Dr. Schwarcz replies

In response to all the chatter about Dr. Scharcz being on the payroll of the chemical companies, as well as his office, I sent him the comments from this forum and he replied with the following:

Thanks for forwarding me that nonsense. Nobody funds me....except McGill University . I do know where the CBI stuff comes from....a while ago CBI funded some summer scholarships for McGill students, a couple of whom ended up working in our office. That had nothing to do with anything....certainly not with my book. These "organic" people are paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view" they think that some conspiracy is afoot. They generally have a very poor scientific background and have no understanding of chemistry. They could use a little oil for their mental machinery. Organic oil if they so wish. regards

Dr. Joe Schwarcz

Steve can take pot shots at Dr. Schwarcz to try and malign his knowledge and connections, but he is only trying to divert people from understanding what this well educated man has to say. He is well recognized in the scientific community and well accepted by the public who buy his books and watch his regular TV show up in Canada. Too bad certain people have closed minds. Some may call that dogmatism but I tend to think it is fanaticism.

Sherwin

Reply to
sherwin dubren
Loading thread data ...

ROTFL...

Ya know, the same can be said of you. Your adherence to a regime that is either going to fail you or fail your successors isn't wise. It is either pure lazines, selfishness, faith based or any combination of the three.

Frankly, I see you and the other poisoners, and within the label I include any agricultural or garden endeavour that cyclically uses *any* kind of poison in a systematic and habitual way, as terminally short sighted. You are engaged in a broadly based experiment in forced evolution which will release the horseman of "famine".

In evolutionary terms, there is no long term up-side to the use of pesticides and herbicides except to enrich the poisoners who are cognizant enough of their product limitations to switch modalities and continue hoovering up your money.

Of course, there is no long term up-side to us living in the numbers we do, except to swarm.

Nothing you or Joe can say will prevent the codling moth from developing resistance, as it already has in some areas. It -will- make its way to your trees.

Eventually all pathways for toxic control will close and then the pesticide dependant weakling species of plants will be decimated...

Reply to
phorbin

........Well damn!!

I hit send instead of save.

Reply to
phorbin

I am neither paranoid nor a conspiracy theorist. Neither am I a liar.

Fact: Archived web pages for the Office of Science and Society list the industry group as a Financial supporter from 2003 until October 2007. "Nobody funds me" is a lie.

Fact: The good doctor states that "There is no available research that shows trace amounts are a problem or that alloxan builds up in the body." That's a lie. In reality Alloxan is a well-known and universally used agent for evoking experimental diabetes through its toxic effect on the B cellsof the Langerhans islets. "In our study, blood levels of alloxan in children with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus were investigated. The observations were made in 68 children aged 6?15 years and in a control group of 44 healthy children in the same age range. Alloxan levels were estimated spectrophotometrically. The mean level of alloxan in blood from children with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus was 8.76±9.64 mgrg/ml and in blood from healthy children was

1.53±1.10 mgrg/ml. The difference was statistically significant (P
Reply to
Steve

I would like to see your letter to him, as well as his reply, full headers included on both, and I would like to see where he granted permission for you to post his reply on a public forum.

Charlie

Reply to
Charlie

Oh my, now THAT's research. Home run, Billy.

Reply to
Steve

If that's not forthcoming in a day or two I'll write the good "doctor" and ask him myself.

Reply to
Steve

In response to all the chatter about Dr. Scharcz being on the payroll of the chemical companies, as well as his office, I sent him the comments from this forum and he replied with the following:

Thanks for forwarding me that nonsense. Nobody funds me....except McGill University . I do know where the CBI stuff comes from....a while ago CBI funded some summer scholarships for McGill students, a couple of whom ended up working in our office. That had nothing to do with anything....certainly not with my book.

These "organic" people are paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view" they think that some conspiracy is afoot. They generally have a very poor scientific background and have no understanding of chemistry. They could use a little oil for their mental machinery. Organic oil if they so wish. regards

- Dr. Joe Schwarcz

The phrase "These "organic" people", has such an air of hubris to it. Is he expressing contemp for America's first family, who just put in an organic garden, or is it reserved for some of Dr. Joe's fans (or potential fans) who are organic. I think that the statement above is not only disrespectful, but news worthy and should be forwarded to all the major newspapers, if this is indeed the content of his email to Doo.

To add that it was in response to a charge of duplicity, makes it seem even more self serving, which brings us back to where we begun. He, and his institution are funded by the most un-organic companies on the planet.

And who do we have to thank?

Our boy Doo ;O)

Reply to
Billy

Several thought occur to me on reading your post.

Does Dr Schwarcz know that you were going to post a private email to a public forum so that anyone can read it?

If, and I stress the 'if', you are really posting what Dr Schwarcz has written to you, then his response to you is simply extraordinary.

Any scientist worth taking note of who responds to an email from a stranger and who using such sloppy thinking to write words like "These "organic" people are paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view" they think that some conspiracy is afoot. " and that they "could use a little oil for their mental machinery" is of questionable sense.

If he is a serious scientist, he would have been more temperate in his language because he'd be used to the process of peer reviews and know that he'd have to justify everything he says.

I doubt that you emailed him at all or that he responded.

Reply to
FarmI

My point, in a different manner.

Charlie

Reply to
Charlie

This could be interesting.

Kudos to you and Billy for the research and the ball-busting you gave/are giving sherwindu. Fran hit on some excellant points about dr. shill's supposed response.

Charlie

Reply to
Charlie

Yessir, but I want to go on record as saying it was not my intention to bust anyone's balls, but to cut through the constant bullshit with facts. I don't think "you people" are interested in a simple Doo-slappin', that's too dang easy. What I think "you people" are interested in is truth, or as near to it as we (all) can get (as culled from the research).

Always great to hear from you, Charlie. Take care.

Reply to
Steve

Exactly. Well said.

Reply to
Steve

Agreed, but the resulting ball-busting is a fringe benefit.

......and accomplishes nothing other than a momentary relief from the frustration of dealing with (insert your own descriptor)

"Some minds remain open long enough for the truth not only to enter but to pass on through by way of a ready exit without pausing anywhere along the route." ---- Elizabeth Kenny

"Pragmatism asks its usual question. "Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?" ---- William James

And you as well, Steve

Charlie

Reply to
Charlie

So we should probably do a follow up with Dr. Joe, let him deny that he wrote to Doo, and call off the dogs on the newspapers, probably. I haven't had this much fun since, I can't remember when ;O)

Reply to
Billy

I don't think he would mind.

Well, if it makes you feel better, think what you will.

I simply sent him a copy of your responses. He is not afraid of you loonies and has probably run into the likes of you before.

Since when are scientists held to such a standard?

Unlike your little group, I don't make things up.

Sherwin

Reply to
sherwin dubren
*snip*

I'm sure this will be a stupid question, but who is this Dr. Schwarcz? The name is not familiar at all...

Reply to
Lilah Morgan

For those unfamiliar or who did not follow from the beginning, Dr Joe Schwarz is a noted professor that tries to make science more fun and understandable for the average person. He has a large following in Canada, and is well respected in Montreal. He's a little like Jerry Baker in terms of what he preaches. Some people swear by their methods, others feel they are quacks. Many say Dr. Joe is too liberal and accepting of chemicals in his day to day suggestions.

formatting link
've listened to Dr. Joe on CJAD radio Canada and what he says seems to make pretty good sense in most cases, although I certainly would not try to dissuade anyone who prefers an "all-organic" approach to gardening. His topics are not exclusive to gardening, but offers advice on various issues, including nutritional info, dieting, etc.

formatting link
the way, the quoted letter from Sherwin is very similar to how the doctor actually speaks on his show, so it is very likely to be genuine. You can certainly call the show and debate his objectivity on air. It would actually be interesting to hear. ;-)

SteveN

Reply to
steven_nospam at Yahoo! Canada

In response to all the chatter about Dr. Scharcz being on the payroll of the chemical companies, as well as his office, I sent him the comments from this forum and he replied with the following:

Thanks for forwarding me that nonsense. Nobody funds me....except McGill University . I do know where the CBI stuff comes from....a while ago CBI funded some summer scholarships for McGill students, a couple of whom ended up working in our office. That had nothing to do with anything....certainly not with my book. These "organic" people are paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view" they think that some conspiracy is afoot. They generally have a very poor scientific background and have no understanding of chemistry. They could use a little oil for their mental machinery. Organic oil if they so wish. regards

Dr. Joe Schwarcz

Steve can take pot shots at Dr. Schwarcz to try and malign his knowledge and connections, but he is only trying to divert people from understanding what this well educated man has to say. He is well recognized in the scientific community and well accepted by the public who buy his books and watch his regular TV show up in Canada. Too bad certain people have closed minds. Some may call that dogmatism but I tend to think it is fanaticism.

Sherwin

Reply to
Billy

You have obviously never talked to a scientist. We come in all stripes, just like most other professions. One thing we have in common is a distain for those who never bothered to learn to think. Unfortunately that is more than 90% of even well educated people. That trait makes us most unpopular at parties and family reunions. If you really want to rile a scientist up, imply his or her work is tainted by conflicts in funding sources that don't actually exist. I certainly don't find the tone or language of Dr. Schwarcz' reply unusual for a casual conversation. We laugh at you all the time.

Reply to
<not

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.