What is Quackery?



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]...
> > > >
> > > > "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.

I just did, and you continue to support my guess.

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

> "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:

> > > > > 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.

One notes that, for all your feigned "boredom," you still responded.

--
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 ...
>
> >> "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. :)

Now you've really degenerated, falling into the "I know you are but what
am I?" variety of retorts.

--
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:

> You Geeks think that everybody else is stupid.

Not everybody. Just you, John.

[Snip]

--
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 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?

Which "valid" answers are you talking about?

One notes you *still* haven't produced an example of a single post where
I "misrepresented" the effectiveness of alternative therapies.

--
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 ...

>> I am just imitating you. :)

>Now you've really degenerated, falling into the "I know you are but what
>am I?" variety of retorts.

I know what I am. :)

I know what natural health is, as well as what alternative medicine
is. :)

Homeopathic writings have wrongfully given the concept of vital force
a very bad reputation in the modern scientific community. Homeopathy
is probably why most scientists wrongfully associate all forms of
alternative medicine with quackery, magic and mysticism.

You are simply WRONG. :)

And, it is about time that you figured it out.
--
John Gohde,
Feeling Great and Better than Ever!

Alternative medicine was yesterday's quackery, is today's
complementary medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine.
http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/history.html
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Marko Proberto" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

> and
> > the drugging of our children because our teachers are too useless
> > (Or tied up with red-tape)
> > to teach them properly.
>
> No, I do not advocate for that either. I advocate for proper treatment for a
> real medical disorder ath interferes with a child's ability to learn,
> regardless of what the teacher does.

Now, now, don't confuse him with reasonable positions regarding
Ritalin...

--
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 ...

>> You Geeks think that everybody else is stupid.

>Not everybody. Just you, John.

More of your conversation would infect my brain. -- Coriolanus
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> One can not help, but notice how you have consistently ignored my
>> perfectly valid answers. Are you obnoxious or just plain stupid?

>Which "valid" answers are you talking about?

The challenge was given.

The challenge was met, because I came up with one documented instance
of success regarding the 'water cure.' :)

And, I won! :)

Time to move on, Orac.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
 
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 ...
>
> >> One can not help, but notice how you have consistently ignored my
> >> perfectly valid answers. Are you obnoxious or just plain stupid?
>
> >Which "valid" answers are you talking about?
>
> The challenge was given.
>
> The challenge was met, because I came up with one documented instance
> of success regarding the 'water cure.' :)
>
> And, I won! :)

Your self-congratulation is rather premature (no surprise there). I did
respond to your harping on the "water cure," pointing out that it is
merely a variation of hydrotherapy and therefore not so alternative at
all.

> Time to move on, Orac.

If you want. Got any other alleged examples of my "misrepresenting" the
effectiveness of "alternative therapies"?

--
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 ...
>
> >> I am just imitating you. :)
>
> >Now you've really degenerated, falling into the "I know you are but what
> >am I?" variety of retorts.
>
> I know what I am. :)

Sadly, I too know what you are.


> I know what natural health is, as well as what alternative medicine
> is. :)

That is debatable, at best.


> Homeopathic writings have wrongfully given the concept of vital force
> a very bad reputation in the modern scientific community.Homeopathy
> is probably why most scientists wrongfully associate all forms of
> alternative medicine with quackery, magic and mysticism.

At least you seem to admit that homeopathy is bunk. Sadly, it's not just
homeopathic writings, but many alternative medicine writings that use
mysticism and the "vital force." Particularly egregious are the ones
that use the immune system as a thinly-veiled surrogate for the "vital
force." It's easy to recognize them. The writers never actually point
out exactly what cells of the immune system are "strengthened" by the
alternative treatment or how. They never give descriptions of how these
treatments work that demonstrate the least understanding of how the
immune system does actually work. They just claim that disease is due to
a "weakened" immune system (ignoring, of course, the observation that
many diseases are due to an excessive response of the immune system to
various stimuli) and that their remedy "strengthens it." Glowlife Dave
is an excellent example.


> You are simply WRONG. :)

If I am wrong, unless you show yourself able to step beyond sloganeering
and up to the discussion of actual scientific data, it's become clear
that you're not the one who will be able to convince me of it. In the
meantime, you've just shown a rather astounding ignorance of what your
own allies, alt-med proponents, actually write on their websites.


> And, it is about time that you figured it out.

Show me if you can.

--
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 ...

>but many alternative medicine writings that use
>mysticism and the "vital force."

I write about the "vital force." :)

And, it is not bunk.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)

Here, is another one for you, Orac.

I am a published author.

I have published my seven principles of natural health.

I have a published health and longevity program.

I have two diet programs, both of which have been published.

I have defined both 'natural health' and 'natural therapies.'

I am working on the definitions of a number of other health terms.
All of *my* definitions will soon be published. Many, already have
been.

My slanted history of Western Healing Practices is approximately 25
printed pages long.

What have you ever done, Orac, besides complain?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
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 self-congratulation is rather premature (no surprise there). I did
>respond to your harping on the "water cure," pointing out that it is
>merely a variation of hydrotherapy and therefore not so alternative at
>all.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Orac publicly states that hydrotherapy is not a form of alternative
therapies.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Now, who is confused Orac?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
 
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 self-congratulation is rather premature (no surprise there). I did
> >respond to your harping on the "water cure," pointing out that it is
> >merely a variation of hydrotherapy and therefore not so alternative at
> >all.
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> Orac publicly states that hydrotherapy is not a form of alternative
> therapies.

That's because in most cases it isn't. Years ago, when I was a resident,
we used to use it in the burn unit all the time. Nothing "alternative"
there. We also used it for patients with vascular disease and also for
patients with diabetic foot ulcers. Nothing "alternative" there. Geez,
you ARE behind the times. Pretty much every large hospital I've ever
worked in over the years had a hydrotherapy room. A couple of them were
quite large, with several tanks and whirlpool units. Geez, get with the
times.

> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> Now, who is confused Orac?

You are, obviously.

--
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 ...
>
> >but many alternative medicine writings that use
> >mysticism and the "vital force."
>
> I write about the "vital force." :)

Exactly what I was saying about others outside of homeopathy writing
about the "vital force" and invoking mysticism.


> And, it is not bunk.

Really? I'll judge that for myself.


> Just thought that you might want to know. :)
>
> Here, is another one for you, Orac.
>
> I am a published author.

That's nice. Am I supposed to be impressed?


> I have published my seven principles of natural health.

Where?


> I have a published health and longevity program.

Where?


> I have two diet programs, both of which have been published.

Where?


> I have defined both 'natural health' and 'natural therapies.'

That's nice.


> I am working on the definitions of a number of other health terms.
> All of *my* definitions will soon be published. Many, already have
> been.

I did a Medline search on your name and turned up no hits; so presumably
none of your publications were in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I
also did a search of Amazon.com with your name and turned up no books
written by you in or out of print. Perhaps you can tell me the names and
publishers of a few of your books, because I can't find them. They
wouldn't happen to have been self-published, now, would they? ;-)


> My slanted history of Western Healing Practices is approximately 25
> printed pages long.
>
> What have you ever done, Orac, besides complain?

Heh, heh. I love it when they try to pull this one on me! You have no
idea what how funny that is, but I'll try to tell you anyway. Let's see.
Treated thousands of patients over my training and career. Published
around 18 scientific articles thus far (with two more in press and two
others being written right now). Published a chapter in a scientific
treatise on gene therapy. Identified and characterized a new gene. Ah,
but why waste my time? You almost certainly won't believe me anyway.
But, if you e-mail me with a real nice, sincere request (if you dare), I
might actually show you. No doubt, then you'll just castigate me as a
representative of the eeevvvillll conventional medicine that you
apparently detest. ;-)

--
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 ...

>That's because in most cases it isn't. Years ago, when I was a resident,
>we used to use it in the burn unit all the time. Nothing "alternative"
>there.
--
Alternative medicine was yesterday's quackery, is today's
complementary medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine.
http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/history.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]>,
> > > "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.
>
And you can't read then.

--
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]>,
> "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]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "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.
>
> I just did, and you continue to support my guess.
>
No, just your right to choose to guess.
Unlike your approval to force posion into my water supply.

--
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]...
>
> > and
> > > the drugging of our children because our teachers are too useless
> > > (Or tied up with red-tape)
> > > to teach them properly.
> >
> > No, I do not advocate for that either. I advocate for proper treatment
for a
> > real medical disorder ath interferes with a child's ability to learn,
> > regardless of what the teacher does.
>
> Now, now, don't confuse him with reasonable positions regarding
> Ritalin...
>
Are there any?

--
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
 
"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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.
>
Maybe thats where you got confused but as for me.....
I just don't fall for the Edward Bernays approach to advertising.
(Which is all I've seen here.)

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