Making a false case against Gardasil


Especially after working for so many years alongside the big drug companies working health legislation in the Senate, and after later policy work for private companies that made the point again that Big Pharma doesn’t always act scrupulously (remember Oraflex?), I’m no particular fan of the big companies.

But I am a big fan of getting the facts before making claims against them.  I also stand in awe of the accomplishments of medicine, including Big Pharma, in so many areas.  My oldest brother had polio as a kid, and it haunted him to his death.  Polio vaccine was a great advance.  I survived a bout of scarlet fever as an infant, but as a result I am particularly vulnerable to certain infections now; I stand in awe of a $10 prescription that literally saves my life.

Get the facts.  We’re talking saving lives here — be sure you’re accurate.

There is a nasty campaign against modern medicine claiming that vaccines and other injectable preventives do not work, or do much greater harm than is revealed.

One victim of this unholy smear campaign is the Merck Drug company, and its anti-cancer vaccine Gardasil.  This vaccine has been the topic of much controversy here in Texas.  I’ve written about it before.

So I was shocked once again browsing Neil Simpson’s blog (looking for a post that disappeared, it now seems), to discover this statement of concern from Mr. Simpson:

Gardasil Moms: If one of those 32 dead girls or women was your daughter. . . – I wouldn’t rush out and get the vaccine for your girls just yet.

32 dead girls from the vaccine?  Mr. Simpson fails to tell the whole story.  Here’s what CDC actually said:

As of December 31, 2008, there have been 32 U.S. reports of death among females who have received the vaccine. There was no common pattern to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine. [emphasis added]

This isn’t the first time opponents of Gardasil have failed to report accurately the deaths accounted for in the trials and use of the drug.  In previous outings, critics of the drug have done such bizarre things as counting deaths of people who never took the drug, as deaths perhaps caused by the drug.

For example, from the numbers available when I wrote about this in May 2007:

  • Of the 17 deaths reported in the clinical trials,  7 of them came from the placebo group.  That’s right:  Only 59% of the reported deaths were in the group that got Gardasil.  41% of the reported deaths came from people who had received no Gardasil vaccine.
  • 7 of the deaths were from auto accidents, 4 in the Gardasil group, 3 in the placebo group.
  • Most of the deaths were from causes generally thought to be unrelated to to Gardasil, including suicide and cancer.

Don’t you think that, in blaming deaths on a dosage of a vaccine, one should not count deaths to people who did not get the vaccine? So, can we trust numbers from a slander campaign that keeps repeating falsehoods for two years, though the data are freely available?

If you check the Gardasil site now, you’ll find more deaths have been added.  Merck follows up reports of problems, and they update the information when they can, as required by law.

There are now 24 deaths reported in Merck’s literature, 16 in the Gardasil group, and 9 in the control group; the Gardasil deaths have risen to 64% of total deaths; some new causes are added in.  But there is no glaring indictment of Gardasil, and it still seems to me to be rather unethical to claim, as Simpson’s source does, that deaths by auto accident can be attributable to Gardasil, especially when an almost equal number of auto accident deaths occurred in the control group.

Here is what the CDC says, unedited:

Reports to VAERS Following HPV Vaccination

As of December 31, 2008, more than 23 million doses of Gardasil were distributed in the United States.

As of December 31, 2008, there were 11,916 VAERS reports of adverse events following Gardasil vaccination in the United States. Of these reports, 94% were reports of events considered to be non-serious, and 6% were reports of events considered to be serious.

Based on all of the information we have today, CDC continues to recommend Gardasil vaccination for the prevention of 4 types of HPV. As with all approved vaccines, CDC and FDA will continue to closely monitor the safety of Gardasil.  Any problems detected with this vaccine will be reported to health officials, healthcare providers, and the public, and needed action will be taken to ensure the public’s health and safety.

23 million doses of the vaccine, high efficacy in preventing cancer and genital warts, only 6% serious events reported, no deaths that doctors can connect to the vaccine.

In the time Simpson writes about, several thousand women died of cervical cancer; he’s posing 32 deaths unrelated to the vaccine and saying it’s dangerous, when the facts show exactly the opposite.  Is that ethical?

It’s creationism syndrome:  Religionists decide on their conclusions, sometimes supported by scripture, but sometimes also supported by misreadings of scripture; then they set off in search of evidence to support their pre-conceived conclusion, and they step over real data and alter evidence to make sure their pre-conceived conclusions get the support.

In other words, they use doctored data.  Neil Simpson’s sources are using doctored data again.  Shame on them.  I’m sure he’ll correct it in his blog.

______________

Update, May 3: Simpson has not corrected his blog yet.  As an indicator of the issues at stake, you may want to look at CDC figures on cervical cancers, many of which are prevented completely by Gardasil.  Actually trends on the disease are encouraging:

Cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. However, in the past 40 years, the number of cases of cervical cancer and the number of deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly. This decline largely is the result of many women getting regular Pap tests, which can find cervical precancer before it turns into cancer.1

According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2005 Incidence and Mortality Web site, 11,999 women in the U.S. were told that they had cervical cancer in 2005,* and 3,924 women died from the disease.2 It is estimated that more than $2 billion is spent on the treatment of cervical cancer per year in the U.S.3

Cervical cancer strikes disproportionately at minority women:

Even though these trends suggest that cervical cancer incidence and mortality continue to decrease significantly overall, and for women in some racial and ethnic populations, the rates are considerably higher among Hispanic and African-American women. Find more information about cervical cancer rates by race and ethnicity.

More information:

About these ads

67 Responses to Making a false case against Gardasil

  1. laevern says:

    check out web search

    kkrasnowwaterman gardasil bade of the four most dangerous strains/

    why is you trying to to state that hpv vaccine gardasil/cervarix has the footing to stand on
    Immunizations in history
    have an acquired immunity as chicken pox cannot get it again

    Warts are HPV their is no acquired immunity to warts that you cannot ever get a wart again
    you kill a wart but you can get anouther one

    who lied and made gardasil look like it is legal MSDS gardasil, the jobs to secure are dissappearing the established ways of freedom and safety to all / empowering a criminal that is more than serial killer/

    Like

  2. [...] may have seen with the kerfuffle with the Kommissar of Houston, Neil Simpson, I don’t censor these Christ-claiming yahoos even when they get [...]

    Like

  3. [...] Making a false case against Gardasil « Millard Fillmore's Bathtub [...]

    Like

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    Now the FDA is harrassing General Mills about cheerios however, recently(Jan. 2009)mercury was found in half of high fructose corn syrup tested. Why isn’t the FDA zeroing in on that?

    ADM isn’t claiming that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) will lower cholesterol. Standards are tougher when someone makes a claim that a product will improve health, as the makers of Cheerios claim about their oat-based product. Plus, most of the system that puts mercury into HFCS is under the regulation of the Department of Agriculture. You’re arguing apples and orange-flavored cigarettes.

    It popped up in the news once and yet Octomom lived in the news for weeks.

    FDA doesn’t have any say on what shows up in National Inquirer, People, or any other gossip venue. Now you’re comparing apples and broadcast waves.

    Eating well can offer some protection against cancers, but only that protection that comes from having a healthy and well-functioning immune system. There is no eating cure for cervical or penile cancers, and no eating solution that offers significant protection against any virus, let alone the viruses that cause cervical and penile cancers.

    Like

  5. James says:

    Ed-I know folks that are free from cancer by eating specific foods. If you believe everything put in front of you by corporations that need to make profits and have no benefit in curing diseases. Reoccuring income otherwise maintain drugs is all we get. As a 35 year old male I have never seen so many drug commercials in my life and they don’t seem to be slowing down. That should be a major clue right there. Now the FDA is harrassing General Mills about cheerios however, recently(Jan. 2009)mercury was found in half of high fructose corn syrup tested. Why isn’t the FDA zeroing in on that? It popped up in the news once and yet Octomom lived in the news for weeks.

    Like

  6. Nick Kelsier says:

    Ok, Karen. Prove that Gardasil had anything to do with it. Prove that the doctors, CDC and the FDA are engaging in a conspiracy.

    Or would you like to admit that you’re engaging in the logical fallacy Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

    Like

  7. karen says:

    In the gardasil deaths lets count the spontaneous abortions as deaths also rather then non serious reactions. Those that are for the lethal injection go get yourself and all your loved ones 3 shots and watch their health decline, watch their pain, and listen to all the lying doctors, the CDC and the FDA say it can’t be linked to gardasil.. Hope you die from it to.

    Like

  8. Nick Kelsier says:

    And if you were really pro-life, Neil, instead of just a pontificating pedagogue you’d abandon the Republican party so fast your head would spin.

    You whine about what Obama has done. What has he done other than the reversal of the decision on stem cell research? And considering that no embryo is created just to be destroyed in stem cell research and that the embryos that would be destroyed were created by fertility clinics really you’re charging the wrong windmill there Don Quixote.

    If the so called “pro-life” crowd was really worried about the destruction of those embryos they wouldn’t be protesting against embryonic stem cell research..they’d be protesting against the stem cell research. Do they do that? No. Because they’ve gotten it in their heads that the more kids a woman gives birth to is better even if said woman..said couple can’t actually afford the kids. I’m talking about the Octomom. I’m talking about the “Quiverfull” people. I’m talking about the people who go to fertility clinics not because they can’t have children any other way but the ones that go there because they want triplets or quadruplets because they’ve become nothing more than fashion accessories.

    For forty years, Neil, the “pro-life crowd” has been sucking at the teat of the Republican party because the Republican party has conned the “pro-life crowd” for that 40 years. In 40 years the percentage of the population that thinks that abortion should be legal has gone up. From 1994 to 2006 we had a Republican congress. From 2000 to 2008 we had a Republican President. And we’ve had a conservative Supreme Court since at least 1990. And did the Republicans do anything to actually stop abortion? No. In fact what the Republicans did was to increase the number of abortions thanks to their cutting of funding to family planning services.

    And there you sit, Neil, not only being willingly conned by a political party that has no actual intention of outlawing abortion but that you have the balls to tell me that I should willingly be conned myself. Oh please. The Republicans have no interest in actually stopping abortion because that would be killing the golden goose. They’d be risking all the campaign contributions that you and your so called “pro-life” crowd has been giving them for the last 40 years.

    And like the fool you are, Neil, you simply can’t bring yourself to listen to someone who is wiser and smarter then you.

    Like I said before..between you and me when it comes to being pro-life..you’re not even second best. At least what I want..what I support actually does something to lower the number of abortions. You can’t even claim that much.

    Like

  9. Ed Darrell says:

    Neil said:

    . . . (the first person banned from commenting at my site) had linked . . .

    “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.” Jean- Luc Picard, Star Trek: The Next Generation

    Like

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    Are you ignoring those dramatic cures that have been developed? Leukemias are treatable; I know more than a dozen women who have been free from breast cancer for longer than five years. Taxol seems to have been at least a partial success, no?

    Gardasil, preventing a significant number of cancers, is a cure, is it not?

    Like

  11. James says:

    Big Pharma I find it extremely ironic how so many years go by without a cure. Tons of maintenance drugs though. A drug commercial on every other channel. “It is DIFFICULT to get a man to understand when his SALARY depends on UPON HIS NOT UNDERSTANDING IT.” Upton Sinclair

    Like

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    Paying for safe abortions helps make abortions rare. It’s counterintuitive, and probably way beyond the reasoning ken of fundamentalists, but when women have the freedom of choice, they take the choice more seriously. Another host of reasons may accompany the fact of legal abortion, but our experience since 1960 is that those nations where abortion is safe and legal have lower abortion rates than those nations where abortion is not legal. Abortion rates continue to drop across most of the U.S., for example — except in those areas where anti-abortion movements are strongest, and it is most difficult to get a safe and legal abortion.

    Consequently, I applaud the policies of the Obama administration with regard to family planning. They will contribute to lower rates of abortion around the world.

    Like

  13. Neil says:

    Oh, and assuming you won’t be visiting my place, have a nice life. Seriously.

    Like

  14. Neil says:

    Re marking abortions rare: Obama & Co. are not doing anything to make abortions rare. Paying for abortions domestically and internationally, eliminating conscience clauses so people have to perform them to keep their medical licenses (that’s why they are pro-abortion and not pro-“choice” — they don’t want choices at all), eliminating parental consent (so your schools can take your kids to have your grandchildren killed by an invasive medical procedure without you knowing it), repealing partial birth abortion bans (no viability argument there), and more. Those will all increase abortions.

    If you are truly sincere in wanting to reduce abortions then you should be aghast at Obama’s policies.

    Like

  15. Neil says:

    Sorry, just saw your last comment.

    I’ve conceded many times that making abortion illegal won’t eliminate them all. But we don’t take murder laws off the books just because people break them. Too many people — like you — take the “if legal, then moral” approach and you get more of the behavior. It lets guys pressure girls to have abortions — after all, it is legal, right? The river of blood will be much smaller.

    Like

  16. Neil says:

    Nick, I’m done with Ed but here’s one more comment for you.

    Sorry, Neil, I’m not gullible enough to go to your blog where you can play “I am god” and other such nonsense. You’ve shown yourself to be a dishonest snake talking with a forked tongue.

    Now there’s a cowardly ad hom. You are the one who kept spouting the “pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born” fallacy regardless of how many times I explained how illogical it was. I was merely directing your queries to a logical conversation spot. I’ll take your response as a concession speech.

    no I don’t think the government should be killing homeless people

    You missed the point, but thanks for the answer. I wasn’t implying for a second that you would be in favor of that. I knew you’d oppose it.

    My point was that using your reasoning, you are wildly hypocritical for making that claim unless you are willing to house the homeless people with your funds. So, which street person will you be inviting home tonight?

    Which shows a gross disregard to the point of moral depravity for the ones who will die..the babies and mothers who will die due to illegal abortions.

    You realize the irony, don’t you? You’ve been denying the scientific fact that abortion kills an innocent human being, then you concede that the babies die in botched abortions. Guess what? Babies die 100% of the time in “successful” abortions. Over 3,000 times today, tomorrow and the next day . . .

    So who is depraved?

    You also show gross disregard for the children that will be shoved into the foster care system

    I see you are back to the “better dead than in foster care” meme. I’ll let CPS know that they may not want to approve your application ;-) .

    You offer no money, no resources, no support.

    I’m not sure why you keep repeating that lie, not to mention the fallacy that I have to offer financial support just because I speak up for defenseless human beings.

    I pay all my taxes and donate $5,000 per year to CareNet Pregnancy Center (plus other donations to a host of other charities). I also donate my time. Tell me again how much you donate?

    And the families that are just scraping by..the ones that will be hurt financially by having to raise extra children again your side as a general whole offers no help, no support, and definitly nothing financial.

    Again with the “better dead than poor.” Wow, what compassion! By your reasoning 90% of the world would be better off dead. Have you ever been on a mission trip?

    And tell me why we are obligated to pay for other people’s children? Did I get them pregnant? I’m a serial monogamist, so I’m pretty sure I didn’t. But even though I’m not responsible for creating the children I am glad to help out.

    But that doesn’t stop your side from again using them as punching bags.

    That is interesting that you use a violent metaphor, considering that you are the one who condones this.

    All I asked you to do, Neil, was to recognize that making abortion illgel doesn’t actually solve the problem….that it has to be more than that.

    Actually, I recognized that multiple times. I know that there will always be crisis pregnancies, which is why I’ll always support organizations like CareNet ( http://www.care-net.org/ ) regardless of whether abortion is legal or not.

    You see, I realize that it may be a long time before the laws change. It took many decades to get rid of the evil of slavery and it will take many years to make abortion illegal. In the mean time, I do all I can to help women make the right decision. Every life counts. Every woman spared the experience of post-abortion trauma counts.

    Will you be there for the next 60 years while these ladies are overcome with guilt over destroying their own children? And don’t even try to say they feel guilty just because we point out the obvious fact that abortion kills an innocent human being. You have been trying very hard to make me feel guilty with your tantrums, but it hasn’t worked. I see through your fallacies. So if I’m all wrong about abortion, why do the women suffer so?

    On this subject, Neil, when it comes to being “pro life” and being “moral” and being “Christian” you’re not even in my league. You are not even second best.

    Uh, yeah, you really showed me. You’ve really (not) demonstrated what you do for the cause of life.

    The last word is all yours, though my invitation is open for you to come explain why you aren’t being hypocritical for being against the killing of homeless people (or, say, foster children) at the same time you don’t appear to be involved in helping them yourself.

    Then you can contrast that with my pro-life views, which I do back up with my own time and money.

    Like

  17. Nick Kelsier says:

    Oh and by the way, Neil, you may want to run your brain along this thought track: It’s possible to be “pro-life” without demanding that abortion be made illegal.

    How? It’s called “Recognizing that you’re not going to get rid of abortion so then recognizing that the answer is to do everything possible to make abortion as rare as possible.”

    Because you can demand that abortion be made illegal but then you are just demanding that one ocean of blood be replaced with another ocean of blood.

    Like

  18. Nick Kelsier says:

    Sorry, Neil, I’m not gullible enough to go to your blog where you can play “I am god” and other such nonsense. You’ve shown yourself to be a dishonest snake talking with a forked tongue.

    Oh and by the way..just to answer your question though curiously you never answered any of mine..no I don’t think the government should be killing homeless people. See, despite your delusion to the contrary..I’m actually pro-life. My problem with you and the vast majority of the so called “pro-life” crowd isn’t that you’re pro-life…it’s that you’re not pro-life enough. In other words, Neil, my problem with you is that you don’t meet my standard for being actually pro-life.

    You want to make abortion illegal and then pretend that noone is going to die. Which shows a gross disregard to the point of moral depravity for the ones who will die..the babies and mothers who will die due to illegal abortions. You also show gross disregard for the children that will be shoved into the foster care system. A system that you and your fellow right-wingers just absolutely love attacking but then you..meaning you and the other right-wingers..do nothing to actually fix that situation. You offer no money, no resources, no support.

    And the families that are just scraping by..the ones that will be hurt financially by having to raise extra children again your side as a general whole offers no help, no support, and definitly nothing financial. But that doesn’t stop your side from again using them as punching bags. And then to top it off your side cuts the government help that does go to them and then gleefully pat yourselves on the back saying “What a good job we’ve done. God will be so pleased with us.”

    And then your side opposes contraceptives and teaching comprehensive sex ed in the schools which lowers the number of abortions as well as teen pregnancies in general. Which is the very epitome of of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    All I asked you to do, Neil, was to recognize that making abortion illgel doesn’t actually solve the problem….that it has to be more than that. That it is not that simple. That’s all you had to do. But no…you couldn’t get off your soap-box long enough to do so. You just couldn’t stop pontificating..you just couldn’t shut up and think for once.

    On this subject, Neil, when it comes to being “pro life” and being “moral” and being “Christian” you’re not even in my league. You are not even second best.

    Like

  19. Ed Darrell says:

    The links are there, you can check out the figures for yourself about whether the deaths are tied to Gardasil. That’s why I posted them originally. Heck, the links were right there in Annie’s post, so anyone could have bothered to check them out.

    Neil Simpson talks a lot about credibility, but he can’t walk the talk, even in a virtual environment. Maybe, especially in a virtual environment, where others can check the facts, he can’t walk the talk. As I’ve said all along, don’t take my word for it, but check out the sources for yourself.

    In Neil Simpson’s world, anyone who dare disagree with him is “a liar,” and any fact that rebuts or refutes his claims, is “uncredible,” “false,” “from atheists,” or “from Ed.”

    It’s a tragedy with Shakespearian overtones, for sure.

    Like

  20. Neil says:

    Ed, I make plenty of mistakes. I’ve learned that the best thing to do is confess them quickly, learn from them and move on. I don’t engage in elaborate cover-ups and blame the victims. I could be mistaken on Gardasil, but any corrections would have to come from someone with credibility.

    I do appreciate that you took out the “maybe” and confessed that you introduced the Stalin meme.

    That will probably be as good as it gets, so please feel free to take the last word and have a nice life.

    P.S. to Nick: If you decide to answer my question about whether you would object to the government killing homeless people (or even permitting other citizens to do so), please come comment here — Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born . As fun as this has been, I don’t want to take up any more space at Ed’s place.

    As you can imagine, if you would not object to the slaughter of homeless people then that would be a pretty gruesome view to hold.

    If you would object, then please be prepared to explain how you plan to house all the homeless people. After all, in your extended-play ad hominem argument you demonized me for “hypocritically” speaking up for the unborn yet allegedly not helping people out (even though I demonstrated multiple times that I do help with my own time and money). Therefore, by your definition, if you object to the slaughter of homeless people you must be willing to house them yourself or else face the charge of hypocrisy.

    Like

  21. Neil says:

    Why is it disgusting? I mean, I think it is disgusting viewing the remains of crushed and dismembered human beings. But for those who insist that it wasn’t a human being who was destroyed, it isn’t any more gross than your random episode of House.

    Like

  22. Ed Darrell says:

    That’s pretty disgusting Neil. Really.

    You don’t know my position on abortion. We haven’t discussed it in any detail. You have no right to make the foolish and despicable claims here. You abuse the privilege, too.

    I imagine a guy like you keeps a pretty tight rein on his family, though, and there’s no danger that your children will ever Google your name to see what you’re up to. You can make false accusations, unevidenced claims, and crawl through the virtual gutter with impunity. It’s not like you’re telling any lie Jesus Himself wouldn’t tell, is it?

    Like

  23. Neil says:

    . . . think compasionately.”

    Yeah, that’s Ed all over — http://www.abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/abortion_pictures

    I have compassion for the unborn and for the women who have the abortions and will feel guilt the rest of their lives. I donate my own time and money to help reduce abortions and help people in their time of need. And what do you do again? Oh, yeah, ignore scientific evidence so you can rationalize the “good” of abortion.

    Like

  24. Ed Darrell says:

    Neil, did you miss it? I said I confessed that I introduced the meme that your policies are like Stalin’s! Days ago.

    You can’t discuss these other issues. You’d have to correct an error. I think you fear your face may shatter if you have to confess error of any sort — so you’ll just live with it. God’s not watching after all, right?

    Like

  25. Neil says:

    Nice try, Ed. Unless you’ve stopped being a liar (confession and repentance would be a bonus!) and have accepted the fact that human life begins at conception and changed your abortion views accordingly, don’t expect a hearing on me on any science topic. I’m only here until you stop the lies.

    I’m always pretty skeptical of lessons in Christianity from lying pro-abortionists.

    Like

  26. Ed Darrell says:

    But in repeating endlessly that he is pissed off, Neil fails to back up any of his other claims — and the back up for his one claim isn’t all that remarkable, considering I conceded I may have introduced the analysis originally. So what else is new?

    Neil doesn’t intend to address my notes on Gardasil because to do so, and to do so in a Christian fashion, would require that he confess to error. And an inveterate sinner like Neil cannot confess to such a minor sin. It’s easier for him to let the error stand, though it slanders good doctors and health professionals, and though it carries information that will probably lead women to choose a path of long and painful death.

    The question is whether Neil cares about accuracy and honesty. Complaints about my “lying” (Neil’s term) carry no weight because of Neil’s failure to redress his own errors.

    It’s a flat out lie to claim that 32 women died from Gardasil. But they were real, live humans with real Constitutional rights. They had mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers, some had husbands, maybe some had children. Neil claims to care about them, but he doesn’t act as if he does — and so he lies about the dead.

    Now watch, GB: Neil will explode in another frothing, lengthy, and off-the-mark tirade about abortion. He need only copy and paste that, and to think about the dead women whose deaths he abuses, he would have to think, and think compassionately. Who has time for that, and ranting, too?

    Like

  27. Neil says:

    I think Ed’s basic problem is just denial. Like a Romans 1 poster boy, he suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. He wants to mock God and rationalize that abortions are morally acceptable, so he has to deny the obvious scientific fact that human life begins at conception. It is downhill from there. His “foolish heart is darkened.”

    It is just your basic worldly thinking, where liberal Christianity and the popular culture are virtully indistinguishable: 1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.

    Like

  28. Neil says:

    GB, I see you have same cognitive disfunction as Ed. Only now you can substitute GB or Nick this pattern: Ed uses a ridiculous logical fallacy, Neil calls him on it, Ed lies and said Neil did it, Ed fails to apologize, Ed uses the fallacy again.

    I do back up my claims. I backed up the claims that Ed is a chronic liar, that a new human life begins at conception, that Ed denies that scientific truth, that I do not advocate public schools teaching creationism (or any part of the Bible, etc.), and more. You may have missed some of that on the other thread which jumped over here.

    I have explained in detail why I don’t intend to address Ed’s arguments on Gardasil. He is a liar and is incapable of seeing past his biases on the most “2+2″ kinds of scientific issues.

    Yes, cheers.

    Like

  29. GB says:

    I see you are joining late, so it might not make sense.

    See, this response is proof positive of why I think these comments have been so funny (although I probably wouldn’t be laughing as hard if I were Ed and had to deal with it on my own blog) – instead of addressing the real issue (here, the fact that I called you out on your ad hominem attack, although this is clearly a trend), you deflect with some other issue. I couldn’t care less about whether or not Ed is at fault for something else: even if it were true, it wouldn’t change the fact that 1) you haven’t addressed Ed’s opposing arguments at all and 2) you have derailed these comments into a long (and annoyingly repetitive) discussion of totally irrelevant subjects. If you’ve got a beef with Ed, then whatever, you two work it out. But if you want to look like you’re actually doing the hard work of backing up your claims, you’ve chosen precisely the wrong way to go about it.

    Cheers.

    Like

  30. Ed Darrell says:

    I’m glad to have discussions.

    Can’t hear what you’re saying, Neil. Your actions are so loud, your words are drowned out.

    Like

  31. Neil says:

    James,

    I had another thought on your last comment. One of the things that I think helps to advance the conversation on abortion is the distinction between psychological complexity and moral complexity (and, I might add, scientific complexity).

    For example, the circumstances surrounding an abortion decision are almost always psychologically complex. Women/girls get pressured from their parents and/or boyfriends/husbands and even their friends. People think they are too poor or too young or that having the baby will impact their education, career or social standing. These are real pressures and real fears that need to be addressed. When clients come into CareNet Pregnancy Center we help them sort these out and consider alternatives to abortion.

    While the psychological complexity can be high, the solution isn’t abortion. There are very, very few problems in life that are improved by destroying an innocent human being. That act typically increases the problems of those involved.

    The science is not complex: A new human being is formed at conception.

    The moral component is not complex: We should not tolerate the destruction of innocent human beings.

    Like

  32. Neil says:

    To hide his failure to respond on other issues, Neil takes an authoritarian position against abortion. He wishes to change law so there is no right to abortion. When confronted with the facts, that legal abortion tends to reduce the numbers and rates of abortion, he goes back to slinging mud.

    Yes, I wish to change the law so there is no right to murder unborn human beings just because they are female, or have Down Syndrome, or are unwanted, or for any reason other than to save the life of the mother. I also oppose murder for those reasons outside the womb.

    Where Ed’s logic fails is that he is so in favor of abortions for those reasons that he is blind to the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception.

    Given this and his seemingly endless ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies, I don’t view him as a credible source on any topic. He might be right, but I simply don’t trust him.

    When you’re out of mud to sling, will you discuss?

    I’m glad to have discussions. When an adult like James or Annie arrives, it is easy and pleasant. When someone like you or Nick can’t go two sentences without an ad hominem attack then I push back.

    Again, I’d normally just ignore you the way I would a boorish neighbor or co-worker. But I thought a lesson was in order. But I’m not a miracle worker. You continue with your shameless Stalin fallacy and don’t appear to have learned a thing.

    Like

  33. Neil says:

    It wasn’t guilt by association, it was guilt by adoption. Let’s be clear: I’m not saying you knew Stalin, I said your views on Darwin are difficult to distinguish from Stalin’s. You say it’s otherwise, but you won’s say why.

    No, it was a guilt by assocation fallacy — http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html . You know what is really funny? They even used Stalin in their example! It reads like Ed’s playbook.

    Description of Guilt By Association
    Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

    It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P. Therefore P is false
    It is clear that sort of “reasoning” is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor “reasoning”: “You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn’t believe it.”

    The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.

    Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).

    Like

  34. Neil says:

    Hi GB,

    I see you are joining late, so it might not make sense. I wouldn’t be here if Ed hadn’t linked to my site with new lies on another post of his. Oddly enough, he repeated his Stalin bit above, just as a dog returns to his vomit (Proverbs 26:11 Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly.):

    The pattern repeats: Ed uses a ridiculous logical fallacy, Neil calls him on it, Ed lies and said Neil did it, Ed fails to apologize, Ed uses the fallacy again. I addressed Ed’s use of a guilt by association fallacy regarding Joseph Stalin multiple times on my blog. I also confronted him about it on other blogs. And he used it reflexively on his blog. So the origin couldn’t be more clear. Just read the comments section of this post and search for Stalin. And as a dog returns to his vomit, so Ed returns to his embarrassing use of a logical fallacy.

    But then I came back to this site and found that he had accused me of bringing it up!

    I objected to Simpson’s off-the-wall claim trying to link Darwin to Stalin in an exchange some time ago.

    It’s a reference to last year’s discussions with Simpson, in which he inaccurately tried to link Stalin to Darwin’s sins.

    I couldn’t care less what Ed thinks of me, but I was surprised to see him lying to thoroughly and repeatedly. I figured a public service announcement was in order.

    Like

  35. GB says:

    This has actually been a very funny display: Ed says that Neil is wrong on Gardasil; Neil responds by calling Ed a liar and saying that his word on anything can’t be trusted; Ed prompts Neil further to provide evidence for his original Gardasil claims; Neil reiterates that Ed’s a liar; ad infinitum. That’s like a textbook case of ad hominem: the absolute refusal to engage opposing arguments, opting instead for name-calling and attacking the person.

    News flash, Neil et al.: Ed’s opinions on abortion, DDT, evolution, etc. aren’t a relevant way to say that Gardasil is dangerous. The fact that those opinions are being attacked in this thread rather than a positive case being put forward for the claims that have been made speaks volumes about you.

    Like

  36. Ed Darrell says:

    Karen, be sure one of your doctors makes a report to the CDC. Or, maybe better, you should call CDC to be sure they get the report.

    Why do you think these symptoms are related to Gardasil? Have you hired a lawyer yet?

    Remember, there is a fund to compensate people who are the victims of injury caused by vaccines:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continually work to make already safe vaccines even safer. In the rare event that a child is injured by a vaccine, he or she may be compensated through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) or call 1-800-338-2382.


    And, to make sure the report is mad
    e:

    Approximately 30,000 VAERS reports are filed annually, with 10–15% classified as serious (causing disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness or death). Anyone can file a VAERS report, including health care providers, manufacturers, and vaccine recipients or their parents or guardians. The VAERS form requests the following information: the type of vaccine received, the timing of vaccination, the onset of the adverse event, current illnesses or medication, past history of adverse events following vaccination, and demographic information about the recipient. VAERS forms can be completed online, or you can complete a paper form and mail or fax it to VAERS. To request a paper VAERS form to be faxed to you, or if you need assistance in filling it out, call (800) 822-7967.

    Karen, please drop back from time to time and let us know how your daughter is doing.

    Like

  37. Ed Darrell says:

    addressed Ed’s use of a guilt by association fallacy regarding Joseph Stalin multiple times on my blog. I also confronted him about it on other blogs. And he used it reflexively on your his blog. So the origin couldn’t be more clear. Just read the comments section of this post and search for Stalin.

    It wasn’t guilt by association, it was guilt by adoption. Let’s be clear: I’m not saying you knew Stalin, I said your views on Darwin are difficult to distinguish from Stalin’s. You say it’s otherwise, but you won’s say why.

    It’s odd that you’re offended at the mention of Stalin’s name, but not offended by Stalin’s policies. It’s not difficult for a Christian to distinguish views on creation from those of Stalin; Christians believe God is the motivating force, and that all of nature manifests God’s actions. Evolution being what is manifested, since God does not lie, evolution must be among the methods God intended.

    Stalin says no, because Darwin was bourgeois. Too bourgeois. Neils says no, because ______________.

    Well, there’s the rub. Neil won’t say.

    Instead, Neil employs another Stalin tactic, avoiding the issue by claiming the person who pointed out the problem is anti-revolutionary.

    Generally a position worth getting upset about is a position worth defending. Mr. Simpson won’t defend his position, though. In the absence of any statement as to why he won’t, we are left to conjecture.

    Why is Neil upset about our conjecture? He could simply tell us, so we would have no reason to conjecture.

    To hide his failure to respond on other issues, Neil takes an authoritarian position against abortion. He wishes to change law so there is no right to abortion. When confronted with the facts, that legal abortion tends to reduce the numbers and rates of abortion, he goes back to slinging mud.

    How deep is that trough you’re in, Neil? Shouldn’t you hit bedrock sometime soon? When you’re out of mud to sling, will you discuss?

    Like

  38. Neil says:

    Hi James,

    First, I appreciate your charitable tone and desire to gain authentic clarity.

    The fact of the matter is that that human life you are both defending usually has little to no impact on lives until the birth process and afterward. Because a fetus has a negligible impact on the world outside the womb until birth, Ed thinks abortion is justifiable–correct me if I’m wrong.

    I’m not sure if that is Ed’s view, but my response to anyone who held that view would simply be that we shouldn’t condone the destruction of any human beings just because they have negligible impacts on the world. The protection of a human life should not depend her location or on how much she contributes to society.

    I realize that people have philosophical differences, but I am pointing to the scientific facts that should ground our discussion. If we really didn’t know if the unborn were human beings, then we could debate that. But we do know they are human beings, so the question is whether their lives are worthy of protection. The reasons typically given to justify abortion would almost always justify infanticide or other murders as well.

    Like

  39. karen says:

    My daughter became ill immediately after her gardasil shot she has been very sick for a year and a half. It’s a deadly vaccination. It has ruined her life. It has been horrible. We went to 9 different doctors 2 weeks ago. Only one appt. was scheduled. What do you think. Gardasil=hell.

    Like

  40. James says:

    Annie B. and Neil,

    I actually think one of the biggest problems in this thread is that you both define human life one way and Ed defines it another. No one here disputes that conception is the beginning of formal development of what we intuitively consider to be human life–namely, the life that we can directly interact with on a daily basis, life outside the womb–but I have to admit I’m a little disconcerted when I see these testimonies from people boldly and ambiguously saying that conception is the beginning of human life in general. I know, personally, that my life resulted from far more than just conception. Before my conception, there was my parents and their conception and all the events that occurred in their lives that eventually resulted in my existence. Couldn’t I legitimately claim, technically, that one of those other events resulted in my existence since I would not have come about if my parents had never met? There is more at work here than the testimony of a few people and a few excerpts from biology textbooks. Biologically speaking, I agree that the beginning of formal development of a new human being is at conception, but when you don’t make this distinction I am justified in saying that the beginning of all human life is the big bang, since in my opinion this resulted in all life we know of today.

    You both choose to take the biological perspective and claim (rightly) that the formal, biological beginning of human life is at conception. It should be clear that this is not the perspective that Ed is taking. The fact of the matter is that that human life you are both defending usually has little to no impact on lives until the birth process and afterward. Because a fetus has a negligible impact on the world outside the womb until birth, Ed thinks abortion is justifiable–correct me if I’m wrong. This, I believe, is what Ed is grappling with which you two are not. Until you are all arguing on the same terms the discussion will never progress.

    Like

  41. Neil says:

    The pattern repeats: Ed uses a ridiculous logical fallacy, Neil calls him on it, Ed lies and said Neil did it, Ed fails to apologize, Ed uses the fallacy again.

    I addressed Ed’s use of a guilt by association fallacy regarding Joseph Stalin multiple times on my blog. I also confronted him about it on other blogs. And he used it reflexively on your his blog. So the origin couldn’t be more clear. Just read the comments section of this post and search for Stalin.

    Like

  42. Ed Darrell says:

    I addressed Ed’s use of a guilt by association fallacy regarding Joseph Stalin multiple times on my blog.

    You accused me of being unfair, but that hardly addressed the matter. Have you ever figured out how your views on Darwin and evolution might differ from Stalin’s? Can you tell us? You never have.

    Like

  43. Neil says:

    Excellent points, Annie. You’ve got Ed’s number.

    Like

  44. Neil says:

    Ed, here are my summary points. Again.

    Summary: Normally I follow Proverbs 26:2 and ignore things like Ed’s petty personal attack above, but I decided that he needed a little lesson here. Plus, it was fun to demonstrate how anti-science he really was. And if he is such an unrepentant liar and his biases keep him from understanding “2+2” concepts such as how a new human life begins at conception, why should I trust him on topics like evolution, DDT or Gardasil?

    Ed Darrel: Pathological liar, and poor reader:

    I don’t throw the word “liar” around lightly. People can be mistaken, and that isn’t lying. But when one is corrected, when one clearly knows better and when one deliberately repeats untruths then we have a name for that person: Liar.

    I addressed Ed’s use of a guilt by association fallacy regarding Joseph Stalin multiple times on my blog. I also confronted him about it on other blogs. And he used it reflexively on your his blog. So the origin couldn’t be more clear. Just read the comments section of this post and search for Stalin.

    But then I came back to this site and found that he had accused me of bringing it up!

    I objected to Simpson’s off-the-wall claim trying to link Darwin to Stalin in an exchange some time ago.

    It’s a reference to last year’s discussions with Simpson, in which he inaccurately tried to link Stalin to Darwin’s sins.

    I couldn’t care less what Ed thinks of me, but I was surprised to see him lying to thoroughly and repeatedly. I figured a public service announcement was in order.

    Like

  45. Ed Darrell says:

    Ed, re. your question about me discussing Gardasil with you, I’ll just remind you of my summary points (now updated for Gardasil):

    So where are your summary points? Neil, to most of us it’s considered poor form to mis-cite numbers. You claimed 32 deaths to Gardasil. The site you cited pointed to the CDC. CDC’s numbers say 32 deaths to people who had taken Gardasil, but none of the deaths could be connected to Gardasil. Not one.

    Which summary point retracts your claim? That’s the only one I’m interested in, the one that restores the discussion to facts and not distortions.

    Summary: Normally I follow Proverbs 26:2 and ignore things like Ed’s petty personal attack above,

    It’s not a petty personal attack, Neil. For the third time I’ve caught you, you’ve put out false information on an important topic, this time you’re siding with cancer against women. I don’t think your inability to tell the facts straight is a petty point at all.

    Is it? Is your honor worth so little that it doesn’t matter to you whether you can be counted on for accuracy?

    . . . but I decided that he needed a little lesson here. Plus, it was fun to demonstrate how anti-science he really was. And if he is such an unrepentant liar and his biases keep him from understanding “2+2” concepts such as how a new human life begins at conception, why should I trust him on topics like evolution, DDT or Gardasil?

    I see — so the fact that I disagree with you about the law gives you a license to tell fantastic lies about women’s health? You take license to lie about DDT, about Rachel Carson, and malaria, because you think Ed needs a lesson?

    Neil, that’s despicable.

    Alas, it’s probably truthful, that you don’t really care about the facts, and that you will say anything, even things you know to be false, in order to score a debating point.

    Do we even dare to start checking your claims on abortion?

    Let the record show: Neil claims he tells falsehoods about Gardasil, about DDT, about evolution, “to teach Ed a lesson.”

    I use scripture in my discussion, too. In this case, Psalms 50.9 applies, in a way that only a fact-bender like Neil will understand: “I will take no bull from your house . . .”

    Like

  46. Annie B. says:

    Again, (yawn) already long since researched and compiled, so this is cut-and-paste time:

    Roe v. Wade did not decide when human life begins. They punted that ball. They purposely left that question unanswered, untouched. Read the damn actual case, man. THEN ask yourself: why does Roe v. Wade refer to the unborn whatever-you-want-to-call-it as “the property of the mother”, if it was not yet a human offspring????

    YOU CANNOT HAVE A “MOTHER” IF THERE IS NOT A “BABY.” PERIOD. EVEN ROE V. WADE PUT IT IN WRITING.

    Now on to your other myth perpetuations:
    Myth #15 (of 15):
    15. “My reproductive rights and the ‘right to privacy’ are guaranteed by the Constitution.”

    Actually, they’re not. Not even mentioned in the Constitution or Declaration or Federalist Papers or Amendments.

    “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy”…

    was admitted in writing by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, but the High Court created one (and so-called “reproductive rights”) anyway. That’s a big difference.

    Not to mention the fact that the Supreme Court is not supposed to create or establish rights. That is the purview of the Constitution and after that, only is to be done through the Amendment process.

    Instead we have nine individual people creating rights and changing the Constitution instead of a two-thirds majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate and also 75% (or 38) of the states.

    It’s worth repeating: nine people, versus 290 Congressmen, about 67 Senators, and the state legislatures of 38 states.

    Something is rotten, and it ain’t in Denmark. “Checks and balances? We don’t need no stinkin’ checks and balances!”

    I find it fascinating that those objecting the most to the power given to the Federal Government under such things as The Patriot Act, are actually unaware of the vast “benefits” they enjoy as a result of the rampant expansion of federal power that occurred much prior to Roe v. Wade but was exemplified by that decision:

    “The Supreme Court gained dominance through its misuse of the Fourteenth Amendment…It was the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, which, as construed by the Supreme Court, so radically changed the division of powers [among the three branches of U.S. government], that it is fairly described as the ‘second Constitution.’…[And t]he Supreme Court could not have achieved dominance if Congress had not acquiesced…’Only in this century did it begin to be commonplace to regard the justices of the Supreme Court as the ‘guardians’ of the Constitution, as though only they…had this charge…The Framers [of the Constitution] knew better.”

    Want proof of this? (Of course, Ed doesn’t)

    “Congress has authority, under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, to remove a class of cases, such as those dealing with abortion or school prayer, from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and from the trial and appellate jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. If Congress did so, for example, that would not overrule Roe v. Wade. But state courts would be free to decide the issue themselves without fear of review by the Supreme Court.”

    So, Congress has had the power all along to remove the cases on abortion from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. They still have the power. They refuse to exercise it.

    As for Roe v. Wade, here’s a long quote from 5th Circuit Appellate Judge Edith Jones about the motion to overturn Roe v. Wade:

    “Essentially, the [lower] district court concluded that a 30-year delay, regardless of the circumstances, is too long as a matter of law. We disagree. … Accordingly, the district court erred in initially determining that the 30-year delay was ‘unreasonable’ without examining the facts and circumstances of this particular case.

    …If courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe’s balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman’s ‘choice’ is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child’s sentience far more advanced, than the Roe court knew…

    “One may fervently hope that the Court will someday acknowledge such developments and re-evaluate Roe…accordingly. That the court’s constitutional decisionmaking leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the Court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication.”

    But of course, Ed is going to tell me that I have to address his questions while he is allowed to ignore the glaring, gaping mistakes in his arguments that I’ve just driven a couple of Mack trucks through, AND he’ll still reject all those expert world-renowned scientists who testified under oath before the U.S. Senate, probably calling them “frothing quacks”, AND he’ll reject 35-year Constitutional law professors from Notre Dame University who know their Sh** better than Ed ever will think he does…

    Like I said to Ed and anyone believing his tripe, go ahead. Put your heads in the sand. Nothing I point out to you will make it through your heads or hardened hearts.

    I know I said I won’t waste my time here, and I really shouldn’t, but the level of willful ignorance displayed on this blog truly has transcended itself into massive disinformation. Pity.

    Like

  47. Annie B. says:

    This won’t be a waste of my time because it’s already been compiled and posted before:

    From the Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981):

    1. Dr. Landrum Shettles, known as the ‘father of in vitro fertilization:’ “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.”

    2. Dr. Jerome Lejeune (discovered Down Syndrome’s genetic cause): “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence.”

    3. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

    4. Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, Professor of pediatrics/obstetrics at Ivy-League University of Pennsylvania: “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception… human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life. I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty… is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

    5. Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter– the beginning is conception.”

    6. Dr. Micheline Mathews-Roth of Harvard Medical School also testified, citing over 20 embryology/medical textbooks that human life begins at conception, including:

    7. Ronan O’Rahilly, International Board Member, Nomina Embryologica (the international body determining correct human embryology terminologies in textbooks), and an original founder of The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryological Development, in his med school textbook, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, O’Rahilly and Muller): “Just as postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization.” (p. 88)

    8. O’Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994): “Fertilization is an important landmark because a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. (p. 5); The zygote … is a unicellular embryo.” (p. 19).

    9. William Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997): “the male and female sex cells, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point.” (p. 1).

    10. Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd Ed., 1977): “The cell (a single-celled zygote) results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of human life.”

    In Roe v. Wade, the justices refused to answer the question, “When does human life begin?” which led to the confusion Ed & Company and many others still share. The Supreme Court treated it as solely a philosophical question back then. Since then, as the scientific evidence and testimony shows, human life has been shown scientifically to begin at conception. This is a scientific fact now known for many years by world-renowned embryologists and other human biologists, as well as taught from medical school textbooks and testified to under sworn oath to Congress.

    Science, since 1973, conclusively tells us that human life begins at conception (also known as fertilization), not at birth.

    It is not a matter of “faith” nor a “belief,” “religious,” “philosophical,” “personal” or otherwise.

    Ed, read on for more about what you misunderstand about what the Supreme Court did and did not do with Roe v. Wade and what the Constitution says and does not say…

    Like

  48. Neil says:

    Ed, re. your question about me discussing Gardasil with you, I’ll just remind you of my summary points (now updated for Gardasil):

    Summary: Normally I follow Proverbs 26:2 and ignore things like Ed’s petty personal attack above, but I decided that he needed a little lesson here. Plus, it was fun to demonstrate how anti-science he really was. And if he is such an unrepentant liar and his biases keep him from understanding “2+2” concepts such as how a new human life begins at conception, why should I trust him on topics like evolution, DDT or Gardasil?

    Like

  49. Neil says:

    Nick, you seem to have trouble following my response to your Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born canard (actually, I think you know exactly what I said and just can’t refute it, so you resort to ad hominem attacks). But just for grins, let’s try an example.

    If the government decided to kill all homeless people, would it be fair of you to protest that if you weren’t willing to house them yourself?

    I submit that you could protest that all day every day and not have to take on the burden of caring for them all.

    But you try to attack me personally for not wanting unborn human beings to be killed by saying that I have to care for them all before I can voice my concerns.

    So which is it? Would you protest the slaughter of homeless people or not? Please try to answer without name calling. A simple yes / no will suffice.

    Like

  50. Neil says:

    No, most abortions don’t take place in bedrooms anymore, but you appear deeply engaged in a campaign to send them back there.

    Fact-free and irrelevant. I completely discredited your “keep the gov’t out of bedrooms” argument and that’s the best you’ve got? If you were even partially serious about truly keeping the government out of bedrooms you’d protest their involvement with Planned Parenthood and Gardasil.

    The embryology books you cited are interesting, but they don’t make the case. An embryo is not a baby.

    Right. A human embryo is a human embryo. A human baby is a human baby. A human baby is not a human teenager. None of those obvioius statements makes it ok to kill a human being in embryo or fetus form.

    You’re making the point strongly that you think life begins at conception, and ends at birth.

    Now you are really getting incoherent. Where do you make these things up?

    That you’re willing to let them starve, freeze, go homeless, go uneducated, go without healthcare because you simply can’t be Christian enough to actually say you’re willing to help whether that is through higher taxes or through other means.

    I see that you continue to fail at reading comprehension. I’m the one saying to let the children be born. You are the one saying it is ok to kill them because they might burden society. You have it completely backwards.

    I help the poor with my own money and I pay all my taxes. But even if I didn’t donate any money I could protest murder.

    All you had to do, Neil, was say that you’d be willing to help pay for those things when they’re necessary.

    I already mentioned many times that I do those things already. I give $5,000 per year to CareNet pregnancy center to help women and children in need (in addition to many other charitable contributions). I also donate my time. How much do you give to women who want an alternative to abortion?

    Not sure where you went off on the Catholic bit. I’m not Catholic. But I’m pretty sure I give more money to the poor than you do and that I pay more taxes.

    Don’t play games, Neil, that you simply lack the intelligence much less the morality to win.

    Nick, I realize you think you’re doing some swell trash talking, but all you’ve done is describe yourself. I donate time and money to help people. You want the children to be killed so they won’t be a burden to you.

    Actually, Neil, I never did say “better than dead” line. But thank you for proving that when it comes to lying…you are an expert.

    Grow up, Nick. That was the logical conclusion of your views. You say that if these children aren’t aborted they will be poor. You use that as a justification to let them be killed.

    The point I was making by saying what I did, Neil, was to prove that you and your fellow “pro-lifers” are hypocrites. That you only care about life before it’s born.

    I’ve addressed that about seven times now. See item #3 below.

    —–
    Recap of previous Ed & Nick fallacies:
    1. I don’t throw the word “liar” around lightly. People can be mistaken, and that isn’t lying. But when one is corrected, when one clearly knows better and when one deliberately repeats untruths then we have a name for that person: Liar.

    I addressed Ed’s use of a guilt by association fallacy regarding Joseph Stalin multiple times on my blog. I also confronted him about it on other blogs. And he used it reflexively on your his blog. So the origin couldn’t be more clear. Just read the comments section of this post and search for Stalin.

    But then I came back to this site and found that he had accused me of bringing it up!

    I objected to Simpson’s off-the-wall claim trying to link Darwin to Stalin in an exchange some time ago.

    It’s a reference to last year’s discussions with Simpson, in which he inaccurately tried to link Stalin to Darwin’s sins.

    I couldn’t care less what Ed thinks of me, but I was surprised to see him lying to thoroughly and repeatedly. I figured a public service announcement was in order.

    Ed also breaks his own rule a lot:

    “Darrell’s Corollary of Godwin’s Law is that if posters in an internet discussion know to avoid the mention of Hitler to avoid their opponents’ invoking Godwin’s law, they’ll compare the actions to Stalin instead.” — http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/castro-joins-the-911-conspiracy-cluster/

    2. You see, the most important and amusing part of the thread is that the Mr. Science People deliberately and repeatedly ignore the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception. They aren’t using intellectual honesty to follow the truth where it leads. They come to science with their biases and twist the data to conform to them. Propping up their pro-abortion views puts them at odds with scientific facts but they work hard to rationalize them away. They use (bad) philosophical arguments and not scientific ones.

    If he was really pro-science he’d be pro-life. Embryology textbooks are clear about when life begins, but he chooses to rationalize that away to support the legalized crushing and dismemberment of 3,000+ human beings per day. It is so ironic that he cranks out posts about “dangerous, anti-science bigoted ignorance” when his views on abortion fit that title perfectly.

    Nothing is more dangerous to the unborn than abortion. If you get out of the womb alive you are very lucky. Abortion constitutes 99% of all murders.

    3. Nick repeatedly tried the Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born canard. I demonstrated multiple times that one can protest immoral acts without taking ownership of them. If the government decided to jail or kill all homeless people, Nick could protest that without having to let them all live with him.

    I also pointed out how even though pro-lifers don’t have to adopt all the kids to protest the evils of abortion, we do all sorts of things to help with our own time and money.

    4. Ed and Nick have lived in Liberal Land too long. The concept of personal responsibility is foreign to them. They continually argue that I am “forcing” these women to have babies. But they have already created new life. I’m just interested in protecting that new life. But they reflexively latch on to the prejudice that to be pro-life is to want to control women. Tell that to all the female pro-lifers.

    5. They continually abandon scientific arguments and use faulty “if legal, then moral” reasoning. Yes, abortions are legal. But while slavery used to be legal, it was always immoral.

    6. They ignore the scientific fact that these aren’t hypothetical human beings or potential human beings. They already exist on planet earth. They are at the proper stage of development for their age.

    7. They both exercise anti-religious bigotry and prejudices to dismiss my views. I pointed out that while I am a Christian, I save biblical arguments for those who claim to be Christians. The pro-life case is so powerful that you don’t even need the Bible to demonstrate it. And of course, there is nothing illogical about using my religious views to inform my political views. No one seems to protest when I use my religious views to oppose stealing, perjury and murder. Oh, and there is also that First Amendment thingy.

    They missed the irony, of course, that they also used religious arguments to justify their positions. Nick used a bad exegesis of Exodus to rationalize abortion. Not only did he cherry-pick a mistranslation to make his point, but he ignored the legions of pro-life verses, starting with “don’t murder.” But my main point is by his own reasoning Nick is forcing his pro-abortion religious views on innocent unborn children. What hypocrisy!

    In addition, he just repeated his claim that Exodus supports abortion but never defended it with facts. He didn’t even attempt to refute the scholarship in the link that I provided, which went back to the original language and demonstrated how some poor translations led to pro-abortionists misusing the passage.

    8. And of course they trotted out the “anti-women” ad hominem attack. They had no response to my questions about why they support gender selection abortions, virtually all of which destroy innocent female human beings. They ignore the reality of post abortion trauma and the chauvinism of abortion, which puts the burden on the woman to use it as a form of birth control. I also pointed out how the pro-life position is actually pro-women. Many women are pushed into abortions by men who won’t take responsibility for their actions.

    I reject the reasoning that says women must have the ability to kill their unborn children to prove their worth and to fit into society, the workplace and politics.

    9. Nick tried to act like I was hypocritical for not wanting to finance the care of unwanted children, but he didn’t realize that he was pointing fingers back at himself. In his “kindness” he unwittingly concedes that he would prefer that unborn human beings be destroyed rather than inconvenience him.

    10. Ed objected to a link I posted with images of abortion. But if abortion is a moral good and doesn’t kill an innocent human being then what could be wrong with showing images of it? And why is Ed so concerned about the innocence of these alleged children who read his blog? He fully supported the “rights” of their mothers to have them crushed and dismembered before they were born, and now he wants to profess his concern that viewing images of this allegedly moral procedure will harm them?

    11. They tried the angle multiple times that I don’t use evidence, but I’m the one who used evidence throughout: Evidence that Ed is a unrepentant liar, evidence that the book of Exodus does not support abortion and evidence that a new human life is formed at conception. They were the ones with the fact-free fallacy-fest.

    12. Ed claimed that I want to poison Africa. Sure, Ed. I pointed out that I’ve been on mission trips there three times, have donated tens of thousands of dollars to various causes there and have had a World Vision Sponsor child there for ten years. I don’t say that out of pride, just to point out how ridiculous it is for him to say I want to poison Africa. I’m still waiting to hear just how much Ed has contributed to Africa in terms of his own time and money.

    13. Ed added these new lies:

    The point is that you advocate creationism to be taught to innocent children in schools.

    Nick parroted Ed’s lie that I push for creationism to be taught in public schools and he made all sorts of vicious accusations in doing so. I challenged them to find any evidence of that in the nearly 1,000 posts I’ve done on my blog. They found none. I am on record for saying that I don’t want non-Christians or theologically Liberal Christians (but I repeat myself?) to teach the Bible in public schools. They would probably teach that all religions lead to God, Jesus is not God, there is no Hell, the Bible can’t be relied upon, God is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, etc.

    Was Nick lying? I don’t think so. I think he was using bad discernment in trusting Ed without evidence and was prideful in failing to apologize for his outburst.

    14. Nick claimed that since it would be ineffective to make abortion illegal because it wouldn’t eliminate all abortions. That reasoning would mean we’d get rid of all laws, because despite the risks people still steal, rape, murder, etc. So his argument is faulty because it proves to much.

    15. Ed claimed I was bigoted for disagreeing with Rachel Carson because she was unmarried. The only problems with that are a) I didn’t know she was unmarried, b) it wouldn’t have mattered even if I had known and c) using that “reasoning” you could never disagree with a woman or any minority without Ed calling you a bigot.

    16. Ed tried the miscarriage canard by implying that abortion must not be wrong if miscarriages happen so frequently. It is hard to believe I have to explain this, but killing an infant by chopping him up is a “little” different than if the infant succumbed to SIDS. In the same way, the unborn are scientifically proven to be human beings. Death via abortion is wildly different than a miscarriage.

    17. Nick tried the “better dead than poor” line. I wonder why it took him so long. It is as fallacious as ever. The “your pro-life policies will result in more poor” line ignores the fact that Nick’s pro-abortion policies will result in more dead.

    So according to Nick, it would be good to kill poor children.

    18. Ed tried the “keep government out of bedrooms” fallacy, which ignores that the government shouldn’t care where murders are committed. You can’t kill a toddler in your bedroom. And of course, if he really held that view he’d oppose Planned Parenthood funding and involvement in schools, as well as any government involvement with Gardasil.

    19. Ed tried the “embryos aren’t babies” bit. That is technically true, of course. A human embryo is a human embryo. A human baby is a human baby. A human baby is not a human teenager. None of those obvioius statements makes it ok to kill a human being in embryo or fetus form.

    Like

  51. Nick Kelsier says:

    Actually, Neil, I never did say “better than dead” line. But thank you for proving that when it comes to lying…you are an expert.

    The point I was making by saying what I did, Neil, was to prove that you and your fellow “pro-lifers” are hypocrites. That you only care about life before it’s born. That you aren’t willing to make any sacrifice whatsoever to help those children after they’re born. That you’re willing to let them starve, freeze, go homeless, go uneducated, go without healthcare because you simply can’t be Christian enough to actually say you’re willing to help whether that is through higher taxes or through other means.

    In other words, Neil, I was showing you to be as immoral as the “pro-abortion” people you rail against. And you fell for it hook line and sinker. Because it’s not actually like I was asking you to pay higher taxes, it’s not that I was asking you for money. All you had to do, Neil, was say that you’d be willing to help pay for those things when they’re necessary. And you couldn’t. You simply couldn’t utter the words. Because the words got choked off in your mind by the thought the “I will be for this…as long as it doesn’t cost me anything. But the second it does cost me something the children don’t mean a damn thing to me. They can die for all I care.”

    Oh and before you go off on that “liberal” charge again. I was asking you to hold yourself to Christian..or more specially..Catholic Social Teachings. Because under Catholic Social Teachings, Neil, everyone has the right to food, shelter and clothing, employment, health care, and education.

    I was by no means saying that they’d be better off dead. And you can’t find the words where I did say that. I was asking you to quit being a poser, a fake..a hypocrite. Yes you can sit there all you want protesting against abortion but you aren’t willing to get your hands dirty. You aren’t willing to actually help, you aren’t willing to make any sort of sacrifice. You are the epitome, Neil, of the person who stands by and, to use a metaphor, watches someone get beat up and then complains that noone stopped to help that person getting beat up. And instead of acknowledging the fact that if you make abortion illegal it still won’t go away you proceed to engage in the illusion that the only thing that is necessary to solve that particular problem is for abortion to be made illegal. Which is only proof that you can’t think through something further then the step immediately in front of you.

    Or to put a more Biblical taste on this…take the story of the Good Samaritan. You’re one of the ones that just walked by.

    Don’t play games, Neil, that you simply lack the intelligence much less the morality to win.

    Like

  52. Ed Darrell says:

    So, Neil, you have no defense for your disinformation about Gardasil either?

    No, most abortions don’t take place in bedrooms anymore, but you appear deeply engaged in a campaign to send them back there.

    The embryology books you cited are interesting, but they don’t make the case. An embryo is not a baby. The Supreme Court agonized over the issue deeply, and arrived at a sane, science-based decision, in 1983. Abortion is not murder, in science, in law, in custom, nor in scripture. I disagree with your conclusion.

    Your disagreeing with my conclusions does not make any of your errors correct.

    You’re making the point strongly that you think life begins at conception, and ends at birth. I reject that definition, too.

    Like

  53. Neil says:

    Quit snuffing out the lights, please. Lives depend on this information.

    It is always amusing when pro-abortionists pretend they care about saving lives. They fight every restriction against abortion and anything that would make women better informed about the decision they will make.

    Like

  54. Neil says:

    Ed, your “bedroom” analogy fails on multiple levels.

    I am not aware of abortions that occur in bedrooms. They typically take place at abortuaries like Planned Parenthood.

    Second, the government is concerned about crimes wherever they take place. Surely you aren’t suggesting that you can kill a toddler in your bedroom without government interference?

    Your viability claim has been dismantled multiple times. Or are you claiming that one can murder those outside the womb who aren’t viable without care? Killing an innocent human being, regardless of viability or location, is immoral and should be illegal. Pro-abortionists use the viability argument as part of their script because too few people stop to think it through.

    The embryolgy textbooks quotes I provided dealt specifically with the scientific issue. They weren’t designed to deal with moral arguments. But the equation is simple:

    1. Abortion kills an innocent human being (scientific fact for which I provided ample proof).

    2. It is immoral to kill innocent human beings.

    3. Therefore, abortion is immoral.

    Red herrings about viability don’t refute any of those simple points.

    Re. Bible lessons from pagans like you: You have got to be kidding me. I’ve seen you butcher biblical texts multiple times then crawl away. Atheists should see the scientific fact that life begins at conception. For someone to claim to be Christian and support abortion is outrageous.

    Like

  55. Ed Darrell says:

    I looked at all the facts, even before you pointed them out. I do that and have done so regularly since 2004. Heck, I even modified that first post about Gardasil in August 2008 and fully acknowledged that then and in the recent post. I don’t make false cases against anything and I correct any errors made. If you knew anything about me, you’d know that already.

    Ah, then you can point me to where you either,
    1. Demonstrate any link between any of the 32 deaths and Gardasil, or
    2. Note that there is no link between any of the deaths and Gardasil.

    Please do so.

    Quit snuffing out the lights, please. Lives depend on this information.

    Like

  56. Annie B. says:

    Wow, Ed. Five more “frothing” snarky comments from you. You’re your own best audience.

    I looked at all the facts, even before you pointed them out. I do that and have done so regularly since 2004. Heck, I even modified that first post about Gardasil in August 2008 and fully acknowledged that then and in the recent post. I don’t make false cases against anything and I correct any errors made. If you knew anything about me, you’d know that already.

    You do, however, make false cases for things and refuse to look at any other facts than the ones that suit your agenda, never mind admit when you’ve made mistakes.

    And incendiary taunts don’t get to me anymore, either, sorry. Have fun with them, though, you clearly relish at least sounding like you “won.”

    You choose to keep your head in the sand and refuse to really research the entire story of these two issues. And you call me “hypocritical, self-serving and whimsical!”

    You would do well to learn something of those you attack before you attack them, also. You might learn something about what truly makes an “agenda” other than what you swallow hook line and sinker from the media and other disinformed sources. But then, too many of those who support abortion and other dangerous things like Gardasil are guilty of that same planned ignorance as well. It suits your purpose.

    Best of luck living in the dark, Ed, like I did for far too long. I won’t waste any more of my time on your planned ignorance.

    Like

  57. Ed Darrell says:

    Oops, that comment belonged on your other post. Too many open tabs.

    There may be intelligence on Planet Houston yet.

    I hope that means you don’t intend that post as a defense of your DDT claims. Time will tell.

    Like

  58. Ed Darrell says:

    Hmmm . . . so he isn’t an expert and didn’t take the time to investigate my claims that a new human life begins at conception. But he kept insisting I was wrong and that his position was scientifically valid.

    I read your links. Most of them were butchered or doctored quotes, and none of them had the authority of a P. Z. Myers, whom you said you refused to read. None of your sources claims that viability confers on a fertilized egg. None of them argued that the common law idea that life does not occur before birth was wrong. None of your sources argued that we should extend human rights into the inhabitant of the womb, even though some made passing arguments urging against abortion.

    I’m no expert, Neil, and you know a lot less than I do. I’m not obsessed with the issue, however, nor do I choose to be. My experience is that those who are obsessed with abortion, on either side of the issue, descend into froth-mouthed insanity or, if they’re lucky, incoherent-babbling inanity.

    You’re making the case that my experience is still valid.

    And apparently Ed is not an expert on the scientific fact that abortion kills an innocent human being, but he is an expert on Gardasil. Check.

    Gardasil is in the area of legislative issues I dealt with, yes. Especially when backed by the scientific research, I’m an expert compared to you.

    Neil, asthma attacks, meningitis unrelated to the vaccine, and auto accidents, are not side-effects of Gardasil. Do you have a defense of your claims? Why not defend your claims instead of being an offensive boor?

    I’d save your time and read something more worthwhile.

    If only you would read anything, anything at all worthwhile. You’ve been suckered in by idiots and schemers on evolution; you support those who urge the poisoning of Africa, and contrary to all known science, say Rachel Carson was wrong; and you’ve fallen in with those who urge we leave children unprotected from deadly pathogens, the “anti-vaxers,” who might have had a case against state-ordered vaccinations with Gardasil, but who now simply stand on the side of cancer killing women.

    What do we call the philosophy of selectively killing large numbers of people, Neil?

    Like

  59. Ed Darrell says:

    Of course, that displays a gross lack of understanding about how our legal system works. You ought to study history sometime. Congress cannot outlaw murder in the womb because of a bad Supreme Court decision in 1973. So we need a different legal fix.

    It falls under balance of powers and checks and balances, Neil. The Supreme Court’s decision is based on the privacy rights citizens have under the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court, in decisions that most people agree with absolutely, the government has no business knowing how often you have sex with your wife, in what positions, using what forms of contraception if any. The state has no compelling interest in your bedroom especially with regard to the old Connecticut law that said you and your wife can’t use condoms. Enforceability was the real stickler, I suspect. It is impossible to imagine an enforcement scheme that does not shock the conscience of people and violate all known and possible privacy rights.

    To overturn the decision in Roe vs. Wade, Congress may impose restrictions on abortion, which it constantly tries to do. Or it could propose an amendment to the Constitution, broad or narrow, to enable legislation banning abortion generally, something it has had pending before it every minute since the Roe decision in 1983.

    Neil, for ten minutes, you should stop thinking you know everything about every topic better than anyone else, get your head back in your house, and see if in your Bible you can find any lessons about hubris (I know, it’s Greek to you), or haughtiness, and the dangers therein.

    Congress has the power to make murder illegal, as does each state legistlature. Abortion isn’t murder, which makes Congress’s acting against it a different matter.

    Like

  60. Ed Darrell says:

    I listed the evidence above, again. And I’ve explained multiple times why you aren’t someone I would ever go to for information. See the summary below.

    Neil, I see that my banning on your blog was not my problem, but yours. You’re in danger of justifiable retaliation here.

    Give me the link where you provided any evidence for DDT, please. I can’t find it right now, and looking at my search history, I see I’ve been looking for it twice before when you made that claim.

    Now you’re engaged in a mini-Nixon-style coverup. Astounding.

    Got facts? Let’s see them.

    Like

  61. Ed Darrell says:

    I take what the CDC says with a grain or two of salt, however, and you choose not to.

    Except when you choose not to, when you headline CDC figures claiming they support your point.

    Annie B., now that we understand the hypocritical, self-serving and whimsical nature of your criticisms of CDC, we’re close to getting back to the regular programming.

    And, for Neil’s sake, let me be clear: I believe the “National Vaccine Information Center” and its supporters are engaged in mass murder. The disinformation and propaganda they spread against good information that can save lives should be criminal. It’s certainly immoral.

    Your rants cover most of the range of crank science on vaccines. Yes, I’ve considered CDC’s many sins and errors — they are quite open to correction, and they’ve generally stood solid against political orders to change their reporting to reflect politics in the White House, including, as you too-carefully demonstrate, all commands to make the reporting reflect your biases instead of the facts.

    We can safely start with CDC figures and go from there.

    It’s also quite obvious that your agenda is driven by a frothing opposition to abortion. Gardasil will, indeed, protect some women against cancer who have had sex out of wedlock. I’m opposed to death penalties for anyone who had consensual sex.

    The claim that abortions cause breast cancer is one of the most craven lies ever told about health, especially the way you tell it.

    Like

  62. Annie B. says:

    Hi, Ed Darrell. Apparently this Simpson person linked and quoted to my original post over at Prolifeblogs.com, from the looks of things. I don’t have a great deal of time to respond, unfortunately, but I do think you miss some things. I did in fact link to the CDC website where it does point out exactly what you pointed out. I take what the CDC says with a grain or two of salt, however, and you choose not to.

    Also the CDC page I quoted was “last modified: April 10, 2009″ not “10-22-08″ as was the PDF file you linked to.

    You make no mention or acknowledgement either of the NVIC evaluation of the VAERS data as given in the NVIC report of February 2009.

    You make no mention of the severe underreporting and the fact there are “no sanctions for failure to report” adverse reactions to the VAERS, as also found by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, the FDA, and in a published, peer-reviewed study by Rosenthal & Chen who also evaluated a second “passive” surveillance system called “Monitoring System for Adverse Events Following Immunization” and concluded that “The significant underreporting of known outcomes, together with the nonspecific nature of most adverse event reports, highlights the limitations of passive surveillance systems in assessing the incidence of vaccine adverse events.” It would seem the VAERS hasn’t changed much since that study in 1995 either.

    This is what the FDA wrote in the footnoted document about AE reporting (Adverse Event):

    “Reaching a firm conclusion about the relationship between exposure to a medical product and the occurrence of an adverse event can be difficult. In one study, clinical pharmacologists and treating physicians showed complete agreement less than half the time when determining whether medication, alcohol or “recreational” drug use had caused hospitalization (29).”

    I could go on. The point is, the CDC cannot tell you or me anything with absolute certainty as they don’t have the whole truth and they never will as these are passive, voluntary reporting systems.

    You take the CDC’s statement wholly on faith when it is clearly not right to do so.

    Yet you state on your blog post that “I’m a big fan of getting the facts before making claims.”

    Why don’t you hold the CDC’s feet to that same fire? Instead you yourself ignore some critical facts (only some of which are presented in this comment) and assume the CDC is “right” to claim that “There was no common pattern to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine” when boodles of other scientists, the FDA, Johns Hopkins included, all say that what “data” the CDC has at all is nowhere near conclusive, complete or even accurate.

    I have another question for you, Ed. You state in your blog something else very interesting:

    “Don’t you think that, in blaming deaths on a dosage of a vaccine, one should not count deaths to people who did not get the vaccine? So, can we trust numbers from a slander campaign that keeps repeating falsehoods for two years, though the data are freely available?”

    I agree that no one should count a car accident death as a Gardasil death, nor should they count it if the woman did not receive the vaccine.

    But have you made your same anger and logic to bear on Planned Parenthood and its “research” lapdog Allan Guttmacher Institute, plus the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute and the AMA and many other so-called “scientists” when they include the 1997 Melbye (or Danish) study as part of their “proof” that abortion does NOT increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer?

    Because that is exactly what they’re doing, because the Melbye study did the exact same thing you state that anti-Gardasil study did.

    That study was severely criticized at least twice in the New England Journal of Medicine, for its errors of misclassification and data adjustment. [Joel Brind & Vernon Chinchilli, Letter, ”Induced Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer,” 336 New England Journal of Medicine (1997) 1834-35] and by Katrina Armstrong in February of 2000, [Armstrong (2000) NEJM 342:564-71].

    The most glaringly obvious objection to Melbye:
    “Melbye misclassified 60,000 women who’d had abortions as not having had them.”

    Yet the whole pro-choice and pro-abortion world still stands by that study. Go search for it, it’s still mentioned on Planned Parenthood’s website.

    Here’s more of the stupid science put forth by that Melbye study.

    Have you taken all those groups to task, Ed? You should, if you really believe in outing the scientific truth, the whole truth.

    If you don’t, then I can say to you, “Don’t you think that, in ‘disproving’ breast cancer risk from abortion, one should not count decreased breast cancer risk among people who did not have an abortion? So, can we trust numbers from a slander campaign that keeps repeating falsehoods for [many more than] two years, though the data are freely available?”

    Like

  63. Neil says:

    Public service announcement: Ed will pretend that he knows the science behind something and/or ignore your scientific evidence you offer. Then, when he realizes his position is hopeless, he’ll backtrack with something like this:

    I’m no expert in abortion, nor do I claim to be . . . I fear that, were I to check your claims on abortion, I’d find them as inaccurate as most of your other claims.

    Hmmm . . . so he isn’t an expert and didn’t take the time to investigate my claims that a new human life begins at conception. But he kept insisting I was wrong and that his position was scientifically valid.

    And apparently Ed is not an expert on the scientific fact that abortion kills an innocent human being, but he is an expert on Gardasil. Check.

    I’d save your time and read something more worthwhile.

    Like

  64. Neil says:

    Oops, that comment belonged on your other post. Too many open tabs.

    Like

  65. Neil says:

    You claimed that you came here, noting the link, and that I had lied.

    Ed, are you stupid or do you think your blog readers are? I’ve only demonstrated about twenty times that the lies weren’t in your post (I’ve yet to read all of it — it probably has lies, but I’ve no interested in what you write on anything). The lies were on other threads from other posts:

    I objected to Simpson’s off-the-wall claim trying to link Darwin to Stalin in an exchange some time ago.

    It’s a reference to last year’s discussions with Simpson, in which he inaccurately tried to link Stalin to Darwin’s sins.

    And other lies were in this comment thread, such as:

    The point is that you advocate creationism to be taught to innocent children in schools.

    Is that clear for you? Do you understand the difference between this a post and a thread? Do you understand the difference between this thread and other threads?

    I’ll just note that, once again, rather than do the noble thing and stand up for the truth, you resort to name-calling, invective, and try to change the subject.

    Ed, re-read your own post above and try not to drown in the irony. What a hypocrite.

    My memory differs from yours on where the Stalin notion came.

    No way, Ed. That is another lie. We discussed that too much at my blog and others for you to expect anyone to believe that.

    have failed to concede that I brought it up accurately, and you’ve resisted my repeated pleas to distinguish your views on Darwin and evolution from Stalin’s, which has done your case no good at all.

    You didn’t bring it up accurately. What is so amusing that when you try to squirm out of it by claiming a faulty memory and how you said that you “may have” brought it up first (there is no maybe about it), you return to your logical fallacy like a dog returns to its vomit.

    I’m no expert in abortion, nor do I claim to be, but I think the legal position is quite clear: The government has no business in any woman’s womb, not in your wife’s nor mine, to tell them either that they must abort, or that they must carry. That’s not a place for Congress.

    Now there’s a twist! You’ve been claiming all along that your science was accurate and that mine was not, and now you are playing dumb?

    Then you fall back on the fact that it is legal (hey, it worked for slave owners, right?

    Then you play the faux women’s rights bit (#8) and pass the buck to Congress. Of course, that displays a gross lack of understanding about how our legal system works. You ought to study history sometime. Congress cannot outlaw murder in the womb because of a bad Supreme Court decision in 1973. So we need a different legal fix.

    But in the mean time people like you and Nick could demonstrate your authentic (?) concern for human beings inside and outside the womb by donating your own time and money to organizations like pregnancy centers.

    You claim abortion is murder. You’ll not be dissuaded from that view, I suspect. I don’t care to discuss the issue much with someone who will not reason, and who starts from a radical position of non-reason.

    That’s #11 from the list below, the evidence gambit. I’ve shown it about twenty times, you’ve shown nothing in the way of science. You just try to dismiss my view as being non-reasonable, but I’m the only one here offering evdience and reasons.

    Now perhaps you’re unwilling to discuss the subject I started from — but if you’re going to accuse me of lying about your post on DDT, I have the right to demand you produce evidence of that lie.

    I listed the evidence above, again. And I’ve explained multiple times why you aren’t someone I would ever go to for information. See the summary below.

    I fear that, were I to check your claims on abortion, I’d find them as inaccurate as most of your other claims.

    Can you go two sentences without contradicting yourself? You say I haven’t reasoned, then you concede that I’ve made claims.

    Then you admit that you haven’t checked them! You are so desparate, Ed. Human life begins at conception. It is the greatest moral issue of our time. And you are either lying or you haven’t taken the time to check the science on a scientific concept so simple and clear that even pro-abortion leaders concede it.

    No, I won’t read your piece on Gardasil. What are the odds that you would get anything right about it? I get enough shrill lies in the newspaper.

    ——-
    This recap has come in handy. Ed and Nick keep repeating themselves so I can just refer to their fallacies by number.

    I typically make it a practice to ignore it when Ed links to my site. But it has been a while since he (the first person banned from commenting at my site) had linked, so curiosity got the best of me. I discovered that Ed had been lying about me multiple times and continued to do so in this thread.

    1. I don’t throw the word “liar” around lightly. People can be mistaken, and that isn’t lying. But when one is corrected, when one clearly knows better and when one deliberately repeats untruths then we have a name for that person: Liar.

    I addressed Ed’s use of a guilt by association fallacy regarding Joseph Stalin multiple times on my blog. I also confronted him about it on other blogs. And he used it reflexively on your his blog. So the origin couldn’t be more clear. Just read the comments section of this post and search for Stalin.

    But then I came back to this site and found that he had accused me of bringing it up!

    I objected to Simpson’s off-the-wall claim trying to link Darwin to Stalin in an exchange some time ago.

    It’s a reference to last year’s discussions with Simpson, in which he inaccurately tried to link Stalin to Darwin’s sins.

    I couldn’t care less what Ed thinks of me, but I was surprised to see him lying to thoroughly and repeatedly. I figured a public service announcement was in order.

    Ed also breaks his own rule a lot:

    “Darrell’s Corollary of Godwin’s Law is that if posters in an internet discussion know to avoid the mention of Hitler to avoid their opponents’ invoking Godwin’s law, they’ll compare the actions to Stalin instead.” — http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/castro-joins-the-911-conspiracy-cluster/

    2. You see, the most important and amusing part of the thread is that the Mr. Science People deliberately and repeatedly ignore the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception. They aren’t using intellectual honesty to follow the truth where it leads. They come to science with their biases and twist the data to conform to them. Propping up their pro-abortion views puts them at odds with scientific facts but they work hard to rationalize them away. They use (bad) philosophical arguments and not scientific ones.

    If he was really pro-science he’d be pro-life. Embryology textbooks are clear about when life begins, but he chooses to rationalize that away to support the legalized crushing and dismemberment of 3,000+ human beings per day. It is so ironic that he cranks out posts about “dangerous, anti-science bigoted ignorance” when his views on abortion fit that title perfectly.

    Nothing is more dangerous to the unborn than abortion. If you get out of the womb alive you are very lucky. Abortion constitutes 99% of all murders.

    3. Nick repeatedly tried the Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born canard. I demonstrated multiple times that one can protest immoral acts without taking ownership of them. If the government decided to jail or kill all homeless people, Nick could protest that without having to let them all live with him.

    I also pointed out how even though pro-lifers don’t have to adopt all the kids to protest the evils of abortion, we do all sorts of things to help with our own time and money.

    4. Ed and Nick have lived in Liberal Land too long. The concept of personal responsibility is foreign to them. They continually argue that I am “forcing” these women to have babies. But they have already created new life. I’m just interested in protecting that new life. But they reflexively latch on to the prejudice that to be pro-life is to want to control women. Tell that to all the female pro-lifers.

    5. They continually abandon scientific arguments and use faulty “if legal, then moral” reasoning. Yes, abortions are legal. But while slavery used to be legal, it was always immoral.

    6. They ignore the scientific fact that these aren’t hypothetical human beings or potential human beings. They already exist on planet earth. They are at the proper stage of development for their age.

    7. They both exercise anti-religious bigotry and prejudices to dismiss my views. I pointed out that while I am a Christian, I save biblical arguments for those who claim to be Christians. The pro-life case is so powerful that you don’t even need the Bible to demonstrate it. And of course, there is nothing illogical about using my religious views to inform my political views. No one seems to protest when I use my religious views to oppose stealing, perjury and murder. Oh, and there is also that First Amendment thingy.

    They missed the irony, of course, that they also used religious arguments to justify their positions. Nick used a bad exegesis of Exodus to rationalize abortion. Not only did he cherry-pick a mistranslation to make his point, but he ignored the legions of pro-life verses, starting with “don’t murder.” But my main point is by his own reasoning Nick is forcing his pro-abortion religious views on innocent unborn children. What hypocrisy!

    In addition, he just repeated his claim that Exodus supports abortion but never defended it with facts. He didn’t even attempt to refute the scholarship in the link that I provided, which went back to the original language and demonstrated how some poor translations led to pro-abortionists misusing the passage.

    8. And of course they trotted out the “anti-women” ad hominem attack. They had no response to my questions about why they support gender selection abortions, virtually all of which destroy innocent female human beings. They ignore the reality of post abortion trauma and the chauvinism of abortion, which puts the burden on the woman to use it as a form of birth control. I also pointed out how the pro-life position is actually pro-women. Many women are pushed into abortions by men who won’t take responsibility for their actions.

    I reject the reasoning that says women must have the ability to kill their unborn children to prove their worth and to fit into society, the workplace and politics.

    9. Nick tried to act like I was hypocritical for not wanting to finance the care of unwanted children, but he didn’t realize that he was pointing fingers back at himself. In his “kindness” he unwittingly concedes that he would prefer that unborn human beings be destroyed rather than inconvenience him.

    10. Ed objected to a link I posted with images of abortion. But if abortion is a moral good and doesn’t kill an innocent human being then what could be wrong with showing images of it? And why is Ed so concerned about the innocence of these alleged children who read his blog? He fully supported the “rights” of their mothers to have them crushed and dismembered before they were born, and now he wants to profess his concern that viewing images of this allegedly moral procedure will harm them?

    11. They tried the angle multiple times that I don’t use evidence, but I’m the one who used evidence throughout: Evidence that Ed is a unrepentant liar, evidence that the book of Exodus does not support abortion and evidence that a new human life is formed at conception. They were the ones with the fact-free fallacy-fest.

    12. Ed claimed that I want to poison Africa. Sure, Ed. I pointed out that I’ve been on mission trips there three times, have donated tens of thousands of dollars to various causes there and have had a World Vision Sponsor child there for ten years. I don’t say that out of pride, just to point out how ridiculous it is for him to say I want to poison Africa. I’m still waiting to hear just how much Ed has contributed to Africa in terms of his own time and money.

    13. Ed added these new lies:

    The point is that you advocate creationism to be taught to innocent children in schools.

    Nick parroted Ed’s lie that I push for creationism to be taught in public schools and he made all sorts of vicious accusations in doing so. I challenged them to find any evidence of that in the nearly 1,000 posts I’ve done on my blog. They found none. I am on record for saying that I don’t want non-Christians or theologically Liberal Christians (but I repeat myself?) to teach the Bible in public schools. They would probably teach that all religions lead to God, Jesus is not God, there is no Hell, the Bible can’t be relied upon, God is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, etc.

    Was Nick lying? I don’t think so. I think he was using bad discernment in trusting Ed without evidence and was prideful in failing to apologize for his outburst.

    14. Nick claimed that since it would be ineffective to make abortion illegal because it wouldn’t eliminate all abortions. That reasoning would mean we’d get rid of all laws, because despite the risks people still steal, rape, murder, etc. So his argument is faulty because it proves to much.

    15. Ed claimed I was bigoted for disagreeing with Rachel Carson because she was unmarried. The only problems with that are a) I didn’t know she was unmarried, b) it wouldn’t have mattered even if I had known and c) using that “reasoning” you could never disagree with a woman or any minority without Ed calling you a bigot.

    16. Ed tried the miscarriage canard by implying that abortion must not be wrong if miscarriages happen so frequently. It is hard to believe I have to explain this, but killing an infant by chopping him up is a “little” different than if the infant succumbed to SIDS. In the same way, the unborn are scientifically proven to be human beings. Death via abortion is wildly different than a miscarriage.

    17. Nick tried the “better dead than poor” line. I wonder why it took him so long. It is as fallacious as ever. The “your pro-life policies will result in more poor” line ignores the fact that Nick’s pro-abortion policies will result in more dead.

    So according to Nick, it would be good to kill poor children.
    —–

    I’ve probably missed some things, but that will give you a flavor for their tactics and “reasoning.”

    Summary: Normally I follow Proverbs 26:2 and ignore things like Ed’s petty personal attack above, but I decided that he needed a little lesson here. Plus, it was fun to demonstrate how anti-science he really was. And if he is such an unrepentant liar and his biases keep him from understanding “2+2” concepts such as how a new human life begins at conception, why should I trust him on topics like evolution or DDT?

    Abortion is the greatest moral issue of our time. Over 3,000 innocent human beings will be destroyed today in the name of “choice.” It is a scientific fact that these are human beings. It is a shame that so many in the pro-science crowd deny that truth.

    Like

  66. Neil says:

    Oh, good, Ed is reading a blog that has truth in it! But everyone should keep in mind that Ed is a proven liar (caught over and over on his own blog) and can’t understand basic “2+2″ scientific concepts such as how a new human life begins at conception. His biases get in the way of making any sort of rational scientific conclusions.

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,150 other followers

%d bloggers like this: