 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / February 2008Mark Probert - Do you have PERSONAL reason why you don't want ???????this group discussing the AAPS v. Texas Medical Board case?
Snake-oil Lie of the Day ... This time the owner of the website and Barrett's Australian sidekick, Peter Bowditch, himself, is illustrating that there is nothing he will not lie about. Today's was not about his fantasies that he had 'intimacy' with me in my hometown of San Diego, and that now, according to Bowditch, I am basically a disease ridden hooker. This is the level of Barrett's Ministry of Truth ... To today's lie, oft repeated and still untrue: www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/snake-oil.htm#Peter-Bowditch wrote: "She had a link to the Wayback Machine archive of the page in question on her hate site somewhere and cubed the screeching when the WM people joined the conspiracy by removing the irrelevancy from the archive." Yes, I had many many many links to the WM after Bowditch & Barrett nuked the list off of ratbags.com ... however, it was AFTER they lost to me in court and the list was being used in other court cases to show their 'conspiracy' (to use their own self implicating words) and it was being used on Wikipedia (until his Wiki Snake-oil Team got it removed) that they nuked it. ... however, the WM removed it, as you can see by their note, on Bowditch's demand ... not for any other reason. http://web.archive.org/web/20050205050827/http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm "We're sorry, access to http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt." Bowditch is the 'site owner' and yet again proves to be following Stephen "The Media" Barrett's Ministry of Truth outline. http://www.orwelltoday.com/truth.shtml www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm (see their list below, on the internet from 2000-2007, then totally removed.) Since Barrett, Polevoy, and Grell SLAPP sued me in early 2001, and ultimately lost to me in the Superior Court, the Appeals Court, and the Supreme Court of California ... Various Snake-oil Posse Members have taken their turn "at the bat" harassing me ... this week it's apparently Andrew Kingoff in the spot light. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm#Andrew-Kingoff Since they still have a $311K outstanding bill for attorneys fees, and have had around $170,000 paid out so far, they attacks are even viler. People on the list that I had never heard of nor had any communiation with whatsoever, have made careers out of trying to harm my reputation and rewrite history to make the 3 losing plaintiffs the "victims" ... and I the evildoer. The courts all said otherwise. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm Head of the Healthfrauds, Robert S Baratz, send out a massive emailing falsely claiming that Barrett had lost to me on a 'technicality.' This is blatantly false ... (as is much of the disinformation he manufacturers and markets) ... and repeated on Wiki, Usenet and various Blogs by several of the named members below. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWAtch.htm#Baratz www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm#Robert-Baratz www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm#Peter-Bowditch I just found some 'correspondence' from a Snake-oil Member named John Stone (describes his profession as 'oppositon') sending my attorneys and others working on my case, hate letters about me and love letters about the plaintiffs ... never mentioning his relationship with them. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm#John-Stone The only way I ever had any connection with this Snake-oil Posse Member, was reading his losing plaintiff propaganda and his name with Barrett's on their list. I am in celebration of life mode right now ... as the minutes are ticking toward my 60th birthday. If Kingoff continues his blatant attacks, which include highjacking threads of mine and changing the names to harassing titles against me ... I will be reposting this as a reminder. He also has a penchant for taking his words which I claim are false, and fiddling with the lines and lying to readers that I was the author of his lies. Educated idiots. Pure "Ministry of Truth" out of 1984. Remember when Stephen Barrett bragged that he was "the media." http://www.orwelltoday.com/truth.shtml Exactly. The Ministsry of Truth concerned itself with Lies. Party ownership of the print media made it easy to manipulate public opinion, and the film and radio carried the process further. The primary job of the Ministry of Truth was to supply the citizens of Oceania with newspapers, films, textbooks, telescreen programmes, plays, novels - with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statue to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child's spelling-book to a Newspeak dictionary. If any of you wish to see the tactics used by Barrett and Team ... watch Zeitgeist. With love from Ilena www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com http://ilenarose.blogspot.com Health Lover http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/snake-oil.htm There are several people who have joined this team's internet interactions who are not listed ... two of them using aliases have recently had their masks removed. One quit Wikipedia immediately ... Snake-oil Team Peter Bowditch Woofie Pearson Robert Baratz Mattias Haglund Bernard Morey Mark Lowry Christopher Brown Andrew Langer Mark Thorson Willa Nidiffer David Wright Rich Andrews Rosalind Dalefield David Green TD Laing Cindy Province Paul Lee John Stone Janice Lyons James Laidler Mark Probert Rich Shewmaker David Gorski Andrew Kingoff Honorary Members These are people who aren't in the list above but who have been named in Nuremberg 2001, the court case against members of "one of the most evil, and vicious, organizations ever to stalk Planet Earth's Families" Stephen Barrett Judith Barrett Terry Polevoy Christopher Grell Rebecca Long Rebekah Johnson Aron Primack Peter W. Pappas Joseph Pizzorno William T. Jarvis Tim Gorski Bill Ross Monica Pignotti Michael McNeil Paul Hilling Paul Smith Esther Figueroa J "...I am basically a disease ridden hooker." That is off-topic and we don't really care. If it is true, get yourself cleaned-up and learn an honest trade. Dishonest, proven liar and harasser changed the subject line Andrew Kingoff [ ] On Jan 26, 12:46 pm, Ilena Rose <B...@mundo.com> wrote: > Snake-oil Lie of the Day ... > [quoted text clipped - 178 lines] > Esther Figueroa > J : "...I am basically a disease ridden hooker." : : That is off-topic and we don't really care. : If it is true, get yourself cleaned-up and learn an honest trade. And leave the field to Debbee? Fat chance. ----- 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" > : "...I am basically a disease ridden hooker." > : > (I have no idea who wrote this, but whoever wrote it, this is disgusting): That is off-topic and we don't really care. > : If it is true, get yourself cleaned-up and learn an honest trade. > > And leave the field to Debbee? Fat chance. You really are disgusting. It would appear that you dislike women, and especially strong women that do not put up with your disgusting little comments. Does the University share in your sentiments about women??? >Snake-oil Lie of the Day ... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >'intimacy' with me in my hometown of San Diego, and that now, >according to Bowditch, I am basically a disease ridden hooker. I don't ever remember using either of the expressions "intimacy" or "disease ridden". What disease was it and should I be worried? >This is the level of Barrett's Ministry of Truth ... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Yes, I had many many many links to the WM after Bowditch & Barrett >nuked the list off of ratbags.com ... So what I said wasn't a lie. You had a link. You screeched about something and screeched even more after the WM did what it always does. Thank you for admitting that you were wrong and I was right. Do you have any evidence that Dr Barrett has or had anything to do with the management of my web site, or are you just blowing smoke out of your commodious arse? (Rhetorical question - I already know the answer.) >however, it was AFTER they lost to me in court and the list was being >used in other court cases to show their 'conspiracy' (to use their own >self implicating words) and it was being used on Wikipedia (until his >Wiki Snake-oil Team got it removed) that they nuked it. It was AFTER that that I almost cut my finger off in the garden. Lots of things happen after other things. The process is called "time" and has been going on for eons. By the way, I notice more screeching about policies at WM. Thank you again for proving that I was right. Did you really use the list in a court case? Did the judges laugh? >... however, the WM removed it, as you can see by their note, on >Bowditch's demand ... not for any other reason. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"We're sorry, access to http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm has >been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt." Yep. That's the way robots.txt works, Ilena. Look it up. It has nothing to do with the Wayback Machine and everything to do with search engines. It is normal practice for web site managers to have obsolete material removed from Google, Yahoo!, MSN etc, and it is an unintended consequence that the WM also looks for a robots.txt file. (The convention includes the "meta name=robots value=noindex" HTML tag which can be used in individual web pages.) >Bowditch is the 'site owner' and yet again proves to be following >Stephen "The Media" Barrett's Ministry of Truth outline. > >http://www.orwelltoday.com/truth.shtml You obviously don't see how Orwell's thoughts apply to you, do you? <snip insanity> >Snake-oil Team > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >Esther Figueroa >J Yes, Ilena, that is the list which was on the joke site. You will notice that I haven't snipped it. Please explain why I didn't snip it if I wanted it to remain a secret. Oh, and you forgot two of the names: Ilena Rosenthal and Jan Drew. Why do you never include your own name when you reproduce the list? I'll bet the judges laughed twice as hard when they saw that you were using a list of people which included you to prove a conspiracy against you.  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 >>This time the owner of the website and Barrett's Australian sidekick, >>Peter Bowditch, himself, is illustrating that there is nothing he will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't ever remember using either of the expressions "intimacy" or > "disease ridden". What disease was it and should I be worried? Whoa, Nellie! What's this about "riding?" Is Islena jumping (as it were) into new services, or is this something reserved for the Tijuana side of the business? | 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 message <tmanp39d46gadtb2otgshji53g72u3k...@4ax.com>, Peter Bowditch wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (as it were) into new services, or is this something reserved > for the Tijuana side of the business? Ai-Yi-Yi! Los Burros Pobre! Que Triste! > -- > | 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 trywww.santaclaus.com. | > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ On Jan 27, 6:49 am, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King > >DC Whoa, Nellie! What's this about "riding?" Is Islena jumping > > (as it were) into new services, or is this something reserved > > for the Tijuana side of the business? > > Andrew Ai-Yi-Yi! Los Burros Pobre! Que Triste! Andrew Kingoff: Does this kind of talk really help your professional career in Acupuncture??? Have you ever thought that someone could do a internet search and read all of this stuff about you???? If you truly care about the field of Acupuncture, it might help your career to be a little more professional, unless ofcourse, you really do not care about it, and it was a good sign to hide behind so you could learn more about alternative medicine. > On Jan 27, 6:49 am, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > and it was a good sign to hide behind so > you could learn more about alternative medicine. I think you misunderstood me. To paraphrase Sally Struthers, Doesn't anyone care about the Burros? > Andrew Kingoff: Does this kind of talk really help your professional > career [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and it was a good sign to hide behind so > you could learn more about alternative medicine. It's touching to know that you care so much about Andrew that you are launching a new career as a netnanny. I deduce your tender feelings for Andrew because, as we all know, baseless and vile personal attacks are the staple material of MHA. All these years and countless personal attacks, and yet it is this rather mild and indirect matter of Andrew commenting on a common rumor that brings you to action. I'd promise to keep your secret, but it appears to be out. | 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> --------------+ "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lymbercartel.com> wrote in message news:bbqu65-j55.ln1@news.luymbercartel.com... > It's touching to know that you care so much about Andrew that > you are launching a new career as a netnanny. I deduce your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is this rather mild and indirect matter of Andrew commenting > on a common rumor that brings you to action. D.C., if you truly cared about Andrew's acupuncture business, you would be doing the same thing. You would be backing up your online friend, and posting studies about what a wonderful asset that acupuncture is to our society. The "attack system" is a two way street, DC.,and the other side of the coin is equally as guilty as the next--so before you point your fingers in one direction, you better point them back in your own face, because you are just as dirty as everyone else. I'm gathering research (I'm not the author) for a study. By all means, blather away, and claim you were attacked, and have never attacked anyone else; there are a lot of people watching this newsgroup; not everyone posts you know. :>) > I'd promise to keep your secret, but it appears to be out. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but trywww.santaclaus.com. | > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ >> It's touching to know that you care so much about Andrew that >> you are launching a new career as a netnanny. I deduce your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > D.C., if you truly cared about Andrew's acupuncture business, > you would be doing the same thing. I never claimed to. Me, I'm an equal-opportunity BS spotter. Andrew rarely spouts BS, so I don't pay much attention to him. His main vice, as far as I'm concerned, is that he's too easily baited by the Jans and Islenas of the Net. Neither are worth more than an occasional mocking /en passant./ > You would be backing up > your online friend, and posting studies about what a wonderful > asset that acupuncture is to our society. I don't do "back up online friends." BS is BS, and if I want to netnanny someone I usually start with the excessive reposters like Mark Probert and the screwed-up quote manglers like Peter Moran. For some reason the alties seem to be more inclined to at least let their newsreaders make the mistakes rather than invent their own. Maybe if more people paid attention to the content of the posts instead of trying to recreate 1913 Europe in miniature this froup would actually have bandwidth to discuss material within its charter. > The "attack system" > is a two way street, DC.,and the other side of the coin is equally > as guilty as the next--so before you point your fingers in one > direction, you better point them back in your own face, because > you are just as dirty as everyone else. Followed by ... > I'm gathering research (I'm not the author) for a study. By all > means, > blather away, and claim you were attacked, and have never attacked > anyone else; > there are a lot of people watching this newsgroup; not everyone > posts you know. :>) By all means tell us the method you're proposing to use. That way, there won't be any way to accuse you of drawing targets around your bullet holes. | 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> --------------+ > By all means tell us the method you're proposing to use. > That way, there won't be any way to accuse you of drawing targets > around your bullet holes. > > -- Both sides of the coin---see my post in under another topic--I think you will understand where I am coming from. :>) >> By all means tell us the method you're proposing to use. >> That way, there won't be any way to accuse you of drawing targets >> around your bullet holes. > Both sides of the coin---see my post in under another topic--I think > you > will understand where I am coming from. :>) I know exactly the conclusion you're aiming for. That's why I asked for the methodology *first* | 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> --------------+ > I know exactly the conclusion you're aiming for. That's why > I asked for the methodology *first* > > -- I'm not aiming for any conclusion; I'm not the author; in fact the other is more pro conventional medicine. I'm only gathering information, pro and con. > I never claimed to. Me, I'm an equal-opportunity BS spotter. > Andrew rarely spouts BS, so I don't pay much attention to him. > His main vice, as far as I'm concerned, is that he's too easily > baited by the Jans and Islenas of the Net. Neither are worth > more than an occasional mocking /en passant./ DC, different people write, and read and understand miles apart from each other. It depends on their schooling, their family's way of thinking, and the choices they make for themselves. I know it is hard to believe, but Jan and Ilena do make good points, but they too are baited -- if we all want to work in this world, we probably need to learn to be at the very least tolerant of each other's ideas - without adding religion or politics to the equation. > I don't do "back up online friends." BS is BS, and if I want to > netnanny someone I usually start with the excessive reposters > like Mark Probert and the screwed-up quote manglers like Peter > Moran. For some reason the alties seem to be more inclined to > at least let their newsreaders make the mistakes rather than > invent their own. I back up individuals whom I believe have made interesting points, as I have said before, I don't know anyone here other than here. Reposting about a subject matter is OK but I believe there needs to be presented in a different format. For example, you might not like Carole's information about "cell salts," I really know very little about this subject - it is an interesting concept -- maybe not something I would try, but it is interesting to learn about. She was excited about having her article published, and shared it with everyone. I was excited for her. That's doesn't mean she is wrong, and everyone else is right about the subject matter. That's why I was excited with her about her posting. > Maybe if more people paid attention to the content of the posts > instead of trying to recreate 1913 Europe in miniature this froup > would actually have bandwidth to discuss material within its charter. Maybe you are right. > By all means tell us the method you're proposing to use. > That way, there won't be any way to accuse you of drawing targets > around your bullet holes. I've got the method I am to follow--taking every side into consideration. And I'm not the only one gathering researching in the newsgroups; there are some that actively post, and some that just read. > > I never claimed to. Me, I'm an equal-opportunity BS spotter. > > Andrew rarely spouts BS, so I don't pay much attention to him. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > there > are some that actively post, and some that just read. For at least 6 years, probably longer, you've claimed to be writing an article, a tv show, or compiling research on MHA. Why do you think anyone outside of usenet would care about this newsgroup? Well, where is that article? What was the name of the TV show? What radio station broadcasted it? Where can we get the podcast? <Crickets chirping> Someone else made essentially this same comment, about 6 years ago: http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/f18f7d78c7bae663 "DEBBEE1023" <debbee1...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020902184351.02776.00000486@mb-cc.aol.com... > << My comments might be easier to understand if you put them in the context of > my reply to DEBBEE's story of a helpless, incontinent, aphasic stroke victim > being discarded like garbage by a male doctor because she is female. She > attributes such treatment to women being abused & helpless. I think that's > bullshit. I think the story is too. > Michele > Again, Michele, why do you make up whatever pops in your head at the time That would be *you* making up whatever pops into your head... > and > assume its bullshit? Because you make up all sorts of wild garbage & never seem to post anything that answers questions your "audience" asks. Once again -- what hospital? What doctor? The truth is the perfect defense to any charges of libel. Once again -- you originally started claiming that an article was being penned about this NG -- then it turned into claims of a screenplay. Consistency is the hallmark of the truth. Your stories are not consistent. C'mon, DEBBEE, quit makin' sh.t up. It's too easy to see through. Michele > What you posted, is a LIE. > I'm gathering research (I'm not the author) for a study. By all > means, > blather away, and claim you were attacked, and have never attacked > anyone else; > there are a lot of people watching this newsgroup; not everyone > posts you know. :>) You're gathering research for a study in MHA? I did not know that. Which IRB approved this study? Are participants being compensated? Since I post in MHA from time to time, I'd appreciate being sent the Research Consent Form that: 1. Explains who is doing the study, the purpose of the study and how it will be used, why posters have been selected for study, the procedures for conducting the study, and my rights as a participant, including my right to confidentiality; 2. Describes benefits and risks of the study, and any precautions associated with the study; and, 3. How I may contact the researcher should I have questions about this study. I assume such a form was previously given to all of the posters on MHA who are part of the study to secure their informed consent. I am particularly interested in the procedures that you will use to conduct this study in MHA. Do you have objective criteria that you will be using, and if so, what are they? How will your participation in the group itself while you are conducting the study be controlled for, since the content of your own posts may influence the data being collected? Nancy Unique, like everyone else SignatureProud member since 2007, WWWSC #1 Ann/Emma Anne #4 > > I'm gathering research (I'm not the author) for a study. By all > > means, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You're gathering research for a study in MHA? I did not know that. I'm gathering research for a study which has to do with alternative health vs conventional medicine. As I said, I'm not the author. > Are participants being compensated? There are no participants. And the researchers are not being compensated. > Since I post in MHA from time to time, I'd appreciate being sent the > Research Consent Form that: You, and the rest of the posters have nothing to do with this--just topics presented here---and we research elsewhere. > 1. Explains who is doing the study, the purpose of the study and how it > will be used, why posters have been selected for study, the procedures [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the study be controlled for, since the content of your own posts may > influence the data being collected? Really, Nancy, you do not have a thing to worry about, nor does anyone else, no names, just topics of interest. Pros and cons---you read about information here, and then you research. And not just in newsgroups; the media as well; and websites.... > I'm gathering research for a study which has to do with alternative > health vs > conventional medicine. As I said, I'm not the author. As a human-subjects research topic, there are laws which govern participation. Among others, the paperwork that Nancy mentions has to be on file and available for inspection. This applies to sociology as much as to medicine. If you don't have a clue regarding the laws on the subject, I can provide you with references -- but you would be much better off to obtain qualified counsel. | 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> --------------+ > This applies to sociology as much as to medicine. If you don't > have a clue regarding the laws on the subject, I can provide > you with references -- but you would be much better off to > obtain qualified counsel. I have counsel, thank you for very much for asking. Subjects (topics in newsgroups) are not proprietary information. To be sure, I called Google today. I'm not taking postings from anyone and using them as I see fit nor am I even printing them out. Have you ever wondered why there is so mistrust in medicine? Then you find that it has its roots in the insurance world that goes back about 20 or so years; the insurance world deciding what they want to pay or what they refuse to pay. It all has to roll back somewhere does it not? You have the totally alternative medicine cheerleaders, and the totally anti alternative medicine cheerleaders, and then you have people like myself that do the best of both worlds. People like myself get lumped into the alternative medicine group because no one really knows where to put my type. You find studies about all sorts of conventional medicine treatments for a cartload of diseases. You find very little in the way of studies for alternative care therapies---but then you look at the insurance equation....of not willing to pay for experimental drugs or alternative treatments----does this encourage 'science' to study the therapies? Absolutely not; because this would mean that their patients would have to pay out of pocket no matter what. It is kind of like a Catch-22 situation.....but as one keeps digging and digging and digging, one finds an array of industries or organizations involved in healthcare--I do not believe that anyone's religious beliefs should stand in the way of good medicine, nor should anyone's beliefs about sexual orientation should stand in the way as well. I read a story last night about a "lesbian" that was refused or denied healthcare treatments. How would the clinic or doctor have even know what sexual orientation the person was based on looking at her--they absolutely would not---either a person is male or female, (and basic biology tells us who is who), and how her sexual orientation even got into the equation is beyond me. It should not have even been brought up, right? She should not have been denied treatment. >>This applies to sociology as much as to medicine. If you don't >>have a clue regarding the laws on the subject, I can provide [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in newsgroups) > are not proprietary information. To be sure, I called Google today. If you have counsel then surely that counsel, if competent, discussed with you the fact that copyright issues are just one of the many issues a researcher must address when conducting research for a study on a group like MHA. But, in addition to your counsel, you called Google for legal and/or ethics advice? Really? Why? I mean, even if the folks at Google were qualified to give legal or ethics advice, Google has no control over usenet groups such as MHA. You understand Google's rather limited role WRT usenet access and archiving, right? > I'm not taking postings > from anyone and using them as I see fit nor am I even printing them > out. Then exactly what are you doing with the posts, and who will be using them and for what purpose? > Have you ever > wondered why there is so mistrust in medicine? Oh, is the study for which you are doing research about mistrust in medicine? > Then you find that it > has its roots in the > insurance world that goes back about 20 or so years; the insurance > world deciding what > they want to pay or what they refuse to pay. It all has to roll back > somewhere does it not? Or perhaps, your research is related to insurance? Come on, Debbee, don't be so secretive about what you're doing and why, or the conspiracy lovers among MHA reader will start wondering just what you're up to and just who is behind it all. Nancy Unique, like everyone else SignatureProud member since 2007, WWWSC #1 Ann/Emma Anne #4 > Come on, Debbee, don't be so secretive about what you're doing and why, > or the conspiracy lovers among MHA reader will start wondering just what > you're up to and just who is behind it all. Oh Nancy, you are making me laugh.....Kind of hard to call your own family members a conspiracy--LOL LOL LOL Especially when you only see them once a year. Ever hear of Family Medical History books? Like I said, topics of interest, not people, subject matters, not who posted what. I'm not the family's author; just gathering subject matters, not the compiler--- the research is about the subject matters not the posters.... My father died of complications due to the AIDS virus in December 1983, no one knew much about the virus back then, and the insurance world paid for all of the experimental drugs that were flown in from the CDC for him to try. He was dying and wanted to help medical science as much as possible. It's sad to think that the insurance world stopped paying for those experimental drugs; who only knows if those drugs would help save lives. This is all you need to know, my family's medical history is not your business, nor are the methods of treatment they have used or not used your business either. >>>This applies to sociology as much as to medicine. If you don't >>>have a clue regarding the laws on the subject, I can provide [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But, in addition to your counsel, you called Google for legal and/or > ethics advice? Really? Why? NOYB, nosey, Nancy Kinsley. > I mean, even if the folks at Google were qualified to give legal or ethics > advice, Google has no control over usenet groups such as MHA. You > understand Google's rather limited role WRT usenet access and archiving, > right? Rather limited?? No, I look up most all posts in google newsgroups through..guess who. DUUHH. >> I'm not taking postings >> from anyone and using them as I see fit nor am I even printing them >> out. > > Then exactly what are you doing with the posts, and who will be using them > and for what purpose? NOYB, nosey, Nancy Kinsley. >> Have you ever >> wondered why there is so mistrust in medicine? > > Oh, is the study for which you are doing research about mistrust in > medicine? *Then you find that it has its roots in the insurance world that goes back about 20 or so years; the insurance world deciding what they want to pay or what they refuse to pay. It all has to roll back somewhere does it not? You have the totally alternative medicine cheerleaders, and the totally anti alternative medicine cheerleaders, and then you have people like myself that do the best of both worlds. People like myself get lumped into the alternative medicine group because no one really knows where to put my type.* >> Then you find that it >> has its roots in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Or perhaps, your research is related to insurance? Perhaps................... > Come on, Debbee, don't be so secretive about what you're doing and why, or > the conspiracy lovers among MHA reader will start wondering just what > you're up to and just who is behind it all. > > Nancy > Unique, like everyone else Nancy Kinsley the nosey busy body who is *selective* posting in MHA. Makes you Woo-zy, remember? Oh, that's right, you wouldn't want to discuss the *dirty* insurance companies NOT Mark Probert. >>>I'm gathering research (I'm not the author) for a study. By all >>>means, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > health vs > conventional medicine. As I said, I'm not the author. What kind of study of alternative health vs. conventional medicine? Can you be more descriptive and provide details? Don't you think MHA posters have a right to know exactly what you are doing here, and what use you will make of the information you are collecting in MHA? A description of the purpose and use of the study, as well as the author's identity would enable MHA posters to know exactly who is using the information they post and for what purposes it's being used. I know you've said that you aren't the author of the study, only a researcher, so perhaps the author would be the appropriate person to provide the information if you don't know the answers to my questions. >>Are participants being compensated? There are no participants. Then what exactly are you studying at MHA if not people? There are people here who make postings about various topics. That's all there is here. > And > > the researchers are not being compensated. What about the author? Is the author going to profit from the discussions of MHA posters? >>Since I post in MHA from time to time, I'd appreciate being sent the >>Research Consent Form that: > > You, and the rest of the posters have nothing to do with this--just > topics > presented here---and we research elsewhere. Can you give me an example? >>1. Explains who is doing the study, the purpose of the study and how it >>will be used, why posters have been selected for study, the procedures [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > information > here, and then you research. What kind of valid data could you gather for a study using the methodology you describe? What exactly is the study measuring, and how is the information being measured? Please explain. > And not just in newsgroups; the media > as well; > and websites.... If the "topics of interest" can be linked in any way to a poster or posters, that's a real problem unless you have informed consent. But there are other major ethical issues in doing research using the Internet that should be of concern to researchers (for example: disruption of on-line discussions when participants know that a researcher is gathering information from the group) which is why I asked about IRB approval. Two of the hot topics in research in recent years are the ethical issues surrounding the use of the Internet (from personal web sites to places like My Space to chat rooms and discussion groups) to gather data for research, and the methodological difficulties that must be addressed in order to obtain valid data. I'd sure like to know how the author of the study intends to address the ethical and methodological hurdles that conducting research in a usenet group raises. Nancy Unique, like everyone else SignatureProud member since 2007, WWWSC #1 Ann/Emma Anne #4 >>Snake-oil Lie of the Day ... >>This is the level of Barrett's Ministry of Truth ... >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > It was AFTER that that I almost cut my finger off in the garden. Ah-ha! And were you vaccinated after that? Take any pharmameds prescribed by Organized Medicine? If so, those were clearly the cause of your removing the information. If you claim otherwise, prove it! Nancy Unique, like everyone else SignatureProud member since 2007, WWWSC #1 Ann/Emma Anne #4 >>>Snake-oil Lie of the Day ... > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >prescribed by Organized Medicine? If so, those were clearly the cause of >your removing the information. If you claim otherwise, prove it! That explains a lot. I had a tetanus vaccination which must have made me autistic and when I was banging my head on the keyboard I must have accidentally modified my site's robots.txt file. The antibiotics would have killed off the probiotics I get from the health food shop, thereby destroying my digestive system and starving my brain of nutrients. The flounder genes in the genetically-modified cotton in the bandage probably then caused me to develop Goldfish Brain Syndrome so I forgot about everything immediately. It's just as well that they don't use mercurochrome as an antiseptic any more or I would really be in trouble. All of this happened a year after I was diagnosed with diabetes and the doctor told me that it was incurable. She didn't actually say "Go home and die", but that's what doctors always mean by the word "incurable". I'm a mess. 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 > I'm a mess. Finally the truth. Thank you for admitting that and proving me 100% correct. |
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.