 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Medicine - Lyme Forum » Pat Kennedy Fighting the Bishops Instead of the... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mort Zuckerman... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
To: Durland.fish at (no spam) yale.edu, Aag1 at (no spam) columbia.edu, gary_wormser at (no spam) nymc.edu,
scientificintegrity at (no spam) ostp.gov, pkrugman at (no spam) princeton.edu,
Stanley.fish at (no spam) fiu.edu, emcsweegan at (no spam) niaid.nih.gov, afauci at (no spam) niaid.nih.gov,
SpinLyme at (no spam) yahoogroups.com, kshepard at (no spam) calea.org, fitzmas at (no spam) gmail.com,
patrick.fitzgerald at (no spam) usdoj.gov, modelt1918 at (no spam) sbcglobal.net,
jdrazen at (no spam) nejm.org, letters at (no spam) courant.com, Jgerberding at (no spam) cdc.gov,
michael.cole at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, conndcj at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, executive-
editor at (no spam) nytimes.com, managing-editor at (no spam) nytimes.com, news-
tips at (no spam) nytimes.com, bizday at (no spam) nytimes.com, foreign at (no spam) nytimes.com,
national at (no spam) nytimes.com, dvbid at (no spam) cdc.gov, brigidcallahan at (no spam) optonline.net,
trvl at (no spam) hotmail.com, illinoislyme at (no spam) aol.com, jlender at (no spam) courant.com,
tinajgarcia at (no spam) yahoo.com, jhornberger at (no spam) fff.org, thomas.carson at (no spam) usdoj.gov,
thomas.ryan at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, kurtzh at (no spam) washpost.com,
georgewill at (no spam) washpost.com, pj at (no spam) allegorypress.com,
commissioner.dcf at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, bransfield at (no spam) comcast.net,
vtsherr at (no spam) comcast.net, oca at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, freethinker at (no spam) charter.net,
scott.murphy at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, governor.rell at (no spam) po.state.ct.us,
attorney.general at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, randall.samborn at (no spam) usdoj.gov,
Robert.shiller at (no spam) yale.edu, editor at (no spam) greenwich-post.com,
harold.koh at (no spam) yale.edu, sedmonds at (no spam) nswbc.org, rrmcgovern at (no spam) aol.com,
frich at (no spam) nytimes.com, dprice at (no spam) stmartin.edu
Cc: francam at (no spam) ucia.gov, dr-ahmadinejad at (no spam) president.ir,
eugenerobinson at (no spam) washpost.com, afauci at (no spam) niaid.nih.gov,
bmiller at (no spam) newstimes.com, trvl at (no spam) hotmail.com, rastro18 at (no spam) aol.com,
billcurryct at (no spam) gmail.com, amcguigan at (no spam) rms-law.com, rjmurzyn at (no spam) aol.com,
paulcraigroberts at (no spam) yahoo.com, sidney_blumenthal at (no spam) yahoo.com,
criminal.division at (no spam) usdoj.gov, karla.dobinski at (no spam) usdoj.gov,
christopher.christie at (no spam) usdoj.gov, richard.Levin at (no spam) yale.edu,
harold.koh at (no spam) yale.edu, james.phillips at (no spam) yale.edu, inquire at (no spam) aldf.com,
lyme at (no spam) idsociety.org, meganmcardle at (no spam) theatlantic.com,
bob.drogin at (no spam) latimes.com
Subject: Pat Kennedy Fighting the Bishops Instead of the Baby-Killers
(UConn & Yale and their pimps)
Date: Oct 27, 2009 3:05 PM
ARTICLE BELOW WHERE KENNEDY IS
TAKING ON THE BISHOPS INSTEAD OF
THE BIGS-
============================
Um, no more "compromising," Pat.
Kennedy fighting the wrong fight:
https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1064-4709_Transactions_of_the_American_Academy_of_Insurance_Medicine:_Annual_Meeting._American_Academy_of_Insurance_Medicine._Meeting
^^^
Why is there an "Academy of Insurance
Medicine?" Isn't that an obvious
oxymoron?
http://www.actionlyme.org/STEERE_AT_ACADEMY_OF_INSURANCE_MEDICINE.htm
Why is Allen Steere at the "Academy of
Insurance Medicine," lying his eyeballs out?
AH-HEM.
At the 1999 Blumenthal Lyme
http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/health/lyme.pdf
hearing, this cat named Edward Eisenberg
who worked for Oxford Insurance company
wrote in his written submission that
"the testing accuracy for Lyme disease
was the same as that for any infectious
disease."
Of course, the testing for Lyme Disease
had changed after Allen Steere went to
Europe alone to change it- for BigInsurance:
http://www.relapsingfever.org/index.htm
You can best ^^^ see in the graphics of
that homepage what Steere did. He
made up his Elephant Rule. (The FDA
says otherwise; Limit of Detection is
the component of a validation that should
be achieved).
At Dearborn, no one agreed with this
new standard (see the data on my
homepage under ARTHUR WEINSTEIN).
http://www.actionlyme.org/index.htm
^^^40+ people or labs disagree with
Weinstein's "validation" of Steere's
Elephant Rule.
Patrick thinks he has a fight going on,
when the real fight requires fighting
the real - the *actual* - crooks:
http://www.actionlyme.org/STEERE_AT_ACADEMY_OF_INSURANCE_MEDICINE.htm
What is Allen Steere doing giving a speech
to some Academy of Insurance Medicine, and
why is he saying the opposite of what he
said before about new IgM antibodies meaning
the bug was still alive, and that treatment
failed?
http://www.actionlyme.org/STEERE_AT_ACADEMY_OF_INSURANCE_MEDICINE.htm
because that's obviously what he said (page
2) of the Steere Section.
And here Steere is in 1986 saying the opposite:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3531237?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
"Appearance of a ***new immunoglobulin M response***
and expansion of the immunoglobulin G response late
in the illness."
"The appearance of a new IgM response and the expansion of the IgG
response late in the illness, and the lack of such responses in
patients with early disease alone, suggest that B. burgdorferi remains
alive throughout the illness."
New IgM means the bug is not
killed.
What is the Steere/CDC standard?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038469.htm
Almost no IgM may be counted.
So, why is this Kennedy screaming
at the Bishops instead of the Bigs?
Instead of demanding that the USDOJ
investigate BigInsurance's obvious
role in changing the diagnostic standard?
http://www.actionlyme.org/CRYMEDISEASE_CHP3_B.htm
And the harassment?
http://www.actionlyme.org/OPMC_CORRUPTION.htm
Is it that hard to simply call the
FDA and ask if the rules were applied
to Steere's European Proposal?
http://www.relapsingfever.org/index.htm
Are they killing people with that
standard?
http://www.actionlyme.org/ALSLYME47.htm
Is BigInsurance allowed to kill people
by sending Steere on a junket to deny
treatment?
Is BigInsurance's insistence on a Lyme
vaccine affecting discovery in all major
diseases for the last 15 years not criminal?
http://www.actionlyme.org/Pam3Cys_Version15.htm
Obstruction of Justice?
Does Lyme infect and kill babies?
http://www.actionlyme.org/MOMS_CAN_GIVE_LYME_TO_BABIES.htm
Did UConn and Yale kill Czech children
with a bogus Lyme vaccine and then
torture American parents?
http://www.actionlyme.org/UCONN_NO_HOSPITAL.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/MUNCHAUSENS.htm
Well, they obviously killed several
by the time Yale performed that
autopsy in what, 1986?
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
===============
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/10/kennedy_unfair_to_bishops.html?hpid=talkbox1
Kennedy vs. Catholic bishops
By David Waters
Confusion over whether and how government health-care reform will or
should deal with abortion has resulted in an equally confusing war of
words between Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) and Rhode Island
Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin.
In an interview last Friday, Kennedy -- a Roman Catholic and son of
the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, who spent much of his career pushing for
health-care reform -- called U.S. Catholic bishops' concerns about the
abortion issue a "red herring" that fans "the flames of dissent and
discord." Kennedy added: "If the church is pro-life, then they ought
to be for health-care reform, because it's going to provide health
care that are going to keep people alive."
In a sharply-worded response, Tobin called Kennedy's position on the
matter "irresponsible and ignorant of the facts . . . Congressman
Kennedy continues to be a disappointment to the Catholic Church and to
the citizens of the State of Rhode Island. I believe the Congressman
owes us an apology for his irresponsible comments. It is my fervent
hope and prayer that he will find a way to provide more effective and
morally responsible leadership for our state."
Tobin's response seems a bit chippy, especially for a bishop. But
Kennedy's comments do seem to ignore some crucial facts: Most
importantly -- as Georgetown/On Faith blogger Thomas J. Reese points
out -- U.S. Catholic bishops for decades have been at the forefront of
the campaign for health-care reform. "The bishops are appalled that
more than 46 million people do not have health insurance," Reese
wrote.
Should Kennedy be appalled that they are threatening to pull their
support over the issue of abortion? Not if he's been paying attention.
Kennedy made his comments in response to a question about an Oct. 8
letter the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent to Congress. In
the letter, the bishops stated that they would "vigorously" oppose a
final health care bill unless it were changed to include language that
explicitly prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions.
According to the bishops, no current version of the health-care bill
meets that standard. "If final legislation does not meet our
principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill," the
bishops said in their letter.
Said Kennedy: "I can't understand for the life of me how the Catholic
Church could be against the biggest social-justice issue of our time
where the very dignity of the human person is being respected by the
fact that we're caring and giving health care to the human person -
that right now we have 50 million people who are uninsured. You mean
to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people
life-saving health care? I thought they were pro-life. If the church
is pro-life, then they ought to be for health-care reform because it's
going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive. So
this is an absolute red herring, and I don't think that it does
anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord, and I don't
think it's productive at all."
You can argue about whether Catholic bishops are putting too much
emphasis on abortion in this case -- especially given the
Administration's assurances that laws prohibiting federal funding of
abortions will remain in place. No doubt some bishops have politicized
the issue of abortion to the point of becoming partisan shills. But as
a group, Catholic bishops have spoken out consistently and
courageously for universal health care -- especially on behalf of the
poor -- as a basic human right.
As Reese points out in his blog post, the bishops have been entirely
consistent about their support for universal health care -- as long as
it doesn't also include support for abortion. In their 1993 statement
"A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform: Protecting Human
Life, Promoting Human Dignity, Pursuing the Common Good," the bishops
laid out eight criteria for evaluating health care reform, including:
• Respect for Life. Whether it preserves and enhances the sanctity and
dignity of human life from conception to natural death.
• Priority Concern for the Poor. Whether it gives special priority to
meeting the most pressing health care needs of the poor and
underserved, ensuring that they receive quality health services.
• Universal Access. Whether it provides ready universal access to
comprehensive health care for every person living in the United
States.
Those criteria haven't changed. In their Oct. 8 letter to Congress,
bishops stated these three goals for health-care reform legislation:
• No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion.
• Reform should make quality health care affordable and accessible to
everyone, particularly those who are vulnerable and those who live at
or near the poverty level.
• Ensure that legal immigrants and their family members have
comprehensive, affordable and timely access to health care coverage.
Maintain an adequate safety net for those who remain uncovered.
"Catholic moral tradition teaches that health care is a basic human
right, essential to protecting human life and dignity," the bishops
wrote. "Much-needed reform of our health care system must be pursued
in ways that serve the life and dignity of all, never in ways that
undermine and violate these fundamental values."
Given that even Democrats don't agree on whether current versions of
health-reform legislation will or should cover abortions, don't the
bishops' concerns seem perfectly reasonable and consistent?
By
David Waters
| October 26, 2009; 12:50 PM ET | Category: Under God
Share: Email a Friend | Technorati talk bubble Technorati |
Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Tweetoff: 'No God' v. 'Know God' |
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:35 pm
|
|