Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / March 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

HOMEOPATHY WORKED FOR ME

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
JOHN - 22 Feb 2008 19:08 GMT
DEFEND YOUR CHOICE IN MEDICINE
     To counter the vitriolic attacks in the media and the government
decision to close the homeopathic hospitals, HMC21 (Homeopathy:Medicine for
the 21st Century), has published a website www.hmc21.org and a declaration
that states HOMEOPATHY WORKED FOR ME (just follow the links). Our aim is to
get 250,000 signatures by next June and march them to number 10, Downing
Street with the demand that the NHS honours its commitment to homeopathy as
enshrined in its charter. If you have ever benefited by a homeopathic
remedy, whether self-prescribed or otherwise, then you are eligible to sign.
It will take you very little time and will be a great contribution to the
success of this project. One form per family member please. Michelle Shine
rpautrey2 - 22 Feb 2008 22:28 GMT
MS(JOHN): Thanks for the link. Paul

>       DEFEND YOUR CHOICE IN MEDICINE
>       To counter the vitriolic attacks in the media and the government
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> It will take you very little time and will be a great contribution to the
> success of this project. One form per family member please. Michelle Shine
HCN - 23 Feb 2008 17:49 GMT
>      DEFEND YOUR CHOICE IN MEDICINE
>      To counter the vitriolic attacks in the media and the government
> decision to close the homeopathic hospitals, HMC21 (Homeopathy:Medicine
> for the 21st Century), has published a website www.hmc1800.org and a
> declaration that states HOMEOPATHY WORKED FOR ME (just follow the links).

Ooooh, goody... when they fail to show with science that homeopathy does
anything, just try to flood with anecdotes!

Too bad actual science fails to show that homeopathy does any good.  And
there are plenty of anecdotes that homeopathy does NOT work:
http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

By the way, still wondering where the actual evidence that Andre Saine has
that homeopathy works better for rabies than modern medicine.  How willing
are you to trust it when the disease is 100% fatal?

Our aim is to
> get 250,000 signatures by next June and march them to number 10, Downing
> Street with the demand that the NHS honours its commitment to homeopathy
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> to the success of this project. One form per family member please.
> Michelle Shine
drceephd@insightbb.com - 23 Feb 2008 22:02 GMT
> Ooooh, goody... when they fail to show with science that homeopathy does
> anything, just try to flood with anecdotes!
>
> Too bad actual science fails to show that homeopathy does any good.  And
> there are plenty of anecdotes that homeopathy does NOT work:http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

Let us consider the scientifically valid death toll:

Homeopathy:  0 , none , nada.

Allopathy: 250,000 per year just in the USA and counting more.

So, tell us again that we must trust our docs and go to our graves
broke.

> By the way, still wondering where the actual evidence that Andre Saine has
> that homeopathy works better for rabies than modern medicine.  How willing
> are you to trust it when the disease is 100% fatal?

Rabies??  You still flogging that lie?  The only way to stop and
prevent rabies has been found to burn the Pasteur rabies clinics to
the ground and run the blood poisoners out of town.  Rabies is another
non-disease probagated by the stupid allopathic liars.

> Our aim is to

I think you aim is to lie to everyone and get the dumb sheeple back in
line for more shots and poisonus drugs.

DrCee
Not a member of the medical monopoly
Hawki63@sbcglobal.net - 23 Feb 2008 22:11 GMT
On Feb 23, 12:49 pm, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Ooooh, goody... when they fail to show with science that homeopathy does
> anything, just try to flood with anecdotes!
>
> Too bad actual science fails to show that homeopathy does any good. And
> there are plenty of anecdotes that homeopathy does NOT
> work:http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

Let us consider the scientifically valid death toll:

the fact that homeopathy does not "kill" is no positive marker....if it does
no good...it is useless

the "death toll" from conventional is likely higher cuz of all the jerks who
try useless stuff and when it fails..then show up and wonder why
conventional has its risks...

Homeopathy:  0 , none , nada.

Allopathy: 250,000 per year just in the USA and counting more.

So, tell us again that we must trust our docs and go to our graves
broke.

> By the way, still wondering where the actual evidence that Andre Saine has
> that homeopathy works better for rabies than modern medicine. How willing
> are you to trust it when the disease is 100% fatal?

Rabies??  You still flogging that lie?  The only way to stop and
prevent rabies has been found to burn the Pasteur rabies clinics to
the ground and run the blood poisoners out of town.  Rabies is another
non-disease probagated by the stupid allopathic liars.

> Our aim is to

I think you aim is to lie to everyone and get the dumb sheeple back in
line for more shots and poisonus drugs.

DrCee
Not a member of the medical monopoly
rpautrey2 - 23 Feb 2008 22:32 GMT
VULTURE: Caw! Caw! Caw!
The sound of a predator.
What is your contribution
to this altmed group?
Harrassment!

PA

On Feb 23, 4:11 pm, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> DrCee
> Not a member of the medical monopoly
HCN - 23 Feb 2008 22:33 GMT
> On Feb 23, 12:49 pm, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> the ground and run the blood poisoners out of town.  Rabies is another
> non-disease probagated by the stupid allopathic liars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dScdr8Dly4g

>> Our aim is to
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> DrCee
> Not a member of the medical monopoly
D. C. Sessions - 23 Feb 2008 23:23 GMT
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dScdr8Dly4g

The nice thing about posting links as your only response is
that by taking the argument out of the posts you at best
make the other person try to abstract a rambling 20,000
word spew into a newspost-sized thesis for rebuttal, so
they do all the work.  For extra entertainment you can
then dispute the abstract.

IMHO it's a crappy, rude pseudo-argumentative style that
gives up on presenting any worthwhile content in favor
of "winning" an argument by making an exchange of views
impossible.  It's telling that until recently Scudamore
was the main MHA practitioner of the "art."

Now, if that's true of a fundamentally textual webpage,
what can we say of a link to YouTube?  There isn't even
any text _to_ cut and paste, it can't be skimmed and
reviewed, etc.  It has all the intellectual content of
an infomercial.

So, bottom line: you win.  Whatever was there, it's the
end of the discussion.  You can tell yourself that you're
much cleverer than all of us, that you UTTERLY ROCK at
debate, that you have utterly mad skilz on Usenet.

Maybe you can make a record of yourself saying so into
the camera and put it up on YouTube.

| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
|    The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?"    |
+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
HCN - 24 Feb 2008 15:42 GMT
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dScdr8Dly4g
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> they do all the work.  For extra entertainment you can
> then dispute the abstract.

My sincerest apologies for posting just the one link and not editing the
reply.  I do usually try to edit, but I was in a rush do to other
obligations in the real world.  Plus, I could not believe that the
NOT-DrCeeP was calling rabies a made up disease.  I shall consider your
request to do better next week.

...
HCN - 23 Feb 2008 22:36 GMT
> <drceephd@insightbb.com> wrote in message
....

Hawki, there is a reason why I have the NOT-drceepee in my killfile.
Especially its claim that rabies is a fiction.
Mark Probert - 24 Feb 2008 02:16 GMT
On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

> > Ooooh, goody... when they fail to show with science that homeopathy does
> > anything, just try to flood with anecdotes!
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Homeopathy:  0 , none , nada.

Wrong, Chuckie.

http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

No doubt there are more.
drceephd@insightbb.com - 24 Feb 2008 03:00 GMT
> On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> No doubt there are more.

The Marked Pervert responds in his usual incompetent style.

The homeopathic remedies cited killed no one.  Please try again.

All you pharma shills contend that homeopathic remedies are nothing
more than shaken water.  How can a few mls of shaken water kill?

Please rev up your spin machines and come up with another reason.

DrCee
Not a pharma shill
Mark Probert - 24 Feb 2008 15:55 GMT
On Feb 23, 10:00 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

> > On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> The homeopathic remedies cited killed no one.  Please try again.

a.shole, the reliance on homeopathy, a/k/a quackery, is what killed
them. Homeopathy is USELESS. It does not "work" and using it instead
of real treatment kills.

> All you pharma shills contend that homeopathic remedies are nothing
> more than shaken water.  How can a few mls of shaken water kill?

See above, moron-murderer.

> Please rev up your spin machines and come up with another reason.

The only thing that is spinning is the air in your vacuous head.
Citizen Jimserac - 24 Feb 2008 18:53 GMT
Unfortunately Mark, in other threads I challenged
the often repeated fallacies that Homeopathy
does not work by listing numerous Homeopathic
and standard medicine research journals which
reported tests, even double blind placebo tests
which gave POSITIVE results.

PLEASE, do NOT insult our intelligence
by repeating these fallacies.

I understand that you hate Homeopathy
and see it as some sort of deception
and I sympathize with your position.

In addition, there is most certainly the possibility
of damage from INEPT practice of Homeopathy
just as there is from M.D. errors.  I OBJECT
to your apparent toleration and dismissal
of the huge number of M.D. errors, sometimes
resulting in death, and then your accusations
regarding injury or death from Homeopathy
as validation that it does not work.   This
circular reasoning, adaption of a  double standard
(heads you win, tails we lose) and other
obvious logical fallacies regarding Homeopathy
will NO LONGER be allowed to go by unnoticed
and therefore - the IDENTIFICATION of these
fallacies undermine and/or render you argumentation
invalid.

Sorry!

Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 00:32 GMT
> Unfortunately Mark, in other threads I challenged
> the often repeated fallacies that Homeopathy
> does not work by listing numerous Homeopathic
> and standard medicine research journals which
> reported tests, even double blind placebo tests
> which gave POSITIVE results.

I read them, and the rebuttals. I go by my statement. Being published
in a homeopathic journal means nothing, since the reviewer accepts the
fundamental precepts of homeopathy. Since I reject those, as being
against the fundamental laws of science and nature, I discount all
research showing that homeopathy "works" whatever that is supposed to
mean.

> PLEASE, do NOT insult our intelligence
> by repeating these fallacies.

When an advocate for homeopathy shows some intelligence, trust me, I
will not insult it. However, if an advocate for homeopathy develops
intelligence, they will stop being an advocate for homeopathy.

> I understand that you hate Homeopathy
> and see it as some sort of deception
> and I sympathize with your position.

I do not *hate* it. I call it what it is, i.e., charlatanism.

> In addition, there is most certainly the possibility
> of damage from INEPT practice of Homeopathy
> just as there is from M.D. errors.  I OBJECT
> to your apparent toleration and dismissal
> of the huge number of M.D. errors,

There ya go, playing that bullshit card again, raising red herrings.
Do not put words in my mouth. When a REAL DOCTOR screws up, I expect
them to be treated accordingly. In the course of my business, I have
reported doctors to my clients who done something unethical, illegal
or improper. When I suspect that there is a question of treatment
problems, I also report it.

sometimes
> resulting in death, and then your accusations
> regarding injury or death from Homeopathy
> as validation that it does not work.

Do learn to read for comprehension. I *PROVED* that homeopathy is
dangerous since it lulls people into avoiding possibly more effective
treatment by using utterly useless treatment. Homeopathy is so useless
it is absolutely safe, since it does nothing.

This
> circular reasoning, adaption of a  double standard
> (heads you win, tails we lose) and other
> obvious logical fallacies regarding Homeopathy

Yes, logical fallacies used by YOU and other homeo-apologists who have
no verifiable facts to use to prove that your charlatanism is
effective.

> will NO LONGER be allowed to go by unnoticed
> and therefore - the IDENTIFICATION of these
> fallacies undermine and/or render you argumentation
> invalid.

Sorry, bub, but it is you and the other apologists who use fallacious
arguments, as you have done here.

> Sorry!

Yes, you should be sorry to advocate for such quackery.

> Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac - 25 Feb 2008 13:37 GMT
On Feb 24, 7:32 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com>

> I read them, and the rebuttals. I go by my statement. Being published
> in a homeopathic journal means nothing, since the reviewer accepts the
> fundamental precepts of homeopathy. Since I reject those, as being
> against the fundamental laws of science and nature, I discount all
> research showing that homeopathy "works" whatever that is supposed to
> mean.

Many thanks for admitting this fallacious assumption "up front".

By presupposing that ALL research in ALL Homeopathy
Journals is automatically invalid (including
even research done by NON-Homeopathists)
you have entered yourself into a realm far
darker than any quack or charlatan
and have knocked yourself OUT of any additional
discussion.

Thanks for making it easy to invalidate your position!

Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 16:55 GMT
> On Feb 24, 7:32 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com>
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Many thanks for admitting this fallacious assumption "up front".

I do not see it as a fallacy. I see it as an a priori fundamental
truth.

> By presupposing that ALL research in ALL Homeopathy
> Journals is automatically invalid (including
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Thanks for making it easy to invalidate your position!

Only in your "homeopathic mind".
Citizen Jimserac - 25 Feb 2008 17:52 GMT
in response to Citizen Jimserac's

> > By presupposing that ALL research in ALL Homeopathy
> > Journals is automatically invalid (including
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> > Thanks for making it easy to invalidate your position!

> I do not see it as a fallacy. I see it as an a priori fundamental
> truth.

My Conversation with this respondent has been
terminated.  The comment, "I do not see it
as a fallacy, I see it as an a priori fundamental
truth" removes his comments from the
domain of rational discussion.

The illogical dismissal as invalid of ALL Homeopathic
research reported in the Homeopathy
Journals, even that done by M.D.'s and fully
credentialed Phd's and other qualified researchers
makes it impossible to communicate intelligently.

Any attempt to assert that A is NON-A
violates the law of non-contradiction
and short circuits all subsequent reasoning.

Mark is of course free to comment
all he wants, but I simply have no
time to waste entertaining his contradictory
assertions.

Sorry!

Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 21:29 GMT
> in response to Citizen Jimserac's
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> truth" removes his comments from the
> domain of rational discussion.

So you say. I maintain that my position is based on rationality and
reality.

> The illogical dismissal as invalid of ALL Homeopathic
> research reported in the Homeopathy
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> time to waste entertaining his contradictory
> assertions.

Do not worry, I will still find your homeopathic dancing to be
entertaining.
Mark Probert - 11 Mar 2008 12:24 GMT
> in response to Citizen Jimserac's
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> truth" removes his comments from the
> domain of rational discussion.

Diluted horseshit. Debating homeopathy is like debating sunrise. There
is no point to it. Homeopathy is an utterly bogus concept where the
"proof" has been coming for two centuries. What you have posted is
hogwash, and proves nothing.

> The illogical dismissal as invalid of ALL Homeopathic
> research reported in the Homeopathy

Au contraire, logic-challenged one. The dismissal is purely logical.
It is the same asi if someone tried to argue that the sun rises in the
west and sets in the east. I would dismiss that argument outright,
just like I dismiss claims of validity of homeopathy.

> Journals, even that done by M.D.'s and fully
> credentialed Phd's and other qualified researchers
> makes it impossible to communicate intelligently.

Actually, what you are saying is that I am a big meanie who will not
play your silly game. OK, I am a meanie.

> Any attempt to assert that A is NON-A
> violates the law of non-contradiction
> and short circuits all subsequent reasoning.

However, when A is a NON-A, the assertion is valid. YOU mistake the
fact that homeopathy is a NON-A, and are trying to claim it is an A.
YOUR logic is faulty.

> Mark is of course free to comment
> all he wants, but I simply have no
> time to waste entertaining his contradictory
> assertions.

My assertions are far from contradictory to those who are not logic
challenged. Homeopathy is _per se_ illogical.

> Sorry!

You should be, for promoting quackery

> Citizen Jimserac
t - 11 Mar 2008 14:49 GMT
Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still here,
blathering on to attempt to mislead people about Alternative Health. I
wonder what these agents of disinformation and in some cases death, think
about Karma? You know, the ol reap what you sow thing. Nasty little buggers,
but anyone reading these NGs for a short while will see that they lie as
much as your average politician. A good test for them and politicians is the
same one you use for your children. Would you trust people like Mark and the
rest of that bunch alone with your daughter? I would NOT.
Mark Probert - 12 Mar 2008 02:19 GMT
> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still here,

Try a longer hiatus. Maybe things will change. Anyway, I do not know
of any dipwads in the group.

> blathering on to attempt to mislead people about Alternative Health.

Mislead? Never! Give them another side that they may be overlooking.

I
> wonder what these agents of disinformation

DisInfor agents? Do they wear trench coats?

and in some cases death, think
> about Karma? You know, the ol reap what you sow thing.

Yes, people who spread disinformation, like homeopathy, have to watch
out for that.

Nasty little buggers,
> but anyone reading these NGs for a short while will see that they lie as
> much as your average politician. A good test for them and politicians is the
> same one you use for your children. Would you trust people like Mark and the
> rest of that bunch alone with your daughter? I would NOT.

You would be making a big mistake. Your daughter would be absolutely
safe, and your wishes, as stupid as they are, would be honored.
Richard Shewmaker - 14 Mar 2008 17:19 GMT
>> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still here,
>
> Try a longer hiatus. Maybe things will change. Anyway, I do not know
> of any dipwads in the group.

I've been away for an even longer hiatus! Though I don't even know what
a "dipwad" is, I must agree with CJ to the extent that not only are the
same participants here, they are still conducting the SAME debates!

Well, I'm back at MHA. I have no delusions of persuading anybody to my
points of view; I'm just here to be entertained. Oh, and for the money
too. Does anybody know how I can get the paychecks from Big Pharma started?

--Rich
D. C. Sessions - 14 Mar 2008 17:59 GMT
> Though I don't even know what
> a "dipwad" is, I must agree with CJ to the extent that not only are the
> same participants here, they are still conducting the SAME debates!

Names may change, but the behavior pattern is eternal.

However, I don't think it's correct to call these "debates."
Reciprocal monologues, maybe -- but a debate implies that
someone is listening.

| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
|    The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?"    |
+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Bee - 16 Mar 2008 19:15 GMT
> However, I don't think it's correct to call these "debates."
> Reciprocal monologues, maybe -- but a debate implies that
> someone is listening.

It is the same o same o---it is like eating spaghetti o's for 10
years, at every
meal, --BORING.    Sock puppets come and they go, my favorite was the
one
that reminded me of name of the oriental side dish recipe name or a
generic
drug---what was the name????  Suey Do Mein--or something like that.
Anyone
remember that sock puppet?

It is the same o same o same o---there is what the 100% conventional
medicine fan club mislead
those that read here by calling them "Alties."  When in fact, those
that are miscategorized "alties," practice
both types, and then there are the rare people that all that they
engage in are alternative therapies.  It is the
same o same o same o same o same o same o, same o, same o.

I cannot remember this Rich--are you the same one that reportedly
hiked in the nude?  You must like to be bored to tears---I'm thinking
of taking a vacation from here myself......  people come and then
go....
Peter Bowditch - 14 Mar 2008 22:41 GMT
>>> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still here,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>--Rich

Welcome back. I'll send an email to the payroll officer at Illuminati
HQ and they will contact you to get your banking, tax and social
security details. As always, please burn this message after reading.

Signature

Peter 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

D. C. Sessions - 14 Mar 2008 23:30 GMT
> Welcome back. I'll send an email to the payroll officer at Illuminati
> HQ and they will contact you to get your banking, tax and social
> security details. As always, please burn this message after reading.

That's "burn this message BEFORE reading," Bowditch.
How many times do you have to be told?

| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
|    The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?"    |
+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Jan Drew - 15 Mar 2008 01:34 GMT
Jan Drew - 15 Mar 2008 01:33 GMT
[   ]

>>--Rich
>
> Welcome back >

Surprise...surprise.

*I don't give a damn if Peter lied to you, this newsgroup, his mother, or
the pope.*  Rich Shewmaker
Jan Drew - 15 Mar 2008 01:28 GMT
 [   ]

666 is correct.
David Wright - 15 Mar 2008 04:13 GMT
>>> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still here,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>points of view; I'm just here to be entertained. Oh, and for the money
>too. Does anybody know how I can get the paychecks from Big Pharma started?

Hey, get in line, pal.  Those of us who've slogged through the hard
years have priority.

OK, admittedly, we're not getting our checks either, but if we ever
do, we deserve to get them first.

(And welcome back, Rich.)

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
                                                       -- Bill Maher
Bee - 16 Mar 2008 19:18 GMT
> OK, admittedly, we're not getting our checks either, but if we ever
> do, we deserve to get them first.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>      "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
>                                                         -- Bill Maher

David, I keep meaning to ask,  why does Timmie B call you Chris?    I
didn't realize
until the otehr day that there were two Timmie's in two different
places, and that we needed
to call Bolen either Bolen or Timmie B.
David Wright - 16 Mar 2008 21:39 GMT
>> OK, admittedly, we're not getting our checks either, but if we ever
>> do, we deserve to get them first.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>places, and that we needed
>to call Bolen either Bolen or Timmie B.

I can think of three explanations:

1)  He's totally insane.
2)  He thinks he's discovered that my "real" name is something else
   and is trying to associate me with it.
3)  He's discovered a very old joke from another newsgroup and thinks
   he's onto something.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
                                                       -- Bill Maher
Bee - 18 Mar 2008 06:17 GMT
> I can think of three explanations:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 3)  He's discovered a very old joke from another newsgroup and thinks
>     he's onto something.

1.  Totally insane?  Hmm...just hanging onto the edge---I think he
must be into mountain climbing.
2.  Your real name is David Wright---so how did he make that
discovery?  That would be like asking
my friend Susan H. if her last name begins with an "H?"
3.  Onto something or on something!!  LOL.....
4.  Let's add to the pile; of his paranoia, shall we?   Hey Timmie---
here's one for you there is a D. Wright at the UMDNJ -LOL
Mark Probert - 17 Mar 2008 12:15 GMT
> > OK, admittedly, we're not getting our checks either, but if we ever
> > do, we deserve to get them first.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> places, and that we needed
> to call Bolen either Bolen or Timmie B.

There is only one Timmie. edven Stephen King could not imagine that
there would be two of them.
Richard Schultz - 17 Mar 2008 13:37 GMT
In misc.health.alternative Mark Probert <mark.probert@gmail.com> wrote:

: There is only one Timmie. edven Stephen King could not imagine that
: there would be two of them.

That reminds me of the "Mr. Boffo" cartoon:  Bad News -- Charles Manson.
*Really* Bad News -- his evil twin.

-----
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"
Mark Probert - 18 Mar 2008 02:25 GMT
> In misc.health.alternative Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> That reminds me of the "Mr. Boffo" cartoon:  Bad News -- Charles Manson.
> *Really* Bad News -- his evil twin.

I was driving through California in 1970 during the Manson killings,
and the hunt for Angela Davis.

Real fun.
Bee - 20 Mar 2008 04:42 GMT
> I was driving through California in 1970 during the Manson killings,
> and the hunt for Angela Davis.
>
> Real fun.

Why?????  Did you look like her or something????
Mark Probert - 20 Mar 2008 12:21 GMT
> > I was driving through California in 1970 during the Manson killings,
> > and the hunt for Angela Davis.
>
> > Real fun.
>
> Why?????  Did you look like her or something????

No, dingbat. Every few miles there was a roadblock or police
checkpoint. The back-ups, especially up north, wsere horrendous. I
missed my cousin's wedding because of them.
Bee - 17 Mar 2008 21:11 GMT
> There is only one Timmie. edven Stephen King could not imagine that
> there would be two of them.

No, there are two Timmie's----I saw the information on a website the
other day---when I was
trying to dig something out about Bolen.

Orac---according to this website references a Dr. Timothy Gorski---as
being a Timmie or Timothy  too.
I guess this Gorski dude is like an OB-GYN doctor in Arlington, TX  I
thought they were the same person
myself but no, they ain't.
Happy Dog - 16 Mar 2008 11:18 GMT
> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still
> here, blathering on to attempt to mislead people about Alternative Health.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> people like Mark and the rest of that bunch alone with your daughter? I
> would NOT.

How about a Rolling Stone?

Lot?

Idiot.

M
t - 17 Mar 2008 00:59 GMT
>> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still
>> here, blathering on to attempt to mislead people about Alternative
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> M
Sniffed any new butts lately?
David Wright - 17 Mar 2008 05:11 GMT
>>> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still
>>> here, blathering on to attempt to mislead people about Alternative
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>> M
>Sniffed any new butts lately?

Your time away has not improved the quality of your postings at all.
They still consist of unfunny one-liners.  If that's all have to
contribute (as it appears to be) why don't you save the effort?

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
                                                       -- Bill Maher
t - 17 Mar 2008 23:15 GMT
>>>> Went away for a short while. I notice that the same dipwads are still
>>>> here, blathering on to attempt to mislead people about Alternative
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> They still consist of unfunny one-liners.  If that's all have to
> contribute (as it appears to be) why don't you save the effort?

A few words are all some of you are worth. Well, in truth not that much, but
is is entertaining to see your replies.
Citizen Jimserac - 12 Mar 2008 11:48 GMT
Thank you for your comments comparing
Homeopathy to assertions regarding sunrises!

None of us need read any of your additional
explanatory comments regarding
"deductions" made from this assertion.

Your comments are always welcome
as illustrative of the insufficiency
of the reasoning of the anti-Homeopathists.

Thanks!

Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 12 Mar 2008 12:16 GMT
> Thank you for your comments comparing
> Homeopathy to assertions regarding sunrises!
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> as illustrative of the insufficiency
> of the reasoning of the anti-Homeopathists.

I thought you would not be responding to my posts. Admit it, you
cannot resist.

And, debating the validity of homeopathy is like debating whether the
earth is round.
t - 12 Mar 2008 15:16 GMT
On Mar 12, 6:48 am, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 7:24 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> as illustrative of the insufficiency
> of the reasoning of the anti-Homeopathists.

I thought you would not be responding to my posts. Admit it, you
cannot resist.

And, debating the validity of homeopathy is like debating whether the
earth is round.                                                 True, the
anti's still think the earth is flat. Notice that they never go away for
vacation or any other reason. They are here all the time trying to get other
people to "believe" like they do. And foaming at the mouth about it too.
Ahhhh, flaters, what can be done to help them?
Citizen Jimserac - 12 Mar 2008 16:02 GMT
> On Mar 12, 6:48 am, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> And, debating the validity of homeopathy is like debating whether the
> earth is round.

I could not resist!

Additionally, you have made some
pro acupuncture comments somewhere,
I forgot what post I saw them, and this
bodes well.

Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac - 24 Feb 2008 18:42 GMT
> On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> No doubt there are more.

Dr. Cee has made a rather good reply and
I'm curious to see YOUR response.

If Homeopathic remedies have NO molecules
of the original substance left in them,
how on earth can they harm anyone?

Either the Homeopathic remedies have
potency, or they don't - WHICH WILL IT BE?

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
The One True Zhen Jue - 24 Feb 2008 20:00 GMT
> > On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Either the Homeopathic remedies have
> potency, or they don't - WHICH WILL IT BE?

One of the few, clear areas of consensus on MHA is that the
homeopathic remedies are NOT harmful, in and of themselves.  It is
possible a person may pursue homeopathy over other therapies.  In that
case, they may be delaying or completely avoiding methods which could
treat or cure their condition.  Cancer is a good example of this.
Waiting to see if a homeopathic remedy will lead to a spontaneous
remission could allow a tumor to become inoperable.

> Thanks
> Citizen Jimserac- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Skeptic - 24 Feb 2008 20:43 GMT
True and recent story.

Very pleasant 62 year old man, John Doe, was seen in our clinic 14 or so
months ago for hematuria (blood in his urine).  Standard workup included a
cystoscopy (look into the bladder) which revealed a very concerning
appearing bladder mass.  Resection/biopsy demonstrated muscle invasive
bladder cancer, high grade.  Otherwise completely healthy and a completely
negative metastatic evaluation.  He was counseled that the best current
treatment is cystectomy (removal of the bladder).  He turned this down and
didn't want any other medical therapy including chemo or radiation.  He
wanted to pursue homeopathic type remedies.  Example - for pateints with
intestinal obstruction, he is an advocate of rubbing a tennis ball on your
abdomen rather than a surgical consult.  So I don't know exactly what types
of "treatments" he had, but they included things like ointments, salves,
herbs, meditation, etc.  It wasn't at home, either.  He travelled out of
state to some "known" center for this type of stuff.

Shockingly enough, it didn't work.  When he was urinating pure blood and
developing clot urinary retention, he came back.  This is now over a year.
He begged for surgery.  He wanted "every chance at a cure" and wanted his
bladder out ASAP.  Well, it came out.  He had some positive nodes that
almost suredly would have been negative last year.  He had extensive disease
locally invading the pelvic sidewall and encasing some major vessels.

The good that came out of this is that he now advocates against alternative
therapies at least for life threatening conditions (he thinks they still
have a place for other conditions).  Sadly, however, he was recently moved
to hospice and his days of advocacy will be tragically few.
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 01:21 GMT
> True and recent story.
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> have a place for other conditions).  Sadly, however, he was recently moved
> to hospice and his days of advocacy will be tragically few.

That is the problem. We do not have victim-advocates because you
doctors cannot perform miracles after these desperate people are
misled by the charlatans.

You have got to start performing more miracles.
D. C. Sessions - 24 Feb 2008 20:51 GMT
> One of the few, clear areas of consensus on MHA is that the
> homeopathic remedies are NOT harmful, in and of themselves.  It is
> possible a person may pursue homeopathy over other therapies.  In that
> case, they may be delaying or completely avoiding methods which could
> treat or cure their condition.  Cancer is a good example of this.

Cases on the books of children being treated with homeopathic
"cures" for Type I diabetes (after all, it's harmless isn't
it?) followed by the usual consequences of untreated Type I.

For what it's worth, most homeopathic practitioners have the
good sense to insist on parents getting real treatment for
such cases.

| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
|    The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?"    |
+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Citizen Jimserac - 24 Feb 2008 23:04 GMT
On Feb 24, 3:00 pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> > > On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Exactly.  Well said!

Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 00:34 GMT
> > On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Either the Homeopathic remedies have
> potency, or they don't - WHICH WILL IT BE?

Improperly framed question. If homeopathy "works" name one medical
condition that it *cures*, so long as that medical condition is one
that is not subject to spontaneous cure.
Citizen Jimserac - 25 Feb 2008 13:08 GMT
> On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> condition that it *cures*, so long as that medical condition is one
> that is not subject to spontaneous cure.

Attempt to avoid the question posed and distract
attention with another question  DENIED.

I repeat and AWAIT AN ANSWER:

EITHER THE HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES HAVE
POTENCIES OR THEY DON'T.

WHICH WILL IT BE?

Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 16:54 GMT
> > On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> Attempt to avoid the question posed and distract
> attention with another question  DENIED.

No, I pointed out that I see through your ruse, or illogic.

> I repeat and AWAIT AN ANSWER:

My, my. Control problems. Have some water.

> EITHER THE HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES HAVE
> POTENCIES OR THEY DON'T.
>
> WHICH WILL IT BE?

Hmmm...seems I touched a nerve or two. Well, no one ever claimed that
my posts were homeopathic.

Simple (just for you). As I pointed out, they are worthless, useless,
and do nothing. They have nothing in them except H2O.

However, the question you ask is bullshit, as you are trying to divert
attention from the fact that homeopathy does nothing, and the evil of
homeopathy is that it is "shilled" as being "safe" with "no side
effects". What this sales pitch does is divert people who are in
depserate need of effective treatment to this bullshit.

My turn.

Now, pretty please answer this one:

If homeopathy "works" name one medical condition that it *cures*, so
long as that medical condition is one that is not subject to
spontaneous cure or remission.

<Play Jeopardy Song>
Citizen Jimserac - 25 Feb 2008 17:42 GMT
Respondent, having made fallacious
statements which are indefensible,
continues to resort to various
accusations, ad hominems ... etc..

Conversation with this respondent
is therefore TERMINATED.

Sorry!

Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 25 Feb 2008 21:28 GMT
> Respondent, having made fallacious
> statements which are indefensible,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Conversation with this respondent
> is therefore TERMINATED.

Translation: My statements are not fallacious in any manner. He
accepts the idea that homeopathy is a viable treatment. I do not.

CJ fails to understand that there can be no debate or discussion about
homeopathy if I reject the basic non-science. However, he chooses to
characterize my position as fallacious, when his is devoid of
fundamental science.

As I expected he would.

> Sorry!

Yes, you are sorry.
Peter Bowditch - 25 Feb 2008 19:22 GMT
>> On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
>WHICH WILL IT BE?

The latter.

Next.

>Citizen Jimserac

Signature

Peter 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

Citizen Jimserac - 25 Feb 2008 21:58 GMT
> CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
> Next.

Thank you Bowditch.

Then TO RETURN TO THE MAIN POINT
OF THE DISCUSSION, if the Homeopathic
remedies have NO potency and/or NO
molecules of the original substance
then it follows IRREFUTABLY that they
could NOT POSSIBLY have harmed anyone.

YOU have, quite properly, logically CONFIRMED
Dr. Cees's observation.

I FINALLY got to make a point without
distracting counter questions, innuendos,
ad hominems and other wrigglings out of the
argument.  NOT an easy thing to do around
here.

Happy Skepticising Bowditch!

Citizen Jimserac
Peter Bowditch - 25 Feb 2008 23:21 GMT
>> CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>then it follows IRREFUTABLY that they
>could NOT POSSIBLY have harmed anyone.

If someone has a disease, let's say cancer, and they use homeopathy
instead of a real treatment until it is too late to do anything to
save their life, then they have been killed by homeopathy.

I don't expect you to try to understand this.

>YOU have, quite properly, logically CONFIRMED
>Dr. Cees's observation.

I see that logic is another thing that you know little about.

>I FINALLY got to make a point without
>distracting counter questions, innuendos,
>ad hominems and other wrigglings out of the
>argument.  NOT an easy thing to do around
>here.

Congratulations for not doing them. There had to be a first time.

>Happy Skepticising Bowditch!
>
>Citizen Jimserac

Signature

Peter 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

Citizen Jimserac - 26 Feb 2008 11:44 GMT
> CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
>
> I don't expect you to try to understand this.

CHANGE OF CONTEXT DISALLOWED, Bowditch.

My how SLIPPERY the anti-Homeopathists become
when caught in an OBVIOUS LOGICAL CONTRADICTION.

Dr. Cees correctly observed that some Homeopathy
critics try to claim that the highly dilute Homeopathy remedies have
NO molecules of the supposed curative substance
in them, leaving just water.   If that is the case, then the
Homeopathic remedies COULD NOT POSSIBLY HARM ANYONE.

Or, could it be that, somehow, they DO have some
action - positive or negative.  Then, if you assert this, as some
Homeopathy critics claim, THEN you have admitted the possibility of
some chemical action without the molecules of the original substance
present -> EXACTLY what the Homeopathists claim to be so.

The previous respondent AVOIDED this paradox
and instead asked some distracting counter questions.

YOU have AVOIDED this question by changing the context
to the issue of MISAPPLICATION of Homeopathy, quite a different
matter.

AS IS TYPICAL with the anti-Homeopathists,
they will resort to ad hominems when backed
into a corner, contemptuously disparaging the intelligence
or making other condescending and insulting remarks
such as :
> I don't expect you to try to understand this.

Such obstructionism is NO LONGER TOLERATED
in this newsgroup, which is a newsgroup about
the EXCITING discoveries and life enhancing and life saving modalities
which are emerging in the modern era
DESPITE the hysteria and anti-research attitudes
of those who feel THREATENED by the challenge
to formerly accepted orhtodoxy.

Such is progress, Bowditch, GET USED TO IT.

Having exposed the attempted change of context,
it is obvious that additional time wasted
on responses in this thread to this poster
are equally pointless and would only provide
additional opportunity for more ad hominems,
avoidance of the main point, change of context
and other "heads I win, tails you lose" tricks.

Conversation terminated.

Citizen Jimserac
Peter Bowditch - 26 Feb 2008 20:17 GMT
In response to my providing an example of how homeopathy can cause
harm the following echo returned:

>Such obstructionism is NO LONGER TOLERATED
>in this newsgroup,

Wow! CJ has developed a case of HoleFlapper's Syndrome.

> which is a newsgroup about
>the EXCITING discoveries and life enhancing and life saving modalities
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Such is progress, Bowditch, GET USED TO IT.

So when can we expect to see the progress in homeopathy that takes it
from the realm of magic into the universe of reality?

Please don't cite Ennis. We've been through that and you failed to
understand the problem.

>Having exposed the attempted change of context,
>it is obvious that additional time wasted
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Conversation terminated.

Is that a promise?

Signature

Peter 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

pedro-kun - 10 Mar 2008 01:34 GMT
While I am not here to disprove homeopathy's potential, I do have to
say that all the studies I've ever heard about conclude that it's
potential equals that of a placebo. Be it with molecules or without
them, "water memory" or not, currently we have a simpler and cheaper
"drug" that does the same: the placebo.
It works by relying on the patient's will and belief to get better,
and, of course, on the ever-so-great human brain.

So, with an effectiveness as good as that, what would you chose? The
placebo or the not.-so-cheap glass of water that supposedly memorized
momentum from progressive dilution?

I'm not saying homeopathy doesn't work (apparently, it doesn't); I'm
just saying that, as things are, it's a mere placebo. A pricey one,
too.
Further investigation will answer these questions ;)

> In response to my providing an example of howhomeopathycan cause
> harm the following echo returned:
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
D. C. Sessions - 10 Mar 2008 04:07 GMT
> I'm not saying homeopathy doesn't work (apparently, it doesn't); I'm
> just saying that, as things are, it's a mere placebo. A pricey one,
> too.

Keep in mind that the expense of a placebo is a key ingredient.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/health/research/05placebo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
|    The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?"    |
+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
D. C. Sessions - 26 Feb 2008 00:19 GMT
> Then TO RETURN TO THE MAIN POINT
> OF THE DISCUSSION, if the Homeopathic
> remedies have NO potency and/or NO
> molecules of the original substance
> then it follows IRREFUTABLY that they
> could NOT POSSIBLY have harmed anyone.

A) A lot of stuff is used, and perceived successes credited
  to "homeopathy," despite some ingredients which are
  far from lacking in biological effect.  They may be
  homeopathic <insert stuff from materia medica here> but
  are in a "carrier" which contains other things.
  Attribute the harm they do as you will.
B) You didn't follow the link, did you?  Persuading people
  from getting real help for a treatable condition may not
  be a "harm" done by "homeopathic materials" but it most
  certainly is a harm done by _homeopathy_, which is a
  practice supposedly to benefit people.

| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
|    The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?"    |
+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Citizen Jimserac - 26 Feb 2008 11:53 GMT
> In message <9c3a840b-a1b1-4493-83f0-609848d09...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> |    The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?"    |
> +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+

Sessions, you have at least answered my query
regarding Dr. Cees observation in A) for which
I thank you.    Your point is well stated and worthy
of investigation.

Regarding your point B), as I have already complained
to Bowditch, this was NOT the item under discussion.
Yes OF COURSE, the utilization of the wrong modality
may prove bad, even fatal for the patient.
If I had a broken bone or a gunshot wound, I of course
would seek a surgeon, not an Acupuncturist!

But Dr. Cees comment was not about that, it was about
the apparent contradiction between Homeopathic remedies
being claimed to have no molecules of the curative
substance left in them followed by claims that that same
substance could somehow be harmful too -> an UNACCEPTABLE
AND OBVIOUS contradiction.  YOU, have made some answer on the matter,
the ONLY respondent to do so for which I offer
many thanks!

In their typical anti-reasoning hysteria against Homeopathy,
other respondents were apparently UNABLE or UNWILLING to discuss
the issue rationally.

Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 26 Feb 2008 12:05 GMT
> > In message <9c3a840b-a1b1-4493-83f0-609848d09...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> other respondents were apparently UNABLE or UNWILLING to discuss
> the issue rationally.

IOW, this homeo-apologist has his head so far up his a.s that he
refuses to address the fundamental fallacy of homeopathy.

This is no surprise, as homeo-apologists will take a fact and dilute
it to the point where there is no reality left in their minds.
Mark Probert - 24 Feb 2008 15:57 GMT
On Feb 23, 5:02 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

> I think you aim is to lie to everyone and get the dumb sheeple

That describes your antics to a 't'.
HCN - 23 Feb 2008 22:35 GMT
>      DEFEND YOUR CHOICE IN MEDICINE
>      To counter the vitriolic attacks in the media and the government
> decision to close the homeopathic hospitals, HMC21 (Homeopathy:Medicine
> for the 21st Century), has published a website www.hmcdesparation.org

Things are not going well for that petition:
http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4134&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75

and a declaration
> that states HOMEOPATHY WORKED FOR ME (just follow the links). Our aim is
> to get 250,000 signatures by next June and march them to number 10,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> contribution to the success of this project. One form per family member
> please. Michelle Shine
JOHN - 24 Feb 2008 08:35 GMT
FYI

The total number of iatrogenic deaths 783,936 (USA
yearly)http://whale.to/a/null9.html

Plus 300,000 million animal deaths every year to get the quack med on the
market http://whale.to/y/viv1.html

Plus million or so killed by AZT--HIV hoax http://whale.to/aids.html

Plus millions killed by chemo every year

Plus hidden vaccine deaths which is most SIDS
http://whale.to/vaccines/sids.html

Plus African and other third world vaccine deaths
http://whale.to/v/biowarfare.html

Homeopathy--NIL deaths

PS that anti-homeopathy site is an offshoot of Allopathy Inc
HCN - 24 Feb 2008 15:44 GMT
> FYI

...>
> Homeopathy--NIL deaths

So you consider the death of Gloria Thomas to be a NIL death, even though
her homeopath father took her to India for treatment by another homeopath?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-gloria-the-hunt-for-truth/2007/11/05/11
94117959740.html


Oh, wait, she was only a baby.  I forgot, you hate children and like seeing
them suffer and die.

> PS that anti-homeopathy site is an offshoot of Allopathy Inc
D. C. Sessions - 24 Feb 2008 18:08 GMT
> So you consider the death of Gloria Thomas to be a NIL death, even though
> her homeopath father took her to India for treatment by another homeopath?
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-gloria-the-hunt-for-truth/2007/11/05/11
94117959740.html

There is a natural bias towards placing less (or no) blame
on "doing nothing" than on "doing something that fails."  
It's even built into the legal system.

On top of that, of course, you have the MHA syndrome of
denying that mainstream medicine can ever do anything
positive in the first place, so even if "doing nothing"
has a bad outcome, it's no worse than (in the cited case)
having the child actually treated with (for instance)
antibiotics, analgesia and feeding.

| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
|    The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?"    |
+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
 
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.