Dr. Blasey-Ford is a psychology professor and she gives her reason for hazy memory of the Brett Kavanaugh incident some 36 years ago
“How are you so sure that it was he (Kavanaugh)?” Senator Feinstein asked.
“The same way that I’m sure I’m talking to you right now,” Ford said. “Basic memory functions, and, also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain, that sort of, as you know, encodes-- that neurotransmitter—encodes memories into the hippocampus, so the trauma-related experience is kind of locked there, whereas other details kind of drift.”
Well another psychologist Timothy Wilson a professor at the University of Virginia indicated psychology is not a science like physics or chemistry said to the LA Times in 2012. Psychologists can’t measure happiness or depression with a ruler or known facts and mathematical equations that work out in reality. Scientists refute psychology as a science.
Why do you think psychiatrist or psychologist work with both sides of a court case? One says the defendant is sane and the other says he is insane. Psych is not a science but an opinion, or interpretation. Science needs evidence to support its theory. Psychology has conflicting evidence. Blasey-Ford has a hazy memory of her attack, but blames Kavanaugh because perhaps politics. She didn’t think it was Brett Kavanaugh until 2012. Many other women who experience rape “a real crime” against women will tell you every detail of the incident. They can reiterate the sounds, smells, and every occurance. Dr. Blasey-Ford can’t and she has her reason we state earlier. Both other male witnesses (Kavanaugh and Mark Judge) she indicates were there said “it never ever happened”. A women Mrs. Leland Ingham Keyser says she has no recollection of being at the party that Blasey-Ford claims she was at. Blasey-Ford claimed Patrick (PJ) J. Smyth was also there. Mr. Smyth said he was never at the party Mrs. Ford says he was at and that he vouches for Brett Kavanaugh as a person of integrity. Additionally, the Republican Party indicated they have testimony from two men who admit they were the ones at the party and were the ones Blasey-Ford says were Mark Judge and Kavanaugh.
So something appears to have happened to Dr. Blasey-Ford, but her psych science fails her and everyone else. If all witnesses say they were not there, and two men recall the incident and they were the one’s. Blasey_Ford also uses PTSD as a defense of you vague memory, but PTSD causes you to relive the event over and over. Here is a Dr. who doesn’t understand her own subject.
Well science is based on facts, and evidence. The facts say she identified the wrong men at the party who molested her,
Psychology is not a science but an opinion without any facts to back up the analysis.
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Monday, October 1, 2018
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Psychology, Polygraph Tests, Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford. What's the Connection?
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is professor at Palo Alto University which specializes in psychology training. The University specializes in business psychology and Social Action and Clinical psychology. She is making sexual claims about Brett Kavanaugh and the US Supreme Court. Anita Hill received a B.S. in Psychology at Oklahoma University and later studied law at Yale. She is a university professor of social policy, law, and women's studies at Bradeis University. She brought claims about Clarence Thomas in 1990. Both Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford took polygraph test to back up their sexual misconduct claims against the Supreme Court nominees.
Despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates, the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness of the test itself. According to Wikipedia the utility among sex offenders is also poor, with insufficient evidence to support accuracy or improved outcomes in this population. Most countries including the US do not allow them as evidence in the court of law. The University of Minnesota said in 2001 that although the test may be useful in investigations it doesn’t past muster as a scientific device.
There were previous tests done, but William Moulton Marston’s machine maybe the initial one used. He was also a psychologist, Marston considered himself the "father of the polygraph. He even appeared in advertising claiming Gillette razors were the preferred brand based on testers.
We are not trying to pick sides, but we want to bring up the connection between lie detectors and psychology currently in the news. These women chose to take a lie detector in advance of their claims of sexual misconduct. They are both educated women and should know that the polygraph is not considered reliable. In our minds it put psychology in a bad light relying on unproven technology since 1921.
Two major points are that these test are not allowed in the court of law, and Mrs. Hill works in the law profession. She pushed forward a polygraph as evidence against Mr. Thomas. Also very pertinent is that a study found that the polygraph is not useful at all against sex offenses, which both of these women claim. Additionally, they only asked Blasey-Ford two questions. Lie detectors need many, many questions to monitor a person response to known truth like "What is your name" which is a control question. This creates a basis to monitor reactions. Also, Dr. Ford said she cried during the test. Crying neutralizes a test and make it null as it interfere with one's breathing. Thusly, making it difficult to interpret.
They both didn’t bring up these issues with these men at the time of the incident, and they use unproven tech to make their case. The case against psychology is in view and fails miserably.
Despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates, the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness of the test itself. According to Wikipedia the utility among sex offenders is also poor, with insufficient evidence to support accuracy or improved outcomes in this population. Most countries including the US do not allow them as evidence in the court of law. The University of Minnesota said in 2001 that although the test may be useful in investigations it doesn’t past muster as a scientific device.
There were previous tests done, but William Moulton Marston’s machine maybe the initial one used. He was also a psychologist, Marston considered himself the "father of the polygraph. He even appeared in advertising claiming Gillette razors were the preferred brand based on testers.
We are not trying to pick sides, but we want to bring up the connection between lie detectors and psychology currently in the news. These women chose to take a lie detector in advance of their claims of sexual misconduct. They are both educated women and should know that the polygraph is not considered reliable. In our minds it put psychology in a bad light relying on unproven technology since 1921.
Two major points are that these test are not allowed in the court of law, and Mrs. Hill works in the law profession. She pushed forward a polygraph as evidence against Mr. Thomas. Also very pertinent is that a study found that the polygraph is not useful at all against sex offenses, which both of these women claim. Additionally, they only asked Blasey-Ford two questions. Lie detectors need many, many questions to monitor a person response to known truth like "What is your name" which is a control question. This creates a basis to monitor reactions. Also, Dr. Ford said she cried during the test. Crying neutralizes a test and make it null as it interfere with one's breathing. Thusly, making it difficult to interpret.
They both didn’t bring up these issues with these men at the time of the incident, and they use unproven tech to make their case. The case against psychology is in view and fails miserably.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Pharma on Vaccines, Data Mining and Generics. Who is Looking Out for You?
United States: Supreme Court Rules In IMS Data Mining Case
by Maria Buckley
On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court in Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, et al. v. IMS Health Inc. et al1, struck down a Vermont law2 that bans the sale of physicians' prescribing information to pharmaceutical companies and further bans pharmaceutical companies from using such data to market their products. The Supreme Court's 6-3 opinion by Justice Kennedy found that the Vermont law unconstitutionally restricted the pharmaceutical companies' right to free speech.
Vermont's Prescription Confidentiality Law provides that absent the prescriber's consent, pharmacies and other related entities are prohibited from selling prescriber identifiable information for marketing purposes and that such information cannot be used by pharmaceutical manufacturers to market their products. The statue permits other uses of the data, e.g., healthcare research.
The Court found that speech in the process of pharmaceutical marketing is a form of expression protected by the free speech clause of the first amendment. Therefore, the Vermont statue must be subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny of the reasons for the restrictions on speech.
Vermont's justification was that the law was necessary to protect medical privacy, avoid physician harassment by drug company representatives, and to preserve the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. Vermont further argued that the statute is integral to its efforts to control healthcare costs and improve public health.
HEALTH News
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Vaccine Manufacturers
SCOTUS makes it more difficult to sue manufacturers in autism cases.
By Meghan McCarthy
The Supreme Court Feb 22, 2011 ruled that vaccine companies cannot be sued for design defects, handing the pharmaceutical industry a victory and making it more difficult to bring cases against vaccine manufacturers for allegedly causing autism.
A 1986 law established a federal system for compensating patients injured by "unavoidable" side effects after being given a vaccine. The law aimed to make collecting damages for children injured by vaccines easier and faster by giving the Health and Human Services Department the authority to hear the cases and hand out compensation, funded by an excise tax on pharmaceutical companies making vaccines. President Obama’s fiscal 2012 budget estimated the vaccine fund would have $3 billion. The fund has paid out over $2.5 billion since its inception.
A ruling that allowed suits against the vaccine producers for a "design defect" might have opened up the pharmaceutical industry to thousands of cases alleging that vaccines caused autism in children.
The case heard by the Supreme Court, brought by Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz, alleged that their daughter Hannah was disabled by a diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine she received as an infant in 1992 manufactured by Lederle Laboratories, now owned by Pfizer Inc.’s Wyeth unit. After the family was denied compensation in the federal vaccine court in 1995, they filed the suit that ultimately reached the Supreme Court, charging that the defective design of the vaccine caused their daughter’s disabilities and that the company could be held liable for negligent design under Pennsylvania law.
Supreme Court Rejects Generic Drug Labeling Suits
Reuters by James Vicini June 23, 2011
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that generic drug companies cannot be sued under state law over allegations that they failed to provide adequate label warnings about potential side effects.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices gave a victory to Israel's Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Mylan Inc's UDL Laboratories and Iceland-based Actavis Inc by overturning U.S. appeals court rulings that allowed such lawsuits.
The companies argued that federal law barred such lawsuits because the drug had been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Federal law requires generic drugs to have the same labels as their brand name equivalents.
Justice Clarence Thomas in the court's majority opinion agreed. He said federal drug regulations applicable to generic drug manufacturers directly conflicted with and thus pre-empted state lawsuits.
The Supreme Court decided a related issue in 2009 when it ruled FDA drug regulations do not protect pharmaceutical companies from being sued under state law over drug labeling, a case involving Pfizer Inc's Wyeth unit and its antinausea drug Phenergan.
But in the generic drug cases, the justices reversed separate U.S. appeals court rulings that the lawsuits against the companies could go forward.
The high court agreed with the arguments of the generic drug makers that they had no choice but to use the same drug labels as the brand manufacturer.
Teva, Actavis and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association hailed the ruling.
The court ruled 6-2 to uphold the ruling of the 3rd Circuit appellate court, finding that the federal law preempts all “design-defect claims” made against vaccine manufacturers. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said the statute only holds manufacturers liable for proper manufacturing and labeling, not for the actual design of the drug.
by Maria Buckley
On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court in Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, et al. v. IMS Health Inc. et al1, struck down a Vermont law2 that bans the sale of physicians' prescribing information to pharmaceutical companies and further bans pharmaceutical companies from using such data to market their products. The Supreme Court's 6-3 opinion by Justice Kennedy found that the Vermont law unconstitutionally restricted the pharmaceutical companies' right to free speech.
Vermont's Prescription Confidentiality Law provides that absent the prescriber's consent, pharmacies and other related entities are prohibited from selling prescriber identifiable information for marketing purposes and that such information cannot be used by pharmaceutical manufacturers to market their products. The statue permits other uses of the data, e.g., healthcare research.
The Court found that speech in the process of pharmaceutical marketing is a form of expression protected by the free speech clause of the first amendment. Therefore, the Vermont statue must be subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny of the reasons for the restrictions on speech.
Vermont's justification was that the law was necessary to protect medical privacy, avoid physician harassment by drug company representatives, and to preserve the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. Vermont further argued that the statute is integral to its efforts to control healthcare costs and improve public health.
HEALTH News
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Vaccine Manufacturers
SCOTUS makes it more difficult to sue manufacturers in autism cases.
By Meghan McCarthy
The Supreme Court Feb 22, 2011 ruled that vaccine companies cannot be sued for design defects, handing the pharmaceutical industry a victory and making it more difficult to bring cases against vaccine manufacturers for allegedly causing autism.
A 1986 law established a federal system for compensating patients injured by "unavoidable" side effects after being given a vaccine. The law aimed to make collecting damages for children injured by vaccines easier and faster by giving the Health and Human Services Department the authority to hear the cases and hand out compensation, funded by an excise tax on pharmaceutical companies making vaccines. President Obama’s fiscal 2012 budget estimated the vaccine fund would have $3 billion. The fund has paid out over $2.5 billion since its inception.
A ruling that allowed suits against the vaccine producers for a "design defect" might have opened up the pharmaceutical industry to thousands of cases alleging that vaccines caused autism in children.
The case heard by the Supreme Court, brought by Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz, alleged that their daughter Hannah was disabled by a diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine she received as an infant in 1992 manufactured by Lederle Laboratories, now owned by Pfizer Inc.’s Wyeth unit. After the family was denied compensation in the federal vaccine court in 1995, they filed the suit that ultimately reached the Supreme Court, charging that the defective design of the vaccine caused their daughter’s disabilities and that the company could be held liable for negligent design under Pennsylvania law.
Supreme Court Rejects Generic Drug Labeling Suits
Reuters by James Vicini June 23, 2011
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that generic drug companies cannot be sued under state law over allegations that they failed to provide adequate label warnings about potential side effects.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices gave a victory to Israel's Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Mylan Inc's UDL Laboratories and Iceland-based Actavis Inc by overturning U.S. appeals court rulings that allowed such lawsuits.
The companies argued that federal law barred such lawsuits because the drug had been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Federal law requires generic drugs to have the same labels as their brand name equivalents.
Justice Clarence Thomas in the court's majority opinion agreed. He said federal drug regulations applicable to generic drug manufacturers directly conflicted with and thus pre-empted state lawsuits.
The Supreme Court decided a related issue in 2009 when it ruled FDA drug regulations do not protect pharmaceutical companies from being sued under state law over drug labeling, a case involving Pfizer Inc's Wyeth unit and its antinausea drug Phenergan.
But in the generic drug cases, the justices reversed separate U.S. appeals court rulings that the lawsuits against the companies could go forward.
The high court agreed with the arguments of the generic drug makers that they had no choice but to use the same drug labels as the brand manufacturer.
Teva, Actavis and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association hailed the ruling.
The court ruled 6-2 to uphold the ruling of the 3rd Circuit appellate court, finding that the federal law preempts all “design-defect claims” made against vaccine manufacturers. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said the statute only holds manufacturers liable for proper manufacturing and labeling, not for the actual design of the drug.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)