On 9/9/10 10:28 AM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:58:28 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
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.



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

Did it ever occur to you that these treatments don't work? There is no
big conspiracy. The knowledge is not there. The only thing that is there
is ignorance - you're a great example of that.

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.

More conspiracy theory. What a piece of work!

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

What you're missing is that there is no evidence that the treatment
works. There is no conspiracy. There is nothing to discredit because it
doesn't work. There is nothing to cover up.

I hope you don't thing you are an independent thinker - you're not a
thinker at all. You're a front for alternative medicine. Look at the
stupid web page you advertise.

"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.

You have yet to show it is valid. All you say is that people are out to
get you or the treatment. You have yet to show valid clinical data that
the treatment works or to reference any valid evidence.

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.
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.



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.

You're looking for a conspiracy where there is none. There is no
evidence that the treatment works. Period.

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.

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.

What you're claiming is conspiracy is just your stupidity looking for a
way to believe something where there is no evidence, e.g., alternative
medicine works - there is no evidence that it works. In fact, that is
the definition of alternative medicine. If it were proven medicine, it
would be proven medicine.

In reality, there are two types of medicine:

1) Medicine that works.

2) Medicine that doesn't work. Alternative medicine goes here.

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?

Don't waste time and money on unproven treatments, particularly when
there is no valid scientific reason why they should work.

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.


carole
www.conspiracee.com


You still haven't proven it.

Jeff