 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2005My *Explanation* of *organized* Medicnie
From: "Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> - Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:50:47 GMT Local: Wed,May 25 2005 5:50 am Subject: Re: My *Explanation* of *organized* medicine "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > "Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message > news:42940964.B6ADE735@sonic.net... >> Rich wrote: >>> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@insightbb.com> wrote >>> > I'm not falling for your little tricks. >>> Asking someone to define her terms is not a "little trick". >>> It is fundamental to civilized discussion. >> Sure, it's a trick. You're just trying to show she is neither >> consistent nor rational, accusing anybody of anything when >> she feels her cherished beliefs are threatened. >> Well, she ain't fallin' for that one. Been there, done that. >> Won't happen again. Better luck nailing Jello to a tree. > I haven't had to make a retraction. You haven't made a definition, either. --Rich Neither, have I claimed I had. Mark Thorson was in *sued* and made a retraction . http://www.celltech.com/resources/info_central/response.asp One individual was responsible for a great deal of miscommunication regarding anatoxin-a, information which is still accessible on many Internet sites. Cell Tech sued Mark Thorson for posting defamatory statements about Cell Tech, its products and its personnel to various Internet or Usenet news groups. Cell Tech's lawsuit against Mr. Thorson has now been settled. As part of the settlement agreement, Mr. Thorson has posted the Retraction Statement that appears below. Although he did retract the allegations that he had been widely circulating, we all know that one cannot, with a single correct statement, undo all the harm done by many mis-statements that continue to circulate. The following is a retraction statement that Mark Thorson has posted to various newsgroups: Subject: Retraction of Anatoxin-a Primer During the last several years, I have from time to time posted to this and other newsgroups a file of information called "An Anatoxin-a Primer." I now retract the statements made in the Anatoxin-a Primer. The Anatoxin-a Primer implied that Super Blue Green Algae from Klamath Lake, produced by Cell Tech, contains anatoxin-a (a neurotoxin I characterized as ddictive), and that Cell Tech deliberately avoids testing for this toxin because anatoxin-a is responsible for the effects reported by SBGA users. I have since been advised that Cell Tech conducts regular tests that would disclose anatoxin-a, and that this toxin has never been found in Super Blue Green Algae. I had no basis for the suggestions I made in the Anatoxin-a Primer, and I hereby retract it in full. Mis-state to state incorrectly : give a false account of False intentionally untrue lie untrue with intent to deceive ========== Neither do I have any reason to send my posts to alt null. This is the sole reason for Mark Thorson obsession in posting further lies about me. Neither do I have any need to nuke my posts. Richard H Jacobson, liar, cyberstalker, who has a pattern of abuse long before me has nuked his posts because he is ashamed of them, and you Rich Shewmaker are eager to believe his lies. Because you are just like the both of them and all of the *gang* with no morals. Sad that. LL/Jan . > Because you are just like the both of them and all of the *gang* with no > morals. How is asking you to define your terms immoral? I wouldn't hesitate to ask Mark, or Peter, or Mark, or Peter, or David, or Jeff, or Orac to define a tern or word that I didn't understand. And any of them would do so. But it becomes a moral issue if I ask you? Why is it so easy for you to throw accusations like missles from the gorilla cage, but so difficult to write a twenty words or less definition? It doesn't have to be like in the dictionary. One good sentence will do. Example: Alternative Medicine -- The use of unproven methods to diagnose and treat disease by people who are unqualified to diagnose and treat disease. Your turn. Organized Medicine --  Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ From: "Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> - Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:50:47 GMT Local: Wed,May 25 2005 5:50 am Subject: Re: My *Explanation* of *organized* medicine "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@insightbb.com> wrote in message >> Rich wrote: >>> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@insightbb.com> wrote >>> > I'm not falling for your little tricks. >>> Asking someone to define her terms is not a "little trick". >>> It is fundamental to civilized discussion. >> Sure, it's a trick. You're just trying to show she is neither >> consistent nor rational, accusing anybody of anything when >> she feels her cherished beliefs are threatened. >> Well, she ain't fallin' for that one. Been there, done that. >> Won't happen again. Better luck nailing Jello to a tree. > I haven't had to make a retraction. You haven't made a definition, either. --Rich Neither, have I claimed I had. Mark Thorson was in *sued* and made a retraction . http://www.celltech.com/resources/info_central/response.asp One individual was responsible for a great deal of miscommunication regarding anatoxin-a, information which is still accessible on many Internet sites. Cell Tech sued Mark Thorson for posting defamatory statements about Cell Tech, its products and its personnel to various Internet or Usenet news groups. Cell Tech's lawsuit against Mr. Thorson has now been settled. As part of the settlement agreement, Mr. Thorson has posted the Retraction Statement that appears below. Although he did retract the allegations that he had been widely circulating, we all know that one cannot, with a single correct statement, undo all the harm done by many mis-statements that continue to circulate. The following is a retraction statement that Mark Thorson has posted to various newsgroups: Subject: Retraction of Anatoxin-a Primer During the last several years, I have from time to time posted to this and other newsgroups a file of information called "An Anatoxin-a Primer." I now retract the statements made in the Anatoxin-a Primer. The Anatoxin-a Primer implied that Super Blue Green Algae from Klamath Lake, produced by Cell Tech, contains anatoxin-a (a neurotoxin I characterized as ddictive), and that Cell Tech deliberately avoids testing for this toxin because anatoxin-a is responsible for the effects reported by SBGA users. I have since been advised that Cell Tech conducts regular tests that would disclose anatoxin-a, and that this toxin has never been found in Super Blue Green Algae. I had no basis for the suggestions I made in the Anatoxin-a Primer, and I hereby retract it in full. Mis-state to state incorrectly : give a false account of False intentionally untrue lie untrue with intent to deceive ========== Neither do I have any reason to send my posts to alt null. This is the sole reason for Mark Thorson obsession in posting further lies about me. Neither do I have any need to nuke my posts. Richard H Jacobson, liar, cyberstalker, who has a pattern of abuse long before me has nuked his posts because he is ashamed of them, and you Rich Shewmaker are eager to believe his lies. Because you are just like the both of them and all of the *gang* with no morals. Sad that. LL/Jan . Example: Alternative Medicine -- The use of unproven methods to diagnose and treat disease by people who are unqualified to diagnose and treat disease. Your turn. Organized Medicine -- Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ > This is the sole reason for Mark Thorson obsession in posting further lies > about me. They are not lies ABOUT you. They are LIES you have told yourself. > Neither do I have any need to nuke my posts. You are proud of your hatred for Jews, Catholics, etc. Like any true bigot. > From: "Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> - > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:50:47 GMT [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > I had no basis for the suggestions I made in the Anatoxin-a Primer, and I > hereby retract it in full. Mark Thorson is clearly a pharma blogger out to destroy natural medicine using false claims. His retraction doesn't change that, of course, and readers should know this about himi. His false claims were based on nothing but his wish for them to be true. Sad. LadyLollipop wrote: > From: "Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> - > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:50:47 GMT [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > I had no basis for the suggestions I made in the Anatoxin-a Primer, and I > hereby retract it in full. Mark Thorson is clearly a pharma blogger out to destroy natural medicine using false claims. His retraction doesn't change that, of course, and readers should know this about himi. His false claims were based on nothing but his wish for them to be true. Sad. And this pertains to Jan's "explanation" of "organized medicine" how? Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ > LadyLollipop wrote: > > From: "Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> - [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > And this pertains to Jan's "explanation" of "organized medicine" how? I think Jan expressed her views on that quite adequately. How hard can it be? She sees "organized medicine" as "group think" mentality that supports conventional over natural medicine. Mark Thorsen probably came up because he's a prime example of that approach, to the point of corruption. PeterB >She sees "organized medicine" as "group think" mentality that >supports conventional over natural medicine. Let Jan tell us in her own words what she means by organized medicine. She won't because she is incapable to formulating ideas other than cutting, pasting and personally attacking others. What is your definition Peter?? In terms of the definition you gave above, I guess organized medicine might very well often be the correct approach. Would you choose natural over conventional in the treatment of Hodgkins Lymphoma, bacterial meningitis or pneumococcal pneumonia? If you would explain the natural approach and your evidence that it works as well as conventional. You see Peter, depending on the specific illness you are talking about, supporting conventional over natural medicine may very well be life saving. Sadly the natural medicine proponents lose sight of this fact. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance |
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.