Re: What Jan said you bunch of grasping at straws Baloney's.-=-mostmost most most most most most mos



M

Mark Probert

Guest
rb wrote:
> [email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
>
>>>>>>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jan

>
>
> Most doesn't mean all.
> Who's the dirty rat type person that snipped "Most of" from the sentence
> "Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews."Quite the smartass
> aren't you?--rb


Rubber, do you see something inherently bigoted in her comment,
regardless of whether it is most or all?
 
"Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> rb wrote:
> > [email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
> >
> >>>>>>>news:<[email protected]>...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>><snip>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Go figure.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Jan

> >
> >
> > Most doesn't mean all.
> > Who's the dirty rat type person that snipped "Most of" from the sentence
> > "Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews."Quite the smartass
> > aren't you?--rb

>
> Rubber, do you see something inherently bigoted in her comment,
> regardless of whether it is most or all?
>
> It may just be the truth. Why don't somebody do a poll here to see whom

are jews, atheist, etc. That may show better whether she's right or not.--rb
 
rb wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>
>>rb wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jan
>>>
>>>
>>>Most doesn't mean all.
>>>Who's the dirty rat type person that snipped "Most of" from the sentence
>>>"Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews."Quite the smartass
>>>aren't you?--rb

>>
>>Rubber, do you see something inherently bigoted in her comment,
>>regardless of whether it is most or all?
>>


> It may just be the truth. Why don't somebody do a poll here to see whom
> are jews, atheist, etc. That may show better whether she's right or not.--rb



IOW, you do not see the inherent bigotry of bringing someone's relgion
into this disucssion as bigotry. That says a lot about you.
 
>Subject: Re: What Jan said you bunch of grasping at straws Baloney's.-=-most
>most most most most most most most most
>From: "rb" [email protected]
>Date: 6/30/2003 9:49 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>"Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:%[email protected]...
>> rb wrote:
>> > [email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
>> >
>> >>>>>>>news:<[email protected]>...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>><snip>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>Go figure.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>Jan
>> >
>> >
>> > Most doesn't mean all.
>> > Who's the dirty rat type person that snipped "Most of" from the sentence
>> > "Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews."Quite the smartass
>> > aren't you?--rb

>>
>> Rubber, do you see something inherently bigoted in her comment,
>> regardless of whether it is most or all?
>>
>> It may just be the truth. Why don't somebody do a poll here to see whom

>are jews, atheist, etc. That may show better whether she's right or not.--rb


My estimation was from the posts made here, and they know it, they are just
desperate to find a lie from Jan.

That's because most every atheist and jew here has INDEED lied. They know it,
yet they cover for each other.

Blatant lies shown without any doubt, yet they are so desperate they use this
poor exucse hunting for a lie. In reality, they just expose themselves more.

Jan
 
"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: What Jan said you bunch of grasping at straws

Baloney's.-=-most
> >most most most most most most most most
> >From: "rb" [email protected]
> >Date: 6/30/2003 9:49 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> >"Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:%[email protected]...
> >> rb wrote:
> >> > [email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >>>>>>>news:<[email protected]>...
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>><snip>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>Go figure.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>Jan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Most doesn't mean all.
> >> > Who's the dirty rat type person that snipped "Most of" from the

sentence
> >> > "Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews."Quite the

smartass
> >> > aren't you?--rb
> >>
> >> Rubber, do you see something inherently bigoted in her comment,
> >> regardless of whether it is most or all?
> >>
> >> It may just be the truth. Why don't somebody do a poll here to see whom

> >are jews, atheist, etc. That may show better whether she's right or

not.--rb
>
> My estimation was from the posts made here, and they know it, they are

just
> desperate to find a lie from Jan.
>
> That's because most every atheist and jew here has INDEED lied. They know

it,
> yet they cover for each other.
>
> Blatant lies shown without any doubt, yet they are so desperate they use

this
> poor exucse hunting for a lie. In reality, they just expose themselves

more.
>
> Jan


They're quite the laddios indeed. They have one guy here who's obsessed
with ****. He can't say nothing without reference to it yet nothing's ever
said about him! Just as long as he's not alt med i guess.--rb
 
>Subject: Re: What Jan said you bunch of grasping at straws Baloney's.-=-most
>most most most most most most most most
>From: "rb" [email protected]
>Date: 6/30/2003 6:50 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >Subject: Re: What Jan said you bunch of grasping at straws

>Baloney's.-=-most
>> >most most most most most most most most
>> >From: "rb" [email protected]
>> >Date: 6/30/2003 9:49 AM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:%[email protected]...
>> >> rb wrote:
>> >> > [email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>>>>news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>><snip>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>Go figure.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>Jan
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Most doesn't mean all.
>> >> > Who's the dirty rat type person that snipped "Most of" from the

>sentence
>> >> > "Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews."Quite the

>smartass
>> >> > aren't you?--rb
>> >>
>> >> Rubber, do you see something inherently bigoted in her comment,
>> >> regardless of whether it is most or all?
>> >>
>> >> It may just be the truth. Why don't somebody do a poll here to see whom
>> >are jews, atheist, etc. That may show better whether she's right or

>not.--rb
>>
>> My estimation was from the posts made here, and they know it, they are

>just
>> desperate to find a lie from Jan.
>>
>> That's because most every atheist and jew here has INDEED lied. They know

>it,
>> yet they cover for each other.
>>
>> Blatant lies shown without any doubt, yet they are so desperate they use

>this
>> poor exucse hunting for a lie. In reality, they just expose themselves

>more.
>>
>> Jan

>
> They're quite the laddios indeed. They have one guy here who's obsessed
>with ****. He can't say nothing without reference to it yet nothing's ever
>said about him! Just as long as he's not alt med i guess.--rb


Yep!

That one guy must be Mark Thorson?

(lackey for Barrett)

He used to be obsessed with Cell Tech.

He had to make a retraction.

He lied, and they took him to court.

They all have lied for the most part, but ye good ole boy and girl club lie for
each other.

Sad that.

Jan
 
[email protected] (Jan) wrote:

>That one guy must be Mark Thorson?
>
>(lackey for Barrett)
>
>He used to be obsessed with Cell Tech.
>
>He had to make a retraction.
>
>He lied, and they took him to court.


Rectal Blowout hasn't been here long enough to get the history, but
Jan has been continually asked to quote Mark Thorson's "lie" and has
never been able to do so. She quotes the retraction (where no
admission of lying appears) and says that this is the original "lying"
statement.

But Hulda Clark wasn't lying when she wrote a book called "The Cure
for All Diseases", she was just mistaken ...

(Cue Jan to say this isn't about Clark, just after she tried to make
it about Mark T.)

--
Peter Bowditch [email protected]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
 
>Subject: Re: What Jan said you bunch of grasping at straws Baloney's.-=-most
>most most most most most most most most
>From: Peter Bowditch [email protected]
>Date: 6/30/2003 7:56 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>


RIGHT ON CUE, ENTER PETER B,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

POINT MADE!!

>[email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>
>>That one guy must be Mark Thorson?
>>
>>(lackey for Barrett)
>>
>>He used to be obsessed with Cell Tech.
>>
>>He had to make a retraction.
>>
>>He lied, and they took him to court.

>
>Rectal Blowout


How sweet, Peter.

Did you pick that up from Tim Bolen??

Otr Andrew Kingoff?

>Jan has been continually asked to quote Mark Thorson's "lie" and has
>never been able to do so


An EXCELLENT example of how the debunkers LIE for each other!!!

As a matter of FACT, I have done it numerous times, as in over and over and
over and over and over.

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]+Mark+Thorson+delibera
tely&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&scoring=d

>She quotes the retraction (where no
>admission of lying appears) and says that this is the original "lying"
>statement.


More games, and protection.

From: Jan ([email protected])
Subject: Re: Nothing but the usual trashing going on here
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2003-05-15 17:49:30 PST

http://www.celltech.com/resources/info_central/response.asp

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]+Mark+Thorson+*delib
erately*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=20030413180326.08439.00001075%4
0mb-fq.aol.com&rnum=2

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]+Mark+Thorson+*delib
erately*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=20030327005159.02699.00000369%4
0mb-ck.aol.com&rnum=4

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]+Mark+Thorson+*delib
erately*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=20021206123505.05859.00011012%4
0mb-ms.aol.com&rnum=8

>But Hulda Clark


This isn't about Hulda Clark.

It is about the effects of lying repeatly, as Mark Thorson did.

The after effects still remain.

*One individual was responsible for a great deal of miscommunication regarding
anatoxin-a, information which is still accessible on many Internet sites. Cell
Tech sued Mark Thorson for posting defamatory statements about Cell Tech, its
products and its personnel to various Internet or Usenet news groups. Cell
Tech's lawsuit against Mr. Thorson has now been settled. As part of the
settlement agreement, Mr. Thorson has posted the Retraction Statement that
appears below. Although he did retract the allegations that he had been widely
circulating, we all know that one cannot, with a single correct statement, undo
all the harm done by many mis-statements that continue to circulate.*

Jan
 
[email protected] (Jan) wrote:

I said:

But Hulda Clark wasn't lying when she wrote a book called "The Cure
for All Diseases", she was just mistaken ...

(Cue Jan to say this isn't about Clark, just after she tried to make
it about Mark T.)

The Jan said:

>>But Hulda Clark

>
>This isn't about Hulda Clark.


I wish that the lotto or horse race betting were this easy.

--
Peter Bowditch [email protected]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
 
Jan wrote:

> >Jan has been continually asked to quote Mark Thorson's "lie" and has
> >never been able to do so

>
> An EXCELLENT example of how the debunkers LIE for each other!!!
>
> As a matter of FACT, I have done it numerous times, as in over and over and
> over and over and over.


So why don't you show an example of a posting in which
I said anybody did something *deliberately*, in which
I lied.

Not a statement about the statement, not a statement
made by somebody other than myself -- my actual
statement that used the word *deliberately* which
you claim is a LIE.

Why don't you let everybody see this statement
which you claim is a lie?

Why don't you do that, Jan?

I'll tell you why -- because if you did, everybody
would see that my statement was NOT a lie.

Then everybody would know it is Jan Drew who
makes false accusations.
 
>Subject: Re: What Jan said you bunch of grasping at straws Baloney's.-=-most
>most most most most most most most most
>From: Peter Bowditch [email protected]
>Date: 6/30/2003 10:08 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>[email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>
>I said:


> Hulda Clark


>Hulda Clark


>Hulda Clark


>Hulda Clark
 
rb wrote:

Jan said:
>>>>>>>"Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews."Quite the

>
> smartass
>
>>>>>>>aren't you?--rb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rubber, do you see something inherently bigoted in her comment,
>>>>>>regardless of whether it is most or all?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It may just be the truth. Why don't somebody do a poll here to see whom
>>>>>are jews, atheist, etc. That may show better whether she's right or
>>>
>>>not.--rb
>>>
>>>
>>>>IOW, you do not see the inherent bigotry of bringing someone's relgion
>>>>into this disucssion as bigotry. That says a lot about you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No!--rb

>>
>>
>>Let me help you....
>>
>>What relevance would a person's religion have to do with their views on
>>Alt Med?


That got nothing to do with what Jan said.--rb

Yes, she did say it. Stating that 'Most of the debunkers here are either
athesits or Jews" is definitely indicating that their religion has
something to do with their views on AltMed. There would be no rational
reason for her to make such a statement if she did not equate religion
with their views.

Now, I hope you fully understand the concept of bigotry, and can see
just how bigoted the statment is.
 
Jan wrote:
>>Subject: Re: What Jan said you bunch of grasping at straws Baloney's.-=-most
>>most most most most most most most most
>>From: "rb" [email protected]
>>Date: 6/30/2003 9:49 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>>"Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:%[email protected]...
>>
>>>rb wrote:
>>>
>>>>[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Most doesn't mean all.
>>>>Who's the dirty rat type person that snipped "Most of" from the sentence
>>>>"Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews."Quite the smartass
>>>>aren't you?--rb
>>>
>>>Rubber, do you see something inherently bigoted in her comment,
>>>regardless of whether it is most or all?
>>>
>>>It may just be the truth. Why don't somebody do a poll here to see whom

>>
>>are jews, atheist, etc. That may show better whether she's right or not.--rb

>
>
> My estimation was from the posts made here, and they know it, they are just
> desperate to find a lie from Jan.
>
> That's because most every atheist and jew here has INDEED lied. They know it,
> yet they cover for each other.
>
> Blatant lies shown without any doubt, yet they are so desperate they use this
> poor exucse hunting for a lie. In reality, they just expose themselves more.



Do explain the relevance of a persons religion to the discussion?
 
rb wrote:
> DEBBEE's not in the same league as Kingoffer at all. She, like other
> people just use the word as slang and/or for emphasis while nein/kingoffal
> uses it as a matter of personal interest, imho.


Wait for a while and see how down and dirty she gets.

> As far as your retraction in the cell-tech super blue green algae fiasco,
> wasn't the retraction as good as admitting you lied about their wonderful
> super blue green algae. If not, why did you have to make the retraction in
> the first place.


No, a retraction is not proof of a lie. For something to be a lie, one
has to utter something that they actually know to be false. There is not
indication anywhere that Mark Thorson knew he was stating something that
was false.

> Let this be a lesson to you young man, in the future you're not to go
> about making unsubstantiated mendacious like statements about stuff that you
> don't know enough about, like chelation and alternative medicine!


Wrong.

> As far as Jan calling you a liar, wasn't what you we're saying about this
> algae untruthful? Here's your retraction below.--rb


It was incorrect, but he believed it to be correct when he said it.
 
rb wrote:

> DEBBEE's not in the same league as Kingoffer at all. She, like other
> people just use the word as slang and/or for emphasis while nein/kingoffal
> uses it as a matter of personal interest, imho.


That is total baloney. Nobody spews up fecal references around
here as often as DEBBEE.

> As far as your retraction in the cell-tech super blue green algae fiasco,
> wasn't the retraction as good as admitting you lied about their wonderful
> super blue green algae.


Absolutely not. Nothing in the retraction says I lied or made any
false statement about the algae.

> If not, why did you have to make the retraction in
> the first place.


I was sued by a company making 200 million dollars a year
selling algae (in their peak year). They hired the most
expensive law firm in the Pacific Northwest. They filed
the complaint in a remote court in southeastern Oregon,
in the county where they were the largest employer.
Even had I chose to fight it, there's no guarantee I would
have won.

And, the retraction they were willing to accept didn't even
say that Ilied or made any untrue statements. So why not
take the settlement? If I had fought and won, I wouldn't
have won any money out of doing that.

> Let this be a lesson to you young man, in the future you're not to go
> about making unsubstantiated mendacious like statements about stuff that you
> don't know enough about, like chelation and alternative medicine!


Baloney! I will continue to make true statements, no matter
how uncomfortable that make crybabies like you!

> As far as Jan calling you a liar, wasn't what you we're saying about this
> algae untruthful? Here's your retraction below.--rb


Nothing I said was untrue. That's what I have been asking
Jan to show -- an example of a statement I made which
is untrue. She consistently ignores that request.

Why does she do that? Because she can't come up
with EVEN ONE example of an untrue statement I made
about the algae.

Cell Tech itself never accused me of lying. Only Jan has
done that. And Jan has NEVER been able to back up
her false accusation. Jan engages in the worst sort of
character assassination, with absolutely no regard to the
truth.
 
>rb wrote:
>> DEBBEE's not in the same league as Kingoffer at all. She, like other
>> people just use the word as slang and/or for emphasis while nein/kingoffal
>> uses it as a matter of personal interest, imho.

>
>Wait for a while and see how down and dirty she gets.


DEBBEE was successfully sued by Mark Lyndsey, a musician, because DEBBEE
_Falsely_ accused him of exposing himself to her.
That's far, far worse than anything that could possibly said about Cell-Tech.
 
In <[email protected]>, Peter Bowditch wrote:

> Rectal Blowout hasn't been here long enough to get the history, but
> Jan has been continually asked to quote Mark Thorson's "lie" and has
> never been able to do so. She quotes the retraction (where no
> admission of lying appears) and says that this is the original "lying"
> statement.


You must be mistaken:

In <[email protected]>, Jan lied:
# I always prove my claims.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
 
In <[email protected]>, Jan wrote:

> An EXCELLENT LIE!!!
>
> As a matter of FACT, I have done it numerous times, as in over and over and
> over and over and over.


Well, we could argue about the "excellence" of the LIE.
Samuel Clemens told us that good lying requires far more
intelligence than telling the truth.

However, the quantity is certainly there. The latest
round of selectively snipping messages to change their
meaning is a wonderful example. Somehow I doubt that
the "turnabout is fair play" moral will get through,
though.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
 
"Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> rb wrote:
>
> Jan said:
> >>>>>>>"Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews."Quite the

> >
> > smartass
> >
> >>>>>>>aren't you?--rb
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Rubber, do you see something inherently bigoted in her comment,
> >>>>>>regardless of whether it is most or all?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>It may just be the truth. Why don't somebody do a poll here to see

whom
> >>>>>are jews, atheist, etc. That may show better whether she's right or
> >>>
> >>>not.--rb
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>IOW, you do not see the inherent bigotry of bringing someone's relgion
> >>>>into this disucssion as bigotry. That says a lot about you.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>No!--rb
> >>
> >>
> >>Let me help you....
> >>
> >>What relevance would a person's religion have to do with their views on
> >>Alt Med?

>
> That got nothing to do with what Jan said.--rb
>
> Yes, she did say it. Stating that 'Most of the debunkers here are either
> athesits or Jews" is definitely indicating that their religion has
> something to do with their views on AltMed. There would be no rational
> reason for her to make such a statement if she did not equate religion
> with their views.
>
> Now, I hope you fully understand the concept of bigotry, and can see
> just how bigoted the statment is.


That's you're opinion, not mine.--rb


>
>
 
>Subject: Re: What Jan said you bunch of grasping at straws Baloney's.-=-most
>most most most most most most most most
>From: "rb" [email protected]
>Date: 7/1/2003 2:16 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>"Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> rb wrote:
>>
>> Jan said:
>> >>>>>>>"Most of the debunkers are either atheists or Jews."Quite the
>> >
>> > smartass
>> >
>> >>>>>>>aren't you?--rb
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Rubber, do you see something inherently bigoted in her comment,
>> >>>>>>regardless of whether it is most or all?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>It may just be the truth. Why don't somebody do a poll here to see

>whom
>> >>>>>are jews, atheist, etc. That may show better whether she's right or
>> >>>
>> >>>not.--rb
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>IOW, you do not see the inherent bigotry of bringing someone's relgion
>> >>>>into this disucssion as bigotry. That says a lot about you.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>No!--rb
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Let me help you....
>> >>
>> >>What relevance would a person's religion have to do with their views on
>> >>Alt Med?

>>
>> That got nothing to do with what Jan said.--rb
>>
>> Yes, she did say it. Stating that 'Most of the debunkers here are either
>> athesits or Jews" is definitely indicating that their religion has
>> something to do with their views on AltMed. There would be no rational
>> reason for her to make such a statement if she did not equate religion
>> with their views.
>>
>> Now, I hope you fully understand the concept of bigotry, and can see
>> just how bigoted the statment is.

>
> That's you're opinion, not mine.--rb



Bigoted is a new fad word here along with racist and fascists, Nazi, etc.

That's because I post questions they just can't answer as below.

From: Jan ([email protected])
Subject: Re: Cancer cures, Orwell and Earl
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2003-06-27 18:26:54 PST

Sorry no bigoted slurs whatsoever.
>
>Very bigoted indeed. Too bad you can't see that.


A judgment on your part. Never have been a bigot, never will be, in fact have
fought against it all my life.

> Just a disconnection form God and Jesus.
>> That's their choice. They *believe* they are *enlightened*.


>Apart from a few who have stated their religious believes, you don't know
>what they believe.


That's correct, my post is based on their posts of their very own words.

<snip>

> >What a group!!!
>> >>
>> >> ANYONE can plainly see Peter Moran LIED!!!!!
>> >No, he didn't "lie"

>>
>> Of course he did!!

>
>No, he expressed an opinion.
>He expressed an *opinion*.
>> Nope, won't work, he saw NO fraud, NO conspiracies, NO dishonesty and NO

>lies.
>You, on the other hand


Ooops. Another diversion.

>see consperacies, frauds and coverups everywhere you
>seem to look.


Nope, but I sure can see them when they appear.

As in:

In February, the Food and Drug Administration said that because Dr. Wilson
filed “false and misleading” reports and “repeatedly and deliberately
violated regulations

Now, Robert, do tell us do you see any fraud, any dishonesty??

> Or, at least where it pertains to science


Another diversion.

>Or least where it pertains to science. If Peter's
>opinion's are *lies*, as you state, then *yours* are too.


Please do post any lies I have told.

>>It's impossible, by virtue
>> >of *logic* that an *opinion* is a *lie*.

>>
>> He plainly LIED to cover for *organized medicine* and NOw YOU are LYING to
>> cover for him.

>No. I am stating a simple truth. Actually, by yelling "Liar"too everyone you
>don't agree with, makes oyu a liar.


WRONG WRONG and WRONG.

This has NOT one single thing to do with any *disagreement*.

> > You may disagree with him, but he's
>> >not lying.
>> >

>> Ther ya go folks, welcome to EVIL organized medicine!!

>
>Nope, merely your delusions.


Is this a delusion Robert???

Just look at the COVERUPS, the LIES, the FRAUD.

See any??

Do point out *my* delusions. Take each point in parenthesis and tell us which
is a delusion. Step right up Robert, prove YOUR claim.

Jan

http://www.msnbc.com/news/809196.asp

Years earlier, a scientist just a few miles away from the Gelsinger’s home in
Tucson had raised serious questions about whether the experiment was safe.

Documents

• Feb. 8, 2002: FDA letter, attempt to ban Dr. Wilson from other
experiments.
• March 3, 2000: FDA Warning Letter, original findings about the gene
therapy experiment.

(No coverups there,,,,,,,,,,,,,)

The trouble is, Paul Gelsinger says, Dr. Wilson’s team had never told him
that anyone had ever raised questions about safety

(That's fine and dandy according to organized medicine member, Peter Moran.)

ADVERSE REACTIONS WERE NOT REPORTED
And that was just the beginning. Federal investigators, pouring through
Penn’s records, announced at the conference that they had made a series of
startling discoveries, raising questions about whether the doctors had covered
up problems and broken basic test rules.

In fact, just a few months before Jesse had signed up for the experiment,
several monkeys given viruses similar to Jesse’s got sick. And two of them
died.

(No coverup there)

The rules for the experiment said: Even if volunteers didn’t get visibly ill,
if tests showed that any of them had a significant reaction called “grade
3,” the experiment was supposed to be “halted” immediately.
Records show there were “grade 3” reactions in more than one
patient. The first time, doctors stopped, called the government and got
permission to continue, saying an unusual condition with the patient might have
been the cause.
The second time, they stopped, called and got permission again, citing
another unusual condition.
But when it happened a third time, they didn’t stop, didn’t call.
Then, a fourth time. They didn’t stop or call then either

(No coverups there).

For their own safety, volunteers weren’t supposed to have a blood
ammonia level higher than 50. But people were coming in with higher levels and
without proper approval. The limit was raised to 70.
When Jesse signed up over the summer, he was within the limits, but
records show that when Penn doctors tested him, just days before the
experiment, his reading was 114 — more than double the original safety limit.

(That's way cool huh Peter???)

HIGH FINANCIAL STAKES
With so many red flags from the monkey deaths to the reactions in other
volunteers, even to Jesse’s own ammonia levels, Why had Dr. Wilson’s team
allowed the experiment to continue?

(Wonder if Peter can answer this question?)

At the University of Pennsylvania, the conflict committee approved Dr.
Wilson’s arrangement with Genovo.
In fact, the university itself owned a piece of his company and stood to
profit, too.

(Hmmmmmmmmm).

In a statement, the university acknowledged that some information
“should have been shared with the FDA sooner.”

(Just a minor little slip,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,)

There was no information given to Jesse or his family about the monkey deaths.
There was no information given to Jesse or his family about toxic results in
prior patients. There was no information that would allow Jesse and his family
to make any kind of informed decision.”

(Peter STILL can't see any coverup!!!! NO dishonesty!)

CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

He told congress that other private companies in the race for cures had
also been doing gene therapy experiments and had also gotten adverse reactions.
But instead of sharing the information, government rules allowed them to stamp
those reactions “confidential,” classifying them as trade secrets to
protect their research investments.
So, while the government knew about them, other researchers like Dr.
Wilson and volunteers like Jesse Gelsinger were never allowed to see them.

(TRust the government!!!)

“I was outraged,” says Paul. “I had a right to know. Jesse had a right to
know.

(Oh my,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,emotions).

In February, the Food and Drug Administration said that because Dr. Wilson
filed “false and misleading” reports and “repeatedly and deliberately
violated regulations

REPEAT FOR THE HARD HEADED!!!

Dr. Wilson filed “false and misleading” reports and “repeatedly and
deliberately violated regulations

(No coverups,,,,,,,,,,no fraud,,,,,,,,,,no deliberate violations,,,,,,,,,,,,)

This week marks the third anniversary of Jesse Gelsinger’s death. At
the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Wilson

****is still on the faculty****

(Soooooooooo in organized medicine,,,,,,,,,,,)

****Filing *false and misleading reports* is A OK,,,,,,,,,,,,****

****REPEATED and DELIBERATE violations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is A OK.***

but no longer in charge of its gene therapy program. And, in Congress,
lawmakers are still debating legislation to provide more protection for medical
volunteers.

******in the end, whether Jesse was betrayed by the doctors he and his family
thought they could trust.*********