What is Quackery?



Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Actually, you're behind the times. None of this is anything new to
>conventional medicine. What you describe as the "water cure" is nothing
>more than a variation on hydrotherapy, which has been practiced in
>conventional medicine for a very long time now.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

The water cure was the original form of alternative medicine, next to
herbalism, practiced in Western history. It goes back to before Roman
Empire.

Nothing new you say? Well thanks for confirming my definition. :)

"Alternative medicine was yesterday's quackery, is today's
complementary medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of
medicine."

Not only does conventional medicine misrepresent the effectiveness of
alternative medicine, but, it has the nerve of stealing new forms of
therapies from it. Isn't that plagiarism at the very least?
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> Your posts have the net effect of misrepresenting (ie, ignoring) the
>> effectiveness of alternative medicine and therapies.

>Please quote a specific post where I have "misrepresented" the
>effectiveness of alternative medicine and therapies, tell me how I
>"misrepresented" anything, and show me the data to demonstrate it. I'm
>not above admitting when I make a mistake--unlike you.

Your need to keep on replying to the same post of mine, exposes your
deep seated feelings of inferiority and lack of self-esteem. :(

"... you have my sympathies"
Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN.
 
"Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:

>handed out like candy

Alert! Red flag words. It is not necessary to read any further in the
post or any subsequent posts from that writer, as it is obvious that
s/h/it is merely parroting vacuous cliches

--
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
 
see below

John 'the Man' wrote:

> Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
> rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >Actually, you're behind the times. None of this is anything new to
> >conventional medicine. What you describe as the "water cure" is nothing
> >more than a variation on hydrotherapy, which has been practiced in
> >conventional medicine for a very long time now.
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> The water cure was the original form of alternative medicine, next to
> herbalism, practiced in Western history. It goes back to before Roman
> Empire.
>
> Nothing new you say? Well thanks for confirming my definition. :)
>
> "Alternative medicine was yesterday's quackery, is today's
> complementary medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of
> medicine."
>
> Not only does conventional medicine misrepresent the effectiveness of
> alternative medicine, but, it has the nerve of stealing new forms of
> therapies from it. Isn't that plagiarism at the very least?
> --
> John Gohde,
> Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
>
> Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
> http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
> Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.

What you're saying is: That ALL forms of Medicine inluding those
herbals created by GOD's"enhineering staff" are QUACKERY???
HEY Buddy YOU HAVE A PROBLEM!!! B-0b1
 
>Subject: Re: What is Quackery?
>From: Peter Bowditch [email protected]
>Date: 11/14/2003 4:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>"Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>handed out like candy

DING DING DING!!!

>I only complain about selective snipping which hides the true meaning
of what is being responded to, but you knew that.

===

Your words from last night just came back to bite ya!!

>Alert! Red flag words.

To the drug pushing debunkers?!?!

> It is not necessary to read any further

LOL. Poor Peter has a control problem!!

Jan

Rich is a cyberstalker and he has been stalking Jan for a long time. John Bain
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Bowditch <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >handed out like candy
>
> Alert! Red flag words. It is not necessary to read any further in the
> post or any subsequent posts from that writer, as it is obvious that
> s/h/it is merely parroting vacuous cliches

You mean it wasn't obvious before that? ;-)

--
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]>,
John 'the Man' <[email protected]> wrote:

> Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
> rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >> Your posts have the net effect of misrepresenting (ie, ignoring) the
> >> effectiveness of alternative medicine and therapies.
>
> >Please quote a specific post where I have "misrepresented" the
> >effectiveness of alternative medicine and therapies, tell me how I
> >"misrepresented" anything, and show me the data to demonstrate it. I'm
> >not above admitting when I make a mistake--unlike you.
>
> Your need to keep on replying to the same post of mine, exposes your
> deep seated feelings of inferiority and lack of self-esteem. :(

One can't help but notice how you dodged my question and still managed
to reply to me with an ad hominem. You've become quite predictable.

--
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]>,
John 'the Man' <[email protected]> wrote:

> Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
> rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >Actually, you're behind the times. None of this is anything new to
> >conventional medicine. What you describe as the "water cure" is nothing
> >more than a variation on hydrotherapy, which has been practiced in
> >conventional medicine for a very long time now.
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> The water cure was the original form of alternative medicine, next to
> herbalism, practiced in Western history. It goes back to before Roman
> Empire.

And back in the Roman Empire it was not considered "alternative"
medicine. It was considered mainstream or conventional medicine.


> Nothing new you say? Well thanks for confirming my definition. :)

I confirmed nothing, but if you wish to delude yourself that I did,
there's nothing I can do about it.


> "Alternative medicine was yesterday's quackery, is today's
> complementary medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of
> medicine."

Ever consider going into politics? You have a knack for nice-sounding,
but ultimately vacuous and untrue, slogans


> Not only does conventional medicine misrepresent the effectiveness of
> alternative medicine, but, it has the nerve of stealing new forms of
> therapies from it. Isn't that plagiarism at the very least?

Only if you get to define what is "alternative" and "conventional," and
you've already shown that you like to define it in such a way to make
conventional medicine look as bad as possible. In the real world of
medicine (something you don't seem particularly well acquainted with),
the distinction is not nearly as clear-cut and never really has been.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> "Alternative medicine was yesterday's quackery, is today's
>> complementary medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of
>> medicine."
>
>Ever consider going into politics? You have a knack for nice-sounding,
>but ultimately vacuous and untrue, slogans

I am just imitating you. :)

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> Not only does conventional medicine misrepresent the effectiveness of
>> alternative medicine, but, it has the nerve of stealing new forms of
>> therapies from it. Isn't that plagiarism at the very least?
>
>Only if you get to define what is "alternative" and "conventional," and
>you've already shown that you like to define it in such a way to make
>conventional medicine look as bad as possible.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

That is the point, ain't it? My job is to define my position as both
reasonable and respectable. And, I have. YOU are the twit with the
problem, not me.

You Geeks think that everybody else is stupid. What exacting is your
problem. Too must rust between the ears, perhaps?

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> Your need to keep on replying to the same post of mine, exposes your
>> deep seated feelings of inferiority and lack of self-esteem. :(
>
>One can't help but notice how you dodged my question and still managed
>to reply to me with an ad hominem. You've become quite predictable.

One can not help, but notice how you have consistently ignored my
perfectly valid answers. Are you obnoxious or just plain stupid?
--
Mental illness happens to be real, live and well on these ngs.

Or, is it just a case of TOTALLY STUPID PEOPLE?
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/regushpeople.html
 
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:eek:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Really? There's lots of evidence in the published scientific
> > literature
> > > > > that it does work. Could you kindly show me the evidence
demonstrating
> > > > > that it doesn't work, describe the specific flaws in the evidence
> > > > > supporting its use, and put together a coherent argument showing
that
> > > > > your evidence trumps the existing evidence supporting
fluoridation?
> > > >
> > > > Why bother?
> > >
> > > Because you made an assertion and if you don't even try to back it up
> > > you lose what little credibility you had to begin with?
> > >
> > > Of course, I suppose a little thing like your credibility means
nothing
> > > to you, based on your behavior here.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Assholes who want forced medication aren't worth a ****....
> > >
> > > Tsk, tsk. I love it when you resort to ad hominems. It means you can't
> > > deal with me on a rational basis and therefore resort to insults.
> > >
> > Nah, just boredom.
>
> If you're so "bored" I have to wonder why you reliably respond to so
> many of my posts. You must love boredom. Either that, or you're not as
> "bored" as you claim.

'Y....a....w....n.'...................

Yeah, pretty bored.

--
Ho hum
Jez
"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that
society must somehow make sense. The thought
that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so
many innocent people is intolerable. And so the
evidence has to be internally denied."
- Arthur Miller
 
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Marko Proberto" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:eek:[email protected]...
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Assholes who want forced medication aren't worth a ****....
> > > >
> > > > Tsk, tsk. I love it when you resort to ad hominems. It means you
can't
> > > > deal with me on a rational basis and therefore resort to insults.
> > > >
> > > Nah, just boredom.
> >
> > You mean that rationality bores you?
>
> My guess is that things he can't understand bore him.

Guess away.

--
Ho hum
Jez
"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that
society must somehow make sense. The thought
that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so
many innocent people is intolerable. And so the
evidence has to be internally denied."
- Arthur Miller
 
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Marko Proberto" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:eek:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ritalin is one of the most studied drugs there is. Try doing a
Medline
> > > > > search on it sometime. There are thousands of scientific articles
on
> > it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Drugging millions of children with a stimulant, which for reasons
> > > unknown
> > > > has the opposite effect on the young, is one more example of the war
> > > against
> > > > boys.
> > >
> > > Ahh but as long as the studies are done on adults.....
> > > it PROVES it's safe for kids to use.........
> > > Great Science eh !!
> >
> > Are you claiming that it has *never* been studied on kids? Since you do
have
> > a problem answering a direct question. let me help you:
> >
> > [ ] Yes, I am claiming that it has never been tested on children.
> > [ ] No, I am not claiming that it has never been tested on children.
>
> Sadly, it's useless to expect a straight answer from this guy. He hasn't
> given one yet that I've seen.

It has not been approved for use on children.

--
Ho hum
Jez
"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that
society must somehow make sense. The thought
that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so
many innocent people is intolerable. And so the
evidence has to be internally denied."
- Arthur Miller
 
"Marko Proberto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > >
> > From people who approve the mass medication of the population,
>
> Oh? Where did I say that? I do advocate for proper treatment. That has
> nothing to do with mass medication.
>

Jez has repeatedly referred to water fluoridation as "mass medication." He
doesn't hesitate to mix this with references to Ritalin therapy as if they
were the same issue; thus the confusion.

--Rich
 
>
>"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> DING DING DING!!!
>
>She has finally bought an alarm clock. No more Zzzzzzzzz

I was beginning to wonder just how many Neurontin she was taking or if she'd
stumbled on to Ambien......
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Marko Proberto" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...

> > > > Ahh but as long as the studies are done on adults.....
> > > > it PROVES it's safe for kids to use.........
> > > > Great Science eh !!
> > >
> > > Are you claiming that it has *never* been studied on kids? Since you do
> have
> > > a problem answering a direct question. let me help you:
> > >
> > > [ ] Yes, I am claiming that it has never been tested on children.
> > > [ ] No, I am not claiming that it has never been tested on children.
> >
> > Sadly, it's useless to expect a straight answer from this guy. He hasn't
> > given one yet that I've seen.
>
> It has not been approved for use on children.

See what I mean? He didn't answer the question.

--
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