Guest guest Posted August 7, 2005 Report Share Posted August 7, 2005 I thought did an excellent job--very professional and with good comebacks. I am so glad he mentioned ethyl vs methyl (Burbacher) as well as no toxicologists on IOM and counted up the epidemiological vs biological..and SO grateful he brought up about chelation...Gov't should be funding studies and that parets reports ARE a good way to investigate as they have said this for years...(the regression study he mentioned)..Fineberg talked SO slowly and really just kept repeating himself and his stammering re. a new IOM to look at all the new PUBLISHED studies since the last '04 report was telling....I felt he was definitely on the defense..and had such good points and rebuttals....All in all, one for our side..and I think Russert appeared skeptical of what Fineberg was saying... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8714275/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.