If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
The LIES on Peter Bowditch's website
"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message ... "Jan Drew" wrote: "Peter Bowditch" wrote : If what you say in 2006 is correct, it should be easy to list the lies and point out why each one of them is a lie. But you can't do either. -- Peter Bowditch I asked for a list of lies and reasons. As minimum, each member of the list should consists of three parts - the URL of the page with the lie on it, the words of the lie, the explanation of why the words constitute a lie. WE ASKED FOR RECEIPTS. LET'S SEE WHAT WE GOT............ $0.00 THAT'S WHAT. PETER BOWDITCH DOESN'T OR CAN'T PROVIDE RECEIPTS FOR HIS OWN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION. HE ALSO WANTS OTHER GULLIBLE FOOLS TO DONATE THERE DESPITE THE FACT IT'S A DEAD WEBSITE AND FOUNDATION AND HASN'T DONE NOTHING FOR YEARS!!!! NOBODY KNOWS WHERE THE DONATIONS GOES??????? NEAT EHHHH???? Let's see what we got. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....a06ffcbf2c9ee8 That doesn't seem to be a URL which references anything on my web site. In fact, the contents of that page are reproduced below. As that URL belongs to Google, perhaps Jan is going to accuse Google of lying. (Why not? She has accused just about everyone else.) Apr 11 2006 Note that date. It will become important later. [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html ADHD prescribed 'without checks' snip the contents of the page linked to above, because all of it is reproduced in my reply below http://groups.google.com/group/misc....c1626ebac3a6e7 Jan Drew" wrote: [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html ADHD prescribed 'without checks' HUNDREDS of Queensland children may have been wrongly diagnosed with ADHD and put on courses of potentially harmful prescription drugs by a psychologist who did not perform proper checks for several years. Hmmm. I wonder what those words "may have" mean. But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed by the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite adverse findings about her conduct. A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action has been taken will not be recorded in the board's register." What disciplinary action could be taken, Jan? Have you any idea how difficult it can be for a body like the Queensland Board of Psychologists to do anything? The board's decision to conceal the action and leave hundreds of parents unaware of Ms McHugh's flawed diagnostic procedures has angered health and education experts. As it should. They told The Courier-Mail they were concerned that children remain on the controversial drugs Ritalin and dexamphetamines for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder despite never having suffered the underlying conditions. Yes, if the kids don't have the underlying conditions they should not be getting the medications. Board documents obtained by The Courier-Mail show Ms McHugh, who has been a leader in the assessment of children in Ipswich since the 1990s, routinely recommended psycho-stimulant medication despite having no medical training. She is a psychologist. That word means that she has no "medical training", in the formal sense of having attended medical school. Many of Ms McHugh's young patients have been referred to an Ipswich pediatrician, Dr Malcolm Miller, who prescribes the drugs. He yesterday mounted a strenuous defence of Ms McHugh, describing her as a highly respected professional. He would say that, wouldn't he? (Do you remember Christine Keeler, Jan?) Ms McHugh, whose solicitor John Sneddon also strenuously defended her conduct, was notified two months ago by the board's disciplinary committee that she had "demonstrated incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care". She was found to have consistently used unacceptable diagnostic criteria to assess youngsters brought to her Wharf St, Ipswich practice by stressed-out parents frustrated by their children's behaviour. But instead of a rigorous and comprehensive process to check if the children were experiencing difficulties because of problems at home or elsewhere, Ms McHugh, in most cases diagnosed ADHD or ADD, according to senior sources. So she had a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which is always a bad thing. (I am told, however, that this is OK if the diagnosis is autism and the treatment is chelation. But I digress ...) The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed and placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians. A "controversial and ongoing debate" which is being driven by anti-psychiatry oufits like Scientology's CCHR and other Ritalin-haters. The children who are patients of Ms McHugh live in the Oxley federal electorate, which has Queensland's highest rate of prescriptions for dexamphetamines and the 15th-highest rate in Australia, according to a November 2004 Federal Parliament research paper. How many electorates are there, Jan? I want to put the "15th-highest" into context. Two Brisbane psychologists, Keira Roffey-Mitchell and Trish Chandra, who made a detailed complaint to the board about Ms McHugh, are regarded by independent sources as highly qualified in ADD and ADHD. Both declined to comment to The Courier-Mail. These are the goodies, Jan. Congratulate them. "Organised psychology" is concerned about Ms McHugh. Unfortunately, they are also a part of "organised belief in ADHD", so you probably won't accept them. Senior sources said Education Queensland, which schools about 80 per cent of the estimated 30,000 children in the Ipswich area, and Brisbane Catholic Education were concerned about Ms McHugh's conduct and backed the complaint to the board. "Organised education" is concerned about Ms McHugh, as they should be. "We believe Ms McHugh's professional practice does not operate in the best interests of the children and in fact could be detrimental to them," the complaint states. It sets out how Ms McHugh had been relying heavily on an IQ test, known as WISC III, to diagnose the disorders despite this test being internationally renowned as "one of the worst measures" a psychologist could use. The board appointed an expert to investigate the complaint and participate in a closed-door hearing late last year. Board executive officer Jim O'Dempsey said legislation "prohibits the board from public identification or specific comment on complainants, respondents or decisions relating to complaints, investigation or disciplinary action unless the matter is heard in public before the Health Practitioners Tribunal". So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything. ADHD Association of Queensland president Steve Dossel, who had no knowledge of the case, said: " The parents should have been advised to seek a further assessment. I would hope that the parents of children, where there is any doubt about a diagnosis, seek another assessment." Good advice. "Organised belief in ADHD" is concerned about Ms McHugh. -- Peter Bowditch And here is Jan coming back. You will notice that she identifies no lies. Even if she did, this is a Usenet message, not anything on my web site. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....adc603ed4bf1f7 "Peter Bowditch" wrote in message . .. "Jan Drew" wrote: [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong. Impossible...I have never said *that* before.... Remember the date - April 11. Note how Jan has removed it from her reply. Keep remembering it, because it will become important later. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html ADHD prescribed 'without checks' HUNDREDS of Queensland children may have been wrongly diagnosed with ADHD and put on courses of potentially harmful prescription drugs by a psychologist who did not perform proper checks for several years. Hmmm. I wonder what those words "may have" mean. Hmmm. You better stop reading. But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed by the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite adverse findings about her conduct. A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action has been taken will not be recorded in the board's register." Did you notice the word *concealed*? You DO know what that means, don't you, Peter? Despite the *adverse findings about her conduct.* You DO understand *that*, do you NOT, Peter? What disciplinary action could be taken, Jan? This is NOT a quiz for *me*, Peter. Just read the FACTS! Have you any idea how difficult it can be for a body like the Queensland Board of Psychologists to do anything? I do NOT live there, you DO. Now hurry and put up a page on your website ALL about these DESPICABLE ACTS CONCERNING THESE CHILDREN! The board's decision to conceal the action and leave hundreds of parents unaware of Ms McHugh's flawed diagnostic procedures has angered health and education experts. As it should. They told The Courier-Mail they were concerned that children remain on the controversial drugs Ritalin and dexamphetamines for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder despite never having suffered the underlying conditions. Yes, if the kids don't have the underlying conditions they should not be getting the medications. So why did you ask what *may have* means? Board documents obtained by The Courier-Mail show Ms McHugh, who has been a leader in the assessment of children in Ipswich since the 1990s, routinely recommended psycho-stimulant medication despite having no medical training. She is a psychologist. That word means that she has no "medical training", in the formal sense of having attended medical school. Many of Ms McHugh's young patients have been referred to an Ipswich pediatrician, Dr Malcolm Miller, who prescribes the drugs. He yesterday mounted a strenuous defence of Ms McHugh, describing her as a highly respected professional. He would say that, wouldn't he? (Do you remember Christine Keeler, Jan?) I know it's a bit late, but it was Mandy Rice Davies who uttered the immortal words, not Christine Keeler. It didn't matter, because Jan had obviously never heard of either of the ladies or of the famous saying. You can see that from the fact that she called it a diversion. I am very aware of your D I V E R S I O N S....... AND EFFORTS TO TRASH..... Now...back to the subject. Ms McHugh, whose solicitor John Sneddon also strenuously defended her conduct, was notified two months ago by the board's disciplinary committee that she had "demonstrated incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care". She was found to have consistently used unacceptable diagnostic criteria to assess youngsters brought to her Wharf St, Ipswich practice by stressed-out parents frustrated by their children's behaviour. But instead of a rigorous and comprehensive process to check if the children were experiencing difficulties because of problems at home or elsewhere, Ms McHugh, in most cases diagnosed ADHD or ADD, according to senior sources. So she had a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which is always a bad thing. (I am told, however, that this is OK if the diagnosis is autism and the treatment is chelation. But I digress ...) Actually you are making excuses and diverting, and I greatly doubt that you have been told any such thing. This is an example of how you write LIES on your SICK LYING WEBSITES. You will notice how Jan has accused me of lying in a Usenet message (which I hadn't done) and uses that as evidence that there are lies on my web site. List the lies on the site, Jan. can't do it? I didn't think so. The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed and placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians. A "controversial and ongoing debate" which is being driven by anti-psychiatry oufits like Scientology's CCHR and other Ritalin-haters. WRONG. That is a SCAPE GOAT AND A LIE. Perhaps Jan should look up a book to find out what a "scape goat" is. I wonder if she could guess what book that would be. She might even find out how the term has absolutely nothing to do with the very well-known fact that Scientology and its front group CCHR are opposed to psychiatry. CCHR will rear its ugly head later in this story. The FACTS are as told EXACTLY as stated: The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that ****rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed****** **** and placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians.****** The children who are patients of Ms McHugh live in the Oxley federal electorate, which has Queensland's highest rate of prescriptions for dexamphetamines and the 15th-highest rate in Australia, according to a November 2004 Federal Parliament research paper. How many electorates are there, Jan? I want to put the "15th-highest" into context. Do you consult *me* to help you put things in to context? No, if something is the 15th biggest, it helps to know how many in the total. If there are only 15, for example, it means smallest. Two Brisbane psychologists, Keira Roffey-Mitchell and Trish Chandra, who made a detailed complaint to the board about Ms McHugh, are regarded by independent sources as highly qualified in ADD and ADHD. Both declined to comment to The Courier-Mail. These are the goodies, Jan. Congratulate them. "Organised psychology" is concerned about Ms McHugh. Unfortunately, they are also a part of "organised belief in ADHD", so you probably won't accept them. This is NOT about *me*....... Senior sources said Education Queensland, which schools about 80 per cent of the estimated 30,000 children in the Ipswich area, and Brisbane Catholic Education were concerned about Ms McHugh's conduct and backed the complaint to the board. "Organised education" is concerned about Ms McHugh, as they should be. "We believe Ms McHugh's professional practice does not operate in the best interests of the children and in fact could be detrimental to them," the complaint states. It sets out how Ms McHugh had been relying heavily on an IQ test, known as WISC III, to diagnose the disorders despite this test being internationally renowned as "one of the worst measures" a psychologist could use. The board appointed an expert to investigate the complaint and participate in a closed-door hearing late last year. Board executive officer Jim O'Dempsey said legislation "prohibits the board from public identification or specific comment on complainants, respondents or decisions relating to complaints, investigation or disciplinary action unless the matter is heard in public before the Health Practitioners Tribunal". So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything. WHAT can YOU do to change this???????? Are YOU in favor of keeping dirty little secrets....from the PARENTS and the PUBLIC.....at the cost of CHILDREN?!?!?! You just say..... So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything. To protect *ORGANIZED ADHD* Organised ADHD?? ADHD Association of Queensland president Steve Dossel, who had no knowledge of the case, said: " The parents should have been advised to seek a further assessment. I would hope that the parents of children, where there is any doubt about a diagnosis, seek another assessment." Good advice. "Organised belief in ADHD" is concerned about Ms McHugh. WHO is at FAULT?!?! NOT..... Scientology's CCHR and other Ritalin-haters. ******But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed by the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite adverse findings about her conduct. A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action has been taken will not be recorded in the board's register."******** -- Peter Bowditch No lies on web sites yet. Let's continue. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....aabd2d2485880a Jan Drew" wrote: "Peter Bowditch" wrote in message ... "Jan Drew" wrote: "Peter Bowditch" wrote in message om... "Jan Drew" wrote: [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong. Impossible...I have never said *that* before.... No, the words you used were "[Let Us See IF Peter Bowditch Puts This On His Website?]" in a message headed "Families Called on to Join Class Acton On ADHD Drug- Ritilan" posted on March 30, 2006. I know you didn't use the exact same electrons, but you did say that something wouldn't appear on my site. But it did. Yes, I already addressed those LIES! See Jan admitting that, in fact, she had challenged me to put something on my site on a previous occasion, despite saying "Impossible...I have never said *that* before....". If I were to be uncharitable I might call that lying. But I'm not. What LIES, Jan? You said I wouldn't talk about something on my site. I talked about it on my site. How has this got anything to do with LIES? Unless you are saying that the original article that you said I wouldn't comment on was LIES. If it was, why did you post it here? Even then I was trying to get Jan to point out some lies on the web site, but all she seemed to be able to do was rant about a Usenet message. snip stuff which made sense before Jan started random snipping -- Peter Bowditch Still no web site lies. On we go. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....3d23c387fe6e89 How do you feel about the Catholic Church, Carole? Have you ever wondered how an organisation could have such strong supporters on the one hand and stand up for what was so good and right with their St Vincent de Paul organisation and their social justice work, yet be so maligned on the other? -- Peter Bowditch http://groups.google.com/group/misc....8c563945e607a7 Peter Bowditch diverted to: Catholic Church snip This thread is NOT about the about.... [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html http://groups.google.com/group/misc....d227f7769fb0e3 I'm sorry that you didn't understand the analogy and had to snip it, Jan. Met any good Scientologists lately? Have you asked them if they still think that Jesus was a pedophile? snip This thread is NOT about the about.... [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] As I said, Jan, when you said this one before about another matter, you were wrong. In any case, why should this appear on my web site? My web site is not about "organised medicine" catching the bad apples. In fact, when I wrote about "organised medicine" chasing killer Dr Patel you accused me of supporting him. Maybe you didn't, but who can tell with the way you rant. In any case, you did not accept that my criticism of him was criticism of him. snip stuff which I have answered before about a psychologist who should be run out of town on a rail Peter Bowditch ~~~~~~~ Now let us compare that to wrote Peter wrote on his webite. Ahh! At last we get to something on my web site. http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...l.htm#1ritalin Updates made to The Millenium Project in April 2006 The sky is falling! Children are being drugged! (1/4/2006} But, but, but - that date is April 1, so how could it have anything to do with something published on April 11. All of the stuff above was Jan complaining about how I wouldn't post something, but now she points to something ten days earlier for some reason or other. Now she has actually got to the web site, let's see her list the lies and provide an explanation. I was challenged during the week by someone who stated that a story in the newspaper would not be reported here because of the immensely damaging information it contained about the second-most evil and dangerous chemical ever made, Ritalin. (The most dangerous is, of course, mercury, with Prozac, aspartame and fluoride closing in along the straight.) The horror story that I would be too afraid to tell is that a politician, well known as an anti-Ritalin loon, has said that he is trying to round up participants for a class action against the makers and distributor of the drug. That's it. That's the story. Someone is trying to organise a court action, but no parties are yet involved, no court papers have been filed, and nothing has happened. I can only imagine that someone at the newspaper will be disciplined for not selling enough advertising and leaving a blank space which had to be filled with drivel. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. Two major matters of concern are associated with this non story. The first is that last week 14 kids aged around 13 or 14 at a school in Queensland (as far as you can get from the politician in question and still be in Australia) managed to get their hands on some Ritalin which was not prescribed for them and administered it to themselves using a delivery method which is not how it is supposed to be taken. They all ended up in hospital and local politicians are making noises about attacking drug abuse. It is drug abuse to consume drugs not prescribed for you in order to get an effect which the drugs do not give if taken according to directions, but this means nothing to the anti-Ritalin loons. The drug was taken, there was harm, the drug is bad. Four legs good, two legs bad. I pointed out that it was almost inevitable that 14 kids of that age had abused acetaminophen somewhere in Australia during the week (many ending up in hospital) and an absolute certainty that that number of kids had abused both nicotine and alcohol (although the hospital visits for these may be deferred for some time), but there are no calls for the banning of these drugs. Just Ritalin, because, as everyone knows, there is no such thing as ADHD and the condition was only invented to allow the sales of this dangerous, unproven drug. (Methylphenidate was patented in 1954, so it is a matter of some interest both why anyone bothered to research and patent a treatment for a non-existent condition (CIBA-Geigy isn't a quackery potion manufacturer, who do this all the time), and who has been taking it for the last fifty years other than the millions of kids who have benefited.) Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. The second major concern was that prescriptions for Ritalin had increased "tenfold" since it was accepted into the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and therefore made affordable. I'm not quite sure where the "tenfold" comes from, because the latest figures available from the PBS for prescriptions written in Australia are for the year ending June 30, 2005, and Ritalin was not added to the scheme until August the same year. It is worth noting here that the hundredth most prescribed drug in Australia up until June 2005 accounted for 404,000 prescriptions during the year. Another relevant statistic is that according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are about 276,000 people in the country who are aged 18 or less. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. So how big is the Ritalin epidemic? Well, according to the opponents, there were 523 prescriptions written in August 2005 and "more than 5800" in January 2006. (I love the "more than". It suggests extreme accuracy in reporting.) The first thing I did was point out that this was an elevenfold increase, and, according to the rules set by the person telling the story any deviation from absolute fact is a lie and there are no such things as mistakes, therefore the person claiming a "tenfold" increase was lying. (You might think I am joking or exaggerating here. This person accused me of lying for saying that Hulda Clark sued me for damaging sales of her books. When I replied that a publishing company whose only products were books had sued me for damaging sales of its products and therefore books, I was told to point to where the word "books" appeared in the lawsuit. Bizarre, I know, but true.) An exception was immediately made in this case (as it would have to be, because the person making the claim opposed Ritalin). Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. But back to the epidemic. There are about 276,000 people aged 18 or less in the country and less than 6,000 people taking Ritalin in total. If all of those pill poppers were under 19 it would be 2%. Let's allow the number of monthly prescriptions to rise to 6,000, giving 72,000 per year. This is a very long way from the top 100 most prescribed drugs in the country (one of which is aspirin, which, as any alternaut knows, is never recommended for anything because it can't be patented and nobody can make money out of it). Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. So, we have a drug which used to be expensive but is now subsidised, inevitably leading to an increase in both prescribing and consumption. The huge increase in prescriptions is only huge when compared to a very low starting point, but in relative terms compared to other prescription drugs it isn't even a ripple on the pond. Kids who can benefit from the drug are more likely to get it because their parents can now afford to pay for it. Action is being taken to control abuse, but even before that action it is still far less abused than some quite dangerous over-the-counter medications. Everything seems to be good. Unless you think that sick children don't need medication. But why would anyone want to deprive kids of effective treatment? I don't know the answer to that. I don't think that there is an answer which would satisfy anyone who is concerned about children and their welfare. Not a single lie identified. What Jan forgot to quote from that page, however, was where I scooped the mainstream media by identifying the source of the newspaper article which Jan referred to (and said I wouldn't comment on). http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...l.htm#8ritalin Ritalin follow-up (8/4/2006) I mentioned last week that hysteria had broken out in Australia because kids who might benefit from the drug Ritalin would have better access now that it is being subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The original beat-up story in the paper told horror tales about adverse events arising following taking the drug, but the paper forgot to mention that the main source of information for the story was a branch of Scientology, the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights. (CCHR won the Anus Maximus Award in 2003. Read about it here.) They did mention CCHR, but the cloudy ancestry of the outfit was swept under the carpet. It is amazing to see how people who would normally reject Scientology outright as either a dangerous cult or, when considering Tom Cruise's antics, as a font of hilarity, suddenly start taking the cult seriously when it agrees with them. When I first noticed this phenomenon I went looking for the origin of the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Remarkably, the first place I found it was on the web site of anti-psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, where he used it to justify going into business with Scientology to establish CCHR. (In one wonderful moment of bizarrity, some alternative medicine believer once called me a liar for saying that Szasz had ever used those words and defied me to produce evidence of my claim. I referred to where the words appeared on Szasz's own web site and was told that that was not good enough!) One of the most ferocious anti-Ritalin and anti-medication campaigners I have come across has told people that anything I say can be disregarded because I am an atheist (my pointing out that I am an ordained minister of a church did not earn me any credit) and, in fact, only Christians (and then only some subset of Christians) can be trusted to tell the truth about anything. Whenever this abuse of religion is brought into the argument I make a point of quoting L. Ron Hubbard, writing in the secret OT VIII documents. "For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably leads. It is historic fact and yet man still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious is the biologic implanting". I always like to remind Jan of Hubbard's opinion of Jesus. ~~~~~~ More lies after this on the same page: As no lies have been identified yet, it is a bit premature to say "more", but let's keep pressing on. You might wonder what all this has to do with the matters of interest to The Millenium Project, but this week I fell into a conversation which would make Ionesco look like a jingle writer for McDonalds when it came to measurements on the weirdness scale. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. The 1931 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Dr Otto Warburg for, as it says on the Nobel site, "his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme". It was thought at the time, by Dr Warburg and others, that his work might have some application to the treatment of cancer, but that was not to be and research in this area withered away and was finally abandoned. To believers in alternative medicine, however, this must mean that Warburg's ideas have been suppressed, and a mythology has been created around him. One piece of mythology is that he was "voted" a second Nobel Prize in 1944. Pointing out to alternauts that nobody is "voted" a Nobel Prize who does not then go on to "win" the prize had me being accused of lying. I have told the objectors that they should write to the relevant Nobel committee and point out that there is a mistake on the Nobel web site because it says that the 1944 Medicine prize went to Joseph Erlanger and Herbert S. Gasser, but I am yet to receive a satisfactory answer. Or an answer at all, in fact. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. You might think that saying that someone has won two Nobel Prizes when he has only won one would be so easily dismissed that further conversation would be pointless, but it gets even stranger. You see, it is claimed that there are many references to Dr Warburg and cancer on the Nobel site, so this must mean that he won for his cancer cure. (At least two of the references are to someone else named Warburg, but let's not let the facts interfere with the story.) I pointed out that in Dr Warburg's Nobel Lecture the word "cancer" appears exactly zero times, something which seems strange if curing cancer was what he was getting the prize for. I also mentioned that the word "cancer" did appear in the presentation speech made by someone else, but only as a comment on how a cure might happen in the future, but meanwhile Dr Warburg was getting an award for something else. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. And this is where things started to get really weird. I had made the mistake of accidentally referring to Dr Warburg's Nobel Lecture as an "acceptance speech". My error was pointed out and I agreed that I had used the wrong form of words. I was then accused of lying for saying that it wasn't an acceptance speech. The person doing the accusing gave me five examples of laureates who had made "acceptance speeches" and nyah, nyah, I was wrong. As one of the examples was William Faulkner (Literature 1949) and he gave a "Banquet Speech", not an "acceptance speech", I thought that two could play at the literalist pedant game, but my response was not taken well. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. In a complete about-face, the person who had been telling me that Medicine or Physiology laureate Dr Warburg must have made an "acceptance speech" because Martin Luther King (Peace 1963) and The 14th Dali Lama (Peace 1989) had done so, suddenly announced that Dr Warburg's speech had probably been given in support of his nomination (it was presented on December 10, after the award had been announced). Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. I commented that nobody gets to address the voting commitee before the final announcement, and many people do not even know that they have been nominated until they are told that they have won. I gave the example of Peter Doherty (Medicine 1996) who was informed of his win ten minutes before the press release went out from Stockholm so that he the media. Another player then accused me of lying could getready for telephone calls from the media. Another player then accused me of lying, because there wouldn't be time to write a 15 page "acceptance speech" in ten minutes. My response was to say that writing the speech would have been the least of his problems as he only had ten minutes to get into his white tie and tails and get from Memphis, Tennessee to Stockholm, Sweden. I quoted from Professor Doherty's book, but, alas, I was dealing with the sort of people who cannot understand any form of the spoken or written word which does not involve concrete thinking. (As an example, one of the players challenged me to something and then included the single-word paragraph "Well?". When I replied "Yes, I am well. Thanks for asking" I was told that she hadn't been asking me anything.) Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. In another bizarre non sequitur, when I mentioned that I had seen the Nobel medal that had been awarded to Ernest Lawrence (Physics 1939, and another who had delivered an "acceptance speech") I was informed about how many Nobel laureates had come out of Berkeley. I suppose I should have replied that there is a street in Berkeley township which has the same name as me. It would have been just as relevant. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. I started out by mentioning a play, and I will end the same way. If everything goes well I will have a short play here next week telling the wonderful story of the Warburg controversy. There will be three main characters - Max (a nutritionist who believes that there are no good or bad forms of cholesterol, that the best way to prevent chickenpox in children is to expose them to the wild virus, and that one Nobel Prize plus no other Nobel Prize equals two Nobel Prizes), Jan (a lady who believes that the most evil chemicals in the world are mercury and Ritalin, that anti-vaccination liars do not tell lies, that people who pray to saints are servants of Satan (but she is not a religious bigot of course, and has never said anything about Catholics), and that anyone who even knows Stephen Barrett's email address is intrinsically evil), and Peter (who has a prescription for SSRI medication but refuses to take the pills in case the Scientologists turn up on his doorstep again and point at him and laugh, and whose serotonin can stay right where it is). I will call the play "Acceptance Speech", which should be suitably confusing for anyone who can't see that something can have multiple signifiers and that words and phrases can sometimes mean different things in different contexts. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. So where's the promised play? (8/4/2006) My plans to write a play based on the weirdness of some Usenet participants were thrown into psychological disarray during the week, when I was presented with some additional information about the mental states of the subjects whom I was observing in order to create my piece of htémél vérité. One of the subjects told me that using Google to find things on the web was "the lazy man's way", and that he was better at finding things than Google. To add to this hubris, he then told me that it didn't make any sense for someone to say that Nobel Laureates presented things called Nobel Lectures and challenged me to name anybody who had done so. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. Show us all here how giving a 15 page lecture to those giving a Nobel Prize is customary. I'm not just going to take your word for it, especially since it doesn't even make sense. The web site is right there. Find some other Nobel Laureates that gave lectures to the audience upon receiving an award. If it's customary, it should be easy to prove your point. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. I responded by giving references to the lectures presented by every Laureate in 2005, and, as we had been talking about 1931, pointed out that the only people who didn't give lectures in that year were either unable to attend the awards ceremony or, the ultimate in "unable to attend", had died during the time between the announcement of the awards and the presentation. (Thus exploiting a loophole in the Nobel regulations, as the prizes can only be awarded to living people. This is why Rosalind Franklin did not share the 1962 Medicine prize with Watson, Crick and Wilkins.) I also offered the information that the Nobel people had been publishing an annual book containing the lectures since 1901. Better-than-Google replied that I obviously didn't know what I was talking about. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. He then changed hats and announced that he had a dietary cure for all sorts of diseases which had been 100% successful both in effectiveness and compliance by dieters. When pressed for details he said that the diet was the one "used by native people all over the world for thousands of years". I asked him the following question, but I have yet to receive an answer. Sadly, it appears that Max has run away and no longer wants to talk to me. If someone else hadn't thought of the words first, I should probably say: "If he come not, then the play is marred: it goes not forward, doth it?". Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. So where are the lies on my web site, Jan. Remember - URL of offending page, words making up the lie, explanation of why it is a lie. I promise to fix every one of them and add an apology in every case. Get on with it. -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
The LIES on Peter Bowditch's website
"vakker" wrote:
"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message .. . "Jan Drew" wrote: "Peter Bowditch" wrote : If what you say in 2006 is correct, it should be easy to list the lies and point out why each one of them is a lie. But you can't do either. -- Peter Bowditch I asked for a list of lies and reasons. As minimum, each member of the list should consists of three parts - the URL of the page with the lie on it, the words of the lie, the explanation of why the words constitute a lie. WE ASKED FOR RECEIPTS. LET'S SEE WHAT WE GOT............ You got what you are entitled to. $0.00 THAT'S WHAT. Make a donation and you will get a receipt. Easy, isn't it? PETER BOWDITCH DOESN'T OR CAN'T PROVIDE RECEIPTS FOR HIS OWN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION. HE It's not a "charitable foundation". And what "receipts" would you be talking about? ALSO WANTS OTHER GULLIBLE FOOLS TO DONATE THERE DESPITE THE FACT IT'S A DEAD WEBSITE AND FOUNDATION AND HASN'T DONE NOTHING FOR YEARS!!!! I agree that it "hasn't done nothing". You got that part right. NOBODY KNOWS WHERE THE DONATIONS GOES??????? NEAT EHHHH???? The English language is not your strong point, is it? -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
The LIES on Peter Bowditch's website
"vakker" wrote in message news:wthjh.510699$1T2.371527@pd7urf2no... "Peter Bowditch" wrote in message ... "Jan Drew" wrote: "Peter Bowditch" wrote : If what you say in 2006 is correct, it should be easy to list the lies and point out why each one of them is a lie. But you can't do either. -- Peter Bowditch I asked for a list of lies and reasons. As minimum, each member of the list should consists of three parts - the URL of the page with the lie on it, the words of the lie, the explanation of why the words constitute a lie. WE ASKED FOR RECEIPTS. LET'S SEE WHAT WE GOT............ $0.00 THAT'S WHAT. PETER BOWDITCH DOESN'T OR CAN'T PROVIDE RECEIPTS FOR HIS OWN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION. HE ALSO WANTS OTHER GULLIBLE FOOLS TO DONATE THERE DESPITE THE FACT IT'S A DEAD WEBSITE AND FOUNDATION AND HASN'T DONE NOTHING FOR YEARS!!!! NOBODY KNOWS WHERE THE DONATIONS GOES??????? NEAT EHHHH???? He only lied some 16? times, (I lost track) in his post. *Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.* Let's see what we got. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....a06ffcbf2c9ee8 That doesn't seem to be a URL which references anything on my web site. In fact, the contents of that page are reproduced below. As that URL belongs to Google, perhaps Jan is going to accuse Google of lying. (Why not? She has accused just about everyone else.) Apr 11 2006 Note that date. It will become important later. [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html ADHD prescribed 'without checks' snip the contents of the page linked to above, because all of it is reproduced in my reply below http://groups.google.com/group/misc....c1626ebac3a6e7 Jan Drew" wrote: [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html ADHD prescribed 'without checks' HUNDREDS of Queensland children may have been wrongly diagnosed with ADHD and put on courses of potentially harmful prescription drugs by a psychologist who did not perform proper checks for several years. Hmmm. I wonder what those words "may have" mean. But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed by the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite adverse findings about her conduct. A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action has been taken will not be recorded in the board's register." What disciplinary action could be taken, Jan? Have you any idea how difficult it can be for a body like the Queensland Board of Psychologists to do anything? The board's decision to conceal the action and leave hundreds of parents unaware of Ms McHugh's flawed diagnostic procedures has angered health and education experts. As it should. They told The Courier-Mail they were concerned that children remain on the controversial drugs Ritalin and dexamphetamines for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder despite never having suffered the underlying conditions. Yes, if the kids don't have the underlying conditions they should not be getting the medications. Board documents obtained by The Courier-Mail show Ms McHugh, who has been a leader in the assessment of children in Ipswich since the 1990s, routinely recommended psycho-stimulant medication despite having no medical training. She is a psychologist. That word means that she has no "medical training", in the formal sense of having attended medical school. Many of Ms McHugh's young patients have been referred to an Ipswich pediatrician, Dr Malcolm Miller, who prescribes the drugs. He yesterday mounted a strenuous defence of Ms McHugh, describing her as a highly respected professional. He would say that, wouldn't he? (Do you remember Christine Keeler, Jan?) Ms McHugh, whose solicitor John Sneddon also strenuously defended her conduct, was notified two months ago by the board's disciplinary committee that she had "demonstrated incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care". She was found to have consistently used unacceptable diagnostic criteria to assess youngsters brought to her Wharf St, Ipswich practice by stressed-out parents frustrated by their children's behaviour. But instead of a rigorous and comprehensive process to check if the children were experiencing difficulties because of problems at home or elsewhere, Ms McHugh, in most cases diagnosed ADHD or ADD, according to senior sources. So she had a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which is always a bad thing. (I am told, however, that this is OK if the diagnosis is autism and the treatment is chelation. But I digress ...) The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed and placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians. A "controversial and ongoing debate" which is being driven by anti-psychiatry oufits like Scientology's CCHR and other Ritalin-haters. The children who are patients of Ms McHugh live in the Oxley federal electorate, which has Queensland's highest rate of prescriptions for dexamphetamines and the 15th-highest rate in Australia, according to a November 2004 Federal Parliament research paper. How many electorates are there, Jan? I want to put the "15th-highest" into context. Two Brisbane psychologists, Keira Roffey-Mitchell and Trish Chandra, who made a detailed complaint to the board about Ms McHugh, are regarded by independent sources as highly qualified in ADD and ADHD. Both declined to comment to The Courier-Mail. These are the goodies, Jan. Congratulate them. "Organised psychology" is concerned about Ms McHugh. Unfortunately, they are also a part of "organised belief in ADHD", so you probably won't accept them. Senior sources said Education Queensland, which schools about 80 per cent of the estimated 30,000 children in the Ipswich area, and Brisbane Catholic Education were concerned about Ms McHugh's conduct and backed the complaint to the board. "Organised education" is concerned about Ms McHugh, as they should be. "We believe Ms McHugh's professional practice does not operate in the best interests of the children and in fact could be detrimental to them," the complaint states. It sets out how Ms McHugh had been relying heavily on an IQ test, known as WISC III, to diagnose the disorders despite this test being internationally renowned as "one of the worst measures" a psychologist could use. The board appointed an expert to investigate the complaint and participate in a closed-door hearing late last year. Board executive officer Jim O'Dempsey said legislation "prohibits the board from public identification or specific comment on complainants, respondents or decisions relating to complaints, investigation or disciplinary action unless the matter is heard in public before the Health Practitioners Tribunal". So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything. ADHD Association of Queensland president Steve Dossel, who had no knowledge of the case, said: " The parents should have been advised to seek a further assessment. I would hope that the parents of children, where there is any doubt about a diagnosis, seek another assessment." Good advice. "Organised belief in ADHD" is concerned about Ms McHugh. -- Peter Bowditch And here is Jan coming back. You will notice that she identifies no lies. Even if she did, this is a Usenet message, not anything on my web site. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....adc603ed4bf1f7 "Peter Bowditch" wrote in message ... "Jan Drew" wrote: [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong. Impossible...I have never said *that* before.... Remember the date - April 11. Note how Jan has removed it from her reply. Keep remembering it, because it will become important later. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html ADHD prescribed 'without checks' HUNDREDS of Queensland children may have been wrongly diagnosed with ADHD and put on courses of potentially harmful prescription drugs by a psychologist who did not perform proper checks for several years. Hmmm. I wonder what those words "may have" mean. Hmmm. You better stop reading. But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed by the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite adverse findings about her conduct. A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action has been taken will not be recorded in the board's register." Did you notice the word *concealed*? You DO know what that means, don't you, Peter? Despite the *adverse findings about her conduct.* You DO understand *that*, do you NOT, Peter? What disciplinary action could be taken, Jan? This is NOT a quiz for *me*, Peter. Just read the FACTS! Have you any idea how difficult it can be for a body like the Queensland Board of Psychologists to do anything? I do NOT live there, you DO. Now hurry and put up a page on your website ALL about these DESPICABLE ACTS CONCERNING THESE CHILDREN! The board's decision to conceal the action and leave hundreds of parents unaware of Ms McHugh's flawed diagnostic procedures has angered health and education experts. As it should. They told The Courier-Mail they were concerned that children remain on the controversial drugs Ritalin and dexamphetamines for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder despite never having suffered the underlying conditions. Yes, if the kids don't have the underlying conditions they should not be getting the medications. So why did you ask what *may have* means? Board documents obtained by The Courier-Mail show Ms McHugh, who has been a leader in the assessment of children in Ipswich since the 1990s, routinely recommended psycho-stimulant medication despite having no medical training. She is a psychologist. That word means that she has no "medical training", in the formal sense of having attended medical school. Many of Ms McHugh's young patients have been referred to an Ipswich pediatrician, Dr Malcolm Miller, who prescribes the drugs. He yesterday mounted a strenuous defence of Ms McHugh, describing her as a highly respected professional. He would say that, wouldn't he? (Do you remember Christine Keeler, Jan?) I know it's a bit late, but it was Mandy Rice Davies who uttered the immortal words, not Christine Keeler. It didn't matter, because Jan had obviously never heard of either of the ladies or of the famous saying. You can see that from the fact that she called it a diversion. I am very aware of your D I V E R S I O N S....... AND EFFORTS TO TRASH..... Now...back to the subject. Ms McHugh, whose solicitor John Sneddon also strenuously defended her conduct, was notified two months ago by the board's disciplinary committee that she had "demonstrated incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care". She was found to have consistently used unacceptable diagnostic criteria to assess youngsters brought to her Wharf St, Ipswich practice by stressed-out parents frustrated by their children's behaviour. But instead of a rigorous and comprehensive process to check if the children were experiencing difficulties because of problems at home or elsewhere, Ms McHugh, in most cases diagnosed ADHD or ADD, according to senior sources. So she had a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which is always a bad thing. (I am told, however, that this is OK if the diagnosis is autism and the treatment is chelation. But I digress ...) Actually you are making excuses and diverting, and I greatly doubt that you have been told any such thing. This is an example of how you write LIES on your SICK LYING WEBSITES. You will notice how Jan has accused me of lying in a Usenet message (which I hadn't done) and uses that as evidence that there are lies on my web site. List the lies on the site, Jan. can't do it? I didn't think so. The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed and placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians. A "controversial and ongoing debate" which is being driven by anti-psychiatry oufits like Scientology's CCHR and other Ritalin-haters. WRONG. That is a SCAPE GOAT AND A LIE. Perhaps Jan should look up a book to find out what a "scape goat" is. I wonder if she could guess what book that would be. She might even find out how the term has absolutely nothing to do with the very well-known fact that Scientology and its front group CCHR are opposed to psychiatry. CCHR will rear its ugly head later in this story. The FACTS are as told EXACTLY as stated: The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that ****rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed****** **** and placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians.****** The children who are patients of Ms McHugh live in the Oxley federal electorate, which has Queensland's highest rate of prescriptions for dexamphetamines and the 15th-highest rate in Australia, according to a November 2004 Federal Parliament research paper. How many electorates are there, Jan? I want to put the "15th-highest" into context. Do you consult *me* to help you put things in to context? No, if something is the 15th biggest, it helps to know how many in the total. If there are only 15, for example, it means smallest. Two Brisbane psychologists, Keira Roffey-Mitchell and Trish Chandra, who made a detailed complaint to the board about Ms McHugh, are regarded by independent sources as highly qualified in ADD and ADHD. Both declined to comment to The Courier-Mail. These are the goodies, Jan. Congratulate them. "Organised psychology" is concerned about Ms McHugh. Unfortunately, they are also a part of "organised belief in ADHD", so you probably won't accept them. This is NOT about *me*....... Senior sources said Education Queensland, which schools about 80 per cent of the estimated 30,000 children in the Ipswich area, and Brisbane Catholic Education were concerned about Ms McHugh's conduct and backed the complaint to the board. "Organised education" is concerned about Ms McHugh, as they should be. "We believe Ms McHugh's professional practice does not operate in the best interests of the children and in fact could be detrimental to them," the complaint states. It sets out how Ms McHugh had been relying heavily on an IQ test, known as WISC III, to diagnose the disorders despite this test being internationally renowned as "one of the worst measures" a psychologist could use. The board appointed an expert to investigate the complaint and participate in a closed-door hearing late last year. Board executive officer Jim O'Dempsey said legislation "prohibits the board from public identification or specific comment on complainants, respondents or decisions relating to complaints, investigation or disciplinary action unless the matter is heard in public before the Health Practitioners Tribunal". So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything. WHAT can YOU do to change this???????? Are YOU in favor of keeping dirty little secrets....from the PARENTS and the PUBLIC.....at the cost of CHILDREN?!?!?! You just say..... So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything. To protect *ORGANIZED ADHD* Organised ADHD?? ADHD Association of Queensland president Steve Dossel, who had no knowledge of the case, said: " The parents should have been advised to seek a further assessment. I would hope that the parents of children, where there is any doubt about a diagnosis, seek another assessment." Good advice. "Organised belief in ADHD" is concerned about Ms McHugh. WHO is at FAULT?!?! NOT..... Scientology's CCHR and other Ritalin-haters. ******But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed by the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite adverse findings about her conduct. A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action has been taken will not be recorded in the board's register."******** -- Peter Bowditch No lies on web sites yet. Let's continue. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....aabd2d2485880a Jan Drew" wrote: "Peter Bowditch" wrote in message m... "Jan Drew" wrote: "Peter Bowditch" wrote in message news:htto32tto9f8198tdtn0s04j1hp1hh4nau@4ax. com... "Jan Drew" wrote: [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong. Impossible...I have never said *that* before.... No, the words you used were "[Let Us See IF Peter Bowditch Puts This On His Website?]" in a message headed "Families Called on to Join Class Acton On ADHD Drug- Ritilan" posted on March 30, 2006. I know you didn't use the exact same electrons, but you did say that something wouldn't appear on my site. But it did. Yes, I already addressed those LIES! See Jan admitting that, in fact, she had challenged me to put something on my site on a previous occasion, despite saying "Impossible...I have never said *that* before....". If I were to be uncharitable I might call that lying. But I'm not. What LIES, Jan? You said I wouldn't talk about something on my site. I talked about it on my site. How has this got anything to do with LIES? Unless you are saying that the original article that you said I wouldn't comment on was LIES. If it was, why did you post it here? Even then I was trying to get Jan to point out some lies on the web site, but all she seemed to be able to do was rant about a Usenet message. snip stuff which made sense before Jan started random snipping -- Peter Bowditch Still no web site lies. On we go. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....3d23c387fe6e89 How do you feel about the Catholic Church, Carole? Have you ever wondered how an organisation could have such strong supporters on the one hand and stand up for what was so good and right with their St Vincent de Paul organisation and their social justice work, yet be so maligned on the other? -- Peter Bowditch http://groups.google.com/group/misc....8c563945e607a7 Peter Bowditch diverted to: Catholic Church snip This thread is NOT about the about.... [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html http://groups.google.com/group/misc....d227f7769fb0e3 I'm sorry that you didn't understand the analogy and had to snip it, Jan. Met any good Scientologists lately? Have you asked them if they still think that Jesus was a pedophile? snip This thread is NOT about the about.... [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] As I said, Jan, when you said this one before about another matter, you were wrong. In any case, why should this appear on my web site? My web site is not about "organised medicine" catching the bad apples. In fact, when I wrote about "organised medicine" chasing killer Dr Patel you accused me of supporting him. Maybe you didn't, but who can tell with the way you rant. In any case, you did not accept that my criticism of him was criticism of him. snip stuff which I have answered before about a psychologist who should be run out of town on a rail Peter Bowditch ~~~~~~~ Now let us compare that to wrote Peter wrote on his webite. Ahh! At last we get to something on my web site. http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...l.htm#1ritalin Updates made to The Millenium Project in April 2006 The sky is falling! Children are being drugged! (1/4/2006} But, but, but - that date is April 1, so how could it have anything to do with something published on April 11. All of the stuff above was Jan complaining about how I wouldn't post something, but now she points to something ten days earlier for some reason or other. Now she has actually got to the web site, let's see her list the lies and provide an explanation. I was challenged during the week by someone who stated that a story in the newspaper would not be reported here because of the immensely damaging information it contained about the second-most evil and dangerous chemical ever made, Ritalin. (The most dangerous is, of course, mercury, with Prozac, aspartame and fluoride closing in along the straight.) The horror story that I would be too afraid to tell is that a politician, well known as an anti-Ritalin loon, has said that he is trying to round up participants for a class action against the makers and distributor of the drug. That's it. That's the story. Someone is trying to organise a court action, but no parties are yet involved, no court papers have been filed, and nothing has happened. I can only imagine that someone at the newspaper will be disciplined for not selling enough advertising and leaving a blank space which had to be filled with drivel. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. Two major matters of concern are associated with this non story. The first is that last week 14 kids aged around 13 or 14 at a school in Queensland (as far as you can get from the politician in question and still be in Australia) managed to get their hands on some Ritalin which was not prescribed for them and administered it to themselves using a delivery method which is not how it is supposed to be taken. They all ended up in hospital and local politicians are making noises about attacking drug abuse. It is drug abuse to consume drugs not prescribed for you in order to get an effect which the drugs do not give if taken according to directions, but this means nothing to the anti-Ritalin loons. The drug was taken, there was harm, the drug is bad. Four legs good, two legs bad. I pointed out that it was almost inevitable that 14 kids of that age had abused acetaminophen somewhere in Australia during the week (many ending up in hospital) and an absolute certainty that that number of kids had abused both nicotine and alcohol (although the hospital visits for these may be deferred for some time), but there are no calls for the banning of these drugs. Just Ritalin, because, as everyone knows, there is no such thing as ADHD and the condition was only invented to allow the sales of this dangerous, unproven drug. (Methylphenidate was patented in 1954, so it is a matter of some interest both why anyone bothered to research and patent a treatment for a non-existent condition (CIBA-Geigy isn't a quackery potion manufacturer, who do this all the time), and who has been taking it for the last fifty years other than the millions of kids who have benefited.) Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. The second major concern was that prescriptions for Ritalin had increased "tenfold" since it was accepted into the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and therefore made affordable. I'm not quite sure where the "tenfold" comes from, because the latest figures available from the PBS for prescriptions written in Australia are for the year ending June 30, 2005, and Ritalin was not added to the scheme until August the same year. It is worth noting here that the hundredth most prescribed drug in Australia up until June 2005 accounted for 404,000 prescriptions during the year. Another relevant statistic is that according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are about 276,000 people in the country who are aged 18 or less. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. So how big is the Ritalin epidemic? Well, according to the opponents, there were 523 prescriptions written in August 2005 and "more than 5800" in January 2006. (I love the "more than". It suggests extreme accuracy in reporting.) The first thing I did was point out that this was an elevenfold increase, and, according to the rules set by the person telling the story any deviation from absolute fact is a lie and there are no such things as mistakes, therefore the person claiming a "tenfold" increase was lying. (You might think I am joking or exaggerating here. This person accused me of lying for saying that Hulda Clark sued me for damaging sales of her books. When I replied that a publishing company whose only products were books had sued me for damaging sales of its products and therefore books, I was told to point to where the word "books" appeared in the lawsuit. Bizarre, I know, but true.) An exception was immediately made in this case (as it would have to be, because the person making the claim opposed Ritalin). Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. But back to the epidemic. There are about 276,000 people aged 18 or less in the country and less than 6,000 people taking Ritalin in total. If all of those pill poppers were under 19 it would be 2%. Let's allow the number of monthly prescriptions to rise to 6,000, giving 72,000 per year. This is a very long way from the top 100 most prescribed drugs in the country (one of which is aspirin, which, as any alternaut knows, is never recommended for anything because it can't be patented and nobody can make money out of it). Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. So, we have a drug which used to be expensive but is now subsidised, inevitably leading to an increase in both prescribing and consumption. The huge increase in prescriptions is only huge when compared to a very low starting point, but in relative terms compared to other prescription drugs it isn't even a ripple on the pond. Kids who can benefit from the drug are more likely to get it because their parents can now afford to pay for it. Action is being taken to control abuse, but even before that action it is still far less abused than some quite dangerous over-the-counter medications. Everything seems to be good. Unless you think that sick children don't need medication. But why would anyone want to deprive kids of effective treatment? I don't know the answer to that. I don't think that there is an answer which would satisfy anyone who is concerned about children and their welfare. Not a single lie identified. What Jan forgot to quote from that page, however, was where I scooped the mainstream media by identifying the source of the newspaper article which Jan referred to (and said I wouldn't comment on). http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...l.htm#8ritalin Ritalin follow-up (8/4/2006) I mentioned last week that hysteria had broken out in Australia because kids who might benefit from the drug Ritalin would have better access now that it is being subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The original beat-up story in the paper told horror tales about adverse events arising following taking the drug, but the paper forgot to mention that the main source of information for the story was a branch of Scientology, the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights. (CCHR won the Anus Maximus Award in 2003. Read about it here.) They did mention CCHR, but the cloudy ancestry of the outfit was swept under the carpet. It is amazing to see how people who would normally reject Scientology outright as either a dangerous cult or, when considering Tom Cruise's antics, as a font of hilarity, suddenly start taking the cult seriously when it agrees with them. When I first noticed this phenomenon I went looking for the origin of the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Remarkably, the first place I found it was on the web site of anti-psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, where he used it to justify going into business with Scientology to establish CCHR. (In one wonderful moment of bizarrity, some alternative medicine believer once called me a liar for saying that Szasz had ever used those words and defied me to produce evidence of my claim. I referred to where the words appeared on Szasz's own web site and was told that that was not good enough!) One of the most ferocious anti-Ritalin and anti-medication campaigners I have come across has told people that anything I say can be disregarded because I am an atheist (my pointing out that I am an ordained minister of a church did not earn me any credit) and, in fact, only Christians (and then only some subset of Christians) can be trusted to tell the truth about anything. Whenever this abuse of religion is brought into the argument I make a point of quoting L. Ron Hubbard, writing in the secret OT VIII documents. "For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably leads. It is historic fact and yet man still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious is the biologic implanting". I always like to remind Jan of Hubbard's opinion of Jesus. ~~~~~~ More lies after this on the same page: As no lies have been identified yet, it is a bit premature to say "more", but let's keep pressing on. You might wonder what all this has to do with the matters of interest to The Millenium Project, but this week I fell into a conversation which would make Ionesco look like a jingle writer for McDonalds when it came to measurements on the weirdness scale. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. The 1931 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Dr Otto Warburg for, as it says on the Nobel site, "his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme". It was thought at the time, by Dr Warburg and others, that his work might have some application to the treatment of cancer, but that was not to be and research in this area withered away and was finally abandoned. To believers in alternative medicine, however, this must mean that Warburg's ideas have been suppressed, and a mythology has been created around him. One piece of mythology is that he was "voted" a second Nobel Prize in 1944. Pointing out to alternauts that nobody is "voted" a Nobel Prize who does not then go on to "win" the prize had me being accused of lying. I have told the objectors that they should write to the relevant Nobel committee and point out that there is a mistake on the Nobel web site because it says that the 1944 Medicine prize went to Joseph Erlanger and Herbert S. Gasser, but I am yet to receive a satisfactory answer. Or an answer at all, in fact. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. You might think that saying that someone has won two Nobel Prizes when he has only won one would be so easily dismissed that further conversation would be pointless, but it gets even stranger. You see, it is claimed that there are many references to Dr Warburg and cancer on the Nobel site, so this must mean that he won for his cancer cure. (At least two of the references are to someone else named Warburg, but let's not let the facts interfere with the story.) I pointed out that in Dr Warburg's Nobel Lecture the word "cancer" appears exactly zero times, something which seems strange if curing cancer was what he was getting the prize for. I also mentioned that the word "cancer" did appear in the presentation speech made by someone else, but only as a comment on how a cure might happen in the future, but meanwhile Dr Warburg was getting an award for something else. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. And this is where things started to get really weird. I had made the mistake of accidentally referring to Dr Warburg's Nobel Lecture as an "acceptance speech". My error was pointed out and I agreed that I had used the wrong form of words. I was then accused of lying for saying that it wasn't an acceptance speech. The person doing the accusing gave me five examples of laureates who had made "acceptance speeches" and nyah, nyah, I was wrong. As one of the examples was William Faulkner (Literature 1949) and he gave a "Banquet Speech", not an "acceptance speech", I thought that two could play at the literalist pedant game, but my response was not taken well. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. In a complete about-face, the person who had been telling me that Medicine or Physiology laureate Dr Warburg must have made an "acceptance speech" because Martin Luther King (Peace 1963) and The 14th Dali Lama (Peace 1989) had done so, suddenly announced that Dr Warburg's speech had probably been given in support of his nomination (it was presented on December 10, after the award had been announced). Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. I commented that nobody gets to address the voting commitee before the final announcement, and many people do not even know that they have been nominated until they are told that they have won. I gave the example of Peter Doherty (Medicine 1996) who was informed of his win ten minutes before the press release went out from Stockholm so that he the media. Another player then accused me of lying could getready for telephone calls from the media. Another player then accused me of lying, because there wouldn't be time to write a 15 page "acceptance speech" in ten minutes. My response was to say that writing the speech would have been the least of his problems as he only had ten minutes to get into his white tie and tails and get from Memphis, Tennessee to Stockholm, Sweden. I quoted from Professor Doherty's book, but, alas, I was dealing with the sort of people who cannot understand any form of the spoken or written word which does not involve concrete thinking. (As an example, one of the players challenged me to something and then included the single-word paragraph "Well?". When I replied "Yes, I am well. Thanks for asking" I was told that she hadn't been asking me anything.) Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. In another bizarre non sequitur, when I mentioned that I had seen the Nobel medal that had been awarded to Ernest Lawrence (Physics 1939, and another who had delivered an "acceptance speech") I was informed about how many Nobel laureates had come out of Berkeley. I suppose I should have replied that there is a street in Berkeley township which has the same name as me. It would have been just as relevant. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. I started out by mentioning a play, and I will end the same way. If everything goes well I will have a short play here next week telling the wonderful story of the Warburg controversy. There will be three main characters - Max (a nutritionist who believes that there are no good or bad forms of cholesterol, that the best way to prevent chickenpox in children is to expose them to the wild virus, and that one Nobel Prize plus no other Nobel Prize equals two Nobel Prizes), Jan (a lady who believes that the most evil chemicals in the world are mercury and Ritalin, that anti-vaccination liars do not tell lies, that people who pray to saints are servants of Satan (but she is not a religious bigot of course, and has never said anything about Catholics), and that anyone who even knows Stephen Barrett's email address is intrinsically evil), and Peter (who has a prescription for SSRI medication but refuses to take the pills in case the Scientologists turn up on his doorstep again and point at him and laugh, and whose serotonin can stay right where it is). I will call the play "Acceptance Speech", which should be suitably confusing for anyone who can't see that something can have multiple signifiers and that words and phrases can sometimes mean different things in different contexts. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. So where's the promised play? (8/4/2006) My plans to write a play based on the weirdness of some Usenet participants were thrown into psychological disarray during the week, when I was presented with some additional information about the mental states of the subjects whom I was observing in order to create my piece of htémél vérité. One of the subjects told me that using Google to find things on the web was "the lazy man's way", and that he was better at finding things than Google. To add to this hubris, he then told me that it didn't make any sense for someone to say that Nobel Laureates presented things called Nobel Lectures and challenged me to name anybody who had done so. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. Show us all here how giving a 15 page lecture to those giving a Nobel Prize is customary. I'm not just going to take your word for it, especially since it doesn't even make sense. The web site is right there. Find some other Nobel Laureates that gave lectures to the audience upon receiving an award. If it's customary, it should be easy to prove your point. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. I responded by giving references to the lectures presented by every Laureate in 2005, and, as we had been talking about 1931, pointed out that the only people who didn't give lectures in that year were either unable to attend the awards ceremony or, the ultimate in "unable to attend", had died during the time between the announcement of the awards and the presentation. (Thus exploiting a loophole in the Nobel regulations, as the prizes can only be awarded to living people. This is why Rosalind Franklin did not share the 1962 Medicine prize with Watson, Crick and Wilkins.) I also offered the information that the Nobel people had been publishing an annual book containing the lectures since 1901. Better-than-Google replied that I obviously didn't know what I was talking about. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. He then changed hats and announced that he had a dietary cure for all sorts of diseases which had been 100% successful both in effectiveness and compliance by dieters. When pressed for details he said that the diet was the one "used by native people all over the world for thousands of years". I asked him the following question, but I have yet to receive an answer. Sadly, it appears that Max has run away and no longer wants to talk to me. If someone else hadn't thought of the words first, I should probably say: "If he come not, then the play is marred: it goes not forward, doth it?". Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. So where are the lies on my web site, Jan. Remember - URL of offending page, words making up the lie, explanation of why it is a lie. I promise to fix every one of them and add an apology in every case. Get on with it. -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
The LIES on Peter Bowditch's website
"vakker" wrote in message news:wthjh.510699$1T2.371527@pd7urf2no... "Peter Bowditch" wrote in message ... "Jan Drew" wrote: "Peter Bowditch" wrote : If what you say in 2006 is correct, it should be easy to list the lies and point out why each one of them is a lie. But you can't do either. -- Peter Bowditch I asked for a list of lies and reasons. As minimum, each member of the list should consists of three parts - the URL of the page with the lie on it, the words of the lie, the explanation of why the words constitute a lie. WE ASKED FOR RECEIPTS. LET'S SEE WHAT WE GOT............ $0.00 THAT'S WHAT. PETER BOWDITCH DOESN'T OR CAN'T PROVIDE RECEIPTS FOR HIS OWN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION. HE ALSO WANTS OTHER GULLIBLE FOOLS TO DONATE THERE DESPITE THE FACT IT'S A DEAD WEBSITE AND FOUNDATION AND HASN'T DONE NOTHING FOR YEARS!!!! NOBODY KNOWS WHERE THE DONATIONS GOES??????? NEAT EHHHH???? He will ask a bunch of questions. As is his norm. Sad that. Let's see what we got. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....a06ffcbf2c9ee8 That doesn't seem to be a URL which references anything on my web site. In fact, the contents of that page are reproduced below. As that URL belongs to Google, perhaps Jan is going to accuse Google of lying. (Why not? She has accused just about everyone else.) Apr 11 2006 Note that date. It will become important later. [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html ADHD prescribed 'without checks' snip the contents of the page linked to above, because all of it is reproduced in my reply below http://groups.google.com/group/misc....c1626ebac3a6e7 Jan Drew" wrote: [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html ADHD prescribed 'without checks' HUNDREDS of Queensland children may have been wrongly diagnosed with ADHD and put on courses of potentially harmful prescription drugs by a psychologist who did not perform proper checks for several years. Hmmm. I wonder what those words "may have" mean. But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed by the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite adverse findings about her conduct. A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action has been taken will not be recorded in the board's register." What disciplinary action could be taken, Jan? Have you any idea how difficult it can be for a body like the Queensland Board of Psychologists to do anything? The board's decision to conceal the action and leave hundreds of parents unaware of Ms McHugh's flawed diagnostic procedures has angered health and education experts. As it should. They told The Courier-Mail they were concerned that children remain on the controversial drugs Ritalin and dexamphetamines for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder despite never having suffered the underlying conditions. Yes, if the kids don't have the underlying conditions they should not be getting the medications. Board documents obtained by The Courier-Mail show Ms McHugh, who has been a leader in the assessment of children in Ipswich since the 1990s, routinely recommended psycho-stimulant medication despite having no medical training. She is a psychologist. That word means that she has no "medical training", in the formal sense of having attended medical school. Many of Ms McHugh's young patients have been referred to an Ipswich pediatrician, Dr Malcolm Miller, who prescribes the drugs. He yesterday mounted a strenuous defence of Ms McHugh, describing her as a highly respected professional. He would say that, wouldn't he? (Do you remember Christine Keeler, Jan?) Ms McHugh, whose solicitor John Sneddon also strenuously defended her conduct, was notified two months ago by the board's disciplinary committee that she had "demonstrated incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care". She was found to have consistently used unacceptable diagnostic criteria to assess youngsters brought to her Wharf St, Ipswich practice by stressed-out parents frustrated by their children's behaviour. But instead of a rigorous and comprehensive process to check if the children were experiencing difficulties because of problems at home or elsewhere, Ms McHugh, in most cases diagnosed ADHD or ADD, according to senior sources. So she had a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which is always a bad thing. (I am told, however, that this is OK if the diagnosis is autism and the treatment is chelation. But I digress ...) The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed and placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians. A "controversial and ongoing debate" which is being driven by anti-psychiatry oufits like Scientology's CCHR and other Ritalin-haters. The children who are patients of Ms McHugh live in the Oxley federal electorate, which has Queensland's highest rate of prescriptions for dexamphetamines and the 15th-highest rate in Australia, according to a November 2004 Federal Parliament research paper. How many electorates are there, Jan? I want to put the "15th-highest" into context. Two Brisbane psychologists, Keira Roffey-Mitchell and Trish Chandra, who made a detailed complaint to the board about Ms McHugh, are regarded by independent sources as highly qualified in ADD and ADHD. Both declined to comment to The Courier-Mail. These are the goodies, Jan. Congratulate them. "Organised psychology" is concerned about Ms McHugh. Unfortunately, they are also a part of "organised belief in ADHD", so you probably won't accept them. Senior sources said Education Queensland, which schools about 80 per cent of the estimated 30,000 children in the Ipswich area, and Brisbane Catholic Education were concerned about Ms McHugh's conduct and backed the complaint to the board. "Organised education" is concerned about Ms McHugh, as they should be. "We believe Ms McHugh's professional practice does not operate in the best interests of the children and in fact could be detrimental to them," the complaint states. It sets out how Ms McHugh had been relying heavily on an IQ test, known as WISC III, to diagnose the disorders despite this test being internationally renowned as "one of the worst measures" a psychologist could use. The board appointed an expert to investigate the complaint and participate in a closed-door hearing late last year. Board executive officer Jim O'Dempsey said legislation "prohibits the board from public identification or specific comment on complainants, respondents or decisions relating to complaints, investigation or disciplinary action unless the matter is heard in public before the Health Practitioners Tribunal". So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything. ADHD Association of Queensland president Steve Dossel, who had no knowledge of the case, said: " The parents should have been advised to seek a further assessment. I would hope that the parents of children, where there is any doubt about a diagnosis, seek another assessment." Good advice. "Organised belief in ADHD" is concerned about Ms McHugh. -- Peter Bowditch And here is Jan coming back. You will notice that she identifies no lies. Even if she did, this is a Usenet message, not anything on my web site. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....adc603ed4bf1f7 "Peter Bowditch" wrote in message ... "Jan Drew" wrote: [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong. Impossible...I have never said *that* before.... Remember the date - April 11. Note how Jan has removed it from her reply. Keep remembering it, because it will become important later. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html ADHD prescribed 'without checks' HUNDREDS of Queensland children may have been wrongly diagnosed with ADHD and put on courses of potentially harmful prescription drugs by a psychologist who did not perform proper checks for several years. Hmmm. I wonder what those words "may have" mean. Hmmm. You better stop reading. But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed by the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite adverse findings about her conduct. A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action has been taken will not be recorded in the board's register." Did you notice the word *concealed*? You DO know what that means, don't you, Peter? Despite the *adverse findings about her conduct.* You DO understand *that*, do you NOT, Peter? What disciplinary action could be taken, Jan? This is NOT a quiz for *me*, Peter. Just read the FACTS! Have you any idea how difficult it can be for a body like the Queensland Board of Psychologists to do anything? I do NOT live there, you DO. Now hurry and put up a page on your website ALL about these DESPICABLE ACTS CONCERNING THESE CHILDREN! The board's decision to conceal the action and leave hundreds of parents unaware of Ms McHugh's flawed diagnostic procedures has angered health and education experts. As it should. They told The Courier-Mail they were concerned that children remain on the controversial drugs Ritalin and dexamphetamines for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder despite never having suffered the underlying conditions. Yes, if the kids don't have the underlying conditions they should not be getting the medications. So why did you ask what *may have* means? Board documents obtained by The Courier-Mail show Ms McHugh, who has been a leader in the assessment of children in Ipswich since the 1990s, routinely recommended psycho-stimulant medication despite having no medical training. She is a psychologist. That word means that she has no "medical training", in the formal sense of having attended medical school. Many of Ms McHugh's young patients have been referred to an Ipswich pediatrician, Dr Malcolm Miller, who prescribes the drugs. He yesterday mounted a strenuous defence of Ms McHugh, describing her as a highly respected professional. He would say that, wouldn't he? (Do you remember Christine Keeler, Jan?) I know it's a bit late, but it was Mandy Rice Davies who uttered the immortal words, not Christine Keeler. It didn't matter, because Jan had obviously never heard of either of the ladies or of the famous saying. You can see that from the fact that she called it a diversion. I am very aware of your D I V E R S I O N S....... AND EFFORTS TO TRASH..... Now...back to the subject. Ms McHugh, whose solicitor John Sneddon also strenuously defended her conduct, was notified two months ago by the board's disciplinary committee that she had "demonstrated incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care". She was found to have consistently used unacceptable diagnostic criteria to assess youngsters brought to her Wharf St, Ipswich practice by stressed-out parents frustrated by their children's behaviour. But instead of a rigorous and comprehensive process to check if the children were experiencing difficulties because of problems at home or elsewhere, Ms McHugh, in most cases diagnosed ADHD or ADD, according to senior sources. So she had a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which is always a bad thing. (I am told, however, that this is OK if the diagnosis is autism and the treatment is chelation. But I digress ...) Actually you are making excuses and diverting, and I greatly doubt that you have been told any such thing. This is an example of how you write LIES on your SICK LYING WEBSITES. You will notice how Jan has accused me of lying in a Usenet message (which I hadn't done) and uses that as evidence that there are lies on my web site. List the lies on the site, Jan. can't do it? I didn't think so. The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed and placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians. A "controversial and ongoing debate" which is being driven by anti-psychiatry oufits like Scientology's CCHR and other Ritalin-haters. WRONG. That is a SCAPE GOAT AND A LIE. Perhaps Jan should look up a book to find out what a "scape goat" is. I wonder if she could guess what book that would be. She might even find out how the term has absolutely nothing to do with the very well-known fact that Scientology and its front group CCHR are opposed to psychiatry. CCHR will rear its ugly head later in this story. The FACTS are as told EXACTLY as stated: The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that ****rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed****** **** and placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians.****** The children who are patients of Ms McHugh live in the Oxley federal electorate, which has Queensland's highest rate of prescriptions for dexamphetamines and the 15th-highest rate in Australia, according to a November 2004 Federal Parliament research paper. How many electorates are there, Jan? I want to put the "15th-highest" into context. Do you consult *me* to help you put things in to context? No, if something is the 15th biggest, it helps to know how many in the total. If there are only 15, for example, it means smallest. Two Brisbane psychologists, Keira Roffey-Mitchell and Trish Chandra, who made a detailed complaint to the board about Ms McHugh, are regarded by independent sources as highly qualified in ADD and ADHD. Both declined to comment to The Courier-Mail. These are the goodies, Jan. Congratulate them. "Organised psychology" is concerned about Ms McHugh. Unfortunately, they are also a part of "organised belief in ADHD", so you probably won't accept them. This is NOT about *me*....... Senior sources said Education Queensland, which schools about 80 per cent of the estimated 30,000 children in the Ipswich area, and Brisbane Catholic Education were concerned about Ms McHugh's conduct and backed the complaint to the board. "Organised education" is concerned about Ms McHugh, as they should be. "We believe Ms McHugh's professional practice does not operate in the best interests of the children and in fact could be detrimental to them," the complaint states. It sets out how Ms McHugh had been relying heavily on an IQ test, known as WISC III, to diagnose the disorders despite this test being internationally renowned as "one of the worst measures" a psychologist could use. The board appointed an expert to investigate the complaint and participate in a closed-door hearing late last year. Board executive officer Jim O'Dempsey said legislation "prohibits the board from public identification or specific comment on complainants, respondents or decisions relating to complaints, investigation or disciplinary action unless the matter is heard in public before the Health Practitioners Tribunal". So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything. WHAT can YOU do to change this???????? Are YOU in favor of keeping dirty little secrets....from the PARENTS and the PUBLIC.....at the cost of CHILDREN?!?!?! You just say..... So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything. To protect *ORGANIZED ADHD* Organised ADHD?? ADHD Association of Queensland president Steve Dossel, who had no knowledge of the case, said: " The parents should have been advised to seek a further assessment. I would hope that the parents of children, where there is any doubt about a diagnosis, seek another assessment." Good advice. "Organised belief in ADHD" is concerned about Ms McHugh. WHO is at FAULT?!?! NOT..... Scientology's CCHR and other Ritalin-haters. ******But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed by the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite adverse findings about her conduct. A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action has been taken will not be recorded in the board's register."******** -- Peter Bowditch No lies on web sites yet. Let's continue. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....aabd2d2485880a Jan Drew" wrote: "Peter Bowditch" wrote in message m... "Jan Drew" wrote: "Peter Bowditch" wrote in message news:htto32tto9f8198tdtn0s04j1hp1hh4nau@4ax. com... "Jan Drew" wrote: [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong. Impossible...I have never said *that* before.... No, the words you used were "[Let Us See IF Peter Bowditch Puts This On His Website?]" in a message headed "Families Called on to Join Class Acton On ADHD Drug- Ritilan" posted on March 30, 2006. I know you didn't use the exact same electrons, but you did say that something wouldn't appear on my site. But it did. Yes, I already addressed those LIES! See Jan admitting that, in fact, she had challenged me to put something on my site on a previous occasion, despite saying "Impossible...I have never said *that* before....". If I were to be uncharitable I might call that lying. But I'm not. What LIES, Jan? You said I wouldn't talk about something on my site. I talked about it on my site. How has this got anything to do with LIES? Unless you are saying that the original article that you said I wouldn't comment on was LIES. If it was, why did you post it here? Even then I was trying to get Jan to point out some lies on the web site, but all she seemed to be able to do was rant about a Usenet message. snip stuff which made sense before Jan started random snipping -- Peter Bowditch Still no web site lies. On we go. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....3d23c387fe6e89 How do you feel about the Catholic Church, Carole? Have you ever wondered how an organisation could have such strong supporters on the one hand and stand up for what was so good and right with their St Vincent de Paul organisation and their social justice work, yet be so maligned on the other? -- Peter Bowditch http://groups.google.com/group/misc....8c563945e607a7 Peter Bowditch diverted to: Catholic Church snip This thread is NOT about the about.... [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html http://groups.google.com/group/misc....d227f7769fb0e3 I'm sorry that you didn't understand the analogy and had to snip it, Jan. Met any good Scientologists lately? Have you asked them if they still think that Jesus was a pedophile? snip This thread is NOT about the about.... [ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....] As I said, Jan, when you said this one before about another matter, you were wrong. In any case, why should this appear on my web site? My web site is not about "organised medicine" catching the bad apples. In fact, when I wrote about "organised medicine" chasing killer Dr Patel you accused me of supporting him. Maybe you didn't, but who can tell with the way you rant. In any case, you did not accept that my criticism of him was criticism of him. snip stuff which I have answered before about a psychologist who should be run out of town on a rail Peter Bowditch ~~~~~~~ Now let us compare that to wrote Peter wrote on his webite. Ahh! At last we get to something on my web site. http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...l.htm#1ritalin Updates made to The Millenium Project in April 2006 The sky is falling! Children are being drugged! (1/4/2006} But, but, but - that date is April 1, so how could it have anything to do with something published on April 11. All of the stuff above was Jan complaining about how I wouldn't post something, but now she points to something ten days earlier for some reason or other. Now she has actually got to the web site, let's see her list the lies and provide an explanation. I was challenged during the week by someone who stated that a story in the newspaper would not be reported here because of the immensely damaging information it contained about the second-most evil and dangerous chemical ever made, Ritalin. (The most dangerous is, of course, mercury, with Prozac, aspartame and fluoride closing in along the straight.) The horror story that I would be too afraid to tell is that a politician, well known as an anti-Ritalin loon, has said that he is trying to round up participants for a class action against the makers and distributor of the drug. That's it. That's the story. Someone is trying to organise a court action, but no parties are yet involved, no court papers have been filed, and nothing has happened. I can only imagine that someone at the newspaper will be disciplined for not selling enough advertising and leaving a blank space which had to be filled with drivel. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. Two major matters of concern are associated with this non story. The first is that last week 14 kids aged around 13 or 14 at a school in Queensland (as far as you can get from the politician in question and still be in Australia) managed to get their hands on some Ritalin which was not prescribed for them and administered it to themselves using a delivery method which is not how it is supposed to be taken. They all ended up in hospital and local politicians are making noises about attacking drug abuse. It is drug abuse to consume drugs not prescribed for you in order to get an effect which the drugs do not give if taken according to directions, but this means nothing to the anti-Ritalin loons. The drug was taken, there was harm, the drug is bad. Four legs good, two legs bad. I pointed out that it was almost inevitable that 14 kids of that age had abused acetaminophen somewhere in Australia during the week (many ending up in hospital) and an absolute certainty that that number of kids had abused both nicotine and alcohol (although the hospital visits for these may be deferred for some time), but there are no calls for the banning of these drugs. Just Ritalin, because, as everyone knows, there is no such thing as ADHD and the condition was only invented to allow the sales of this dangerous, unproven drug. (Methylphenidate was patented in 1954, so it is a matter of some interest both why anyone bothered to research and patent a treatment for a non-existent condition (CIBA-Geigy isn't a quackery potion manufacturer, who do this all the time), and who has been taking it for the last fifty years other than the millions of kids who have benefited.) Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. The second major concern was that prescriptions for Ritalin had increased "tenfold" since it was accepted into the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and therefore made affordable. I'm not quite sure where the "tenfold" comes from, because the latest figures available from the PBS for prescriptions written in Australia are for the year ending June 30, 2005, and Ritalin was not added to the scheme until August the same year. It is worth noting here that the hundredth most prescribed drug in Australia up until June 2005 accounted for 404,000 prescriptions during the year. Another relevant statistic is that according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are about 276,000 people in the country who are aged 18 or less. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. So how big is the Ritalin epidemic? Well, according to the opponents, there were 523 prescriptions written in August 2005 and "more than 5800" in January 2006. (I love the "more than". It suggests extreme accuracy in reporting.) The first thing I did was point out that this was an elevenfold increase, and, according to the rules set by the person telling the story any deviation from absolute fact is a lie and there are no such things as mistakes, therefore the person claiming a "tenfold" increase was lying. (You might think I am joking or exaggerating here. This person accused me of lying for saying that Hulda Clark sued me for damaging sales of her books. When I replied that a publishing company whose only products were books had sued me for damaging sales of its products and therefore books, I was told to point to where the word "books" appeared in the lawsuit. Bizarre, I know, but true.) An exception was immediately made in this case (as it would have to be, because the person making the claim opposed Ritalin). Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. But back to the epidemic. There are about 276,000 people aged 18 or less in the country and less than 6,000 people taking Ritalin in total. If all of those pill poppers were under 19 it would be 2%. Let's allow the number of monthly prescriptions to rise to 6,000, giving 72,000 per year. This is a very long way from the top 100 most prescribed drugs in the country (one of which is aspirin, which, as any alternaut knows, is never recommended for anything because it can't be patented and nobody can make money out of it). Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. So, we have a drug which used to be expensive but is now subsidised, inevitably leading to an increase in both prescribing and consumption. The huge increase in prescriptions is only huge when compared to a very low starting point, but in relative terms compared to other prescription drugs it isn't even a ripple on the pond. Kids who can benefit from the drug are more likely to get it because their parents can now afford to pay for it. Action is being taken to control abuse, but even before that action it is still far less abused than some quite dangerous over-the-counter medications. Everything seems to be good. Unless you think that sick children don't need medication. But why would anyone want to deprive kids of effective treatment? I don't know the answer to that. I don't think that there is an answer which would satisfy anyone who is concerned about children and their welfare. Not a single lie identified. What Jan forgot to quote from that page, however, was where I scooped the mainstream media by identifying the source of the newspaper article which Jan referred to (and said I wouldn't comment on). http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...l.htm#8ritalin Ritalin follow-up (8/4/2006) I mentioned last week that hysteria had broken out in Australia because kids who might benefit from the drug Ritalin would have better access now that it is being subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The original beat-up story in the paper told horror tales about adverse events arising following taking the drug, but the paper forgot to mention that the main source of information for the story was a branch of Scientology, the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights. (CCHR won the Anus Maximus Award in 2003. Read about it here.) They did mention CCHR, but the cloudy ancestry of the outfit was swept under the carpet. It is amazing to see how people who would normally reject Scientology outright as either a dangerous cult or, when considering Tom Cruise's antics, as a font of hilarity, suddenly start taking the cult seriously when it agrees with them. When I first noticed this phenomenon I went looking for the origin of the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Remarkably, the first place I found it was on the web site of anti-psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, where he used it to justify going into business with Scientology to establish CCHR. (In one wonderful moment of bizarrity, some alternative medicine believer once called me a liar for saying that Szasz had ever used those words and defied me to produce evidence of my claim. I referred to where the words appeared on Szasz's own web site and was told that that was not good enough!) One of the most ferocious anti-Ritalin and anti-medication campaigners I have come across has told people that anything I say can be disregarded because I am an atheist (my pointing out that I am an ordained minister of a church did not earn me any credit) and, in fact, only Christians (and then only some subset of Christians) can be trusted to tell the truth about anything. Whenever this abuse of religion is brought into the argument I make a point of quoting L. Ron Hubbard, writing in the secret OT VIII documents. "For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably leads. It is historic fact and yet man still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious is the biologic implanting". I always like to remind Jan of Hubbard's opinion of Jesus. ~~~~~~ More lies after this on the same page: As no lies have been identified yet, it is a bit premature to say "more", but let's keep pressing on. You might wonder what all this has to do with the matters of interest to The Millenium Project, but this week I fell into a conversation which would make Ionesco look like a jingle writer for McDonalds when it came to measurements on the weirdness scale. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. The 1931 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Dr Otto Warburg for, as it says on the Nobel site, "his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme". It was thought at the time, by Dr Warburg and others, that his work might have some application to the treatment of cancer, but that was not to be and research in this area withered away and was finally abandoned. To believers in alternative medicine, however, this must mean that Warburg's ideas have been suppressed, and a mythology has been created around him. One piece of mythology is that he was "voted" a second Nobel Prize in 1944. Pointing out to alternauts that nobody is "voted" a Nobel Prize who does not then go on to "win" the prize had me being accused of lying. I have told the objectors that they should write to the relevant Nobel committee and point out that there is a mistake on the Nobel web site because it says that the 1944 Medicine prize went to Joseph Erlanger and Herbert S. Gasser, but I am yet to receive a satisfactory answer. Or an answer at all, in fact. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. You might think that saying that someone has won two Nobel Prizes when he has only won one would be so easily dismissed that further conversation would be pointless, but it gets even stranger. You see, it is claimed that there are many references to Dr Warburg and cancer on the Nobel site, so this must mean that he won for his cancer cure. (At least two of the references are to someone else named Warburg, but let's not let the facts interfere with the story.) I pointed out that in Dr Warburg's Nobel Lecture the word "cancer" appears exactly zero times, something which seems strange if curing cancer was what he was getting the prize for. I also mentioned that the word "cancer" did appear in the presentation speech made by someone else, but only as a comment on how a cure might happen in the future, but meanwhile Dr Warburg was getting an award for something else. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. And this is where things started to get really weird. I had made the mistake of accidentally referring to Dr Warburg's Nobel Lecture as an "acceptance speech". My error was pointed out and I agreed that I had used the wrong form of words. I was then accused of lying for saying that it wasn't an acceptance speech. The person doing the accusing gave me five examples of laureates who had made "acceptance speeches" and nyah, nyah, I was wrong. As one of the examples was William Faulkner (Literature 1949) and he gave a "Banquet Speech", not an "acceptance speech", I thought that two could play at the literalist pedant game, but my response was not taken well. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. In a complete about-face, the person who had been telling me that Medicine or Physiology laureate Dr Warburg must have made an "acceptance speech" because Martin Luther King (Peace 1963) and The 14th Dali Lama (Peace 1989) had done so, suddenly announced that Dr Warburg's speech had probably been given in support of his nomination (it was presented on December 10, after the award had been announced). Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. I commented that nobody gets to address the voting commitee before the final announcement, and many people do not even know that they have been nominated until they are told that they have won. I gave the example of Peter Doherty (Medicine 1996) who was informed of his win ten minutes before the press release went out from Stockholm so that he the media. Another player then accused me of lying could getready for telephone calls from the media. Another player then accused me of lying, because there wouldn't be time to write a 15 page "acceptance speech" in ten minutes. My response was to say that writing the speech would have been the least of his problems as he only had ten minutes to get into his white tie and tails and get from Memphis, Tennessee to Stockholm, Sweden. I quoted from Professor Doherty's book, but, alas, I was dealing with the sort of people who cannot understand any form of the spoken or written word which does not involve concrete thinking. (As an example, one of the players challenged me to something and then included the single-word paragraph "Well?". When I replied "Yes, I am well. Thanks for asking" I was told that she hadn't been asking me anything.) Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. In another bizarre non sequitur, when I mentioned that I had seen the Nobel medal that had been awarded to Ernest Lawrence (Physics 1939, and another who had delivered an "acceptance speech") I was informed about how many Nobel laureates had come out of Berkeley. I suppose I should have replied that there is a street in Berkeley township which has the same name as me. It would have been just as relevant. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. I started out by mentioning a play, and I will end the same way. If everything goes well I will have a short play here next week telling the wonderful story of the Warburg controversy. There will be three main characters - Max (a nutritionist who believes that there are no good or bad forms of cholesterol, that the best way to prevent chickenpox in children is to expose them to the wild virus, and that one Nobel Prize plus no other Nobel Prize equals two Nobel Prizes), Jan (a lady who believes that the most evil chemicals in the world are mercury and Ritalin, that anti-vaccination liars do not tell lies, that people who pray to saints are servants of Satan (but she is not a religious bigot of course, and has never said anything about Catholics), and that anyone who even knows Stephen Barrett's email address is intrinsically evil), and Peter (who has a prescription for SSRI medication but refuses to take the pills in case the Scientologists turn up on his doorstep again and point at him and laugh, and whose serotonin can stay right where it is). I will call the play "Acceptance Speech", which should be suitably confusing for anyone who can't see that something can have multiple signifiers and that words and phrases can sometimes mean different things in different contexts. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. So where's the promised play? (8/4/2006) My plans to write a play based on the weirdness of some Usenet participants were thrown into psychological disarray during the week, when I was presented with some additional information about the mental states of the subjects whom I was observing in order to create my piece of htémél vérité. One of the subjects told me that using Google to find things on the web was "the lazy man's way", and that he was better at finding things than Google. To add to this hubris, he then told me that it didn't make any sense for someone to say that Nobel Laureates presented things called Nobel Lectures and challenged me to name anybody who had done so. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. Show us all here how giving a 15 page lecture to those giving a Nobel Prize is customary. I'm not just going to take your word for it, especially since it doesn't even make sense. The web site is right there. Find some other Nobel Laureates that gave lectures to the audience upon receiving an award. If it's customary, it should be easy to prove your point. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. I responded by giving references to the lectures presented by every Laureate in 2005, and, as we had been talking about 1931, pointed out that the only people who didn't give lectures in that year were either unable to attend the awards ceremony or, the ultimate in "unable to attend", had died during the time between the announcement of the awards and the presentation. (Thus exploiting a loophole in the Nobel regulations, as the prizes can only be awarded to living people. This is why Rosalind Franklin did not share the 1962 Medicine prize with Watson, Crick and Wilkins.) I also offered the information that the Nobel people had been publishing an annual book containing the lectures since 1901. Better-than-Google replied that I obviously didn't know what I was talking about. Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. He then changed hats and announced that he had a dietary cure for all sorts of diseases which had been 100% successful both in effectiveness and compliance by dieters. When pressed for details he said that the diet was the one "used by native people all over the world for thousands of years". I asked him the following question, but I have yet to receive an answer. Sadly, it appears that Max has run away and no longer wants to talk to me. If someone else hadn't thought of the words first, I should probably say: "If he come not, then the play is marred: it goes not forward, doth it?". Direct quote from the site. No lies identified. So where are the lies on my web site, Jan. Remember - URL of offending page, words making up the lie, explanation of why it is a lie. I promise to fix every one of them and add an apology in every case. Get on with it. -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
The LIES on Peter Bowditch's website
"Jan Drew" wrote:
"vakker" wrote in message news:wthjh.510699$1T2.371527@pd7urf2no... "Peter Bowditch" wrote in message ... "Jan Drew" wrote: "Peter Bowditch" wrote : If what you say in 2006 is correct, it should be easy to list the lies and point out why each one of them is a lie. But you can't do either. -- Peter Bowditch I asked for a list of lies and reasons. As minimum, each member of the list should consists of three parts - the URL of the page with the lie on it, the words of the lie, the explanation of why the words constitute a lie. WE ASKED FOR RECEIPTS. LET'S SEE WHAT WE GOT............ $0.00 THAT'S WHAT. PETER BOWDITCH DOESN'T OR CAN'T PROVIDE RECEIPTS FOR HIS OWN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION. HE ALSO WANTS OTHER GULLIBLE FOOLS TO DONATE THERE DESPITE THE FACT IT'S A DEAD WEBSITE AND FOUNDATION AND HASN'T DONE NOTHING FOR YEARS!!!! NOBODY KNOWS WHERE THE DONATIONS GOES??????? NEAT EHHHH???? He only lied some 16? times, (I lost track) in his post. KACHING!! $1 - I'm sorry Jan, but claiming 16 lies doesn't get $16 for ACAHF. *Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.* Quite right. You quoted whole paragraphs without ever identifying the "lies" within them. Because you can't. Because there aren't any. snip repetition of me showing that Jan had completely failed to identify any "lies" on my web site List them, Jan - URL of the offending page, the words which make up the "lie", why it is a lie. Off you go. I'm waiting. -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Homeopathy
In article , David wrote:
"David Wright" wrote in message et... In article jABih.514506$R63.97045@pd7urf1no, vakker wrote: "David Wright" wrote in message gy.net... In article , David wrote: "David Wright" wrote in message . net... In article , David wrote: "David Wright" Why does it work for babies? Who says it does? Many many people all over the world. You know, those folks who have real experience over time. Not like you. As I said, I tried homeopathy. Didn't do a damn thing for me. My experience is just as valid as theirs. Wanna tell us more about it? Not really. I have no intention of naming the homeopath, for example; no need to make him the fall guy. How bout you just tell what remedy for what condition, you used. In what form. How much. How long. What else you did at the same time, coffee, tea, spicy food, just the facts. Nope. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Homeopathy
David, since you won't share the information about your Homeopathic
experience, it might be thought that you cannot because you didn't, or did wrong. One of the two it seems. In either case, your opinion about Homeopathic Medicine is worth nothing. You do not know. Ta Ta ! |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Homeopathy
In article , David wrote:
David, since you won't share the information about your Homeopathic experience, it might be thought that you cannot because you didn't, or did wrong. One of the two it seems. In either case, your opinion about Homeopathic Medicine is worth nothing. You do not know. Ta Ta ! Aw, Tools, you're such a wet blanket. And here I was hoping you'd condescend to regale us with a few anecdotes, based on your own experience, of the merits of drinking your own urine. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homeopathy: Holmes, Hogwarts, and the Prince of Wales | Mark Probert | Kids Health | 2 | October 21st 06 12:53 AM |
A Review of ADHD Treatments | Jan Drew | General | 18 | October 16th 06 12:18 PM |
A Review of ADHD Treatments | Jan Drew | Kids Health | 17 | October 16th 06 12:18 PM |
Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2. | [email protected] | Kids Health | 32 | September 9th 06 03:24 PM |
Homeopathy vs allopathy. | [email protected] | Kids Health | 8 | August 11th 06 06:49 PM |