Zzz Stupid Skeptic (Debunker)) Tricks



D

Dave

Guest
Ever get into an argument with a skeptic only to end up exasperated and feeling you've been
bamboozled? Skeptics are often highly skilled at tying up opponents in clever verbal knots. Most
skeptics are, of course, ordinary, more-or-less honest people who, like the rest of us, are just
trying to make the best sense they can of a complicated and often confusing world. Others, however,
are merely glib sophists who use specious reasoning to defend their prejudices or attack the ideas
and beliefs of others, and even an honest skeptic can innocently fall into the mistake of employing
bad reasoning.

In reading, listening to and sometimes debating skeptics over the years, I've found certain tricks,
ploys and gimmicks which they tend to use over and over again. Here are some of 'em. Perhaps if you
keep them in mind when arguing with a skeptic, you'll feel better when the debate is over. Shucks,
you might even score a point or two.

* * *

1.) RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION): This trick consists of demanding a new, higher and
more difficult standard of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going to
satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear exactly what the standards are in the
first place. This can be especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from noticing
that he is continually changing his standard of evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually
give up in exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his opponent complains, the skeptic
can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.

Skeptic: I am willing to consider the psi hypothesis if you will only show me some sound evidence.

Opponent: There are many thousands of documented reports of incidents that seem to involve psi.

S: That is only anecdotal evidence. You must give me laboratory evidence.

: Researchers A-Z have conducted experiments that produced results which favor the psi hypothesis.

T: Those experiments are not acceptable because of flaws X,Y and Z.

: Researchers B-H and T-W have conducted experiments producing positive results which did not have
flaws X,Y and Z.

U: The positive results are not far enough above chance levels to be truly interesting.

: Researchers C-F and U-V produced results well above chance levels.

V: Their results were achieved through meta-analysis, which is a highly questionable technique.

W: Meta-analysis is a well-accepted method commonly used in psychology and sociology.

X: Psychology and sociology are social sciences, and their methods can't be considered as reliable
as those of hard sciences such as physics and chemistry.

Etc., etc. ad nauseum.

2.) SOCK 'EM WITH OCCAM: Skeptics frequently invoke Occam's Razor as if the Razor automatically
validates their position. Occam's Razor, a principle of epistemology (knowledge theory), states
that the simplest explanation which fits all the facts is to be preferred -- or, to state it
another way, entities are not to be multiplied needlessly. The Razor is a useful and even
necessary principle, but it is largely useless if the facts themselves are not generally agreed
upon in the first place.

3.) EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS: Extraordinary claims, says the skeptic, require extraordinary evidence.
Superficially this seems reasonable enough. However, extraordinariness, like beauty, is very much
in the eye of the beholder. Some claims, of course, would seem extraordinary to almost anyone
(e.g. the claim that aliens from Alpha Centauri had contacted you telepathically and informed you
that the people of Earth must make you their absolute lord and ruler). The "extraordinariness" of
many other claims, however, is at best arguable, and it is not at all obvious that unusually
strong evidence is necessary to support them. For example, so many people who would ordinarily be
considered reliable witnesses have reported precognitive dreams that it becomes difficult to
insist these are "unusual" claims requiring "unusual" evidence. Quite ordinary standards of
evidence will do.

4.) STUPID, CRAZY LIARS: This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who reports anything which
displeases the skeptic will be accused of incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some
combination of the three without a single shred of fact to support the accusations. When Charles
Honorton's Ganzfeld experiments produced impressive results in favor of the psi hypothesis,
skeptics accused him of suppressing or not publishing the results of failed experiments. No
definite facts supporting the charge ever emerged. Moreover, the experiments were extremely time
consuming, and the number of failed, unpublished experiments necessary to make the number of
successful, published experiments significant would have been quite high, so it is extremely
unlikely that Honorton's results could be due to selective reporting. Yet skeptics still
sometimes repeat this accusation.

5.) THE SANTA CLAUS GAMBIT: This trick consists of lumping moderate claims or propositions together
with extreme ones. If you suggest, for example, that Sasquatch can't be completely ruled out from
the available evidence,the skeptic will then facetiously suggest that Santa Claus and the Easter
Bunny can't be "completely" ruled out either.

6.) SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE: The skeptic insists that he doesn't have to provide evidence
and arguments to support his side of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is
merely denying or doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim
(asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim. It
isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires definite support. Merely refuting or
arguing against an opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In other
words, you can't win by default.

As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If someone
wants to rule out vistations by extra-terrestrial aliens, it would not be enough to point out that
all the evidence presented so far is either seriously flawed or not very strong. It would be
necessary to state definite reasons which would make ET visitations either impossible or highly
unlikely. (He might, for example, point out that our best understanding of physics pretty much rules
out any kind of effective faster-than-light drive.)

The only person exempt from providing definite support is the person who takes a strict "I don't
know" position or the agnostic position. If someone takes the position that the evidence in favor of
ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is exempt from further argument (provided, of
course, he gives adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence). However, if he wants to go farther
and insist that it is impossible or highly unlikely that ET's are visiting or have ever visited the
Earth, it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for his position. He is no longer
entitled merely to argue against his opponent's position.

There is the question of honesty. Someone who claims to take the agnostic position but really takes
the position of definite disbelief is, of course, misrepresenting his views. For example, a skeptic
who insists that he merely believes the psi hypothesis is inadequately supported when in fact he
believes that the human mind can only acquire information through the physical senses is simply not
being honest.

7.) YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE: The skeptic may insist that he is relieved of the burden of
evidence and argument because "you can't prove a negative." But you most certainly can prove a
negative! When we know one thing to be true, then we also know that whatever flatly contradicts
it is untrue. If I want to show my cat's not in the bedroom, I can prove this by showing that my
cat's in the kitchen or outside chasing squirrels. The negative has then been proven. Or the
proposition that the cat is not in the bedroom could be proven by giving the bedroom a good
search without finding the cat. The skeptic who says, "Of course I can't prove psi doesn't exist.
I don't have to. You can't prove a negative," is simply wrong. To rule something out, definite
reasons must be given for ruling it out.

Of course, for practical reasons it often isn't possible to gather the necessary information to
prove or disprove a proposition, e.g., it isn't possible to search the entire universe to prove that
no intelligent extraterrestrial life exists. This by itself doesn't mean that a case can't be made
against the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, although it does probably mean that the case
can't be as air-tight and conclusive as we would like.

8.) THE BIG LIE: The skeptic knows that most people will not have the time or inclination to check
every claim he makes, so he knows it's a fairly small risk to tell a whopper. He might, for
example, insist that none of the laboratory evidence for psi stands up to close scrutiny, or he
might insist there have been no cases of UFO's being spotted by reliable observers such as
trained military personnel when in fact there are well-documented cases. The average person isn't
going to scamper right down to the library to verify this, so the skeptic knows a lot of people
are going to accept his statement at face value. This ploy works best when the Big Lie is
repeated often and loudly in a confident tone.

9.) DOUBT CASTING: This trick consists of dwelling on minor or trivial flaws in the evidence, or
presenting speculations as to how the evidence might be flawed as though mere speculation is
somehow as damning as actual facts. The assumption here is that any flaw, trivial or even merely
speculative, is necessarily fatal and provides sufficient grounds for throwing out the evidence.
The skeptic often justifies this with the "extraordinary evidence" ploy.

In the real world, of course, the evidence for anything is seldom 100% flawless and foolproof. It is
almost always possible to find some small shortcoming which can be used as an excuse for tossing out
the evidence. If a definite problem can't be found, then the skeptic may simply speculate as to how
the evidence *might* be flawed and use his speculations as an excuse to discard the information. For
example, the skeptic might point out that the safeguards or controls during one part of a psi
experiment weren't quite as tight as they might have been and then insist, without any supporting
facts, that the subject(s) and/or the researcher(s) probably cheated because this is the "simplest"
explanation for the results (see "Sock 'em with Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims"; "Raising the Bar"
is also relevant).

10.) THE SNEER: This gimmick is an inversion of "Stupid, Crazy Liars." In "Stupid, Crazy Liars," the
skeptic attacks the character of those advocationg certain ideas or presenting information in the
hope of discrediting the information. In "THE SNEER," the skeptic attempts to attach a stigma to
some idea or claim and implies that anyone advocating that position must have something terribly
wrong with him. "Anyone who believes we've been visited by extraterresrial aliens must be a
lunatic, a fool, or a con man. If you believe this, you must a maniac, a simpleton or a fraud."
The object here is to scare others away from a certain position without having to discuss facts.

* * *

To be fair, some of these tricks or tactics (such as "The Big Lie," "Doubtcasting" and "The Sneer")
are often used by believers as well as skeptics. Scientifc Creationists and Holocaust Revisionists,
for example, are particularly prone to use "Doubtcasting." Others ploys, however, such as "Sock 'em
with Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims," are generally used by skeptics and seldom by others.

Unfortunately, effective debating tactics often involve bad logic, e.g. attacking an opponent's
character, appeals to emotion, mockery and facetiousness, loaded definitions, etc. And certainly
skeptics are not the only ones who are ever guilty of using manipulative and deceptive debating
tactics. Even so, skeptics are just as likely as anyone else to twist their language, logic and
facts to win an argument, and keeping these tricks in mind when dealing with skeptics may very well
keep you from being bamboozled.
 
"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...

> Ever get into an argument with a skeptic only to end up... < snip >

Did you ever open a newsgroup post from a known lowlife MLM spammer and get that deja vu "I've read
this **** before" feeling? Dave, when are you going to learn that plagiarism is impolite and
sometimes illegal?

www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/skeptictricks.html

--Rich
 
Let's see 'Task No 16 to earn the "Skeptic Sherrif's Star for Kids", you must wait until someone
posts the "Stupid Skeptic Tricks" thread then debunk it with out referring to the endemic debunkings
by other skeptics.'

Goody, one more step to earning my star!

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:p[email protected]...
> Ever get into an argument with a skeptic only to end up exasperated and feeling you've been
> bamboozled? Skeptics are often highly skilled at tying up opponents in clever verbal knots. Most
> skeptics are, of course,
ordinary,
> more-or-less honest people who, like the rest of us, are just trying to
make
> the best sense they can of a complicated and often confusing world.
Others,
> however, are merely glib sophists who use specious reasoning to defend
their
> prejudices or attack the ideas and beliefs of others, and even an honest skeptic can innocently
> fall into the mistake of employing bad reasoning.
>
> In reading, listening to and sometimes debating skeptics over the years, I've found certain
> tricks, ploys and gimmicks which they tend to use over and over again. Here are some of 'em.
> Perhaps if you keep them in mind
when
> arguing with a skeptic, you'll feel better when the debate is over.
Shucks,
> you might even score a point or two.
>
> * * *
>
> 1.) RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION): This trick consists of demanding a new, higher
> and more difficult standard of evidence whenever
it
> looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it
> clear exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be especially effective if the
> skeptic can keep his
opponent
> from noticing that he is continually changing his standard of evidence.
That
> way, his opponent will eventually give up in exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his
> opponent complains, the skeptic can tag him as
a
> whiner or a sore loser.

Simply a normal method of science. If your theory passes a few tests, refine the tests and make them
harder. Newton said that the planet Saturn should be here but it is not, why not? Oh, if light does
not travel instantaneously but has a speed, Newton's laws will have to be slightly adjusted.

We have been looking for evidence of ether for ages and come up with nothing. Should we consider
that perhapse the ether does not actually exist?

>
> Skeptic: I am willing to consider the psi hypothesis if you will only show me some sound evidence.
>
> Opponent: There are many thousands of documented reports of incidents that seem to involve psi.
>
> S: That is only anecdotal evidence. You must give me laboratory evidence.

Fair enough so far

>
> : Researchers A-Z have conducted experiments that produced results which favor the psi hypothesis.
>
> S: Those experiments are not acceptable because of flaws X,Y and Z.

Reasonable, after all science is more than sticking on a white coat and hanging a sign marked
'laboratory' on your door.

>
> : Researchers B-H and T-W have conducted experiments producing positive results which did not have
> flaws X,Y and Z.
>
> S: The positive results are not far enough above chance levels to be truly interesting.

Also good, chance effects everythin, so this is reasonable.

>
> : Researchers C-F and U-V produced results well above chance levels.
>
> S: Their results were achieved through meta-analysis, which is a highly questionable technique.

Or incorrectly done meta analysis.

>
> O: Meta-analysis is a well-accepted method commonly used in psychology and sociology.
>
> S: Psychology and sociology are social sciences, and their methods can't
be
> considered as reliable as those of hard sciences such as physics and chemistry.

There also should be no reason that it couldn't be shown through normal laboratory tests if the
effect is genuine.

>
> Etc., etc. ad nauseum.
>
> 2.) SOCK 'EM WITH OCCAM: Skeptics frequently invoke Occam's Razor as if
the
> Razor automatically validates their position. Occam's Razor, a principle
of
> epistemology (knowledge theory), states that the simplest explanation
which
> fits all the facts is to be preferred -- or, to state it another way, entities are not to be
> multiplied needlessly. The Razor is a useful and
even
> necessary principle, but it is largely useless if the facts themselves are not generally agreed
> upon in the first place.

This goes back to point 1, the reasonable skeptical position when faced with the lack of evidence
given above would be to conclude that no such effects exist, at leased until shown some valid and
repeatable proof.

>
> 3.) EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS: Extraordinary claims, says the skeptic, require extraordinary evidence.
> Superficially this seems reasonable enough.
However,
> extraordinariness, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. Some claims, of course,
> would seem extraordinary to almost anyone (e.g.
the
> claim that aliens from Alpha Centauri had contacted you telepathically and informed you that the
> people of Earth must make you their absolute lord
and
> ruler). The "extraordinariness" of many other claims, however, is at best arguable, and it is not
> at all obvious that unusually strong evidence is necessary to support them. For example, so many
> people who would
ordinarily
> be considered reliable witnesses have reported precognitive dreams that it becomes difficult to
> insist these are "unusual" claims requiring "unusual" evidence. Quite ordinary standards of
> evidence will do.

Actually, even ordinary evidence is lacking.

>
> 4.) STUPID, CRAZY LIARS: This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who reports anything which
> displeases the skeptic will be accused of incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some
> combination of the
three
> without a single shred of fact to support the accusations. When Charles Honorton's Ganzfeld
> experiments produced impressive results in favor of
the
> psi hypothesis, skeptics accused him of suppressing or not publishing the results of failed
> experiments. No definite facts supporting the charge
ever
> emerged. Moreover, the experiments were extremely time consuming, and the number of failed,
> unpublished experiments necessary to make the number of successful, published experiments
> significant would have been quite high,
so
> it is extremely unlikely that Honorton's results could be due to selective reporting. Yet skeptics
> still sometimes repeat this accusation.

Of course the skeptics could have been silenced easily if the experimental results were repeated
else where. And then the is the annoying trait of the true believer ignoring inconvenient facts when
pointed out to them, and repeating the same tired old stuff again and again.

>
> 5.) THE SANTA CLAUS GAMBIT: This trick consists of lumping moderate claims or propositions
> together with extreme ones. If you suggest, for example, that Sasquatch can't be completely
> ruled out from the available
evidence,the
> skeptic will then facetiously suggest that Santa Claus and the Easter
Bunny
> can't be "completely" ruled out either.

Santa Claus, a man in a suit. Sasquatch, a man in a suit. Was there a point you wanted to make?

>
> 6.) SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE: The skeptic insists that he doesn't have to provide evidence
> and arguments to support his side of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is
> merely denying or doubting
yours.
> His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn't exist) is
> fundamentally different from a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative,
> requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an opponent's position is not enough
> to establish one's own position.. In other words, you can't win by default.
>
> As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is not
evidence
> of absence. If someone wants to rule out vistations by extra-terrestrial aliens, it would not be
> enough to point out that all the evidence
presented
> so far is either seriously flawed or not very strong. It would be
necessary
> to state definite reasons which would make ET visitations either
impossible
> or highly unlikely. (He might, for example, point out that our best understanding of physics
> pretty much rules out any kind of effective faster-than-light drive.)
>
> The only person exempt from providing definite support is the person who takes a strict "I don't
> know" position or the agnostic position. If
someone
> takes the position that the evidence in favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no
> farther, he is exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives adequate reasons for
> rejecting the
evidence).
> However, if he wants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highly unlikely that ET's
> are visiting or have ever visited the Earth, it becomes necessary for him to provide definite
> reasons for his position. He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his opponent's
> position.
>
> There is the question of honesty. Someone who claims to take the agnostic position but really
> takes the position of definite disbelief is, of
course,
> misrepresenting his views. For example, a skeptic who insists that he
merely
> believes the psi hypothesis is inadequately supported when in fact he believes that the human mind
> can only acquire information through the physical senses is simply not being honest.

Can you prove that the devine invisible pink unicorn does not exist? Didn't think so. You now have
no choice but to believe in the invisible pink unicorn...... What, you say you won't believe it
until I give you some evidence?

I rest my case

>
> 7.) YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE: The skeptic may insist that he is relieved of the burden of
> evidence and argument because "you can't prove a
negative."
> But you most certainly can prove a negative! When we know one thing to be true, then we also know
> that whatever flatly contradicts it is untrue. If
I
> want to show my cat's not in the bedroom, I can prove this by showing that my cat's in the kitchen
> or outside chasing squirrels. The negative has
then
> been proven. Or the proposition that the cat is not in the bedroom could
be
> proven by giving the bedroom a good search without finding the cat. The skeptic who says, "Of
> course I can't prove psi doesn't exist. I don't have to. You can't prove a negative," is simply
> wrong. To rule something out, definite reasons must be given for ruling it out.

How about there is no good evidence for it?

>
> Of course, for practical reasons it often isn't possible to gather the necessary information to
> prove or disprove a proposition, e.g., it isn't possible to search the entire universe to prove
> that no intelligent extraterrestrial life exists. This by itself doesn't mean that a case
can't
> be made against the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, although
it
> does probably mean that the case can't be as air-tight and conclusive as
we
> would like.
>
> 8.) THE BIG LIE: The skeptic knows that most people will not have the time or inclination to
> check every claim he makes, so he knows it's a fairly small risk to tell a whopper. He might,
> for example, insist that none of
the
> laboratory evidence for psi stands up to close scrutiny, or he might
insist
> there have been no cases of UFO's being spotted by reliable observers such as trained military
> personnel when in fact there are well-documented
cases.
> The average person isn't going to scamper right down to the library to verify this, so the skeptic
> knows a lot of people are going to accept his statement at face value. This ploy works best when
> the Big Lie is repeated often and loudly in a confident tone.

None of the above are examples of lies, let alone a big lie. So, what was your point again?

>
> 9.) DOUBT CASTING: This trick consists of dwelling on minor or trivial
flaws
> in the evidence, or presenting speculations as to how the evidence might
be
> flawed as though mere speculation is somehow as damning as actual facts.
The
> assumption here is that any flaw, trivial or even merely speculative, is necessarily fatal and
> provides sufficient grounds for throwing out the evidence. The skeptic often justifies this with
> the "extraordinary
evidence"
> ploy.
>
> In the real world, of course, the evidence for anything is seldom 100% flawless and foolproof. It
> is almost always possible to find some small shortcoming which can be used as an excuse for
> tossing out the evidence.
If
> a definite problem can't be found, then the skeptic may simply speculate
as
> to how the evidence *might* be flawed and use his speculations as an excuse to discard the
> information. For example, the skeptic might point out that the safeguards
or
> controls during one part of a psi experiment weren't quite as tight as
they
> might have been and then insist, without any supporting facts, that the subject(s) and/or the
> researcher(s) probably cheated because this is the "simplest" explanation for the results (see
> "Sock 'em with Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims"; "Raising the Bar" is also relevant).

Minor and trivial flaws? Only point these out for fun - the big stuff is what sinks the
bunkers' points.

>
> 10.) THE SNEER: This gimmick is an inversion of "Stupid, Crazy Liars." In "Stupid, Crazy Liars,"
> the skeptic attacks the character of those advocationg certain ideas or presenting information
> in the hope of discrediting the information. In "THE SNEER," the skeptic attempts to
attach
> a stigma to some idea or claim and implies that anyone advocating that position must have
> something terribly wrong with him. "Anyone who believes we've been visited by extraterresrial
> aliens must be a lunatic, a fool, or
a
> con man. If you believe this, you must a maniac, a simpleton or a fraud." The object here is to
> scare others away from a certain position without having to discuss facts.

Oh dear, now you are making things up.

>
> * * *
>
> To be fair, some of these tricks or tactics (such as "The Big Lie," "Doubtcasting" and "The
> Sneer") are often used by believers as well as skeptics. Scientifc Creationists and Holocaust
> Revisionists, for example, are particularly prone to use "Doubtcasting." Others ploys,
> however, such
as
> "Sock 'em with Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims," are generally used by skeptics and seldom
> by others.
>
> Unfortunately, effective debating tactics often involve bad logic, e.g. attacking an opponent's
> character, appeals to emotion, mockery and facetiousness, loaded definitions, etc. And certainly
> skeptics are not the only ones who are ever guilty of using manipulative and deceptive debating
> tactics. Even so, skeptics are just as likely as anyone else to twist
their
> language, logic and facts to win an argument, and keeping these tricks in mind when dealing with
> skeptics may very well keep you from being bamboozled.
>
>
Actually, listening to the skeptics will generally keep you from being bamboozled.

Well Dave, thankyou for copying and pasting this. Of course, it has been posted many times before
(mostly by Jan) so there has been sufficient time to thoughly debunk it.

--
"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:[email protected]...

> > 7.) YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE: The skeptic may insist that he is
relieved
> > of the burden of evidence and argument because "you can't prove a
> negative."
> > But you most certainly can prove a negative! When we know one thing to
be
> > true, then we also know that whatever flatly contradicts it is untrue.
If
> I
> > want to show my cat's not in the bedroom, I can prove this by showing
that
> > my cat's in the kitchen or outside chasing squirrels. The negative has
> then
> > been proven. Or the proposition that the cat is not in the bedroom could
> be
> > proven by giving the bedroom a good search without finding the cat. The skeptic who says, "Of
> > course I can't prove psi doesn't exist. I don't
have
> > to. You can't prove a negative," is simply wrong. To rule something out, definite reasons must
> > be given for ruling it out.
>
> How about there is no good evidence for it?

Of course, that in itself is no reason to rule anything out. What is needed to rule anything out, is
evidence to the contrary. For example: "Amalgams cause chronic mercury intoxication". Testable
claim! Well, do amalgam cause mercury intoxication? I don't think so because of 1) if it did, far
more people should be suffering from the same type of syndrome which should be recognizable as
mercury intoxication (because industrial workers can produce these symptoms) , 2) laboratory tests
have shown that the level of mercury build-up in a human over the course of a lifetime is not
sufficient to produce the symptoms that we know should occur with chronic mercury intoxication, 3)
because many people report totally different symptoms and all claim it comes from a single cause it
is unlikely that it is caused by amalgams. But, have I ruled out that in fact amalgams CAN cause
this form of intoxication? Nope, I just explained why I think it is unlikely. To rule it out, one
must provide evidence that it must be ruled out.

--

Robert Bronsing

Can't you see?
It all makes perfect sense,
expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence

(R. Waters)
 
On 30 Oct 2003 18:32:01 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

>There is plenty of evidence to rule it in.
>
>It is all ignored.

Says the notorious liar Jan Drew, advertizing agency for the naturopath mafia, who dumps loads of
URLs into the net, and advertizes quackery and charlatanism.

**********************************************************************

W A R N I N G

Believing Jan Drew's lies can lead to the death of your children and of yourself.

**********************************************************************

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
Homöopathisches Akutmittel bei Asthma

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_akut.htm