A Science-based Draft Review of Drew ’ article, ‘Public health decisions should be based on science’

[Guest guest]

Dear

Drew ,

 

     On

'balance',

your 26 February 2012 piece on the blog.nj.com web site titled, " Public health decisions should be based on science ", appears to be an example of

unsubstantiated

and unsubstantiable pro-vaccine and pro-public-health-goals

rhetoric that that

public health officials use to justify non-science-based

mandates to: a)

vaccinate healthcare workers, add toxic fluoride

to all NJ

potable-water systems, c)

deprive

informed consumers of their ability to consume raw milk and milk

products, and d)

coercive childhood vaccination

programs that collectively combine to reduce the health of our

children and

ourselves.

     As

such, this article did not meet my

expectations for someone who: a) has

your educational background, training and experience unless you

education was

designed to eliminate your ability for independent thought and claims to use a

science-based

approaches to address the issues that you discuss.

     Apparently,

you believe that your

unsupported and unsubstantiated statements have the power to

convince most everyone

who reads this opinion piece that “black is white” when it comes

to any issue

which you choose to address.

     Factually,

the statements made in this

article diverge from the facts as I, having

spent more than a decade in studying the vaccination science

as well as: 1)

working with others to publish peer-reviewed articles

addressing key

vaccine/vaccination issues, 2) studying the issues

surrounding the

fluoridation of potable water, 3) studying the safety and

benefits of raw milk

consumption, and 4) when I lived in Atlanta, Georgia, consuming

raw milk: a)

understand them and

where

appropriate, provide key supporting data or citations

thereto from

recognized federal sources and peer-reviewed publications.

     An

in-depth, passage by passage, review of

your article that provides the evidence that supports the

preceding assertions

can be found here.

     As

with all of my in-depth reviews, the

"Introductory Remarks" section includes the following passage,

"Finally, should anyone find any

significant

factual error in this review for which they have independent [a],

scientifically sound, peer-reviewed, published, substantiating

documents,

please submit that information to this reviewer so that he can

improve his

understanding of factual reality and, where appropriate, revise

his views and

this review.

[a] To qualify,

the study should

be published by researchers who have no conflicts of interest

from their ties

to either those commercial entities who profit from the sale of

vaccines or

those entities, academic, commercial or governmental, who

actively promote

inoculation programs using vaccines."

     Hopefully,

you will provide an in-depth,

fact- and science- based rebuttal to those statements for which

you or your

colleagues and supporters have and can provide qualified

documents (see

footnote "[a]"), which support the assertions in your

cited

article and/or correct any significant factual errors in my

review so that you

may improve my understanding of factual reality and help me to

revise my views

and my review of your opinion article that was published on the

blog.nj.com

web site.

 

Respectfully,

 

G. King,

PhD

http://www.dr-king.com

 

The Reviewer and

Founder,

FAME Systems

 

PS: If you want

a

"doc" copy to more easily copy out the Table elements in a

manner

that

       preserves their

fidelity, then you need

only send an email with: "REVUDrew_PGK"

       in the subject line.

      

 

       Also, with respect to

the comment you

posted to your own opinion piece on

       February 27, 2012 at

12:35AM:

         “Unfortunately, the

comments above

prove my point about the need for an

           objective policy

process driven by

peer-reviewed scientific research instead

           of anecdote,

innuendo and ad hominen

attacks on the motivations of public

          

health researchers.

          

           The difference between the

researchers and the

people who object to their

          

conclusions is that the researchers

will change those conclusions when the

          

facts warrant it, but the objectors

are unmoved by the evidence no matter how

          

convincing. Instead, they will seek

new facts to support their unshakeable

          

beliefs.”

          

       Please explain to me

the science

that the CDC and the Danish researchers used to

       change the outcome of

their study from what

they found, “removed Thimerosal and

       then the incidence and

prevalence rates [of

autism] declined” into what they published,

       “removed Thimerosal

and then these “autism”

rates increased”.