Re: Prof Baum has still not provided independent evidence to justify his exoneration of the Israeli Med Assoc: does it exist?
It appears, Dr Summerfield's continuing onslaught against the IMA is based on "independent evidence" from "Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, UN Social and Economic Council, Red Cross, Human Rights Watch etc" and he invites Prof Baum to provide counter evidence from sources "whose standing is comparable to that of the sources" he had cited.
First,I am not sure,and nor does Dr Summerfield seem to claim that any of the organisations/sources which he relies on to launch allegations against the IMA are truly independent per 'dictionary defintion'[1] which many would be familar with.Hence, without absolute verification of independence and imapartiality of Dr Summerfield's sources,or without better quality, actual evidence (eg.photographic evidence of doctors engaged in torture) it is less than safe to castigate the IMA or any doctor involved with that organisation. Similarly,if the IMA could be exonerated of the charges levelled by Dr Summerfield based on sources"comparable" to his (as expressly invited by Dr Summerfield),then such evidence too, would be of same unsafe value to what Dr Summerfield had hitherto provided.
References
[1] (i) free from outside control,(ii) self-governing,(iii) having or enough money to support one-self,(iv) not connected with another;seperate,(v) not supported by public funds--per Oxford English Dictionary
Rapid Response:
Re: Prof Baum has still not provided independent evidence to justify his exoneration of the Israeli Med Assoc: does it exist?
It appears, Dr Summerfield's continuing onslaught against the IMA is based on "independent evidence" from "Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, UN Social and Economic Council, Red Cross, Human Rights Watch etc" and he invites Prof Baum to provide counter evidence from sources "whose standing is comparable to that of the sources" he had cited.
First,I am not sure,and nor does Dr Summerfield seem to claim that any of the organisations/sources which he relies on to launch allegations against the IMA are truly independent per 'dictionary defintion'[1] which many would be familar with.Hence, without absolute verification of independence and imapartiality of Dr Summerfield's sources,or without better quality, actual evidence (eg.photographic evidence of doctors engaged in torture) it is less than safe to castigate the IMA or any doctor involved with that organisation. Similarly,if the IMA could be exonerated of the charges levelled by Dr Summerfield based on sources"comparable" to his (as expressly invited by Dr Summerfield),then such evidence too, would be of same unsafe value to what Dr Summerfield had hitherto provided.
References
[1] (i) free from outside control,(ii) self-governing,(iii) having or enough money to support one-self,(iv) not connected with another;seperate,(v) not supported by public funds--per Oxford English Dictionary
11 Sept.2007
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests