Does this place serve any purpose?



Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (soft-
> eng) wrote:
>
> > Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<orac-
> > [email protected]>...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (soft-
> > > eng) wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<h-KdnQ6LdPlBwpTdRVn-
> > > > [email protected]>...
> > > >
> > > > > It is interesting that you selected digitalis as your example. This drug is quite toxic in
> > > > > overdose, and the toxic dose is only slightly greater than
> > > >
> > > > Did you know an overdose of salt will kill you?
> > >
> > > But it would take a hell of a lot to do so in a person with normal kidney function.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Or that a little bit less than a fatal overdose would damage your brain? Or that overdoing
> > > > it even in normal usage would increase your blood pressure? And yet, if salt weren't
> > > > available at all, you would have many health problems from salt deprivation?
> > >
> > > The vast majority of people get more than adequate salt in their daily diet. Even vegans.
> > > Supplementation is rarely necessary or helpful.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Many everyday ingestibles are toxic in overdose.
> > >
> > > Straw man. The difference is that, in contrast to your other example, digitalis has a rather
> > > narrow range of efficacy. The range between an ineffective dose and a toxic dose is narrow and
> > > easily crossed. Moreover, its pharmacokinetics are such that it takes a long time to build up
> > > a therapeutic dose and a long time for it to be metabolized away when the toxic dose has been
> > > passed. Worse, there is a fair amount of person-to-person variation in its metabolism.
> > >
> > >
> > > > But Foxglove was actually IN USE by herbal dispensers before medicine in its modern form
> > > > acquired it.
> > > >
> > > > I am not saying standardization is not of benefit. Obviously it is. But that doesn't relate
> > > > to any arguments of substance in this thread.
> > >
> > > Yes it does. The whole point is that using digitalis in a pure, standardized form is
> > > inherently safer and more efficacious than relying on hit-and-miss dosing through the
> > > administration of foxglove leaves.
> >
> > Nobody said analysis and standardization is not of benefit. That's just a strawman you inserted
> > in the debate.
>
> Wrong. Your example of salt as an example of how "everyday substances are toxic in overdose" was
> the obvious strawman. I was merely responding to it and showing WHY it was a strawman.
>
>
> >That's why it doesn't relate to any arguments of substance.
>
> Far more so than your salt argument.
>
>
> > There is nothing that says you cannot analyze and standardize whole herb strains.
>
> Well, actually, yes there is. No matter how much you try to do it, there is still far more
> inherent variability in the amount of active ingredient in an herb strain. It could depend on how
> the herb is grown, where it is grown, or just random chance. Extracting the active compound into a
> pure form that is measured and reproducible is far superior.
>
>
> >So from that point of view, extraction and standardization of digitalis is at best a nice
> >convenience to have.
>
> It is far more than a convenience, given the rather tricky nature of achieving the right dose of
> digitalis.
>
>
> >It doesn't make the foxglove prescriber a quack.
>
> Perhaps, but it does make the foxglove prescriber someone who is consciously choosing a manner of
> digitalis administration that is less efficacious and more risky.

There is no such person today, to my knowledge.

There are people who are aware that, say, Milk Thistle may be benefitial to some people, and still
consciously choose to make moot points about it.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote:

> Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<orac-8E6C31.20302018012004@news4-
> ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
> > It's sarcasm, son. I'm joking when I say I want to become one of these "paid agents." I'm just
> > amused at the accusation and sometimes have a little fun with it.
>
> Buddy, I am intellectually your grandfather at least, so that sarascam is just plain dumbth.

LOL! If that's true, you have yet to show any evidence of such a lofty intellect in any of your
posts to this newsgroup. But it is amusing to see how inflated an opinion you have of your own
intellectual capacity.

> The question was, why the heck do you read "misc.health.altetnative"? Why do you want to show your
> wit and sarcasm someplace where you are nothing but a rude party crasher?
>
> Don't you have any life of your own, at all?

Yep. Sometimes several weeks will go by when I hardly browse Usenet at all or only a couple of times
a week. You just happen to be lucky enough to have caught me at a time when I'm writing a big
project and therefore happen to be in front of the computer a lot. As I get closer to the deadline,
you'll probably see me less and less, but I'm not going away completely.

> > > It's not like the anti-alts are popping up on cross-posted threads. They are popping up on
> > > threads posted to the single ng "misc.health.alternative", indicating they actually subscribe
> > > to it and read everything!
> >
> > Oh, dear. Guilty as charged! Yes, I do browse this newsgroup, among the dozen or so others that
> > I regularly peruse. Sorry if you don't like it, but c'est la vie.
>
> Well, rude people exist, and always have.

Indeed. You, for example.

>People going to a party where they don't belong, are not all that uncommon.

Ah, but I *do* belong here, as do you, and as does anyone who has an interest in discussing
"alternative" medicine. This is a newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of "alternative medicine,"
BOTH pro and con. Go read the charter if you don't believe me.

Sorry if you don't like my opinion, but labeling me as someone who "doesn't belong" just because you
don't like what I have to say is rather pathetic and whiny, I'm afraid. And few people take pathetic
whining very seriously.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"Mark ProbertJanuary 16, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Correct. The anti-vac liars and science know-nothings persist in spouting their fearmongering
> and lies.

You were good so far, but here you lost touch with reality. It's the anti-alts who are out of order.
Alties are developing, with trial and error, a certain advancement of human knowledge. (Dishonest
individuals are to be expected, JUST LIKE any other professions.)

Hypotheses cannot be "lies", calling them lies is totally dishonest.

Your ilk should feel welcome to similarly develop human knowledge as per your own lights, in YOUR
OWN ngs. By interfering with the natural development/popularization of alternative medicine by
spreading FUD in groups like this, you show nothing but reckless disregard for human welfare.

Why are you here, reading and interfering with this ng?
 
"HCN" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<afDOb.81451$5V2.104950@attbi_s53>...
> "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > PS: With a cilantro-chlorella based treatment, you don't NEED tests. Because you are using food
> > for treatment. So if it works, fine, you continue with it. If it doesn't work, you have
> > lost $200, but it is a very small gamble with the only risk being the $200 and not the
> > patient's health. In fact, maybe even the $200 is not a total loss, because there may be
> > other health benefits.
> >
> > The treatment can be the test when you can use food for treatment.
>
> Evidence please. Post the references to this treatment, and be particular to which kind of mercury
> poisoning you are referring to... since there are several kinds that are treated differently.

I think you are mistaking me for someone who needs to publish something in a journal.

Here is another piece of advice for you -- eating fruits can be good for you. You say you want
documented refereed evidence from me? Well, life is tough, isn't it?

I have a better idea. Don't follow this advice, and I will contact you when I care.

In the meanwhile, you are simply being rude, interfering with friendly discussions among like-minded
individuals.
 
"Mark ProbertJanuary 16, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > > It is interesting that you selected digitalis as your example. This drug
> is
> > > quite toxic in overdose, and the toxic dose is only slightly greater
> than
> >
> > Did you know an overdose of salt will kill you?
>
> Wow! Talk about selective snipping to change meaning....

Maybe it's me. But somehow or the other, I distinctly lack the feeling I am responsible about your
inability to follow the reasoning behind a thread of logic...
 
"HCN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:66EOb.95221$xy6.171212@attbi_s02...
>
> "mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> ..> Ah! and in your opinion, it would be better if that money was spent
with
> the
> > "doctors", even though they have nothing to offer to help? I think you
> just
> > are angry that you did not get the money.
> >
> >
>
> My opinion is that the money would have been better off spent on occupentional and physical
> therapists, speech and language therapists, behavioral therapists and enhanced eduational
> situations. Unfortunately
the
> OT/PT's and SLP's services are often not covered by insurance. BUT...
there
> are charitable organizations that do help kids get treatment.
>
> The only doctor that is visited is perhaps a child neurologist ONCE a
year,
> and the annual checkup with pediatrician or family doctor... hardly the amount spent on the quack
> Edelson..
>
> By the way, I am only a parent of a child with a speech/language
disability
> who is dismayed at seeing well meaning parents get scammed. Our family
has
> been a beneficiary of the speech therapy through a group who provides free therapy to children,
> they are now the main recipients of our donations to charity.
>
> Funny comments from a person advocating consumption of another kind of metal.

So you noticed the inconsistency. Well, silver is an alternative metal and mercury is a EOM metal.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote:

> "HCN" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<afDOb.81451$5V2.104950@attbi_s53>...
> > "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > PS: With a cilantro-chlorella based treatment, you don't NEED tests. Because you are using
> > > food for treatment. So if it works, fine, you continue with it. If it doesn't work, you
> > > have lost $200, but it is a very small gamble with the only risk being the $200 and not
> > > the patient's health. In fact, maybe even the $200 is not a total loss, because there may
> > > be other health benefits.
> > >
> > > The treatment can be the test when you can use food for treatment.
> >
> > Evidence please. Post the references to this treatment, and be particular to which kind of
> > mercury poisoning you are referring to... since there are several kinds that are treated
> > differently.
>
> I think you are mistaking me for someone who needs to publish something in a journal.

Brave Sir Robin, he ran away. Bravely, bravely ran away....

> Here is another piece of advice for you -- eating fruits can be good for you. You say you want
> documented refereed evidence from me? Well, life is tough, isn't it?

No one's going to argue that eating fruits can be good for you. However, if you're going to
claim that eating fruits will cure a specific disease, then, YES, we want scientific evidence
for that claim.

> I have a better idea. Don't follow this advice, and I will contact you when I care.

Watch him run away yet again. He can't back up even the most simple of his claims.

> In the meanwhile, you are simply being rude, interfering with friendly discussions among like-
> minded individuals.

It's Usenet. Get a clue.

--
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 protected]>,
[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote:

> "Mark ProbertJanuary 16, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Correct. The anti-vac liars and science know-nothings persist in spouting their fearmongering
> > and lies.
>
> You were good so far, but here you lost touch with reality. It's the anti-alts who are out of
> order. Alties are developing, with trial and error, a certain advancement of human knowledge.

LOL! You mean with all the scientific experimentation they do about the efficacy of their remedies?
Very droll.

>(Dishonest individuals are to be expected, JUST LIKE any other professions.)

Yes, but they seem especially strongly attracted to the altie world, given the high level of
gullibility found among too many alties and the lack of accountability for results.

> Hypotheses cannot be "lies", calling them lies is totally dishonest.

Wrong. It depends upon the specific hypothesis.

> Your ilk should feel welcome to similarly develop human knowledge as per your own lights, in YOUR
> OWN ngs. By interfering with the natural development/popularization of alternative medicine by
> spreading FUD in groups like this, you show nothing but reckless disregard for human welfare.

Oh, stop whining. Do you know how pathetic you sound when you whine about anyone expressing an
opinion that goes counter to your precious "alt" med?

> Why are you here, reading and interfering with this ng?

Because we care.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark ProbertJanuary 16, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Correct. The anti-vac liars and science know-nothings persist in
spouting
> > their fearmongering and lies.
>
> You were good so far, but here you lost touch with reality. It's the anti-alts who are out of
> order. Alties are developing, with trial and error, a certain advancement of human knowledge.
> (Dishonest individuals are to be expected, JUST LIKE any other professions.)
>
> Hypotheses cannot be "lies", calling them lies is totally dishonest.
>
> Your ilk should feel welcome to similarly develop human knowledge as per your own lights, in YOUR
> OWN ngs. By interfering with the natural development/popularization of alternative medicine by
> spreading FUD in groups like this, you show nothing but reckless disregard for human welfare.

The current alt med craze is exactly that, IMNSHO.

> Why are you here, reading and interfering with this ng?

Well, to put it bluntly, exercising a right of free discourse.

Now, why does that bother you so much that you have to quention it.
 
"soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark ProbertJanuary 16, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > >
> > > > It is interesting that you selected digitalis as your example. This
drug
> > is
> > > > quite toxic in overdose, and the toxic dose is only slightly greater
> > than
> > >
> > > Did you know an overdose of salt will kill you?
> >
> > Wow! Talk about selective snipping to change meaning....
>
> Maybe it's me. But somehow or the other, I distinctly lack the feeling I am responsible about your
> inability to follow the reasoning behind a thread of logic...

It is you. You changed meaning when you snipped Rich's post.
 
Yup. Contribute nothing, ask for everything. It's called heckling.

"soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "HCN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<afDOb.81451$5V2.104950@attbi_s53>...
> > "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > PS: With a cilantro-chlorella based treatment, you don't NEED tests. Because you are using
> > > food for treatment. So if it works, fine, you continue with it. If it doesn't work, you
> > > have lost $200, but it is a very small gamble with the only risk being the $200 and not
> > > the patient's health. In fact, maybe even the $200 is not a total loss, because there may
> > > be other health benefits.
> > >
> > > The treatment can be the test when you can use food for treatment.
> >
> > Evidence please. Post the references to this treatment, and be
particular
> > to which kind of mercury poisoning you are referring to... since there
are
> > several kinds that are treated differently.
>
> I think you are mistaking me for someone who needs to publish something in a journal.
>
> Here is another piece of advice for you -- eating fruits can be good for you. You say you want
> documented refereed evidence from me? Well, life is tough, isn't it?
>
> I have a better idea. Don't follow this advice, and I will contact you when I care.
>
> In the meanwhile, you are simply being rude, interfering with friendly discussions among like-
> minded individuals.
 
"soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "HCN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<afDOb.81451$5V2.104950@attbi_s53>... ..> > Evidence please. Post the references to this
treatment, and be particular
> > to which kind of mercury poisoning you are referring to... since there
are
> > several kinds that are treated differently.
>
> I think you are mistaking me for someone who needs to publish something in a journal.

No, you just need to share where you got this little tidbit of information... something that seems
to have been missed in the National Library of Medicine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ ),
which also has references to several alternative medicine journals.

>
> Here is another piece of advice for you -- eating fruits can be good for you. You say you want
> documented refereed evidence from me? Well, life is tough, isn't it?

Again... how does this help with mercury toxicity, paying particular attention to the type of
mercury poisoining it is good for.

>
> I have a better idea. Don't follow this advice, and I will contact you when I care.

You care enough to tell those who have medical degrees (not me by the way, just a parent) about
alternative medicine.

>
> In the meanwhile, you are simply being rude, interfering with friendly discussions among like-
> minded individuals.

Since when is it to be rude to join in on an unmoderated newsgroup? I do not recall using trolling
techniques, foul language or anything more than stating a comment on one of your posts and then
asking for details for some perceived treatment you presented as valid, but without any evidence.

If you do not wish to be challenged, then post away at the Curezone, the (not)Dr Clark or the Autism-
Mercury Yahoo groups. But do not elect yourself the m.h.a. "manners nanny", brave Sir Robin.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mark ProbertJanuary 19, 2004" <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

> > Why are you here, reading and interfering with this ng?
>
> Well, to put it bluntly, exercising a right of free discourse.
>
> Now, why does that bother you so much that you have to quention it.

Well, he does seem to subscribe to the rather common misconception that freedom of speech means
freedom FROM criticism for one's speech. It does not.

Unfortunately, a lot of alties seem to think that it does and that they should not have to deal with
criticism of their beliefs or skepticism of the therapies they are interested in. Any criticism of
their beliefs, no matter how polite or how rooted in reason, logic, and evidence it is, they have a
distressing tendency to label as an attempt to "suppress" their "free speech" or to deny them
"choice." If the debate happens to get a little more vigorous or heated, then use it as an excuse to
whine about how nasty we supposedly are and how ill-used they supposedly are. (Witness the recent
whining that those of us who dare to question the basis of various "alt" treatments should "get a
life" or "go away" because we are not "wanted" on this newsgroup. Boo-hoo! Really, can it get more
pathetic than such whining?) On the other hand, alties seem to view it as perfectly acceptable--no
admirable--to criticize OUR beliefs at every turn. Not only that, but if we don't back down, then
they consider it perfectly acceptable to resort to the usual ad hominem tactics, insinuating that we
must be "paid agents" or that we're "brainwashed," etc., etc.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark ProbertJanuary 19, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > See below for your comments and my reply
> >
> > > "Mark ProbertJanuary 16, 2004" <[email protected]>
> wrote
> > > in message news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "HCN" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:YIgOb.86991$8H.129788@attbi_s03...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[email protected]... ...> So many useful medicines
> > > > > > will not get pursued, simply
because
> > > > > > > of the commerce involved. Nothing to do with the efficacy of the medicine or the lack
> > > > > > > thereof. Commerce, not science, is the actual driving force here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alternative medicine is providing a very vital role, in this environment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What an interesting statement... considering that there is a
facet
> > of
> > > > > > alternative medicine which is only being driven by financial
gain:
> > > some
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the alternative treatments for autism...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First they convince the parents that a component of vaccines
that
> > was
> > > > > > removed in 1999 is causing "heavy metal poisening" of their kids
> and
> > > is
> > > > > > responsible for the autism (even if the kid is under 3 years
old,
> > and
> > > > may
> > > > > > only really have a language delay). Usually in a Yahoo group
> called
> > > > > > "Autism-Mercury".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > THEN... they charge the parents a fee to do an analysis of hair
> for
> > > all
> > > > > > sorts of "metal toxicity"... not telling the parents that taking
> > hair
> > > > > > samples has to be done very carefully to reduce the chance of cross-contamination (one
> > > > > > parent was told her child's hair showed
> > > bismuth
> > > > > > toxicity... she did not seem to be aware that bismuth is the
> active
> > > > > > ingredient of Pepto Bismol). Of course, they can say they do an
> > > > analysis
> > > > > in
> > > > > > their lab two states away... but they don't have to, just send a
> > > report
> > > > > > (there have been cases of labs being tested by folks sending
hair
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > same heads to different labs and getting completely different
> > > > "analysis").
> > > > > >
> > > > > > THEN... they convince the parent to put the kid on oral
> chelation...
> > > > even
> > > > > > though there is no approven medication to chelate organic
mercury
> > like
> > > > > > thimerosal. So the kids are give meds like DMSO, which has its
> own
> > > > > > problems... but the parents are not told what. There are even
> cases
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > kids being put on EDTA... and suffering from the side-effects of
> > that
> > > > and
> > > > > > getting worse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All for lots of money... one family spent over $40000 to "cure"
> > their
> > > > > child
> > > > > > of autism: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/edelson.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Ah! and in your opinion, it would be better if that money was
spent
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > "doctors", even though they have nothing to offer to help? I think
> you
> > > > just
> > > > > are angry that you did not get the money.
> > > >
> > > > NOPE. In my opinion, it would have been far better fo rthe parents
to
> > not
> > > > have been scammed and have kept the money to help them raise a
special
> > > > child. Being the parent of two special children, I can attest that
it
> is
> > > not
> > > > cheap, even with excellent health insurance.
> > > >
> > > > My home renovations a few years ago far exceeded $40K for making all
> > doors
> > > > 32", installing interior and exterior ramps, a stair lift, etc.
> > > >
> > > > While I do not know what the extra costs are of raising an autistic
> > child,
> > > I
> > > > can imagine that they could use some help around the house, special vacations and camps,
> > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > The $40K was wasted on a quack, when it could have been spent on a
> kid.
> > > >
> > > > Now, please get a clue.
> >
> > > Hmmm, have you ever wondered what causes a child to be autistic?
> >
> > Many times. I wonder why kids are born premature, have ADHD, and all
sorts
> > of nasty horrible problems. WRT autism, from my extensive reading, it appears to be a mainly a
> > genetic condition, with, possibly, a small environmental component.
> >
> > > I will resist the opportunity to ask some extra nasty questions about
> why
> > > you have two autistic children.
> >
> > Go ahead and ask the nasty question. As a parent of two special kids, I
am
> > quite used to being accused of all sorts of horrible things. I have a
very
> > thick skin, and, when I consider the source, laugh it off, as the source
> is
> > often a moron.
> >
> > Oh, and please show me where I said I have two autistic kids? I don't.
> Your
> > reading comprehension skills are sloppy.
> >
> > What my kids have has been posted before, so look it up.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> No need to "look it up". Your thick skinned defensive post says enough.

Here's a clue, in the form of a question....

What aspect of autism requires a 32" wide door, ramps, etc?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
soft-eng <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mark ProbertJanuary 16, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Correct. The anti-vac liars and science know-nothings persist in spouting their fearmongering
>> and lies.
>
>You were good so far, but here you lost touch with reality. It's the anti-alts who are out of
>order. Alties are developing, with trial and error, a certain advancement of human knowledge.
>(Dishonest individuals are to be expected, JUST LIKE any other professions.)

Damn slowly, if they are. Perhaps the alt proponents on this newsgroup are not representative, but
all too often, the "state of the art" in alternative medicine consists solely of repeating whatever
it was someone said a few decades or centuries ago -- not testing it, and not trying to advance it.

There are exceptions, of course, but I certainly can't agree that it's the norm.

>Your ilk should feel welcome to similarly develop human knowledge as per your own lights, in
>YOUR OWN ngs.

You showed up here, what, a few months ago and now this is *your* newsgroup? Hey, I was one of the
people who voted for the creation of this newsgroup. Where were you??

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, soft-eng
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >You were good so far, but here you lost touch with reality. It's the anti-alts who are out of
> >order. Alties are developing, with trial and error, a certain advancement of human knowledge.
> >(Dishonest individuals are to be expected, JUST LIKE any other professions.)
>
> Damn slowly, if they are. Perhaps the alt proponents on this newsgroup are not representative, but
> all too often, the "state of the art" in alternative medicine consists solely of repeating
> whatever it was someone said a few decades or centuries ago -- not testing it, and not trying to
> advance it.
>
> There are exceptions, of course, but I certainly can't agree that it's the norm.
>
> >Your ilk should feel welcome to similarly develop human knowledge as per your own lights, in YOUR
> >OWN ngs.
>
> You showed up here, what, a few months ago and now this is *your* newsgroup? Hey, I was one of the
> people who voted for the creation of this newsgroup. Where were you??

You don't always agree with him; therefore it's not your newsgroup anymore.

Haven't you figured out altie logic yet?

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
What a load of **** you guys give each other. Kiss my **** cause I was here before you.
wankity ****.

Rod. "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:rac-EF52C0.23094819012004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (David
> Wright) wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, soft-eng
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >You were good so far, but here you lost touch with reality. It's the anti-alts who are out of
> > >order. Alties are developing, with trial and error, a certain advancement of human knowledge.
> > >(Dishonest individuals are to be expected, JUST LIKE any other professions.)
> >
> > Damn slowly, if they are. Perhaps the alt proponents on this newsgroup are not representative,
> > but all too often, the "state of the art" in alternative medicine consists solely of repeating
> > whatever it was someone said a few decades or centuries ago -- not testing it, and not trying to
> > advance it.
> >
> > There are exceptions, of course, but I certainly can't agree that it's the norm.
> >
> > >Your ilk should feel welcome to similarly develop human knowledge as per your own lights, in
> > >YOUR OWN ngs.
> >
> > You showed up here, what, a few months ago and now this is *your* newsgroup? Hey, I was one of
> > the people who voted for the creation of this newsgroup. Where were you??
>
> You don't always agree with him; therefore it's not your newsgroup anymore.
>
> Haven't you figured out altie logic yet?
>
> --
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |
> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yup. Contribute nothing, ask for everything. It's called heckling.

Self-referential

>
> "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "HCN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<afDOb.81451$5V2.104950@attbi_s53>...
> > > "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > PS: With a cilantro-chlorella based treatment, you don't NEED tests. Because you are using
> > > > food for treatment. So if it works, fine, you continue with it. If it doesn't work, you
> > > > have lost $200, but it is a very small gamble with the only risk being the $200 and not
> > > > the patient's health. In fact, maybe even the $200 is not a total loss, because there
> > > > may be other health benefits.
> > > >
> > > > The treatment can be the test when you can use food for treatment.
> > >
> > > Evidence please. Post the references to this treatment, and be
> particular
> > > to which kind of mercury poisoning you are referring to... since there
> are
> > > several kinds that are treated differently.
> >
> > I think you are mistaking me for someone who needs to publish something in a journal.
> >
> > Here is another piece of advice for you -- eating fruits can be good for you. You say you want
> > documented refereed evidence from me? Well, life is tough, isn't it?
> >
> > I have a better idea. Don't follow this advice, and I will contact you when I care.
> >
> > In the meanwhile, you are simply being rude, interfering with friendly discussions among like-
> > minded individuals.
 
"Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What a load of **** you guys give each other. Kiss my **** cause I was
here
> before you. wankity ****.

Rod, you are so negative and angry these days. perhaps you should get something?

>
> Rod. "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:rac-EF52C0.23094819012004@news4-
> ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (David
> > Wright) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>, soft-eng
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > >You were good so far, but here you lost touch with reality. It's the anti-alts who are out of
> > > >order. Alties are developing, with trial and error, a certain advancement of human knowledge.
> > > >(Dishonest individuals are to be expected, JUST LIKE any other professions.)
> > >
> > > Damn slowly, if they are. Perhaps the alt proponents on this newsgroup are not representative,
> > > but all too often, the "state of the art" in alternative medicine consists solely of repeating
> > > whatever it was someone said a few decades or centuries ago -- not testing it, and not trying
> > > to advance it.
> > >
> > > There are exceptions, of course, but I certainly can't agree that it's the norm.
> > >
> > > >Your ilk should feel welcome to similarly develop human knowledge as per your own lights, in
> > > >YOUR OWN ngs.
> > >
> > > You showed up here, what, a few months ago and now this is *your* newsgroup? Hey, I was one of
> > > the people who voted for the creation of this newsgroup. Where were you??
> >
> > You don't always agree with him; therefore it's not your newsgroup anymore.
> >
> > Haven't you figured out altie logic yet?
> >
> > --
> > Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> > |
> > |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
Mark, No, not negative but fed up with the BS that goes on here, but "Hey" that is par for this
course. ( you would be a curator?) Really does not concern me personally but must consider others in
the interim. Nice day here at 29c and wine tasting delicious. Happier days, Rod.

"Mark ProbertJanuary 19, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:U3bPb.20530$Wa.14288@news-
> server.bigpond.net.au...
> > What a load of **** you guys give each other. Kiss my **** cause I was
> here
> > before you. wankity ****.
>
> Rod, you are so negative and angry these days. perhaps you should get something?
>
> >
> > Rod. "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:rac-EF52C0.23094819012004@news4-
> > ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (David
> > > Wright) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <[email protected]>, soft-eng
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >You were good so far, but here you lost touch with reality. It's the anti-alts who are out
> > > > >of order. Alties are developing, with trial and error, a certain advancement of human
> > > > >knowledge. (Dishonest individuals are to be expected, JUST LIKE any other professions.)
> > > >
> > > > Damn slowly, if they are. Perhaps the alt proponents on this newsgroup are not
> > > > representative, but all too often, the "state of
the
> > > > art" in alternative medicine consists solely of repeating whatever
it
> > > > was someone said a few decades or centuries ago -- not testing it,
and
> > > > not trying to advance it.
> > > >
> > > > There are exceptions, of course, but I certainly can't agree that
it's
> > > > the norm.
> > > >
> > > > >Your ilk should feel welcome to similarly develop human knowledge as per your own lights,
> > > > >in YOUR OWN ngs.
> > > >
> > > > You showed up here, what, a few months ago and now this is *your* newsgroup? Hey, I was one
> > > > of the people who voted for the creation
of
> > > > this newsgroup. Where were you??
> > >
> > > You don't always agree with him; therefore it's not your newsgroup anymore.
> > >
> > > Haven't you figured out altie logic yet?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> > > |
> > > |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with
> > > |questions?"
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back