From: Jan Drew on

"Mark Probert" <markprobert(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:g10yh.1088$Yl3.721(a)trndny09...
> mainframetech wrote:
>>
>> Welp, you see, one of the things that stand out to me is that this
>> forum is called "misc.health.alternative".
>
> Old Chinese Proverb: You cannot judge a book by its cover.
>
> That gives me and probably
>> other folks the idea that here we might hear about and discuss
>> ALTERNATIVE health solutions. That's 'discuss', not argue or insult,
>> or pick little logical nits about.
>
> Agreed. Unfortunately, the Alties keep promoting things that are either
> inherently dangerous, or so ineffective in life threatening circumstances
> that when they are challenged, they make up words, e.g. pharmablogger, to
> marginalize those who disagree, etc. If the alties kept to logic dusted
> with RealScience it would not be so bad.

http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter1-6b.html

G-d's Justice System

When we judge others, we are setting our own personal justice system. If I
am constantly finding fault and criticizing others, I send a message to G-d.
Shortcomings should be noticed and highlighted; there's no room for mercy
and tolerance. And G-d allows us to fashion the very justice system with
which He views us. If we see only the bad in others, we bring upon ourselves
the very judgment we, in our minds, visit upon others daily.
>
> The folks that I spoke of so
>> harshly all seem to berate almost all alternative' treatments, and
>> seem to swear by anything any med. community follower says.
>

"mainframetech" <choughton(a)insidefsi.net> wrote in message
news:1170709068.797568.29990(a)l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Welp, you see, one of the things that stand out to me is that this
> forum is called "misc.health.alternative". That gives me and probably
> other folks the idea that here we might hear about and discuss
> ALTERNATIVE health solutions. That's 'discuss', not argue or insult,
> or pick little logical nits about. The folks that I spoke of so
> harshly all seem to berate almost all alternative' treatments, and
> seem to swear by anything any med. community follower says. It's
> things like that that give the impression that some folks are being
> paid by the big drug companies to tout their products and put down the
> competition, like supplements, etc. How do they get away from such a
> low esteem position in other people's eyes? I guess they have little
> choice. Keep doing it hoping to somehow wrest victory from the slime,
> or convince someone somewhere that big pharma is the way to go.
>
> Chris
>
>


From: Jan Drew on

"Mark Probert" <markprobert(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:tt8yh.10729$fT1.19(a)trndny02...
> mainframetech wrote:
>>> Agreed. Unfortunately, the Alties keep promoting things that are either
>>> inherently dangerous, or so ineffective in life threatening
>>> circumstances that when they are challenged, they make up words, e.g.
>>> pharmablogger, to marginalize those who disagree, etc. If the alties
>>> kept to logic dusted with RealScience it would not be so bad.
>>
>> LOL! I just KNEW that you were a caring, warm and fuzzy kind of
>> person to look out for all those poor folks getting scammed by them
>> alternative treatments.
>
> As I should. My family has been a victim of the scams.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/21616fe7354cb992
Anecdotes are bullshit. I use facts.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/d94426f8742bc892

Anecdotes are bullshit and prove nothing.

Anecdotes are limited FACTS and not necessarily conclusive.

Anecdotes are bullshit and prove nothing.

>
> And it's so good to see you complain about
>> made up words like "anti-vac liars" and stuff like that.
>
> LOL to your heart's content. I call them as I see them, and there are
> anti-vac liars.

Mark is a long time proven liar, who stole this line from another liar,
Peter Bowditch.

*Gang members*.
>


From: Jan Drew on

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:6p7is25p65jttabmobiaj6ln6uhfuatotl(a)4ax.com...
> "mainframetech" <choughton(a)insidefsi.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>Agreed. Unfortunately, the Alties keep promoting things that are either
>>>inherently dangerous, or so ineffective in life threatening
>>>circumstances that when they are challenged, they make up words, e.g.
>>>pharmablogger, to marginalize those who disagree, etc. If the alties
>>>kept to logic dusted with RealScience it would not be so bad.
>>
>> LOL! I just KNEW that you were a caring, warm and fuzzy kind of
>>person to look out for all those poor folks getting scammed by them
>>alternative treatments. And it's so good to see you complain about
>>made up words like "anti-vac liars" and stuff like that.
>
> The expression is "anti-vaccination liars"
<snip>

Was made up by YOU! A long time proven liar.
You can keep your questions to yourself, as it has been proven over and
over.
>
>>
>>Chris :)
> --
> Peter Bowditch


From: Mike on
Mark Probert wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>> "Jan" <jdrew63929(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 4, 1:16?am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mike <m...(a)xyz.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>>> David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <DUPwh.78$yH3.42(a)trndny07>, Mike <m...(a)xyz.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> David Wright wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Children are almost never given TT or Td. he amount of
>>>>>>>>>>> thimerosal in
>>>>>>>>>>> even the heaviest pediatric HepB dose is less than you'd get
>>>>>>>>>>> from a
>>>>>>>>>>> tuna sandwich.
>>>>>>>>>> It is not so innocuous when you take body weight into account.
>>>>>>>>>> One
>>>>>>>>>> tuna sandwich for a 9 lb infant is like 20 sandwiches for a
>>>>>>>>>> 180 lb
>>>>>>>>>> adult. Actually it is even worse than that because an infant
>>>>>>>>>> body is
>>>>>>>>>> much weaker, especially for very young children who do not have
>>>>>>>>>> blood brain barrier yet.
>>>>>>>>> Except that the amount of mercury is even smaller than the
>>>>>>>>> doses you
>>>>>>>>> seem to be worried about.
>>>>>>>> Smaller than what? Pregnant women are advised to avoid tuna
>>>>>>>> sandwiches
>>>>>>>> to protect their future children, why should the children be
>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>> an equivalent of 20 tuna sandwiches?
>>>>>>> Do you know the difference between ethyl and methyl mercury? I'll
>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>> you a hint, it is not just the 'm'.
>>>>>> Yes, I do. According to a research on monkeys ethylmercury is MORE
>>>>>> toxic
>>>>>> for the brain than methylmercury.
>>>>>> http://www.safeminds.org/research/library/Burbacher-EHP-Primates-Apri...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why am I not surprised to find to find that SafeMinds are telling
>>>>> lies?
>>>> What lies?
>>>
>>> How about "ethylmercury is MORE toxic for the brain than
>>> methylmercury"? That will do for a start.
>>>
>> For start, it is hardly a lie. The research showed that more inorganic
>> mercury remains in the brain after exposure to ethylmercury than to
>> methylmercury. And inorganic mercury stays much longer. That is, after
>> 6 months from exposure more mercury remains in the brain if the
>> exposure was to thimerosal (ethylmercury) than to methylmercury.
>
> However, that does NOT address T O X I C I T Y. Toxicity is NOT a
> synonym for "remains in the brain".

Meaning mercury is not toxic?

>
> For you to support your claim, you would have to show that the levels of
> inorganic mercury are toxic, and these levels are more toxic than that
> of MeHg.

No. If the amount of a toxic substance (inorganic mercury) is multiplied
by two then the toxicity is also multiplied by two, period. What part of
that do you pretend not to understand?

>
> Nothing you have posted that I have read, so far, shows that.
>
>> Second, it has nothing to do with Safeminds. The quote above
>> ("ethylmercury is MORE toxic for the brain than methylmercury") is
>> from my posting but I did not quote Safeminds. You can blame me but
>> again, this is not a lie.
>
> If Safeminds is promoting the idea that you espouse, then they are lying.

Safeminds provided the text. I do not know if they promote this idea but
it is not a lie. Readers can make their judgments.
From: Peter Bowditch on
"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>news:6p7is25p65jttabmobiaj6ln6uhfuatotl(a)4ax.com...
>> "mainframetech" <choughton(a)insidefsi.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Agreed. Unfortunately, the Alties keep promoting things that are either
>>>>inherently dangerous, or so ineffective in life threatening
>>>>circumstances that when they are challenged, they make up words, e.g.
>>>>pharmablogger, to marginalize those who disagree, etc. If the alties
>>>>kept to logic dusted with RealScience it would not be so bad.
>>>
>>> LOL! I just KNEW that you were a caring, warm and fuzzy kind of
>>>person to look out for all those poor folks getting scammed by them
>>>alternative treatments. And it's so good to see you complain about
>>>made up words like "anti-vac liars" and stuff like that.
>>
>> The expression is "anti-vaccination liars"
> <snip>
>
>Was made up by YOU!

Yes, Jan, that is why I corrected the person who didn't use the
expression correctly.

> A long time proven liar.

Proven by whom? No you.

>You can keep your questions to yourself, as it has been proven over and
>over.

Was that supposed to make sense?

>>
>>>
>>>Chris :)
>> --
>> Peter Bowditch
>
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Prev: ~ * The Animal Rescue
Next: Sodium Benzoate