It's Parksie's whole shtick. CF is one part of it, I assume you've heard
his line, "I've yet to read a paper which proved CF". That was because
when someone handed him a paper he let it slip through his fingers. Then
there is his famous line, "I don't care about you isotopic ratios" Now I
ask you, have you ever heard the line, my mind is made up, stop trying to
confuse me with your evidence? Then there is his attacks on my right to
purchase herbs. Do I want the Parksie retirement fund to pay for them? No.
Is my taking herbs going to affect his health? No. But he's from the
government, and he's here to help! Spare me. Then there is his attacks on
energy medicine, a subject of which he has less understanding than does a
pig about Easter. All I know is that I have used homeopathic preparations
three times, and it was symptoms gone three out of three. If someone would
give me a few million $, I'd love to run a study, is that going to happen?
don't hold your breath. But, I digress.
Hi Thomas,
I've had a few dances with Park before:
http://newenergytimes.com/critics/park.htm and WHAT'S NEW Robert L.
Park Friday, 10 Dec 04, "COLDER-THAN-EVER FUSION: THIS BOOK WON'T END THE
CONTROVERSY."
And I share your views about health and alternatives.
I guess I'm not bothered so much by Park because I can see the future. And
I see Park eating filet du crow and flying pig. For dessert, he'll be
having egg-on-face.
I have inside information that he knows what the f*** is going on with cf
and he is desperately trying to find an exit.
Too bad for him. It's too late. He put his foot in mouth (Doodoo Science)
and reporters (Gellerman, NPR) still find his invective entertaining.
He's made his bed....
From a different perspective, we have a lot of freedom in this country. We
have the freedom to speak out if we want, we have the freedom to publish
and protest. If Park really bothers you, and you feel he is harmful, it may
be more than just an opportunity for you to do something about it. People
who speak untruths will do so only to the extent that others allow them to
do so. Case in point. In researching my book, I challenged all the major
critics to discuss aspects of CF. Nearly all of them chose to dance away
rather than engage. So when Gellerman called me up in doing the research
for his story, I made sure he was well-informed about Garwin's paper and
Garwin's predictable attitude. I also made sure Gellerman was well-informed
about the high reproducibility of the SPAWAR work. Voila, Garwin's
"non-reproducibility" quote is followed by Szpak's "100% reproducibility
quote."
Give it a little time. Which truth do you think will grow to be generally
known and self-evident? Garwin's or Szpaks?
So go get creative. Use the 'net. Speak out. Organize.
s
