From: Mark Probert on
On Oct 11, 10:47 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)> wrote:

> Nothing whatsoever to do with what I like.  Just the facts, Putz

OOOOHHHHH! Name calling.

You did not read the Old Testament today.

From: Citizen Jimserac on
On Oct 12, 7:52 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)> wrote:
> Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)> wrote:
> >On Oct 11, 12:41?pm, Happy Oyster <happy.oys...(a)> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:03:01 +0100, "john" <nos...(a)> wrote:
> >> >Bit late
> >No, John posted.
> >Bit late for that but good sentiments
> And as I said at the time (and the time before, and the time before,
> and ...) - I appreciate John posting this link because I find it so
> amusing.
> --

OK, I read the wikipedia article on Clark (which is NOT a reliable
source of information, but OK for preliminary background info)
and if even half that stuff is true about her then I have to slap my
head in utter amazement.

I note with interest that charges were brought against her in Indiana,
that she fled (or was supposed to have fled) elsewhere, and that she
was arrested based on a fugitive warrant for those charges in San
Diego in 1999 (!!). Her defence attorney correctly got the charges
dismissed based on the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.

Mexico closed her clinic in 2001 and she was fined some substantial
sum of money, yet still was somehow practicing there later.

Regarding her theories about cancer and disease, I would have to read
her book or find a link to some detailed presentation. My initial
reaction is that it is a complete crock of the most absurd bullshit
I've ever seen. I have not yet checked her official web site due to
time constraints, but will, out of sheer curiosity.

Now NOTE CAREFULLY, old dude, the differences between Dr. Revici and
Clark. Clark had a bonafide PhD but her medical degree was from a
college which at that time did not appear to have any qualitative
accreditation from any recognized agency. But Dr. Revici was a
bonafide MD, trained in Europe and his therapies involved no special
"synchrotrons", "zappers" or other devices.

Last but not least, I would like to know if there is any indication
that the person involved actually knew they were fraudulently
deceiving patients or really believed in their theories. Take Rife,
for example. His is another area I plan to investigate in the future,
particularly his optical and microscopy experiments because Optics was
a hobby of mine many years ago in the lost days of my youth and
anomolous magnification effects due to interference are of interest.
I believe Rife really saw himself as a genuine innovator and healer -
his main problem, I think, had more to do with the lack of funds which
were typical of the 1930's, than lack of scientific ability.

But as regards Clark, I don't know what to make of this until I've
read the PRO as well as the CON (pun intended) side of the story.

Meanwhile, Bowditch, try to keep the lid on the tea pot - those
guilty of such crimes will face the music in a .... HIGHER court.

Citizen Jimserac

From: Mark Probert on
On Oct 11, 11:43 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)> wrote:
>  Stew Bait calling.

Jan did not read the Old Testament today.

From: Mark Probert on
On Oct 11, 11:54 pm, rpautrey2 <rpautr...(a)> wrote:
> Beast,
> Is that link affiliated with your 'Quackpot Cult'?

From: Mark Probert on
On Oct 12, 7:59 am, "t" <tool...(a)> wrote:
>  Back, and still smarter than you.


You do not even know how to post a message without screwing up the

"Peter B." <i...(a)> wrote in message
> news:4ad27745(a)
> > Back already "t"?
> > "t" <tool...(a)> wrote in message
> >news:04ydnZ4dGPgW7k_XnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d(a)
> >> "Mark Probert" <mark.prob...(a)> wrote in message
> >>news:7eb90998-8246-44d2-aa22-fcd2583382db(a)
> >> On Oct 11, 1:17 am, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)> wrote:
> >>> On Oct 10, 11:13 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)>
> >>> Ain't that just too cute.
> >>> Jeffrey Peter Joseph Utz, is using yet another email address.
> >>> Unlike jeff.utz(a)gmail on the Quack list.
> >>> He is a not kidsdoc.
> >>> He has failed to provide proof by showinng his current M.D. license.
> >>> Thus, one cannot believe a word he posts.
> >> Jeff earned a Medical Doctor degree, thus making it entirely proper
> >> for him call himself doctor.
> >> You are not bright enough to understand this.>>> So.... we did not know
> >> thatr you were therte to see him earn a degree. Or that you know him
> >> personaly and have been to his office. Or that you have anything to
> >> support your idiotic statement. I think you might have done better to
> >> review the rules of evedince. AND............ So what if he has a
> >> "medical doctor degree"? "medical doctors" have been wrong far too long
> >> on far too many "diseases" while makeing money from people's problems. A
> >> few are dedicated but even they are poorly educated and programed to
> >> think in a wrong-headed way. And one more thing, I'M BACK!!!- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -