Is she nuts?

i know this is by no means the point of the article, but malaria is not a virus - its a protozoan parasite. making a mistake like this doesn't do a whole lot for her credibility, and in the end probably makes her look bad.

Makes you wonder about that hot water served to dehydrated Republicans!

Another great read here..first we have Jindl and his association with the real Satan and now Schmidt and uses a "vodoo" tactic against her opponnent...damn fire the GOP is really doing some great research here!!!

Can we inject her with malaria? And would it make any noticeable difference?

The problem is:

Will the 'average voter' know the difference? It a classic (mostly GOP but sometimes DEM) smear tactic that sadly but rightfully assumes that people will not do their research.

It appears there may be some merit to the claim, but the language is clearly overblown. It seems that Wulsin did some analysis on behalf of the Heimlich Institute that was engaged in such work.

see QuackWatch and Wikipedia

According to the QW author, she had an obligation to report the nature of the study to the CDC related oversight bodies that govern human research. This could easily be a conflagration of relatively minor lapses in judgment on Dr. Wulsin's part, but I think it's worthy of some scrutiny by the voting public.

This calls for an investigation. We must find out who injected Jean Schmidt with Mad Cow Disease.

I see that folks upthread have already noted this, but I think this is the rare campaign accusation that may actually be actionable at law. Wulsin would likely have to show Schmidt acted at least with reckless disregard to whether the claims were false. A central issue might be whether the statement conveys that Wulsin herself was involved in the experiments, rather than in literature reviews. That she was not would surely have been easy to find out.

Stay Classy RNC

Sadly, this was first used by her opponent, Steve Black, in the democratic primary this year. He sent out mailers and aired ads that made Wulsin look like Dr. Mengele.

Oh Oh, it's Jean Jean the ranting machine.

Too bad Chuck Barris is not around to don his Arse Kicking shoes.

Malaria..sux..I got it in Vietnam. But, I think this claim may cross a line. It is against the law for a medical doctor to intentionally harm a person as that would be malpractice...and that is against the law. So ole' Mean Jean has accused her opponent of committing a crime and could be made to defend that allegation. The test is the truth....and that aint on Jean's side.
I suppose this was supposed to be run of the mill Rovian crap: Get the idea out there and let it meld into the conventional wisdom. Issue a mini-culpa later but the crap is still out there. (Gore invented the internet, Obama is a Muslim) and hope it takes a few votes away. But this one alleges a crime. That is a classic libel and she cannot defend. I do hope this ends up in a courtroom.

It may be hard to convict Jean Schmidt of anything if it depends on "knowing." Not her strong suit.

As a biomed person, just to be clear, this sort of after-the-fact data analysis comes up often. Nothing one can do about it. Fascinating classic ethics case involves should we use knowledge gained from unethical Nazi experiments (e.g., burning and freezing people to death).

IMO, Dr. Wulsin should not let this go. At the very least, she should publicly denounce Schmidt for disseminating lies. A threat of a lawsuit would not be amiss here, or at least a petition for a cease and desist order. That would at least point out to our oh-so-discriminating voting public that this is a deception.

Fact is, if you get involved in reviewing something like this, which involves advancing the cause of a treatment protocol, you become a participant.

What Wulsin did and didn't do as a participant in the medical sense of the word is what is more than likely problematic.

the only one with standing to bring suit?

yes.

also the scienter component of the test cannot be met in the case of Mean Jean--it is generally agreed that she don't know shit.

In the abscence of the ability to know shit, she can hardly be charged with knowledge of anything else--she may well fail to be oriented x3, as the professionals would have it.

Lawboy says" the short version is that the candidate has an excellent chance of winning a libel suit against this idiot.

This is a special category of libel, called libel per se: it means that the libeled person does not even have to prove actual damages (loss of job, money, etc.). This charge that a medical person has engaged in grotesque scientific experiments libels her in her profession, one of the special categories in the law no requiring proof of actual damages, so that the suit can proceed with allegations of damage to reputation.

The statement is clearly injurious; it has been "published", that is, written to third persons, and the libeler knew or should have know that the allegation was false, upon any reasonable investigation.

The candidate has a dead bang case and I am sure there are many lawyers of good heart in Ohio prepared to take on her case for no fee.