 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / December 2006Ilena and censorship
Happy Holidays All! Here's how I feel about Moran and his fellow Healthfrauds ... who have collectively spent several years attempting to destroy my reputation and my life. http://www.elfyourself.com/?userid=c7592398da519e7b70e47d3G06121616 Peter Moran ... Healthfraud List Member brightened my Christmas Eve morning with this pout: >(Ilena justifies her blog not allowing the expression of contrary opinions by claiming that posts of hers to the Healthfraud list have been removed. .) This is perfect Healthfraud Logic he uses. Thanks Pete! He bases his biased, stilted viewpoint on a false hypothesis. QuackWatchSpeak I'm censoring no one ... I daily receive congratulatory comments and appreciation from the email links on my pages ... so proud of me that I stood up to Barrett and his Rampages against those he deems "questionable." Further, anyone who wants to respond to my comments has infinite platforms to do so ... in Barrett's webring alone, there are x # of blogs and chat rooms and his own censored healthfraud list where I am regularly discussed and never allowed to respond. David Gorski ... one of the Rag-tag Posse and Healthfrauds ... never let one of my posts in on his blog. Barrett removed my posts that I made in my own name on the Healthfraud responding to Terry Polevoy's rants about my physical location at the time ... now when one clicks on the link in the webpage archive ... there's another message from a Healthfraud in place of mine. Then Moran queried: >What would be the point of removing posts from hardly ever consulted mailing list archives if all list members have already received them? Thank you for that Christmas laugh. You have given me perfect material to show what QuackWatchSpeak is. http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:iis:4294967295#b Healthfraud List This Healthfraud List is just another, in my ever humble opinion, Bully Pulpit for Barrett and Polevoy and Baratz and others in this operation. There are layers and layers of blogs and chatrooms and webpages linked together ... cross promoting each other. He brags of over 11,000 subscribers of his Quackwatch/NCAHF newsletter with his spin. It's not just me that attack ... I'm just one who chose to put the message on the danger of breast implants on Usenet and refused to be silenced for 11 years. There is a link to a list of over 2500 MD's and Ph'Ds and double Ph'd's that NCAHF Co-Founder and Director of Internet Operations Barrett and team attacked a few years ago. www.BreastImplantawareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm Your silly notion that Barrett is mine or anyone's victim is just plain ditzy. If you show me evidence that the over 2500 leading edge scientists and doctors attacked Stephen Barrett before being listed on his NCAHF "Quack List" (with all that entailed) I'll re-visit my opinion. See Peter, you are not censored by me or anyone. You got to come here and tell the world what your opinions are. I got to respond. That's free speech. Interchange of ideas. You want to see if I censored Terry Polevoy? Here are his rants and maniacal obsessions about the physical whereabouts of me and young Adam Dreamhealer on the Healthfraud List ... see, he gets to say anything he wants about anyone he wants. So do you. http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:aas:113438:haleanpejjnjhaejdbfb#b www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Wikipedia.htm www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/NCAHFWatch.htm Coming soon! www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/blog.htm Updated! www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Wikipedia.htm Updated! www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm Updated! > www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/blog.htm > Updated! Could not find a blog there. No way to publicly post comments. > www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Wikipedia.htm > Updated! Same webpage as the first. > www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm > Updated! > Happy Holidays All! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.elfyourself.com/?userid=c7592398da519e7b70e47d3G06121616 Hey, that is cute! Funny! Hilarious! However, green is not your color. Remember what Kermit The Frog said about being green? Now that you have conclusively proven that you do have a sense of humor, a fact previously not in evidence, could you attempt to discuss issues on a substantive basis? LOL ... are you now claiming to be censored Mark? Too funny. Why it looks to me that you have the soapbox right here! For you to think that I owe you a place to put YOUR PROPAGANDA and lies on my website is pure fantasy. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Wikipedia.htm www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PropagandistProbert.htm > LOL ... are you now claiming to be censored Mark? > > Too funny. Why it looks to me that you have the soapbox right here! > > For you to think that I owe you a place to put YOUR PROPAGANDA and > lies on my website is pure fantasy. If you were not afraid of dissent, you would post dissenting opinions. Obviously, you are afraid of dissent. You surely do not believe in the Free Marketplace of Ideas as envisioned by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. I find that very sad for someone who proclaims they are pro-free speech. Mark S Probert ... what a load of lard! Your illogic is perfect QuackSpeak ... thanks! www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PropagandistProbert.htm www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/blog.htm www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Wikipedia.htm > Mark S Probert ... what a load of lard! > > Your illogic is perfect QuackSpeak ... thanks! No, my logic is flawless. If you disagree, why not try to address the points I raised without attacking me. Here is what I said, just for your convenience: If you were not afraid of dissent, you would post dissenting opinions. Obviously, you are afraid of dissent. You surely do not believe in the Free Marketplace of Ideas as envisioned by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. I find that very sad for someone who proclaims they are pro-free speech. I am very interested in why you feel that you can pseudo blog and not allow comments. Some actually may be favorable. The only reason I can come up with as to why you do not want to post contrary opinions on your website is that you are afraid of dissent. I note that both Stephen Barrett and Peter Bowditch post dissenting opinions. They do not seem to be afraid of dissent. You appear to be. >> Mark S Probert ... what a load of lard! >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I note that both Stephen Barrett and Peter Bowditch post dissenting > opinions. They do not seem to be afraid of dissent. You appear to be. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.health/msg/195100b758ab0f51 Dec 18 2001 >Probert is the ugly stereotype of a Jew ~ in my opinion ~ pushy, arrogant, >bullying, whining, overbearing, presumptuous, deceitful, insolent and >demanding, the very type that has given Jews cause for criticism >historically. >As a Jewish woman, it has always pained me to be associated with his type. >After his public Reign of Terror here on Usenet, he calls me in the >evening, and immediately begins to threaten me if I put his name in a >subject line again. I hung up, and let my voice mail take his Kommands. Blaming Jews for their problems is exactly what the anti-semites do. [note how Mark skipped right over his calling IIena and threatening her, then whines over and over about IIena email his wife -- which was AFTER he called her]. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.nutrition/msg/b93fff208da1da4e?hl=en& Dec 24 2004 http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.health/msg/195100b758ab0f51 Dec 18 2001 >Probert is the ugly stereotype of a Jew ~ in my opinion ~ pushy, arrogant, >bullying, whining, overbearing, presumptuous, deceitful, insolent and >demanding, the very type that has given Jews cause for criticism >historically. >As a Jewish woman, it has always pained me to be associated with his type. >After his public Reign of Terror here on Usenet, he calls me in the >evening, and immediately begins to threaten me if I put his name in a >subject line again. I hung up, and let my voice mail take his Kommands. Blaming Jews for their problems is exactly what the anti-semites do. [note how Mark skipped right over his calling IIena and threatening her, then whines over and over about IIena email his wife -- which was AFTER he called her]. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/a763b08f01b59d7a?hl=en& Dec 22 2001 Let me be perfectly clear. I would have never called Ilena except that all of these conditions were met: 1. Ilena had threatened to contact my wife. 2. Ilena had previously contacted Andrew Langer's wife. 3. Ilena had posted her phone number on her website and invited calls. 4. Ilena identified me as "Mark Probert from Virginia' on her website. I do not live in Virginia, and anyone who is a regular on a.s.a.d can attest to. Thus, when a clear and present danger of harm to an innocent third party existed, I felt that I had to take extraoridinary action. In retrospect, it was a waste of time. Further, in retrospect, I should have realized that she is totally irrational, probably paranoid, and that it would do no good. Thus, I freely acknowldge that it was an error. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/f7852a43f9f46a89?hl=en& Jun 18 2001 Again, Ilena, you are harassing me and intentionally attempting to intimidate me by placing my name in a subject line. Please cease and desist. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.attn-deficit/msg/e814c7fa52ef4141 Subject: Illena Rosenthal Rules; Proby and his Rag Tag Posse Drool http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/845f180e989adfb5?hl=en& Subject:The court threw out Barrett's case against Ilena http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/e36c8e76a4e4497f?hl=en& Subject changed: Ilena Rosenthal: Wrong As Usual Ilena Rose" <i...@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:meq8s0l6mtj2lfgpqblmeflr8r2hvavf8v@4ax.com... > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:41:35 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark > Prob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote: > >G-d help you if you ever need a doctor who knows how to Google. > God knows I know lots and lots of doctors ... Google proficient and > otherwise ... > They back my campaign against your Team of SLAPP suers ... and others > aganst medical freedom. Well, I back your position in the suit against you, as I have told you countless times. When our Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment, they had despicable people such as you in mind. Remember, as I have conclusively proven, YOU did not win the suit, the First Amendment and Rule of Law did. All you provided what the necessary despicable behavior. As for medical freedom, you maintain that breast implants should not be available for a woman to choose to use them. Is that medical freedom? Note that I do not believe that any product with their failure rate should be available, and, since Hulda's henchmen could not prove that their gadgets, gizmos and goos had even 1% of the success rate of breast implant, they too should be banned. My position is 100% consistent, and your is 100% hypocritical. Which is no surprise to anyone who knows you. > For the record for my last comment on this thread ... IOW, you know you cannot prove your claims, so you resort to a personal attack. Nothing unusual fro you. SOP. > Probert was repudiated ... he lied that Dr CLarks's products were banned > in the US ... and he lied that the FTC called them quackery. Wrong. If anyone with an open mind reads what Hulda's Henchmen stipulated to, (that means they agreed to it after negotiations), they would realized that they agreed that Hulda's gadgets, gizmos and goos add up to quackery, and that they cannot sell these devices, etc. in the US as medical products. Searched all groups Results 1 - 10 of 20 for author:freddiefarkas@yahoo.com (0.13 seconds) Subject changed: Hey, Jessi...Here is a chance for you to tell Ilena to stop the attacks... Subject changed: Hey, Jessi...Here is ANOTHER chance for you to tell Rosentha http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/3f0b13991e71a74a "Ilena Rose" <i...@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:knjo51plts71i48e6b85durjda4pnf2rsm@4ax.com... > Thanks to Freddie (wink wink) Wink wink? Do you have a point? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/6922f70f30946187PING Jessi, Now That You Have Apparently Returned...There was no doubt in my mind that this was comiing. YOU will never doanything that even comes close to letting Rosenthal know that she is anabusive bitch.Like I said, your head is so far up her a.s that you both use the samelips.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/3f298318439dac4eYou asked for people to step up to the plate and volunteer to end the warwith Rosenthal. When Probert and Langer did, and were still the targets ofRosenthal's attacks and hate, you disappeared from the group and remainedsilent.Now, Langer asks to correspond with you by email, as posting here wouldviolate a pledge that he made. In response, you call him intellectuallydishonest, when it is you, by your actions, have proven that your onlyreason for asking for the end of the responses to Rosenthal's attacks isto make her look better. YOU are the one who is intellectually dishonest.You are more transparent than glass.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/e82329e0e2ed70e4Langer, you are wasting your breath. Jessi has her head so far upRosenthal's a.s that they speak with the same lips.When Rosenthal attacked you in this thread, Jessi could have told her inthe newsgroup that she was not promoting peace. Instead, Jessi posts herRosenthal-esque bullshit against you.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/deef34157a904141Yes, Jessi will pass up this opportunity to criticize Rosenthal becausethey speak with the same lips.Jessi is intellectually dishonest as proven by her silence.Expect Jessi to disappear for a few weeks.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/9aebb805741d4f05"Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com>What about my pledge? You remained silent for weeks afterwards, although Iwas attacked and attacked. I have scrupulously maintained my pledge,allegations to the contrary notwithstanding.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/7762e6cee2b3d60b"Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com>Take it to the next step and ask for the attacks on me to be stopped. Theyare not being made in this newsgroup.As for my pledge, you can read it here:http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/15...I call your attention to the second paragraph of my peace offer.http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/15770075c2e24 eab?hl=enwill, as of this posting, Wednesday, March 16, 2005, at 4:20 PM EST,unconditionally cease and desist from posting to Ilena, about Ilena or inresponse to Ilena.I hope that you (Jessi), who have been a supporter of hers, will now moveand directly ask her to do the same thing. Further, if she ceases heractions towards me, I will render the posts in the Fan Club unreadable. Ifshe removes any and all webpages regarding me and/or my family, the Fan Clubwill cease to exist.---------------This is the sum total of what I am going to do. Nothing more, nothing less.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/409d25f47db2bd69?h l=en&"Jessi" <jessire...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:d3u671$4q0$1@news.astound.net...> Well "FreddieFarkas," you certainly take the cake!!I do not eat cake.You trash Ilena> constantly.No, I comment on her behavior toward people who have pledged to promotepeace, e.g. Probert and Langer. The fact that she is still trashing them,in spite of their actions of promoting peace NEEDS someone to do this. Ialso comment on your spineless behavior of never criticizing her when shedoes something that is anti-peace.YOU could have stepped up to the batters box and followed through on yourdeisre to have the wars ended. However, from every single post of yours itis becoming more and more obvious that you sole intent in asking for peacewas to end the criticism of Rosenthal's behavior, and not to promotepeace.Yet if she posts something that you don't like (and about> someone else), you suddenly become the victim, pretend to be outragedand> demand that she stop.Jessi, that is utter bollocks. I have never posted one message where Iclaim I am the victim. Rosenthal, however, has a vested interest inplaying victim, and you are serving to further that end.> Don't be such an outrageous hypocrite by demanding others stop doing thethings you yourself are doing.You have that 180 degrees backwards. I comment on Rosenthal's behavior andyour behavior, after you have acted in a spineless manner, as you have donehere. If there is any hypocrisy here it is in your lap, not mine.Maybe if you cleaned up your own house first> before complaining about others, people might listen to you.Who are you speaking for? Rosenthal and you? Rosenthal belches vilewhenever someone speaks for her. However, since it has become obvious toanyone with one grey cell firing that you are she are speaking with thesame lips, I am certain that she will not mind.Clean your own house. It is obvious that it is a pig sty.> "FreddieFarkas" <freddiefar...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:f6942fd1d6d7fa40cf44a0c5976701a4@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com...> > Jessi, you asked Probert to stop trashing and attacking Rosenthal..ANDHE> > DID! You cannot find one single post where he attacked her since hisdeclaration of peace ONE MONTH AGO on March 16, 2005. NOT ONE SINGLEPOST.> > Tonight, I go to Misc.Health.Alternative, and in a thread entitledRe:> > Judge strikes down FDA ban on ephedra, your good buddy, Rosenthal,the> > woman who by your words and actions can do no wrong, posts thisdiatribe:> > "Ilena Rose" <i...@NOSPAMMINhotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:15uv51hkdhpjar43rodc9abmjetduh0k5j@4ax.com...> >> Judge strikes down FDA ban on ephedra> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7504443/> >> FF Probert's comments:> >> >FOLLOW THE MONEY.> >> >Wait for appeal. >> Mark S Probert ... when the Supreme Court of NY took away yourlicense> >> to practice law ... they specifically forbad your giving youropinions> >> ... whatever fake or real names you are using at the moment.> >> Re-read what they told you ...> >> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/SandraProbert.htm> >> The Quack Team you represent are you and other Pharma Flacks andCorprate Lobbyists ...> >> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Andysposse.htm#Ragtag> > Now, Jessi, if you want to be an honest peace broker, you will tellRosenthal that she is out of line for posting this.> > Jessi, step up to the plate, tell her she is wrong, and you will havehit> > a gtand slam home run.> > If you don't, you prove what I believe, that you will never criticizeher> > for anything.oor, poor Pitiful Transparent Mark Probert. Searched all groups Results 1 - 10 of 21 for mark Probert grand slam(0.14 seconds)This is what he said to me.Simply put, your DEMONSTRATED position is that you will never, ever,directly criticize Ilena for any reason whatsoever.Of course I proved him wrong, yet he couldn't criricize Coleah for postingwhat sshe thought was my address and then did a reverse search and postednames addresses and phone numbers of innocent people, neither could AndrewLanger crtiticize him for posting lies or for the fact his wife sentprivate three e-mails out of the blue.Proving, they are both famous for accusing others of their EXACT guilt.============ Searched all groups Results 1 - 10 of 13 for mark probert directlycriticize Ilena (0.37 seconds)Mark you are not only ate up, you are utterly stupid.Get help, you are pathetic.LLhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/7346c16187f36d9d?hl=en&"Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com>You pass up an opportunity to promote peace. Moran queried again ... (one of their strategies ... keep asking the same already answered question) >What would be the point of removing posts from hardly ever consulted mailing list archives if all list members have already received them? Thank you for that Christmas laugh. You have given me perfect material to show what QuackWatchSpeak is. http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:iis:4294967295#b Healthfraud List This Healthfraud List is just another, in my ever humble opinion, Bully Pulpit for Barrett and Polevoy and Baratz and others in this operation. There are layers and layers of blogs and chatrooms and webpages linked together ... cross promoting each other. He brags of over 11,000 subscribers of his Quackwatch/NCAHF newsletter with his spin. It's not just me that attack ... I'm just one who chose to put the message on the danger of breast implants on Usenet and refused to be silenced for 11 years. There is a link to a list of over 2500 MD's and Ph'Ds and double Ph'd's that NCAHF Co-Founder and Director of Internet Operations Barrett and team attacked a few years ago. www.BreastImplantawareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm Your silly notion that Barrett is mine or anyone's victim is just plain ditzy. If you show me evidence that the over 2500 leading edge scientists and doctors attacked Stephen Barrett before being listed on his NCAHF "Quack List" (with all that entailed) I'll re-visit my opinion. See Peter, you are not censored by me or anyone. You got to come here and tell the world what your opinions are. I got to respond. That's free speech. Interchange of ideas. You want to see if I censored Terry Polevoy? Here are his rants and maniacal obsessions about the physical whereabouts of me and young Adam Dreamhealer on the Healthfraud List ... see, he gets to say anything he wants about anyone he wants. So do you. http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:aas:113438:haleanpejjnjhaejdbfb#b www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Wikipedia.htm www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/NCAHFWatch.htm Coming soon! Disbarred Rag-tag Posse Member, Mark S Probert declares: >I note that both Stephen Barrett and Peter Bowditch post dissenting opinions. Barrett regularly censors me (and many others) off the Healthfraud List, and Polevoy continues to threaten to sue posters who dare to post a dissent. Probert is diliberately misleading the public yet again. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm#Probert www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/blog.htm www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PropagandistProbert.html Healthfraud Peter Moran queried: >Another simple question. Can you show me where the Supreme court determined that the Bolen material you spread about was NOT libellous? From the Supreme Court decision, I quote: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." (page 39) www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm > Healthfraud Peter Moran queried: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile > comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." As always, cowardly "replying" where you hope the person you are responding to may not see it.. So falsely implying that a doctor has had their licence taken away for some kind of malpractice or misconduct and has been involved in racketeering and other illegal acts is not "defamatory"? The court themselves use the word defamatory to describe the Bolen material; at the bottom of page 3. I suspect that in this quote of yours they are referring to the *independent* remarks that you made about these parties, which mostly consist of your usual juvenile name-calling. I think the following reflects their true position on the Bolen material ( p41) Quote-- "Plaintiffs argue that Barrett, as well as Polevoy, was defamed in the Bolen article. We need not address this claim, given our conclusion that Rosenthal is immune from liability under section 230." Unquote Section 230 is intended to protect the owners of Internet sites from liability for material that may be posted there. It passes no judgement on whether the material is libellous. Why not put the full judgement up on your web site (and in a legible font, for once)?. Or you could direct the public to it here http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S122953.PDF And you have no response to the following in my original post? Don't ever say I have never given you the opportunity to defend the actions that make so many despise you, something that Barrett and others maligned by your actions and speech have never had. "Mind you, that is scarcely even the main question, because you can define "libel" in legalistic and, indeed, incomprehensible ways. The supreme court was obviously unhappy with the decisions they felt was forced upon them by the current laws.. So to a certain extent it doesn't matter what the courts said. It is also *on normal standards of human behaviour* that you are revealed to be a shitty person. You spread material about that you have admitted you did not know the truth of (or at least never denied that proposition) with the intent to harm the public image of people who never did anything to you." AND "This post is another example of your expertise with "non-answers" and the way you ignore of all salient questions. Why bother responding at all if it is not to engage in dialogue? I ask again, what would be the point of removing your posts (and only your posts) from hardly ever consulted mailing list archives if all list members have already received them? " Peter Moran >Disbarred Rag-tag Posse Member, Mark S Probert declares: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >List, and Polevoy continues to threaten to sue posters who dare to >post a dissent. I didn't see Dr Polevoy being mentioned by Mark, but I certainly allow dissent. Not only do I allow it, I publish every little bit of it. http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/files/mailbox.htm et seq BTW, On October 6 I sent a message to the Healthfraud list in which I said that you should be allowed to post there. >Probert is diliberately misleading the public yet again. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PropagandistProbert.html  SignaturePeter 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 >> Disbarred Rag-tag Posse Member, Mark S Probert declares: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > BTW, On October 6 I sent a message to the Healthfraud list in which I > said that you should be allowed to post there. I fully agree. >> Probert is diliberately misleading the public yet again. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PropagandistProbert.html > Disbarred Rag-tag Posse Member, Mark S Probert declares: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > List, and Polevoy continues to threaten to sue posters who dare to > post a dissent. So you claim, but have yet to prove. > Probert is diliberately misleading the public yet again. Not at all. Anyone who visits Barrett's site can see that he has posted emails of those who disagree with him. Please try to discuss issues without the personal attacks. Healthfraud Peter Moran queried: >Another simple question. Can you show me where the Supreme court determined that the Bolen material you spread about was NOT libellous? From the Supreme Court decision, I quote: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." (page 39) www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm > Healthfraud Peter Moran queried: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile > comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." But is this referring specifically to the Bolen material? Otherwise they are saying that falsely implying that a doctor has had their licence taken away for some kind of malpractice or misconduct, and has also been involved in racketeering and other illegal acts, is not "defamatory". That does not make sense, unless they are using the term in some inomprehensible legalistic sense. The Supreme court themselves use the word "defamatory" to describe the Bolen material; at the bottom of page 3. I suspect that in this quote of yours they are referring to the *independent* remarks that you made about these parties, which mostly consist of your usual juvenile name-calling. I suspect the following reflects their true position on the Bolen material ( p41) Quote-- "Plaintiffs argue that Barrett, as well as Polevoy, was defamed in the Bolen article. We need not address this claim, given our conclusion that Rosenthal is immune from liability under section 230." So you were simply judged immune from liability because you were simply (and with great vigour) spreading the views of another. Peter Moran IF PETER MORAN WANTS TO KNOW WHY DOESN'T HE READ ALL ABOUT IT AND STOP ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS? >> Healthfraud Peter Moran queried: >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Peter Moran > IF PETER MORAN WANTS TO KNOW WHY DOESN'T HE READ ALL ABOUT IT AND STOP > ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > > > Peter Moran > IF PETER MORAN WANTS TO KNOW WHY DOESN'T HE READ ALL ABOUT IT AND STOP > ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS? Vakker, are you trying to help Ilena, or reveal the quality of the people who support her? I clearly have read the Supreme Court's judgement. I have even quoted material from it that contradicts Ilena's version of the events in the very post you are responding to. I have previously provided a link to it. Do try to pay attention. Even better, why don't you explain precisely why the Bolen material is not libellous when the courts made no judgement as to the truth of claims that Barret was de-licensed and that he and others were engaged in racketeering and other criminal activities? The Supreme court did not even consider that question, because Ilena was deemed not liable for repeating the defamatory statements of others under a law designed for a quite different purpose.. Any relevant comments would be welcome. I am still trying to comprehend how such vicious and unprovoked personal attacks could even be regarded as acceptable human behaviour, let alone be protected by the law. PM > >> Healthfraud Peter Moran queried: > >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > > Peter Moran > Healthfraud Peter Moran queried: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm But they are hostile. Why the need for hostility when cogent argument to address what you disagree with works far better (and keeps you out of court and not looking like a lunatic?) Healthfraud Peter Moran queried: >Another simple question. Can you show me where the Supreme court determined that the Bolen material you spread about was NOT libellous? From the Supreme Court decision, I quote: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." (page 39) www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm > Happy Holidays All! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thank you for that Christmas laugh. You have given me perfect material > to show what QuackWatchSpeak is. This post is another example of your expertise with "non-answers" and the way you ignore of all salient questions. Why bother responding at all if it is not to engage in dialogue? I ask again, what would be the point of removing your posts (and only your posts) from hardly ever consulted mailing list archives if all list members have already received them? I still think you have made this up, but that is also well within your portfolio of skills. Another simple question. Can you show me where the Supreme court determined that the Bolen material you spread about was NOT libellous? Prove that to me. It should be easy for you. They may have said that your other name-calling and abusive comments were not "actionable" because it is hard for anyone to prove the subject matter one way or the other. That is one way of interpreting the judgement. But what exactly did they say about the Bolen material you were so eager to spread about? It will take but a minute of your time. Mind you, that is scarcely even the main question, because you can define "libel" in legalistic and, indeed, incomprehensible ways. The supreme court was obviously unhappy with the decisions they felt was forced upon them by the current laws.. So to a certain extent it doesn't matter what the courts said. It is also *on normal standards of human behaviour* that you are revealed to be a shitty person. You spread material about that you have admitted you did not know the truth of (or at least never denied that proposition) with the intent to harm the public image of people who never did anything to you. Maintaining the stance that you were perfectly right to do so is a final insult to human decency and doing further injury to undeserving people. Their only sin is to disagree with you about many things, as do I and most other well-informed scientists and medical personel.. > I daily receive congratulatory comments and appreciation from the >email links on my pages ... so proud of me that I stood up to Barrett >and his Rampages against those he deems "questionable." How wonderful for you! So can I expect an answer to these two questions? Surely such a champion of the oppressed will leap to the defence of THE CAUSE wherever needed! Or are you, in truth, merely a puffed-up snake going on jackass whose strongest suits are being evasive and malicious and always sheltering behind the opinions of others, as others are inclined to think? Peter Moran >> Happy Holidays All! >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I still think you have made this up, but that is also well within your > portfolio of skills. Really? http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/38c43d0ea501a06e?hl=en& And what did you do?? > Another simple question. Can you show me where the Supreme court > determined that the Bolen material you spread about was NOT libellous? Libellous you say? http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/38c43d0ea501a06e?hl=en& >From: "Peter Moran" mori...@gil.com.au >We deserve to have the truth the matter. >Peter Moran Here is an example of the truth of the matter, which Peter Moran flat out denies http://www.msnbc.com/news/809196.asp Peter Moran wrote: All medical advances have entailed risk, ever since the first caveman said"I wonder what this berry does?". Using retroviruses to try and correct lethal and potentially lethal gene defects is a very legitimate and logic alavenue of medical research. So this is nothing to do with "conspiracies", "coverups" . It is a matter of the quality of informed consent that was applied. It would be unusual these days for such issues to not be addressed carefully by the researchers and the ethics committees to which all clinical trials are submitted thesedays. We cannot know how culpable the doctors are from this rather emotive news item. >Peter Moran *Years earlier, a scientist just a few miles away from the Gelsinger's home in Tucson had raised serious questions about whether the experiment was safe.* Documents . Feb. 8, 2002: FDA letter, attempt to ban Dr. Wilson from other experiments. . March 3, 2000: FDA Warning Letter, original findings about the gene therapy experiment. (No coverups there,,,,,,,,,,,,,) The trouble is, Paul Gelsinger says, Dr. Wilson's team had never told him that anyone had ever raised questions about safety (That's fine and dandy according to organized medicine member, Peter Moran.) ADVERSE REACTIONS WERE NOT REPORTED And that was just the beginning. Federal investigators, pouring through Penn's records, announced at the conference that they had made a series of startling discoveries, raising questions about whether the doctors had covered up problems and broken basic test rules. In fact, just a few months before Jesse had signed up for the experiment, several monkeys given viruses similar to Jesse's got sick. And two of them died. (No coverup there) The rules for the experiment said: Even if volunteers didn't get visibly ill, if tests showed that any of them had a significant reaction called "grade 3," the experiment was supposed to be "halted" immediately. Records show there were "grade 3" reactions in more than one patient. The first time, doctors stopped, called the government and got permission to continue, saying an unusual condition with the patient might have been the cause. The second time, they stopped, called and got permission again, citing another unusual condition. But when it happened a third time, they didn't stop, didn't call. Then, a fourth time. They didn't stop or call then either (No coverups there). For their own safety, volunteers weren't supposed to have a blood ammonia level higher than 50. But people were coming in with higher levels and without proper approval. The limit was raised to 70. When Jesse signed up over the summer, he was within the limits, but records show that when Penn doctors tested him, just days before the experiment, his reading was 114 - more than double the original safety limit. (That's way cool huh Peter???) HIGH FINANCIAL STAKES With so many red flags from the monkey deaths to the reactions in other volunteers, even to Jesse's own ammonia levels, Why had Dr. Wilson's team allowed the experiment to continue? (Wonder if Peter can answer this question?) At the University of Pennsylvania, the conflict committee approved Dr. Wilson's arrangement with Genovo. In fact, the university itself owned a piece of his company and stood to profit, too. (Hmmmmmmmmm). In a statement, the university acknowledged that some information "should have been shared with the FDA sooner." (Just a minor little slip,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,) There was no information given to Jesse or his family about the monkey deaths. There was no information given to Jesse or his family about toxic results in prior patients. There was no information that would allow Jesse and his family to make any kind of informed decision." (Peter STILL can't see any coverup!!!! NO dishonesty!) CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS He told congress that other private companies in the race for cures had also been doing gene therapy experiments and had also gotten adverse reactions. But instead of sharing the information, government rules allowed them to stamp those reactions "confidential," classifying them as trade secrets to protect their research investments. So, while the government knew about them, other researchers like Dr. Wilson and volunteers like Jesse Gelsinger were never allowed to see them. (TRust the government!!!) "I was outraged," says Paul. "I had a right to know. Jesse had a right to know. (Oh my,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,emotions). ***In February, the Food and Drug Administration said that because Dr. Wilson filed "false and misleading" reports and "repeatedly and deliberately violated regulations **** REPEAT FOR THE HARD HEADED!!! ***Dr. Wilson filed "false and misleading" reports and "repeatedly and deliberately violated regulations *** (No coverups,,,,,,,,,,no fraud,,,,,,,,,,no deliberate violations,,,,,,,,,,,,) This week marks the third anniversary of Jesse Gelsinger's death. At the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Wilson ****is still on the faculty**** (Soooooooooo in organized medicine,,,,,,,,,,,) ****Filing *false and misleading reports* is A OK,,,,,,,,,,,,**** ****REPEATED and DELIBERATE violations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is A OK.*** but no longer in charge of its gene therapy program. And, in Congress, lawmakers are still debating legislation to provide more protection for medical volunteers. ******in the end, whether Jesse was betrayed by the doctors he and his family thought they could trust.********* Jan > Prove that to me. It should be easy for you. They may have said > that your other name-calling and abusive comments were not "actionable" [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Peter Moran >>> Happy Holidays All! >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >And what did you do?? KACHING!! $5 - Dr Wilson Oh, f.ck it! KACHING!! $1 as well for adding nothing SignaturePeter 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 > >>> Happy Holidays All! > >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > >And what did you do?? > Oh, f.ck it! Nice example for a grandpa. |
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
|
©2008 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.