Saturday, May 21, 2011

A Kinder, Gentler Response

I'd probably normally go nuclear on a post like this, but it's been brought home to me that maybe engaging the Truthers respectfully isn't always a lost cause. Over at Truth Action, in the thread on Professor Jones, Snowcrash quotes me from a post over at JREF:

Either the first responders will start dying in droves, the way Gold, Feal and Alex Jones claim, or they won't; it's a debate that will be settled in time and battled out in the annals of the New England Journal of Medicine.

He responds to my post rather harshly:
If only I could trade one 9/11 first responder's life for this despicable piece of ****.

Let me start out by saying that Snowcrash trimmed a crucial sentence from what I wrote:
If 9-11 conspiracy theories were just about the air quality, I'd let it go. Either the first responders will start dying in droves, the way Gold, Feal and Alex Jones claim, or they won't; it's a debate that will be settled in time and battled out in the annals of the New England Journal of Medicine.

What I was saying there was what I have said consistently. I don't know if the claims that illnesses in the first responders resulted from the air quality at Ground Zero are true or not. I hope they are not, not because it would make Gold and Jones wrong, but because I don't want the first responders dying in droves.

It's a debate for the medical professionals to hash out over time, with studies that will certainly be published in respected periodicals like the NEJM. I should note that the most famous case of a first responder dying, James Zadroga, does not inspire confidence that the epidemiology will be separated from the politics. It is apparent from reading this article that Zadroga's death was not brought on by exposure to chemicals and fumes on the pile, but from injection drug use.
The type of material found in Zadroga’s lungs was also significant. Talc and cellulose are widely used pharmaceutical ingredients, Hirsch noted, but neither was considered a major respiratory hazard at Ground Zero: talc because it wasn’t found in the air in abundance; cellulose because it is not considered particularly hazardous. (The molecules are too large to pass through the elaborate filtering apparatus of the upper airway.) The absence of needle marks Hirsch deemed insignificant, because clean needles cause less scarring.

And:
The truth of this is hard to gauge. Four months after meeting with Joe, I wrote to the Zadrogas’ lawyer, who agreed to fax me a copy of the results of James’s 2003 biopsy, the one that Joe had said showed extensive lung damage. The document that arrived was eight pages long: a comprehensive report on the various tests and their findings. But its import was unequivocal. The lungs had only minor abnormalities and showed no evidence of talc or cellulose. When I contacted a pathologist unconnected with the case to ask whether this could have been an oversight, he scoffed, explaining that, under the polarized light that labs use to spot foreign particulate matter, such particles shine out like stars in the night sky. Had the material Breton found in Zadroga’s lungs in 2006 been there in 2003, it would have lit up the lab.

42 Comments:

At 21 May, 2011 13:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat wrote, "...Let me start out by saying that Snowcrash trimmed a crucial sentence from what I wrote..."

You don't say? As everyone knows, a troofer would never quote mine his enemy, render the quote context-free, and then attack his enemy with a straw man argument. Just ask Brian "goat fucker" Good.

And if you believe that, I have a bridge in Arizona I'd like to sell you...cheap.

 
At 21 May, 2011 14:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Talc would not be found in abundance in the air if it comes in heavy particles that settle quickly, but it would still be in the dust people stirred up close to the ground.

To conclude from the fact that it wasn't in the air that it therefore wasn't in the dust is not logical.

 
At 21 May, 2011 15:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Why should anyone trust anything you write, goat fucker?

Proof the goat fucker is a liar.

More proof the goat fucker is a liar.

And yet more proof the goat fucker is a scurrilous liar.

You're nothing but a shameless liar, who should be unceremoniously BANNED from SLC.

 
At 21 May, 2011 15:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Talc would not be found in abundance in the air if it comes in heavy particles that settle quickly, but it would still be in the dust people stirred up close to the ground."

That's your unprofessional, unqualified and unsubstantiated opinion, goat fucker. Prove it, liar.

 
At 21 May, 2011 19:17, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

You know what isn't logical?

Boasting about how you will debate Willie Rodriguez any where at any time, but when SLC made the debate possible you chickened out like a punk-ass bitch.

 
At 22 May, 2011 02:50, Blogger Pat said...

Speaking of things that are not logical, Brian, what's your explanation for why there was talc in Zadroga's lungs after he died, but not in 2003, hmmmm?

 
At 22 May, 2011 07:01, Blogger Ian said...

Talc would not be found in abundance in the air if it comes in heavy particles that settle quickly, but it would still be in the dust people stirred up close to the ground.

Once again, as with everything he posts on the topic of 9/11, idle speculation is treated as ironclad proof.

I would remain skeptical of idle speculation coming from the brightest minds in engineering, architecture, physics, or (in this case) medicine. Needless to say, Brian is none of this. He's just an ignorant failed janitor with severe mental health issues.

 
At 22 May, 2011 11:28, Blogger Chip said...

"...it's been brought home to me that maybe engaging the Truthers respectfully isn't always a lost cause."

Of course it's not. I suspect you may have a somewhat jaundiced perspective, but there are many readers who come to a space like this hoping to find a reasoned response to arguments that seem to have some rational basis. For such people, I'm afraid the sarcasm and name-calling can be a huge distraction.

When I read "Flim-Flam" as a kid, James Randi convinced me that a lot of things I believed were bunk. I think I was more receptive to his arguments because they were presented with an understanding of the fallacies and preconceptions that lead people -- including scientists and self-described skeptics -- to be reach erroneous conclusions. There will always be a number of hucksters and opportunists who latch to any fringe movement, but I suspect those noisy types are usually outnumbered by folks who are simply intrigued by arguments and evidence they may not fully understand. Look at polling over the Birther issue pre- and post-long-form. People can and do change their minds. Never everyone, but enough to justify a modicum of civility.

 
At 22 May, 2011 12:42, Blogger Kang Salman said...

I do not really understand how to increase and mental health treatment, techniques, knowledge and so forth. But after reading this article I got a new picture with my views earlier. Thank you very much.

 
At 22 May, 2011 15:32, Blogger Len said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 May, 2011 15:35, Blogger Len said...

I'm not sure about Zardoga. I don't think anyone here has medical training. From Wikipedia:

"A third opinion obtained by Zadroga's family later that month from Dr. Michael Baden, chief forensic pathologist of the New York State Police (and former New York City Medical Examiner), backed the original claim of WTC dust responsibility, citing the presence of glass fibers in Zadroga's lungs that could not be related to injecting drugs. James' father, Joseph, said that the medical examiner reported no "track marks on his arms or body" and that his son had taken anti-anxiety medications and painkillers including OxyContin, but had never ground up and injected the drugs.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Zadroga#cite_ref-8

We shouldn't make the same mistake as truthers an assume to understand complex technical issues better than qualified experts.

 
At 22 May, 2011 17:17, Blogger Triterope said...

I think the lesson here is "be careful who you choose to be the symbol of your cause."

I don't know who decided James Zadroga would be the poster child of the first responders bill, but I bet they wish they'd picked someone whose cause of death was a little more clear cut.

 
At 22 May, 2011 17:18, Blogger Triterope said...

People can and do change their minds. Never everyone, but enough to justify a modicum of civility.

You must be new at this.

 
At 22 May, 2011 17:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, taking a lesson from the WTC investigation I'll simply ask: Did the 2003 biopsy perform the polarized light test?

UtterFail, it's not an opinion, it's a logical analysis. IF talc was only in heavy dust and IF air quality was measured in station above the heavy dust, then talc would not appear in the air quality samples.

If you wish to refute a logical analysis you need to show logical flaws or provide facts. An ad hominem attack is not sufficient.

 
At 22 May, 2011 18:46, Blogger paul w said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 May, 2011 18:47, Blogger paul w said...

If you wish to refute a logical analysis you need to show logical flaws or provide facts. An ad hominem attack is not sufficient.

Ban

 
At 22 May, 2011 19:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul w calls for hemlock: no logic allowed.

 
At 22 May, 2011 21:07, Blogger paul w said...

Ban

 
At 22 May, 2011 23:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, it's not an opinion, it's a logical analysis."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh lord, I'm laughing so hard I'm going to fall of my office chair!

Let's quote Pat, shall we?

"...Speaking of things that are not logical, Brian, what's your explanation for why there was talc in Zadroga's lungs after he died, but not in 2003, hmmmm?"

The goat fucker's answer? A red herring and

*crickets*

 
At 22 May, 2011 23:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo goat fucker! Your Uncle Ayman Al-Zawahiri is on the phone. He says you can have 100 virgin goats in Heaven if you'll just stop babbling about "symmetrical collapse."

 
At 22 May, 2011 23:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

I answered. I questioned whether the 2003 biopsy included polarized light tests.

All I got was crickets.

 
At 22 May, 2011 23:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And, once again, you've proven that you can't read.

From Pat's OP we read--and I quote: "...Had the material Breton found in Zadroga’s lungs in 2006 been there in 2003, it would have lit up the lab."

What part of that sentence don't you understand, goat fucker?

 
At 23 May, 2011 00:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

I understand the sentence just fine. I'm asking for confirmation that the 2003 autopsy included a polarized light test.

 
At 23 May, 2011 00:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, you're playing stupid, coy games.

The sentence is clear to everyone accept you--you clown. The biopsy was performed in 2003, and that's why Dr. Charles Hirsch said "the embedded material was pharmaceutical debris produced by injecting a solution of crushed prescription pills."

In fact, the article Pat cites does claim the biopsy was performed in 2003--and I quote: "...In January of 2003, Joe persuaded a doctor at the Deborah Heart and Lung Center, in New Jersey, to take a biopsy of James’s lungs. The procedure removed three inch-long chunks of tissue, one from each lobe of Zadroga’s right lung, and James had to spend about a week in the hospital recuperating."

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/15/080915fa_fact_kahn?currentPage=all

Thus, we have more proof that you can't read, goat fucker.

Once again, you FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 00:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, once again you demonstrate your incompetence. The fact that a biopsy was made in no way shows that it included polarized light.

 
At 23 May, 2011 00:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Of course the biopsy included polarized light. Transbronchial lung biopsy specimens are always subjected to polarized light microscopy. In fact, polarized light microscopy is readily available, and is standard procedure.

 
At 23 May, 2011 04:29, Blogger Triterope said...

UtterFail, once again you demonstrate your incompetence. The fact that a biopsy was made in no way shows that it included polarized light.

Ban.

 
At 23 May, 2011 08:44, Blogger roo said...

Brian,

Using your 'I'm a six year old having a tantrum' logic, since no cat scan has ever been performed on you, why should we assume you have a brain?

 
At 23 May, 2011 09:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fornicator--he can’t help himself. He’s missing the gene that says because it comes into your head, it doesn’t have to come out of your mouth.

Now he's pretending that polarized light microscopy is some rarely performed diagnostic test, when in fact, polarized light microscopes are common, inexpensive instruments that are used by every clinic and hospital in the western world.

As anyone who has the temerity to challenge one of the goat fornicator's 100% fact-free assertions can testify, the punishment for this transgression is subjection to abuse by this world-class logic cesspool who masquerades as a human being.

 
At 23 May, 2011 10:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 May, 2011 10:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh look, now UtterFail the anonymous UtterFail is now an authority on lung biopsy protocols!

I didn't say the polarized light test was rarely performed. I questioned whether it was performed in this case in 2003. The question remains pending.

You flatter yourself with the term "this world-class logic cesspool".
You're not world-class at all--which is why you're nothing but a washed-up codemonkey scared to go back to school and reinvent yourself because you don't think you'll make it and your wife thinks you're not worth the tuition bills.

 
At 23 May, 2011 11:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Poor goat fornicator. He just can't stand it because I have a career in computer security, to say nothing of a wife and family. It just galls you, doesn't it--you shiny pated pervert? I guess that's why you have to make up unsupported, slanderous accusations. After all, you're a loser of epic proportions.

"...I didn't say the polarized light test was rarely performed. I questioned whether it was performed in this case in 2003. The question remains pending."

No, the question doesn't remain "pending."

The answer was given by the doctor when he said, "...Had the material Breton found in Zadroga’s lungs in 2006 been there in 2003, it would have lit up the lab."

If you had the reading comprehension skills of a third grader there would be no question. Since you're a pathological liar, sex predator and shiny pated pervert who's impervious to logic and in possession of an IQ barely in excess of your shoe size, you're incapable of grasping the obvious.

Don't you ever wonder how life would have turned out for you if you had enough oxygen at birth?

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

http://www.truthjihad.com/good.htm

 
At 23 May, 2011 13:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You flatter yourself with the term 'this world-class logic cesspool'".

And the goat fornicator proves, once again, that he can't read.

Thanks for substantiating my argument--you shiny pated pervert.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

http://www.truthjihad.com/good.htm

 
At 23 May, 2011 15:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

My mistake, I attributed the "lit up the lab" statement to the writer, not the pathologist. That doesn't change the fact that you mischaracterized what I said, and it's still not clear to me that the 2003 biopsy included a polarized light test

 
At 23 May, 2011 15:43, Blogger Triterope said...

Oh look, now UtterFail the anonymous UtterFail is now an authority on lung biopsy protocols!

Ban.

 
At 23 May, 2011 15:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...and it's still not clear to me that the 2003 biopsy included a polarized light test."

Of course the obvious is never clear to you, goat fornicator. After all, you're a psychopath with a hidden political agenda. Thus, you lie habitually.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

http://www.truthjihad.com/good.htm

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:54, Blogger roo said...

Brian,

Do you accept that the 2006 biopsy included a polarized light test?

Why or why not?

 
At 23 May, 2011 17:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

There was no 2006 biopsy. It was an autopsy, and I see no mention of a polarized light test. So I don't know if they did it or not.

 
At 23 May, 2011 18:08, Blogger roo said...

Brian,

So your argument is that there is no proof that talc was ever found in Zadruga's lungs.

 
At 24 May, 2011 12:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where did I say such a stupid thing?

 
At 25 May, 2011 16:22, Blogger Triterope said...

Where did I say such a stupid thing?

Now there's a hole with no bottom.

 
At 27 May, 2011 17:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sounds like a bucket with nothing in it.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home