Heckler filter list?

In said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list? From: "D. C. Sessions" [email hidden] Date: 1/23/2004 6:07
PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In said:

Does anybody wanna share their heckler filter list for this ng?

I have gathered so far that the following

Mark Probert (email changes daily) David Wright ([email hidden]) HCN
([email hidden]) Orac ([email hidden]) Rich Shewmaker ([email hidden]) Happy Oyster
([email hidden]) [email hidden] ([email hidden]) Peter Bowditch
([email hidden])

visit the ng for the purpose of heckling, not out of an actual interest in alternative medicine
or in helping out people.

Are there any others I should be aware of and ignore?

Enter DC Sessions to show his purpose here.

Quoted message said:

Several, I suspect. Always, of course, with the caveat that reading minds over a newsgroup is
notoriously unreliable. That said, Jan Drew is a very good instance of someone whose posts are
almost 100% devoted to negative topics

That would be exposing organized medicine, it's evils and it's brainwashed members and their lies.

Thank you for the confirmation.

Quoted message said:

and almost never have anything positive to contribute

Quoted message said:

on the subject of alternative medicine.

Where is your list of those you have helped??

I have posted a partial list of mine.

Like they say, the proof is in the pudding.

Do show us who and how you have helped.

HIPPA

--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
B: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
C: Top-posting.
D: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (soft-

eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<orac-C7B6D1.19430621012004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (soft-
eng) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Are there any others I should be aware of and ignore?

If you want, I'll supply you with the other two e-mail addresses I sometimes post under.

Maybe I was wrong to include you here -- you are a source of data for the newgroup, and I think
your biases may become clear to you over time.

You mean my bias for scientific and clinical evidence over emotion and belief?

Nope. Your bias for your particular emotions and beliefs, that cause you to ignore actual evidence.
And your bias in favor of one particular method of evidence collection over all others. Though I
hope this is becoming or will become clear to you over time.

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (soft-

eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<orac-C7B6D1.19430621012004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (soft-
> eng) wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > Are there any others I should be aware of and ignore?
>
> If you want, I'll supply you with the other two e-mail addresses I sometimes post under.

Maybe I was wrong to include you here -- you are a source of data for the newgroup, and I
think your biases may become clear to you over time.

You mean my bias for scientific and clinical evidence over emotion and belief?

Nope. Your bias for your particular emotions and beliefs, that cause you to ignore actual
evidence. And your bias in favor of one particular method of evidence collection over all others.
Though I hope this is becoming or will become clear to you over time.

I freely admit that I am biased in favor of verifable evidence and not some yarn that could be
cooked up in the back room of a advertising agency or some other nefarious dwelling.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You mean my bias for scientific and clinical evidence over emotion and belief?

Nope. Your bias for your particular emotions and beliefs, that cause you to ignore actual
evidence.

Actually, my only bias in this the matters generally discussed on this newsgroup is for verifiable
observations, well-designed clinical trials, and good science. I've never denied that. As a
consequence of that bias, I'm also biased *against* lousy data, unverifiable anecdotal evidence and
testimonials, poorly designed clinical trials, and crappy science, of which there is far too much in
this newsgroup Emotion has little to do with it, in marked contrast to you and some others here, who
seem to think that because something sounds good it must BE good.

Quoted message said:

And your bias in favor of one particular method of evidence collection over all others.

The scientific method is FAR more than merely a "method of evidence collection" (indeed, the exact
method of evidence collection is probably less important to the scientific method than the overall
process of hypothesis testing), but I'll let your ignorant comment pass for the moment, because it
is late and I'm just too tired to explain it to you in depth yet again. Maybe tomorrow or this
weekend. In the meantime, until you or someone else can demonstrate to me a "method of evidence
collection" that is superior to the scientific method and show me WHY it is superior with concrete
examples, I'm sticking with the best, most objective method we have right now. So far you have
failed to do so. Certainly testimonials and anecdotal evidence do not qualify.

Quoted message said:

Though I hope this is becoming or will become clear to you over time.

It is not, and, unless you can come up with better arguments and evidence, very likely will not.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (soft-

eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<orac-
[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You mean my bias for scientific and clinical evidence over emotion and belief?

Nope. Your bias for your particular emotions and beliefs, that cause you to ignore actual
evidence.

Actually, my only bias in this the matters generally discussed on this newsgroup is for verifiable
observations, well-designed clinical trials, and good science. I've never denied that. As a
consequence of that bias, I'm also biased *against* lousy data, unverifiable anecdotal evidence
and testimonials, poorly designed clinical trials, and crappy science, of which there is far too
much in this newsgroup Emotion has little to do with it, in marked contrast to you and some others
here, who seem to think that because something sounds good it must BE good.

Wrong. Have you personally repeated many clinical trial?

I am sure you have never personally verified even that aspirin or tylenol does any good.

So ultimately, you are just taking the word of certain people, because the word comes in a certain
format and with a certain baggage.

To me, that means "unquestioning" acceptance. You can't see that, but hopefully I have made a lot of
other people aware that your acceptance is mere unquestioning acceptance of a new variety. Not
different in essence from various unquestioningly obedient people of the past.

(soft-eng) said:

Wrong. Have you personally repeated many clinical trial?

I am sure you have never personally verified even that aspirin or tylenol does any good.

So ultimately, you are just taking the word of certain people, because the word comes in a certain
format and with a certain baggage.

Have you tested the operation and efficacy of the airbags in your car? If not, you are just taking
the word of certain people.

Please drive your car into a building at 70mph and lets us know the results of your actual, personal
experience.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project ratbags.comrsolesOpen ↗
The Green Light ratbags.comgreenlightOpen ↗
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 ratbags.comloonOpen ↗
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(soft-eng) said:

Wrong. Have you personally repeated many clinical trial?

I am sure you have never personally verified even that aspirin or tylenol does any good.

So ultimately, you are just taking the word of certain people, because the word comes in a
certain format and with a certain baggage.

Have you tested the operation and efficacy of the airbags in your car? If not, you are just taking
the word of certain people.

Please drive your car into a building at 70mph and lets us know the results of your actual,
personal experience.

Your confusion appears to be total!

I am not the one who claims everything must be verified according to a certain "repeatable"
methodology.

I am the one who is willing to listen to multiple sources of evidence.

If you can't even understand the logic of such a simple argument and who is arguing what, no wonder
you are so fundamentally confused about other things as well!

(soft-eng) said:

Peter Bowditch <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(soft-eng) said:

Wrong. Have you personally repeated many clinical trial?

I am sure you have never personally verified even that aspirin or tylenol does any good.

So ultimately, you are just taking the word of certain people, because the word comes in a
certain format and with a certain baggage.

Have you tested the operation and efficacy of the airbags in your car? If not, you are just
taking the word of certain people.

Please drive your car into a building at 70mph and lets us know the results of your actual,
personal experience.

Your confusion appears to be total!

I am not surprised that you see analogy as confusion. Concrete thinking is a hallmark of people who
reject science (except where it confirms their opinions).

Quoted message said:

I am not the one who claims everything must be verified according to a certain "repeatable"
methodology.

No, you are the person who said :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am sure you have never personally verified even that aspirin or tylenol does any good.

So ultimately, you are just taking the word of certain people, because the word comes in a
certain format and with a certain baggage.

Quoted message said:

I am the one who is willing to listen to multiple sources of evidence.

And then say:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am sure you have never personally verified even that aspirin or tylenol does any good.

So ultimately, you are just taking the word of certain people, because the word comes in a
certain format and with a certain baggage.

Quoted message said:

If you can't even understand the logic of such a simple argument and who is arguing what, no wonder
you are so fundamentally confused about other things as well!

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain logic to me as any explanation
that you could offer would only cause me more confusion. Stick to explaining things that you know
something about. This will also save bandwidth.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project ratbags.comrsolesOpen ↗
The Green Light ratbags.comgreenlightOpen ↗
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 ratbags.comloonOpen ↗
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain logic to me as any
explanation that you could offer would only cause me more confusion. Stick to explaining things
that you know something about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been verified by a double-blind test involving a
control group and a test group, where the control group is given a placebo and the test group is
given the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Therefore -- according to Orac -- the airbag tests involving the dummies don't prove anything. Note
that Orac's position is that "airbags may save lives" is not "unknown", it is "false".

Why? Because in order to prove it as "true", the only true way is to take lots of real people (NOT
dummies), put half of them in airbag-equipped cars and the other half in cars with airbag-like
things that are not real airbags, and crash test the whole lot of them.

Until this has been done with a paper trail, according to Orac, the "airbags save lives" is so
much hogwash.

My position, on the other hand, is that controlled medical tests are ONE out of many ways to
find facts.

So "airbags save lives" fits into my worldview. It doesn't in Orac's (though I am sure there is some
kind of thought-contortion that will make it appear to fit...)

Is that any better? Do you understand now why your comment was directed towards the wrong
participant, and therefore simply illogical nonsense?

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Bowditch <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain logic to me as any
explanation that you could offer would only cause me more confusion. Stick to explaining things
that you know something about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been verified by a double-blind test involving a
control group and a test group, where the control group is given a placebo and the test group is
given the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Therefore -- according to Orac -- the airbag tests involving the dummies don't prove anything.
Note that Orac's position is that "airbags may save lives" is not "unknown", it is "false".

Why? Because in order to prove it as "true", the only true way is to take lots of real people (NOT
dummies), put half of them in airbag-equipped cars and the other half in cars with airbag-like
things that are not real airbags, and crash test the whole lot of them.

Until this has been done with a paper trail, according to Orac, the "airbags save lives" is so
much hogwash.

My position, on the other hand, is that controlled medical tests are ONE out of many ways to
find facts.

So "airbags save lives" fits into my worldview. It doesn't in Orac's (though I am sure there is
some kind of thought-contortion that will make it appear to fit...)

Is that any better? Do you understand now why your comment was directed towards the wrong
participant, and therefore simply illogical nonsense?

A control group does not have to have a placebo to be valid. A crash test dummy does not know if
it's car has air bags or not. A cell culture does not know if it has been given a drug, etc..
Therefore a control group in this case doesn't require a placebo.

If you are testing a drug, treatment etc, both groups (assuming they are sentient) need to know
something has been given to them thus the need for a placebo.

carabelli

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote:

[Snip]

Quoted message said:

I am the one who is willing to listen to multiple sources of evidence.

Actually, you're the one who can't distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of evidence
and listens to both.

[Snip]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

(soft-eng) said:

Peter Bowditch <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain logic to me as any
explanation that you could offer would only cause me more confusion. Stick to explaining things
that you know something about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been verified by a double-blind test involving a
control group and a test group, where the control group is given a placebo and the test group is
given the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Why do you need to lie?

Quoted message said:

Therefore -- according to Orac -- the airbag tests involving the dummies don't prove anything. Note
that Orac's position is that "airbags may save lives" is not "unknown", it is "false".

Why do you need to lie?

Quoted message said:

Why? Because in order to prove it as "true", the only true way is to take lots of real people (NOT
dummies), put half of them in airbag-equipped cars and the other half in cars with airbag-like
things that are not real airbags, and crash test the whole lot of them.

Why do you need to lie?

Quoted message said:

Until this has been done with a paper trail, according to Orac, the "airbags save lives" is so
much hogwash.

Why do you need to lie?

Quoted message said:

My position, on the other hand, is that controlled medical tests are ONE out of many ways to
find facts.

Which is the position of most people, including Orac and me.

Quoted message said:

So "airbags save lives" fits into my worldview. It doesn't in Orac's (though I am sure there is
some kind of thought-contortion that will make it appear to fit...)

Why do you need to lie?

Quoted message said:

Is that any better? Do you understand now why your comment was directed towards the wrong
participant, and therefore simply illogical nonsense?

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project ratbags.comrsolesOpen ↗
The Green Light ratbags.comgreenlightOpen ↗
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 ratbags.comloonOpen ↗
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In the case of crash test dummies, it is well known how much force administered to humans at
various points of their anatomy is lethal, how much is required to break bones, etc. The dummies
measure this.

Surely you are not going to start accepting mere _deduction_?

Quoted message said:

Similarly, crash tests have been done using actual corpses to confirm these findings regarding the
amount of force necessary to cause specific

Still not a clinical double-blind controlled trial, is it? Are you going to start accepting mere
"reasonable" logic?

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (soft-

eng) said:

Peter Bowditch <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain logic to me as any
explanation that you could offer would only cause me more confusion. Stick to explaining
things that you know something about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been verified by a double-blind test involving a
control group and a test group, where the control group is given a placebo and the test group is
given the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

[censored]. That is not my position at all, as I have explained time and time again. That you choose
to misrepresent my position on the issue yet again only verifies that you are either incapable of
understanding, unwilling to understand, or you are choosing to intentionally misrepresent what I
have said.

Ok, then perhaps you can explain your position a little slowly. I have to admit I thought when you
said "no connection exists", that you meant "no connection exists".

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Peter Bowditch <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain logic to me as any
explanation that you could offer would only cause me more confusion. Stick to explaining things
that you know something about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been verified by a double-blind test involving a
control group and a test group, where the control group is given a placebo and the test group is
given the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

[censored]. That is not my position at all, as I have explained time and time again. That you choose
to misrepresent my position on the issue yet again only verifies that you are either incapable of
understanding, unwilling to understand, or you are choosing to intentionally misrepresent what I
have said.

Quoted message said:

Therefore -- according to Orac -- the airbag tests involving the dummies don't prove anything.
Note that Orac's position is that "airbags may save lives" is not "unknown", it is "false".

Again, utter [censored] (not to mention an obvious strawman argument misrepresenting my opinion). You
obviously have ignored all the posts I've made about levels of evidence and the hierarchy of
clinical evidence for the efficacy of various therapies.

[Remainder of misrepresentations of my positions (possibly even downright lies about it) deleted.]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Bowditch said:

(soft-eng) said:

Peter Bowditch <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain logic to me as any
explanation that you could offer would only cause me more confusion. Stick to explaining things
that you know something about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been verified by a double-blind test involving a
control group and a test group, where the control group is given a placebo and the test group is
given the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Why do you need to lie?

Because he has no chance of persuading anyone with his bogus arguments?

[Snip]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Are you going to start accepting mere "reasonable" logic?

I've always accepted reasonable logic. Unfortunately, your "logic" rarely qualifies.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

carabelli said:

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Bowditch <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain logic to me as any
explanation that you could offer would only cause me more confusion. Stick to explaining
things that you know something about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been verified by a double-blind test involving a
control group and a test group, where the control group is given a placebo and the test group is
given the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Therefore -- according to Orac -- the airbag tests involving the dummies don't prove anything.
Note that Orac's position is that "airbags may save lives" is not "unknown", it is "false".

Why? Because in order to prove it as "true", the only true way is to take lots of real people
(NOT dummies), put half of them in airbag-equipped cars and the other half in cars with airbag-
like things that are not real airbags, and crash test the whole lot of them.

Until this has been done with a paper trail, according to Orac, the "airbags save lives" is so
much hogwash.

My position, on the other hand, is that controlled medical tests are ONE out of many ways to
find facts.

So "airbags save lives" fits into my worldview. It doesn't in Orac's (though I am sure there is
some kind of thought-contortion that will make it appear to fit...)

Is that any better? Do you understand now why your comment was directed towards the wrong
participant, and therefore simply illogical nonsense?

A control group does not have to have a placebo to be valid. A crash test dummy does not know if
it's car has air bags or not. A cell culture does not know if it has been given a drug, etc..
Therefore a control group in this case doesn't require a placebo.

Good point. In fact, in most clinical trials, where it is unethical to give a placebo (because an
effective treatment already exists for the disease in question), the control group is a group given
the accepted standard of care therapy for the disease and the experimental group gets the new drug.
There is no placebo. The object is to determine if the new drug is better than the currently
accepted standard of care.

In the case of crash test dummies, it is well known how much force administered to humans at various
points of their anatomy is lethal, how much is required to break bones, etc. The dummies measure
this. Similarly, crash tests have been done using actual corpses to confirm these findings regarding
the amount of force necessary to cause specific injuries in humans. An interesting account of such
experiments can be found in one of the chapters in "Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers," by
Mary Roach.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in news:orac-67E07E.20241509022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Orac's position is that anything that has not been verified by a double-blind test involving a
control group and a test group, where the control group is given a placebo and the test group is
given the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Why do you need to lie?

Because he has no chance of persuading anyone with his bogus arguments?

Particularly considering that since you're a surgeon, you'd have to believe that everything you did
was "false" if you really held the position he claims you do.