From: t on
Ah, let's see, you mention one person. Please do post PROOF that Esther
would have done better with the poison you promote.
"Mark Probert" <mark.probert(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad98020c-e415-4eff-bb08-26d7e7c56b42(a)g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 12, 8:13 am, "t" <tool...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>
> news:0825d5l910jl5k6auodj8fd7iehqb70r36(a)4ax.com...> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009
> 17:35:49 +0100, in misc.health.alternative,
> > "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> >>"dr_jeff" <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
> >>> We owe the dead nothing but the truth. I provided it. If you don't
> >>> like
> >>> it, that tells me I did the right thing.
>
> >>> Jeff
>
> >>LOL. You and truth are complete strangers
>
> You subscribe to the lie that Clark caused harm to people?

Look up Esther Figueroa for starters.

From: Citizen Jimserac on
On Oct 12, 10:06 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> t wrote:
>
> > "dr_jeff" <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:BYadnf5n9MWKvk7XnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> >> t wrote:
>
> > Bwahahaha!!!! quackwatch????? You post quackwatch as proof? What ARE
> > vthey putting in your food? Hehehehehe!!! quackwatch, Bwahahahaha!!!
> > Funny, you posted a funny! And you have a degree? Bwahahaha!!!
>
> >>> You subscribe to the lie that Clark caused harm to people? Post proof .
>
> >>http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html
>
> Why don't go ahead and explain why the claims in the Quackwatch site are
> incorrect instead of just dismissing them?
>
> Do you think it's ok that she had to flee Indiana? Do you think it is ok
> that she made a zapper that didn't do anything and charged people for
> it? Is it ok if she had a clinic in Mexico because consumer protection
> laws wouldn't allow her to have one in the US?

t is correct that "quackwatch" has become completely discredited and
this is irrespective of the merits of any of their particular
articles .... or LACK thereof, unfortunately.

Even worse are those who point to the "challenge" of the "Amazing"
Randi as proof of anything whatever, other than, in my opinion, that
the "negotiations" to 'satisfy" the ..."challenge" can be so involved
as to delay indefinitely, the actual challenge experiment itself. See
the home page of Greek Homeopath George Vitoulkas for an example.

Yet another example, was Benveniste, the researcher who Randi
"debunked". A French scientist and, not incidentally, a 2008 Nobel
prize winner, recently released research regarding "high dilution"
solutions (note the careful avoidance of the word "Homeopathic")
which, if confirmed, would appear to demote Randi's debunk to bunk.
We shall see.

Regarding Clark, what I've seen so far appears completely negative
but, as I learned with vaccinations, it will be necessary to RESERVE
FINAL JUDGEMENT until BOTH sides of the issue have been discussed.

Meanwhile, let us analyze and expose the issue and LEARN something
instead of engaging in absurd attacks. Misinformation on all sides
ABOUNDS and the health of the people is at stake.

What I'd like to see now are some links showing that Clark's rather
curious ideas actually were OR WERE NOT of some benefit to some
people, instead of this useless name calling back and forth.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac


From: t on

"dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
news:mYadnZ6bleJoqk7XnZ2dnUVZ_hxi4p2d(a)giganews.com...
>t wrote:
>>
>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:BYadnf5n9MWKvk7XnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>> t wrote:
>>>>
>>
>> Bwahahaha!!!! quackwatch????? You post quackwatch as proof? What ARE
>> vthey putting in your food? Hehehehehe!!! quackwatch, Bwahahahaha!!!
>> Funny, you posted a funny! And you have a degree? Bwahahaha!!!
>>>>>
>>>> You subscribe to the lie that Clark caused harm to people? Post proof .
>>>
>>> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html
>
> Why don't go ahead and explain why the claims in the Quackwatch site are
> incorrect instead of just dismissing them?
>
Yes if she left Indiana because of persicution from people like you.
> Do you think it's ok that she had to flee Indiana?
Please provide real proof that her "zapper" did nothing.
>Do you think it is ok
> that she made a zapper that didn't do anything and charged people for it?
> History is full of laws and drugs that were wrong. Many times they are
> there only to protect vested interests, like yours.
> >Is it ok if she had a clinic in Mexico because consumer protection laws
> wouldn't allow her to have one in the US?
>

From: dr_jeff on
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> On Oct 12, 10:06 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>> t wrote:
>>
>>> "dr_jeff" <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:BYadnf5n9MWKvk7XnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>> t wrote:
>>> Bwahahaha!!!! quackwatch????? You post quackwatch as proof? What ARE
>>> vthey putting in your food? Hehehehehe!!! quackwatch, Bwahahahaha!!!
>>> Funny, you posted a funny! And you have a degree? Bwahahaha!!!
>>>>> You subscribe to the lie that Clark caused harm to people? Post proof .
>>>> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html
>> Why don't go ahead and explain why the claims in the Quackwatch site are
>> incorrect instead of just dismissing them?
>>
>> Do you think it's ok that she had to flee Indiana? Do you think it is ok
>> that she made a zapper that didn't do anything and charged people for
>> it? Is it ok if she had a clinic in Mexico because consumer protection
>> laws wouldn't allow her to have one in the US?
>
> t is correct that "quackwatch" has become completely discredited and
> this is irrespective of the merits of any of their particular
> articles .... or LACK thereof, unfortunately.
>
> Even worse are those who point to the "challenge" of the "Amazing"
> Randi as proof of anything whatever, other than, in my opinion, that
> the "negotiations" to 'satisfy" the ..."challenge" can be so involved
> as to delay indefinitely, the actual challenge experiment itself. See
> the home page of Greek Homeopath George Vitoulkas for an example.
>
> Yet another example, was Benveniste, the researcher who Randi
> "debunked". A French scientist and, not incidentally, a 2008 Nobel
> prize winner, recently released research regarding "high dilution"
> solutions (note the careful avoidance of the word "Homeopathic")
> which, if confirmed, would appear to demote Randi's debunk to bunk.
> We shall see.
>
> Regarding Clark, what I've seen so far appears completely negative
> but, as I learned with vaccinations, it will be necessary to RESERVE
> FINAL JUDGEMENT until BOTH sides of the issue have been discussed.

What both sides? Clark was a fraud. Fortunately, she can't make any new
lies.

> Meanwhile, let us analyze and expose the issue and LEARN something
> instead of engaging in absurd attacks. Misinformation on all sides
> ABOUNDS and the health of the people is at stake.

You mean like the ads that say she has a zapper that cures everything?
Tlak about misleading.

> What I'd like to see now are some links showing that Clark's rather
> curious ideas actually were OR WERE NOT of some benefit to some
> people, instead of this useless name calling back and forth.

Well, how about providing the evidence that anything she sold was of
benefit to anyone (other than Clark's bank account, of course)?

> Thanks
> Citizen Jimserac
>
>
From: dr_jeff on
t wrote:
>
> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
> news:mYadnZ6bleJoqk7XnZ2dnUVZ_hxi4p2d(a)giganews.com...
>> t wrote:
>>>
>>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:BYadnf5n9MWKvk7XnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>> t wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Bwahahaha!!!! quackwatch????? You post quackwatch as proof? What ARE
>>> vthey putting in your food? Hehehehehe!!! quackwatch, Bwahahahaha!!!
>>> Funny, you posted a funny! And you have a degree? Bwahahaha!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>> You subscribe to the lie that Clark caused harm to people? Post
>>>>> proof .
>>>>
>>>> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html
>>
>> Why don't go ahead and explain why the claims in the Quackwatch site
>> are incorrect instead of just dismissing them?
>>
> Yes if she left Indiana because of persicution from people like you

What "persicution?" People like me? You mean people who saw through her
false claims?

> Do you think it's ok that she had to flee Indiana?

No, she didn't have to flee. If what she were doing were ok, she should
have had no problem proving that in court.

> Please provide real
> proof that her "zapper" did nothing.

Come on. It did enrich her bank account. However, it didn't help anyone.
If you think otherwise, you need to prove it.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0223051/030127comp0223051.shtm

>> Do you think it is ok
>> that she made a zapper that didn't do anything and charged people for
>> it? History is full of laws and drugs that were wrong. Many times they
>> are there only to protect vested interests, like yours.

Really? I have vested interests? What ones?

>> Is it ok if
>> she had a clinic in Mexico because consumer protection laws wouldn't
>> allow her to have one in the US?

I guess *you* think it is. I don't.

Jeff