"Bob Officer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:28:33 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:


"Bob Officer" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:58:28 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:






No, this ng is concerned with the uselessness and dangers of drugs,
merely
to counter all the pharmaceutical apologists that populate it.

It isn't up to you to decide that Carole. The users themselves make
the decision by participation.

Peter b said "No Carole, there is nothing in the charter about
discussion
of
dangers of pharmaceutical drugs. You just like to add things which
are unnecessary or inflammatory, don't you?"

Which is true, the red herrings you toss in to discussions are
designed to do exactly what?

Read what you wrote before my response, moron.

Did, Carole. And it still is a fallacy none the less. that is what
you do. Remember a Fallacy is a defect in thinking. The continued use
of fallacies is a sign that you are not thinking at all.

Then why do you continue to use them boob?


There are only about 1 or 2 real alties in the group, the vast
majority
being pro pharmaceutical.

Well I happen to be pro-truth. and pro-evidence.

That's all very nice bob, but what happens when the evidence is stolen
or
otherwise goes missing?

What evidence are you talking about, Carole. you mean the stuff you
keep calling suppressed which can be found by the hundreds of books
and web sites?

Remember rummy's quote -

I do, Do you know what he is talking about? I do not believe you do.

No, I don't think you do.


There are things we know we know, things we know we
don't know, and things we don't know that we don't know.
These books would fall into the "things we know we don't know" category.
ie
the knowledge is there but the practise of it is suppressed.

No it isn't, the practice is well documented. It its mostly all post
hoc claims which fall apart under any testing or examination. You see
there is zero evidence to support any of those alternative claims.

Sorry boob, you've only ever demonstrated abilities to debunk.
this is all you can do.



They DDT it with propaganda, and exile the treatments to mexico then do
writeups in conventional sources to say it didn't work.

The treatments and the practitioners run to Mexico to escape the
possibility of lawsuit from practices which harm the patients. You
see Carole the Laws in Mexico will no allow people to sue a doctor
for anything. Hell Carole you do not even have to have a medical
degree to hang out your shingle. Even someone as poorly educated as
you are could call themselves a doctor and practice what ever you
wanted to call medicine, Provided you bride the local and federal
police.

Or ....or .....?
They run to mexico because they are free to practice real medicine which
isn't allowed in the US.


Really Carole? You don't have a clue. Evidence which is missing will
stand out like a glaring red light, just because it is missing. Like
a line of prose with a word missing, the Evidence tells a story, the
missing evidence will be just like the missing word. One need not
make up through speculation and conspiracy wishes missing evidence..

There are intelligence agencies which run around the world finding and
confiscating evidence of anything that is to be kept from the public, for
whatever contrived reason that best fits with plausible deniability, ie
"concern for the public good", "making the world a safer place", "national
security" ...take your pick.

Really and you know this why and how Carole.

I read widely bob, which is something I recommend but unfortunately there
are those who prefer merely to debunk.



Do you really think you are in a position to understand how the system
works?

I am in a far better position than you, are Carole, because I can
understand what I read. I understand the evidence and the
technicalities and the "Jargon" as you call it often which is the
Precision of the Language developed to discuss the evidence.

No, I don't think you're in a better position unfortunately because as a
skeptic you look for any reasons to discredit anything that doesn't fit in
with the status quo.

You an poorly education person that can't use logic, or tell the
truth from a lie? You have to be joking, Carole. You don't even know
how the patent office works but you will believe any nonsense someone
tells you because it fit your preconceived notions. Remember how that
line of discussion worked for you. You ended up showing everyone you
were an idiot.

Twisting the truth again bob.
Shame!


You are a "yes" man posing as an independent thinker.

Carole, I am thinker. Thinking is a skill which must be learned. You
have never learn how to think at all. the fact you believe you think
is laughable.

Like peter b, being a "believer".
Yeah, we've heard it all before.


"Outlawing books that tell me how to heal myself (such as Stale Food
Versus
Fresh Food) is racketeering activity.

Fallacy, you haven't shown books actually tell you how to heal
yourself.

What the medical gangsters have done
to Rife, Hoxsey, Gerson, Ivy, Durovic, Privitera, Krebs, Koch, Crane,

Sorry We already debunk the claims to show that Rife's story isn't
how you and others presented it Carole.

You really need to ditch your skeptic dictionary bob.
"Debunking" ...what does that tell us?
That you (as a skeptic) have decided using your little (inadequate)
processes that some therapy or theory isn't valid.

No we looked at the evidence the therapy did work as claimed. or the
evidence didn't support the claims at all.

But these guys have been DDT'd bob.
What makes you think there would be e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e to back their claims?


Warner, Keller, Ghadiali, Beard, Taylor, Wright, Brodie, Naessens,
Burzynski, Halstead, Richardson, Thurston, Pixley, Bolles and many
others
are great crimes, nearly invariably done in the name of "protecting the
public." "

Who are you citing about, Carole. and many of those people you claim
as visionaries were crackpots. (Young and Kock)

Take them one by one and I'll look into them.

You do that. Make sure you look into their criminal trials. They
actually harmed people.

Like chemo does?


I'm not going to do the whole list ...one will do for now.
And don't use conventional sources to look them up, or wikipedia, the
establishment approved encyclopedia.

You look them up. Look for evidence which supports their claims.

Nah, I've changed my mind.
It doesn't pay to spoon feed some people.


Were is your own evidence about the foot fungus?

That right you have none. and most of what you do post, is basically
nothing but fallacies.

Exactly what I mean bob.
Until you get given evidence, you don't believe anything.

Which is how science works carole. your anecdotal account is called a
story unless backed by evidence. In all things, the burden of proof
is the onus of the claimant.

There are problems with that MO though - the evidence can be confiscated,
there may be reasons such as expense that don't allow satisfactory tests,
or
the science might not agree with conventional thinking, a whole list of
reasons for no evidence - and vice versa. Things WITH evidence may not be
satisfactory for various reasons.

Sorry Carole, Missing evidence show up like a sore thumb. The Fact
you have to keep playing the same old broken record of fallacy after
fallacy shows your thinking process is defective from the start.

Really bob?
So you know what all those nazi scientists imported into the US after WWII
have been working on?
Amazing!


You live in your own little world, and the idea of a bigger picture
where
things are manipulated from high up the food chain doesn't compute with
you.

You do not understand I do see the bigger picture. I understand how
the system works and work with it. It is why I am successful person.

It all depends on your definition of success - different people have
different definitions.

And you believe yourself to be a success, but you really are nothing
more than an idiot on the internet.

Well, I think that's for others to say ...ie other than skeptics who merely
wish to debunk.


All societies develop systems and methods. What you claim as
conspiracy is just you anto-social behavior.

Oh so you're into playing "blame the victim". Its not the fault of the
corrupt system, its the fault of the person talking about it.

That's your game Carole, Blame the system. Claim suppression, and
call everyone with an education dumbed down because they are smarter
and better educated that you are. Build the lies but you will never
be smart until you start working at it.

But you're into debunking bob ...everything and anything EXCEPT the
establishment policies.
Why is that?


You think that showing some peer reviewed study or some randomed
controlled
clinical study shows the evidence and that the evidence can never be
wrong.

No It could be wrong. when it is wrong it will be shown to be wrong
sooner or later. that reason it will show up wrong sooner or later is
because those test and data should be tested and replicated and if
they are not in agreement then we know something is wrong.

Maybe but in the meantime?

we Still look at evidence and not stories, Carole.

But bob, the evidence has been confiscated or otherwise made to disappear
before you came on the scene.
Then along comes the skeptic and does what he does and guess what
.....debunking, what every good little skeptic does best.



That's why when you cite a web page which shows the only person which
could even preform the tests or see the results claimed was just one
person, it is self-evidence that something isn't right.

What you don't understand is that there are very few pieces of
scientific
evidence that haven't got a opposing view, or that can't be controlled
or
manipulated.

Sorry, Carole that is your claim, it is up to you to prove it.

And Note: Carole has nothing but empty hands waving in the air.

Yes, I'll prove it with four little words.

"Rule out the impossible"

carole
www.conspiracee.com