• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Dr" Steve Pieczenik

Childlike Empress said:
Elsevier's search engine ScienceDirect delivers the article. 60 citations. Author vitae:
Click to expand...

That and this:

Drs. Neustadt and Pieczenik were recognized by Elsevier as being one of the Top Ten Cited Authors in 2007 & 2008 for their article, "Mitochondrial dysfunction and molecular pathways of disease."
Click to expand...

Someone help me out. Is 60 a lot of citations since the article was written four years ago? Top ten for that journal or some larger sphere?

I really don't have a dog in the hunt about the guy, I'm just wondering if 60 is significant or one of those "honorary" style awards.
 
marplots said:
Someone help me out. Is 60 a lot of citations since the article was written four years ago? Top ten for that journal or some larger sphere?

I really don't have a dog in the hunt about the guy, I'm just wondering if 60 is significant or one of those "honorary" style awards.
Click to expand...
Top ten for that journal that year those two years.

Still, it's pretty good. According to Google Scholar, only 5 or 6 of my papers have more citations than theirs.
 
Last edited:
Yep, 60 citations is quite respectable.

What that topic has to do with September 11th, I have no idea. Recall that even Steven Jones did some legitimate work and had some real publications, just nothing at all to do with his conspiracy beliefs. A fellow may be clever in one area and a complete crackpot in another.
 
R.Mackey said:
Yep, 60 citations is quite respectable.
Click to expand...

OK, follow up. Does the number of cites alone tell you anything about the quality of the paper? I'm thinking of the "vaccines cause autism" paper that must have had a huge number of cites, simply because it was being criticized by other work -- but I don't know, so I'm asking.

Maybe a better example would be the original paper on cold fusion (assuming there is a paper that fits the description out there).
 
marplots said:
OK, follow up. Does the number of cites alone tell you anything about the quality of the paper? I'm thinking of the "vaccines cause autism" paper that must have had a huge number of cites, simply because it was being criticized by other work -- but I don't know, so I'm asking.

Maybe a better example would be the original paper on cold fusion (assuming there is a paper that fits the description out there).
Click to expand...


That's a very small and specific field he published in, Molecular Pathology. Didn't even know that it exists. 60 citations in this case is a lot, therefore the award.

What it definitely tells us (again) is that his bio details about PhD from MIT etc. are correct.
 
Childlike Empress said:
That's a very small and specific field he published in, Molecular Pathology. Didn't even know that it exists. 60 citations in this case is a lot, therefore the award.

What it definitely tells us (again) is that his bio details about PhD from MIT etc. are correct.
Click to expand...

I would say it credits his Medical Degree, I would beg to differ that it has any support for his PhD in International Relations from MIT.
 
marplots said:
OK, follow up. Does the number of cites alone tell you anything about the quality of the paper? I'm thinking of the "vaccines cause autism" paper that must have had a huge number of cites, simply because it was being criticized by other work -- but I don't know, so I'm asking.

Maybe a better example would be the original paper on cold fusion (assuming there is a paper that fits the description out there).
Click to expand...

It isn't a one-to-one correlation, but unless there's some reason to doubt it -- i.e., it's a particularly wacky paper and everyone cites it because they're disputing it -- high number of citations is in general a good measure of quality and value. Obviously some of this will depend on the visibility of the journal in which it appears, how many papers are written by this guy's co-workers etc., but in this case it appears to be a well-regarded paper.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Nope, you won't continue because I won't continue to discuss off-topic with you.
Click to expand...

S/he said, continuing to discuss the subject s/he claimed was off-topic.

Childlike Empress said:
Maybe read the first pages of the other thread to get who brought up Pieczenik, who corrected Mackey and what I said before that happened.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. You assessed Mackey's claim based on his response to Pieczenik, then lied about it. You're busted.

NoahFence said:
If we all promise to say "you win" will you go away?
Click to expand...

CE has made it clear that s/he will only play the game if we promise in advance to declare him/her the winner.

Dave
 
beijingyank said:
Debunkers manipulate the peer review process, use the awarding of study grants to obfuscate and side tract scientific study that will embarrass the fairy tale. Debunkers are great at using their deep pockets in government to get their enemies in science, politics and law, fired, murdered, or arkincided.
Click to expand...

Really, if you truly believe this of 'active debunkers' - i.e. the type of people who hang around on forums like this one - then it's kind of funny but also secretly flattering, such that I'm loath to deny it.

Just wanted also to say that the more I look at Dr Pieczenik's NBI company, the less impressive it seems - from the misspelled "Dislcaimer" (sic) stating that "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA.
These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.", to the flaunting of the 'prestigious' award for giving a really good poster presentation, to the Naturopathy(WP) in which his partner apparently specialises. I also think that if Dr Pieczenik were to be true to this apparent belief in alternative remedies, he ought, out of consistency, to be open to the possibility that Osama's (alleged) kidney problems were cured by some traditional Afghan herbal medicine, or perhaps just got better due to "a special energy called vital energy or vital force guides bodily processes such as metabolism, reproduction, growth, and adaptation".
 
TimB1 said:
I also think that if Dr Pieczenik were to be true to this apparent belief in alternative remedies, he ought, out of consistency, to be open to the possibility that Osama's (alleged) kidney problems were cured by some traditional Afghan herbal medicine, or perhaps just got better due to "a special energy called vital energy or vital force guides bodily processes such as metabolism, reproduction, growth, and adaptation".
Click to expand...


Pieczenik says that the kidney problems were a cover story for (and a symptom of) Osama's real condition - Marfan SyndromeWP.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Pieczenik says that the kidney problems were a cover story for (and a symptom of) Osama's real condition - Marfan SyndromeWP.
Click to expand...
Pieczenik is not that kind of Doctor. He is a Doctor of BS, UBL is tall, Pieczenik says Marfan. Are UBL's finger thin?

Pieczenik's views on 911 are delusional.
 
beachnut said:
Pieczenik is not that kind of Doctor. He is a Doctor of BS, UBL is tall, Pieczenik says Marfan. Are UBL's finger thin?

Pieczenik's views on 911 are delusional.
Click to expand...
I have to agree.
Marfan Syndrome was also mentioned in the ABC news article.


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/osama-bin-laden-top-health-rumors/story?id=13518880

Marfan Syndrome

Likely False

Along with the rumors about kidney disease, Weaver said the one about bin Laden having Marfan syndrome was also widely circulated.

Marfan syndrome affects the connective tissue that supports tendons, ligaments, heart valves and other parts of the body. If it attacks the heart or the vessels of the heart, it could cause an enlarged heart or torn vessels. Those with Marfan syndrome might be be tall and thin; have long, curved fingers; vision problems or no symptoms at all.

"The CIA suspected bin Laden had Marfan syndrome, but then the guy who briefed me on this said the information was negative a few months later," said Weaver.

MSNBC also has an article here.
http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/...life-for-an-old-rumor-was-bin-laden-marfanoid

Clearly Jones is attempting to make up for Pieczenik's falling credibility and is trying to attack the MSNBC article.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/top-doctor-confirms-bin-laden-had-marfan-syndrome.html

Another article questioning Pieczenik here
http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/05/05/osama-bin-laden-already-becoming-the-new-roswell/

Pieczenik worked for the State Department under Henry Kissinger and is supposedly still a consultant for the State Department, though their PR department was of no use tracking him down. The Defense Department said the last he worked for them was under President Jimmy Carter.

Pieczenik said that the decision to launch the hoax now was made because Obama had poor poll numbers and recently announced his intention to run for re-election; and that the the birther issue was “blowing up in his face.” As an aside, it was a conspiracy that Obama proved false when he showed his actual birth certificate, but that is beside the point, apparently.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Yep, 60 citations is quite respectable.

What that topic has to do with September 11th, I have no idea. Recall that even Steven Jones did some legitimate work and had some real publications, just nothing at all to do with his conspiracy beliefs. A fellow may be clever in one area and a complete crackpot in another.
Click to expand...

A year ago I was at Borders reading a magazine. I struck up a conversation with a guy in his 50's seated next to me on a sofa. It turned out he was a renowned biochemist, I checked him out later. He told me about his groundbreaking research and how a contrary clique was keeping him out of publication. Really interesting guy, very smart. We talked for about an hour. As we were walking to our cars, he said " Did you know that man didn't walk on the moon. The flag was waving even though there's no air on the moon, and the shadows ....."
 
One other thing I forgot to note on the wacky Alex Jones rebuke.
Jones states:
"Pieczenik’s assertion that Bin Laden has been dead for years is also backed up by a myriad of other intelligence professionals and heads of state, including Former CIA officer and hugely respected intelligence & foreign policy expert Robert Baer, as well as former FBI counter-terror head Dale Watson, who have all gone on the record to state that Osama was dead long before the raid on his alleged Pakistani compound earlier this month."

I guess ol' Alex must be behind on his Time Magazine subscription.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2069012,00.html?iid=tsmodule
Read full Article by Robert Baer

And what were Dale Watson's comments in 2002
"Is (Bin Laden) alive or is he dead?" Mr Watson said. "I am not really sure of the answer... I personally think he is probably not with us anymore but I have no evidence to support that."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2135473.stm

(If I can find more current Watson comments I'll post them)
 
beachnut said:
Pieczenik is not that kind of Doctor. He is a Doctor of BS, UBL is tall, Pieczenik says Marfan. Are UBL's finger thin?

Pieczenik's views on 911 are delusional.
Click to expand...

I guess I need to go see a doctor, at 6'5" I'm fairly tall...at 220...fairly thin as well...crap...

/runs out to docs
 
Split a lengthy off-topic derail to Abandon All Hope. Please stick to the topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom