From: t on
Jeffy, YOU made the accusations, so..... You provide proof to back it up.
Oh, you don't need no stinking proof.
"dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
news:4LKdnSb8uc8J307XnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> 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: t on

Bob's worthless drivel cut.
From: t on

"dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
news:6YWdnb_qabLT2U7XnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>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?
People like you who make claims about her and provide no proof. Can you
PROVE that her zapper did nothing?
>> 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.
Courts have been compleatly wrong many many times.
>> 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.
No, YOU claim it did nothing. So YOU provide something real, as in not your
fear and fantisies, to back up your cliam. You cannot, and you know that you
can't.
> 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?
Are you permited to "practice" "medicine"?
>>> Is it ok if she had a clinic in Mexico because consumer protection laws
>>> wouldn't allow her to have one in the US?
A lot of so-called consumer protection is really corp. protection.
> I guess *you* think it is. I don't.
>
> Jeff

From: Citizen Jimserac on
On Oct 12, 10:52 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:

>
> http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Revicis_Guided_Che...
>
> Is a good background study of the man called Dr Revici.

Despite its negative and/or cautionary conclusions, I like this link
which gives
some sort of overview of Dr. Revici's therapy.

Note the following, regarding the Cancer.org description of Revici's
work:

1. The therapies are individually tailored to the specific
biochemistry of the of the patient.
2. Revici himself warned of temporary exacerbations of the tumor
possibility with his therapy. Note the similiary with Homeopathy
theory - temporary and expected worsening of the condition. Is there
a connection?
Has anyone bothered to look?
3. Note the inability of cancer.org to provide definitive confirmatory
OR condemning conclusions regarding Revici's theories - billions spent
on cancer reearch, and nearly half a century since his book was
published and yet NOBODY seems to have researched this. Curious, eh?
4. Note the mention of the mineral selenium, now known to have anti-
cancer effects (in the right dose and in the right circumstances)
5. The campaign against Revici appears to have revved up once word of
his forthcoming book was released.
The publisher, apparently convinced that the book would be a
commercial failure, destroyed copies of it that were in press. I've
heard estimates that only 500 copies were actually published. That's
why they are difficult or impossible to find now and sell for $400 on
Amazon (last time I looked).

Their conclusion remains that there is NO confirmatory scientific
evidence, not that there could not be!

My comments regarding Revici are neither an endorsement of his work,
nor of the efficacy of his ideas - only an illustration of areas I
think are of interest.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac


From: Happy Oyster on
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:21:09 -0500, "t" <tools22(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> People like you who make claims about her and provide no proof. Can you
>PROVE that her zapper did nothing?

That is the typical idiots' claim.

Can you PROVE that her zapper did work? No, you can't. It is as simple as that.
--
Interview mit dem Autor der "Reimbibel"
Kultur und Wissen
Ausl�ser war der Besuch von Benedikt XVI. in Auschwitz-Birkenau
http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=14183