"carole" wrote in news:zysio.6172$FH2.1037
@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com:

As noted previously, you only have empty assertions about your claim,
but evidence is missing. Please also remember I do check the
references,
and wikipedia editors cannot change the contents of external links.

You just don't get it do you?
If there was real evidence it would have been confiscated by now.
Do you understand what corruption means?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBWcRMonvWA

Healing is not a crime - huckstering stuff that cannot work and can
be
dangerous for big bucks IS.

Well unfortunately, you can't tell the difference.

Actually, I can. Cure rates and valid evidence for the cure working is
pretty effective. Too bad quacks are never able to produce any.

If I was only going to read the wikipedia story, I would agree that
Hoxley was a fraud.
However, there are other sources.

Find me an other source that says Hoxley did not die of cancer -
complete with the death certificate showing some other cause.

You just don't get it do you?

That's carolespeak for "I can't do that so I'll try and avoid".

YOU claimed there are other sources, now let's see what you can come up
with.

The fact that Hoxley himself died of cancer shows his treatment was
ineffective. The same goes for Hulda Clark.

You'll never work it out that's for sure.
You're too stupid.
All that education and still thick as a brick.

More carolespeak for "I can't refute what is being said, so I'll try ad
hominems instead."

BTW, calling you paranoid and stupid is not an ad hominemn - it's a
diagnosis.

And if you're going to say that some of Hoxley's ingredients were
harmful, how to you explain chemo and radiation?

Tu quoque fallacy.

Nobody's claimed chemo is completely harmless, but it has been shown
to
have a beneficial effect, unlike Hoxley's quackery.

You're joking right?

Not in the slightest.

"It has now become clear that chemotherapy for advanced nonsmall-cell
lung cancer, compared with best supportive care only, improves survival,
even if the amplitude of the benefit remains disappointing. However,
some clinicians are still reluctant to prescribe chemotherapy in this
patient population, arguing that the survival gain is too small to
counterbalance the side effects. Therefore, randomized trials using
quality of life as an endpoint and comparing best supportive care with
or without chemotherapy were reviewed. Although there are difficulties
in the methodology of quality of life assessments and in the analysis of
quality of life data, most of the selected trials showed an improvement
for quality of life in various components in the chemotherapy arm."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12130921

I won't go into the rest of the healers you've looked up because it
will be the same story --suppression of alternative cures to
eliminate
the competition.

LOL. Run, carole, run. Don't look into anything, just stay the dumb
believer that you are.

All that education and you're still as thick as ****.
But then they do a good job on people.

carole, I have no problems whatsoever looking at the crap sites you
post. You, however, are deathly afraid of anything that might challenge
your beliefs.

You have bragged here that you like to do your own research. That is
simply self-delusion. You refuse to look in depth into anything, and
accept only what supports your paranoia. Then you brag about being a
deluded gullible fool. But hey, if you have nothing else to build your
self-esteem on, then stay stupid and ignorant and imagine that you know
everything better than anyone else - especially better than people who
actually have researched things for themselves.

The reality is that some of those "cures" are either useless or
downright harmful, laetrile being a good example. I fully support
prosecuting charlatans who peddle harmful "cures" to the gullible.

And chemo is what?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12130921

And costs how much?

Would not cost a penny for me, if I ever needed it.

Look up Ghadiali, btw. Maybe you like sexual predators, but I don't.
He
did 5 years in jail for violating the Mann Act. The case is Ghadiali
v.
United States, 9 Cir., 17 F.2d 236

No thankyou.
I'm not looking up any of your references because they're crap.

That is a court case reference, carole. So you're so afraid of being in
the wrong you refuse to look at something that is only a record of what
happened in the court during the case. Figures

"In 1925, when Ghadiali was on a lecture tour, he was arrested in
Seattle and sentenced under the Mann Act to five years in the Atlanta
Penitentiary. He later published a two-volume work, Railroading a
Citizen, in which he blamed this unjust "persecution" on the medical
trusts, the KKK, Catholics, Negroes, Henry Ford, the Department of
Justice, and Great Britain. The book reprints the more sensational
parts
of the trial in which his teen-age secretary accuses him of rape,
forcing her into "unnatural practices," and later performing an
abortion. Ghadiali's purpose in reprinting this testimony is to allow
himself a chance to interject comments accusing the girl of lying.
Unfortunately, the impression left on the reader is that the girl was
telling a straightforward story."
- Gardner, Fads and Fallacies, 1957

Not interested thankyou.

Read his own book as the name of it is given in the quote. Then let's
see if you can figure out for yourself what really happened. Though I
doubt that.

You are too dumb to deal with.

That's carolespeak for "I got to run away, I'm scared of something I
might find out".

--
The trouble with the World is that the stupid are so confident
while the intelligent are full of doubt. -Bertrand Russell

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---