 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2008We Want More Pro Vaccine Posts!!!
Please, Probee et all, give us more posts about how all the bad all Mercury derivatives are gone from the vaccines and how they are really good for us and it is OK to still give the thiMESSerol vaccines to babies even though pregnant women are advised to not eat Mercury laden fish... Please tell us more..... SO WE CAN LAUGH. Citizen Jimserac Homeopathy? The little pills do nothing... BUT THE SIDE EFFECT IS THE CURE! > Please, Probee et all, give us more posts > about how all the bad all Mercury derivatives [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Homeopathy? The little pills do nothing... > BUT THE SIDE EFFECT IS THE CURE! Oh oh, NOTHING so far. Just as the Tobacco industry pulled the wool over NEARLY EVERYONE'S eyes for 50 years, about how cigarette smoking was OK and was NOT a cause of cancer - despite the objections of a small minority that this was not true, we NOW SEE the vaccination industry pulling a similar STUNT. Oh NO, the Mercury and/or mercury derivative chemicals are NOT harmful and are not causing autsim - IT'S ALL OK, say the vaccine companies, and yet again, this time by a small BUT RAPIDLY GROWING MINORITY, questions are being raised and we are getting rationalizations, misdirections, insults and links to flawed studies in response. Read THIS as an example of how one concerned citizen is raising SERIOUS QUESTIONS to the "it's all OK" bullshit appearing in a recent Time magainze article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deirdre-imus/a-timely-truth-untold-aga_b_104711.html Citizen Jimserac Mark wants PROOF of the law of similars? NO Problem! Mark, go ingest some cinchona and carefully note your symptoms. NEXT, go somehwere and GET MALARIA, Note those symptoms and then note what happens when you take a Homeopathically prepared cinchona remedy. Congratulations on your cure!!! Unfortunately, there is NO homeopathic cure for Mark's constitutional stupidity. > > Please, Probee et all, give us more posts > > about how all the bad all Mercury derivatives [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Unfortunately, there is NO homeopathic cure > for Mark's constitutional stupidity. You continue to prove you are a moron. Please keep it up. > On Jun 25, 12:35 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > You continue to prove you are a moron. Please keep it up. Recovered from the MALARIA yet? CJ! > > On Jun 25, 12:35 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Recovered from the MALARIA yet? Yes, I have, thanks for asking. Sadly, you have a case of incurable stoooopid. >moron Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of about 2,750 for Mark Probert moron > Just as the Tobacco industry pulled the wool > over NEARLY EVERYONE'S eyes for 50 years, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > vaccination industry pulling a similar > STUNT. CJ, you're the one who tells us that the popularity of homeopathy proves that it's good for you. Smoking has been much more popular than homeopathy from day one. The conclusion is obvious: according to you, smoking is better for you than homeopathy. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > In message <61aa3883-86c8-4bcb-833a-5c8aa6491...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | > +-------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ Don't tell me, tell the several tens of millions of people in India. Tell them why you think they are a bunch of gullible fools, fooled by placebo effect and only imagining that they have been cured of anything. I'm sure they will find your opinions absurd. Then you can tell millions more in Germany, Italy, France, Russia, the U.S. and many other countries, ALL being fooled by those incredibly clever and devious Homepaths. You and Mark can join up and start giving seminars about how people are being fooled by the incredibly devious Homeopathy - they'll schedule your seminars right between a lecture on alien abductions and one on how Martians built the pyramids. Citizen Jimserac >> In message <61aa3883-86c8-4bcb-833a-5c8aa6491...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >been cured of anything. I'm sure they will >find your opinions absurd. What would you say to the tens of millions of Indians who rely on Ayurvedic medicine? It is in total opposition to homeopathy. What would you say to the tens of millions of Indians who smoke? >Then you can tell millions more in Germany, Italy, >France, Russia, the U.S. and many other countries, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Citizen Jimserac  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 > CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In message <61aa3883-86c8-4bcb-833a-5c8aa6491...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > >CitizenJimserac I see you had need for a distraction on some Ayurvedic medicine. Most unfortunately YOU, as well as D.C., have failed to address my question. I will repeat it, so all can see YOU BOTH lack any answer to it. If ALL THOSE INDIANS are using Homeopathy and there are Homeopathy hospitals and Homeopathic medical colleges and Homeopathic doctors busily curing and helping sick people, and IF as you seem to claim, Homeopathy is nonsense, then we should have seen massive complaints from Indians long ago that Homeopathy should be banned as ineffective. INSTEAD, what is happening is that Homeopathy use seems to be GROWING and gaining MORE popularity in India and in other countries. How can this be Peter, D.C., How can this possibly be happening if you are correct. Neither YOU NOR D.C. has so far provided me with a single of a disaffected Indian stating that Homeopathy does not work and should be banned. NOT A SINGLE LINK FROM EITHER OF YOU!!!!!!!!!! There must be some, now get to work and find some or else ACCEPT that the growing popularity of the system of medicine known as Homeopathy is some indication that IT WORKS! Get to work! Citizen Jimserac > > CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> In message <61aa3883-86c8-4bcb-833a-5c8aa6491...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > Get to work! Didn't even have to break a sweat.... http://tinyurl.com/5225sz Jimmy, please keep posting your fact-free, logic impaired arguments. You make it so easy to prove you are a fool. Diversion deleted. > If ALL THOSE INDIANS are using Homeopathy and there > are Homeopathy hospitals and Homeopathic medical colleges > and Homeopathic doctors busily curing and helping sick people, > and IF as you seem to claim, Homeopathy is nonsense, > then we should have seen massive complaints from Indians > long ago that Homeopathy should be banned as ineffective. How many people complained that smoking was ineffective? For that matter, how many people complained that the patent medicines of the 19th century were ineffective? How many people complained that this "alternative health" device was ineffective: http://www.orau.org/PTP/collection/quackcures/radend.htm The same materials that the above device applied externally were extremely popular as ingredients in patent medicines. How many people complained that /they/ were ineffective? | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > What would you say to the tens of millions of Indians who smoke? Pretty crappy analogy - people DON'T SMOKE TO IMPROVE THEIR HEALTH. You can do better than that Peter. Citizen Jimserac > Pretty crappy analogy - people DON'T > SMOKE TO IMPROVE THEIR HEALTH. Actually, they do. The tobacco industry advertised smoking as a health benefit for years, and it *does* stop both nagging coughs and help with weight control. (That last being well-established with known mechanisms.) | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > In message <8ab49933-13b0-4623-b3b9-102c52a1e...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > stop both nagging coughs and help with weight control. > (That last being well-established with known mechanisms.) Wow, I'm astonished. I guess they had as much gall as the vaccine companies do now. Citizen Jimserac >> What would you say to the tens of millions of Indians who smoke? > >Pretty crappy analogy - people DON'T >SMOKE TO IMPROVE THEIR HEALTH. > >You can do better than that Peter. I notice that you ignored my question about the millions of Indians who swear by ayurvedic "medicine". Are they all idiots? According to you, popularity equates to efficacy. >Citizen Jimserac 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 notice that you ignored my question about the millions of Indians > who swear by ayurvedic "medicine". Are they all idiots? According to > you, popularity equates to efficacy. I get the distinct feeling that CJ doesn't accept orthodox rhetoric, so the fact that two "schools" of ritual healing contradict each other is no bar to believing both. BTW, Peter -- congrats on hosting the 90th. I'm looking forward to it. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > In message <0dsf641dqo3o1apde86qdg2r18l11vt...@4ax.com>, Peter Bowditch wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > rhetoric, so the fact that two "schools" of ritual healing > contradict each other is no bar to believing both. Nope, I already mentioned I don't know anything about Ayurvedic - I don't care what it contradicts and it is irrelevant to my question which was that with all the HOMEOPATHIC hospitals, if their system of medicine was nonsense, why no complaints? why no shutting down of the hospitals?? Surely they must keep records of their patients, cures, rates of recidivism, death rates?? I did not know there were Ayurvedic hospitals too but if there aren't then you two are using a pretty sucky analogy again. Citizen Jimserac >> In message <0dsf641dqo3o1apde86qdg2r18l11vt...@4ax.com>, Peter Bowditch wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nope, I already mentioned I don't know anything > about Ayurvedic - I don't care what it contradicts Thank you for confirming my point. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > who swear by ayurvedic "medicine". Are they all idiots? According to > you, popularity equates to efficacy. Ah but you again dodged the question, my comment was WHERE ARE THE COMPLAINTS of the alternative medicine users. I agree that is most certainly NOT a "proof" of efficacy but even standard medicine uses clincial results, particularly in surgical techniques, to assess benefits, make improvements, or rule out failed techniques. In fact, this business of "evidence" based method has been carried to a reductio ad absurdum - as you know MANY of the prescribed standard drugs work WITHOUT the exact method being known (nor the exact side effects - that happens later when people are hurt and drugs withdrawn). Citizen Jimserac >> CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > comment was WHERE ARE THE COMPLAINTS > of the alternative medicine users. Right next to the complaints about other ritual healers. How many malpractice claims do you see filed against televangelists? | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ >> In message <61aa3883-86c8-4bcb-833a-5c8aa6491...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > been cured of anything. I'm sure they will > find your opinions absurd. But they're outnumbered -- vastly -- by the smokers, so according to you they should give up homeopathy and take up tobacco. > Then you can tell millions more in Germany, Italy, > France, Russia, the U.S. and many other countries, > ALL being fooled by those incredibly > clever and devious Homepaths. Well, according to you they're wrong -- the smokers outnumber them. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > In message <75f110da-c623-40b2-a1e6-16f10f692...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | > +-------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ Ah but smoking is NOT medicine my dear D.C., the misdirection is clever but WHOLLY inappropriate to the context of the discussion. YOU have intenntionally misstated or misinterpreted my comments as though I had said that something every one does or that a great number of people do is OK - an OBVIOUS falsehood. That I NOT AT ALL what I said. What I said was that with ALL THOSE PEOPLE USING HOMEOPATHY in India, WHY HAS THERE NOT BEEN MASSIVE COMPLAINTS of failure if, as you claim, Homeopathy does not work. THAT WAS MY POINT. Would you care to ADDRESS that issue OR would you prefer more misdirection on the improper analogy? Citizen Jimserac >> In message <75f110da-c623-40b2-a1e6-16f10f692...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: >> >> In message <61aa3883-86c8-4bcb-833a-5c8aa6491...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: >> >> > Just as the Tobacco industry pulled the wool >> >> > over NEARLY EVERYONE'S eyes for 50 years, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I had said that something every one does or that a great > number of people do is OK - an OBVIOUS falsehood. All sorts of health benefits have been claimed for smoking over the years. Just like homeopathy. I can understand how you would not want to discuss a more successful "alternative health" practice, but you're the one who claims that popularity proves validity. Smoking is vastly more popular than homeopathy, so either you're wrong about the popularity or you're wrong about smoking. Which is it? > That I NOT AT ALL what I said. What I said > was that with ALL THOSE PEOPLE USING > HOMEOPATHY in India, WHY HAS THERE NOT > BEEN MASSIVE COMPLAINTS of failure > if, as you claim, Homeopathy does not work. How many complaints have there been about failures of smoking or of ayurveda? (If you want to pull the /argumentum ad ignoratum/ there's lots of other subjects with plenty of ignorance.) > Would you care to ADDRESS that issue OR > would you prefer more misdirection on the > improper analogy? I did address it. Just because you don't like how logic works doesn't compel me to abandon it. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > In message <045d12e0-d14c-4105-a6e5-b8a0da3a9...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | > +-------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ I see - you wish to continue the misdirection and are UNABLE to find any Indians who complain against Homeopathy! In a country that size, there must be MANY but yet you, Proby, Petey, NONE of you will post a link. Astonishing. Citizen Jimserac > > In message <045d12e0-d14c-4105-a6e5-b8a0da3a9...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > Astonishing. Once again, you put the cart before the horse. Your claim, i,e, that the popularity of homeoquackery in India is proof of its efficacy, is nothing more than a logical fallacy. As usualy, if you do not use illogic, you use no logic at all. On Jun 27, 12:57 pm, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 27, 8:51 am, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > Astonishing. Once again, you put the cart before the horse. Your claim, i,e, that the popularity of homeoquackery in India is proof of its efficacy, is nothing more than a logical fallacy. As usualy, if you do not use illogic, you use no logic at all. Besides that, it's not really that popular except for a couple compounds that one might call homeopathic. > On Jun 27, 12:57 pm, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > Besides that, it's not really that popular except for a couple compounds > that one might call homeopathic. Don't confuse Jimmywith facts, Gramps. :) > On Jun 27, 12:57 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > the popularity of homeoquackery in India is proof of its efficacy, is > nothing more than a logical fallacy. Oh I quite agree and for the last time will repeat that I NEVER said that the popularity of something was a "proof" of its efficacy. This is an example of how a clever misdirection by one of the gang of four can completely derail a thread and such misdirection is a well known trick of usenet trolls. For that last time, Homeopathy is popualr in India, so where is the outcry from them that it does not work? Where? See... I didn't say proof of efficacy, all I want to know is where are all the Indians, who should be complaining that Homeopathy does not work. So far, not one link on it. Citizen Jimserac Ridicule is the tool of the uneducated to shout down a concept or theory that they find frightening because in their limited mentality, it is "unexplainable" and, to them, therefore impossible >> On Jun 27, 12:57 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > who should be complaining that Homeopathy > does not work. So far, not one link on it. Primary Homeopathy of India: swim in a pee soaked river (homeopathic ratios). Millions wll swear to cures. One group of Doctors that I deal with are ALL from India, (born, raised, educated, initial practice). There is a mixture of religions but NONE agree with you. One thing they agree on is that alternative medicines are "often" better than patented. None of their alternatives come from India. > Citizen Jimserac > Ridicule is the tool of the uneducated > to shout down a concept or theory that they > find frightening because in their limited > mentality, it is "unexplainable" and, to them, > therefore impossible >For that last time, Homeopathy is popualr >in India, so where is the outcry from them >that it does not work? Where? Ayurvedic medicine is far more popular in India than homeopathy. Where is the outcry that it doesn't work? 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 Ayurvedic medicine is not the subject. > CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >For that last time, Homeopathy is popualr [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com Still afraid to talk about Homeopathy, eh? Well, I sympathize with your plight and have MORE bad news for YOU. It seems that : "The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, responsible for setting standards for training GPs, last week called for help in developing an integrative medicine faculty." ""Areas of interest will include mind-body medicine such as hypnosis and meditation, evidence-based nutritional and environmental medicine and evidence-based herbal medicine," the college said." The college says integrative medicine includes: Traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurveda. Meditation, prayer and mental healing. "Natural but as-yet scientifically unproven therapies". quoted from an article by Nick Miller "GP Training to Include the Fringe Alternatives" link at: http://www.watoday.com.au/national/gp-training-to-include-the-fringe-alternative s-20080705-322f.html It seems Peter will need to focus more attention on the home front in the endless battles of denialism Citizen Jimserac >> CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >For that last time, Homeopathy is popualr [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> -- >Still afraid to talk about Homeopathy, eh? >Well, I sympathize with your plight and have MORE bad news for YOU. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >for setting standards for training GPs, last week called for help in >developing an integrative medicine faculty." f.cking insane! >""Areas of interest will include mind-body medicine such as hypnosis >and meditation, evidence-based nutritional and environmental medicine [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Citizen Jimserac 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 [noting about the subject just vulgarity which is the weakness of the mind.] Which he ofter wrote KACHING > f.cking insane! > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >>Citizen Jimserac On Jul 4, 8:05 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: > CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >For that last time, Homeopathy is popualr [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com Still afraid to talk about Homeopathy, eh? Well, I sympathize with your plight and have MORE bad news for YOU. It seems that : "The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, responsible for setting standards for training GPs, last week called for help in developing an integrative medicine faculty." ""Areas of interest will include mind-body medicine such as hypnosis and meditation, evidence-based nutritional and environmental medicine and evidence-based herbal medicine," the college said." The college says integrative medicine includes: Traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurveda. Meditation, prayer and mental healing. "Natural but as-yet scientifically unproven therapies". quoted from an article by Nick Miller "GP Training to Include the Fringe Alternatives" link at: http://www.watoday.com.au/national/gp-training-to-include-the-fringe-alternative s-20080705-322f.html It seems Peter will need to focus more attention on the home front in the endless battles of denialism Citizen Jimserac Oh, my. Peter is an atheist and therefore does not believe in prayer. Thanks and keep up the good work of exposing those in denail. > On Jul 4, 8:05 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Still afraid to talk about Homeopathy, eh? Still afraid to prove that water has memory and that like cures like? Cue more Tom Cruise-esque like couch jumping on Jimmy's part. > > "CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Cue more Tom Cruise-esque like couch jumping on Jimmy's part. Proby, NO PROOF will convince a mind inadequate to consider it. Upgrade your INTELLIGENCE first and then they're may be some hope. Citizen Jimserac > > > "CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Proby, NO PROOF will convince a mind inadequate > to consider it. I know. I tried that with you, and I totally failed. Yes, your mind is too inadequate to consider anything that does not fit your round holes. Upgrade your INTELLIGENCE first > and then they're may be some hope. My intelligence is just fine. The problem is, you are too stoooopid to know that. > > > > "CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > My intelligence is just fine. The problem is, you are too stoooopid to > know that. You misspelled stooopid, there's only 3 o's in it. Citizen Jimserac > > > > > "CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > You misspelled stooopid, there's only 3 o's in it. Correct. The rest are Z E R O's which is your intelligence quotient. > On Jul 8, 11:28 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Correct. The rest are Z E R O's which is your intelligence quotient. Time wasting banter and insults ignored. Sorry Proby, I'll have to put your posts on long term ban. On occasion, IF you post something interesting, I MIGHT give it the dignity of a response but you've demonstrated by your MANY SHORT POSTINGS and insults that they are deserving of no attention at all. Postings from this respondent now on semi-permanent BAN. Citizen Jimserac > > On Jul 8, 11:28 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > Postings from this respondent now on semi-permanent > BAN. I see. I post a reference that uses facts to prove that you and your murderous anti-vaccination ilk have killed one kid, and you run for the rat hole with your tail between your legs. Why am I not surprised? > For that last time, Homeopathy is popualr > in India, so where is the outcry from them > that it does not work? Where? Vaccination is much more popular all over the world, so where is the outcry worldwide that it does not (as you claim) work? | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > In message <95ffb402-b66b-4b3b-94fb-3697719be...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > where is the outcry worldwide that it does not (as you > claim) work? The OUTCRY is EVERYWHERE. Try using google and read some of the THOUSANDS of posts against vaccination. Would you like to continue to pretend there is no outcry so I can post a FEW PAGES of links for you? Citizen Jimserac >> In message <95ffb402-b66b-4b3b-94fb-3697719be...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: >> > For that last time, Homeopathy is popualr >> > in India, so where is the outcry from them [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Try using google and read some of the THOUSANDS > of posts against vaccination. Lots of John Best accusations that they cause hangnails and bad breath, but how many by people who ended up getting smallpox? (Yeah, I know: Scudamore will tell stories from the 18th century. Give me some from the USA and the recent measles outbreaks, for instance.) | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ : Try using google and read some of the THOUSANDS of posts : against vaccination. Given that vaccination is the only case where the principle of like-cures-like actually works, why do you find vaccination to be so objectionable? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > In article <c8eade43-82a7-4e31-99d0-a6bc388b1...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ----- Doc Schultz returns!! AND makes a favorable statement about "like cures like"!! Awesome! Why do I find vaccination so objectionable?? Because it is an example of utilizing ONE method, one technique, ONE THERAPY... if you will, for EVERYONE. One size FITS ALL. That is a therapeutic principle of the old school, of old medicine and the old ways. But one size does NOT fit ALL and an unlucky few DIE from the vaccination. AND there are OTHER, DELETERIOUS consequences for an unlucky... is it few or many ? That is why. Citizen Jimserac :> In article <c8eade43-82a7-4e31-99d0-a6bc388b1...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: :> Given that vaccination is the only case where the principle of :> like-cures-like actually works, why do you find vaccination to be :> so objectionable? : AND makes a favorable statement about "like cures like"!! Did someone declare today to be backwards day while I wasn't looking? When I said that vaccination is the only case in which like-cures-like actually works, I meant that in *every* *other* *case*, it does *not* work. That is hardly a favorable statement in my book. (And that's ignoring the part about how a vaccine isn't diluted to anything like a homeopathic dose.) : Because it is an example of utilizing ONE : method, one technique, ONE THERAPY... if you will, : for EVERYONE. One size FITS ALL. That is a therapeutic principle : of the old school, of old medicine and the old ways. So today *is* backwards day! The idea that a single measurable cause leads to a particular disease is a quite modern therapeutic principle. (Hint: when were Koch's Postulates developed?) : But one size does NOT fit ALL and an unlucky few DIE from the vaccination. How many deaths per year were there in the U.S. from polio before the vaccine was introduced on a wide scale? How many are there nowadays? To what do you attribute the difference? How many people contracted smallpox worldwide per year before vaccination was introduced on a wide scale? How many contract it nowadays? To what do you attribute the difference? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > How many deaths per year were there in the U.S. from polio before the > vaccine was introduced on a wide scale? How many are there nowadays? To > what do you attribute the difference? No good Doc -> you are considering human lives as statistics and I regard even ONE BABY'S LIFE as MORE IMPORTANT than all the statistics you can come up with. I am no longer convinced that the drop in polio was due in whole or in part from the vaccinations. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Could it be improvments in public sanitation that had a factor. Other causes. Only the simple minded will accept the "statistics" of your dominant explanation. There are MANY FACTORS to consider in public health, my dear Doc Schultz.... MANY FACTORS. > How many people contracted smallpox worldwide per year before vaccination was > introduced on a wide scale? How many contract it nowadays? To what do you > attribute the difference? Same answer. The SIMPLISTIC assumption that the vaccines accomplished it all, OR that they played ANY ROLE AT ALL, is now under challenge. Producing statistics is irrlevant to human life. Why do far fewer people die of certain diseases now than historically? Well, for one thing, nutrition is A WHOLE LOT BETTER NOW THAN THEN. THAT is a factor. We all may have stronger immune systems in part because we are getting the vitamins and minerals that our ancestors LACKED. Likewise, the attempt to analyze such issues by means of test tube statistics leave you COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR DEPTH, Doc Schultz. You assert that a single cause, the vaccinations, erradicated these diseases. I object. I object to such simplistic reasoning, ESPECIALLY from a scientist such as yourself. I object to the easy acceptance of conveniently provided research from an industry with an ENORMOUS FINANICAL gain to be made from the mass acceptance of its product. I object to the attempt to FORCE that product on masses of people based on the specious reasoning at the core of your argument. Last but not least, there are scientists who have challenged the germ theory of disease. I am currently analyzing and reviewing some of their ideas and will have more to say on this later. The attempt to view medical issues solely in terms of accepted theories and to account for all medical phenomena by blind adherence to such theories is very very dangerous. As a scientist, I expect YOU, of all people to be open minded and to be ready for the possibility of alternative ideas and explanations. I have already illustrated how such thinking very nearly BLOCKED the discovery of the h. pylorii and how such thinking can paralyze not just research, but also ossify and undermine the necessary creative thinking, a necessity for breakthroughs to occur in the first place. Citizen Jimserac :> How many deaths per year were there in the U.S. from polio before the :> vaccine was introduced on a wide scale? How many are there nowadays? To :> what do you attribute the difference? : No good Doc -> you are considering human lives as statistics : and I regard even ONE BABY'S LIFE as MORE IMPORTANT : than all the statistics you can come up with. So you are willing to let millions of babies die of preventable diseases because their lives are so important to you? : I am no longer convinced that the drop in polio : was due in whole or in part from the vaccinations. : Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Could it be : improvments in public sanitation that had a factor. What specific improvements in public sanitation in the U.S. were instituted between 1950 and 1970? How specifically could these improvements affect the rate of polio infection? How is your claim that homeopathy "cures" diseases not an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, given that you have no coherent explanation for how homeopathy might "cure" a disease? : Other causes. Only the simple minded will accept : the "statistics" of your dominant explanation. : There are MANY FACTORS to consider in public health, : my dear Doc Schultz.... MANY FACTORS. I asked you to name them -- and, as usual, you failed miserably. : Why do far fewer people die of certain diseases : now than historically? Well, for one thing, nutrition : is A WHOLE LOT BETTER NOW THAN THEN. THAT is a factor. What evidence do you have that nutrition in the U.S. improved between 1950 and 1970, or that the people who were stricken with polio were among those suffering from malnutrition? : We all may have stronger immune systems in part because : we are getting the vitamins and minerals that our ancestors LACKED. Which vitamins and minerals did FDR LACK? : Likewise, the attempt to analyze such issues by means : of test tube statistics leave you COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR : DEPTH, Doc Schultz. You assert that a single cause, : the vaccinations, erradicated these diseases. I asserted nothing: I asked you for an explanation for the change in the number of people who die each year from polio and smallpox. Your explanation has to do a better job than the one that smallpox was eradicated *even in areas of poor sanitation and the inhabitants of which do not receive adequate nutrition* and that polio was eradicated *only in those areas in which mass vaccination was practiced, independent of the level of sanitation and nutrition* as a result of mass vaccination. So far, as usual, you have failed to do so. : Last but not least, there are scientists who have : challenged the germ theory of disease. There are scientists who have challenged quantum mechanics and relativity as well. At what point will you realize that science is not done via arguments from authority? (That was a rhetorical question.) : The attempt to view medical issues solely in terms of accepted theories : and to account for all medical phenomena by blind adherence to such : theories is very very dangerous. The attempt to construct an obvious strawman argument is very very stupid. : As a scientist, I expect YOU, of all people to be open minded and to be : ready for the possibility of alternative ideas and explanations. There is a difference between having an open mind and having holes in your head. : how such thinking very nearly BLOCKED the discovery of the h. pylorii And it was pointed out to you that your description was more or less totally wrong. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > In article <7d785b30-76fc-4fd2-9ac3-ac3711b17...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > and 1970, or that the people who were stricken with polio were among those > suffering from malnutrition? Irrelevant since polio epidemics occured well before 1950. Counter question discarded. > : We all may have stronger immune systems in part because > : we are getting the vitamins and minerals that our ancestors LACKED. > > Which vitamins and minerals did FDR LACK? Conservative ones. > : Likewise, the attempt to analyze such issues by means > : of test tube statistics leave you COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So far, as usual, you have failed to do so. Irrelevant verbiage discarded. > : Last but not least, there are scientists who have > : challenged the germ theory of disease. > > There are scientists who have challenged quantum mechanics and relativity > as well. At what point will you realize that science is not done via > arguments from authority? (That was a rhetorical question.) At what point do YOU realize that scientific theory is just that -> THEORY. Parts or ALL OF IT can be wrong. Relativity AND quantum mechanics have unexplained anamolies and some day a better theory will come along. > : The attempt to view medical issues solely in terms of accepted theories > : and to account for all medical phenomena by blind adherence to such [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There is a difference between having an open mind and having holes in your > head. Non argument insults DISCARDED. How VERY unscientific!! > : how such thinking very nearly BLOCKED the discovery of the h. pylorii > > And it was pointed out to you that your description was more or less > totally wrong. NOPE, nobody pointed out anything -> I pointed out that one of the researchers had to inject himself with the bacteria to prove that it was the causative factor for the pyloric ulcer. Someone corrected me that it was not injected, it was ingested. WHY did the poor researcher, whose funding was nearly denied, have to EAT THE BACTERIA to prove his point? It was because PEOPLE LIKE YOU maintained an attitude of such closed mindedness that STRESS and DIET, the accepted cause of those ulcers and were so dominant and unscientifc in their blind adherence to orthodoxy that they nearly killed research which proved correct. Why are vaccinations hurting people now? Because PEOPLE LIKE YOU, in my opinion, maintain a blind trust in published experiments and research whose very funding casts doubt on the authenticity and validity of their results. So LONG as such "research" is placed in a statistical form that is pleasing to people who think as you, ALL QUESTIONING, ALL ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS, ALL THINKING IS SHUT OFF. SUCH was the modus operandi of the tobacco industry FOR MANY YEARS, as you very well know. SUCH is the modus operandi of the pharmaceutical companies and vaccination companies. Citizen Jimserac :> How is your claim that homeopathy "cures" diseases not an example of :> post hoc ergo propter hoc, given that you have no coherent explanation for :> how homeopathy might "cure" a disease? Unanswered -- as usual. :> : Why do far fewer people die of certain diseases :> : now than historically? Well, for one thing, nutrition :> : is A WHOLE LOT BETTER NOW THAN THEN. THAT is a factor. :> What evidence do you have that nutrition in the U.S. improved between 1950 :> and 1970, or that the people who were stricken with polio were among those :> suffering from malnutrition? : Irrelevant since polio epidemics occured well before 1950. It's not irrelevant, moron. There were 21,000 cases of paralysis in 1952 (that is *after* 1950) and none in 1979 in the U.S. If your hypothesis is correct, then there must have been a *major* improvement in nutrition during those years. What evidence do you have that there was such an improvement? If your hypothesis is correct, then the people who contracted polio must have been those receiving poor nutrition. What evidence do you have that (say) FDR suffered from malnutrition? :> : We all may have stronger immune systems in part because :> : we are getting the vitamins and minerals that our ancestors LACKED. :> Which vitamins and minerals did FDR LACK? : Conservative ones. And what evidence do you have that those are the ones the lack of which causes polio? :> : Likewise, the attempt to analyze such issues by means :> : of test tube statistics leave you COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR :> : DEPTH, Doc Schultz. You assert that a single cause, :> : the vaccinations, erradicated these diseases. :> I asserted nothing: I asked you for an explanation for the change in the :> number of people who die each year from polio and smallpox. Your explanation [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :> :> So far, as usual, you have failed to do so. : Irrelevant verbiage discarded. As was, apparently, your answer to my argument above. :> : Last but not least, there are scientists who have :> : challenged the germ theory of disease. :> There are scientists who have challenged quantum mechanics and relativity :> as well. At what point will you realize that science is not done via :> arguments from authority? (That was a rhetorical question.) : At what point do YOU realize that scientific theory is just that -> THEORY. : Parts or ALL OF IT can be wrong. Relativity AND quantum mechanics : have unexplained anamolies and some day a better theory will come along. If I explained to you something about how science actually works, and what a theory actually is, is there any chance that you would pay attention long enough to learn something? I didn't think so. :> : As a scientist, I expect YOU, of all people to be open minded and to be :> : ready for the possibility of alternative ideas and explanations. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : : Non argument insults DISCARDED. How VERY unscientific!! It is not unscientific to understand that some explanations are very well supported and that others are less so, and that the likelihood that an explanation that does a good job (e.g. QED) will be replaced by a radically different one is much smaller than a highly conjectural one will be. :> : how such thinking very nearly BLOCKED the discovery of the h. pylorii :> And it was pointed out to you that your description was more or less :> totally wrong. : NOPE, nobody pointed out anything -> I pointed out : that one of the researchers had to inject himself : with the bacteria to prove that it was the causative : factor for the pyloric ulcer. Someone corrected : me that it was not injected, it was ingested. But you don't believe that H. pylorii causes ulcers -- how could you, since that explanation is completely at odds with the homeopathic theory of the causation of disease? : WHY did the poor researcher, whose funding was nearly : denied, have to EAT THE BACTERIA to prove his point? He *didn't* have to. But you knew that. : It was because PEOPLE LIKE YOU maintained an attitude : of such closed mindedness that STRESS and DIET, the : accepted cause of those ulcers and were so dominant : and unscientifc in their blind adherence to orthodoxy : that they nearly killed research which proved correct. If you accept that a bacterium causes ulcers, why do you reject the idea that a virus causes polio? I thought that only closed-minded people believe that there is a single cause for a given condition. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ I see your long winded and innuendo filled response has omitted FUNDAMENTAL facts regarding polio - facts which you either don't know (unlikely) or have purposefully omitted as being destructive of whatever shred of an argument it is that you are trying to make, or simply omitted out of sheer ineptitude of understanding. Polio, in approximately 90% of the cases produces NO SYMPTOMS WHATEVER. Of the other approximately 10%, 9% may have some flu like symptoms which will spontaneously and harmlessly resolve and LEST THAN 1% will suffer from the virus invading the central nervous system, affecting certain neurons and causing the famous paralysis. I will provide NO LINKS FOR THIS and expect you to have the intelligence to look it up yourself. I do NOT know for sure, but strongly suspect that the name "infantile paralysis" was coined by the vaccination industry. Correct me if wrong. Regarding FDR, a 2003 peer reviewed study concluded that he suffered from Guillain-Barre syndrome, an autoimmune disease triggered by an infectious agent and NOT polio. http://www.rsmpress.co.uk/jmb_2003_v11_p232-240.pdf We will take this opportunity to allow you to do some research, get your facts straight and digest the significance of the information I have provided. Good Luck! Citizen Jimserac >I see your long winded and innuendo filled >response has omitted FUNDAMENTAL facts [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >certain neurons and causing >the famous paralysis. How does this compare with the proportion of smokers who eventually get lung cancer? What is the rate of melanoma in people exposed to sunlight? >I will provide NO LINKS FOR THIS >and expect you to have the intelligence >to look it up yourself. Of course you won't provide links. No less would be expected of you. >I do NOT know for sure, but strongly suspect >that the name "infantile paralysis" was >coined by the vaccination industry. >Correct me if wrong. Consider yourself corrected. >Regarding FDR, a 2003 peer reviewed >study concluded that he suffered [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >straight and digest the significance >of the information I have provided. Provide some information. >Good Luck! >Citizen Jimserac 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 do NOT know for sure, but strongly suspect > that the name "infantile paralysis" was > coined by the vaccination industry. > Correct me if wrong. You're wrong. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > In message <608632ce-ae93-4f87-9634-a13e8fbe1...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, Citizen Jimserac wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | > +-------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ You're right! Citizen Jimserac > > In message <608632ce-ae93-4f87-9634-a13e8fbe1...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, Citizen Jimserac wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You're right! Kudos for making that admission. Richard Schultz could learn a good lesson from you in that regard. His amateur psychoanalysis of you is as off-base as his anti- acupunture bias. I do hope that you will reconsider your views regarding the history, safety, and effiacy of vaccination. > Citizen Jimserac On Jul 10, 11:02 am, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 5:46 am, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > CitizenJimserac Hey I enjoy being the devil's advocate or defending impossible causes or something. What the heck! Citizen Jimserac : Kudos for making that admission. Richard Schultz could learn a good : lesson from you in that regard. : His amateur psychoanalysis of you is as off-base as his anti- : acupunture bias. Have you read *any* of the articles I cited? I didn't think so. You might want to add to your list of "Articles about acupuncture that I will not under any circumstances read" "Acupuncture: a Critical Analysis" by E. Ernst, which appeared in the Journal of Internal Medicine in 2006 (vol. 259, pp. 125-137). Ernst is a professor of the school of complementary medicine at the Universities of Exeter & Plymouth, so you would think that he would be willing to give acupuncture a fair shot. Although the article is slightly out of date (it doesn't reference the 2004 osteoarthritis study, for example), it does make some interesting points. He concludes that while there is evidence that acupuncture is effective as a symptomatic treatment for various kinds of pain and for controlling nausea, he admits that "these data could turn out to be false positive due to inadequate control of placebo effects in most of the clinical trials. The majority of RCTs employing new sham-acupuncture devices that allow adequate control of placebo effects imply that acupuncture is not associated with clinical effects beyond a powerful placebo response." How is my considering that article to be a reasonable summary of the literature an "anti-acupuncture bias"? Or rather, how is it that you refuse in principle to even acknowledge the existence of literature -- on any subject, not just acupuncture -- that might conflict with your previously held prejudices? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > In article <0f7c4ded-4377-443e-8339-3190ebea2...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Have you decided to tell us *why* you thought Qi = homeostasis? decided why it was reasonable to assume Stanford's Acupuncture training, which includes a fellowship, was likely a one-man show? Found the intellectual honesty to acknowledge any of last two dozen lies or errors you've made? Cue the crickets! : decided to tell us *why* you thought Qi = homeostasis? Because in one of your posts (which can be found at http://tinyurl.com/6hlm97), you said ### If it makes you feel better, use "homeostasis" instead of "balancing qi". Apparently, I misunderstood your intent. : decided why it was reasonable to assume Stanford's Acupuncture : training, which includes a fellowship, was likely a one-man show? Because at the time, I could only find one faculty member who was listed as a licensed acupuncturist. Note that its being a "one-man" (actually one-woman) show does not preclude its including a fellowship. : Found the intellectual honesty to acknowledge any of last two dozen : lies or errors you've made? Since you lack the intellectual honesty to admit *your* errors, I don't see that you are in much of a position to comment on the intellectual honesty or lack thereof of others. You might start by reading *one* of the articles that I have cited -- including one that *you* claimed provides evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" > In article <9fdbd2f5-c7c7-47a3-a3b0-b2b2e5e39...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Apparently, I misunderstood your intent. Oh my! Are you actually saying that you were in error? Kudos! > : decided why it was reasonable to assume Stanford's Acupuncture > : training, which includes a fellowship, was likely a one-man show? > > Because at the time, I could only find one faculty member who was > listed as a licensed acupuncturist. Note that its being a "one-man" (actually > one-woman) show does not preclude its including a fellowship. Well, a simple search of their website would have shown otherwise, but kudos for at least acknowledging that the truth is waaaay different than your assumption. > : Found the intellectual honesty to acknowledge any of last two dozen > : lies or errors you've made? > > Since you lack the intellectual honesty to admit *your* errors, I don't see > that you are in much of a position to comment on the intellectual honesty > or lack thereof of others. Ah, now there is the Richard Schultz we are familiar with! You were doing unusually well for a moment, but have returned to your "homeostasis". Just because *you* can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. After all, you couldn't see the conditions listed by the NIH for which acupuncture efficacy is established. You also couldn't see that the Stanford Acupuncture program was far, far more than a one- man show. You also can't see how your statement declaring that it is well known that acupuncture doesn't work could be interepreted as saying that acupuncture doesn't work. It is well known that when Richard Schultz declares he can't see something, it is usually because he has a trash can on his head and is shouting "I can neither see nor hear anything that contradicts my prejudiced, stilted world view." > You might start by sticking to the topic, Richard. You vendetta against acupuncture in general, and me in particular is off-topic. Can you restrain yourself long enough to find the appropriate thread or start a new one? On Jul 11, 7:32 am, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > In article <9fdbd2f5-c7c7-47a3-a3b0-b2b2e5e39...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > general, and me in particular is off-topic. Can you restrain yourself > long enough to find the appropriate thread or start a new one? Richard's vendetta is NOT just against you, it is against anyone who dares suggest that any alternative system of medicine might, just might offer some benefit of equal use or, dare I say it, BETTER than standard medicine. He has made consistent misrepresentations against the nature of Acupuncture, ignored tons of scientific research supporting and managed to make a complete fool of himself by asserting that it was not taught in medical schools - an assertion that you ripped to shreds in a serious of brilliant postings. Richard is an example of an intelligent, in one field, guy who believes he has equal intelligence and knowledge in other unrelated fields. Upon meeting the consequent exposure, refutation or evidence completely contradicting or refuting his position, he starts resorting to childish insults, like some 5 year old. He then proceeds to post about the insults, the weather ANYTHING except the original topic, turning the thread into an involved discussion of who said what when, you didn't read what he said, you don't understand what he said etc. etc. It would seem that on ANY TOPIC AT ALL, Richard Schultz's main interest revolves around himself and whether anyone has paid sufficient obeisance to his childish ego. Citizen Jimserac : Richard's vendetta is NOT just against you, it is against : anyone who dares suggest that any alternative system of medicine : might, just might offer some benefit of equal use or, dare I say it, : BETTER than standard medicine. This statement would be a lie if you know what a lie is. : He has made consistent misrepresentations against the nature : of Acupuncture, I have asked the Experts to comment on statements about web pages supposedly written by other Experts, and have gotten exactly zero response. I have *quoted* web sites purporting to describe what "Qi" and "meridians" are. Were those web sites wrong? : ignored tons of scientific research supporting I have cited a large number of papers that report scientific research on acupuncture. Just last night, I quoted a paper written by someone from a "School of Complementary Medicine" in which he admitted that the positive results reported for acupuncture may be placebo effects. Why have you and Mr. Kingoff ignored the tons of *competent* scientific research that *I* have cited? ----- 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 ----- "Compared with Man, we have to admit that the insect does not display what we can describe as intelligence. But don't feel too proud about that, because where there is no intelligence, there is also no stupidity." : Well, a simple search of their website would have shown otherwise, but : kudos for at least acknowledging that the truth is waaaay different : than your assumption. Would that you had such an ability. :> : Found the intellectual honesty to acknowledge any of last two dozen :> : lies or errors you've made? :> Since you lack the intellectual honesty to admit *your* errors, I don't see :> that you are in much of a position to comment on the intellectual honesty :> or lack thereof of others. : Just because *you* can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. You mean the part of the osteoarthritis study that disagrees with the press release? Am I to assume that you believe that as long as you don't read the paper in question, the table with the less encouraging results won't exist? Is that why you refuse, even in principle, to read *anything* on *any* subject that might conflict with your preconceived notions -- because you believe that as long as you can't see it, it isn't there? : You also can't see how your statement declaring that it is : well known that acupuncture doesn't work could be interepreted as : saying that acupuncture doesn't work. What is well known is that you are either an idiot, a liar, or both. If you honestly do not understand what "reading in context" means, then you are an idiot, since the concept has been explained to you numerous times. If you do know, and insist on taking statements out of their context, then you are a liar. Take your pick. : he has a trash can on his head and is shouting "I can neither see nor : hear anything that contradicts my prejudiced, stilted world view." Which one of us refuses in principle to read any article that might conflict with his preconceived notions? :> You might start by : sticking to the topic, Richard. You vendetta against acupuncture in : general, and me in particular is off-topic. Can you restrain yourself : long enough to find the appropriate thread or start a new one? Excuse me, but you were the one who brought the subject up. When did you suddenly become such good buddies with Jan Drew, who thinks that she can end any discussion by declaring it to be off-topic, and CJ, who believes that if he ignores arguments made against his point of view, they don't exist? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" > In article <79ae3c26-5a41-483d-9a7f-9663d6a85...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Excuse me, but you were the one who brought the subject up. No, what I did was illustrate that Citizen J demonstrated a laudable trait; he admitted that he was in error. I further stated that you could learn something from him. It appears, to some slight extent, you have. You actually stated that you were not right in two instances, leaving you only a few hundred errors left to acknowledge. What I did was to congratulate someone for making an acknowledge of error and accepting the fact pointed out by the other party. Only you would see that as off-topic. Well, at least you are consistent in demonstrating how poorly you understand context. > When did you realize that you can't restrain yourself from attacking me in particular and acupuncture in general, no matter how far off-topic? Why won't you at least start a new topic where your vendetta will at as on-topic as it is unjustified? > ----- > Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your > truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" > Since you lack the intellectual honesty to admit *your* errors, I don't > see > that you are in much of a position to comment on the intellectual honesty > or lack thereof of others. :> In article <08190f78-edd9-4e87-93f9-97ff1b572...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: :> : Oh darn it! Poor Richard will have to respond to this :> No he won't. : But... But.... YOU JUST DID RESPOND!! I didn't say that he wouldn't respond to it, only that he wouldn't have to. ================= Care to admit to that error? Poor Richey baby, he cannot keep up with who said what. "Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote Bla Bla Bla, as is his normal communication.> > WHY did the poor researcher, whose funding was nearly > denied, have to EAT THE BACTERIA to prove his point? He didn't -- there were at that time several other programs going on around the world working on his discovery. He did, however, recognize that at &*some* point it would be necessary to check off that particular one of Koch's postulates -- so rather than have someone else take the risk, he did it himself. It's not the first time medical researchers have used themselves as guinea pigs. They're the only subjects that don't have to go by an IRB. > It was b |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message