re: Holy Crap - I did not see this one coming out!

quote:

---

guess her not believing in blood letting gives you reason enough to call her a quack.

---

Still no examples of her quackery.

quote:

---

Lol

---

I'm not sure what you find funny. I was tempted to angry, as you know nothing about our family or my daughter. However, there's a saying that goes "He who knows everything can be taught nothing."

My wife has a Masters and ran the special ed program for our Catholic school system. We consulted with LSU to address her issues. I guess you, with 0 knowledge of anything about our situation, are in the best situation to diagnose.

quote:

---

MDs, in addition to being arrogant, are small-minded.

---

That can be the case, as we unfortunately saw during covid.

The problem is, MDs remain hugely responsible for the oversight of US care. That is the group the USSG is trying to influence.

ITR, we'd be infinitely better off with a USSG well-versed in the scientific method and quality unbiased research. That would be an individual well suited to publically excoriate the terribly designed, poorly concluded research which drove stupidity in the medical field during covid. Instead, we're looking at an MD dropout author with little formal training or quality studies backing findings in her field of practice. In fact, it appears her limited time in formal allopathic training, still exceeds that of her similar homeopathic work.

So with little training, and little groundbreaking, sound, and/or peer-reviewed research backing her claims, the odds of her influencing those arrogant, small-minded MDs you're alluding to is exactly zero.

quote:

---

So with little training, and little groundbreaking, sound, and/or peer-reviewed research backing her claims, the odds of her influencing those arrogant, small-minded MDs you're alluding to is exactly zero.

---

Do we really need a study to say that pesticides and processed food are bad while sunshine and sleep are good? Treating the body as 100 different parts and isolating and medicating isn't working. Do we need a study saying injecting babies with metal is a bad thing? Dr.s are brainwashed and hard headed.

quote:

---

Casey cannot.
---
She already is.

---

The venue to make such claims effectively is not Tucker Carlson. It's in NEJM, Jama, BMJ, Nature, or Lancet (irony). Again, laypeople are not the audience. The audience are MDs and Medical Institutions, including (first and foremost) their inculcated covidian types.

quote:

---

You're having a hard time with this.

---

One of us is. You don't want to be paired in that comparator.

quote:

---

You don't want to be paired in that comparator.

---

You're arguing nobody will listen to her because she doesn't have the credentials, right? Meanwhile she's about to be named Surgeon General. On top of that it doesn't sound like you've ever listened to her speak.


Plus the doctor's only have power as long as the public trusts what they say. Covid hurt that trust, 1 in 30 autism rate hurts that trust. If people en mass turn away from big pharma then those guys and that system are powerless. You're missing the point because you won't listen to her speak.

quote:

---

You're arguing nobody will listen to her because she doesn't have the credentials, right?

---

No.
I'm arguing her message won't resonate in healthcare circles because she's not done the groundwork, and there is a history of snake oil salesman fraud in her field. There is a gentleman named Wakefield who was at least as well spoken and convincing as Casey Means.

He badly burned the medical profession ~25yrs ago. Like Means, he firmly believed autism had exogenous cause. Increasing childhood vaccination seemed as likely a culprit as any. But Wakefield, like Means, couldn't prove it. So he faked studies linking the MMR to autism. Try as they might, his colleagues could never seem to duplicate his work independently.

Wakefield's "findings" nonetheless stood as "science" for about a decade, albeit with increasing concern regarding validity. Finally, after intense investigation, proof of fraudulent manipulation in Wakefield's work was insurmountable. His work was repudiated and formal retractions issued. It was a huge scandal. Ultimately Wakefield was discredited and defrocked. In the scientific community, it's now a "once burned, twice shy" premise.

That doesn't mean Casey Means is a fraud. It does mean though that w/o proof, she'll be viewed as Wakefield in a dress, and not without some justification. If we are to follow someone who is basically making it up as she goes, or discovering new concepts (your choice as to characterization), she is going to HAVE TO generate high quality double-blinded peer-reviewed studies proving her assertions. Simple as that.

quote:

---

You're missing the point because you won't listen to her speak.

---

No one is denying Means is a bright, well spoken lady. Then again, so is another ex-Stanford co-ed and medical entrepreneur named Elizabeth Holmes. Like Means, Holmes is bright, attractive, articulate, and poised. But, as it turns out, Holmes is also a complete fraud. Being well-spoken doesn't make science.