Sakrileg begangen, das Manifest einer Gruppe
von Wissenschaftlern zu verbreiten, die eine Neubewertung der
Impfempfehlung der STIKO für die HPV-Impfung verlangt. Wegen zweifelhafter
Wirksamkeit.
Eine bodenlose Frechheit: Also stürzt Euch auf sie. Huschhusch
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,ra16m1/wissen/435/449165/text/

Falls Ihr ganz mutig seid, könntet Ihr ja auch in einen offenen
Diskussionsprozess mit den Wissenschaftlern eintreten, die das verfasst
haben.
Das Problem dabei ist allerdings, dass Ihr Euch dann mal mit der Datenlage
beschäftigen müsstet, anstatt bloß PR-Texte runterzuleiern.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bert Ehgartner· 26.11.08 · 14:35 Uhr
@Catherina
ich habe keine Ahnung, wie man hier löschen bzw. redigieren soll.
Ich kann nicht mal meinen eigenen Kommentar ändern, wenn ich ihn
abgeschickt habe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elphaba· 26.11.08 · 14:38 Uhr
Dann frag ich mich wo mein Kommentar hin ist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catherina· 26.11.08 · 15:31 Uhr
Wie wärs denn, wenn die pressure-group von http://www.impfinformationen.de
mal zur süddeutschen spielen geht.

Wie waer's wenn Du mal drauf eingehst, dass es keinen einzigen Hinweis in
der biomedizinischen Literatur darauf gibt, dass Aluminium oder Impfungen
sich auf Groesse und/oder Form der Basalganglien auswirken? Sowas finde
ich in der medizinischen Literatur nicht.

Bitte, wenn Du eine wissenschaftliche Diskussion willst, dann stell doch
mal eine Diskussionsbasis her auf der das moeglich ist. Freies Assoziieren
- wie schon gesagt - reicht dafuer nicht aus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 10:27:28 AM by ama »
Logged

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2008, 11:51:20 AM »

Nun hat sich auch PZ Myers des Themas Bert Ehgartner angenommen:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/quackeryon_scienceblogsde.php

[*QUOTE*]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pharyngula

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.

......................................................................
Random Quote
If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little Electric Chairs around their necks instead of crosses

[Lenny Bruce]
......................................................................

Quackery…on Scienceblogs.de?

Category: Kooks



Posted on: November 30, 2008 8:51 PM, by PZ Myers

Look, I don't need this. It's been a rough weekend, with way too much travel for my mental and physical health, and I started off today with the Atheist Talk radio broadcast, which was good, but it was bracketed by those horrible woo-woo infomercials that always piss me off, and then I had to drive three hours to Minneapolis to send my son back to school, and then three hours back, and I haven't had time to sit down and eat yet, and the email piled up something fierce while I was away, and I still have lots of grading to do for tomorrow, and when my brain is burned out I forget how to end sentences (with a period, I suspect), and they just run on endlessly…so. There, I stopped. OK, what's this with an anti-vaccinationist on scienceblogs.de? We're not going to run him out on a rail, but it is a disappointment that the vetting process on the German side seems to have been a bit lax.

Anyway, Orac is looking for some help from our readers who are more fluent in German — help him diagnose the krankheit so he can slam the bad posts with some schmerzen und weh und so weiter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments
#1

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 30, 2008 8:57 PM

Gesundheit.
Tissue?
#2

Posted by: clinteas | November 30, 2008 8:59 PM

I dont generally like Orac,and I have to go to work,but will have a look at it when I get home.
#3

Posted by: Sastra | November 30, 2008 9:15 PM

Someone recently created a new term for folks like this -- pseudoskeptics. They pretend to be mavericks challenging the scientific orthodoxy through better science. They're "skeptics" asking reasonable questions.

But, if you examine their claims and evidence, you see that they're not following scientific procedures at all, nor are they thinking critically. They're using sloppy research, deceptive arguments, logical fallacies, shaky rationalizations, cherry picking, and misinformation. And, unlike genuine skeptics, there is nothing which will make them change their minds.

On his blog, Orac says that it looks like there's reasonable stuff mixed in with the unreasonable. Again, that's common. Of course, if the sciencebloggers object to having a pseudoskeptic on scienceblogs, expect cries of suppression and persecution.

(and pshaw -- who could not love Orac?)
#4

Posted by: ERV | November 30, 2008 9:24 PM
We're not going to run him out on a rail...
*frown* Wait, what? Maaaaaan......
#5

Posted by: kryth | November 30, 2008 9:27 PM

No tar?
No feathers?
No fun...

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2008, 11:52:01 AM »

#6

Posted by: Skwee | November 30, 2008 9:34 PM

Germany has this guy, we have Nisbet. Such is the world.
#7

Posted by: Chris | November 30, 2008 9:41 PM

Um, I think he should be run out on a rail. He's a quack. And belief in medical quackery is almost as common in Germany as belief in sky wizards is over here. It would be like giving a DI drone a blog on scienceblogs.com.
#8

Posted by: Janothar | November 30, 2008 9:41 PM

Can we get this guy and Nisbet together and let them form their own blog collective? Then we don't have to deal with either, and they can go play by themselves in a corner of the internet where none of us live.
#9

Posted by: catta | November 30, 2008 10:06 PM

The good news is that the other German sciencebloggers are outraged, too. The bad news is that this guy also is an HIV/AIDS denialist and believes Homosexuality is curable.
I'll do my best to help and translate... and I'll certainly write a polite but angry letter to scienceblogs.de -- I want to continue recommending the site. :/

#10

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 30, 2008 11:10 PM

Run him out on a rail... gun.

("Mop and bucket?" "Garden hose.")
#11

Posted by: Jadehawk | December 1, 2008 12:29 AM

was working on a translation, got a headache...

but basically the guy he interviews claims that inactivated vaccinations cause something called "Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis", and that he thinks that caused the death of a handful of people who have recently died shortly after getting vaccinated with the HPV-vaccine, and that the german and austrian governments are doing the best to absolve the vaccine from this, that the placebo used in tests of the HPV-vaccine was designed to mask all side effects of the vaccine, and that there's a massive cover-up
#12

Posted by: Jadehawk | December 1, 2008 1:20 AM

"Aluminum Must be Removed from Vaccines!"

A Manifesto, in which 13 scientist publicly demand a revision of the recommendation for the HPV-vaccine, is causing a stir. But it's not only the efficacy of the vaccine that's in question; it's its safety, too. I spoke about this at the beginning of the year with the vaccine expert from Wiesbaden, Klaus Hartmann:

E.: During the pre-approval studies for the HPV-vaccine, only relatively few side effects were found. There were barely any differences to the placebo-group.

H.: That was because of the choice of placebo. The typical, neutral water-solution was not used. Instead, the mix was one of all ingredients of the HPV-vaccine, except for the HPV-antigens. Therefore, the placebo contained among other things the Aluminum-salts which are proven to be problematic.

E.:What were the consequences?

H.: The HPV-vaccine was tested against a substance that can cause the same side effects. This is a very questionable method, and I'm puzzled as to why the Ethics Commission permitted it. The Aluminum containing adjuvants have recently become a subject for discussion. Until now, their safety has been deduced retrospectively, since Millions of doses have been used for vaccination, and apparently nothing happened. That is not correct though. It is known that these additives cause autoimmune reactions in people who are susceptible. This has been confirmed in animal tests. Additionally, they can damage the nervous system, because Aluminum hydroxide has the potential to be a neurotoxin.

E.: In what timerange after the vaccination does this happen?

H.: This can happen up to five weeks after the vaccination. We have two mechanisms here: For one, the aluminum-salts can trigger autoimmune reactions, and secondly there are the direct damaging effects on the nerve cells. You do not register those, if you only take cases of up to two weeks into account. This toxic effect was recently confirmed to take place in human cells as well, even in doses like those used in vaccines.

E.: Why haven't those substances been replaced already?

H.: The manufacturers know that the aluminum needs to be removed, and they're all working on it eagerly. This will not take long, the same way ithat it happened to the mercury containing preservatives used in childhood vaccinations, which first became a issue for debate, and was then replaced.

E.: Is the choice of placebo meant to hide the side effects of the HPV-vaccine?

H.: Certainly. When the test group shows the same autoimmune reactions, they are leveled out and no one notices them.

E.: The government agency responsible for collecting reports of side effects says that there are no known side effects to the HPV-vaccine.

H.: That's pure cover-up tactics. Once a vaccine is approved, these feedbacks are the only control. But here, only the immediate reactions -if any- are reported. The weaknesses of the report-gathering system are known, but aren't even meant to be improved upon. This is a true cover-up tactic. The government and the manufacturers are in agreement, and no money is spent. True, long-term data about safety don't even exist. As long as this isn't questioned and checked, the problem will continue to exist. It will continue to be said, with full certainty, that there are no problems, even though we can't know that with what's currently possible.

E.: But now, the two deaths in Germany and Austria have caused furore.

H.:Something like that can't just be ignored. So now there is a great effort to absolve the vaccine of this. On the other side, no one is being tasked with seriously test a possible connection to the vaccination. There is an unbelievable distortion. Sensible research about this subject finds absolutely no support.

E.:You have informed yourself about the Austrian cases, as well. Is there a connection to the HPV-vaccine?

H.: The deceased young woman already had problems before her sudden death. She had developed a noticeable photophobia, had headaches and persistent intestinal symptoms. Those are typical symptoms of (Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis). If this isn't looked for specifically during an autopsy, you can no longer find it. After all, an ADEM-focus is not a tumor or a change in tissue, which can be detected even days later. This is a fleeting inflammatory event. If this happens in the Nodus Vitalis, you could stop breathing (suffer an attack of apnea?) because of an ADEM-focus. And you don't find the cause anymore, when this is investigated only after days or weeks.

E.: There was the argument that with ADEM, the student would have had massive problems earlier, and would in this case not have been able to go away.

H.:No, that's nonsense. It always depends on where the nerve damage happens. There are many different symptoms. The patients could suddenly develop a psychosis, act noticeable. There is no uniform picture. Any kind of neurological, cerebral distinctive feature could be theoretically caused by an ADEM. In most cases it won't be recognized as ADEM, and luckily it's also the case that in most cases it happens reversibly. It is only rarely life threatening, and then it can unfortunately end like with the young Austrian woman.

E.: Did you find ADEM in the cases you've examined?

H.: In my assesment-clinic, that is the most common diagnosis with cases of vaccination-damage. It's the biggest problem with inactivated vaccines.

E.: How many assessments do you do per year?

H.: I do about 60-70 per year, which are commissioned by the civil courts.

E.: How high is the estimated number of unknown cases of undesired effects of vaccines in passive reporting systems like that of Germany or Austria?

H.: A German study tested this for side-effects of drugs and came to a rate of reported cases of 5%-10%. With vaccines it would likely be looking worse, because doctors are hardly informed about the side effects of vaccinations, and also because the inhibition treshold to report it is higher. With antilipidemics or antibiotics this is taken for granted more, because there is already a certain sketpicism. With vaccinations, the doctors turn to their pharma-consultant, where they are pre-emptively appeased.

E.: Shouldn't the reports go directly to the agencies?

H.: Since 2001, there is a legal obligation to report. This has been barely noted by the doctors. There is also no education about it.

E.: In Austria, the word from the vaccine experts was that after three weeks, a side effect from a vaccination was pretty much impossible.

H.: Such statements came even from the longstanding SITKO (Permanent Vaccine Commission at the Robert Koch Institute) chairman Heinz-Joseph Schmitt. That is scientifically complete nonsense. Just like the Austrian positions that side effects only happen immediately or not at all. Complete rubbish.

E.: Where then do those vaccine experts take their knowledge of the subject from?

H.: The term "vaccine-expert" is not protected. Everybody can call themselves that. In addition, these vaccine-experts are with 100% likelihood on some industry-payroll. Either directly or over research-funds at university institutions. Those are all people who are paid to say that. Our SITKO-chairman Schmitt has after all recently switched officially into the industry to the vaccine-manufacturer Novaris-Behring. And over there, he probably still tells the same stories.

The physician from Wiesbaden, Klaus Hartman, 48, was for 10 years with the German Paul Ehrlich Institute, responsible for the scientific assessment of undesirable effects of vaccinations. Today, he is one of the most employed cours assessor for possible vaccination-damages.
#13

Posted by: Jadehawk | December 1, 2008 1:25 AM

uh, sorry for the unedited mess, I accidentally hit "post" while editing

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2008, 11:52:57 AM »

#14

Posted by: Shaden Freud | December 1, 2008 2:00 AM

"Quackery? On my blog network?"

It's more likely than you think.
#15

Posted by: RickrOll | December 1, 2008 3:12 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/science/11gene.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1

I'm a little troubled by this article, to say the least. I feel it falls into this discussion, at least of psuedoscience, thought it deals with genetics.
#16

Posted by: JohnS | December 1, 2008 3:52 AM

I hope you'll forgive this mostly-off-topic question: Why does scienceblogs have that 'Top Five Most German" teaser over at the right column on English-language blogs? I often enjoy using the links that appear in that space to travel to Orac or Laden or Her Magnificence, Dr. Isis. But when the German menu appears there, I have to reload the browser - sometimes several times - in order to get to something I can use. I know - in a world of huge problems, this is tiny. But still, wouldn't a separate link be more appropriate?

Thanks, JohnS
#17

Posted by: perceval | December 1, 2008 4:06 AM

Zis is a conspirasi, Herr John @16! Seriously, this guy may well be worse than Nisbet. At least Nisbet is not actively peddling anti science - it looks like the German guy relies a lot on "experts" and less on actual medical knowledge.

Have already provided Orac with a translation of one of his posts.
#18

Posted by: Kaela Mensha Khaine | December 1, 2008 4:35 AM

Comments on the conspirationists articel look very well ... they tear him apart. Funny, how a little insult looks so much more aggressive and arrogant in german - perhaps this is why your language is that liked all over the world.

The (rather religious) ad hominem argument is far more disrespected here. So there is more pseudoscience, pseudoscepticism and "deep-probing investigations into the matter, to protect the people and reveal the truth about [set in conspiration."
#19

Posted by: Valhar2000 | December 1, 2008 6:42 AM

Well, yeah, freedom of speech and plurality of voices and all that... but having crankery on Scienceblogs drastically reduces the quality of the whole shebang.
#20

Posted by: Joerg | December 1, 2008 8:17 AM

He has a large article today claiming to present proof, but I won't read it all, because honestly I have made up my mind that there is not a single scientific bone in this guy, so why should I bother...I have repeatedly demanded his removal from ScienceBlogs.

http://www.scienceblogs.de/lob-der-krankheit/2008/12/aluminium-die-evidenz.php
#21

Posted by: clinteas | December 1, 2008 8:56 AM

Ok,I have had a look at this guy.
The crowd at Oracs place is in full in witch-burning mode unfortunately,while using babelfish etc to make their judgments.

I really cant be bothered to write too much about this,there is no sensation,no scandal,no issue here,I might just copy and paste what I put onto Orac's blog:

//Guys,he's harmless.Get a life already.

He seems to be just as critical towards big pharma as he is critical of vaccine additives,for which he cites studies and reasonable journal articles.
Nothing about vaccines=autism here,he's not Jenny McCarthy,move on.

Objectivity,you should try it sometime.//
#22

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 1, 2008 9:55 AM

clinteas, Ehgartner was looking for a measles party for his daughter (fortunately didn't find any), has signed an HIV-AIDS denialist manifesto, constantly mentions his book (same title as his blog: "Praise to illness") which, as he explains himself, is about "why it's healthy to be ill once in a while", says measles are "harmless in good care", and so on. Knowingly or not, he is spreading disinformation. I'm with ERV.

And let's not forget the guy who runs Medlog, another de.SciBling, who had a post saying that insanely high doses of elementary mercury and lead are harmless -- healthy in fact -- if they're part of a magic Ayurveda powder.
#23

Posted by: clinteas | December 1, 2008 10:20 AM

David M,

being german I fondly remember measles parties,my parents used to tell me about them,the thought back then was to get everyone infected,and get it over and done with.The MMR vaccine didnt come out until the early 70s I think.

Measles are mostly harmless,you tend to run into the complications more with older age,therefore good to get them earlier.Nowadays a non-issue because of the vaccine.

I cant find any reference to the anti-HIV thing,but if you say he signed it,Im sure he did.
Im not saying the guy is the pride of german science journalism here,but the hystery is unfounded.
#24

Posted by: clinteas | December 1, 2008 10:23 AM

Hysteria,even....
#25

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 1, 2008 11:39 AM
Measles are mostly harmless

Tens to hundreds of people used to die of it every year, and lifelong damage was also common. Are you sure you're old enough to remember...?
I cant find any reference to the anti-HIV thing

In the comments to the very blog post this post links to.

In case you're interested, I'm Austrian.
#26

Posted by: ama | December 1, 2008 11:41 AM

Hi, folks,
actually Bert Ehgartner is an Austrian. We know him for some years, at least since 2001.

During this time he spread wrong and false news about viruses and other medical topics.

During this time he attacked people AD HOMINEM.

He is responsible for the outrageous attacks against (in chronological order)
- Renate Ratlos (netizen for children's rights)
- ama (net ghost)
- Ralf Behrmann, a pediatrician (Frankfurt, Germany
- Wolfgang Maurer, a vaccination expert (Vienna, Austria)
and many others I forgot the names of.

Mark it: It is not a personal affair! The key is defamation of science in general and of scientific medicine in special. There is no excuse for knowingly indoctrinating with false information which can lead to the death of children. And THIS is exactly what Ehgartner does.

Ehgartner has no place in journalism.

ama
http://www.hall-of-fame.me
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]

.

Sildenafil

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2008, 12:16:09 PM »

Logged

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2008, 08:05:29 AM »

Dafür warte ich noch immer auf eine offizielle Bestätigung:

https://twitter.com/Scienceblogs/status/1034440130

[*QUOTE*]
------------------------------------
Kurze Information bzgl. der überbordenden Diskussionen
um vermeintliche Pseudowissenschaft auf SB.de:
wir trennen uns von Bert Ehgartner

about 20 hours ago from twhirl
Scienceblogs
------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
.

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2008, 08:08:06 AM »

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/germany_we_have_a_problem.php

----------------------------------------------
Respectful Insolence

"Germany, we have a problem..." Or: Should anything be done about two bad apples of pseudoscience on the tree of ScienceBlogs.de?

Posted on: December 2, 2008 8:27 AM, by Orac

Well, it looks as though I've stepped into it yet one more time.

Believe it or not, I hadn't intended to stir up trouble among the ScienceBlogs collective, both English- and German-speaking. Really. Oh, I'll admit that there are occasionally times when I actually do mean to stir up trouble. One recent example is when it was rumored that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. might be chosen to be Secretary of the Interior or, even worse, Director of the EPA. Much to my surprise, I actually did manage to stir up a goodly amount of blogospheric reaction, too. Although I believed it to be a good cause, this case was still a bit of an aberration, though. Usually, when I do mean to stir up a reaction against an problem that I perceive, I tend to fail miserably. The truly ironic corollary to this principle is that posts in which I didn't really mean to cause trouble (or at least not that much) and that didn't take much time or effort to write tend to be the ones that end up attracting hundreds of fevered comments. So it was on Sunday, when in response to a reader's question I took about 15 minutes to whip off a quick post about some disturbing examples of what seemed to be antivaccinationist nonsense and entitled it Is there an antivaccinationist on ScienceBlogs.de? Help me figure it out, my German-speaking readers!

The title was not ironic. It was a statement of my concern and confusion. I don't speak German; so all I could do was use Babelfish, Google Translate, and other online tools to get a rough idea of what the blogger, Bert Ehgartner, whose blog is called Lob der Krankheit, which various German readers have translated as "Praise of Illness" or "Praise of Disease," was saying. However, what my reader had told me about one post, "Aluminium muss raus aus Impfstoffen!", which means "aluminum must be removed (or eliminated) from vaccines" was concerning enough, which is why I investigated in the first place. The post consisted of an interview with a physician named Dr. Klaus Hartmann, who appears to make part of his living as a plaintiff's witness testifying in vaccine injury cases in Germany. Even in a Babelfish translation, I could tell that this was a post that was not science-based. In it Ehgartner repeated several bits of misinformation that I had heard before from antivaccinationists about the HPV vaccine, ones similar to the ones I had taken on here and here. Moreover, Ehgartner seems to have a thing against aluminum in vaccines, blaming it for all sorts of neurodevelopmental problems, scientific evidence be damned. I realized instantly that this is very much of a piece with our American antivaccinationists, who, having finally realized that evidence is increasingly piling up against mercury in vaccines as a cause of autism, have made aluminum into the new mercury, so to speak. Does this make Ehgartner an antivaccinationist? Not in and of itself, but it sure did look suspicious. Certainly there was enough in that post alone to send up red flags. That's why I literally asked my German-speaking readers for help in evaluating Ehargarten's blog. I needed it.

Then I came across a post, which was clearly an anti-big pharma rant that seemed to be saying that the flu vaccine is useless and in essence a ploy by big pharma to make lots of money. In it Ehgartner also likened flu experts to "vacuum cleaner salesmen." More red flags. And then there was a post entitled Neues Diagnose-Verfahren bestätigt Hirnschäden bei ADHS. Fortunately (or, perhaps unfortunately for me), one of my German readers translated this post. All I can say is: Wow. It's bad. Painfully bad. Let's take a look. Note that I took some minor liberties with the translation provided me to correct awkward grammatical constructions and phraseology, but not in a way that changes the meaning of the translation significantly.

Also, I will point out that the article that Ehgartner is discussing is this one. It's actually a rather interesting study in which a special MRI technique, known as large deformation diffeomorphic metric mapping (LDDMM), was used to compare brain morphology in boys with ADHD to that in neurotypical normally developing boys. The results: "Boys with ADHD showed significantly smaller basal ganglia volumes compared with typically developing boys, and LDDMM revealed the groups remarkably differed in basal ganglia shapes. Volume compression was seen bilaterally in the caudate head and body and anterior putamen as well as in the left anterior globus pallidus and right ventral putamen. Volume expansion was most pronounced in the posterior putamen. No volume or shape differences were revealed in girls with ADHD." Personally, I find it rather interesting that there were anatomically detectable differences in the brains of boys with ADHD compared to controls but not in girls. Unfortunately, Ehgartner represents the results thusly:
Whether the changes were present from birth or they were caused by inflammatory processes or exposure to toxins at a young age, for instance, is not clear and constitutes the main mystery of ADHD. Possible causes for this disorder have been fiercely debated for decades. Sometimes, the question arises whether it even constitutes a disorder, or whether society is merely unable to cope with "especially active and naughty children" and therefore "sedates them with pharmaceuticals." These statements usually come from people who have never closely interacted with affected individuals.

More seriously, it has been suggested that ADHD should be classified as part of the autism spectrum. Here, roughly the same sex ratio is observed (about three times as many affected boys), the same significance of a heritable component and roughly the same age of manifestation. The main problem with autism is a lack of appropriate "networks" in the brain, so that certain important areas are not in contact with each other, but individual areas can be especially highly developed à la "Rain Man". Therefore, ADHD would be a special form of autism. Which disorder manifests itself would therefore depend on the type and extent of brain damage.


Nothing in the study suggested inflammation as a cause of the anatomic differences detected in the study. In addition, the above claim that ADHD should be classified as a "special form of autism is a serious overreading of some studies that implicated the same chromosomal region in both ASD and ADHD, combined with the common fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. Note also how Ehgartner refers to the changes in the brain that this study found in boys with ADHD as "brain damage." I don't know if that's a mistranslation or not, but it sure doesn't sound good. Still, the above isn't the worst part of the post, which descends rapidly into highly dubious, science-free assertions:
According to this hypothesis, an environmental component must exist. The heritable component merely influences the susceptibility to this unknown factor.  The fact that congenital disorders generally have a stable prevelance over centuries, whereas ADHD and autism cases have been increasing over the past decades supports this. According to the CDC, 1 in 100 children are affected by autism nowadays. Around four percent of German children suffer from ADHD. On average, there is one "Fidgety Philip" in every classroom. But what is this environmental influence?

Some suspect the culprit is the ongoing onslaught of stimuli children are subjected to by television, computer games and mobile phones. Others blame the lack of structure at school or overly high standards at school. Older hypotheses identify bad parenting, neglect and trauma at an early age as the cause. However, it would be unusual for any of these to cause brain damage. A year ago, a study in The Lancet addressed the influence of food additives on hyperactivity. Certain colouring agents and the preservative sodium benzoate were identified as problematic.

Note how Ehgartner completely ignores widened diagnostic criteria, increased awareness, and diagnostic substition as explanations for the apparent increase in autism diagnoses, as well as for ADHD diagnoses and simply assumes that it must be an environmental cause. That's not so unreasonable on the surface, but it overlooks so many factors relevant to this discussion that it is as simplistic as it gets. There's a reason. His rationale seems to be: ADHD and autism rates are rising; it must be "toxins"! Sound familiar? If you're a regular reader of this blog, it should. Note how Ehgartner also makes the same sort of noises that the proponents of a link between vaccines and autism make about an autism (and ADHD) "epidemic." In fact, there is good evidence that there is no autism epidemic, but rather that the increase in autism diagnoses, a congenital neurodevelopmental disorder that should seemingly have a stable prevalence. Indeed, it is more likely than not that the true prevalence of autism is stable corrected for diagnostic substitution and these other factors.

Next Ehgartner moves on to a series of dubious hypotheses for the causes of ADHD, such as computer games, mobile phones, or bad parenting. This is actually clever, because it sets the stage for his preferred idea for what the cause of this "brain damage" is by allowing him to seem to have considered and dismissed a number of other possibilities. Never mind that it's not correct to refer to the changes in a congenital brain disorder as "brain damage" and applying that label to children with ADHD is in fact offensive. Never mind that most of the other possible hypotheses dismissed are scientifically highly implausible at best and utterly discredited at worst. That's an inherent part of the structure of these arguments. In any case, you always know what's coming next after a set up like this. (At least I do.) Given a buildup like that, there's only one thing that could be following next. Yes, Ehgartner thinks the apparent increase in autism and ADHD must be due to those evil vaccines:
Personally, I think it would be important to investigate the possible influence administering vaccines to babies without prejudice; more specifically, the aluminium salts currently found in two thirds of vaccines given to children as adjuvants. A recent Canadian study has already shown that these substances have considerable potential for toxicity.

I never, ever thought I'd be saying this about a fellow ScienceBlogger, but...The Stupid, It Burns. In German.

There's no good evidence to implicate aluminum in the development of ADHD, autism, or any other disorder other than Alzheimers, and the evidence linking aluminum to Alzheimer's is weak and inconsistent indeed. The concentration on aluminum is nothing more than the old "bait and switch" in which antivaccinationists, now that mercury in vaccines has been exonerated as a cause of autism, have switched to various "toxins," including formaldehyde and aluminum, forgetting that the dose makes the poison. It's a ploy I like to call the "toxin gambit." Does Ehgartner's repetition of these antivaccine canards make him an antivaccinationist? Not necessarily, but it's sure suspicious, especially coupled with his big pharma conspiracy-mongering elsewhere on his blog and his tendency to pull the "pharma shill gambit" on anyone who argues against him. The most charitable interpretation is that he is a credulous soul, prone to woo. The least charitable explanation tags him as an antivaccinationist. Neither are what I would consider models of bloggers I want to see on ScienceBlogs.

After writing my post, I thought it was bad enough that we might have an antivaccinationist on ScienceBlogs.de, but then readers in the comments started to point out something that I find even more disturbing about Ehgartner: He appears to be an HIV/AIDS denialist. For instance, he has signed the "Rethinking AIDS" (RA) manifesto/petition. RA, in case you're not aware, is an HIV/AIDS denialist organization with prominent HIV/AIDS denialists Peter Duesberg and Christine Maggiore (remember her?) on its board. It advocates "rethinking" the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS, and in fact "rethinker" is the denialists' attempt to rebrand themselves as something reasonable, something other than denialists. I can't speak for my fellow ScienceBloggers, but I am not happy about being associated with an HIV/AIDS denialist in the blog network for which I write. It matters not to me whether it's the German division of ScienceBlogs; I make no distinction. To me, we're all part of the same wonderfully dysfunctional family.

Another issue that came out in the discussions after my Sunday post is that there is at least one other German ScienceBlog that raises serious concerns about the blogger's ability to distinguish medicine from quackery. Specifically, it's a medical blog by Peter Artmann dubbed Medlog. Commenters pointed out that Artmann seems prone to some heavy duty, serious woo, the very sort that would if in English lead to a heapin' helpin' of not-so-Respecful Insolence. (Never let it be said that I allow a language barrier to keep me from delivering such a helping.) The problem is perhaps best encapsulated in Artmann's post Ayurveda enthält Blei ... ach nee. In it, he essentially argues that the heavy metal contamination with lead and mercury recently reported in all too many Ayurvedic herbal medicines is nothing to be concerned about because it's all part of the medicine. I kid you not. A reader translated his post in my comments, and here is part of it (once again, I alter the translation for better grammar and style--I hope Thomas Xavier, the reader who was kind enough to do the translation, doesn't take offense, and I also point out that the original still resides in my comments):
One of the most stupid bits of news from last week was a story about heavy metals in ayurvedic remedies. It was published by Zeit, Focus, and even the Ärzteblatt.

We could read about "contaminated" or "loaded" remedies, and that this happened "despite the manufacturer's guarantee of purity." But seriously. If there were no heavy metals in the remedies, it would not be Ayurvedic medicine. Metals are the active components of the Rasashastra-school of Ayurvedic medicine!


You read it right. Artmann is seriously arguing that the heavy metal contamination in Ayurvedic medicines that has been reported in multiple studies is a feature, not a bug! Truly, I can't make stuff like this up, and I really wish that Artmann couldn't either. This guy is a biologist?

Worse, he gets all "not-so-respectfully insolent," which I could normally totally appreciate, the way a connoisseur enjoys a fine wine, except that he's directing his sarcasm at those presumptuous scientists and journalists who reported the heavy metal contamination in the first place:
Can the editors be blamed? Well, the blame for this dumbing down should go to a renowned Journal. Of all things, the American journal for physicians JAMA published a study by Robert Saper, who - what breaking news- found out that Ayurvedic remedies contain heavy metals.

What a clever guy. Maybe, next time Saper will warn of pain during acupuncture and the usual suspects and then pass that news on. Attention: Acupuncture can cause pain, because you will be pricked (sounds a little bit like Feldbusch and belongs to the same league).

"But isn't it good, when you are notified of metals in ayurvedic remedies? I heard they even contain lead?"

But of course they do! The whole Rasashastra-school of Ayurvedic medicine is based on the use of metals. Lead is but one of the metals used. Traditionally, this medicin employs copper, silver, lead, iron, tin, zinc and even mercury.

"What, even mercury? Do they want to poison their patients?"

Well, its a different kind of medicine. The mercury (and all the other metals) are not administered as plain metals, but they are heated, crushed, heated again until only a white ash-like powder remains (this can take years). The resulting product is called bashma and swims on water (try this with pure mercury). Mercury is but one ingredient, other popular ones are lead and of course arsenic.

Yes, you read that right, too. Artmann is defending the presence of mercury, lead, and arsenic in Ayurvedic medicines as a feature, not a bug. But to him it's just fine and dandy--hunky dory, even!--because faith in the healer makes it OK:
"Yes, but isn't it good anyway, when you inform people that these alternative remedies contain dangerous ingredients? I mean, who has read the Rasashastra?"

No, it is very silly. If you use Ayurvedic medicine without practitioner, you have not understood the basic principle of alternative treatment. A HOLISTIC TREATMENT WITHOUT TRUST IN THE PRACTITIONER CANNOT HEAL ANYBODY.

This western attempt to combine several elements of traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurveda and what-do-I-know from Tibet, change nothing in your life, and then hope for the cure of a chronic disease lacks the most important part of all these doctrines: The faith in the healer.


I hope that regular readers of this blog will recognize the quackery inherent in this argument. Truly, I was flabbergasted when I read this and consider it far worse than Ehgartner's parroting of antivaccine canards layered with seemingly reasonable plausible deniability that he is antivaccine. I could not believe that such woo is appearing under my beloved ScienceBlogs banner, under which I have proudly blogged for nearly three years now! I was especially disgusted with this comment in response to another commenter who pointed out that any remedy that absolutely requires faith in the healer to work is usually a placebo. A man after my own heart, this commenter then gave this snarky rejoinder, "Dancing completely naked three times around the fire is also sufficient and probably has fewer side effects." (I like this guy.) Artmann replies (forgive the crude Google translation):
That so many experts in Ayurvedic medicine are gathered here together, I would have never have expected.

I am surprised by the arrogance of medical methods to the very different cultural roots and also have very different effects wants than the local medicine. And, of course, I wonder whether the commenters really believe that we are already at the end of what science has achieved.

[...]

At present, for skeptics who because of their vanity about sick people like to collect the placebo effect for all saddled with.

In principle, this is a gruesome and very poor idea and an obvious slap in the face to all mental suffering.

Ah, yes. The "arrogance" gambit. Personally, I wonder: Which is more arrogant? pointing out that there is potentially poisonous heavy metal contamination or the person who has the arrogance to assume that faith in an Ayurvedic healer can mitigate the toxicity of those metals?

So why am I making a such a big deal out of this? What's the big deal, anyway? Can't we all just get along?

In a word, no.

Now, no one around here claims that we ScienceBloggers are all above reproach and unfailingly brilliant, that we're all saintly, or that we never, ever write stupid things. Certainly, I don't, and certainly I've never claimed not to have fallen prey to my own personal foibles, resulting in the occasional dubious (or in retrospect completely embarrassing) post. And certainly, there have been quite a few times when I've strongly, even violently disagreed with something that a fellow ScienceBlogger has written and said so, even just last week. Nor would I pretend that I like every ScienceBlogger (regular readers will have an idea of who falls into the categories of ScienceBloggers I like or can't stand), and I certainly don't expect that every ScienceBlogger will like me (at least one doesn't). You can't have more than seventy people under one collective without personality clashes and substantive disagreements popping up, and we've had more than our share of drama, some of which I've contributed to. However, mere disagreements are not what I'm talking about here. Personal dislike has nothing to do with it, as I had never heard of the two bloggers in question before last weekend. No, this is a matter of protecting the ScienceBlogs name and brand. It's all about quality.

Perhaps I'm ridiculously naïve, but I always thought that, whatever our fractious behavior and arguments over religion or politics or even scientific issues (which, let's face it, are often full of sound and fury, signifying nothing), one thing ScienceBlogs stands for is communicating what good science is to the masses and why it's so cool. I've also assumed that what it stands against is pseudoscience and misinformation. My complaint is not a matter of scientific disagreement or being annoyed by a couple of contrarians defending positions that are weak and not well-supported by the evidence. It is about clear and obvious misinformation about what science says about vaccines, autism, ADHD, and disease published under the banner of ScienceBlogs. In the case of Peter Artmann, it is about a ScienceBlogger who defends obvious quackery and makes utterly unscientific assertions while doing so. I don't know about my fellow ScienceBloggers, be they English- or German-speaking, but I don't like being associated with two such bloggers. I don't like it at all. As much as I hate to say it, we clearly have a problem in our German division.

What I hate to say even more is that the leadership of our German division does not appear to "get it." Indeed, Jessica Riccò, one of the editors of ScienceBlogs Germany, showed up in the comments to complain. I was disappointed to see that she apparently does not know that Rethinking AIDS is an HIV/AIDS denialist organization. Worse, she makes arguments from authority in pointing out that Ehgartner has apparently written for mainstream German publications. Unfortunately, by that criteria, David Kirby (who's freelanced for the New York Times) or Dan Olmsted (who, remember, used to write for UPI) would qualify as excellent ScienceBloggers. Worse, she argues that because Ehgartner has never denied that HIV causes AIDS or urged parents not to vaccinate on ScienceBlogs.de itself, it's OK to have him there, while labeling the criticism against him a "fatuous witch hunt." By that definition, I suppose it would be fine to have Peter Duesberg blog for ScienceBlogs too, as long as he doesn't write about his HIV/AIDS "skepticism," or for Mark Geier and Boyd Haley to join the collective, as long as they don't urge parents not to vaccinate. Heck, why not invite Dr. Michael Egnor to blog about neuroscience, as long as he doesn't mention evolution? He is a neurosurgeon, after all. True, maybe such a situation wouldn't be as bad as letting the antivaccine blog Age of Autism or the HIV/AIDS denialist blog HIV/AIDS Skepticism join the collective, but it would still damage the ScienceBlogs brand, and it sullies all the other excellent scientific, medical, and skeptical bloggers housed both on the U.S. and German versions of ScienceBlogs. Besides, why should we settle for "least bad" rather than actively promoting and fostering excellence? In any case, the argument that a ScienceBlogger can be a crank or support quackery as long as he does not advocate crankery and quackery on ScienceBlogs does not hold up in the face of Peter Artmann, who is clearly arguing for dangerous quackery by telling his readers that heavy metal in their Ayurvedic herbal remedies is not harmful, as long as an Ayurvedic healer directs their use. People could suffer heavy metal poisoning as a result of following such advice, and that advice appeared on ScienceBlogs.de.

In the end, I sincerely hope that The Powers That Be, both here in the U.S. and in Germany, view the identification of these two dubious bloggers as an opportunity to define what the scientific standards should be for ScienceBloggers. I realize that there has been a fair amount of whining and wringing of hands in the comments, in which the ever-reliable logical fallacy of the slippery slope argument has led a couple of commenters to ask "But where do you draw the line? Where will it all end?" This is accompanied with the suggestion that enforcing some standards against obvious pseudoscience will inevitably lead to the censoring of posts that stray from a ScienceBlogs-imposed political and scientific orthodoxy and muzzling any blogger with controversial views. Bullshit. I'm not referring to scientific controversies, no matter how contentious. I'm referring to obvious pseudoscience, like homeopathy--like claiming that the metals in Ayruvedic medicines won't hurt you if a magic yogi administers them. The slippery slope argument is far more often than not a logical fallacy, and its invocation nearly always an argument for doing nothing. I see no evidence that it is anything different here. Enforcing minimal standards does not inevitably lead to mass censorship, and I would hope that a minimal standard we can agree on is "no consistent advocacy or promotion of obvious pseudoscience (homepathy, creationism, Holocaust denial, 9/11 Truther conspiracy theories, perpetual motion machines, etc.) on ScienceBlogs."

Is that so much to ask? I don't think so. What about you?

----------------------------------------------

Comments

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2008, 08:21:47 AM »

----------------------------------------------
Comments

Note that the slippery slope argument works both ways: If Artmann and Ehgartner are allowed to write for science blogs, why not holocaust deniers? After all, they have "scientific" meetings (in Teheran).

Posted by: Thomas Xavier | December 2, 2008 8:50 AM

----------------------------------------------

I mostly agree, but I'd find it a bit tough to just kick out those guys. A nicer solution can be considered. A new platform should be created, named not ScienceBlogs but PseudoScienceBlogs. And they should be automatically transferred to it. Now, how Seed could be convinced to sponsor such a move, I'm not quite sure. But it should be possible, as it currently has no problem hosting the guys.

Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 2, 2008 9:40 AM

----------------------------------------------

Thanks for pointing out, that neurological differences shouldn't be called "brain damage"
FYI, Artmann called psychiatric wards "nuthouses".
I'm amazed, that the German science community doesn't find that at all offensive.

Posted by: The Gonzo Girl | December 2, 2008 9:53 AM

----------------------------------------------

...Peter Artmann, who is clearly arguing for dangerous quackery by telling his readers that heavy metal in their Ayurvedic herbal remedies is not harmful, as long as an Ayurvedic healer directs their use. People could suffer heavy metal poisoning as a result of following such advice...
But people have suffered heavy metal poisoning as a result of such advice, as I mentioned in an entry I wrote about this yesterday. So-called "folk medicines," including the Ayurvedic hoodoo, has been implicated in literally thousands of heavy metal poisonings in the US. More about that here, but just a snippet:
Traditional medicines may account for up to 30 percent of all childhood lead poisoning cases in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates 240,000 U.S. children were diagnosed with high blood lead levels in 2004 to 2006.

Many more cases are almost certainly going undetected. Only 14 percent of children are tested for lead nationwide...

That these sorts of things should find a pulpit on ScienceBlogs.de is unconscionable, and whomever made the decision to allow them on there should no longer have the responsibility of making such decisions at all.

Posted by: Mike O'Risal | December 2, 2008 9:56 AM

----------------------------------------------

"Note also how Ehgartner refers to the changes in the brain that this study found in boys with ADHD as "brain damage." I don't know if that's a mistranslation or not, but it sure doesn't sound good."

The german word he used was "Hirnschädigungen" which indeed translates "brain damage".

Posted by: florian | December 2, 2008 9:57 AM

----------------------------------------------

Eventually something will have to be done about this, preferably involving testing Ayruvedic remedies on german science bloggers....

For now I think the best option for now is just to encourage german readers to keep an eye on them, so we can baet them around the head with The Big Stick Of Science (patent pending) when ever they say something dumb.

Anyone got info on Jessice Ricco? Editors supportive of this sort of stupidity are a much bigger issue.

Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 10:04 AM

----------------------------------------------

Eventually something will have to be done about this, preferably involving testing Ayruvedic remedies on german science bloggers....

Heh...

Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 10:17 AM

----------------------------------------------

"It is about clear and obvious misinformation about what science says about vaccines, autism, ADHD, and disease published under the banner of ScienceBlogs. In the case of Peter Artmann, it is about a ScienceBlogger who defends obvious quackery and makes utterly unscientific assertions while doing so. I don't know about my fellow ScienceBloggers, be they English- or German-speaking, but I don't like being associated with two such bloggers. I don't like it at all. As much as I hate to say it, we clearly have a problem in our German division."

I have a blog in the German division of SB and I totally agree with this statement!

Posted by: florian | December 2, 2008 10:24 AM

----------------------------------------------

Fortunately, the aluminum-ADHD puzzle has been solved now.
http://www.scienceblogs.de/kritisch-gedacht/2008/12/aluminium-adhs.php

Posted by: Ulrich | December 2, 2008 10:24 AM

----------------------------------------------

Eventually something will have to be done about this, preferably involving testing Ayruvedic remedies on german science bloggers...
Well for the sake of reciprocity and fairness this also requires that everyone else is thoroughly vaccinated...

Where do I register? I need a few antivir updates anyway.

Posted by: Fischer | December 2, 2008 11:11 AM

----------------------------------------------

Eventually something will have to be done about this, preferably involving testing Ayruvedic remedies on german science bloggers...
For the sake of reciprocity and fairness this also requires that everyone else is thoroughly vaccinated...

Where do I register? I need a few antivir updates anyway.

Posted by: Fischer | December 2, 2008 11:15 AM

----------------------------------------------

For a virologist I just made a copy of the clinical course of a boy with measles who ist in coma since 12.Oct 2007 due to the measles complication SSPE. Until now we have 443 measles cases in 2008 all originated from unvaccinated students in an anhroposophic Steiner school. Total america had 165 cases in 2007.

And here is another piece of Bert Ehgartner- he posted it in the guest book of an anti-vaccine group around 2005.

Translation: In life unfortunately not all things are black or white. I repeat my arguments to mesales. Measles today has nearly nothing to do with the disease measles 20 yrs ago. Caused by immunizations measles appears more frequently in age groups, where the complication rate is significantly increased: In children below 12 month (because immunized mothers give less protection to their babys) in adolescents and in adults. So the measles immunization has caused that a harmless childrens disesae- when good care is given- has changed to a disease with frequent complications. Instead of contributing to the maturation of the immune system of the child and of contributing to the psychic development in toodlers age, the disease is weaker due to immunization, hardly has a positive effect on the immune system and carrys the risk of chronic gut disease, and the causation of severe autoimmundiseases

and here the original text in German

Aber im Leben ist leider nicht alles nur schwarz oder nur weiß. Ich wiederhole nochmal meine Argumentation zur Masern: Masern heute hat mit der Krankheit Masern vor 20 Jahren fast nichts mehr gemeinsam. Durch die Impfkampagnen tritt Masern heute vermehrt in Altersgruppen auf, wo die Komplikationsrate wesentlich erhöht ist: Bei Kindern unter 12 Monaten (weil geimpfte Mütter ihren Babys weniger Schutz weitergeben), sowie bei Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen. Damit hat die Masernimpfung aus einer - bei guter Pflege - harmlosen Kinderkrankheit eine komplikationsreiche Krankheit gemacht. Anstatt zur Reifung des kindlichen Immunsystem und zur psychischen Entwicklung im Vorschulalter beizutragen, verläuft die Masern in folge der Impfung abgeschwächt, hat kaum einen positiven Effekt auf das Immunsystem und birgt das Risiko chronischer Darmentzündungen, sowie die Auslösung schwerer Autoimmunerkrankungen (z.B: Autismus).

in summary this is dangerous bullshit.

Posted by: wolfgang | December 2, 2008 11:24 AM

----------------------------------------------

Die dummen Brände hell

Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | December 2, 2008 11:33 AM

----------------------------------------------

As a fellow ScienceBlogs.de blogger, I have followed these discussions (here and over at ScienceBlogs.de) for a few days now. Since I am a computer scientist, who knows jack about medicine, I generally do not blog about medical issues or feel compelled to discuss them.

However, it seems very odd to me, that you would actually link someone who writes an article about aluminum in vaccines - no matter how wrong this article may be - to a Holocaust denier. This is an ad hominem argument so unjust, it makes the Ehrgartner article look much better than it actually is. To compare people with scientificly questionable views (antivax, homeopathy etc.) to actual hate groups such as Holocaust deniers, is certainly not the kind of response you would expect in an academic discussion.

Furthermore, I fail to understand why none of the people who are obviously very agitated by Ehrgartners arguments would bother to just compile a bunch of links to scientific, peer-reviewed studies, that devalidate his claims. Instead of comparing Ehrgartner to a Holocaust denier and demanding that every blogger, who makes an antivax statement be fired from ScienceBlogs, would it not be a much more proper and more scientific way to refute his claims using scientific references?

"An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes."
- Marcus Porcius Cato

Posted by: Christian | December 2, 2008 11:33 AM

----------------------------------------------

I would love to offer myself up to scienceblogs to write about the value of the four humors theory of medicine.

It is a long established, traditional medical "theory" with a long history of successful treatment (in that practitioners had a history of being paid for their services) until it was supplanted by evidence based medicine.

Since there are a handful of diseases, disorders, injuries and poisonings for which bleeding and emesis are actually called for by evidence based medicine, all of the four humor's treatments must be valid, and if you disagree, then you just haven't been bled by the right person.

I demand to be heard, even if I don't believe in what I would be writing.

[Yes, that was sarcasm]

Posted by: Robster, FCD | December 2, 2008 11:37 AM

----------------------------------------------

To be honest, I think this was always going to be the problem with this kind of blogging project. As soon as you allow a single popular magazine to become the hub of science blogging, you end up subject to their whims.

Realistically, the best thing you can do I think is to get someone at Seed onside, or just club together with some colleagues and threaten to walk.

Posted by: Martin | December 2, 2008 11:40 AM

----------------------------------------------

Jepp Florian, I'm with you. Particularly the statement from Jessica was really disappointing and disturbing. I mean, why the hell do we waste precious time to battle anti-science, quackery and scientific misinformation on Scienceblogs.de, again? Not only do have we at least one person sprouting the worst sort of nonsense under the disguise of science right within our midst, the editor also defends him on the basis of his "outstanding" and shining past accomplishments as science writer for the news paper.

I couldn't care less. Bullshit is bullshit and still smells of shit, no matter who excretes it.

I'm tired and I'm frustrated and I'm seriously considering quitting altogether. If anti-science is not only invited but actually defended with very dubious arguments, then Scienceblogs.de is already rotten to the core. And that in the first year of its launch.

BTW. Scienceblogs.de is maintained by Burda media not SEED. A large german publishing company.

Posted by: Ludmila | December 2, 2008 11:46 AM

----------------------------------------------

Christian, to find the arguments you are looking for, see Orac's blog. Heck, a google of scienceblogs.com and vaccination will do. Seriously. Orac has deconstructed this particular nonsense time and time again, with extensive references. It's Ehgartner who hasn't done his homework.

perceval, a fellow computer scientist

----------------------------------------------

Posted by: perceval | December 2, 2008 11:49 AM

@Christian

may I correct you: Bert Ehgartner ist not at all a holocaust denier. He undersigned the rethinkers, who claim that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

Posted by: wolfgang | December 2, 2008 11:49 AM

----------------------------------------------

Christian, the use of "denial" and "denialist" are partly due to the clumsy English language.

HIV denial is referred to as such because proponents deny the evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS. We have yet to come up with a word that is more appropriate without being crudely vulgar.

Also, the peer reviewed evidence is known to many of us, and is present in many of Orac's links. I'd love to put a few together, but I am supposed to be grading lab reports, but am an extraordinary procrastinator, and am doing what I do best.

Posted by: Robster, FCD | December 2, 2008 11:50 AM

----------------------------------------------

https://twitter.com/Scienceblogs/status/1034440130

Posted by: Tobias | December 2, 2008 11:51 AM

----------------------------------------------

Jepp Florian, I'm with you. Particularly the statement from Jessica was really disappointing and disturbing. I mean, why the hell do we waste precious time to battle anti-science, quackery and scientific on Scienceblogs.de, again? Not only do have we at least one person sprouting the worst sort of nonsense under the disguise of science right within our midst, the editor also defends him on the basis of his "outstanding" and shining past accomplishments as science writer for the news paper.

I couldn't care less. Bullshit is bullshit and still smells of shit, no matter who excretes it.

I'm tired and I'm frustrated and I'm seriously considering quitting altogether. If anti-science is not only invited but actually defended with very dubious arguments, then Scienceblogs.de is already rotten to the core. And that already in the first year of its launch.

BTW. Scienceblogs.de is maintained by Burda media not SEED. A large german publishing company.

Posted by: Ludmila | December 2, 2008 11:52 AM

----------------------------------------------

However, it seems very odd to me, that you would actually link someone who writes an article about aluminum in vaccines - no matter how wrong this article may be - to a Holocaust denier. This is an ad hominem argument so unjust, it makes the Ehrgartner article look much better than it actually is. To compare people with scientificly questionable views (antivax, homeopathy etc.) to actual hate groups such as Holocaust deniers, is certainly not the kind of response you would expect in an academic discussion.

You misunderstand.

The comparison to Holocaust denial is not meant to call Ehgartner a Nazi. It is to point out that he uses the same sorts of logical fallacies, misrepresentations of evidence and science, and dubious assertions to make his case as Holocaust deniers do. Holocaust deniers. In this I consider Holocaust deniers to be of a type with other types of pseudoscience, including creationism, quackery, paranormal phenomena, etc. It is not calling anyone a Nazi or anti-Semite; it is pointing out commonalities among cranks.

In case you doubt my blogging credentials on this, note that I have a long history of speaking out against Holocaust denial, and I daresay that I probably know more about Holocaust denial than you do:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/history/holocaust_denial

Given that history, I am well aware of how toxic the term can be and have in the past urged caution in using it:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/11/denialism_sometimes_theres_no_other_way.php

However, that being said, we should not shy away from lumping this very pernicious form of denialism in with other forms of denialism when appropriate just because of its connotation of anti-Semitism and Hitler apologia, either. It fits. Indeed, Michael Shermer did just that in his book Why People Believe Weird Things:

http://skepdic.com/refuge/weird.html

I view Holocaust denial as being the same as a lot of other pseudoscience, including creationism, quackery, various forms of paranormal pseudoscience, etc., in that it uses the same sorts of fallacious and pseudoscientific arguments, nothing more. Substitute the word "creationist" if you like.

Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 11:54 AM

----------------------------------------------

@wolfgang: I know that he associated himself with that weird group. But when did he undersign the rethinkers? Last year, two years ago, five years ago? I could not find any hint on their website. And does his signature mean that he should be automatically banned from ScienceBlogs for life?

I am not against calling out Ehrgartner for his claims. I just question the tone. We should really make an effort to argue with people we do not agree with in a somewhat civil manner. I know I fail that test sometimes, too. But all the agression and the anger directed against this one person...

Posted by: Christian | December 2, 2008 11:58 AM

----------------------------------------------

Asking for studies to look? Not a big problem.
Claiming a connection despite existing studies showing provisional falsification? Problem.
Claiming any opposition is because of "big pharma"? BIG problem.

Feel free to keep looking, so long as you keep publishing the "still nothing here" papers. But don't take the mockery as anything but your just due for looking in an apparent dead-end; just say "Fools, I'll show you all!!!" (with optional maniacal laugh), get back to work, and be sure to mention the mockers by name at your awards acceptance speeches if/when you solidly prove your conjecture.

Posted by: abb3w | December 2, 2008 12:00 PM

----------------------------------------------

And does his signature mean that he should be automatically banned from ScienceBlogs for life?

Not necessarily, but he sure as hell should have to explain himself, and if he no longer believes in "rethinking AIDS" he should tell RA to take his name off of its website. That's a start.

As for the "aggression and anger," I'm actually more annoyed with Peter Artmann now than Bert Ehgartner. Artmann is explicitly advocating quackery.

Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 12:00 PM

----------------------------------------------

@Christian: "it seems very odd to me, that you would actually link someone who writes an article about aluminum in vaccines - no matter how wrong this article may be - to a Holocaust denier." Who did so? It certainly wasn't me. If you think so, read my post again. I actually came to Artmanns and Ehgartners defence when they were linked with Hamer.

"Furthermore, I fail to understand why none of the people who are obviously very agitated by Ehrgartners arguments would bother to just compile a bunch of links to scientific, peer-reviewed studies, that devalidate his claims."
But people did so in the comments to their articles and Ulrich did so, too.
http://www.scienceblogs.de/kritisch-gedacht/2008/12/aluminium-adhs.php

Just a personal note: I have seen what AIDS-Denialism does. I have no understanding whatsoever for people who peddle dangerous unscientific nonsense in medicine. And although I have been fighting holocaust denialists for some time now and although these people are the most despicable rabid morons ever, at least nobody dies from their sick lies.

Posted by: Jane | December 2, 2008 12:06 PM

----------------------------------------------

@Orac: I know that your mentioning of Holocaust denialism does not mean that you called Ehrgartner a Nazi. Still, it is a remarkably crass connotation. I doubt that I would ever feel compelled to make that kind of comparison even when confronted with the most hideously false statements in my area of research.

Anyway, the discussion is moot now, since Ehrgartner has been fired from ScienceBlogs already due to the outrage over his aluminum article. I somewhat doubt that this is the best possible decision but so be it.

Posted by: Christian | December 2, 2008 12:11 PM

----------------------------------------------

@christian.

When you look at the list of people who singned the rethinker list you will find Bert Ehgartner making advertisment for his first book "Die Lebensformel" this book was launched in 2004.

So he must have signed after this date. If Ehgartner want to get off the list he could immideately cancel his signature.

Posted by: Wolfgang | December 2, 2008 12:15 PM

----------------------------------------------

Christian, dude, before you make an ass of yourself-- search SciBlogs for 'vaccination' 'thermisol' 'autism' 'HIV' 'denialism', etc.

Several of us over here have had anti-vaxers/HIV Deniers/woo peddlers in our cross-hairs for years (me, Orac, Aetiology, Denialsim Blog, etc).

This might be a new topic to you, but its old as the hills for us-- we spend a considerable amount of time and effort explaining the science of these topics to normal people to combat the idiocy of the tards you have on German SciBlogs.

We are pretty damn pissed off.

Posted by: ERV | December 2, 2008 12:26 PM

----------------------------------------------

Christian, The cause of any dismissal is due to what he wrote, which was patently irresponsible and plainly false, not the reaction to it.

Posted by: Robster, FCD | December 2, 2008 12:27 PM

----------------------------------------------

Cristian, your area of reserch is computer science this is medicine we're talking about, HIV/AIDS denial is causing a holocaust of it's own in some parts of the world. In medicine psuedo-science kills people, in computers it just means you've bought vista.

Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 12:29 PM

----------------------------------------------

This may be the impetus I need to brush up on my German. :-P

Posted by: Aaron Golas | December 2, 2008 12:30 PM

----------------------------------------------

Anyway, the discussion is moot now, since Ehrgartner has been fired from ScienceBlogs already due to the outrage over his aluminum article. I somewhat doubt that this is the best possible decision but so be it.

Actually, if this is true, I'm not entirely sure the worst offender is gone. In the two days since I first posted, I've--shall we say?--done some "rethinking" (sorry, couldn't resist). That rethinking has led me to believe that Peter Artmann might well be a worse offender than Bert Ehgartner as far as peddling pseudoscience goes.

Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 12:34 PM

----------------------------------------------

Almost sad that he's gone (Ehrgartner) I'd just come up with a plan to sneak my experiment passed an ethics comitte...

Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 12:45 PM

----------------------------------------------

In medicine psuedo-science kills people, in computers it just means you've bought vista.

Ramel, I may have to steal that line. It's hilarious.

Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 12:47 PM

----------------------------------------------

Feel free, but if it makes you a profit I want a cut

Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 1:08 PM

----------------------------------------------

In order for me to get worried that booting these crackpots from ScienceBlogs would impede the discussion here, I'd have to be presented with a legitimate grey area. Arguing over the side effects of a particular drug, or debating the interpretation of a particular set of animal-intelligence experiments, is insignificant next to the wholesale denial of modern science implicit in endorsing Ayurvedic "medicine". By way of analogy, imagine that ScienceBlogs.de had hired an astrologer (perhaps even a Vedic one). Would kicking them off the site hamper the discussions among real astronomers about whether liquid water exists on Saturn's moon Enceladus? Of course not. Would it have a "chilling effect" on the (largely political) argument over whether to continue manned spaceflight? I highly doubt it.

So, when Orac says the following:
I realize that there has been a fair amount of whining and wringing of hands in the comments, in which the ever-reliable logical fallacy of the slippery slope argument has led a couple of commenters to ask "But where do you draw the line? Where will it all end?" This is accompanied with the suggestion that enforcing some standards against obvious pseudoscience will inevitably lead to the censoring of posts that stray from a ScienceBlogs-imposed political and scientific orthodoxy and muzzling any blogger with controversial views. Bullshit.

I fully agree.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 2, 2008 1:10 PM

----------------------------------------------

https://twitter.com/Scienceblogs/status/1034440130

..good bye Bert Ehgartner !

Posted by: Conrad | December 2, 2008 1:16 PM

----------------------------------------------

Ramelk said,

"Cristian, your area of reserch [sic.]is computer science this is medicine we're talking about, HIV/AIDS denial is causing a holocaust of it's own in some parts of the world. In medicine psuedo-science kills people, in computers it just means you've bought vista."

I don't mean to cause a war between disciplines, but I am also a computer scientist* and I think you're mistaken about more than one of your claims.


* - Though I prefer the term "cognitive scientist" as I research A.I., cognitive psychology, philosophy, and some neuroscience. It also has the benefit of immunizing myself from questions like, "My computer's task bar disappeared, how do I restore it?"

First, I don't think that because one is from outside the medical profession that they cannot research, and learn about manufactured controversies; such as HIV/AIDS denial, or anti-vaccination. I think science bloggers like Orac do a great deal to help me understand the issue, and I think this has helped me pursue additional sources for edifying myself on the issue. I do think that we should be humble about this knowledge, as we don't have the many years of experience Orac has in the medical profession, but I don't think we should be afraid of discussing the topics at a "popular science" level of framing with our friends and family, distinguished medical experts, or if we should ever encounter an anti-vaccination movement in our local communities, our local newspapers and politicians.

Second, in computer science, bad methods can kill people. Computers are utilized throughout the world. They're utilized for the defense of numerous nations, the stability of our infrastructure, transportation, search and rescue, disaster management, and yes, even the medical profession. These devices needs to meet certain standards or people die. It's crass to suggest that computer scientists don't have to worry about human lives, just operating system functionality (which also, might cost human lives if it fails at an inopportune time).

Third, your science is supported by computer scientists that work on developing, and improving medical imaging technology and software. It's also supported by data analysis tools and large scale data management. We'd never be able to analyze the vast amount of genomic data we have on the variety of viruses without the aid of the computer scientists that develop these tools:

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/11/scale_how_large_quantities_of.php

Similar issues of analysis, and scale can be found in other scientific disciplines.

Forth, our field is not immune from quackery. See this software retailer scamming consumers with his "homeopathic" computer software, and the subsequent debunking by a computer scientist:

Lardge J, "Salt lamp: heated Himalayan salt improves your health" in There Goes the Science Bit..., Sense About Science, 2007. pg. 5

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/voys/theregoesthesciencebit.pdf

Posted by: MKandefer | December 2, 2008 1:32 PM

----------------------------------------------

"Ramel, I may have to steal that line. It's hilarious."

Orac, you disappoint me. =(

Posted by: MKandefer | December 2, 2008 1:36 PM

----------------------------------------------

Christian: you don't consider willfully spreading misinformation that has been proven to harm people crass?

Odd.

Posted by: StuV | December 2, 2008 1:37 PM

----------------------------------------------

In medicine psuedo-science kills people, in computers it just means you've bought vista.

Ramel, I may have to steal that line. It's hilarious.

Orac, you are a computer. Have you considered what would happen if you were loaded with MSWinVista?

(And, yes, that line's a keeper.)

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 1:37 PM

----------------------------------------------

What if an Ayurvedic practitioner administers mercury-containing vaccines? Would that be all right?

Posted by: windy | December 2, 2008 1:43 PM

----------------------------------------------

@Christian:

I think you've been reading our friend Nisbet too seriously. It's not our fault that these guys are arguing *like* neo-Nazis. They are continuing to use debunked lines of argument, ignoring new evidence that's contradictory to their views, stubbornly clinging to their conclusions despite scientific consensuses (consensi?) to the contrary ... all classic denialist strategies.

They're putting themselves in line with holocaust deniers with their BS-filled arguments.

Posted by: bob | December 2, 2008 1:56 PM

----------------------------------------------

Now, no one around here claims that we ScienceBloggers are all above reproach and unfailingly brilliant, that we're all saintly, or that we never, ever write stupid things. Certainly, I don't, and certainly I've never claimed not to have fallen prey to my own personal foibles, resulting in the occasional dubious (or in retrospect completely embarrassing) post. And certainly, there have been quite a few times when I've strongly, even violently disagreed with something that a fellow ScienceBlogger has written and said so, even just last week.

Oh, sure - provide a link to an example of the second but not the first. What fun is that?

Posted by: SC | December 2, 2008 2:10 PM

----------------------------------------------

MKandefer:

As one CS to another, lighten up. It was a cute throwaway line.

Of course bad software can kill. More than twenty years ago our office had a poster on the wall of a pilot punching out of an F-16 in flight, with the caption
Fly-by-Wire gives a whole new meaning to the term 'System Crash.'


More recently, a good bit of our current economic meltdown seems to be the result of financial-system software with unexamined premises and dubious logic -- and that's closer to pseudo-science rather than just bad execution of good science. Before anyone goes all holy on "lives vs. mere money," keep in mind that there are always tradeoffs. A billion here and a billion there just might make the difference between life and death for someone.

Still, it's a great line.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 2:10 PM

----------------------------------------------

windy:
What if an Ayurvedic practitioner administers mercury-containing vaccines? Would that be all right?

Congratulations, you've won The Internet!

. . .

Following up on what I said in my last comment, it occurs to me that the presence of these antiscientific crackpots can itself cause a "chilling effect", if for no other reason that we science bloggers are doing this gig in our copious free time. The more we have to smack down pseudoscience and pseudomedicine, the less time we have to actually have fun and spread a positive message about science. You think the internecine quarrels among English-speaking SciBlings are bad, and that our recurring sound-and-fury exchanges are too boring to read anymore? Imagine that, but significantly worse.

If the only purpose of a science blog were to bash creationists, I for one would have gotten tired of the hobby a long time ago. (The same goes for the idea that the primary aim of science blogging is and should be "gee whiz! science is shiny!" cheerleading.) I don't want to have to deal with blatant nonsense and the unsinkable rubber ducks who espouse it any more than I have to, and having these loonballs under the ScienceBlogs banner would certainly shift the balance of obligation in the direction I would not enjoy.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 2, 2008 2:34 PM

----------------------------------------------

D.C. says,

"As one CS to another, lighten up. It was a cute throwaway line. [...] Still, it's a great line."

I'm less concerned with the quote, than the context it was offered in, which was to malign computer scientists as outsiders to medicine, incapable of contributing to the discussion. I also wasn't trying to focus on bad software, which as you appropriately point out is related to pseudoscience, but also good software which is used exclusively for the purpose of saving lives, such as disaster management software. It might have been a "cute throwaway line", and I may need to lighten up, but that doesn't make the line (in the context it was offered in) any less false.

Posted by: MKandefer | December 2, 2008 2:38 PM
I'm less concerned with the quote, than the context it was offered in, which was to malign computer scientists as outsiders to medicine, incapable of contributing to the discussion.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

I am a CS (among other things) and as Orac omnisciently knows have been slugging it out with woo merchants for more than a decade. I even like to think that I sometimes have something positive to contribute on health topics other than anti-woo, but that may be a conceit of an admittedly inflated ego.

Anyone who can reason logically (and one hopes that CS isn't totally destructive to that ability) has lots to contribute, particularly when the "opposition" are the minions of irrationality.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 2:45 PM

----------------------------------------------

To be clear, I'm not putting computer science down and I recognise that when computers fail or are miss-used lives can be lost. The key difference is that medical and biological information is important to all our lives in the most fundimental way (except for orac, living creatures are just his hobby) and bad information can be spread a long way and can exist in the public conciousness for a very long time. Bad information leads people to make bad decisions (and we're back to buying vista), I'm stuck with an OS that I hate untill I can afford to change but a cancer patient that chooses alt med over real med will probably die. Thats the point I'm trying to make. And vista sucks.

Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 2:47 PM

----------------------------------------------

Reading the responses to my comment I feel I should clear up any confusion over myself, I am not a health professional nor did I intend to imply that I was. Like D.C. Sessions I have been following debates on woo and psuedo-science for a long time and I feel (and DC may be right about the ego bit) that I occasionally have something to offer a debate. Usually in the form of cruel and/or unusual snarkyness. And I never pass up an oppertunity to bash vista.

Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 2:57 PM

----------------------------------------------

Thanks Ramel. If I understand your point, you're claiming that everyday choices normal people make with regards to computers have little impact on their health, while they do when it comes to medicine. Fair enough, I can agree with that. However, I would encourage you (and any interest computer scientists) to read this (fixed the reference from the previous post):

Sheldon T, "Computer Clear uses your PC to release over 34,000 different homoeopathic type remedies into you" in There Goes the Science Bit..., Sense About Science, 2007. pg. 5

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/voys/theregoesthesciencebit.pdf

I thought it was interesting that pseudoscience concepts like homeopathy are applied to software in an effort to make a buck. The rationality for mechanism underlying the software is also a hilarious read.

Posted by: MKandefer | December 2, 2008 3:17 PM

----------------------------------------------

Orac you are missing the links in the statement "ones similar to the ones I had taken on here and here."

Posted by: Danimal | December 2, 2008 3:19 PM

----------------------------------------------

MKanefer I think we're on the same page now. That homeopathic software is truly bizzar and it still amazes me even now that people would pay money for a program like that (although it probably works better than a certain OS).

Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 3:52 PM

----------------------------------------------

Hallo, da bin ich.

It's me. The Pater Artmann. Amen. Better known as bad egg and master of half-truths or spoiler of the science's spirit.

So what's the question? Do you think, I say: heavy-metal is not harmful?

That's rubbish.

I say: Ayurveda is not science.

That's why nobody can say it is wrong.
Ayurveda is simply without any rights and rules and everybody can tell: From now on I am an Ayurvedan physician.
Each village builds there own medicines - do you know what's inside their pot? Does Saper know it?

But if you want to fight against something you need to have a target. Where is it?

I have been to some parts of india, maybe you should see it, too.
There is no bad science in Ayurveda. It is just no science at all.
But the most disturbing thing is: People take this kind of medicine ... and they don't get sick.
Often they get better.

I saw it and I am still looking for an explanation. Do you have it?

And by the way ... you are talking about lead, but did you notice the dirt?

Anyway I have put an update in my old post.

http://www.scienceblogs.de/medlog/2008/09/ayurveda-enthalt-blei-ach-nee.php

It's in german.

Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 3:57 PM

----------------------------------------------

Nice of you that you don't recommend for anyone to take toxic heavy metals in lethal doses. What would have helped so would have been a recommendation of staying a mile away of Ayurveda since you can't tell if any of the homebrews contains the poison or not, instead of claiming it's intolerant of us to condemn the use of it. Odd, these scientists and their idea of 21st century != 19th century.

Posted by: Mu | December 2, 2008 4:19 PM

----------------------------------------------

Well, I live in Europe, you live in the states, they live in India. I guess they like their homes and medicines.

I am not going to shoot their physicians.

And in fact, they are not so different from us. Shall I say "stay away from Indians"? They have just a different method to cure people. I am not recommending it.

What about you? Are you going to destroy their pots?

Some time ago the europeans went to america and brought Jesus to native americans. They were certain to bring the best of all medicine.

Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 4:35 PM

----------------------------------------------

Nobody can say it's wrong, eh? But, surely you are saying it's right: those who take such medicine don't get worse, and they often get better. So, if they did get worse, or they didn't get any better, then we'd surely say it's wrong, too.

Everybody should see India for their own personal anecdote, which is how science works anyways.

Posted by: Koray | December 2, 2008 4:50 PM

----------------------------------------------

To the various CS's above: from one CS to the others, that *was* a funny line. As inaccurate as it was funny, but funny nonetheless. Well, there was a grain of truth (which seems to have been recognized universally by now): we don't deal directly with matters of life-and-death, whereas in medical science they do.

Just to throw in an anecdote: when I went from biologist to computer scientist to engineer, I got a lot more dangerous. Whereas at first about the worst I could do was come tumbling out of a forest canopy, maybe bringing a colleague or two with me, now ... let's just say that if I took a homeopathic approach to verifying the correctness of a braking circuit for an automobile, that would do a lot more harm.

Posted by: Thomas | December 2, 2008 4:52 PM

----------------------------------------------

Peter,

I don't know if it's the language barrier or you, but what you just wrote doesn't even make sense.

Of course, what you said in your post about Ayruvedic medicines and heavy metal contamination in the post I linked to didn't make sense either, and there wasn't the excuse of not using your native language.

Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 4:52 PM

----------------------------------------------

But the most disturbing thing is: People take this kind of medicine ... and they don't get sick.

Oh, really?
Often they get better.

I'm sure the placebo effect is a wholly American phenomenon.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 2, 2008 4:54 PM

----------------------------------------------

@Peter: Die Dumm, es brennt!

@Orac: It's an okay summary of his update. You know when you've dug so far down you can barely see the sky? Peter apparently thinks you should keep digging.

Posted by: Thomas | December 2, 2008 5:00 PM

----------------------------------------------

I'm less concerned with the quote, than the context it was offered in, which was to malign computer scientists as outsiders to medicine, incapable of contributing to the discussion.

MKandefer, I might have missed it, but unless I am much mistaken, I'm still the only guest blogger Orac has had, and both my posts where related to health and medicine. Since Orac knows I am a computer scientist, I doubt he seriously consider CS incapable of contributing to the discussion.

It was a funny remark, nothing more.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | December 2, 2008 5:11 PM

----------------------------------------------

I didn't say it's right.

I said I don't understand it.

And I said I don't recommend it.

Maybe its Placebo. I have no explanation.

P. S. I am talking about my experience in india. In Germany our government does not allow medicine with as much lead and arsen as Saper found.

@Blake I guess there are slightly more indians who did not die.

Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 5:13 PM

----------------------------------------------

I think Peter is trying the old "If it's true for you it's not necessarily true for me" philosophy bull.

Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 5:14 PM

----------------------------------------------

@Peter

Peter you are not aware of scientific papers. Ayurvedic medicine makes sich due to heavy metal poisoning, due to e-coli contamination, due to aristolochia acid remedies (a strong carcinogen) due to not standardized production, due to adding mercurials to the remedies and so forth- you gnore the literature. You are not aware of the Belgium nephropathy syndrom where obese ladies made a diet and got kidney cancer- many of them where prophylactically nephrectomezed- dialysis makes people loose weight- correct? So could you agree that the diet was successfull? I can`t

Posted by: wolfgang | December 2, 2008 5:15 PM

----------------------------------------------

Kristjan,

Orac didn't offer the remark, nor the original post I was arguing against. He just said he should keep the quote in mind for future use. I was dissapointed as I thought he was endorsing the view. I think we've resolved the issue with the original author of the quote, and came to the conclusion that it was a miscommunication, and that I should lighten up. Now, let's continue with the "persecution" of the quack. =D

Posted by: MKandefer | December 2, 2008 5:16 PM

----------------------------------------------

Dear Orac,
I am trying again:

There is no Ayurvedan Medicine. There are a thousand ayurvedan medicines.

It seems like some of their medicines are extremely harmful.

But they have never set standards.



Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 5:20 PM

----------------------------------------------

Parts of the update (rough translation):
(...) Das ist nur die eine Seite der Medaille. Auf der anderen Seite gibt es dort fundamentalistisch eingestellte Menschen, die "wissenschaftsgläubig" sind und übereifrig nach "esoterischen" Beiträgen in naturwissenschaftlich-orientierten Gemeinschaften suchen und sich diebisch freuen, wenn sie die Urheber dieser Beiträge als "ungläubig" oder nicht aufgeklärt brandmarken können.
(...)That's just one side of the same coin. On the other side there are fundamentalistically inclined people who are "science-believers" and search fanatically for "esoteric" posts in science-oriented coummities. And then they become fiendishly happy once they can mark the originators of these posts as "infidels" or not enlightened.

Science is not faith-based. You should know that, considering that you are a biologist.
Wie schön und tolerant ist doch Europa, denkt man da. Doch ganz sicher ist man auch hier nicht, denn ob ihr es glaubt oder nicht- sogar ich bin jetzt in genau dieses Feuer mit meinem alten Beitrag über Ayurveda geraten.

One muses how nice and tolerant Europe is.
But, believe it or not, one isn't totally safe here, either - even I was drawn into this fire with my old post about Ayurveda


Poor you. If you don't want to get called out for your stupidity, don't write stupid things.
5. In unserer freiheitlich liebenden europäischen Kultur wissen wir jedoch auch, dass das erste Mittel gegen Syphilis auf Arsen basierte und dass nahezu alles, was wir heute verdammen, vor gar nicht allzu langer Zeit auch hierzulande als Medikament eingesetzt wurde. Es gibt deshalb keinen Grund auf die Medizinsysteme anderer Länder verächtlich herabzublicken.
5. In our liberty-loving, European Culture, we are well aware, that the first Syphilis cure was based on arsenic. And that almost anything we are condemning today was, until recently, used here as medicine, too. That's why there's no reason to be condescending towards the medical systems of other countries.

Yeah, liberty sure has a long tradition in European Culture, eh? And there's a difference between drugs based on something and drugs consisting of something. And yes, there was pseudoscientific medicine in Europe, but guess what? We got rid of that! That's the whole point - the methods which were used did more harm than good and were discarded. Easy, huh? Why should we even be respectful towards a medical system that has no plausible mechanism, hurts more people than it heals (by far) and has shown nothing a placebo couldn't do just as well (maybe without the accidental deaths...)
6. Europäische Toleranz bedeutet mehr als Haschrauchen in den Niederlanden.
6. European tolerance is more than just smoking weed in the Netherlands.

Tolerating something doesn't mean one can't criticize it.

Posted by: DCP | December 2, 2008 5:29 PM

----------------------------------------------

@Peter- Ayurvedic medicines are often dangerous, have no quality standards, and don't work. If they did work real medicine would be doing the same thing.

Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 5:34 PM

----------------------------------------------

(...)That's just one side of the same coin. On the other side there are fundamentalistically inclined people who are "science-believers" and search fanatically for "esoteric" posts in science-oriented coummities. And then they become fiendishly happy once they can mark the originators of these posts as "infidels" or not enlightened.

Ah, yes, the old "Science is just another religion" fallacy, combined with a bit of the ol' "You're just mean" gambit.

All added on top of his previous "You have to believe in woo for it to work."

Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 5:36 PM

----------------------------------------------

It's ok to criticize me.

I have no problem with that. In fact, I am blogging.

From my point of view it's not bad science.

Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 5:38 PM

----------------------------------------------

From my point of view it's not bad science.

And that's exactly the problem.

Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 5:41 PM

----------------------------------------------

From my point of view it's not bad science.
Says Ken Ham... oops, I've mistaken you for somebody else...

Posted by: DCP | December 2, 2008 5:42 PM

----------------------------------------------

I am talking about my experience in india. In Germany our government does not allow medicine with as much lead and arsen as Saper found.

and
There is no Ayurvedan Medicine. There are a thousand ayurvedan medicines.
It seems like some of their medicines are extremely harmful.
But they have never set standards.

So, do you think that standards are good for one country but not the other? Or are the German standards bad?

Posted by: windy | December 2, 2008 5:43 PM

----------------------------------------------

Nice,

so you have an answer to my questions?



Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 5:43 PM

----------------------------------------------

It's an okay summary of his update. You know when you've dug so far down you can barely see the sky? Peter apparently thinks you should keep digging.

Nonsense. If you find you've dug yourself into a hole too deep to shovel the dirt out, then it's time to start using explosives.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 5:46 PM

----------------------------------------------

I think standards are good, because if you have standards, than you can argue.

In Germany we always had very restrictive laws concering medicines. That was good and helpful.


Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 5:49 PM

----------------------------------------------

"Ayurveda is not science. That's why nobody can say it is wrong."

What?!?! Ayurveda being unscientific is what *makes* it wrong! It's nothing but anecdotes about random treatments, as you just explained!

Gah! Between this and PZ's recent post about Ray Comfort, I need to take a break from ScienceBlogs ... there's too much BS to handle! (BS being reported on, that is.)

Posted by: bob | December 2, 2008 5:50 PM

----------------------------------------------

Well, from a particular point of view, you could agree that it's not bad science -- but that's because it's not science at all.

I think the phrase "not even wrong" comes into play here....

Posted by: G Barnett | December 2, 2008 5:51 PM

----------------------------------------------

Sure, the philosophy/religion behind Ayurveda is not science. But this does not mean that all of its claims are untestable = outside of the realm of science.

That should be obvious. Especially to a PhD student.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 2, 2008 5:51 PM

----------------------------------------------

"so you have an answer to my questions?"

State them clearly, and we'll answer them.

It amazes me that this is heading for 80 comments when the more interesting and important post on breast cancer only got 8.... I sometimes think we need to sort out our priorities.... Then vista breaks again and I have more important problems to worry about.

Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 5:52 PM
I think standards are good, because if you have standards, than you can argue.
In Germany we always had very restrictive laws concering medicines. That was good and helpful.

So why can't we criticise the lack of standards in Ayurvedic medicine? Standards are good, but we can't argue at all until there are standards? Just trying to follow you here.

Posted by: windy | December 2, 2008 5:55 PM

----------------------------------------------

Peter, do you have any evidence that it works? Other than hearsay and anecdote?

When I was working on my degree in toxicology, I had as classmates two doctors from India. Both of them decried the levels of heavy metal poisoning caused by Ayurvedic medicine. What you observed is apparently not the same as what the medical professionals of India are observing.

-------

Orac, I may have found some woo for you to look at when this dies down. Apparently, there are some chiropractors who think that spine cracking is a treatment for shingles...

Posted by: Robster, FCD | December 2, 2008 5:56 PM

----------------------------------------------

Well, I live in Europe, you live in the states, they live in India. I guess they like their homes [?] and medicines.

Who are "they"? Everyone in India is in complete agreement?
I am not going to shoot their physicians.

And in fact, they are not so different from us. Shall I say "stay away from Indians"? They have just a different method to cure people. I am not recommending it.

What about you? Are you going to destroy their pots?

Scientists pointing to the lack of demonstrated effectiveness and the dangers and calling for evidence in support of an alleged treatment is the same as neocolonial racism, murder, and destruction? Cultural relativism taken to absurd extremes.
I have no explanation.

For what, exactly?

Posted by: SC | December 2, 2008 6:00 PM

----------------------------------------------

My last comment:

Ayurvedan Medicine can be harmful.

Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 6:00 PM

----------------------------------------------

There are some chiropractors who think that spine-cracking is a treatment for anything you can imagine and then some! Orac has blogged about this several times. :-)

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 2, 2008 6:01 PM

----------------------------------------------

Peter you say it can be harmful, that is not disputed. The question is "does it do any good?". The answer is no, no it does not.

Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 6:03 PM

----------------------------------------------

The question is "does it do any good?".

More precisely, "does it do more good than damage?".

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 2, 2008 6:05 PM

----------------------------------------------

very last comment:
Dear windy,

I would support an indian plebiscite for standards in medicine. But the situation in Kerala looked different. People were not interested in more laws.

Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 6:09 PM

----------------------------------------------

Somewhat off topic, I want to add to the discussion between Christian and others, where he was shocked that you compared Artmann to a Holocaust denier. I think most people in the US don't understand how much of a taboo it is in Germany to call someone a Holocaust denier, or even a Nazi. (Yes I know, this is not the same, but both are huge cultural taboos in Germany) I've been living in the US for several years now and I'm still sometimes shocked by the casual use of both terms here.
It is even forbidden by law to deny the Holocaust in Germany, since it is considered a from of hate speech. (I don't want to start a discussion on free speech here, I just wanted to explain why Christian reacted so strongly to your use of the term.)

Posted by: Iris | December 2, 2008 6:09 PM

----------------------------------------------

very last comment: Dear windy,

I would support an indian plebiscite for standards in medicine. But the situation in Kerala looked different. People were not interested in more laws.

And thus it's okay to just watch them how they poison themselves? Charming.

Posted by: DCP | December 2, 2008 6:13 PM

----------------------------------------------

Ayurveda is not science. That's why nobody can say it is wrong.

I can predict the behavior of the stock market tomorrow, that's not science either. Does that mean nobody can say I am wrong about the DJIA?

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 6:13 PM

----------------------------------------------

Except that I didn't call Ehgartner a Holocaust denier or Nazi; so Christian's reaction was still overblown.

Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 6:13 PM

----------------------------------------------

Well, I guess that answers your question, windy. Unless and until standards are codified in Indian law, scientists should remain uncritical, apparently. Quite a principle, there.

Posted by: SC | December 2, 2008 6:16 PM

----------------------------------------------

The question is "does it do any good?".

More precisely, "does it do more good than damage?".

More precisely yet, "What balance of good to damage can we reasonably expect from it?"

There is always uncertainty, but we have to make decisions even so.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 6:20 PM

----------------------------------------------

Peter Artmann: "Some time ago the europeans went to america and brought Jesus to native americans. They were certain to bring the best of all medicine."

I nominate the above statement for dumbest tu quoque of 2008.

"Die Dumm, es brennt!"

I like that one.

Posted by: Dangerous Bacon | December 2, 2008 6:21 PM

florian wrote: "The german word he used was "Hirnschädigungen" which indeed translates "brain damage"."

ADHD used to be called "Minimal Brain Damage" in the US, decades ago. I suppose the term he used could be an outdated translation of the old English term. I don't know if it remains current in Germany.

Breaking the German word down to 'brain damage' might be literally correct, but a case of over-translating, missing out on the current usage of the whole word.

Posted by: Jon H | December 2, 2008 6:22 PM
I think most people in the US don't understand how much of a taboo it is in Germany to call someone a Holocaust denier, or even a Nazi.

Yeah. For example, the term "grammar Nazi" gives me stomach cramps ("even though" I'm Austrian).

That said, it's fairly obvious that Christian simply hadn't encountered the term "denier" in another context than "Holocaust denier" so far. Holocaust deniers are a special kind of deniers, not the other way around!
"Die Dumm, es brennt!"

I like that one.

I'm just still wondering what's so feminine about the stupid. Stupidity, yes, but stupid per se? ~:-|

But maybe it's one of those words that have different gender in Austria and Germany, like (Coca) Cola, E-Mail, Blog*... ;-)

* That one actually has a more complicated distribution, though.
florian wrote: "The german word he used was "Hirnschädigungen" which indeed translates "brain damage"."

Well, we could get picky and point out it's a plural. Perhaps "brain lesions" comes closest, though I'm not quite sure what exactly is called a lesion in medicine; Schädigungen would include physiological as well as mechanical damage.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 2, 2008 6:42 PM

----------------------------------------------

"Brain damage"? I really, really hope that's a translation issue...

I'm not ADHD, but I know quite a few people who are (or are diagnosed ADHD anyway - it's apparently overdiagnosed) and I've never seen anyone act like it was "damage". Most people don't even act like it's a bad thing -- it's apparently strongly correlated with intelligence and creativity. There are certainly downsides, but...

Posted by: William Miller | December 2, 2008 8:14 PM

----------------------------------------------

I was going to say, "Das Dumme, es brennt!" I sort of take exception to the notion that "the Stupid" is feminine! But I learned German in Vienna, and many other students took great delight in teaching me slang, so I don't always know if I am correct on these things!

Posted by: storkdok | December 2, 2008 9:02 PM

----------------------------------------------

@ERV
I kindly ask that you not use "tards" (retards) as a put down. Those of us who have special needs children would most appreciate it! :0)

Posted by: storkdok | December 2, 2008 9:10 PM

----------------------------------------------

@DCP
Thank you for the quick translation, it corroborated what I thought I was reading. I am not very good with nuances and sarcasm in German, but I did get the gist of it, and my thoughts were the same as yours! ;0)

Posted by: storkdok | December 2, 2008 9:15 PM

----------------------------------------------

Christian: "We should really make an effort to argue with people we do not agree with in a somewhat civil manner."

There is incivility that comes from playing loose with the truth and caricaturing one's adversaries. There is also incivility that comes from speaking the truth bluntly. Only the former kind of incivility has no proper place in reasoned discourse. So far, we've been doing only the latter here, and as long as that holds true, complains about civility are largely a distraction.

Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 2, 2008 9:38 PM
There is incivility that comes from playing loose with the truth and caricaturing one's adversaries. There is also incivility that comes from speaking the truth bluntly. Only the former kind of incivility has no proper place in reasoned discourse. So far, we've been doing only the latter here, and as long as that holds true, complains about civility are largely a distraction.

When someone is bullshitting, there really is no way to call them on it that a bullshitter can't twist into "you're picking on me!"

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 9:43 PM

----------------------------------------------

I agree, D. C. Sessions, I agree.

Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 2, 2008 9:52 PM

----------------------------------------------

I would support an indian plebiscite for standards in medicine. But the situation in Kerala looked different. People were not interested in more laws.

That sounds like the Kenyans in Sapolsky's Primate's memoir, who weren't all that upset when the crooked meat inspector and butcher happened to give everyone food poisoning.

I offhandedly asked Timpai, over his tea, whether it was possible that the cows possible that the cows were ever sick when they were slaughtered. Oh no. How do you know? Because the meat inspector tells me when they are good. How does he know? Oh, he knows.

What I would conclude from this is that people in different countries have different priorities, but not that the meat inspector has some "other ways of knowing" that we mustn't criticize, or that TB-infested meat is safer if you trust your butcher.

Posted by: windy | December 2, 2008 10:25 PM

----------------------------------------------

Windy, Thats why there is only one way to cook meat of any kind in Kenya... Well done.

Posted by: Robster, FCD | December 2, 2008 11:49 PM

----------------------------------------------

First to make this clear: This is not a pro Ehgartner post!

After following this "story" on the german scienceblogs and now reading this entries and comments, da completly different question crossed my mind:

"How does time change the way, people stand for their principles". In some times a lot of people demonstrate and even fight for them, and in other time, there is mostly talking.

And this leads to the next question for me: What would happen, if the german devision of the seed media group finaly decides, there is no actual need to take action? Will everything goes back to normal, when the interest in this discussion decrease? Or would any involved blogger take consequences and say "I dont wanna have my name or my work connected with unscientific quackery, and because its wether him or me, i leave scienceblogs".

Perhaps it could be called childish, but on the other hand i dont understand the tendency to complain and talk about things, which one disfavours, but having no option to act..

Posted by: Adromir | December 3, 2008 12:59 AM

----------------------------------------------

Without having read all the comments:
I say kick them out of scienceblogs.de. Tolerance and slippery slope arguments take you just so far, but there is a point when a decision has to be made. Its not on a whim, its because of good and sound arguments, its not my 2c, not an opinion. You can clearly say that those two bloggers have a non-scientific mindset and therefore should look for a forum elsewhere.

Posted by: bcpmoon | December 3, 2008 2:10 AM

----------------------------------------------

The twitter links posted by Tobias and Conrad lead to the below. I am not sure if the message was noted.
Kurze Information bzgl. der überb

Rauchwolke

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 388
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2008, 01:17:03 PM »

Hallo AMA:

[*QUOTE*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
Wir hatten inzwischen das Gespräch mit Bert Ehgartner gesucht, der am Montag auch noch einen rechtfertigenden Artikel nachreichte. Allerdings konnte er unsere Zweifel nicht wirklich ausräumen und wir haben beschlossen, den Blog "Lob der Krankheit" zu schließen.

Sowohl unsere bloggenden Kollegen auf SB.com, als auch unsere deutschen Leser können also beruhigt sein: für Spekulationen oder gar pseudowissenschaftliche Thesen ist auf ScienceBlogs.de auch künftig kein Platz..
[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]

Zitat aus:

http://www.scienceblogs.de/neurons/2008/12/diskussionen-und-dissidenten-
uber-fairness-und-den-wissenschaftlichen-diskurs-auf-scienceblogs.php


[Link repariert, ama]
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 02:01:29 PM by ama »
Logged

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1125
Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2009, 02:14:36 PM »

.

... und dann war er draußen, der Bert Ehgartner...

[*QUOTE*]
---------------------------------------------------
In den letzten Tage ist auch ein neues geflügeltes Wort entstanden.
Das englische "The stupid it burns!" wurde auf phantasievolle Weise
ins Deutsche übertragen. Unser Favorit: "Die Dumm, es brennt!"
.

---------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]

KLICK!
http://www.plognark.com/Art/Sketches/Blogsketches/2008/thestupiditburns.jpg


mehr:
http://www.thestupiditburns.de






.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2009, 03:16:13 PM by ama »
Logged

Yulli

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 477
Re: Ehgartner fliegt bei Scienceblogs
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2019, 10:38:56 AM »

Marke: 19.000.
Logged
Pages: [1]