From: Researcher on
Closed discussion. Ca will not bring anything interesting. Nobody
still answered my questions. I do not insist any more. Washed brain!
Bye

From: JohnDoe on
Researcher wrote:

> Closed discussion. Ca will not bring anything interesting. Nobody
> still answered my questions. I do not insist any more. Washed brain!
> Bye
>

Damned shame you're leaving. You could have learned something, but alas,
your closed mind does not seem to register the information provided.
From: Researcher on
OK... So

WHICH SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL/MEDICAL INFORMATION OR DATA DID YOU GIVE ME
? Where ??? I haven't seen them yet, neither on this thread, nor on
this one :

http://groups.google.fr/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thread/b7849def84613e55/c3b45e5f783ecb87?lnk=st&q=hulda+clark+scientific+approach&rnum=1#c3b45e5f783ecb87

I'm waiting... Where have one claimed something about Hulda Clark where
these claims are scientifically prooved ???????

This is your last chance... And my last demand.

I'm not a pro or anti hulda clark, i'm just someone who only believes
IN SCIENTIFICAL/TECHNICAL/MEDICAL data. So GIVE ME THESE ! And stop
saying that I am like this or like that, this isn't a personal problem
I'm having with you or not.

BE PROFESSIONAL if you are really so.

Answer the questions SCIENTIFICALLY/TECHNICALLY/MEDICALLY that are in
the following thread :

http://groups.google.fr/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thread/b7849def84613e55/c3b45e5f783ecb87?lnk=st&q=hulda+clark+scientific+approach&rnum=1#c3b45e5f783ecb87

And stop considering me like a kid, because this is YOU who are kids
that only claims bizarre things (without reliable data or information
LINKED).



JohnDoe a écrit :

> Researcher wrote:
>
> > Closed discussion. Ca will not bring anything interesting. Nobody
> > still answered my questions. I do not insist any more. Washed brain!
> > Bye
> >
>
> Damned shame you're leaving. You could have learned something, but alas,
> your closed mind does not seem to register the information provided.

From: Rich on

"Researcher" <ital1(a)boursorama.com> wrote in message
news:1134044303.589434.194960(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OK... So

WHICH SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL/MEDICAL INFORMATION OR DATA DID YOU GIVE ME
? Where ??? I haven't seen them yet, neither on this thread, nor on
this one :

http://groups.google.fr/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thread/b7849def84613e55/c3b45e5f783ecb87?lnk=st&q=hulda+clark+scientific+approach&rnum=1#c3b45e5f783ecb87

I'm waiting... Where have one claimed something about Hulda Clark where
these claims are scientifically prooved ???????


----------------------------------
There are only two ways by which Hulda Clark's claims could be refuted
scientifically with hard data. One is by examining and analysing Clark's
scientific research. Since she has done none, this is quite impossible, but
you continue to demand it anyway. The other is to conduct independent
scientific research of Hulda's claims. That is not possible, either, at
least not ethically. To offer cancer treatment to patients while withholding
conventional treatment would be tantamount to murder. Now some of Hulda's
theories could be tested imperically without endangering patients, such as
doing a special search for parasites and blood tests for methanol when doing
autopsies of cancer victims. Clark's devices, the zapper and the syncrometer
could be tested scientifically as well, not clinically, but by, say,
"zapping" parasites in vitro, then examining them microscopically. One might
even be able to zap microscope slides directly, observing effects in real
time. All that would be interesting, but who is going to invest the time and
money in such research for the fun of doing it? Certainly nobody is going to
do it just because you demand it in this newsgroup.



This is your last chance... And my last demand.

I'm not a pro or anti hulda clark, i'm just someone who only believes
IN SCIENTIFICAL/TECHNICAL/MEDICAL data. So GIVE ME THESE ! And stop
saying that I am like this or like that, this isn't a personal problem
I'm having with you or not.

Scientific data are not free. It costs money, sometimes LOTS of money, to
buy a lab and the services of professional scientists and techicians. So
your demand for us to produce data where none exists is way off base. On the
other hand, there are those here with a lot of knowledge that they have
tried to share with you. Your response has been only these little
foot-stamping tantrums.



BE PROFESSIONAL if you are really so.

Answer the questions SCIENTIFICALLY/TECHNICALLY/MEDICALLY that are in
the following thread :

http://groups.google.fr/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thread/b7849def84613e55/c3b45e5f783ecb87?lnk=st&q=hulda+clark+scientific+approach&rnum=1#c3b45e5f783ecb87

And stop considering me like a kid, because this is YOU who are kids
that only claims bizarre things (without reliable data or information
LINKED).

What bizarre things? The bizarre claims are Hulda Clark's. We only hold them
up the bright light of common sense.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/


From: JohnDoe on
Researcher wrote:

> OK... So
>
> WHICH SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL/MEDICAL INFORMATION OR DATA DID YOU GIVE ME
> ? Where ??? I haven't seen them yet, neither on this thread, nor on
> this one :
>
> http://groups.google.fr/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thread/b7849def84613e55/c3b45e5f783ecb87?lnk=st&q=hulda+clark+scientific+approach&rnum=1#c3b45e5f783ecb87
>
> I'm waiting... Where have one claimed something about Hulda Clark where
> these claims are scientifically prooved ???????
>
> This is your last chance... And my last demand.

Tantrum time! How old are you? 10? 11? If I were your mother I'd spank you.

And you are barking up the wrong tree. You should DEMAND proof from Hulda.

> I'm not a pro or anti hulda clark, i'm just someone who only believes
> IN SCIENTIFICAL/TECHNICAL/MEDICAL data. So GIVE ME THESE !

It has been pointed out to you many many times now here that there are
no scientific data to support Hulda's claims. None. Nowhere. It's not
that people haven't tried, there is simply no data at all, not anywhere,
that supports any of Hulda's claims. So there is nothing to give to you.
And that my boy, is the whole point about Hulda that you do not seem to
understand.

> And stop saying that I am like this or like that, this isn't a personal problem
> I'm having with you or not.
>
> BE PROFESSIONAL if you are really so.

Be polite if you want people to do something for you.

> Answer the questions SCIENTIFICALLY/TECHNICALLY/MEDICALLY that are in
> the following thread :
>
> http://groups.google.fr/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thread/b7849def84613e55/c3b45e5f783ecb87?lnk=st&q=hulda+clark+scientific+approach&rnum=1#c3b45e5f783ecb87
>
> And stop considering me like a kid, because this is YOU who are kids
> that only claims bizarre things (without reliable data or information
> LINKED).

How about you start behaving like a grownup, with manners, and stop with
your DEMANDING stuff here. Ask... and use the word 'please'.
Silvousplait, you know. That might help.

And who claims bizarre things? Are you saying that you do not consider
Hulda's claims that she has 'the cure for ALL disease' bizarre? That she
finds liverflukes everywhere when no pathologist in the world can find
them is not bizarre? That you can cure anything with the Zapper is not
bizarre?

> JohnDoe a ?crit :
>
>
>>Researcher wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Closed discussion. Ca will not bring anything interesting. Nobody
>>>still answered my questions. I do not insist any more. Washed brain!
>>>Bye
>>>
>>
>> Damned shame you're leaving. You could have learned something, but alas,
>> your closed mind does not seem to register the information provided.