Wednesday, May 16, 2007

United Methodist Women’s Division

Please take a moment to review Kathleen’s correspondence with the Women’s Division, of the Methodist Church.

It seems that one reverend, managed to sucessfully campaign within this group to have them take a position agaisnt and even host an anti-thimerosal event. Unfotunately this same reverend, is a litigant in a case involving thimerosal and autism.

It seems the Women’s Division dismissed this conflict of interest, because “her personal judicial advocacy extends from a desire to seek justice for children suffering from mercury poisoning”. In other words an ethics problem is not an ethics problem, because they feel the reverend has good intentions.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love this quote from her.

“Sadly, there are a few ‘defenders of mercury’ who are most alarmed that the faith community would oppose injecting poison into people, babies and pregnant women in particular.”

Apparently going against this belief is going against the church?

Such a weak tactic to solidify support through emotion-charged division...but it doesn't suprise me.

10:35 AM  
Blogger Fore Sam said...

The ethics problem here is drug companies who continue to poison babies with thimerosal, not parents who seek compensation for the damage done to their children. It's also unethical for a librarian to attack the Methodist Church becausee they are helping to prevent more babies from being poisoned.

12:03 PM  
Blogger Interverbal said...

"It's also unethical for a librarian to attack the Methodist Church becausee they are helping to prevent more babies from being poisoned."

Fallacy of the argument from adverse consequences.

Good intentions do not mean that ethical challenges should not be made.

Also, anyone can raise a ethics/science challenge if they see a problem.

2:18 PM  
Blogger Fore Sam said...

You must've seen the light since you don't disagree with my statement about the drug companies lack of ethics.
It's obvious that Kathleen will attack anyone associated with the Geiers but attacking the Methodist Church is really low.

6:48 PM  
Blogger Interverbal said...

My lack of a comment on your statement about drug companies lacking ethics, should not be taken as agreement.

There are problems with the Women's Division of ther Methodist Church ignoring a conflict of interest. Someone needed to point this out, Kathleen did so, and I heartily agree with her assesment.

It has been a long time since churchs were allowed to silence critics by claiming that attacking a church social action one was actually attacking the church and ipso facto, commiting a mortal sin. That doesn't fly anymore.

No group and no person is above scrutiny.

8:29 PM  
Blogger Do'C said...

"There are problems with the Women's Division of ther Methodist Church ignoring a conflict of interest. Someone needed to point this out, Kathleen did so, and I heartily agree with her assesment."

I agree Interverbal. Unfortunately, I don't see the Methodist Church as being particularly open to science or reason. Perhaps we'll be surprised.

10:13 PM  
Blogger Joeker said...

I simply think that any issue involving usage of positions of power, or other leverage, constitutes grounds to examine said individual in such a position or with leverage, for any conflicts of interest to a moderate degree.

I feel anyone involved with legal issues should avoid interacting out of court with whatever is under scrutiny, such as the link between Mercury and Autism. I myself would be ecstatic if someone provided the scientific data behind this. However, I still say that more research is needed, and in the short term, groups interested in Autism should be supporting research for replacing Thimerosal while seeking more and more evidence on their theories.

Atrocities are built on good intentions, though I doubt this will be close to atrocity status.

Thank you for your time,
~Joeker

6:24 PM  
Blogger Interverbal said...

Hi Joeker,

For myself, I would not be sad to see thimerosal go. This is not because there is good evidence that it causes autism or SID (Which has been going down since before thimerosal began to be removed), but because defending it may be more trouble than it is worth. At the same time, I wonder, if I have slipped into appeasement, when I really should be boldly taking the problem head on.

I agree with you that more research is needed. I am not willing to shut the door totally to the mercury hypthosis. At the same time I am dumnfounded by the unscientific, irrational, and sometimes outright lie filled statements, made by some of the advocates of the mercury etiology theory.

Also, Joeker, no matter what side of the debate (if any) you decide to end up on, never be afraid to boldly demand of people like James, Fore Sam, or even me, what exactly our evidence is. Never let us put you off, by mocking or claiming that you are just ignorant. You have a right to know our sources, you have a right to ask those questions.

All the best to you.

8:34 PM  
Blogger karen1361 said...

Miss you on AutismWeb, sir.

Little Bo Peep

2:21 PM  
Blogger Joeker said...

I could say much, but it would all boil down to a few simple words.

Excellent points, superb form, and I fully concur.

Glad and respectful,
~Joeker

1:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is NO thimerosal autism link.
http://www.slate.com/id/2169459/pagenum/2/

3:40 PM  
Anonymous cool said...

Interverbal said, "For myself, I would not be sad to see thimerosal go. This is not because there is good evidence that it causes autism or SID (Which has been going down since before thimerosal began to be removed), ..."

You are confusing correlation with causation. I rather suspect the decrease in SIDS during that time has more to do with parents with identifiably susceptible babies being sent home with special monitors, and all parents being encouraged to place their babies to sleep in positions shown to be less conducive to SIDS. The fact that - at the same time - Thimerosol was removed from vaccines is irrelevant.

2:32 AM  
Blogger Interverbal said...

Hi Cool,

I think you should read my comment again. I am not arguing that the decrease of SIDS is correlated/caused by the removal of thimerosal. I am arguing that the decrease preceeded this removal.

9:28 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home