Re : Re: The turning point project, archive 2383
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re : Re: The turning point project, archive 2383
- From: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 17:03:00 +0100 (MET)
- Cc: email@example.com
- Content-MD5: i+dARMhLMmI35ZKE4BOZNQ==
- Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Reply-To: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
you wrote about the turnpoint ad :
>(1) The FDA has not been forced to claim anything.
Then it is more serious and we can even not forgive. have a look at
I know some thing more recent was posted, but couldnot find it back.
It gave the web site to read copies of the internal texts.
>It further quite deliberately sought to scare people into believing
>that biotech companies were looking to develop hideous human-animal
Do not you acknowledge that microbiology has already done
such chimeras ?
If you agree, re-read your sentence : you will have done a lie (small I agree,
but a lie) because you imply that biotech would not be looking for chimeras.
>Do you mean a little lie is ok but a bigger lie isn't?
No. I say that a big lie is worse than a small one.
And I agree that truth has been slightly distorted (more if the mouse was not
GE, but we do not have the answer. Yet I know that some mouses are GE precisely
not to have too much immunary system. That's why i bet the mouse on the ad was
>How do we begin to quantify the size or weight of a lie to judge which are
>ok and which aren't?
The prototype of the error of the scientist. When I say two things are
different, I donot claim that the difference may be measurable.
Will you agree that yellow is not pink ?
Yet no one may draw a Scientific and non-discutable line between the two.
I won't answer more on this point. If you do not understand, re-read my
e-mails or ask to some friend to explain to you. this point was clear in my
>Ok, let's push that reductionist science back into the labs, and go back to
>medicine as it was practiced in the 1700's. Forget antibiotics; they're
>based on a reductionist (even if French!) and accidental experiment in a
>reductionist petri dish. Where will all this end?
Yeah. if anyone is against "science" and the way it works currently, he
favors the age of stone and living in caverns ?
Let's say I do not answer. It seems hopeless.
Moreover, please stop refering to french. Science
works on a reductionnist model also in france OK. I have never thought that
the fact that I was french could make this right for me !
Once again, I hate biotechs not specially because they are american,
but for the principle.
By the way, biotech are as much european (and also french) as american.
Does it convince you that I'm not fighting against americans but for a