OT: How to debunk just about everything



(First of all be noted that I don't believe Hulda's protocol to be of any use in treating cancer
because there's no studies showing it) You quote a definitive answer to whether or not it does when
I fact you don't actually know. Anth

"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer? Anth
> >
>
>
> Of course not. If it did, a lot of what we know would be proven wrong. In addition, all other
> alternative cancer cures would be wrong as well. So tell me Anth, what makes you think that the
> liver fluke causes cancer?
>
>
> --
> "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"
>
> to email me Please remove "all your clothes"
>
> Doug
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> (First of all be noted that I don't believe Hulda's protocol to be of any use in treating cancer
> because there's no studies showing it) You quote a definitive answer to whether or not it does
> when I fact you don't actually know. Anth
>

What do you mean I don't actually know? ******** is ********, and you don't have to probe Hulda's
methods too far to find ********. I am not a medical doctor, I have just a amater interest in the
field. Probably based on my continuing desire to find out how things work. I know a bit about
cancer, and it is not caused by liver flukes (at least not the cancers common in the western world).
I know a lot about electricity and ressonance, and HC's zapper is a useless device. I am also quite
good at evaluating test results.

I don't know everything, but that does not mean I know nothing. And in this case I do actually know.

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug
 
(First of all be noted that I don't believe Hulda's protocol to be of any use in treating cancer
because there's no studies showing it) You quote a definitive answer to whether or not it does when
I fact you don't actually know. Anth

"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer? Anth
> >
>
>
> Of course not. If it did, a lot of what we know would be proven wrong. In addition, all other
> alternative cancer cures would be wrong as well. So tell me Anth, what makes you think that the
> liver fluke causes cancer?
>
>
> --
> "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"
>
> to email me Please remove "all your clothes"
>
> Doug
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> (First of all be noted that I don't believe Hulda's protocol to be of any use in treating cancer
> because there's no studies showing it) You quote a definitive answer to whether or not it does
> when I fact you don't actually know. Anth
>

What do you mean I don't actually know? ******** is ********, and you don't have to probe Hulda's
methods too far to find ********. I am not a medical doctor, I have just a amater interest in the
field. Probably based on my continuing desire to find out how things work. I know a bit about
cancer, and it is not caused by liver flukes (at least not the cancers common in the western world).
I know a lot about electricity and ressonance, and HC's zapper is a useless device. I am also quite
good at evaluating test results.

I don't know everything, but that does not mean I know nothing. And in this case I do actually know.

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug
 
"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:

> These types of lists are generally made up by those who get ****** off because their favorite pet
> thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have the capability of handling it.

These types of lists prove nothing, but do give an indication of the stupidity and unscientificness
of debunkers.

> cold, hard reality

I love the bias that reality is cold and hard.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer?

No.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"You're such a septic!"

"that's skeptic"

"Oh!...tanks!"

"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the
> two..
> > > Anth
> >
> > Sceptisism is when I debunk you. Cynicism is when you debunk me.
> >
> > See, an answer both cynical and sarcastic at the same time......
> >
> > Anth, I think you are mistaking the two. This is a common problem, and
it
> > can be hard to distinguish the two when the sceptic is criticising
> something
> > that is close to your heart. I find that cynics tend to be negative about everything, where as
sceptics
> > just demand a reasonable level of proof.
>
> There you go with semantics - what is a reasonable level of proof?
>
> That is when your cynicism comes in. Cynicism is being a Cynic. Scepticism is being a sceptic.
>
> > After all, you would not want me to try something without reasonable
> grounds
> > to believe it works?
>
> Everybodies 'reasonable grounds' are different when in fact you don't actually know. You can claim
> something doesn't work before it has been tested - typically Hulda's cancer 'cure.' I can claim
> something works when in fact I don't know. In which case what is being talked about is personal
> opinion.
>
> Just look at the way people pass the word 'cure' about on this forum. Personally I don't like the
> word 'cure' because it is applied to so many meanings.
>
> Anth
>
> > --
> > "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"
> >
> > to email me Please remove "all your clothes"
> >
> > Doug
 
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:19:39 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Well Hulda claims that the liver fluke causes cancer or whatever. That doesn't invalidate her whole
>treatment as being a treatment for cancer. There could be other stuff that maybe be giving results,
>such as the herbs she's using etc. Wormwood has been shown to be deadly toxic to cancer cells,
>amongst other things she uses. Anth .

Please post the best evidence that Hulda Clark cured *anyone* of a malignancy.

It is my opinion that Hulda Clark is a despicable quack who preys on the helplessness of those who
have cancer. She is a parasite who sucks the desperate dry.

Aloha,

Rich
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
Well Hulda claims that the liver fluke causes cancer or whatever. That
doesn't invalidate her whole treatment as being a treatment for cancer.
There could be other stuff that maybe be giving results, such as the herbs
she's using etc.
Wormwood has been shown to be deadly toxic to cancer cells, amongst other
things she uses.
Anth
.
"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > (First of all be noted that I don't believe Hulda's protocol to be of
any
> > use in treating cancer because there's no studies showing it) You quote a definitive answer to
> > whether or not it does when I fact you don't actually know. Anth
> >
>
> What do you mean I don't actually know? ******** is ********, and you don't have to probe Hulda's
> methods too far
to
> find ********. I am not a medical doctor, I have just a amater interest
in
> the field. Probably based on my continuing desire to find out how things work. I know a bit about
> cancer, and it is not caused by liver flukes (at least not the cancers common in the western
> world). I know a lot about electricity and ressonance, and HC's zapper is a useless device. I am
> also quite good at evaluating test results.
>
> I don't know everything, but that does not mean I know nothing. And in this case I do
> actually know.
>
>
> --
> "The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"
>
> to email me Please remove "all your clothes"
>
> Doug
 
In article <[email protected]>, Rich.@. wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:19:39 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Well Hulda claims that the liver fluke causes cancer or whatever. That doesn't invalidate her
> >whole treatment as being a treatment for cancer. There could be other stuff that maybe be giving
> >results, such as the herbs she's using etc. Wormwood has been shown to be deadly toxic to cancer
> >cells, amongst other things she uses. Anth .
>
>
> Please post the best evidence that Hulda Clark cured *anyone* of a malignancy.

Or that she has even prolonged the life of a single cancer patient.

> It is my opinion that Hulda Clark is a despicable quack who preys on the helplessness of those who
> have cancer. She is a parasite who sucks the desperate dry.

Indeed.

--
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]>,
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well Hulda claims that the liver fluke causes cancer or whatever.

And provides no evidence that the liver fluke actually does cause cancer.

>That doesn't invalidate her whole treatment as being a treatment for cancer.

What? You're saying that the mere fact that her whole hypothesis about the cause of cancer is
clearly wrong and unsupportable DOESN'T at the very least call her treatment into serious question?

> There could be other stuff that maybe be giving results, such as the herbs she's using etc.

You appear to be laboring under the mistaken assumption that Hulda is actually getting results with
her "treatment." There is no evidence that she is.

> Wormwood has been shown to be deadly toxic to cancer cells, amongst other things she uses.

So what? Alcohol in the proper concentration is toxic to cancer cells, but no one uses it as a
treatment for cancer.

--
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]>,
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:rac-748732.12030529022004@news4-
> ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Anth" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer?
> > No.
>
> ...and how do you come to that conclusion ?

Do I need to repeat myself yet again?

There is no evidence that all cancer is caused by flukes. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence
that it is not and that her device has no basis in physiology.

There is no evidence that Hulda's zapper does anything to fight cancer, AIDS, or any other disease.

I could go on and on and on, but why bother? You'll simply retreat to your usual position about
ineffective alt-med therapies that whether it works or not is "unknown." But in this case it is
not unknown.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Anth"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Well Hulda claims that the liver fluke causes cancer or whatever.
>
> And provides no evidence that the liver fluke actually does cause cancer.
>
>
> >That doesn't invalidate her whole treatment as being a treatment for cancer.
>
> What? You're saying that the mere fact that her whole hypothesis about the cause of cancer is
> clearly wrong and unsupportable DOESN'T at the very least call her treatment into serious
> question?

Indeed it does, but if it works?

> > There could be other stuff that maybe be giving results, such as the
herbs
> > she's using etc.
>
> You appear to be laboring under the mistaken assumption that Hulda is actually getting results
> with her "treatment." There is no evidence that she is.

Then why is she quoting it then and people quoting that she cured them? Are you saying that they are
all liars cheats and dispicable people or just plain ignorant?

> > Wormwood has been shown to be deadly toxic to cancer cells, amongst
other
> > things she uses.
> So what? Alcohol in the proper concentration is toxic to cancer cells, but no one uses it as a
> treatment for cancer.

(As I recall the experiment was in live dogs)

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

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:19:39 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Well Hulda claims that the liver fluke causes cancer or whatever. That doesn't invalidate her
>>whole treatment as being a treatment for cancer. There could be other stuff that maybe be giving
>>results, such as the herbs she's using etc. Wormwood has been shown to be deadly toxic to cancer
>>cells, amongst other things she uses. Anth .
>
>
>Please post the best evidence that Hulda Clark cured *anyone* of a malignancy.
>
>It is my opinion that Hulda Clark is a despicable quack who preys on the helplessness of those who
>have cancer. She is a parasite who sucks the desperate dry.

You only have to look at her clinic in Tijuana to see what sort of parasite she is. She was charging
people with AIDS $15,000 a WEEK to go here to be "cured".

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/sleaze/

(The last two pictures are me waiting outside Tim Bolen's "office" to be sued.)

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
 
It's not "double-blind" as the antagonists are here.

"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:rac-
> [email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Anth" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Well Hulda claims that the liver fluke causes cancer or whatever.
> >
> > And provides no evidence that the liver fluke actually does cause
cancer.
> >
> >
> > >That doesn't invalidate her whole treatment as being a treatment for
cancer.
> >
> > What? You're saying that the mere fact that her whole hypothesis about the cause of cancer is
> > clearly wrong and unsupportable DOESN'T at the very least call her treatment into serious
> > question?
>
> Indeed it does, but if it works?
>
> > > There could be other stuff that maybe be giving results, such as the
> herbs
> > > she's using etc.
> >
> > You appear to be laboring under the mistaken assumption that Hulda is actually getting results
> > with her "treatment." There is no evidence that she is.
>
> Then why is she quoting it then and people quoting that she cured them? Are you saying that they
> are all liars cheats and dispicable people or
just
> plain ignorant?
>
> > > Wormwood has been shown to be deadly toxic to cancer cells, amongst
> other
> > > things she uses.
> > So what? Alcohol in the proper concentration is toxic to cancer cells, but no one uses it as a
> > treatment for cancer.
>
> (As I recall the experiment was in live dogs)
>
> > --
> > Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> > |
> > |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
Do you have cites to back that price up?

"Peter Bowditch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rich.@. wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:19:39 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Well Hulda claims that the liver fluke causes cancer or whatever. That doesn't invalidate her
> >>whole treatment as being a treatment for cancer. There could be other stuff that maybe be giving
> >>results, such as the
herbs
> >>she's using etc. Wormwood has been shown to be deadly toxic to cancer cells, amongst
other
> >>things she uses. Anth .
> >
> >
> >Please post the best evidence that Hulda Clark cured *anyone* of a malignancy.
> >
> >It is my opinion that Hulda Clark is a despicable quack who preys on the helplessness of those
> >who have cancer. She is a parasite who sucks the desperate dry.
>
> You only have to look at her clinic in Tijuana to see what sort of parasite she is. She was
> charging people with AIDS $15,000 a WEEK to go here to be "cured".
>
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/sleaze/
>
> (The last two pictures are me waiting outside Tim Bolen's "office" to be sued.)
>
> --
> Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles The Green Light
> http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added
> Vitamins and
C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:rac-
> [email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Anth" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Well Hulda claims that the liver fluke causes cancer or whatever.
> >
> > And provides no evidence that the liver fluke actually does cause cancer.
> >
> >
> > >That doesn't invalidate her whole treatment as being a treatment for cancer.
> >
> > What? You're saying that the mere fact that her whole hypothesis about the cause of cancer is
> > clearly wrong and unsupportable DOESN'T at the very least call her treatment into serious
> > question?
>
> Indeed it does, but if it works?

It doesn't.

> > > There could be other stuff that maybe be giving results, such as the
> herbs
> > > she's using etc.
> >
> > You appear to be laboring under the mistaken assumption that Hulda is actually getting results
> > with her "treatment." There is no evidence that she is.
>
> Then why is she quoting it then and people quoting that she cured them?

Anecdotal evidence and testimonials. Do I have to explain it to you again?

> Are you saying that they are all liars cheats and dispicable people or just plain ignorant?

No, I'm saying that Hulda is a quack. None of the "evidence" in her book proves her "treatment" does
what it claims.

[Snip]

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"hotmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:
>
> > These types of lists are generally made up by those who get ****** off because their favorite
> > pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have
the
> > capability of handling it.
>
> These types of lists prove nothing, but do give an indication of the stupidity and
> unscientificness of debunkers.
>
> > cold, hard reality
>
> I love the bias that reality is cold and hard.

OK, how does this sound: "Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet theories
shot down in flames by warm, fuzzy reality."

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

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