Does this place serve any purpose?



"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...

> A better example would be if a doctor gave you advice about what to do about a health condition.
> Would YOU just take his advice, or would you ask questions to try to get him to tell you the
> evidence that his proposed course of treatment works? If you wouldn't take advice from a doctor
> without asking questions and getting him to justify his treatment, why on earth would you accept
> without questioning advice involving "alt med" treatments from people on Usenet who have no
> professional credentials and whose identity you don't even know?

That is an excellent question which the Alties do not answer when asked.

BTW, I found a picture of an AltMed Convention....

www.ferryhalim.com/orisinal/g2/3monkeys.htm
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote:

> Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (m nesbitt)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > At the moment, as there is no known cause for diabetes, all theories carry equal weight until
> > > disproved.
> >
> > Actually, that's not true. Hypotheses that do not make sense based on what we already know about
> > human physiology carry less weight than those that to make sense according to what we know about
> > physiology.
>
> Again, you show lack of real life experience.

Oh, give me a break. It looks like you got tired of callin gme a "paid agent" and now you've
channeled Jan Drew and her "lack of personal experience" ploy!

> m nesbitt is the sufferer. It's his choice to decide how much weight to apply to what.

That is true. It does not mean he will do it correctly. He may.

>You may have some idea about what you "know" about human physiology. (For instance, you might
>"know" that type I diabetes is a result of genetics, and not a resulf of vaccination.)

Type I diabetes is multifactorial. However, there is no good evidence that it is a result of
vaccination. But, as I asked before, if you know of any good scientific evidence that Type I
diabetes is due to vaccination, please feel free to point it out to me and I'll be happy to
look it over.

Also, there is some evidence that certain vaccines may actually PROTECT against Type I diabetes.

> But all those are only your opinions, mostly from authority,

Nope, from evidence--unlike YOUR opinions. Want some evidence & citations?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=11731639&dopt=Abstract

http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/IDDM.htm

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/infocentre/inform/mmr.htm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=27850&rendertyp e=abstract

http://www.ncirs.usyd.edu.au/facts/f-diabetes.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/Diabetes/

> and not logically valid positions.

LOL! They're more logically valid than anything you've posted thus far.

>Ultimately m nesbitt gets to decide if they have any worth. If you are pushing him in one
>chosen direction that is the result of authority and not logic, you are doing just what all
>salespeople do.

See above

> Otoh, if you really wanted to help, the best thing would be to point to any available data and
> reference rather than try to impose your opinions as to what is "not true".

Again, you haven't been here very long, have you? I do that all the time. That I have not done so
with you is because you

--
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:

> Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > >Is it a little bit of money? Is it worth it?
> >
> > Ah, yes. The usual insinuation yet again. Well, I'm tired of it. So here's calling your bluff.
> > No more veiled questions or insinuations from you; tell me point blank:
> >
> > Are you accusing me of being one of those "paid" agents you like to rant about? A simple yes or
> > no will do. No waffling.
>
> No, I am asking. Did you miss the question marks?

Don't insult my intelligence any more than you already have. You were quite clearly "asking" as a
means of insinuating that I was one of your fantastical "paid agents." And if you were not aware
that's what you're doing, then you're stupider than I thought.

> And it wasn't a "veiled insinuation", I just asked if there was a little bit of money of involved.

ROTFLMAO! Too bad I couldn't see you when you made that statement. I bet you couldn't type it with a
straight face.

If "innocently asking" whether "a little bit of money might be involved" ISN'T insinuating that I'm
being paid, then I don't know what is.

> What words would seem more direct and "point blank" to you?

You've just lowered yourself even lower in my estimation than you had before. Before this, I thought
you were just misguided. Honest, but misguided. Now I sincerely doubt your honesty with your truly
lame and unbelievable denial that by your questions and insinuations you weren't trying to label me
a "paid agent."

Could you BE any more transparent?

Oh, and "point blank" the answer to your question is NO. I'm not paid. I'm sure you won't believe
it, but I'll put it down for the record anyway.

However, if you know someone who's willing to pay me for posts I would probably make anyway, by all
means point me in the right direction...

> I _have_ posted evidence of money being used for varioius subtle pharma PR, which you
> conveniently ignore.

Even if true, that does not mean I am being paid.

>If you wish to be honest, can you fact facts and respond to the evidence already posted, before you
>demand more evidence?

What evidence? You so seldom post any.

>If you ignore earlier evidence, why would you not ignore more evidence, and then why should anybody
>bother to give you more evidence to ignore?

Funny, but I ask myself the same question about alties almost on a daily basis.

--
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:

> 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-773EBB.18244519012004@news4-
> > > ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > That's true, and it would be very normal for you to start a thread like "Alt medicine is
> > > wrong".
> >
> > Why on earth should I have to limit myself to that? Certainly you or any of your altie comrades
> > don't limit yourselves to posts with Subject headers like "Alt med is great." Certainly none of
> > you restrict yourself only to threads that praise alt med. So why should I restrict myself only
> > to those that criticize it? I see a double standard here.
>
> Hardly. The newsgroup is "misc.health.alternative". If you don't like ukraine, it would be normal
> to post a message into a soc.culture.ukraine saying "hey, I don't like your place". But jumping
> into every message saying "ukraine sucks" would be simply rude, and not discussion.

OK, I know I've explained it before, but maybe if I say it again really slowly and simply you'll
understand:

misc.health.alternative...is...a...newsgroup...dedicated...to...the...
discussion...of...alternative...medicine,...both...pro...and...con.
Discussions...are...not...limited...to...only...posts...extolling... alternative...medicine.

I'll repeat myself again even more slowly and with smaller words next time you whine about seeing
posts that don't agree with your viewpoint regarding alternative medicine.

> > > But instead you obstruct all dialog with general illogic.
> >
> > Actually, what burns you is that I jump into dialogs with logic and evidence to counter the
> > illogic I see going on.
>
> Frankly, you have displayed a lot of knowledge but no logical or critical ability.

Even if you were correct in this assessment, I would still have you beat, given that you display no
logical or critical ability AND you don't even display much knowledge.

>Logic requires an open mind.

Actually, no it doesn't per se. However, let's for the sake of argument say that it does. Even so,
an open mind does NOT necessitate turning off your critical thinking faculties. An open mind does
NOT mean a mind so open that your brains fall out.

>The "evidence" you mention consists of shallow uncritical regurgitation, and nothing else at all.

Really? If that is the case, certainly you haven't demonstrated it, and your merely asserting it
does not make it so. Perhaps you can educate me. Please provide a critical analysis of my posts and
show me specifically where they have failed. Don't forget to provide evidence, logic, and sound
argumentation to support your position.

> > > The question that some of us find interesting is, if you don't believe in alternative
> > > medicine, why are you so interested in it?
> >
> > "Belief" has nothing to do with it. I know that's hard for you to comprehend, given how much
> > "belief" in alt med seems to mean to you, but
>
> I hadn't heard of alt med for a large part of my life. If I was close-minded, I would never have
> considered it, or given it a chance.

But now that you have heard of it, you obviously intensely believe it it. That much is obvious.
Unfortunately, it appears to be a belief grounded in emotion, not evidence or logic.

> > it's true. "Belief" should not be part of the equation. Evidence should be. I'm interested in
> > distinguishing the effective from the ineffective, the therapies that have valid science and
> > clinical evidence supporting them from those that do not.
>
> Or so you think. A closed mind is unable to distinguish the effective from the ineffective.

An excessively "open mind" like yours is even less able to distinguish the effective from the
ineffective, because it will accept patently ridiculous assertions without challenge simply in the
interest of being "open."

> For instance, I don't see you jumping into the thread
>
> "ghostwriters in the pay of drug companies"
>
>
> Why?

Actually, because I never noticed it. It never caught my attention.

>Because it touches on something towards which your mind is closed.

Nope, because I never noticed it.

>At best, you would "dismiss" the "allegations".

You mean the converse to the way you uncritically accept such allegations?

>At worst, you would regurgitate somebody's claim that "it ain't so". It is not possible for
>somebody close-minded like you to objectively consider the possibilities, or what it implies.

Once again, exercising one's critical thinking skills in evaluating evidence is NOT being close-
minded. Being "open-minded" does NOT mean that one has to accept every proposition without evidence,
nor does it mean one must treat all assertions as potentially equally valid.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Damn. I was hoping to sell my business and retire to a life of riches and laziness. Oh, well, back
> to work....
>
> > You have to be contacted. Maybe you are just not influential enough.
>
> So true, so true. I am just a humble individual who has opinions that I express here.
>
> BTW, if anyone disagrees with your assessment, please set them straight....
>
> > But keep it up, maybe somebody will notice. OTOH, maybe you just don't have what it takes to be
> > a good enough highly paid KOL.
>
> You are probably right. I work for a living.

Actually, on second thoughts you serve a very useful purpose. By being generally inflammatory and
illogical, you spark interest in a large number of people about alt-med. While some who are rigid
and illogical will agree greatly with you, most normal human beings are not like that. (There is
some loss with the rigid-and-illogical types, but what can I say, it's evolution in action.)

So the end result of your work is more neurons allocated worldwide towards alt-med. And in fact, the
more derogatory and inflammatory you are, the more free good-press alt-med gets in effect!!

I think that's a good thing, since I think alt-med serves a very useful niche.

Of course, if you were indeed hired by somebody to defame alt-med, they would have to be not paying
any attention at all, not to realize this and not to fire you.
 
"Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
...> Definition:
>
> Heckle: Asking to prove an assertion.
>
> Here is a real heckle:
>
> Typical Altie.
>
>
>

This is reminding me of the old George and Gracie routines... where George Burns had to be the
straight man for Gracie's interesting turns of logic. Actually, I think her logic made more sence
than softeng (who has still not answered the question).
 
No need to prove it, as you see daily they will either tease or demand scientific proof of whatever
is written here, alternating binarily 010101.

> So naturally, somebody who is interested in alt-med would be very reasonable to wonder if all this
> heckling is not connected to all this PR money.

Haha, would you hire them for anything else than telemarketing ? C´mon! They just need very badly
your attention to have something to look forward to.

"soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark ProbertJanuary 20, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > > The ng is named "misc.health.alternative". If you don't believe me, check the name of the
> > > newsgroup yourself. Or do you think it is an altie conspiracy, the actual name was "misc.health.anti-
> > > alternative"?
> >
> > It sure isn't
> >
> > misc.health.do-not-question-anything-alternative
>
> Questioning is good. Heckling is not. I think most people can tell questioning from heckling.
>
> What do these seem like to you:
>
> In response to an article about alt-med gaining popularity, "kathy37" quips:
>
> Hmm. My husband didn't take a daily vitamin in 1990; a few years ago he started taking a one-a-
> day vitamin. Is he now counted in the alternative medicine camp?
>
> You can make a poker-faced argument that this was an "honest" question, but anybody reading other
> things from "kathy37" would know it's nothing but pure heckling.
>
> As is this response from Peter Bowditch:
>
> He certainly is. He would be counted twice if he had massage, and probably three times if
> someone prayed for him.
>
> That's how the[y] get the numbers up.
>
> This is an honest comment? The article included research from Harvard Medical School, and a
> modicum of common sense would preclude such questions.
>
> There is a very large amount of such "heckling" present here.
>
> These are not "questions".
>
> Then we know that pharma PR's uses very subtle campaigns, including getting "KOL"s (Key Opinion
> Leaders) to generate precisely crafted "buzz".
>
> So naturally, somebody who is interested in alt-med would be very reasonable to wonder if all this
> heckling is not connected to all this PR money.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote:

> "Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Damn. I was hoping to sell my business and retire to a life of riches and laziness. Oh, well,
> > back to work....
> >
> > > You have to be contacted. Maybe you are just not influential enough.
> >
> > So true, so true. I am just a humble individual who has opinions that I express here.
> >
> > BTW, if anyone disagrees with your assessment, please set them straight....
> >
> > > But keep it up, maybe somebody will notice. OTOH, maybe you just don't have what it takes to
> > > be a good enough highly paid KOL.
> >
> > You are probably right. I work for a living.
>
> Actually, on second thoughts you serve a very useful purpose. By being generally inflammatory and
> illogical, you spark interest in a large number of people about alt-med. While some who are rigid
> and illogical will agree greatly with you, most normal human beings are not like that. (There is
> some loss with the rigid-and-illogical types, but what can I say, it's evolution in action.)

Actually, I've often thought that alties like you serve a similar "useful" purpose. Your arguments
for alt-med are so illogical, emotional, based on "belief" rather than facts, and often irrational,
that reasonable people see how deficient much of the arguments for various alt med treatments are.
Jan is a particularly good example. She's so obviously basing her love of alt med on belief rather
than evidence, on emotion rather than rationality, that her arguments only appeal to people who are
just as irrational as she is.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
Can you pass a list of these ppl for the filter. tks

"Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Well said!
>
> but... Please stop feeding the trolls here. They have been here for the sole purpose of nay saying
> for years now. they contribute nothing and most of
us
> do not see them anymore (except for when they change their ID frequently form being in a
> conversation vacuum) because we have them killfiltered. I suggest you do the same. It is just NG
> clutter.Thanx
>
> "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> Whereas you are using the ng for a perverted mission to denigrate
> > the whole field. If nobody is indeed paying you, you must not really have much to do with your
> > life. (If somebody is paying you, then you are not really any better than a paid murderer, but I
> > will assume that's not the case with some of the anti-alts.)
> >
> > Since you are pre-convinced no alternative remedy is going to be any good, what exactly do you
> > hope to gain here?
 
Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > Here is a list of just some things I have found effective:
> >
> > Chiropractic
>
> It's not.

If somebody has pain, and it goes, it *is* effective. End of story. You can claim all you want that
it was a placebo effect or whatever, but the person whose pain is gone, will tell all his friends
about it, and your "we all are so trustworthy" house of self-congratulatory mirrors won't be able to
do anything.

> > Milk Thistle
>
> Evidence?

There is lots. If you mean, "where is evidence from people *Orac* has accepted as authority
figures", well that is a personal problem, is it not? I don't have blind trust in those you do.
There is no science involved here, just a matter of deciding who and how to trust.

> > Potassium to reduce high blood pressure Cilantro for chelation
>
> Evidence?

Ditto.

> > I think Saw Palmetto is also quite effective, based on comments from people.
>
> Evidence?

Ditto.

>
>
> > I also think high-dosage Vitamin C is effective.
>
> It's not.

Ditto.

> > You don't believe in anecdotal evidence?
>
> As I have told you before, it's not a matter of "belief."

It is so much a matter of "belief", that you barely realize that you "believe" in what you read, as
long as it fits a certain pattern. Your "belief" has completely blinded you.

> Whine, whine, whine. That's all you do when anyone questions your assertions. Anything to avoid
> discussing the evidence behind the therapies you like.

Just a natural curiosity. You have a right to butt in and disturb other people's conversations, just
as I have a right to wonder why anybody would want to do that.

> > This probably won't make sense to you because of the lack of experience, but -- if you are lost
> > and ask for directions, and the person responding gives you directions, then you say "no, no,
> > you must prove to me these are valid directions", it will be reasonable for him to tell you to
> > get lost. If you want proof of valid directions, buy and read your own map.
>
> That's all fine and good for asking for directions, but for giving advice that deals with human
> disease and matters of life or death, it's not. On Usenet, any kook out there can and does set
> himself or herself up as an authority.

Believe it or not, that's exactly how things like Chiropractic become popular. You can butt your
head against that, but most people, including me, believe your "trust me and my in-group only" is
just self-interest when it blindly disregards various kinds of evidence. A very refined and self-
blinding self-interest no doubt, but self-interest nonetheless.

> treatment, why on earth would you accept without questioning advice involving "alt med" treatments
> from people on Usenet who have no professional credentials and whose identity you don't even know?

So you think I am not very rational?

Strange, I have a similar opinion of you. I think you have rote-knowledge but no logical
abilities, and simply operate from "blind trust" to the point where you don't even know it is
blind trust. Whereas I think I evaluate all claims, alt-med as well as medical, WITHOUT involving
any blind trust.

You think just because someone has "professional credentials", that person is immediately
trustworthy? Just because someone has no "professional credentials", that person can have no merit
to their position? I think you are completely unscientific and uncritical.

So where do you want to go from here?
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote
> > Jan, I expect that Roger will take exception to your comments, so I
cross
> > posted this to m.k.h so he can see what you are saying.
>
> Sorry, I couldn't follow whatever point was being made. I don't really follow alternative
> medicine.

Jan listed you are one of the debunkers who she claims lies.

Now, she knows you are evil, since you do not follow alternative medicine.
 
"soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark ProbertJanuary 21, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Damn. I was hoping to sell my business and retire to a life of riches
and
> > laziness. Oh, well, back to work....
> >
> > > You have to be contacted. Maybe you are just not influential enough.
> >
> > So true, so true. I am just a humble individual who has opinions that I express here.
> >
> > BTW, if anyone disagrees with your assessment, please set them
straight....
> >
> > > But keep it up, maybe somebody will notice. OTOH, maybe you just don't have what it takes to
> > > be a good enough highly paid KOL.
> >
> > You are probably right. I work for a living.
>
> Actually, on second thoughts you serve a very useful purpose. By being generally inflammatory and
> illogical, you spark interest in a large number of people about alt-med. While some who are rigid
> and illogical will agree greatly with you, most normal human beings are not like that. (There is
> some loss with the rigid-and-illogical types, but what can I say, it's evolution in action.)

Now, there you ago again. Remember, I ask for factual information to change my mind, you alties
provide none, and then call me rigid and illogical. That is just AltThink.

> So the end result of your work is more neurons allocated worldwide towards alt-med. And in fact,
> the more derogatory and inflammatory you are, the more free good-press alt-med gets in effect!!

Yes, AltMed is all feel good, and addresses symptoms, not the underlying diseases.

> I think that's a good thing, since I think alt-med serves a very useful niche.

Yes, it is a place where charlatans, scammers, and snakeoil salescreeps find refuge.

> Of course, if you were indeed hired by somebody to defame alt-med, they would have to be not
> paying any attention at all, not to realize this and not to fire you.

Sure.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote:

> Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<orac-85FFDF.16422421012004@news4-
> ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...

[Snip]

> > Evidence?
>
> There is lots.

What is it, then? You mention "evidence" a lot, but you seldom, if ever, actually discuss any.

>If you mean, "where is evidence from people *Orac* has accepted as authority figures", well that is
>a personal problem, is it not?

Nope. I mean, where is the scientific evidence? I don't give a rodent's posterior who did the
studies or the experiments. If they present well-designed experiments and studies with compelling
results that support their hypothesis, I have to take them seriously. If the studies are ****, then
I dismiss them. I've seen a fair number of studies by highly respected researchers that I think are
questionable.

>I don't have blind trust in those you do.

Actually, my favorite motto when it comes to scientific evidence is, "Trust no one."

>There is no science involved here, just a matter of deciding who and how to trust.

There you are mistaken.

[Snip]

> > treatment, why on earth would you accept without questioning advice involving "alt med"
> > treatments from people on Usenet who have no professional credentials and whose identity you
> > don't even know?
>
> So you think I am not very rational?

Well, unfortunately, I haven't seen much evidence of rationality coming from you. Perhaps your
Usenet personna is not the same as the real you, but all I can see is your Usenet personna. Your
Usenet personna speaks of anecdotes and deciding whom you can trust. It does not speak of evidence,
reason, or reproducible studies

> Strange, I have a similar opinion of you. I think you have rote-knowledge but no logical
> abilities, and simply operate from "blind trust" to the point where you don't even know it is
> blind trust.

Nope. Unlike you, I actually read the primary scientific literature on these topics (not summaries
of them that appear in the lay press) and evaulate for myself whether the studies are any good and
whether they show what the authors conclude they show. It's part of my job. And, to do my job well,
I have acquired the training, knowledge, and background to distinguish good studies from bad. I
reject studies that are sloppy or poorly designed and listen to studies that are well-designed. Can
you say the same?

>Whereas I think I evaluate all claims, alt-med as well as medical, WITHOUT involving any
>blind trust.

Trust has nothing to do with it. Evidence does.

> You think just because someone has "professional credentials", that person is immediately
> trustworthy?

Of course not. Look at Dr. Lorraine Day, for instance. She was an orthopedic surgeon and even Chief
of Orthopedics at San Francisco General Hospital in the 1980's. Even before she started hawking
Barley Green, she made some very questionable and exaggerated statements about the risk of being
infected with HIV from aerosolized blood in the O.R. Or Dr. Eleazar Kadile. Or even Hulda Clark (who
does appear to have some sort of degree as a naturopath). Or even Linus Pauling (who was a Nobel
Laureate, yet--how's that for an authority figure?). They all have professional credentials, and
they are definitely not people whose pronouncements on medical issues I trust.

>Just because someone has no "professional credentials", that person can have no merit to their
>position?

No, because someone is unable to produce good evidence and rational arguments to support their
position. No more, no less.

>I think you are completely unscientific

LOL! You don't know what I do for a living, do you?

> and uncritical.

Oh, my critical thinking skills are sound. You just don't like the fact that I happen to be critical
about issues that you happen to be uncritical about.

[Snip]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
I think you have to decide that for yourself. Pick an algorithm and use it.

"Baldrick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Can you pass a list of these ppl for the filter. tks
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Well said!
> >
> > but... Please stop feeding the trolls here. They have been here for the sole purpose of nay
> > saying for years now. they contribute nothing and most of
> us
> > do not see them anymore (except for when they change their ID frequently form being in a
> > conversation vacuum) because we have them killfiltered.
I
> > suggest you do the same. It is just NG clutter.Thanx
> >
> > "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >> Whereas you are using the ng for a perverted mission to denigrate
> > > the whole field. If nobody is indeed paying you, you must not really have much to do with your
> > > life. (If somebody is paying you, then you are not really any better than a paid murderer, but
> > > I will assume that's not the case with some of the anti-alts.)
> > >
> > > Since you are pre-convinced no alternative remedy is going to be any good, what exactly do you
> > > hope to gain here?
> >
>
 
Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Of course not. Look at Dr. Lorraine Day, for instance. She was an orthopedic surgeon and even
> Chief of Orthopedics at San Francisco General Hospital in the 1980's. Even before she started
> hawking Barley Green, she made some very questionable and exaggerated statements about the risk of
> being infected with HIV from aerosolized blood in the O.R. Or Dr. Eleazar Kadile. Or even Hulda
> Clark (who does appear to have some sort of degree as a naturopath). Or even Linus Pauling (who
> was a Nobel Laureate, yet--how's that for an authority figure?). They all have professional
> credentials, and they are definitely not people whose pronouncements on medical issues I trust.

Do you have even realize that in ALL of your "CRITICAL THINKING", you are following the
establishment to the point of crossing of t's and dotting of i's?

I am sure you know enough to realize you are totally wrong when you are saying Linus Pauling was an
authority figure. He was an outsider as far as medicine is concerned. Being a Nobel Laureate was not
enough -- Linus Pauling did not have a medicine background, so the medical establishment was able to
sideline his views easily. There was even some "testing" of some of his ideas, but the "testing"
totally ignored his actual recommendations and then produced "negative" results.

Same with the rest of your arguments, your have displayed ZERO courage to even once stand up to the
mainstream thought.

This is blind superstitious following, not critical thinking. And you are a laggart within your
profession too -- other doctors are more courageously exploring alternative treatments and non-
mainstream thinking. What will you do in a few years when "alternative" becomes reasonably accepted
within the mainstream? You better start covering yourself and start saying things like "some
alternative treatments may have some value as will become know due to rigorous scientific testing".
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote:

> Same with the rest of your arguments, your have displayed ZERO courage to even once stand up to
> the mainstream thought.

Give me a break. If your posts are any indication, my critical thinking skills far exceed yours.
Indeed, it is you who take the easy way out, trying to dismiss me as not having any "courage." It's
very easy to label someone critical of your pet beliefs as "having no courage" or being "close-minded"--
much easier, in fact, than actually refuting the criticisms with evidence, science, and sound
arguments, something I have yet to see you do, or even try to do.

> This is blind superstitious following, not critical thinking. And you are a laggart within your
> profession too -- other doctors are more courageously exploring alternative treatments and non-
> mainstream thinking.

********. Not to mention an easy way to paint yourself as "courageous" in contrast to me. Try being
a little less transparent next time.

You know nothing at all about what I do and do not take seriously or about what I do and do not
research. Our institute in general and my group in particular are presently pursuing at least three
scientific studies (that I know of) into alternative medicine. My own partners are studying green
tea as a preventative for colorectal cancer and various herbal remedies for pancreatic cancer. True,
they are more active than I am at present, but I'll certainly be more actively collaborating future
studies, particularly the angiogenesis aspect. Others in our institute have studied various herbal
remedies for prostate cancer (not my area of expertise; so I'm not involved there). My division
chief made his name in part by studying green tea and colorectal cancer and is an expert on the
effects of nutrition on cancer.

No doubt you will now try to dismiss me as being a follower and for not "taking the lead" in these
studies or for only being interested in them because my boss happens to be interested in them. That
would be your mistake. Believe me, if I thought these studies were worthless, I would not waste my
time because getting involved in worthless projects would only lessen the likelihood that my overall
laboratory effort would succeed. I do not devote resources to projects that I think will fail, and I
do not join groups whose research I believe not to be worth doing.

>What will you do in a few years when "alternative" becomes reasonably accepted within the
>mainstream?

"Alternative" remedies will only become the mainstream when and if they are validated by clinical
trials. No doubt this will happen in the relatively near future for a few "alternative" treatments.
On the other hand, he vast majority, will likely fail when attempts to validate them are finished.
This is not a knock on "alternative remedies. It is just a fact of medical research. The vast
majority of new conventional medicines never make it through the testing process to be shown to
work, and there is no reason to think that the same will not hold true for "alternative" medicines.
A few will be found to have clinical utility and eventually become accepted and find their place in
the armamentarium of conventional medicine.

>You better start covering yourself and start saying things like "some alternative treatments may
>have some value as will become know due to rigorous scientific testing".

Fer crissake, I've said similar things many times in the past--as you would know if you had been
around here longer! I've pointed out time and time again how I was in favor of empirically testing
as many alternative medicine therapies and remedies as is feasible. Heck, I've probably even said
similar things around here in the short time you have been around
m.h.a. You're doing exactly the same thing you accuse "conventional" doctors of doing to alties:
you're pidgeonholing me because then it's easier for you to dismiss me.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
Just thought of one of my earlier algorithms for killfiltering.

Anybody that insult's or ridicules Jan's name (she is killfiltered also) gets on the list. It was
easy and made the group quite nice (almost). Nobody needs ridicule or insults no matter how far out
their ideas are. The rest of us don't want to hear it anyway. The people that do it do not get
listened to.

"Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I think you have to decide that for yourself. Pick an algorithm and use
it.
>
> "Baldrick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Can you pass a list of these ppl for the filter. tks
> >
> > "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > Well said!
> > >
> > > but... Please stop feeding the trolls here. They have been here for the sole purpose of nay
> > > saying for years now. they contribute nothing and most
of
> > us
> > > do not see them anymore (except for when they change their ID
frequently
> > > form being in a conversation vacuum) because we have them
killfiltered.
> I
> > > suggest you do the same. It is just NG clutter.Thanx
> > >
> > > "soft-eng" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >> Whereas you are using the ng for a perverted mission to denigrate
> > > > the whole field. If nobody is indeed paying you, you must not really have much to do with
> > > > your life. (If somebody is paying you, then you are not really any better than a paid
> > > > murderer, but I will assume that's not the case with some of the anti-alts.)
> > > >
> > > > Since you are pre-convinced no alternative remedy is going to be any good, what exactly do
> > > > you hope to gain here?
> > >
> > >
> >
>
 
"DRCEEPHD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Get a clue. You know nothing except what your brainwased mind allows you
to
> believe. I do not believe that you have ever read and studied the work of Be'champ
or
> Enderlein. And what about Rosenow who proved once again in 1914 that bacteria are pleomorphic and
> not monomorphic as your germ theory of disease demands?
This
> Nobel Prize winner proved beyond scientific doubt that staph germs and
strep
> germs were one and the same. All you had to do was change their food.
You
> will find that data in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Your Journal.
Your
> data. And you are ignorant of it.
>
> DrC PhD.

And people don't believe in conspiracies!! What do you call this?

Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/media.htm
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Carole" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "DRCEEPHD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:20040117223703.04510.00000172@mb-
> m10.aol.com...
>
> > Get a clue. You know nothing except what your brainwased mind allows you
> to
> > believe. I do not believe that you have ever read and studied the work of Be'champ
> or
> > Enderlein. And what about Rosenow who proved once again in 1914 that bacteria are pleomorphic
> > and not monomorphic as your germ theory of disease demands?
> This
> > Nobel Prize winner proved beyond scientific doubt that staph germs and
> strep
> > germs were one and the same. All you had to do was change their food.
> You
> > will find that data in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Your Journal.
> Your
> > data. And you are ignorant of it.
> >
> > DrC PhD.

>
> And people don't believe in conspiracies!! What do you call this?
>
> Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/media.htm

I call it paranoid conspiracy-theory drivel, actually. And I call DRCEPHD ignorant and unable to
back up his own claims, given that there is no Nobel Prize winner named Rosenow in medicine,
biology, or any other discipline for which Nobel Prizes are given. Don't believe me? Check out
http://www.nobel.se/ and search for Rosenow's name in the list of Nobel Prize winners. And I call
you gullible, given that you didn't bother to check his claim for accuracy before coming to his
defense. This is particularly sad, given that the post to which you responded is pretty old, and it
was pointed out by me and others in responses to the post that Rosenow never won a Nobel Prize for
the work described or for any other work.

--
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]>,
Carole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"DRCEEPHD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>> Get a clue. You know nothing except what your brainwased mind allows you to believe. I do not
>> believe that you have ever read and studied the work of Be'champ or Enderlein. And what about
>> Rosenow who proved once again in 1914 that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic as your
>> germ theory of disease demands? This Nobel Prize winner proved beyond scientific doubt that staph
>> germs and strep germs were one and the same. All you had to do was change their food. You will
>> find that data in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Your Journal. Your data. And you are
>> ignorant of it.
>>
>> DrC PhD.
>
>And people don't believe in conspiracies!! What do you call this?

We call it "Dr" Cee spouting gibberish. Among other things, Rosenow didn't win a Nobel. If "Dr" Cee
can't even get that right, what are the odds the rest of his tirade is accurate?

-- 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)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back