 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / March 2008Dr. K's UNANSWERED QUESTION TO SNAKE-OIL SELLER, MARK PROBERT REGARDING MERCURY
I just saw that Dr. K has several times asked disbarred attorney Mark Probert this same important question. "Mr. Probert. I will ask the question again. Do you think that it is wise to inject mercury, a highly neurotoxic substance, into children?" Because I have years of experience as Probert's "mark" I'd like to share this info with Dr. K. 1) When the Supreme Court of NY was in the process of disbarring Probert in the early 90's ... he refused to answer their questions also. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/snake-oil.htm#Mark-Probert 2) Probert's lies for the vaccine pushers have been going on for years. He had the audacity to claim that no one was allergic to mercury. http://humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html Denying his disbarment is just one of the many, many, many lies that Probert spreads throughout the Internet, while advertising the propaganda of Stephen Joel Barrett's, Healthfraud and Quackwatch Groups. Here is Probert lying about mercury on March 14, 2005. Typical Snake oil propaganda. "Remember, you cannot have an allergic reaction to Mercury. " As part of the Disinformation Campaign put out by the vast dental industry denying the dangers of mercury and amalgam, Probert parroted this lie. There is an enormous amount of information available as to the subset of individuals who show a strong allergic reaction to mercury. Here is but a small sampling. http://www.cfsn.com/melisa.html Systemically induced allergic exanthem from mercury. Allergy Unit, Department of Dermatology, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland. Recovery from mercury-induced burning mouth syndrome due to mercury allergy. Department of Dermatological Sciences, University of Milan, Ospedale Maggiore-IRCCS, Milan, Italy. > I just saw that Dr. K has several times asked disbarred attorney Mark > Probert this same important question. And I answered it the first time. Dr. K even responded to that post. He has reading issues. Do try to keep it civil. > > I just saw that Dr. K has several times asked disbarred attorney Mark > > Probert this same important question. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do try to keep it civil. Yes Mark, please try to keep it civil if that is possible for you. Thanks for the "heads up" on my reading issues. I will be sure to work on it. Cheers On Mar 2, 8:47 pm, drkul...@optonline.net wrote: > > > I just saw that Dr. K has several times asked disbarred attorney Mark > > > Probert this same important question. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes Mark, please try to keep it civil if that is possible for you. By now, you should have been able to discern that I do keep it civil, when the other party keeps it civil. Note how I am followed around by a junk yard dog yelping at my heels, and how I am gratuitously attacked by several posters. Sadly, I do not expect you to see that, or acknowledge these facts. You seem to have allied yourself with a stalker, a bigot and Tim Bolen, who defies simple description. > On Mar 2, 8:47 pm, drkul...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You seem to have allied yourself with a stalker, a bigot and Tim > Bolen, who defies simple description. I simply seek the truth wherever it takes me.No alliances unlike you and your gang. That is your projection. I have changed my mind on many of my former beliefs by objectively looking at the facts. Do I have all the answers? Of course not. I have freely admitted that. Truth is is a constant search that only can move forward with an open mind. On Mar 7, 8:20 am, drkul...@optonline.net wrote: > > On Mar 2, 8:47 pm, drkul...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I simply seek the truth wherever it takes me. Fair enough.We'll follow the truth train down the tracks. No alliances unlike you > and your gang. Well, you just fell off the truth train. There is no alliance, except in the mind of thos people who need to believe that there is because they want to dismiss what refutes their firmly held beliefs and do not want to address facgts that they either cannot understand or refute. > That is your projection. Wrong. Consider me a black body. > I have changed my mind on many of my former beliefs by objectively > looking at the facts. Great. Back on track for the truth train. > Do I have all the answers? Of course not. No one does. I have freely admitted that. > Truth is is a constant search that only can move forward with an open > mind.- Quite true. > On Mar 7, 8:20 am, drkul...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The problem with searching for the truth is that there are, in my opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the truth, do not report objectively, and attack and defame individuals that do not agree with their objectives.They have a huge PR machine that could be used for the greater good but, in my opinion, is instead used to support special interests that is not necessarily in the public interest. That is not to say that there are not people and therapies that may belong on their list. But the motives, methods, and selective reporting is, in my opinion, quite destructive. > The problem with searching for the truth is that there are, in my > opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > belong on their list. But the motives, methods, and selective > reporting is, in my opinion, quite destructive. Sounds like Stage II progressing to Stage III. Anyone care to comment? | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > In message <57076427-50da-468c-a5fc-bcc488011...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, drkul...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ We are already Go for TLI. We have discarded stage ll On Mar 7, 5:31 pm, drkul...@optonline.net wrote: > We have discarded stage ll We? Is there a tiger in your tank---or does looking in a mirror constitute, "WE." Duh Anyone care to comment? His post is... spot on! Do you need me to clarify that for you? > In message <57076427-50da-468c-a5fc-bcc488011...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, drkul...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ >> The problem with searching for the truth is that there are, in my >> opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Sounds like Stage II progressing to Stage III. >Anyone care to comment? We've had "Who pays you?" and we have had a conspiracy. Now we have the PR machine. Definitely Stage III.  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 > We've had "Who pays you?" and we have had a conspiracy. Now we have > the PR machine. > > Definitely Stage III. The PR Machine? Does the PR --stand for the Peter Report? On Mar 7, 7:43 pm, drkul...@optonline.net wrote: > > On Mar 7, 8:20 am, drkul...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the > truth, I have read many articles on Quackwatch. There are some with which I disagree. However, there are many that are factually accurate. For real truth distortion, view Bolen's bilge. I have yet to find a reality based article on his site. do not report objectively, and attack and defame individuals > that do not agree with their objectives. Disagree. They report the activities of people whom they feel are dangerous, or wasteful of people's money, time and hope..If those people's actions are defamatory, then it is their problem. > They have a huge PR machine Not acording to Bolen. He claims that it is operated from a basement. :) > that could be used for the greater good but, in my opinion, is instead > used to support special interests that is not necessarily in the > public interest. See above. Exposing quackery is in the public interest. > That is not to say that there are not people and therapies that may > belong on their list. But the motives, methods, and selective > reporting is, in my opinion, quite destructive Your brush is very broad. On Mar 7, 7:43 pm, drkul...@optonline.net wrote: > On Mar 7, 7:31 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the > truth, I have read many articles on Quackwatch. There are some with which I disagree. However, there are many that are factually accurate. For real truth distortion, view Bolen's bilge. I have yet to find a reality based article on his site. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That was civil and not defaming?? do not report objectively, and attack and defame individuals > that do not agree with their objectives. Disagree. They report the activities of people whom they feel are dangerous, or wasteful of people's money, time and hope..If those people's actions are defamatory, then it is their problem. > They have a huge PR machine Not acording to Bolen. He claims that it is operated from a basement. :) > that could be used for the greater good but, in my opinion, is instead > used to support special interests that is not necessarily in the > public interest. See above. Exposing quackery is in the public interest. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Agreed http://www.wholisticresearch.com/info/artshow.php3?artid=20 > That is not to say that there are not people and therapies that may > belong on their list. But the motives, methods, and selective > reporting is, in my opinion, quite destructive Your brush is very broad. >The problem with searching for the truth is that there are, in my >opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the >truth, do not report objectively, and attack and defame individuals >that do not agree with their objectives. Gee, and the alternative health crowd would NEVER do anything like that, now would they? I mean, we wouldn't see the anti-vaccine militia using the Poling case to claim that vaccines cause autism. >They have a huge PR machine that could be used for the greater good >but, in my opinion, is instead used to support special interests that >is not necessarily in the public interest. Wow, a "huge PR machine?" Where do you come up with this stuff? If there was such a huge PR machine involved, we would't be seeing all these nitwit "vaccines cause autism" stories over the last few days. >That is not to say that there are not people and therapies that may >belong on their list. But the motives, methods, and selective >reporting is, in my opinion, quite destructive. "May" belong on their list? Like there's any doubt that there are plenty such? -- 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 > In article <57076427-50da-468c-a5fc-bcc488011...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" > -- Bill Maher Your post is an example of the problem on both sides of the aisle. You appear to be an extremist. As I have mentioned, there is good and bad from both the mainstream and the "alternative" perspective. Unfortunately you only see one side of the equation. >> In article <57076427-50da-468c-a5fc-bcc488011...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >and the "alternative" perspective. >Unfortunately you only see one side of the equation. Must be nice to be you, sitting there with your delusions of omniscience. As a matter of fact, I've tried a number of alternative modalities and use some of them regularly. So how does that grab you? -- 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 > In article <4bcf6b16-d4ea-423e-aac7-8e55e92b7...@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It doesn't grab me at all actually. You can do whatever you want. Where do you get "delusions of omniscience?" Do you think that is a constructive statement or do you just like being nasty? >> In article ><4bcf6b16-d4ea-423e-aac7-8e55e92b7...@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >You can do whatever you want. >Where do you get "delusions of omniscience?" From your "Unfortunately, you only see one side of the equation." How the hell do you know what I see? You've been on this newsgroup for what, a few days now, and you know all about me? >Do you think that is a constructive statement or do you >just like being nasty? Oh, I can enjoy being nasty, but it depends on the target. I don't know if I'd consider it a "constructive" statement, but then yours wasn't either. I have to agree with DCS, though: you seem to be decidedly the sort who is terribly sensitive to any slights he feels have been given him, and quite blind to any he's giving to others. -- 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 > In article <6ebf79f9-f59e-4695-9189-d6a72d756...@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You are entitled to your opinion. I have atempted to be civil in all my posts. As you know the internet cannot convey tone or body language.Sometimes people mistake an opposing opinion with an insult. I prefer civil academic discussions but I have been called everything from an a.shole to molesting my patients. I apologize if I have offended anyone. It is certainly not my intention. It is not easy to agree to disagee here. > > In article <6ebf79f9-f59e-4695-9189-d6a72d756...@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think if you go back and look who was throwing the first "punches" you may see things differently. You are mistaking overly sensitive, which I am definately not, with the desire to engage in a civil discussion. On Mar 2, 8:47 pm, drkul...@optonline.net wrote: > On Mar 2, 8:40 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes Mark, please try to keep it civil if that is possible for you. By now, you should have been able to discern that I do keep it civil, when the other party keeps it civil. Note how I am followed around by a junk yard dog yelping at my heels, and how I am gratuitously attacked by several posters. Aww, poor baby. You civil? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sadly, I do not expect you to see that, or acknowledge these facts. You seem to have allied yourself with a stalker, a bigot and Tim Bolen, who defies simple description. LOL Now........that is civil. Poor Mark S Probert. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/A1974true/73819e3a.gif |
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.