 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2005Richie Needs a New Hobby
"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message news:_MPje.30704$ya2.25701@tornado.socal.rr.com... "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:PzPje.11492$z_.1465@attbi_s71... "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message news:otNje.30678$ya2.24920@tornado.socal.rr.com... "George Lagergren" <gel44@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:XbNje.5499$uR4.5291@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote: Yes, I do . If milk allergy caused, or even increased a propensity to streptococcus infection, this fact would have been discovered by medical research many years ago. If you are going to claim a health problem has been "cleared up" by withholding milk, at least pick a problem that is an allergic symptom. Then why did it take medical research decades to discover that ulcers are caused by a bacteria germ? If the Internet had existed 30 years ago, would the reason for the cause of ulcers taken so long? No, because someone would have established a www.ulcers-are-caused-by-a-germ.com web site. Possibly. But immunology (and the study of allergy) and infectious disease research are much larger than the investigation of ulcers, which is just a small subset of gastroenterology. De facto medical research conducted by Richard Cohen [ www.notmilk.com ] has discovered that drinking cow's milk is the root cause of many health problems. Richard Cohen does research? Then why does none of it show up in a Pubmed search? Easy. Not endorsed by *organized medicine* This email was cleaned by JD. In other words, he does no research Wrong. If, I needed other words, I would have typed them. What is "*organized medicine*", Jan? You are repeating, yourself, Rich. Memory Problems??? (None shows up under his other name, "Robert Cohen", either.) Cohen >> is NOT a credible source by any definition. > > ZZzz. <snip> > Substantial* *real* *solid* *convincing* *hard* *clear-cut* *reasonable* > *significant* *credibile* *compelling* *copious* *direct* *adequate* > *so-called* With the "Internet College of Medicine" now established in the real world, anyone can perform de facto medical research by using a search engine. No need to wait for the medical establishment to get around to doing it. The medical establishment must hate the Internet. The medical establishment loves the internet. It makes for faster communication and coorelation of research. "De facto medical research" via internet search engine is a useful technique for a quick overview of a medical subject, but it does not constitute real medical research. Try to write up such a "study" and get it published in a medical journal. --Rich > OOOPS, you forgot, it also exposes the medical establishment *corruption.* http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/medical.html <snip> Web Results 1 - 10 of about 549,000 for The medical establishment corruption. (0.83 seconds <snip> --Rich LL/Jan Hmmm..Jan is still stripping.... > "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > LL/Jan >Hmmm..Jan is still stripping.... What a gruesome thought! >> "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >> >> LL/Jan  SignaturePeter Bowditch The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >>Hmmm..Jan is still stripping.... > >What a gruesome thought! Indeed. Sounds like she really wants to go on one of those nudie hikes she is so fond of talking about:-)) Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>Hmmm..Jan is still stripping.... > > What a gruesome thought! "Put it on! Put it on!" cry the sickened onlookers! ;o) Rich >>Hmmm..Jan is still stripping.... > [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] >>> >>> LL/Jan >>>Hmmm..Jan is still stripping.... >> [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] >>>> >>>> LL/Jan Once again, Jan posts nothing at all. Just another cut and paste without explanation of what the repost is meant to convey or how it is useful to anybody. Write something, Jan. Try contributing something to the group. You can start with a definition of "*organized medicine*". --Rich >>>Hmmm..Jan is still stripping.... >> [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] >>>> >>>> LL/Jan Yes, Jan, people know I said this. Do you have any comment or anything to add? SignaturePeter Bowditch The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >>>>Hmmm..Jan is still stripping.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > Yes, Jan, people know I said this. Do you have any comment or anything > to add? > "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Wrong. Can you cite any research by him? > If, I needed other words, I would have typed them. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Memory Problems??? No, not memory problems. You have NEVER posted a formal definition of "*organized medicine*". Please do so. While you are at it, please explain why the asterisks are necessary to the phrase. > (None shows up under his other name, "Robert Cohen", either.) Cohen >>> is NOT a credible source by any definition. >> >> ZZzz. ZZzz -- The sound that Jan makes when she has lost the argument. > <snip> Snipping any comment that makes you uncomfortable is childish and dishonest. >> Substantial* *real* *solid* *convincing* *hard* *clear-cut* *reasonable* >> *significant* *credibile* *compelling* *copious* *direct* *adequate* [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > --Rich Another dishonest bit of text manipulation by Jan. In the block of text above, MY words begin with "The medical establishment loves the internet. It . . ." The first part was written by George L. in an earlier post. Jan has grouped it all together with one "> " indicator throughout to make it appear that it is all one quote. This is a confusing bit of deception that constitutes a LIE! Jan is caught again. >> OOOPS, you forgot, it also exposes the medical establishment >> *corruption.* [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > <snip> Childish and dishonest again. --Rich >> What is "*organized medicine*", Jan? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, not memory problems. You have NEVER posted a formal definition of > "*organized medicine*". Please do so. Drop the word formal. I did post a my explanation of *organized* medicine, you were right there in the thread. You must have both memory problems and don't know how to do a search.. Find a new hobby. LL/Jan >> (None shows up under his other name, "Robert Cohen", either.) Cohen >>>> is NOT a credible source by any definition. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > --Rich >>> What is "*organized medicine*", Jan? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Drop the word formal. No, I won't drop the word formal. It's time you provided us with a clear definition. > I did post a my explanation of *organized* medicine, you were right there > in the thread. You are the one making the claim that you have "explained" it. I do not believe it. Prove it. The burden of proof is on YOU. Note that what's wanted is a precise DEFINITION, not some cut-and-paste tirade or series of links. Just state in your own words what "*organized medicine*" is or prove that you have previously done so. How hard is that? Your refusal to do so makes me believe that you cannot. > You must have both memory problems and don't know how to do a search.. Your bitchy little accusations won't get you off the hook. YOU use the term. YOU claim to have defined it. YOU do the search to prove it, or quit this silly game and just STATE WHAT IT IS! > Find a new hobby. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >>> <snip> <note selective snip> <again> >> Snipping any comment that makes you uncomfortable is childish and >> dishonest. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>> >>> --Rich <note selective snip> <again> >>>> OOOPS, you forgot, it also exposes the medical establishment >>>> *corruption.* [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> --Rich >>>> What is "*organized medicine*", Jan? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You are the one making the claim that you have "explained" it. I do not believe it Trouble keeping your lies straight??????? May 19th Please humor me and give the definition again. Others reading this may not have been . Prove it. The burden of proof is on YOU. Note that what's wanted > is a precise DEFINITION, not some cut-and-paste tirade or series of links. > Just state in your own words what "*organized medicine*" is or prove that > you have previously done so. How hard is that? Your refusal to do so makes > me believe that you cannot. That's exactly what I did. Not only is your memory bad, you are also lying. >> You must have both memory problems and don't know how to do a search.. > > Your bitchy little accusations won't get you off the hook. LOL!!! YOU just put yourself ON the hook. YOU use the term. > YOU claim to have defined it. YOU do the search to prove it, or quit this > silly game and just STATE WHAT IT IS! It is YOUR silly games. YOU were right there in the thread, YOU find it. YOU should have STOPPED while you were behind. LL/Jan >> Find a new hobby. >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >>> >>> --Rich >>>>> What is "*organized medicine*", Jan? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Trouble keeping your lies straight??????? What lies are those, Jan? You can no more explain what I have said that is a lie than you can define your term "*organized medicine*". You just love to make referrence to "lies" as if they are obvious when they are actually nonexistant. > May 19th > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That's exactly what I did. You did no such thing. You have NEVER defined "*organized medicine*" no matter haw many times you claim that you have. > Not only is your memory bad, you are also lying. My memory is fine. I've told no lies. >>> You must have both memory problems and don't know how to do a search.. >> >> Your bitchy little accusations won't get you off the hook. > > LOL!!! YOU just put yourself ON the hook. You are on the hook until you provide that definition. > YOU use the term. >> YOU claim to have defined it. YOU do the search to prove it, or quit this >> silly game and just STATE WHAT IT IS! > > It is YOUR silly games. The silliest game is your evasion of providing that definition. > YOU were right there in the thread, YOU find it. There's no definition of "*organized medicine*" in any thread I've been in. Prove otherwise. > YOU should have STOPPED while you were behind. I'm winning. You are the one that is playing silly evasion games. Put up or shut up. --Rich >>>>>> What is "*organized medicine*", Jan? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >> Trouble keeping your lies straight??????? May 19th Please humor me and give the definition again. Other reading this may not have been right there in the thread > What lies are those, Jan? Now, who is playing silly games. the lie is above. You can no more explain what I have said that is a lie W R O N G. You said give the definition,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,again. than you can define your term "*organized medicine*". You just love to > make referrence to "lies" as if they are obvious when they are actually > nonexistant. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > You did no such thing. You have NEVER defined "*organized medicine*" no > matter haw many times you claim that you have. That's lie # 2. >> Not only is your memory bad, you are also lying. > > My memory is fine. I've told no lies. Lie # 3. >>>> You must have both memory problems and don't know how to do a search.. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There's no definition of "*organized medicine*" in any thread I've been > in. Prove otherwise. >> YOU should have STOPPED while you were behind. > > I'm winning. You are the one that is playing silly evasion games. Put up > or shut up. > > --Rich You should have STOPPED while you were behind, it's been posted at least three times. LL/Jan Conventional medicine is organized, like organized crime. It writes too many unnecessary prescriptions, and does too many unnecessary treatments. There are many conventional doctors who would agree with me on this. Brad_Chad > Conventional medicine is organized, like organized crime. It writes too > many unnecessary prescriptions, and does too many unnecessary > treatments. There are many conventional doctors who would agree with me > on this. Prove it. Post proof that documents that *many* doctors would agree. > I did post a my explanation of *organized* medicine, you were right there in > the thread. > > You must have both memory problems and don't know how to do a search.. I wasn't right there in the thread, so I don't have an exact phrase to search on. Unfortunately, searching on "*organized* medicine" in your posts returns a *VERY* large number of posts. Perhaps you could do the group the courtesy of posting the message-ID? After all, you were also in the thread. Signaturebegin signature.exe A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet? >>> What is "*organized medicine*", Jan? >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > LL/Jan Okay, I did a search. All you have ever done is state that "It is *organized* medicine that is evil, not conventional. I know quite a few good dedicated doctors and Thank God for them." That does NOT define *organized medicine*. Wading through your threads, it seems that by "*organized medicine*" you mean anyone associated with conventional medicine who disagrees with you. That disagreement you characterize as "evil", without making clear in what way those who disagree are "organized", or what, precisely they do that is "evil", though you have hinted that it has something to do with "suffering". "Organized" is what needs defining. Doctors, though they share a commonality of medical school education, are, for the most part independent businessmen or are employees of HMO's, hospitals, agencies, governments, or the military. Completing a medical education makes one a member of an old tradition, but does not confer membership in any particular organization, evil or otherwise. One definition of "organized" is "unionized". Doctors do have a union of sorts, called the American Medical Association. Only about one fourth of American doctors belong to this stodgy old group, and I suspect that most of those who do, belong only to get the "Journal of the American Medical Association", popularly known as JAMA, and generally recognized as one of the most prestigious medical journals. I don't believe you'll find that any doctors take the time to hang out at the AMA clubhouse plotting evil schemes, nor do doctors have secret decoder rings to decipher evil AMA missives. Any other "organization" of doctors tends to be along medical specialty lines. Emergency physicians have conferrences and associations, as do neurosurgeons, gynecologists, ophthalmologists, psychiatrists, and all the other "ists". None of these groups is in the business of plotting "evil", either. If you believe there is some underground secret society of medical professionals organized to do evil in the world, it's time you prove it Jan, and quit referring to "*organized medicine*" as if its existence were an established fact. --Rich >>>> What is "*organized medicine*", Jan? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > --Rich What words did you use to search?? LL/Jan >>>>> What is "*organized medicine*", Jan? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > LL/Jan Do your own search. If you have actually DEFINED "*organized medicine*", then just cease your evasion and post that definition here. If you have never done so, and I can find no evidence that you have, please do so now. In other words, DEFINE the term or QUIT USING IT! Undefined terminology is confusing and is poor communication. It also implies that you lack the courage to express explicit opinions lest those cause your foolishness to be exposed. Were you to ask me, or any other of the posters here who challenge your views, to define a word or phrase, that definition would be promptly provided in the spirit of fair debate. Your unwillingness to define "*organized medicine*", and your squirming to avoid doing so, expose you as the stubborn, functionally illiterate, mean old bitch that you are. --Rich Watch Jan snip the above if she replies. Or she will start a new thread to distance herself as far as possible from it. The truth hurts. >>>>>> What is "*organized medicine*", Jan? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> >> LL/Jan I repeat what words did you use to do a search, comon Richie, show us your smarts, and tell us the words. LL/Jan > Do your own search. If you have actually DEFINED "*organized medicine*", > then just cease your evasion and post that definition here. If you have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > new thread to distance herself as far as possible from it. The truth > hurts. >>>> What is "*organized medicine*", Jan? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Drop the word formal. No, I won't drop the word formal. It's time you provided us with a clear > definition. >> I did post a my explanation of *organized* medicine, you were right there >> in the thread. > You are the one making the claim that you have "explained" it. I do not believe it Trouble keeping your lies straight??????? May 19th Please humor me and give the definition again. Others reading this may not have been . Prove it. The burden of proof is on YOU. Note that what's wanted > is a precise DEFINITION, not some cut-and-paste tirade or series of links. > Just state in your own words what "*organized medicine*" is or prove that > you have previously done so. How hard is that? Your refusal to do so makes > me believe that you cannot. That's exactly what I did. Not only is your memory bad, you are also lying. >> You must have both memory problems and don't know how to do a search.. > Your bitchy little accusations won't get you off the hook. LOL!!! YOU just put yourself ON the hook. YOU use the term. > YOU claim to have defined it. YOU do the search to prove it, or quit this > silly game and just STATE WHAT IT IS! It is YOUR silly games. YOU were right there in the thread, YOU find it. YOU should have STOPPED while you were behind. LL/Jan > Okay, I did a search. All you have ever done is state that "It is > *organized* medicine that is > evil, not conventional. W R O N G I know quite a few good dedicated doctors and Thank > God > for them." That does NOT define *organized medicine*. Wading through your [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > --Rich Where's that definition, Jan? Rich > Where's that definition, Jan? > > Rich Comon Rich, show us how smart you are, it's been posted at least three times, it is easy to find if you use the most simple words. In your efforts to prove me a dummy, looks like it is backfiring in your widdle ole face. LL/Jan >> Where's that definition, Jan? >> >> Rich > > Comon Rich, show us how smart you are, it's been posted at least three > times, That's a LIE, Jan. > it is easy to find if you use the most simple words. And LIE number two. > In your efforts to prove me a dummy, looks like it is backfiring in your > widdle ole face. Your silly evasion is adequate proof of your dumminess. Your definition does not exist, or you could post it. Where's that definition, Jan? --Rich >>> Where's that definition, Jan? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's a LIE, Jan. No, remember, I don't tell lies. >> it is easy to find if you use the most simple words. > > And LIE number two. YOURS,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,YES. >> In your efforts to prove me a dummy, looks like it is backfiring in your >> widdle ole face. > > Your silly evasion is adequate proof of your dumminess. Wrong again. it is easy to find if you use the most simple words. > Your definition does not exist, or you could post it. It does exist, in fact, I just went back and found five more times where I reposted it so that makes a total of eight. > Where's that definition, Jan? > > --Rich Show us how smart you are Rich, you were in one of the threads where it was posted. LL/Jan >>>> Where's that definition, Jan? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, remember, I don't tell lies. That's your BIGGEST lie. >>> it is easy to find if you use the most simple words. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > it is easy to find if you use the most simple words. The definition does NOT exist. >> Your definition does not exist, or you could post it. > > It does exist, in fact, I just went back and found five more times where I > reposted it so that makes a total of eight. That is a LIE. If it existed, you could post it. Your statement that it has been posted eight times, or even once, is not true until you PROVE IT. No peer-reviewed research necessary. Just post it here, and I'll admit I'm wrong. But that won't happen, because THE DEFINITION DOES NOT EXIST! >> Where's that definition, Jan? >> >> --Rich > > Show us how smart you are Rich, you were in one of the threads where it > was posted. Another lie. It was never posted. --Rich |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.