I need to clarify, because apparently reading comprehension is a real
problem around here. I did not argue that Rheingold isn't a
drug company stooge. Rather, I asked for a definition of the term and
some evidence. It is quite possible that he's a drug company stooge,
but merely calling someone such a thing doesn't make it so.
The same goes for the NMSS in general. To quote a phrase: Where's
Willy, you're going to need to consider the possiblity that writing
capability is the problem. This isn't a forum filled with legal
documents to pick apart by looking at each and every word, yet you
seem to see it this way. Humans are quite capable of handling
imprecisions in speech - at least most are. It is
obvious that many of your responses are taken differently than you
intend and that you make many people feel defensive. This is not a
good prelude to having your concerns listened to, in my opinion. It
might serve your purposes (what <i>are</i> your purposes?) better to
consider how your responses might be taken by others rather than how
they might be evaluated in a court of law (or
It would be nice to hear your arguments on the points being discussed
rather than your analysis of the meanings and definitions of words and
phrases. Anyone can rebut with "why?" or "what do you mean by X", but
it takes a little thought to respond with counter-examples and
logic. I'm not saying this to be insulting - I'm guessing you have
some very salient points to make. Go beyond just questioning what
someone says - <i>add</i> something to the discussion and we'll all be
better for it. Right now it looks like the main result is people
being afraid of your reply.
I'll come back to your "reading comprehension" comment when we discuss
the provided definition of "ad hominem".
Why? (In the interest of reading comprehension, the question "Why"
does not mean that I disagree. I just want to know "why" you hold that
Did you think the additional definition of "why" was actually adding
information to your post. Or did you realize it was just going to be
taken as a snide comment? My hypothesis: you are intelligent enough to
know how what you write will be taken, but choose to write it that
way anyway. This just makes it unappealing to me.
Well, I explained in other parts of my post, but I'll elaborate. I
think the things I do regarding the NMSS because 3 years ago I quit my
job to work full-time on understanding what was going in MS research
and what might be done. I have talked with over a hundred top MS
researchers, visited their labs, met with the folks at the NIH, I have
had discussions with present and past NMSS employees and board
members, and I have read hundreds and hundreds of MS research papers,
text books, and reports. I have 4 people working for me right now who
are doing further research into what's going on in MS research.
I have formed my opinions based on these experiences. That's why.
Granted, I'm not the most qualified person in the world to hold an
opinion on this topic, but I think I've done my homework. Just so we
know how seriously to take you, what are your qualifications?
This is a good, intelligent, thought-provoking answer. Or at least
it's a start. What is "fresh" about Lander's perspective, and what
would this "freshness" bring to the research effort in MS? Be
specific, i.e., no promotional cliches but some real analysis.
I'm not suggesting him. He was a template. Come on Willy, if you're so
desperate for analysis do some yourself. Where's the analysis that the
status quo is working? I'm not going to all the work for
you. (Actually, I probably am, but that's just the nature of what I do
for a living now).
But why economists, mathematicians or business leaders in particular?
Again, just an example from another discipline. For genetics Eric
brought an analytical perspective that was sorely lacking in much of
genetics. He went on to hire astronomers and physicists to work at the
whitehead and they went on to make significant breakthroughs that
traditional life scientists probably never would have.
Not sure about Fox, but Reeve isn't qualified to be research director
of anything. He doesn't have the stamina for the job. This doesn't
make Reeve a bad guy, but it's a good reason not to make him research
OK, let's play your game: how do you know this? Do you know Reeve? Do
you even know someone who knows him? Reading comprehension? I didn't
say they were research directors. They both have very demanding and
time consuming jobs. Somehow they manage to do them. Hmmm. FYI, I
<i>have</i> met with both of those organizations - just in case you
needed to know.
Presumptions are easy, but knowledge is difficult. Exactly what do you
know about Salk's acquaintanceships and their influence on his
work? In any case, even if Salk was motivated by acquaintances with
polio, it remains that the history of science teaches that politics,
religion (which is politics on steroids) and science shouldn't be
And make no mistake about it, a demand that the research director of
the NMSS be "MS-affected" is a political demand for a form of
"group representation." It has utterly nothing to do with the
job itself. I couldn't care less who comes up with the answers. I just
want them. Hire the best person, not the politically attractive
one. And frankly, I don't care if he's well-liked unless that's
something a research director needs to be.
:-/ I tire of sand in the bulls eyes.
And what makes people think the NMSS is unable to do this on its own?
More to the point, why should they take suggestions from a bunch of
people who regard them as stooges for the pharmaceutical companies?
Obviously you have a different opinion - what is it? What's it based
on? Enlighten us. I'm guessing you have some good points to make. Stop
dancing around the edges.
It takes more than a strong opinion and pointed language to make
something an ad hominem
attack. If you don't believe me,look
accusations of reading comprehension abilities
"this is nonsense"
"Someone with MS would likely lack the stamina"
And I didn't even have to go to any of the other threads.
That's not limited to NMSS. You're right about there not being a cure
or even very satisfactory treatment, but it's not enough to simply
Huh? I think 50 years of no success while using a method is ample
evidence that trying something different might be a good idea. I'm not
sure if you've been paying attention, but this problem is not just in
MS - the entire medical research world is having problems (e.g. see
the Fortune article on the War on Cancer).
If you disagree, again, I ask you to provide your own analysis rather
than just demanding others do it for you.
I want to know more specifically what you think is wrong with the way
the NMSS goes about it funding of research. How can anyone make an
intelligent change of direction without such as analysis? Otherwise,
it's just an idle political contest fought by a bunch of people who
have nothing but frustration and sentiment as their guides.
A mob, in other words. And let me say a couple things about crowds:
They are tempting to join; always stupid; and usually wrong.
You can follow the 3 years of my (and others') analysis on this topic
our opinion. It's based on extensive research, analysis, and
synthesis. Let's see yours, willysnout, and we can have a fun debate
on the facts rather than the wording. I'm happy to change my opinion
when presented with contradictory evidence.