Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by john, Dec 21, 2003.

  1. Rich Andrews

    Rich Andrews Guest

    [email protected] (David Wright) wrote in news:FftFb.38473$Ua4.1119
    @newssvr32.news.prodigy.com:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Rich <,@.>

    wrote:
    >>On 22 Dec 2003 00:14:23 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >>
    >>>>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    >>>>From: "Jeff" [email protected]
    >>>>Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time
    >>>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>>>
    >>>>"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>news:[email protected]
    >>>>(...)
    >>>>
    >>>>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was
    >>>>> responsible for causing the birth defects.
    >>>>
    >>>>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
    >>>>
    >>>>Jeff
    >>>
    >>>Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically

    proven.
    >>
    >>Jan reads something on the internet and ASSumes it is true. I would
    >>like to see Jan's proof that 62% of CM in not scientifically proven.
    >>Of course we will never see it. Jan will simply obsessively and
    >>mindlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Sad
    >>that.

    >
    > Yep -- that silly and ancient statistic has been refuted countless
    > times, but the myth lingers on.
    >
    > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net



    I don't think it is a myth at all. Many times myths have some basis in
    fact. AFAIC, It is a lie just like much of Alt. Med. As a matter of fact
    most of Alternative Medicine is not Medicine at all. It should be called
    Guessing or Supersition or anything that does not have the name medicine
    in it. I can sort of understand it when referring to a potion, but never
    as a methodology.

    The dictionary says this about medicine:

    "the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the
    prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease"

    The key word is science. Take science out, as most, if not all altie
    practitioners do, and you have something that is not medicine.

    Any suggestion on what to call it?

    Alt. Amusing anecdote?
    ALt BSer?
    Alt. we will suck your wallet dry?
    Alt. everything taught in schools is a lie?


    r



    --
    Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
     


  2. Rod

    Rod Guest

  3. Rod

    Rod Guest

    So Results do not count,

    Care to elaborate on Drug Company results that do count ? Please lets us all
    get out of the Dark Ages of modern medicine.

    Rod.

    "carabelli" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Jan" <[email protected]> ..........
    >
    >
    > > >100% of "alternative medicine" is NOT scientifically proven.
    > > >
    > > >Next?

    > >
    > > Next, one can't use it as an excuse.
    > >
    > > Many things used successfully are not proven, That's why one goes with

    > RESULTS.
    > >
    > > Jan

    >
    > Which period of the Dark Ages did you spend your former life in?
    >
    > carabelli
    >
    >
     
  4. carabelli

    carabelli Guest

    "Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > So Results do not count,
    >
    > Care to elaborate on Drug Company results that do count ? Please lets us

    all
    > get out of the Dark Ages of modern medicine.


    If any therapy, alt or EOM works let's find out why. As in study it see if
    it really works and then why. Jan prefers to remain ignorant, supposed
    results alone are enough for her.

    carabelli
     
  5. In <[email protected]>, carabelli wrote:
    > "Jan" <[email protected]> ..........


    >> Many things used successfully are not proven, That's why one goes with

    > RESULTS.
    >>
    >> Jan

    >
    > Which period of the Dark Ages did you spend your former life in?


    Former?

    --
    begin signature.exe
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
     
  6. Ilsa9

    Ilsa9 Guest

    >
    >"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> >Subject: Re: BugEyed dogs championed by Inquirer win $0.07
    >> >From: WB [email protected]
    >> >Date: 12/22/2003 7:58 PM Central Standard Time
    >> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >> >
    >> >On 23 Dec 2003 01:40:55 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>That would be a lie, Troll. It show yours and your dirty tricks.
    >> >>
    >> >> [email protected]
    >> >
    >> >Good one !
    >> >
    >> >I look forward to you posting your report.
    >> >
    >> >WB

    >>
    >> A pity that's the sort of thing you look forward to. Get a life.
    >>
    >> Jan

    >
    >And quit stalking me in SMD.
    >
    >carabelli
    >


    While you're at it, Jan, stop venting your colon here on MHA.
     
  7. WB

    WB Guest

    Is your comment directed to j./d or me dork?

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:43:35 GMT, "Rod" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Thick head.
    >
    >Get a life that has some purpose.
    >
    >rod.
    >"WB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> On 23 Dec 2003 01:40:55 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >>
    >> >That would be a lie, Troll. It show yours and your dirty tricks.
    >> >
    >> > [email protected]

    >>
    >> Good one !
    >>
    >> I look forward to you posting your report.
    >>
    >> WB
    >>


    --


    Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
    [email protected]
     
  8. WB

    WB Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:02:19 GMT, "carabelli" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> So Results do not count,
    >>
    >> Care to elaborate on Drug Company results that do count ? Please lets us

    >all
    >> get out of the Dark Ages of modern medicine.

    >
    >If any therapy, alt or EOM works let's find out why. As in study it see if
    >it really works and then why. Jan prefers to remain ignorant, supposed
    >results alone are enough for her.
    >
    >carabelli
    >

    J./d has her own definition of 'results' and 'actual experience'
    that are subject to change at whim.

    The phrase "scientifically repeatable results" has no meaning to
    the 'true believer' that is jxdx.

    She cannot *grok* it.
    --


    Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
    [email protected]
     
  9. "WB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > J./d has her own definition of 'results' and 'actual experience'
    > that are subject to change at whim.
    >
    > The phrase "scientifically repeatable results" has no meaning to
    > the 'true believer' that is jxdx.
    >
    > She cannot *grok* it.


    Jan's reality is indeed a Strange Land.

    ;o) Rich
     
  10. Mark

    Mark Guest

    [email protected] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    > >From: [email protected] (Mark)
    > >Date: 12/22/2003 8:34 PM Central Standard Time
    > >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    > >
    > >[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
    > >news:<[email protected]>...
    > >> >Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    > >> >From: [email protected] (David Wright)
    > >> >Date: 12/21/2003 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
    > >> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    > >> >
    > >> >In article <[email protected]>, Rich <,@.> wrote:
    > >> >>On 22 Dec 2003 00:14:23 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >>>>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    > >> >>>>From: "Jeff" [email protected]
    > >> >>>>Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time
    > >> >>>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    > >> >>>>
    > >> >>>>"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> >>>>news:[email protected]
    > >> >>>>(...)
    > >> >>>>
    > >> >>>>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was
    > >> >>>>> responsible for causing the birth defects.
    > >> >>>>
    > >> >>>>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
    > >> >>>>
    > >> >>>>Jeff
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>>Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically proven.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>Jan reads something on the internet and ASSumes it is true. I would
    > >> >>like to see Jan's proof that 62% of CM in not scientifically proven.
    > >> >>Of course we will never see it. Jan will simply obsessively and
    > >> >>mindlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Sad
    > >> >>that.
    > >>
    > >> I see Rich is still stalking. He never obsesses or repeats the same thing

    > over
    > >> and over.

    > >
    > ><snip>
    > >
    > >
    > >> Jan

    > >
    > >Pot? Kettle?
    > >
    > >Mark, MD

    >
    > NO. Rich has a pattern long before me. Why do you think he nuked his posts??
    > >
    > > Rich ,@. wrote:


    <snip 512 lines of Jan's obsessive repetition>

    Again, pot? Kettle?

    Mark, MD
     
  11. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: BugEyed dogs championed by Inquirer win $0.07
    >From: WB [email protected]
    >Date: 12/23/2003 2:03 AM Central Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >On 23 Dec 2003 03:24:09 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >
    >>>Subject: Re: BugEyed dogs championed by Inquirer win $0.07
    >>>From: WB [email protected]
    >>>Date: 12/22/2003 7:58 PM Central Standard Time
    >>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>>
    >>>On 23 Dec 2003 01:40:55 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>That would be a lie, Troll. It show yours and your dirty tricks.
    >>>>
    >>>> [email protected]
    >>>
    >>>Good one !
    >>>
    >>>I look forward to you posting your report.
    >>>
    >>>WB

    >>
    >>A pity that's the sort of thing you look forward to. Get a life.
    >>
    >>Jan

    >
    >I do not think that you have the gumption to post
    >your complaint against me privately nor publicly.


    Really, I don't care what you think.

    It has been proven you are wrong.

    Joel had two accounts closed, I posted them. My straight forwardness has
    already been proven.

    I have told no lies nor given any mis-information.

    You are a troll who does very little but make belittling posts.

    Plus telling lies.

    This betting money bit is a fake, Rich bet his life savings, I would answer his
    posts. He is a liar, like you.

    Get a life.

    Jan
     
  12. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On 23 Dec 2003 14:17:36 -0800, [email protected] (Mark) wrote:

    >>
    >> NO. Rich has a pattern long before me. Why do you think he nuked his posts??
    >> >
    >> > Rich ,@. wrote:

    >
    ><snip 512 lines of Jan's obsessive repetition>
    >
    >Again, pot? Kettle?
    >
    >Mark, MD


    Cue Jan to repost the 512 lines of obsessive repetition while bashing
    Mark and me. Is the subject Rich?? Is the subject Mark??

    Aloha,

    Rich

    ------------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------------------------

    The best defense to logic is ignorance.
     
  13. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    >From: [email protected] (Mark)
    >Date: 12/23/2003 4:17 PM Central Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
    >news:<[email protected]>...
    >> >Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    >> >From: [email protected] (Mark)
    >> >Date: 12/22/2003 8:34 PM Central Standard Time
    >> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >> >
    >> >[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message
    >> >news:<[email protected]>...
    >> >> >Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    >> >> >From: [email protected] (David Wright)
    >> >> >Date: 12/21/2003 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
    >> >> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >> >> >
    >> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Rich <,@.>

    >wrote:
    >> >> >>On 22 Dec 2003 00:14:23 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>>>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test

    >case
    >> >> >>>>From: "Jeff" [email protected]
    >> >> >>>>Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time
    >> >> >>>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >> >> >>>>
    >> >> >>>>"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >> >>>>news:[email protected]
    >> >> >>>>(...)
    >> >> >>>>
    >> >> >>>>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was
    >> >> >>>>> responsible for causing the birth defects.
    >> >> >>>>
    >> >> >>>>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
    >> >> >>>>
    >> >> >>>>Jeff
    >> >> >>>
    >> >> >>>Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically

    >proven.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>Jan reads something on the internet and ASSumes it is true. I would
    >> >> >>like to see Jan's proof that 62% of CM in not scientifically proven.
    >> >> >>Of course we will never see it. Jan will simply obsessively and
    >> >> >>mindlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Sad
    >> >> >>that.
    >> >>
    >> >> I see Rich is still stalking. He never obsesses or repeats the same

    >thing
    >> over
    >> >> and over.
    >> >
    >> ><snip>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >> Jan
    >> >
    >> >Pot? Kettle?
    >> >
    >> >Mark, MD

    >>
    >> NO. Rich has a pattern long before me. Why do you think he nuked his

    >posts??
    >> >
    >> > Rich ,@. wrote:

    >
    ><snip 512 lines of Jan's obsessive repetition>


    LOL. Typical, now don't go noticing Rich's cyberstalking.

    You snipped it because it shows Rich's pattern long before me.

    Sorry you can't protect him.

    Oh, that's right, you are only interested in Jan.

    Merry Christmas, Mark, have a good one.

    Jan
     
Loading...