 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / April 2007Court orders British Medical Journal to pay £100,000 to leading vitamin researcher
Court orders British Medical Journal to pay £100,000 to leading vitamin researcher "Natural Health Victory Lecture" to be held in London, Saturday, March 24th 7 p.m. - 9.30 p.m. Grand Hall, Old Billingsgate, Old Billingsgate Walk, 16 Lower Thames Street, London, EC3R 6DX. Nearest Tube Station: Monument (District/Circle lines) Doors open 6 p.m. ENTRY FREE. In July 2006 the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a highly defamatory article alleging that Dr Matthias Rath, a leading vitamin researcher, was standing trial in a German court for "fraud" in relation to the death of a young cancer patient. The BMJ's article also discredited Dr Rath and the effect of treatments which result from his research in the field of natural control of cancer. None of these allegations were true. Because the biased nature of the article clearly had only one benefactor - the multi-billion pound market for pharmaceutical cancer drugs, including chemotherapy - Dr Rath felt that he had no option but to file a lawsuit against the BMJ seeking a retraction, an apology and payment of damages for the harm done by its publication. In September 2006, after a British judge stated that these false accusations were among the severest possible, the BMJ finally published a full retraction of the article and an apology to Dr Rath. Subsequently, in early 2007 - perhaps fearing that the scientifically-established facts about the health benefits of vitamins would be heard in court and thereby widely publicised - the BMJ decided to file an application asking the court to rule that Dr Rath should accept an out-of-court settlement of £100,000. As a result, and in return for the BMJ paying these staggering damages to Dr Rath, the court has now allowed it to avoid the full case being heard in front of a judge. The Case of the British Medical Journal http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/bmj_timeline.htm http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/pdf-files/future-london-march07.pdf http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/ forwarded by Zeus Information Service Alternative Views on Health www.zeusinfoservice.com > Court orders British Medical Journal to pay £100,000 to leading vitamin > researcher [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Zeus Information Service > Alternative Views on Healthwww.zeusinfoservice.com Thanks for the update, John. Dr. Rath is one of the greatest researchers of our time, with many scientific papers to his credit. He deserves more than £100,000 if you ask me. In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: : Thanks for the update, John. Dr. Rath is one of the greatest : researchers of our time, with many scientific papers to his credit. I have many scientific papers to my credit, and yet you don't seem to think that I am one of the greatest researchers of our time. But since you seem to be such a fan of Dr. Rath, who peddles vitamins as a cure for AIDS, perhaps now you will be willing to answer the question that you have thus far avoided: do you believe that it is possible to contract AIDS without prior exposure to HIV? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > I have many scientific papers to my credit, and yet you don't seem to > think that I am one of the greatest researchers of our time. But since [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > without > prior exposure to HIV? HIV is a hoax, AIDS is caused by drugs http://www.whale.to/a/pharma_aids.html inc poppers >>In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > HIV is a hoax, AIDS is caused by drugs > http://www.whale.to/a/pharma_aids.html inc poppers So John, does that mean you're willing to step up the plate and take a shot of HIV+ blood? >>>In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >So John, does that mean you're willing to step up the plate and take a >shot of HIV+ blood? I've asked him that before, but his answer was less than satisfactory.  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 In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: : Thanks for the update, John. Dr. Rath is one of the greatest : researchers of our time, with many scientific papers to his credit. Dr. Rath also makes a profit (as in money) by selling his own "nutrient" preparations. Do you not see a possible conflict of interest in that? Or is that the sort of conflict of interest that only affects the large pharmaceutical companies? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > Dr. Rath also makes a profit (as in money) by selling his own "nutrient" > preparations. Do you not see a possible conflict of interest in that? > Or is that the sort of conflict of interest that only affects the > large pharmaceutical companies? Poor argument, ad hominem, and hardly one you pharma boys should put forward seeing as your whole industry is a conflict Vitamin C cures infections http://www.whale.to/a/levy_h.html and heart disease http://www.whale.to/w/nutrition.html prevents cot death http://www.whale.to/w/sids.htm >> Dr. Rath also makes a profit (as in money) by selling his own "nutrient" >> preparations. Do you not see a possible conflict of interest in that? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Poor argument, ad hominem, and hardly one you pharma boys should put forward > seeing as your whole industry is a conflict In one paragraph John demonstrates that he is doing what he complains about. >In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Or is that the sort of conflict of interest that only affects the >large pharmaceutical companies? Only large pharmaceutical companies are motivated by money. All alternative practitioners, especially the really noisy ones like Hulda Clark or Matthias Rath, are ethereal beings whose only interest is the welfare of the public. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher > In article <etrkai$av...@news.iucc.ac.il>, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher The truth is Dr. Rath makes a profit on the substances he provides; but. no one has accused him of hiding data on the adverse reaction and deaths that occured during drug trails. When people in the pharmaceutical companies do that and it results in thousands of deaths what other motive do you suspect. Everyone be it Hilda clarke or the ceo of a large pharmaceudical is entitled to make aliving but when peoples lives are put at risk and when the obsene markups on presciption drugs REally do you think its fair or reasonable to compare the two >> In article <etrkai$av...@news.iucc.ac.il>, >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > presciption drugs REally do you think its fair or reasonable to > compare the two Rath has been around long enough that his cured patients should be able to fill up the Super Bowl at least once. Where are they? On Mar 21, 11:06 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote: > >> In article <etrkai$av...@news.iucc.ac.il>, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Going about thier lives > On Mar 21, 11:06 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Going about thier lives Horse sh.t. If they exist, they would be writing testimonials. In misc.health.alternative bigvince <Vince.Miraglia@gmail.com> wrote: : The truth is Dr. Rath makes a profit on the substances he provides; : but. no one has accused him of hiding data on the adverse reaction and : deaths that occured during drug trails. He has been accused (by the authors) of misrepresenting the results of a study of the effectiveness of vitamin supplementation to antiretroviral medication in AIDS treatment. He has been found, at least twice, to be making misleading claims about the effectiveness of his patent medicine. : When people in the : pharmaceutical companies do that and it results in thousands of deaths : what other motive do you suspect. I have posted, more than once, to m.h.a. my objections to the pharmaceutical industry's unethical practices, in particular, the documented attempts to hide the results of studies that indicate that a proposed drug is not effective. That is both unethical and criminal. I object as well to the corporate culture that makes it nearly impossible for drugs against less "popular" diseases to be developed because there isn't enough profit in it. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" In misc.health.alternative David Wright <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote: :>In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: :>: Thanks for the update, John. Dr. Rath is one of the greatest :>: researchers of our time, with many scientific papers to his credit. :>Dr. Rath also makes a profit (as in money) by selling his own "nutrient" :>preparations. Do you not see a possible conflict of interest in that? :>Or is that the sort of conflict of interest that only affects the :>large pharmaceutical companies? : Only large pharmaceutical companies are motivated by money. All : alternative practitioners, especially the really noisy ones like Hulda : Clark or Matthias Rath, are ethereal beings whose only interest is the : welfare of the public. And any money that they might happen to make hawking their products is, of course, immediately given away to charitable organizations. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" > : Only large pharmaceutical companies are motivated by money. All > : alternative practitioners, especially the really noisy ones like Hulda [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And any money that they might happen to make hawking their products is, > of course, immediately given away to charitable organizations. At least nutrients don't kill anyone unlike pharma med that kills millions and addicts millions without curing anyone In misc.health.alternative JOHN <john@btinternet.com> wrote: : At least nutrients don't kill anyone unlike pharma med that kills millions : and addicts millions without curing anyone Tell that to the people who died of hypervitaminosis D after ingesting overfortified milk (http://tinyurl.com/2wcg42, _American Journal of Public Health_ 85 (1995) 656). ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > In misc.health.alternative JOHN <john@btinternet.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > overfortified milk (http://tinyurl.com/2wcg42, _American Journal of Public > Health_ 85 (1995) 656). hardly medicine, just an example from the types running the junk food industry In misc.health.alternative JOHN <john@btinternet.com> wrote: :> In misc.health.alternative JOHN <john@btinternet.com> wrote: :> : At least nutrients don't kill anyone unlike pharma med that kills :> millions :> : and addicts millions without curing anyone :> Tell that to the people who died of hypervitaminosis D after ingesting :> overfortified milk (http://tinyurl.com/2wcg42, _American Journal of Public :> Health_ 85 (1995) 656). : hardly medicine, just an example from the types running the junk food : industry You said "nutrients don't kill anyone." All I need is one counterexample to prove your statement incorrect, and I found one in less than 10 minutes of searching. Or are you saying that vitamin D is not a nutrient? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > You said "nutrients don't kill anyone." All I need is one counterexample > to prove your statement incorrect, and I found one in less than 10 minutes > of searching. Or are you saying that vitamin D is not a nutrient? I meant nutritional medicine. Go and look for that >> You said "nutrients don't kill anyone." All I need is one counterexample >> to prove your statement incorrect, and I found one in less than 10 minutes >> of searching. Or are you saying that vitamin D is not a nutrient? > > I meant nutritional medicine. Go and look for that Weasel >>You said "nutrients don't kill anyone." All I need is one counterexample >>to prove your statement incorrect, and I found one in less than 10 minutes >>of searching. Or are you saying that vitamin D is not a nutrient? > > I meant nutritional medicine. Go and look for that Ah, the old 'moving goalpost' game again. If you're a teacher, John Scudamore is a perfect example of how not to reason. A treasure trove of logical fallacies. Whale.to is a very good place to point out to people who have the impression there may be something reasonable about people who advance alternative medicine. It'll cure them from that notion real quick. > >>You said "nutrients don't kill anyone." All I need is one counterexample > >>to prove your statement incorrect, and I found one in less than 10 minutes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > who advance alternative medicine. It'll cure them from that notion real > quick. Actually vitamin d is not a nutrient . It normally is produces by the body and it functions to regulate processes in the body. True vitamin d is nearly inpossible to get to much of as you produce it from the sun your body regulates its production. When you suppliment this substance it can be toxic but its not really a nutrient >> >>You said "nutrients don't kill anyone." All I need is one counterexample >> >>to prove your statement incorrect, and I found one in less than 10 minutes [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >sun your body regulates its production. When you suppliment this >substance it can be toxic but its not really a nutrient Of course it's a nutrient. Although the body is capable of making sufficient vitamin D, it can only do so when the sun is strong enough. In the winter in the northern hemisphere, for example, the sun is NOT strong enough, and you need to get it from your diet. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher >In misc.health.alternative JOHN <john@btinternet.com> wrote: >:> In misc.health.alternative JOHN <john@btinternet.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >to prove your statement incorrect, and I found one in less than 10 minutes >of searching. Or are you saying that vitamin D is not a nutrient? Iron is a nutrient, too. It also kills people. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher >> : Only large pharmaceutical companies are motivated by money. All >> : alternative practitioners, especially the really noisy ones like Hulda [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >At least nutrients don't kill anyone unlike pharma med that kills millions >and addicts millions without curing anyone Without curing anyone? I guess John has never heard of bacterial infections. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher > In article <DO6dnaW8cYAG2J_bnZ2dnUVZ8v-dn...@bt.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Without curing anyone? I guess John has never heard of bacterial > infections. Fire kills ants, too, but it kills more people than ants. As usual, David has no evidence that any drug or class of drugs (he refers here to antiobiotics) saves more people than they kill. The familiar refrain from our drug-happy friend is that I should prove the dangers of prescription meds somehow outweigh the benefits, but that responsibility rests with those promoting the dangerous nostrums. Of course, documentation on the harm drugs can be easily found, as in the article at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410873, which took me less than 2 minutes. The problem with antibiotics is that, although potentially helpful to a given patient with a particular infection, in addition to the potential for serious side effects, is the fact that inappropriate prescription of these drugs leads to microorganisms that are more virulent for everyone else. Antibiotics against superstrains of bacteria are almost useless. Ultimately, I believe this class of drug will cost more lives than it ever saved. The right-hand chiral formulation of olive leaf extract from East Park Research is perhaps the most effective natural antibiotic *and* anti-viral available (I have been using it for years), and it will not destroy the natural intestinal flora of the patient which leads to diarrhea. PeterB >>In article <DO6dnaW8cYAG2J_bnZ2dnUVZ8v-dn...@bt.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > David has no evidence that any drug or class of drugs (he refers here > to antiobiotics) saves more people than they kill. Ever seen what syphilis did to people, before the discovery of penicillin? You're getting more deranged every day. > The familiar > refrain from our drug-happy friend is that I should prove the dangers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > less than 2 minutes. The problem with antibiotics is that, although > potentially helpful to a given patient with a particular infection, "potentially helpful to a given patient with a particular infection"? What a prime example of utter drivel. > in addition to the potential for serious side effects, is the fact that > inappropriate prescription of these drugs leads to microorganisms that > are more virulent for everyone else. Whatta maroon. The fact that inappropriate prescription of anti-biotics causes problems has zero to do with the safety or efficacy of anti-biotics per se. > Antibiotics against superstrains of bacteria are almost useless. > Ultimately, I believe this class of drug will cost more lives than it ever saved. You're such a nice person aren't you? You'd just love to throw out anti-biotics and watch every kid with an infection die, don't you? Real, caring humans go do research to find new anti-biotics, to find ways around bacteria evolving resistance and they go out to educate doctors about proper prescription of anti-biotics. Not you. Apparently, you like to see people die needlessly. > The right-hand chiral > formulation of olive leaf extract from East Park Research is perhaps > the most effective natural antibiotic *and* anti-viral available (I > have been using it for years), and it will not destroy the natural > intestinal flora of the patient which leads to diarrhea. You mean it doesn't kill bacteria? Then how the hell can it be an anti-biotic? Don't tell me, it's sentient. It 'knows' which bacteria to kill, because of 'energies' and 'vibrations' no doubt. > PeterB > >>In article <DO6dnaW8cYAG2J_bnZ2dnUVZ8v-dn...@bt.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Ever seen what syphilis did to people, before the discovery of > penicillin? You're getting more deranged every day. Ever seen what a non sequitur can do, Johnboy? The statement is meaningless in the context of side effect risks, and certainly in the context of bacterial superstrains created by inappropriate use of antibiotics. No one said there is not an *appropriate* use for these drugs, however STDs are not the majority condition for which they are prescribed. > > The familiar > > refrain from our drug-happy friend is that I should prove the dangers [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "potentially helpful to a given patient with a particular infection"? > What a prime example of utter drivel. So you believe antibiotics are not potentially helpful? I can say they stopped working for me in treating repeated bouts of sinusitus years ago, which is what drove me to find another solution, but they did work for a while. > > in addition to the potential for serious side effects, is the fact that > > inappropriate prescription of these drugs leads to microorganisms that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > causes problems has zero to do with the safety or efficacy of > anti-biotics [sic] per se. The word is "antibiotic," not "anti-biotic." And yes, my little pharmonkey, the propagation of a bacterial superstrain is everyone's problem, as you don't have to be the person for whom the drug was inappropriately prescribed to be killed by a bug produced in another person's body. Every intelligent and well-read person I know (which, obviously, excludes you), is aware of this fact. > > Antibiotics against superstrains of bacteria are almost useless. > > Ultimately, I believe this class of drug will cost more lives than it ever saved. > > You're such a nice person aren't you? You'd just love to throw out > anti-biotics [sic] and watch every kid with an infection die, don't you? I resolved my own health issues using natural medicine without side effects, however I do not believe standard antibiotics should never be used. For instance, if one uses an effective probiotic while taking standard antibiotics, one can avoid the more immediate intestinal side effects. The point is that drugs are problematic for their potential long-term effects in both individuals and society. In addition to the release of superbugs as a result of inappropriate prescription, antibiotics are associated with elevated cancer risk in women [ref. http://www.breastcancer.org/research_antibiotics.html.] > Real, > caring humans go do research to find new anti-biotics, to find ways > around bacteria evolving resistance and they go out to educate doctors > about proper prescription of anti-biotics. Not you. Apparently, you like > to see people die needlessly. Activity related to the development and use of drugs is marketing, not education. Use of natural healing methods is a neglected area that deserves intelligent discussion on mha and is supported by scientific research around the world. Your resistance to natural medicine is a product of your feverish attempts to protect the interests of your sponsors. Say hello to them for me, Ok? > > The right-hand chiral > > formulation of olive leaf extract from East Park Research is perhaps [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > anti-biotic? Don't tell me, it's sentient. It 'knows' which bacteria to > kill, because of 'energies' and 'vibrations' no doubt. Read the sentence again for comprehension, Johnboy. The herbal has both antibiotic *and* antiviral properties. Cue Johnboy to continue his favorite tree-slapping routine on behalf of his sponsors. PeterB > >>In article <DO6dnaW8cYAG2J_bnZ2dnUVZ8v-dn...@bt.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Ever seen what syphilis did to people, before the discovery of > penicillin? You're getting more deranged every day. Ever seen what a non sequitur can do, Johnboy? The statement is meaningless in the context of side effect risks, and certainly in the context of bacterial superstrains created by inappropriate use of antibiotics. No one said there is not an *appropriate* use for these drugs, however STDs are not the majority condition for which they are prescribed. > > The familiar > > refrain from our drug-happy friend is that I should prove the dangers [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "potentially helpful to a given patient with a particular infection"? > What a prime example of utter drivel. So you believe antibiotics are not potentially helpful? I can say they stopped working for me in treating repeated bouts of sinusitus years ago, which is what drove me to find another solution, but they did work for a while. > > in addition to the potential for serious side effects, is the fact that > > inappropriate prescription of these drugs leads to microorganisms that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > causes problems has zero to do with the safety or efficacy of > anti-biotics [sic] per se. The word is "antibiotic," not "anti-biotic." And yes, my little pharmonkey, the propagation of a bacterial superstrain is everyone's problem, as you don't have to be the person for whom the drug was inappropriately prescribed to be killed by a bug produced in another person's body. Every intelligent and well-read person I know (which, obviously, excludes you), is aware of this fact. > > Antibiotics against superstrains of bacteria are almost useless. > > Ultimately, I believe this class of drug will cost more lives than it ever saved. > > You're such a nice person aren't you? You'd just love to throw out > anti-biotics [sic] and watch every kid with an infection die, don't you? I resolved my own health issues using natural medicine without side effects, however I do not believe standard antibiotics should never be used. For instance, if one uses an effective probiotic while taking standard antibiotics, one can avoid the more immediate intestinal side effects. The point is that drugs are problematic for their potential long-term effects in both individuals and society. In addition to the release of superbugs as a result of inappropriate prescription, antibiotics are associated with elevated cancer risk in women [ref. http://www.breastcancer.org/research_antibiotics.html.] > Real, > caring humans go do research to find new anti-biotics, to find ways > around bacteria evolving resistance and they go out to educate doctors > about proper prescription of anti-biotics. Not you. Apparently, you like > to see people die needlessly. Activity related to the development and use of drugs is marketing, not education. Use of natural healing methods is a neglected area that deserves intelligent discussion on mha and is supported by scientific research around the world. Your resistance to natural medicine is a product of your feverish attempts to protect the interests of your sponsors. Say hello to them for me, Ok? > > The right-hand chiral > > formulation of olive leaf extract from East Park Research is perhaps [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > anti-biotic? Don't tell me, it's sentient. It 'knows' which bacteria to > kill, because of 'energies' and 'vibrations' no doubt. Read the sentence again for comprehension, Johnboy. The herbal has both antibiotic *and* antiviral properties. Cue Johnboy to continue his favorite tree-slapping routine on behalf of his sponsors. PeterB In misc.health.alternative JohnDoe <dont@spam.me> wrote: :> Fire kills ants, too, but it kills more people than ants. As usual, :> David has no evidence that any drug or class of drugs (he refers here :> to antiobiotics) saves more people than they kill. : Ever seen what syphilis did to people, before the discovery of : penicillin? You're getting more deranged every day. Are you suggesting what I think you're suggesting? But wouldn't that depend on his having found at least one person willing to sleep with him? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." > In misc.health.alternative JohnDoe <dont@spam.me> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Are you suggesting what I think you're suggesting? But wouldn't that > depend on his having found at least one person willing to sleep with him? I might have considered that suggestion if I hadn't seen him dancing around the suggestion that he'd take a shot of HIV+ blood, which he claims does not cause AIDS. :> In misc.health.alternative JohnDoe <dont@spam.me> wrote: :> :> Fire kills ants, too, but it kills more people than ants. As usual, :> :> David has no evidence that any drug or class of drugs (he refers here :> :> to antiobiotics) saves more people than they kill. :> : Ever seen what syphilis did to people, before the discovery of :> : penicillin? You're getting more deranged every day. :> Are you suggesting what I think you're suggesting? But wouldn't that :> depend on his having found at least one person willing to sleep with him? : I might have considered that suggestion if I hadn't seen him dancing : around the suggestion that he'd take a shot of HIV+ blood, which he : claims does not cause AIDS. I have yet to get an answer one way or the other from "PeterB" about whether or not he believes that it is possible to get AIDS without exposure to HIV. I had thought that your mention of his increasing derangement in the context of what syphilis does to people had meant to imply that he might himself be a personal example. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" > The problem with antibiotics is that, although > potentially helpful to a given patient with a particular infection, in > addition to the potential for serious side effects, is the fact that > inappropriate prescription of these drugs leads to microorganisms that > are more virulent for everyone else. If rendering the antibiotic useless is a problem, you must mean that it's useful until then. Thank you for agreeing with those you call "pharmabloggers." | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ >In misc.health.alternative David Wright <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote: >:>In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >And any money that they might happen to make hawking their products is, >of course, immediately given away to charitable organizations. I believe that Hulda Clark donates the profits from her Tijuana clinic to a real estate charity in a lovely beach-side settlement just north of the border. 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 In misc.health.alternative Peter Bowditch <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote: :>: Only large pharmaceutical companies are motivated by money. All :>: alternative practitioners, especially the really noisy ones like Hulda :>: Clark or Matthias Rath, are ethereal beings whose only interest is the :>: welfare of the public. :>And any money that they might happen to make hawking their products is, :>of course, immediately given away to charitable organizations. : I believe that Hulda Clark donates the profits from her Tijuana clinic : to a real estate charity in a lovely beach-side settlement just north : of the border. Well, God does help those who help themselves. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" > Well, God does help those who help themselves. My last trip to sea we moored next to a £10 million boat with a lift (!) in it, belonged to a CEO of a drug company >> Well, God does help those who help themselves. > > My last trip to sea we moored next to a £10 million boat with a lift (!) in > it, belonged to a CEO of a drug company What is wrong with wheelchair accessibility? > In misc.health.alternative Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ----- > "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" This is a fact. THe only legal obligation of a drug company is to turn a profit. There have been several instances of drug companies hiding or misrepresenting data these acts have caused injuries including death to 1000s of people. Again the only legal obligation is to increase profit The amount of recalls and further dangers showing up on newly approved drugs is so great that the IOM a well respected medical group has recommended putting a star on new drugs for a period of years and perhaps avoiding them during that period. Dr.Rath contention that aids is caused not caused by hiv is not much different from Gallo who discovered the hiv virus who contended that aides comes from hiv plus something else. The question can someone have aids without hiv is really a non guestion. By definition the diagnosis of aids hinges on hiv detection . Someone could have all the clinical symtoms of aids but if no virus detected whould be considered aids free . Alternately one could have no symtoms of diesease but if hiv is found has aides . Dr. rath is a respected researcer and if he did the damange he is accused of doing would have been sued . Instead to pay Dr. Rath indicate he has been wronged Would you guys stop the crossposting? I'm trying to read and think over here. Pick one of the forums you're reading this in and have at it, but please keep it out of the other forums. "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote : > Hulda Clark > Peter Bowditch >"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote : >> >> Hulda Clark > >> Peter Bowditch Are you feeling well, Jan? Your recent postings seem to indicate that you have been hitting the controlled substances again. Have you thought any more about going to some meetings? Remember that before you get to: 2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. 3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. You have to do: 1. We admitted we were powerless over alcoholthat our lives had become unmanageable. I wish you well in overcoming your problems. 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 In misc.health.alternative JOHN <john@btinternet.com> wrote: : In July 2006 the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a highly defamatory : article alleging that Dr Matthias Rath, a leading vitamin researcher, was : standing trial in a German court for "fraud" in relation to the death of a : young cancer patient. The BMJ's article also discredited Dr Rath and the : effect of treatments which result from his research in the field of natural : control of cancer. What page of which issue contained this article? A search of the ISI Web of Knowledge failed to turn it up. : In September 2006, after a British judge stated that these false accusations : were among the severest possible, the BMJ finally published a full : retraction of the article and an apology to Dr Rath. According to Rath's web site, the apology was published on September 23, yet my search of the BMJ and of the ISI Web of Knowledge failed to turn it up. On what page did the retraction appear? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" In misc.health.alternative Richard Schultz <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote: : According to Rath's web site, the apology was published on September 23, : yet my search of the BMJ and of the ISI Web of Knowledge failed to turn : it up. On what page did the retraction appear? Apologies for following up to my own post. I found the articles in question by going directly to the BMJ web site rather than trying to track them down via the sites that supposedly have a complete table of contents. I note, however, that while Dr. Rath seems not to have been sued this time, he does have a history of losing lawsuits that accuse him of making misleading statements about his products. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" >In misc.health.alternative JOHN <john@btinternet.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >yet my search of the BMJ and of the ISI Web of Knowledge failed to turn >it up. On what page did the retraction appear? Are you suggesting that the famous Dr Rath might be lying? I wonder when someone will post a link to an official court order on an official court web site. Probably just after Dr Rath proves that HIV isn't related to AIDS (or is he lying about that too?). 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 In misc.health.alternative Peter Bowditch <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote: :>According to Rath's web site, the apology was published on September 23, :>yet my search of the BMJ and of the ISI Web of Knowledge failed to turn :>it up. On what page did the retraction appear? : : Are you suggesting that the famous Dr Rath might be lying? Actually, I thought that the OP in the thread had probably not read what appeared in the BMJ. My difficulty in finding it was mostly from the bizarre way in which our library access to the BMJ works -- it only gives an HTML table of contents rather than a PDF (or whatever) of the actual journal page. It's possible that the BMJ doesn't want the fact of their having published the apology (and removed the report in question from the on-line version of the journal) publicized too widely. Since I haven't read the original article, it's hard for me to tell if they just assumed that the reporter was telling them the truth, based on Dr. Rath's previous reputation for not always being exactly 100% truthful. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" >Court orders British Medical Journal to pay £100,000 to leading vitamin >researcher >As a result, and in return for the BMJ paying these staggering damages to Dr >Rath, the court has now allowed it to avoid the full case being heard in >front of a judge. What's so staggering about 100,000 pounds? That's less than US$200K, which isn't exactly a gigantic sum. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do." -- Bill Maher In misc.health.alternative David Wright <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote: :>Court orders British Medical Journal to pay ?100,000 to leading vitamin :>researcher :>As a result, and in return for the BMJ paying these staggering damages to Dr :>Rath, the court has now allowed it to avoid the full case being heard in :>front of a judge. : What's so staggering about 100,000 pounds? That's less than US$200K, : which isn't exactly a gigantic sum. And which is presumably considerably less than they would have had to have paid had they gone to court. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." |
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.