Arthur Kellermann, the CDC, and Gun control...

[wyldwolf]

Two DU'ers, who appear to be against gun control, mentioned that Arthur Kellermann's studies on gun danger for the CDC had been discredited by a subcommittee of Congress in 1996 - resulting in the CDC being stripped of part of it's funding and the eventual exit of Kellerman.

If ever there was one was paroting NRA talking points, this is it. The above is really only the conservative NRA's version of the events.

In actuality, the congressional committee was Republican led, with Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.)as co-sponsor of the amendment. In addition, the decision to cut the CDC's funding was arrived at based on the testimonies of 2nd Amendment activist Don B. Kates, Jr., as well as Drs. William Waters and Tim Wheeler of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.

These same parties had tried, and failed, to punish the CDC for funding gun research the year before. Both Bob Dole and Trent Lott signed off on a measure to eliminate the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

It was a moot point, anyway. Bill Clinton gave the CDC the money back the Republicans took away.

New England Journal of Medicine Editor Jerome Kassirer, who has published several of the CDC-funded gun studies, called it "an attack that strikes at the very heart of scientific research." Writing in The Washington Post, CDC Director David Satcher said criticism of the firearm research did not bode well for the country's future: "If we question the honesty of scientists who give every evidence of long deliberation on the issues before them, what are our expectations of anyone else? What hope is there for us as a society?" Frederick P. Rivara, a pediatrician, told The Chronicle of Higher Education that critics of the program were trying "to block scientific discovery because they don't like the results. This is a frightening trend for academic researchers. It's the equivalent of book burning."

That view was echoed by columnists and editorial writers throughout the country. In a New York Times column entitled "More N.R.A. Mischief," Bob Herbert defended the CDC's "rigorous, unbiased, scientific studies," suggesting that critics could not refute the results of the research and therefore had decided "to pull the plug on the funding and stop the effort altogether." Editorials offering the same interpretation appeared in The Washington Post ("NRA: Afraid of Facts"), USA Today ("Gun Lobby Keeps Rolling"), the Los Angeles Times ("NRA Aims at the Messenger"), The Atlanta Journal ("GOP Tries to Shoot the Messenger"), the Sacramento Bee ("Shooting the Messenger"), and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ("The Gun Epidemic").

Which brings me to my point - anyone that can be duped by the NRA talking points of Author Kellermann's studies being discredited fall into the category above: you cannot refute the results of the research and therefore you try to ridicule it.

By the way, the Republican congressman Jay Dickey, who led the witch hunt against the CDC's gun research, is a member of the NRA and the NRA often lobbied it's members for money to support Dickey.

So, if you can't refute Kellermann's studies, please don't herald the witch hunt the Republicans subjected the CDC to.

[DoNotRefill]

1. Isn't a basic tenet of scientific research....

that the results must be reproducable? Then why does Kellermann STILL refuse to release his data sets and methodology 10+ years after the fact?

"There are lots of good articles about guns in the NEJM, just like there are some excellent treatises on brain surgery in Guns and Ammo..."

[wyldwolf]

3. As I said below, the data sets are readily available...

...can you provide a documented sources that demonstrates they are not?

[Superfly]

5. Wow, you sound like another anti-gun absolutist

who frequents this place.

Person 1: Can you provide documentation or a link?
Person 2: Can you provide proof that a documentation or link doesn't exist?

Sheeesh...the burden of proof is on you, there, bubba.

[wyldwolf]

7. It has nothing to do with my feelings on gun control in general...

...but rather the documented motives behind a republical led hearing to discredit a study that had wide acclaim.

Again, gun ownership right or wrong is another issue.

And the burden of proof, bubba, is on those who say the study isn't valid.

[Superfly]

10. I think DoNotRefill was looking for

links, documentation, whatever, to the studies at hand, but you, rather dismissivly, told him to provide proof that those links, documentation, etc are not available?

How about just providing the documentation...QED

Brian

[wyldwolf]

17. He is perfectly aware of the studies...

...at least aware enough to suggest (quite dismissivly) that they were discredited by Republicans in Congress.

However, it is customary for someone to provide proof when they throw out a statement like he did. He did, in fact, make a statement first that requires burden of proof.

[Superfly]

23. Well, OK, then...

but I'm still waiting for the studies. Whatcha got?

[jody]

2. Which study or studies by Kellermann are you claiming were valid but

rejected?

Please also explain how an article in a medical journal can shed light on the philosophical and political question regarding a citizens inalienable right?

[wyldwolf]

4. This discussion isn't about a politcal question but rather...

..the validity of a study.

Percieved or real philosophical and political inalienable rights is another issue.

[jody]

6. Please list the articles you believe were valid but rejected. eom

[wyldwolf]

9. The New England Journal of Medicine (October 7, 1993)

[jody]

12. That's a journal, what's the article? eom

[wyldwolf]

14. Support for new policies to regulate firearms

[jody]

19. You said Oct 7, 1993 your article is in Sep 17, 1998. You are flailing.

[wyldwolf]

22. I make a typo and I'm flailing?

Honestly, this is how rightwingers handle discussions like this - petty and avoidance of the issue.

[jody]

24. The article you cite says "Conclusions Strong public support,

even among gun owners, for innovative strategies to regulate firearms suggests that these proposals warrant serious consideration by policy makers."

That's supposed to be some tremendous study? You meant your thread to be a joke, right? ROFLMAO.

[wyldwolf]

25. And still you avoid the issues of the discussion...

... (shaking my head in disbelief)

[jody]

27. There are no issues. You created a strawman and it fell apart. eom

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

8. Hmmmm....the validity of a study....

Let's see...why would a doctor at CDC publish "research" in the NEJM about GUNS? Could it be that he had a bias? Why didn't he do a study on something like wearing seatbelts? Or could it be that he was trying to draw attention AWAY from Medicine's little secret that kills more Americans every year than guns do, improper diagnosis and lethal treatment, by creating something guaranteed to totally distract everybody?

Tell us.... cops carry guns. Are they diseased because of that?

[wyldwolf]

13. Again, you avoid the issue...

... and try to get off topic.

The doctor, as I mentioned, was involved with the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

You try to make a connection between the CDC and the New England Journal of Medicine where none exists. Or else you are not familiar with that publication.

You throw the word "bias" around without facing the reality of the study itself, it's acclaim by unrelated scientists and writers, the Republicans on the payroll of the NRA who tried (and failed) to discredit it, and the fact that the Data sets were printed with the article when you said they were not available.

Again, and this is the last time I'll address this, my personal feelings on gun control - right or wrong - have nothing to do with the discussion we're having. Unless you want to abandon it and take up a new direction - which it seems you want to do.

[DoNotRefill]

18. For a study of that "magnitude"...

the raw data sets should run to several hundreds of pages, if not thousands. Surely you're not suggesting that was published in the NEJM? None of my copies of it has ever been over 300 pages, including ads, et cetera.

[MrBenchley]

39. The plain fact is

that the RKBA crowd down here routinely throws out GOP propaganda....

[wyldwolf]

41. ...not only that...

...but also GOP-style discussion tactics.

[MrBenchley]

43. Yup...

Amazing, isn't it?

[wyldwolf]

44. Incredibly amazing... they defy all logic so they can keep their toys...

[MrBenchley]

45. Yup...

[jody]

11. I believe it is customary for posters to provide a link to and identify

portions of an article quoted.

I believe you are using "Public Health Pot Shots"

[wyldwolf]

16. You are correct...

and I apologize. Actually, however, I was pulling from a sourced essay based on that.

But still. You are correct.

[jody]

20. Then read the source article for an answer to your question. eom

[jody]

15. If you read carefully the source article for your post, you have ample

reasons why Kellermann's work was suspect.

I asume you have some ulterior motive in your initial post but you aren't very clever. Try again when you have more experience.

[wyldwolf]

21. What a dismissive attitude you have...

...for someone who won't address the point of a republican led effort to shut down an agency for offending their donors - the NRA.

Sad, really. Talk about inexperience!

[jody]

26. I do have a dismissive attitude regarding some material. You brought

up the topic and you used material from the source article.

The burden of proof is upon you to show how your source article was wrong. My money is against you being able to do that job.

[wyldwolf]

28. I used the source article to set up the historic background of the case...

..who the congressmen were, and what party they represented, and whose interests they were serving.

The discussion was between myself and DoNotRefill. You're welcome in it but the point is: He says the study was discredited. He therefore has burden of proof as to why it was - a point he continues to ignore because he only will impart the surface NRA talking point on the subject.

[DoNotRefill]

29. Hmmmm....

I noticed that once Clinton took office and the funding was restored, Kellermann immediately went back to CDC, didn't he?

Kellermann cited research by others for a proposition opposite to what they actually found. And Kellermann's "43X" soundbite is deliberately set up to cause misunderstanding. That obfuscation on his part still turns up periodically in the literature.

[wyldwolf]

31. Clinton was in office for 5 years before this...

...you show a poor knowledge of history and still refuse to address the issue... plus will provide no coroboration of your positions.

[DoNotRefill]

38. Well...

at least I can spell "corroboration". ;-)

[BullDozer]

32. Shut them down?

From the above linked article:

"Last year Congress tried to take away $2.6 million from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In budgetary terms, it was a pittance: 0.1 percent of the CDC's $2.2 billion allocation

Now even with as little money as I earn a .1% reduction in my net earnings would cost me about 50 cents a week, in other words I wouldn't even notice it.

That is in no way indicative of an effort to shut them (the CDC) down.

[wyldwolf]

33. Yes, shut them down...

...the amount they took from the CDC budget in '96 was the exact amount used to fund the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. They did, in effect, shut down the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control until Clinton restored the money.

[BullDozer]

34. Not correct

the amount they took from the CDC budget in '96 was the exact amount used to fund the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

No, that is not a correct statement.


"Symbolically, however, it was important: $2.6 million was the amount the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control had spent in 1995 on studies of firearm injuries"

The amount was a portion of the NCIPs budget, not their entire funding.

[jody]

36. BD, there you go again with the facts. shame on you.

:bounce: :hi: :-) :7 :D B-)

[wyldwolf]

37. Yeah, well, I misread one...

... I guess my entire argument gets shot down based on a misread line and date typo you mentioned above.

So that means it was ok that the NRA paid off congressmen to discredit a respected study.

So now you have a convenient out for not relaying any facts whatsoever.

[jody]

42. "entire argument gets shot down"? That appears to be the case unless

you want to restate your issue. :shrug:

[Man_in_the_Moon]

35. cutting a budget is not 'shutting them down'

telling an agency that they cannot spend any of their budget on something is 'shutting them down'

Which is exactly what the anti-gun-nuts did to the ATF when they got a resolution passed that told the ATF that it could no longer expend any funds on researching, and/or approving, relief for a felony conviction under the GCA of '68.

[MrBenchley]

40. Who are you trying to kid.....

"the anti-gun-nuts did to the ATF when they got a resolution passed that told the ATF that it could no longer expend any funds on researching, and/or approving, relief for a felony conviction"
Oh, yeah,. I'm sure we're ALL concerned with the tragedy of criminals who can't get guns......