Home » Off Topic » PZ Myers Lies Through His Teeth About Me

PZ Myers Lies Through His Teeth About Me

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/once_a_crank_always_a_crank.php

DaveScot, the anti-science slug from UncommonDescent, is doing an experiment: he’s got a friend who is taking dichloroacetate (DCA) to treat his cancer.

The first line in Myers post is a lie. I don’t even know anyone who has cancer let alone is taking DCA to treat it. This just goes to show you can’t trust anything written by PZ Myers.

Filed under “Lies and the lying liars who tell them”.

Update: I don’t really feel like debating this with anyone anymore. The fact of the matter is that DCA is not a controlled substance and nothing is going to stop people in vast numbers, beginning real soon now, from trying to save their own lives with it. Countless thousands of people are walking around with untreatable cancers that will kill them long before “proper” phase II and phase III trials can take place. It is absolutely no one’s business but theirs what they choose to do about it. If you don’t like that, too bad. EFSAD.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

17 Responses to PZ Myers Lies Through His Teeth About Me

  1. Is this a misunderstanding over the word “friend” or has someone used your moniker?

    Someone has posted as DaveScot here, thought you might like to know.
    http://scienceblogs.com/insole.....ent-346712

  2. Hey, for what its worth, if I or anyone I knew was seen by medicine as “beyond hope” because of cancer, I would be the one looking to acquire DCA; not to do some “trial” but to take a whack at saving a life.

  3. This PZ has got some b*lls for talking the way he does. Who the hell made him god of science? What has he published, anyway? Has he written any books? Has he ever debated any of the ID guys? I really don’t know, but he certainly seems to go to great lengths to make himself sound important. I know he can’t distinguish between ID and creationism.

  4. I tend to find that the people with the loudest voices tend to have the most doubts regarding what they’re talking about. Sounds silly, but I’ve found it to be true.

  5. Believe it not, Myers’ web site is the most popular evolution blog out there except maybe Panda’s Thumb but that’s a group blog and it’s been losing readership since Kitzmiller ended. Nothing but just-so stories, lies, insults, lewd language, and empty rhetoric on it. In other words, a typical evolutionist website.

  6. IanCal

    That was me. I wrote, in the third sentence

    I don’t have cancer or know anyone who does (at the moment).

    What part of that don’t you understand?

    What part of that does PZ Myers not understand?

    I don’t know anyone with cancer so how I could possibly have a friend taking DCA to treat cancer? Duh.

  7. Myers is a defective clone of a dishonest lawyer. Not a scientist.

    Seriously, I’m serious considering dropping all my debate with Darweenies since I saw this from evolutionnews.org with the youtube video:

    James L. Powell, professor of geology and the former director and president of the L.A. County Museum of Natural History. In a video urging scientists to tell the public what’s what regarding intelligent design, he makes this… ahem, incisive argument against intelligent design (HT: Paul Nelson):

    “We have to say that if creationism is right and if there is an intelligent designer, then almost everything else we know about science is wrong. Then your flu vaccine wouldn’t work, your car wouldn’t start, there was no Hiroshima, and on and on and on.”

    http://telicthoughts.com/profe.....nt-design/

    As you can see, youtube.com videos have raised Darwinism to a new low.

    I posted this quote at an ID debate forum recently hoping to jar some Darwiners into thinking that just maybe they are going off the deep end and ought to actually stop and think.

    I was wrong. They all proudly agreed that the above quote was correct! You’re car won’t start if ID is true, and there never was a Hiroshima!???

    Like I’ve been saying for a while now, Darwinian reasoning quite literally cripples the mind.

    Believing that such idiotic codswallop as that quote is actually true requires one to be dead… from the neck up.

    I mean seriously “you’re car won’t start”!!!?? Insanity is upon them, the curse of the Worrell’s is upon them! (Ernest P. in “Scared Stupid” – stupider and stupider with each new generation) – and even Ernest was a lot smarter!

    I was almost in shock that such trash was spoken by a supposed “scientist” – who is allowed out of his cell at the funny farm to get near students and speak in public.

    I hope they don’t give him anything sharper than crayons.

  8. I don’t think he has a kangaroo either, but I don’t think he’s lying.

    It’s more like he’s trying to use guilt by association.

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

  9. In regards to the ‘Your car wouldn’t start if there was design in nature’ thing…

    Would it be a new idea to propose that intelligent design advocates get into a brand new field of science a la evolutionary psychology (Well, “Science”, in that case)? I don’t just mean illustrating IC biological constructs, but taking a serious crack at the philosophy and real-world application of design in general.

    I know it sounds remedial, but hear me out. Even if the hardest, most PZ Myers like scientist was correct about every open question in biology – from the origin of life to the evolution of IC biological structures to whatever else you can think of – I still believe the design argument continues to stand equally well as compared to the ‘it’s all just random chance’ argument. It’s simply a question of designing a system rather than a specific structure in such a case.

    The arguments seem abundant, fresh, and difficult to respond to. After all, what would be more impressive at a glance – designing an IC device, or a system that could design an IC device without the need for direct intervention?

    I apologize if I speak out of turn here.

  10. D A V E S C O T
    – off topic —

    Very cool ribosome video:

    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/multim.....erial.html

  11. “Believing that such idiotic codswallop as that quote is actually true…”

    Borne, I hadn’t seen the word “codswallop” in a long time, so it made me smile. Thanks. ;)

  12. [...] HT: JGuy These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

  13. Forget alternative medicine or allopathic medicine. There’s only treatment that works and treatment that doesn’t.

    If DCA works, it works, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

    The best way to find out is through properly-conducted clinical trials.

    That said, if I had terminal cancer and I was out of options then, of course, I would give DCA a shot

  14. That said, if I had terminal cancer and I was out of options then, of course, I would give DCA a shot.

    Of course you would but in order to have that choice requires two things:

    1) you know about DCA and have access to information about it so you can make an informed choice

    2) you can purchase DCA should you decide to use it

    I am interested in people having that choice. Liberals are all for choice when it comes to things like gay marriage, abortion, recreational drugs, and things of that nature but when it comes to the choice of taking a chance to save one’s own life through a drug that has gone through phase I human trials for safety they don’t want that. I don’t understand this inconsistency but then again I seldom understand loopy loony liberal thinking so this is not anything new.

  15. DaveScot said:
    “Liberals are all for choice when it comes to things like gay marriage, abortion, recreational drugs, and things of that nature but when it comes to the choice of taking a chance to save one’s own life through a drug that has gone through phase I human trials for safety they don’t want that. I don’t understand this inconsistency but then again I seldom understand loopy loony liberal thinking so this is not anything new.”

    It’s all about control – a feeling of superiority that comes from being a human with perceived power over other humans, not constrained by any supernatural mandates. That is the gist of liberalism if you ask me. When it comes to DCA, that’s as anti-liberal as you can get because:
    1. Not approved by any medical-materialist high priests.
    2. Empowers individuals.
    3. Embodies a positive, optimistic mentality (recovery), which is anathema to most liberals.
    4. Doesn’t step on any “God given” morals.
    5. Doesn’t increase government control.

  16. .That said, if I had terminal cancer and I was out of options then, of course, I would give DCA a shot.

    Of course you would but in order to have that choice requires two things:

    1) you know about DCA and have access to information about it so you can make an informed choice

    2) you can purchase DCA should you decide to use it

    That’s fine.

    The downside is that you have quacks making money off desperate people by overselling the effectiveness of treatments that at best are untested and at worst don’t work at all. Worse, some persuade people to abandon proven therapies for the same crapshoot.

  17. The downside is that you have quacks making money off desperate people by overselling the effectiveness of treatments that at best are untested and at worst don’t work at all. Worse, some persuade people to abandon proven therapies for the same crapshoot.

    Caveat emptor.

Leave a Reply