The circular reasoning scandal of HIV testing By Neville Hodgkinson

"Peter Bowditch" wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
. ..
"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
m...

As I say to all AIDS deniers - are you willing to be injected with
blood from an HIV+ person, John? If not, why not?
--

You mean HIV = AIDS deniers. Dr Willner did that 10 years ago on
Spanish
TV. Didn't make any difference to anything, and he was an MD, so what
woyuld be the point of me doing it?

And why don't you take the vax test--inject yourself with the equivalent
dosage of what babies get?
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/20,000Offer.htm


Any time, any place. I have offered this before. Unlike the AIDS/HIV
deniers I am not a hypocrite.

ROTFLOL!

OHHHH what LIES.

Please explain how offering to be injected with vaccines is a lie.

No. That is NOT what I addressed.
But--you knew that.



You are not a liar...either.

You are correct.

Yes, indeed.


Starting off with this HUGH lie:

Hugh Jackman? Hugh Grant?

H U G E......

snip bizarre rant which has nothing to do with vaccines
--
Peter Bowditch

It has to do with your complete lack of character.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....c1e66995e7d7ff

WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their
Monopolies


Peter Bowditch said:



Max has already stated that he is opposed to vaccinations for no
rational reason (there is none, anyway), he thinks Mercola is a good
source for anything, and he says that Jan presents cogent arguments.
Why should his inability to understand this difference be surprising?


Post 168

I see... I've completely discredited you in several other threads so
the best you can do is attack me personally? Please provide the link
where I said that all vaccinations are bad and then gave no good reason
for it.


I have also not used Dr. Mercola's opinion for any reference. If you
knew how to debate, you would have followed the Mercola.com links I've
provided and seen that they were simply referenced studies or press
releases that the site had copies of. They weren't Dr. Mercola's work.


Try sticking to the facts. Your credibility is dwindling fast.


Max.



Peter Bowditch wrote:
Google are always looking for people to help them do a better job of
indexing the 'net. As you are better at spidering a site than the
Google engine, you can probably name your salary.
http://www.google.com/jobs/index.html


Wow. You're really looking for any way to be right. However, this one
won't cut it. It has nothing to do with me being better than Google.
My guess is that you did a Google search for "Warburg" using Google's
advanced search feature to search just that one site, then you just
counted the number of hits you got back. Then you noticed that there
was also an E. Warburg and assumed that I was counting his name too.
Otherwise, why would you ask about him? You know what they say about
assuming.


Make me look bad. List them. Don't forget to tell me who "E. Warburg"
is.


sigh If I must. But for the record, let's just spell it out here
what you and I were both saying. That way we're clear that you were
wrong.


Peter Bowditch wrote:
There is ONE mention of cancer in the Presentation Speech by Professor
E. Hammarsten.


in reply to this:


Jan wrote:
There are however, MANY references to CANCER in the very subject
relating
to the Nobel Prize won by *DR* Warburg.


and Peter said:


Otto Warburg's research had nothing to do
with cancer, despite what alternuts have to say.


Then I proceeded to prove you wrong by saying that the Nobel site
contained MANY referneces to Ottor Warburg with regards to cancer. I
then wrote the following:
_____________________________
Mentions of cancer and Dr. Warburg in the Nobel literatu

1 - in his Nobel biography
"This discovery has opened up new ways in the fields of cellular
metabolism and cellular respiration. He has shown, among other things,
that cancerous cells can live and develop, even in the absence of
oxygen."


2 - again in his Nobel biography
"In the last years he added to the problems of his Institute:
chemotherapeutics of cancer, and the mechanism of X-ray's action."


3 - in the presentation speech (as you said)
"The medical world expects great things from your experiments on cancer
and other tumours, experiments which seem already to be sufficiently
far advanced to be able to furnish an explanation for at least one
cause of the destructive and unlimited growth of these tumours.


4 & 5 - in his two 1927 Nobel nominations
"Work on anaerobic energy production in cancer cells, and the roll of
iron in the oxidation mechanism of cells."


6, 7, 8, 9. 10 and 11 - in his six 1928 Nobel nominations
"Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of oxidative processes
in general."
_____________________________


So now, at your request, I'll list out the rest of the times cancer was
mentioned with regards to Dr. OTTO Warburg on the Nobel site:


Nobel nominations:
12 - in 1929 for his "Work on the mechanism of cell respiration,
enzymes involved in respiration and on the metabolism of tumor cells."


13 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of
oxidative processes in general."


14 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells, and of
enzymes involved in respiration."


15 - in 1929 for his "Studies of respiration in normal vs cancer cells,
and of enzymes involved in respiration."


16 - in 1929 for his "Work on the mechanism of cell respiration,
enzymes involved in respiration and on the metabolism of tumor cells."


17 - in 1929 for his "Work on the etiology of cancer, chemistry of
cancer cells and enzymes involved in respiration."


18 - in 1929 for his "Studies of respiration in normal vs cancer cells,
and of enzymes involved in respiration."


19 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of
oxidative processes in general."


20 - in 1930 for his "Work on the metabolism in tumour cells."


21 - in 1930 for his "Work on oxidation mechanisms (iron catalysis,
respiratory enzyme) and the metabolism in tumors."


22 - in 1931 for his "Work on cancer."


So ,as you can see, when I said around 20 mentions of cancer with
regards to Dr. Otto Warburg, I was actually being a bit conservative.


I dont know who E. Warburg is. Would you care to enlighten us?


Max.



Peter Bowditch wrote: Post #290
I'm sorry I offended you by responding to someone else. But then, why
should I care about the feelings of someone who thinks that a banquet
speech is an acceptance speech?
By the way the "around 20 mentions of cancer on the Nobel web site
with direct regards to Dr. Warburg" seems to be "around 15" according
to Google, and that is before you remove the ones referring to a
different Warburg and the duplicate listing for the history of the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. All of which has nothing to do with the
facts that Dr Warburg did not mention cancer in his one-and-only Nobel
lecture, and the single mention in the presentation speech was making
the point the Dr Warburg's prize wasn't for finding a cure for cancer.


Post 295
LOL! Give it up, Peter. It's not like we all can't go back to the
beginning of this thread to see EXACTLY what you said and EXACTLY how I
corrected you. I have already listed the individual mentions of cancer
with relation to Dr. Warburg up through 1929 on the Nobel web site. I
also stated that there were several more for 1930 and 1931. I counted
them myself... I didn't take the lazy man's way and depend on Google.

If you make me list them out here, it's just going to make you look
bad. You're better off dropping it.


Max.


What a tangle web Peter weaves when he tries to DECEIVE.


Under the thread The Cancer Challegene.
Post # 16 Peter posted:
One must ask, then, why the word "cancer" appears ZERO times in Dr
Warburg's 1931 Nobel acceptance speech.


[note the word *acceptance* and the word *cancer*.
NOT lecture and NOT a *CURE* for cancer.
In the above thread he also mentions:
*Presentation Speech*
*Banquet Speech*
Post #48


Max NAILED Peter!
Oh, this is just beautiful. You get backed in to a corner because you
can't provide information to support your position, so you completely
CHANGE your position, ADMIT you changed your position, and then begin
lecturing ME about the very subject I corrected you on. You have
absolutely ZERO credibility. I'm sorry, but I can no longer take you
seriously. I HOPE you're just doing this because you enjoy arguing and
NOT because you have convinced yourself that you're right. If it's the
later, I have a great deal of pity for you.


I actually love the fact that you like to represent the medical
community. I'm sure doctors on this board aren't so fond of it,
though.


Max.


Now Peter being the TOTAL LIAR he is, has to WEASEL...
Comes up with this PATHETIC story on his LYING website....


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.


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.
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.
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?".
Which native people exactly, Max? The Inuit natives of the far north west of
the North American continent? Australian Aborigines from Cape York?
Australian Aborigines from around the Sydney basin? Australian Aborigines
from Tasmania? Australian Aborigines from the centre of the continent?
Natives of the area in the US now known as Louisiana? Natives of the Andes
region of South America? Natives from the Cape Town area of South Africa?
Natives of New Guinea? Natives from the area where the Niger River enters
the Atlantic Ocean? Natives of the area now called Israel? Natives of the
Japanese islands? Natives of the islands which make up the eastern half of
Indonesia? Natives of central Asia, north of the Himalayas? Native of the
Maldives? Natives of Tahiti? Did they all eat the same food?
This gives an indication of how difficult it can be to deal with some of
these people. When anyone can spout nonsense which is so obviously nonsense
it can seem that the task of fighting this idiocy is hopeless. Sometimes I
have to take a break just to let my mind adjust to reality again. If I was
being paid to do this I would ask for more money.


==


Do show us where Dr. Haley's fans said he has apologized!


Do prove Mark S Probert disbarred attorney is NOT the Mark S. Probert that
posts here on this newsgroup.


Do show us Where Peter Moran was accused of LYING once for not spelling
"syncrometer" correctly.


Just WHERE was it claimed that you were condoning Dr. Patel's behavior?????


Just WHERE did anyone say you were *protecting* him ot it was some kind of
cover up?????


Just WHERE has anyone one said there was absolute safety in alternative??


Just WHERE has anyone demanded evidence that anyone said or believed that
liver flukes cause cancer?


Just WHERE has anyone one *said* that liver flukers cause cancer on the
newsgroup as of the date you you changed the wording?


Just WHO is a strong supporter of cancer quack Hulda Clark?


MANY OF THESE LIES ARE ON PETER'S WEBSITES!!!!



Dr. Haley wrote:


Ethylmercury is extremely neurotoxic, killing neurons at 10-25 nanomolar
levels. For your information the vaccine is 125,000 nanomolar in thimerosal
and injecting one vaccine (12.5 micrograms) into one 4-6lbs infant would
represent a very toxic exposure. Furhter, unlike many elements (N,O,C, etc.)
Hg has no known usefulness in biological systems, being toxic to them all.
Also, all occurring forms of Hg (methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal
dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+, etc.) have been reported to be extremely
toxic.

Here is what Peter Said:


A professor of chemistry deliberately talks about two different chemical
compounds (ethylmercury and methylmercury) as if they are interchangeable
and have identical properties.


That is a LIE.


Dr Haley said NO such thing.


He said:


(methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+,
etc.) have been reported to be extremely toxic.


He is absolutely correct.


Ethylmercury has also been shown, like methylmercury, to accumulate in the
brain and causes tissue damage methylmercury, to accumulate in the brain and
causes tissue damage


Like methylmercury, ethylmercury is toxic to the brain and crosses the
blood-brain barrier. (9) "Higher-dose exposure to ethylmercury from
Thimerosal results in toxicity comparable to that observed after high-dose
exposure to methylmercury."
==



Peter Bowditch" wrote in message


...


"LadyLollipop" wrote:
"cathyb" wrote in message
groups.com...
Vashti wrote:
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when george_of_the_bush wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 12:55:09 -0700, "PeterB"
wrote:
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when VashTIC used this tired
old phrase for the one billionth time, like a little tic that
never gets tired of sucking your leg. Is it just senescence or a
bored Pharma Blogger waiting for the weekend? Fair and Balanced.
You Decide.
PeterB
That was a sorry excuse of a personal attack. You should
apologize for your behaviour.
He won't and probably won't see the need to: in another MHA thread
he's added a few from ASAD to his list of "Pharma Bloggers" with
similar twists on their names.
From this message of his I gather he's not meaning a tourette tic
but a *tick*, unless he intended it to be a combined slur. Pretty
lame either way.
And I paid him the compliment of assuming he meant 'tic' when he said
it. Bugger.
Lame? My pre-adolescent kids could do better. His evident delight at
having coined Bowdick/Blowdick make me wonder if we are in fact dealing
with an adolescent.
Oh my yes.
Do not let us mention the many lame words of Peter Bowditch, or Mark
Probert
, or the many many times they needed to apologize.
I can't speak for Mark, but I have rarely had a need to apologise.
That doesn't mean that people haven't asked me to apologise, but
someone asking doesn't necessarily create a need. They would have to
provide evidence that there was something to apologise for.


That's been done, over and over.


Subject: A song for Ilena
From: Peter Bowditch
Date: 9/19/2004 11:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
(Jan) wrote:
Subject: A song for Ilena
From: Peter Bowditch
Peter has time to belittle, but likeOrac, he has been silent with
correcting
his mistakes, and giving needed apology.
Jan
I'm sorry you didn't like the song,


snip diverson , using the word apologize and further belittling

Now down to the business.


Hello Peter Bowditch


Peter did NOT reply.


From: Jan )
Subject: Hello Peter Bowditch
View: Complete Thread (3 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-09-10 17:46:47 PST


From: Peter Bowditch )
Subject: Yurko freed from life sentence in son's death
View: Complete Thread (79 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-28 19:12:07 PST



(Jan) wrote:
Subject: Yurko freed from life sentence in son's death
From: W_B
Date: 8/28/2004 4:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
Sorry Gail, your pet theory is bogus.
Quite wrong.
Your posts and your denial of REAL diseass and the causes are bogus.
You might wake up when amalgams are banned.
Jan


Speaking of amalgam, Gail totally disagrees with you about Crohn's
Disease. Many anti-amalgamists (including ones quoted on that fountain
of "truth", the whale.to site) say that Crohn's Disease is caused by
amalgams. Gail, however, says that all these people are wrong because
it is really caused by some kind of telepathic transfer of the effects
of psychiatric drugs, where the people who take the drugs are not
affected but others who come into contact with the drug takers get
Crohn's Disease. Her hypothesis absolves amalgam as a cause for
Crohn's Disease and therefore implies that amalgam fillings are safer
than some people think.

I replied:


Well, no that is impossible since I have never stated any thing about
Crohns.


Moving on.


From: Peter Bowditch )
Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
View: Complete Thread (98 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-30 20:44:09 PST


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -



(Jan) wrote:
Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
From: Orac
Date: 8/30/2004 4:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
In article ,
(Jan) wrote:
Enuff Orac,
I agree. Enough is enough.
But you have to have the last word???
One does not say something is a fact when one has no idea what the facts
are.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Why do you make assertions about Hulda Clark's
zapper when you yourself have admitted that you haven't studied it?
Say what?????
WOW!!!
I made NO assertions whatsoever about the zappicator, NOT zapper.
UNTIL I studied it.
Your attmept at diversion is noted along with you being totally confused.
Now that you have made that claim, do prove it. Do posts where I made
assertions about Hulda Clark's zappicator, NOT zapper.
One does not say something is a fact when one has no idea what the facts
are.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MARK DID.
Jan


Could there ever be a better example of fundamentalist, concrete
thinking than this? Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine. Because the words "zapper"
and "zappicator" have different spellings, Jan assumes that they must
refer to different objects. This is the same person who keeps telling
us that "quacksalver" and "quicksilver" mean the same thing because
they share some letters.

We need to find out what Jan's brain is made of. The material could be
used to replace depleted uranium in anti-tank shells.


To which I replied:



Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
From: Peter Bowditch


Ahhhhhhhhh. Along comes Peter to try and cover both Mark and Orac.

snip belittling



Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine


Ummm, NOT.

From: Peter Moran )
Subject: What are Skeptics? (1/2)
View: Complete Thread (10 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-26 22:12:47 PST



"Jan" wrote in message


...


Subject: What are Skeptics? (1/2)


snip something or other

Jan, at the risk of being "on topic" for this newsgroup, what do you think
of Hulda's "Zappicator"? Are you using one? If not, why not?


Peter Moran


Next?



Because the words "zapper"
and "zappicator" have different spellings, Jan assumes that they must
refer to different objects


Correct, I have never heard of the zappicator, so I looked it up.

Perhaps you should also??


snip insults and belittling


Care to correct your mistake????



Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine.


Matter of fact make that TWO mistakes.

Hulda has NEVER claimed the zapper is a magic cure-all machine.


You correction and apology await.


Jan


Fuuny, I have seen no correction or apology.


==


Peter Bowditch.


Dr Death


I was criticised recently for lack of balance in my choices of which
forms and instances of medical fraud to feature here. The specific
complaint was that I didn't have a page on this site about Dr Jayant
Patel, late of Bundaberg Hospital in Queensland, Australia. My first
response was that I don't have a page about every quack or charlatan
in the world, not even all those whose web sites are listed here. My
second response was that Dr Patel does not appear to have a web site
himself, and nobody seems to have one supporting him. My third point
was that Dr Patel was not practising quackery but was just a
dangerously incompetent doctor. That wasn't good enough, and it was
claimed that by not having something to say about him I was condoning
his behaviour and I was exhibiting a double standard by criticising
quacks but not members of something called "evil organised medicine".
In fact, I was protecting him by not calling him a quack and it was
all part of some form of cover-up.


To people outside Australia (and those within who have been in a coma
or otherwise disconnected from the world for the last few weeks) the
name Dr Jayant Patel might mean nothing, but he was a doctor who
managed to get a job at Bundaberg Hospital by lying about his
qualifications and overseas experience. It now seems that he may have
been directly responsible for the deaths of at least 87 patients. He
may not have deliberately killed them, but his negligence and
ignorance did. His hiring has revealed a huge hole in the recruitment
practices of whoever it was that let him have a job, and the extent of
the damage has shown that better methods of whistleblowing are
required. Dr Patel has fled the country and nobody knows where he is.


Quackery supporters are using Dr Patel as an example of the dangers of
real medicine as compared to the absolute safety of alternatives. I
have been challenged to name a single alternative practitioner who has
killed 87 people. The facts are that real medicine has methods to deal
with disasters like this, but alternative medicine hasn't even any
useful system of adverse event reporting. There is a government
enquiry under way, the recruitment and reporting problems are being
identified and corrected, Dr Patel will be charged with criminal
offences (manslaughter at least, possibly even murder), his
extradition to Australia will be sought as soon as he is located, and
he is looking forward to a long time behind bars. This was not a case
of medical fraud, but one of a failure of management. It is a tragedy
and a disgrace, but something is being done to stop it happening
again.


One delightful irony of this whole matter is that Dr Patel apparently
said that it was not necessary to wash hands between patients because
germs mean nothing. It is rather bizarre to see people holding these
comments up as examples of the incorrect thinking of real doctors when
those same people accept chiropractic, naturopathy, energy medicine,
acupuncture, homeopathy and other magical medical paradigms in which
pathogenic organisms play no part. But then, hypocrisy is never short
on the ground when quacks start criticising medicine.


=====


Now Rod, The HONEST Man.


WOW what a difference!!!


Peter,


I would hope that you would point out that it took over two years to finally
get some action. (7 deaths per month) But then this Guy has been in the
system for over 20 years. Not the first time for this it appears.


Now some of the things that really occurred we


1.Early in the piece, Hospital Staff were addressed by the State Medical
Board and told that reporting internal matters to the Union could see them
in Jail.


FEAR
2.When the issue was placed before Hospital Management their response was to
award Dr Patel "Employee of the Month"


JEER
3.Just before the announcement in State Parliament, a new contract was drawn
up by the Hospital Board for 5 years at $8000 per week for Dr Patel.


REWARD
4.It is on the record that the Hospitals Income had soared from the activity
of Dr Patel and as such he was highly regarded by the Medical system.


GREED


5.The State Medical Board paid for Dr Patel's flight out of Australia.


HIDE


6.Dr Patel has a record that goes back to 1994
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050*520/ap/d8a6pvn83.html


TOTAL INCOMPETENCE


7.Apparently Dr Patel's record has been on Archives since Mid 90's which
just proves that nobody believes what is on the Internet.


IGNORANCE


8. When the matter was bought up in Parliament what exactly did the AMA
request in writing back in March 2005. "A full apology and retraction" !!


THREATS


What really is at stake here is not just a rogue Dr but rather a Rogue
system that has allowed this to occur. The system went much further than
Hospital Administration and its Staff, it went to the State Medical Board,
The AMA.
Finally the people who believed in what is right rather than who won
through. (The Whistleblowers)


WHAT'S RIGHT TRIUMPHS


Gee I am having trouble accepting that this is not "Organised Medicine" at
its worst. A Chain of highly qualified people from Anaesthetists, Doctors,
Nurses, Boards, Government Representatives Morticians, patients past Drs,
family and friends of the patients, family and friends of the hospital
workers and of course the major watch dog of the AMA.
Just how many people do you think was in that "Management" chain. You know
that rotten old management chain that probably held about a couple of
hundred people that actually knew and were not going to do anything.


Your reference to better methods of whistle could perhaps be termed a little
better. Perhaps we could call these people genuinely concerned citizens
(Guardian Angels more appropriately)that have to endure enormous pressure to
do what is right.


Is anyone offering them fame, money and flights ?


No, I thought not. But Organised Medicine did for Dr Patel.


But of course you knew all this.


Rod

Jan Drew wrote:
"Peter Bowditch" wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
. ..
"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
m...

As I say to all AIDS deniers - are you willing to be injected with
blood from an HIV+ person, John? If not, why not?
--

You mean HIV = AIDS deniers. Dr Willner did that 10 years ago on
Spanish
TV. Didn't make any difference to anything, and he was an MD, so what
woyuld be the point of me doing it?

And why don't you take the vax test--inject yourself with the equivalent
dosage of what babies get?
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/20,000Offer.htm


Any time, any place. I have offered this before. Unlike the AIDS/HIV
deniers I am not a hypocrite.

ROTFLOL!

OHHHH what LIES.

Please explain how offering to be injected with vaccines is a lie.

No. That is NOT what I addressed.
But--you knew that.



You are not a liar...either.

You are correct.

Yes, indeed.


Starting off with this HUGH lie:

Hugh Jackman? Hugh Grant?

H U G E......

Hey, look! Jan finally learnt something. It's a start...



snip bizarre rant which has nothing to do with vaccines
--
Peter Bowditch

It has to do with your complete lack of character.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....c1e66995e7d7ff

WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their
Monopolies


Peter Bowditch said:



Max has already stated that he is opposed to vaccinations for no
rational reason (there is none, anyway), he thinks Mercola is a good
source for anything, and he says that Jan presents cogent arguments.
Why should his inability to understand this difference be surprising?


Post 168

I see... I've completely discredited you in several other threads so
the best you can do is attack me personally? Please provide the link
where I said that all vaccinations are bad and then gave no good reason
for it.


I have also not used Dr. Mercola's opinion for any reference. If you
knew how to debate, you would have followed the Mercola.com links I've
provided and seen that they were simply referenced studies or press
releases that the site had copies of. They weren't Dr. Mercola's work.


Try sticking to the facts. Your credibility is dwindling fast.


Max.



Peter Bowditch wrote:
Google are always looking for people to help them do a better job of
indexing the 'net. As you are better at spidering a site than the
Google engine, you can probably name your salary.
http://www.google.com/jobs/index.html


Wow. You're really looking for any way to be right. However, this one
won't cut it. It has nothing to do with me being better than Google.
My guess is that you did a Google search for "Warburg" using Google's
advanced search feature to search just that one site, then you just
counted the number of hits you got back. Then you noticed that there
was also an E. Warburg and assumed that I was counting his name too.
Otherwise, why would you ask about him? You know what they say about
assuming.


Make me look bad. List them. Don't forget to tell me who "E. Warburg"
is.


sigh If I must. But for the record, let's just spell it out here
what you and I were both saying. That way we're clear that you were
wrong.


Peter Bowditch wrote:
There is ONE mention of cancer in the Presentation Speech by Professor
E. Hammarsten.


in reply to this:


Jan wrote:
There are however, MANY references to CANCER in the very subject
relating
to the Nobel Prize won by *DR* Warburg.


and Peter said:


Otto Warburg's research had nothing to do
with cancer, despite what alternuts have to say.


Then I proceeded to prove you wrong by saying that the Nobel site
contained MANY referneces to Ottor Warburg with regards to cancer. I
then wrote the following:
_____________________________
Mentions of cancer and Dr. Warburg in the Nobel literatu

1 - in his Nobel biography
"This discovery has opened up new ways in the fields of cellular
metabolism and cellular respiration. He has shown, among other things,
that cancerous cells can live and develop, even in the absence of
oxygen."


2 - again in his Nobel biography
"In the last years he added to the problems of his Institute:
chemotherapeutics of cancer, and the mechanism of X-ray's action."


3 - in the presentation speech (as you said)
"The medical world expects great things from your experiments on cancer
and other tumours, experiments which seem already to be sufficiently
far advanced to be able to furnish an explanation for at least one
cause of the destructive and unlimited growth of these tumours.


4 & 5 - in his two 1927 Nobel nominations
"Work on anaerobic energy production in cancer cells, and the roll of
iron in the oxidation mechanism of cells."


6, 7, 8, 9. 10 and 11 - in his six 1928 Nobel nominations
"Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of oxidative processes
in general."
_____________________________


So now, at your request, I'll list out the rest of the times cancer was
mentioned with regards to Dr. OTTO Warburg on the Nobel site:


Nobel nominations:
12 - in 1929 for his "Work on the mechanism of cell respiration,
enzymes involved in respiration and on the metabolism of tumor cells."


13 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of
oxidative processes in general."


14 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells, and of
enzymes involved in respiration."


15 - in 1929 for his "Studies of respiration in normal vs cancer cells,
and of enzymes involved in respiration."


16 - in 1929 for his "Work on the mechanism of cell respiration,
enzymes involved in respiration and on the metabolism of tumor cells."


17 - in 1929 for his "Work on the etiology of cancer, chemistry of
cancer cells and enzymes involved in respiration."


18 - in 1929 for his "Studies of respiration in normal vs cancer cells,
and of enzymes involved in respiration."


19 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of
oxidative processes in general."


20 - in 1930 for his "Work on the metabolism in tumour cells."


21 - in 1930 for his "Work on oxidation mechanisms (iron catalysis,
respiratory enzyme) and the metabolism in tumors."


22 - in 1931 for his "Work on cancer."


So ,as you can see, when I said around 20 mentions of cancer with
regards to Dr. Otto Warburg, I was actually being a bit conservative.


I dont know who E. Warburg is. Would you care to enlighten us?


Max.



Peter Bowditch wrote: Post #290
I'm sorry I offended you by responding to someone else. But then, why
should I care about the feelings of someone who thinks that a banquet
speech is an acceptance speech?
By the way the "around 20 mentions of cancer on the Nobel web site
with direct regards to Dr. Warburg" seems to be "around 15" according
to Google, and that is before you remove the ones referring to a
different Warburg and the duplicate listing for the history of the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. All of which has nothing to do with the
facts that Dr Warburg did not mention cancer in his one-and-only Nobel
lecture, and the single mention in the presentation speech was making
the point the Dr Warburg's prize wasn't for finding a cure for cancer.


Post 295
LOL! Give it up, Peter. It's not like we all can't go back to the
beginning of this thread to see EXACTLY what you said and EXACTLY how I
corrected you. I have already listed the individual mentions of cancer
with relation to Dr. Warburg up through 1929 on the Nobel web site. I
also stated that there were several more for 1930 and 1931. I counted
them myself... I didn't take the lazy man's way and depend on Google.

If you make me list them out here, it's just going to make you look
bad. You're better off dropping it.


Max.


What a tangle web Peter weaves when he tries to DECEIVE.


Under the thread The Cancer Challegene.
Post # 16 Peter posted:
One must ask, then, why the word "cancer" appears ZERO times in Dr
Warburg's 1931 Nobel acceptance speech.


[note the word *acceptance* and the word *cancer*.
NOT lecture and NOT a *CURE* for cancer.
In the above thread he also mentions:
*Presentation Speech*
*Banquet Speech*
Post #48


Max NAILED Peter!
Oh, this is just beautiful. You get backed in to a corner because you
can't provide information to support your position, so you completely
CHANGE your position, ADMIT you changed your position, and then begin
lecturing ME about the very subject I corrected you on. You have
absolutely ZERO credibility. I'm sorry, but I can no longer take you
seriously. I HOPE you're just doing this because you enjoy arguing and
NOT because you have convinced yourself that you're right. If it's the
later, I have a great deal of pity for you.


I actually love the fact that you like to represent the medical
community. I'm sure doctors on this board aren't so fond of it,
though.


Max.


Now Peter being the TOTAL LIAR he is, has to WEASEL...
Comes up with this PATHETIC story on his LYING website....


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.


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.
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.
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?".
Which native people exactly, Max? The Inuit natives of the far north west of
the North American continent? Australian Aborigines from Cape York?
Australian Aborigines from around the Sydney basin? Australian Aborigines
from Tasmania? Australian Aborigines from the centre of the continent?
Natives of the area in the US now known as Louisiana? Natives of the Andes
region of South America? Natives from the Cape Town area of South Africa?
Natives of New Guinea? Natives from the area where the Niger River enters
the Atlantic Ocean? Natives of the area now called Israel? Natives of the
Japanese islands? Natives of the islands which make up the eastern half of
Indonesia? Natives of central Asia, north of the Himalayas? Native of the
Maldives? Natives of Tahiti? Did they all eat the same food?
This gives an indication of how difficult it can be to deal with some of
these people. When anyone can spout nonsense which is so obviously nonsense
it can seem that the task of fighting this idiocy is hopeless. Sometimes I
have to take a break just to let my mind adjust to reality again. If I was
being paid to do this I would ask for more money.


==


Do show us where Dr. Haley's fans said he has apologized!


Do prove Mark S Probert disbarred attorney is NOT the Mark S. Probert that
posts here on this newsgroup.


Do show us Where Peter Moran was accused of LYING once for not spelling
"syncrometer" correctly.


Just WHERE was it claimed that you were condoning Dr. Patel's behavior?????


Just WHERE did anyone say you were *protecting* him ot it was some kind of
cover up?????


Just WHERE has anyone one said there was absolute safety in alternative??


Just WHERE has anyone demanded evidence that anyone said or believed that
liver flukes cause cancer?


Just WHERE has anyone one *said* that liver flukers cause cancer on the
newsgroup as of the date you you changed the wording?


Just WHO is a strong supporter of cancer quack Hulda Clark?


MANY OF THESE LIES ARE ON PETER'S WEBSITES!!!!



Dr. Haley wrote:


Ethylmercury is extremely neurotoxic, killing neurons at 10-25 nanomolar
levels. For your information the vaccine is 125,000 nanomolar in thimerosal
and injecting one vaccine (12.5 micrograms) into one 4-6lbs infant would
represent a very toxic exposure. Furhter, unlike many elements (N,O,C, etc.)
Hg has no known usefulness in biological systems, being toxic to them all.
Also, all occurring forms of Hg (methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal
dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+, etc.) have been reported to be extremely
toxic.

Here is what Peter Said:


A professor of chemistry deliberately talks about two different chemical
compounds (ethylmercury and methylmercury) as if they are interchangeable
and have identical properties.


That is a LIE.


Dr Haley said NO such thing.


He said:


(methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+,
etc.) have been reported to be extremely toxic.


He is absolutely correct.


Ethylmercury has also been shown, like methylmercury, to accumulate in the
brain and causes tissue damage methylmercury, to accumulate in the brain and
causes tissue damage


Like methylmercury, ethylmercury is toxic to the brain and crosses the
blood-brain barrier. (9) "Higher-dose exposure to ethylmercury from
Thimerosal results in toxicity comparable to that observed after high-dose
exposure to methylmercury."
==



Peter Bowditch" wrote in message


...


"LadyLollipop" wrote:
"cathyb" wrote in message
groups.com...
Vashti wrote:
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when george_of_the_bush wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 12:55:09 -0700, "PeterB"
wrote:
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when VashTIC used this tired
old phrase for the one billionth time, like a little tic that
never gets tired of sucking your leg. Is it just senescence or a
bored Pharma Blogger waiting for the weekend? Fair and Balanced.
You Decide.
PeterB
That was a sorry excuse of a personal attack. You should
apologize for your behaviour.
He won't and probably won't see the need to: in another MHA thread
he's added a few from ASAD to his list of "Pharma Bloggers" with
similar twists on their names.
From this message of his I gather he's not meaning a tourette tic
but a *tick*, unless he intended it to be a combined slur. Pretty
lame either way.
And I paid him the compliment of assuming he meant 'tic' when he said
it. Bugger.
Lame? My pre-adolescent kids could do better. His evident delight at
having coined Bowdick/Blowdick make me wonder if we are in fact dealing
with an adolescent.
Oh my yes.
Do not let us mention the many lame words of Peter Bowditch, or Mark
Probert
, or the many many times they needed to apologize.
I can't speak for Mark, but I have rarely had a need to apologise.
That doesn't mean that people haven't asked me to apologise, but
someone asking doesn't necessarily create a need. They would have to
provide evidence that there was something to apologise for.


That's been done, over and over.


Subject: A song for Ilena
From: Peter Bowditch
Date: 9/19/2004 11:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
(Jan) wrote:
Subject: A song for Ilena
From: Peter Bowditch
Peter has time to belittle, but likeOrac, he has been silent with
correcting
his mistakes, and giving needed apology.
Jan
I'm sorry you didn't like the song,


snip diverson , using the word apologize and further belittling

Now down to the business.


Hello Peter Bowditch


Peter did NOT reply.


From: Jan )
Subject: Hello Peter Bowditch
View: Complete Thread (3 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-09-10 17:46:47 PST


From: Peter Bowditch )
Subject: Yurko freed from life sentence in son's death
View: Complete Thread (79 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-28 19:12:07 PST



(Jan) wrote:
Subject: Yurko freed from life sentence in son's death
From: W_B
Date: 8/28/2004 4:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
Sorry Gail, your pet theory is bogus.
Quite wrong.
Your posts and your denial of REAL diseass and the causes are bogus.
You might wake up when amalgams are banned.
Jan


Speaking of amalgam, Gail totally disagrees with you about Crohn's
Disease. Many anti-amalgamists (including ones quoted on that fountain
of "truth", the whale.to site) say that Crohn's Disease is caused by
amalgams. Gail, however, says that all these people are wrong because
it is really caused by some kind of telepathic transfer of the effects
of psychiatric drugs, where the people who take the drugs are not
affected but others who come into contact with the drug takers get
Crohn's Disease. Her hypothesis absolves amalgam as a cause for
Crohn's Disease and therefore implies that amalgam fillings are safer
than some people think.

I replied:


Well, no that is impossible since I have never stated any thing about
Crohns.


Moving on.


From: Peter Bowditch )
Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
View: Complete Thread (98 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-30 20:44:09 PST


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -



(Jan) wrote:
Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
From: Orac
Date: 8/30/2004 4:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
In article ,
(Jan) wrote:
Enuff Orac,
I agree. Enough is enough.
But you have to have the last word???
One does not say something is a fact when one has no idea what the facts
are.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Why do you make assertions about Hulda Clark's
zapper when you yourself have admitted that you haven't studied it?
Say what?????
WOW!!!
I made NO assertions whatsoever about the zappicator, NOT zapper.
UNTIL I studied it.
Your attmept at diversion is noted along with you being totally confused.
Now that you have made that claim, do prove it. Do posts where I made
assertions about Hulda Clark's zappicator, NOT zapper.
One does not say something is a fact when one has no idea what the facts
are.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MARK DID.
Jan


Could there ever be a better example of fundamentalist, concrete
thinking than this? Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine. Because the words "zapper"
and "zappicator" have different spellings, Jan assumes that they must
refer to different objects. This is the same person who keeps telling
us that "quacksalver" and "quicksilver" mean the same thing because
they share some letters.

We need to find out what Jan's brain is made of. The material could be
used to replace depleted uranium in anti-tank shells.


To which I replied:



Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
From: Peter Bowditch


Ahhhhhhhhh. Along comes Peter to try and cover both Mark and Orac.

snip belittling



Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine


Ummm, NOT.

From: Peter Moran )
Subject: What are Skeptics? (1/2)
View: Complete Thread (10 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-26 22:12:47 PST



"Jan" wrote in message


...


Subject: What are Skeptics? (1/2)


snip something or other

Jan, at the risk of being "on topic" for this newsgroup, what do you think
of Hulda's "Zappicator"? Are you using one? If not, why not?


Peter Moran


Next?



Because the words "zapper"
and "zappicator" have different spellings, Jan assumes that they must
refer to different objects


Correct, I have never heard of the zappicator, so I looked it up.

Perhaps you should also??


snip insults and belittling


Care to correct your mistake????



Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine.


Matter of fact make that TWO mistakes.

Hulda has NEVER claimed the zapper is a magic cure-all machine.


You correction and apology await.


Jan


Fuuny, I have seen no correction or apology.


==


Peter Bowditch.


Dr Death


I was criticised recently for lack of balance in my choices of which
forms and instances of medical fraud to feature here. The specific
complaint was that I didn't have a page on this site about Dr Jayant
Patel, late of Bundaberg Hospital in Queensland, Australia. My first
response was that I don't have a page about every quack or charlatan
in the world, not even all those whose web sites are listed here. My
second response was that Dr Patel does not appear to have a web site
himself, and nobody seems to have one supporting him. My third point
was that Dr Patel was not practising quackery but was just a
dangerously incompetent doctor. That wasn't good enough, and it was
claimed that by not having something to say about him I was condoning
his behaviour and I was exhibiting a double standard by criticising
quacks but not members of something called "evil organised medicine".
In fact, I was protecting him by not calling him a quack and it was
all part of some form of cover-up.


To people outside Australia (and those within who have been in a coma
or otherwise disconnected from the world for the last few weeks) the
name Dr Jayant Patel might mean nothing, but he was a doctor who
managed to get a job at Bundaberg Hospital by lying about his
qualifications and overseas experience. It now seems that he may have
been directly responsible for the deaths of at least 87 patients. He
may not have deliberately killed them, but his negligence and
ignorance did. His hiring has revealed a huge hole in the recruitment
practices of whoever it was that let him have a job, and the extent of
the damage has shown that better methods of whistleblowing are
required. Dr Patel has fled the country and nobody knows where he is.


Quackery supporters are using Dr Patel as an example of the dangers of
real medicine as compared to the absolute safety of alternatives. I
have been challenged to name a single alternative practitioner who has
killed 87 people. The facts are that real medicine has methods to deal
with disasters like this, but alternative medicine hasn't even any
useful system of adverse event reporting. There is a government
enquiry under way, the recruitment and reporting problems are being
identified and corrected, Dr Patel will be charged with criminal
offences (manslaughter at least, possibly even murder), his
extradition to Australia will be sought as soon as he is located, and
he is looking forward to a long time behind bars. This was not a case
of medical fraud, but one of a failure of management. It is a tragedy
and a disgrace, but something is being done to stop it happening
again.


One delightful irony of this whole matter is that Dr Patel apparently
said that it was not necessary to wash hands between patients because
germs mean nothing. It is rather bizarre to see people holding these
comments up as examples of the incorrect thinking of real doctors when
those same people accept chiropractic, naturopathy, energy medicine,
acupuncture, homeopathy and other magical medical paradigms in which
pathogenic organisms play no part. But then, hypocrisy is never short
on the ground when quacks start criticising medicine.


=====


Now Rod, The HONEST Man.


WOW what a difference!!!


Peter,


I would hope that you would point out that it took over two years to finally
get some action. (7 deaths per month) But then this Guy has been in the
system for over 20 years. Not the first time for this it appears.


Now some of the things that really occurred we


1.Early in the piece, Hospital Staff were addressed by the State Medical
Board and told that reporting internal matters to the Union could see them
in Jail.


FEAR
2.When the issue was placed before Hospital Management their response was to
award Dr Patel "Employee of the Month"


JEER
3.Just before the announcement in State Parliament, a new contract was drawn
up by the Hospital Board for 5 years at $8000 per week for Dr Patel.


REWARD
4.It is on the record that the Hospitals Income had soared from the activity
of Dr Patel and as such he was highly regarded by the Medical system.


GREED


5.The State Medical Board paid for Dr Patel's flight out of Australia.


HIDE


6.Dr Patel has a record that goes back to 1994
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050*520/ap/d8a6pvn83.html


TOTAL INCOMPETENCE


7.Apparently Dr Patel's record has been on Archives since Mid 90's which
just proves that nobody believes what is on the Internet.


IGNORANCE


8. When the matter was bought up in Parliament what exactly did the AMA
request in writing back in March 2005. "A full apology and retraction" !!


THREATS


What really is at stake here is not just a rogue Dr but rather a Rogue
system that has allowed this to occur. The system went much further than
Hospital Administration and its Staff, it went to the State Medical Board,
The AMA.
Finally the people who believed in what is right rather than who won
through. (The Whistleblowers)


WHAT'S RIGHT TRIUMPHS


Gee I am having trouble accepting that this is not "Organised Medicine" at
its worst. A Chain of highly qualified people from Anaesthetists, Doctors,
Nurses, Boards, Government Representatives Morticians, patients past Drs,
family and friends of the patients, family and friends of the hospital
workers and of course the major watch dog of the AMA.
Just how many people do you think was in that "Management" chain. You know
that rotten old management chain that probably held about a couple of
hundred people that actually knew and were not going to do anything.


Your reference to better methods of whistle could perhaps be termed a little
better. Perhaps we could call these people genuinely concerned citizens
(Guardian Angels more appropriately)that have to endure enormous pressure to
do what is right.


Is anyone offering them fame, money and flights ?


No, I thought not. But Organised Medicine did for Dr Patel.


But of course you knew all this.


Rod

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/20,000Offer.htm


Any time, any place. I have offered this before. Unlike the AIDS/HIV
deniers I am not a hypocrite.


contact Jock then.

"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
.. .
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/20,000Offer.htm


Any time, any place. I have offered this before. Unlike the AIDS/HIV
deniers I am not a hypocrite.


contact Jock then.


I know several people who have contacted Jock Doubleday. He is on
record as saying that he will not proceed as he doesn't want their
deaths on his conscience. In other words, he is a lying sack of ****
and the challenge is a farce.

Even if it wasn't a farce, I am not eligible, as it is only open to
"U.S.-licensed medical doctors who routinely administer childhood
vaccinations and to pharmaceutical company CEOs worldwide". As I am
neither of these sorts of things, Jock wouldn't have me anyway, even
if his challenge was real. Which it isn't.
--
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

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in

I know several people who have contacted Jock Doubleday. He is on
record as saying that he will not proceed as he doesn't want their
deaths on his conscience. In other words, he is a lying sack of ****
and the challenge is a farce.

Even if it wasn't a farce, I am not eligible, as it is only open to
"U.S.-licensed medical doctors who routinely administer childhood
vaccinations and to pharmaceutical company CEOs worldwide". As I am
neither of these sorts of things, Jock wouldn't have me anyway, even
if his challenge was real. Which it isn't.
--

I can see his point, if he only does MDs then he is covered at bit better
when they keel over and die

Rosalind/aka Stella/aka cathyb" Lied. Again...
Jan Drew wrote:
"Peter Bowditch" wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
. ..
"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
m...

As I say to all AIDS deniers - are you willing to be injected with
blood from an HIV+ person, John? If not, why not?
--

You mean HIV = AIDS deniers. Dr Willner did that 10 years ago on
Spanish
TV. Didn't make any difference to anything, and he was an MD, so what
woyuld be the point of me doing it?

And why don't you take the vax test--inject yourself with the
equivalent
dosage of what babies get?
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/20,000Offer.htm


Any time, any place. I have offered this before. Unlike the AIDS/HIV
deniers I am not a hypocrite.

ROTFLOL!

OHHHH what LIES.

Please explain how offering to be injected with vaccines is a lie.

No. That is NOT what I addressed.
But--you knew that.



You are not a liar...either.

You are correct.

Yes, indeed.


Starting off with this HUGH lie:

Hugh Jackman? Hugh Grant?

H U G E......

Hey, look! Jan finally learnt something. It's a start...

Wrong. HarASSer--proven liar

"huge"

Searched all groups Results 1 - 100 of 661 for your query (0.52
seconds)


"huge"

Searched all groups Results 1 - 85 of 85 for your query (0.48
seconds)


ONE HUGE WHOPPER

Sep 13 2005

[post # 3 was from you]

"huge"

Searched all groups Results 1 - 53 of 53 for your query (0.25
seconds)


"huge"

Searched all groups Results 1 - 55 of 55 for your query (0.18
seconds)





snip bizarre rant which has nothing to do with vaccines
--
Peter Bowditch

It has to do with your complete lack of character.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....c1e66995e7d7ff

WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their
Monopolies


Peter Bowditch said:



Max has already stated that he is opposed to vaccinations for no
rational reason (there is none, anyway), he thinks Mercola is a good
source for anything, and he says that Jan presents cogent arguments.
Why should his inability to understand this difference be surprising?


Post 168

I see... I've completely discredited you in several other threads so
the best you can do is attack me personally? Please provide the link
where I said that all vaccinations are bad and then gave no good reason
for it.


I have also not used Dr. Mercola's opinion for any reference. If you
knew how to debate, you would have followed the Mercola.com links I've
provided and seen that they were simply referenced studies or press
releases that the site had copies of. They weren't Dr. Mercola's work.


Try sticking to the facts. Your credibility is dwindling fast.


Max.



Peter Bowditch wrote:
Google are always looking for people to help them do a better job of
indexing the 'net. As you are better at spidering a site than the
Google engine, you can probably name your salary.
http://www.google.com/jobs/index.html


Wow. You're really looking for any way to be right. However, this one
won't cut it. It has nothing to do with me being better than Google.
My guess is that you did a Google search for "Warburg" using Google's
advanced search feature to search just that one site, then you just
counted the number of hits you got back. Then you noticed that there
was also an E. Warburg and assumed that I was counting his name too.
Otherwise, why would you ask about him? You know what they say about
assuming.


Make me look bad. List them. Don't forget to tell me who "E. Warburg"
is.


sigh If I must. But for the record, let's just spell it out here
what you and I were both saying. That way we're clear that you were
wrong.


Peter Bowditch wrote:
There is ONE mention of cancer in the Presentation Speech by Professor
E. Hammarsten.


in reply to this:


Jan wrote:
There are however, MANY references to CANCER in the very subject
relating
to the Nobel Prize won by *DR* Warburg.


and Peter said:


Otto Warburg's research had nothing to do
with cancer, despite what alternuts have to say.


Then I proceeded to prove you wrong by saying that the Nobel site
contained MANY referneces to Ottor Warburg with regards to cancer. I
then wrote the following:
_____________________________
Mentions of cancer and Dr. Warburg in the Nobel literatu

1 - in his Nobel biography
"This discovery has opened up new ways in the fields of cellular
metabolism and cellular respiration. He has shown, among other things,
that cancerous cells can live and develop, even in the absence of
oxygen."


2 - again in his Nobel biography
"In the last years he added to the problems of his Institute:
chemotherapeutics of cancer, and the mechanism of X-ray's action."


3 - in the presentation speech (as you said)
"The medical world expects great things from your experiments on cancer
and other tumours, experiments which seem already to be sufficiently
far advanced to be able to furnish an explanation for at least one
cause of the destructive and unlimited growth of these tumours.


4 & 5 - in his two 1927 Nobel nominations
"Work on anaerobic energy production in cancer cells, and the roll of
iron in the oxidation mechanism of cells."


6, 7, 8, 9. 10 and 11 - in his six 1928 Nobel nominations
"Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of oxidative processes
in general."
_____________________________


So now, at your request, I'll list out the rest of the times cancer was
mentioned with regards to Dr. OTTO Warburg on the Nobel site:


Nobel nominations:
12 - in 1929 for his "Work on the mechanism of cell respiration,
enzymes involved in respiration and on the metabolism of tumor cells."


13 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of
oxidative processes in general."


14 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells, and of
enzymes involved in respiration."


15 - in 1929 for his "Studies of respiration in normal vs cancer cells,
and of enzymes involved in respiration."


16 - in 1929 for his "Work on the mechanism of cell respiration,
enzymes involved in respiration and on the metabolism of tumor cells."


17 - in 1929 for his "Work on the etiology of cancer, chemistry of
cancer cells and enzymes involved in respiration."


18 - in 1929 for his "Studies of respiration in normal vs cancer cells,
and of enzymes involved in respiration."


19 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of
oxidative processes in general."


20 - in 1930 for his "Work on the metabolism in tumour cells."


21 - in 1930 for his "Work on oxidation mechanisms (iron catalysis,
respiratory enzyme) and the metabolism in tumors."


22 - in 1931 for his "Work on cancer."


So ,as you can see, when I said around 20 mentions of cancer with
regards to Dr. Otto Warburg, I was actually being a bit conservative.


I dont know who E. Warburg is. Would you care to enlighten us?


Max.



Peter Bowditch wrote: Post #290
I'm sorry I offended you by responding to someone else. But then, why
should I care about the feelings of someone who thinks that a banquet
speech is an acceptance speech?
By the way the "around 20 mentions of cancer on the Nobel web site
with direct regards to Dr. Warburg" seems to be "around 15" according
to Google, and that is before you remove the ones referring to a
different Warburg and the duplicate listing for the history of the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. All of which has nothing to do with the
facts that Dr Warburg did not mention cancer in his one-and-only Nobel
lecture, and the single mention in the presentation speech was making
the point the Dr Warburg's prize wasn't for finding a cure for cancer.


Post 295
LOL! Give it up, Peter. It's not like we all can't go back to the
beginning of this thread to see EXACTLY what you said and EXACTLY how I
corrected you. I have already listed the individual mentions of cancer
with relation to Dr. Warburg up through 1929 on the Nobel web site. I
also stated that there were several more for 1930 and 1931. I counted
them myself... I didn't take the lazy man's way and depend on Google.

If you make me list them out here, it's just going to make you look
bad. You're better off dropping it.


Max.


What a tangle web Peter weaves when he tries to DECEIVE.


Under the thread The Cancer Challegene.
Post # 16 Peter posted:
One must ask, then, why the word "cancer" appears ZERO times in Dr
Warburg's 1931 Nobel acceptance speech.


[note the word *acceptance* and the word *cancer*.
NOT lecture and NOT a *CURE* for cancer.
In the above thread he also mentions:
*Presentation Speech*
*Banquet Speech*
Post #48


Max NAILED Peter!
Oh, this is just beautiful. You get backed in to a corner because you
can't provide information to support your position, so you completely
CHANGE your position, ADMIT you changed your position, and then begin
lecturing ME about the very subject I corrected you on. You have
absolutely ZERO credibility. I'm sorry, but I can no longer take you
seriously. I HOPE you're just doing this because you enjoy arguing and
NOT because you have convinced yourself that you're right. If it's the
later, I have a great deal of pity for you.


I actually love the fact that you like to represent the medical
community. I'm sure doctors on this board aren't so fond of it,
though.


Max.


Now Peter being the TOTAL LIAR he is, has to WEASEL...
Comes up with this PATHETIC story on his LYING website....


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.


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.
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.
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?".
Which native people exactly, Max? The Inuit natives of the far north west
of
the North American continent? Australian Aborigines from Cape York?
Australian Aborigines from around the Sydney basin? Australian Aborigines
from Tasmania? Australian Aborigines from the centre of the continent?
Natives of the area in the US now known as Louisiana? Natives of the Andes
region of South America? Natives from the Cape Town area of South Africa?
Natives of New Guinea? Natives from the area where the Niger River enters
the Atlantic Ocean? Natives of the area now called Israel? Natives of the
Japanese islands? Natives of the islands which make up the eastern half of
Indonesia? Natives of central Asia, north of the Himalayas? Native of the
Maldives? Natives of Tahiti? Did they all eat the same food?
This gives an indication of how difficult it can be to deal with some of
these people. When anyone can spout nonsense which is so obviously
nonsense
it can seem that the task of fighting this idiocy is hopeless. Sometimes I
have to take a break just to let my mind adjust to reality again. If I was
being paid to do this I would ask for more money.


==


Do show us where Dr. Haley's fans said he has apologized!


Do prove Mark S Probert disbarred attorney is NOT the Mark S. Probert that
posts here on this newsgroup.


Do show us Where Peter Moran was accused of LYING once for not spelling
"syncrometer" correctly.


Just WHERE was it claimed that you were condoning Dr. Patel's
behavior?????


Just WHERE did anyone say you were *protecting* him ot it was some kind of
cover up?????


Just WHERE has anyone one said there was absolute safety in alternative??


Just WHERE has anyone demanded evidence that anyone said or believed that
liver flukes cause cancer?


Just WHERE has anyone one *said* that liver flukers cause cancer on the
newsgroup as of the date you you changed the wording?


Just WHO is a strong supporter of cancer quack Hulda Clark?


MANY OF THESE LIES ARE ON PETER'S WEBSITES!!!!



Dr. Haley wrote:


Ethylmercury is extremely neurotoxic, killing neurons at 10-25 nanomolar
levels. For your information the vaccine is 125,000 nanomolar in
thimerosal
and injecting one vaccine (12.5 micrograms) into one 4-6lbs infant would
represent a very toxic exposure. Furhter, unlike many elements (N,O,C,
etc.)
Hg has no known usefulness in biological systems, being toxic to them all.
Also, all occurring forms of Hg (methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal
dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+, etc.) have been reported to be extremely
toxic.

Here is what Peter Said:


A professor of chemistry deliberately talks about two different chemical
compounds (ethylmercury and methylmercury) as if they are interchangeable
and have identical properties.


That is a LIE.


Dr Haley said NO such thing.


He said:


(methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+,
etc.) have been reported to be extremely toxic.


He is absolutely correct.


Ethylmercury has also been shown, like methylmercury, to accumulate in the
brain and causes tissue damage methylmercury, to accumulate in the brain
and
causes tissue damage


Like methylmercury, ethylmercury is toxic to the brain and crosses the
blood-brain barrier. (9) "Higher-dose exposure to ethylmercury from
Thimerosal results in toxicity comparable to that observed after high-dose
exposure to methylmercury."
==



Peter Bowditch" wrote in message


...


"LadyLollipop" wrote:
"cathyb" wrote in message
groups.com...
Vashti wrote:
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when george_of_the_bush wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 12:55:09 -0700, "PeterB"
wrote:
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when VashTIC used this tired
old phrase for the one billionth time, like a little tic that
never gets tired of sucking your leg. Is it just senescence or a
bored Pharma Blogger waiting for the weekend? Fair and Balanced.
You Decide.
PeterB
That was a sorry excuse of a personal attack. You should
apologize for your behaviour.
He won't and probably won't see the need to: in another MHA thread
he's added a few from ASAD to his list of "Pharma Bloggers" with
similar twists on their names.
From this message of his I gather he's not meaning a tourette tic
but a *tick*, unless he intended it to be a combined slur. Pretty
lame either way.
And I paid him the compliment of assuming he meant 'tic' when he said
it. Bugger.
Lame? My pre-adolescent kids could do better. His evident delight at
having coined Bowdick/Blowdick make me wonder if we are in fact
dealing
with an adolescent.
Oh my yes.
Do not let us mention the many lame words of Peter Bowditch, or Mark
Probert
, or the many many times they needed to apologize.
I can't speak for Mark, but I have rarely had a need to apologise.
That doesn't mean that people haven't asked me to apologise, but
someone asking doesn't necessarily create a need. They would have to
provide evidence that there was something to apologise for.


That's been done, over and over.


Subject: A song for Ilena
From: Peter Bowditch
Date: 9/19/2004 11:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
(Jan) wrote:
Subject: A song for Ilena
From: Peter Bowditch
Peter has time to belittle, but likeOrac, he has been silent with
correcting
his mistakes, and giving needed apology.
Jan
I'm sorry you didn't like the song,


snip diverson , using the word apologize and further belittling

Now down to the business.


Hello Peter Bowditch


Peter did NOT reply.


From: Jan )
Subject: Hello Peter Bowditch
View: Complete Thread (3 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-09-10 17:46:47 PST


From: Peter Bowditch )
Subject: Yurko freed from life sentence in son's death
View: Complete Thread (79 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-28 19:12:07 PST



(Jan) wrote:
Subject: Yurko freed from life sentence in son's death
From: W_B
Date: 8/28/2004 4:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
Sorry Gail, your pet theory is bogus.
Quite wrong.
Your posts and your denial of REAL diseass and the causes are bogus.
You might wake up when amalgams are banned.
Jan


Speaking of amalgam, Gail totally disagrees with you about Crohn's
Disease. Many anti-amalgamists (including ones quoted on that fountain
of "truth", the whale.to site) say that Crohn's Disease is caused by
amalgams. Gail, however, says that all these people are wrong because
it is really caused by some kind of telepathic transfer of the effects
of psychiatric drugs, where the people who take the drugs are not
affected but others who come into contact with the drug takers get
Crohn's Disease. Her hypothesis absolves amalgam as a cause for
Crohn's Disease and therefore implies that amalgam fillings are safer
than some people think.

I replied:


Well, no that is impossible since I have never stated any thing about
Crohns.


Moving on.


From: Peter Bowditch )
Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
View: Complete Thread (98 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-30 20:44:09 PST


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -



(Jan) wrote:
Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
From: Orac
Date: 8/30/2004 4:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
In article ,
(Jan) wrote:
Enuff Orac,
I agree. Enough is enough.
But you have to have the last word???
One does not say something is a fact when one has no idea what the
facts
are.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Why do you make assertions about Hulda Clark's
zapper when you yourself have admitted that you haven't studied it?
Say what?????
WOW!!!
I made NO assertions whatsoever about the zappicator, NOT zapper.
UNTIL I studied it.
Your attmept at diversion is noted along with you being totally confused.
Now that you have made that claim, do prove it. Do posts where I made
assertions about Hulda Clark's zappicator, NOT zapper.
One does not say something is a fact when one has no idea what the
facts
are.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MARK DID.
Jan


Could there ever be a better example of fundamentalist, concrete
thinking than this? Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine. Because the words "zapper"
and "zappicator" have different spellings, Jan assumes that they must
refer to different objects. This is the same person who keeps telling
us that "quacksalver" and "quicksilver" mean the same thing because
they share some letters.

We need to find out what Jan's brain is made of. The material could be
used to replace depleted uranium in anti-tank shells.


To which I replied:



Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
From: Peter Bowditch


Ahhhhhhhhh. Along comes Peter to try and cover both Mark and Orac.

snip belittling



Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine


Ummm, NOT.

From: Peter Moran )
Subject: What are Skeptics? (1/2)
View: Complete Thread (10 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-26 22:12:47 PST



"Jan" wrote in message


...


Subject: What are Skeptics? (1/2)


snip something or other

Jan, at the risk of being "on topic" for this newsgroup, what do you
think
of Hulda's "Zappicator"? Are you using one? If not, why not?


Peter Moran


Next?



Because the words "zapper"
and "zappicator" have different spellings, Jan assumes that they must
refer to different objects


Correct, I have never heard of the zappicator, so I looked it up.

Perhaps you should also??


snip insults and belittling


Care to correct your mistake????



Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine.


Matter of fact make that TWO mistakes.

Hulda has NEVER claimed the zapper is a magic cure-all machine.


You correction and apology await.


Jan


Fuuny, I have seen no correction or apology.


==


Peter Bowditch.


Dr Death


I was criticised recently for lack of balance in my choices of which
forms and instances of medical fraud to feature here. The specific
complaint was that I didn't have a page on this site about Dr Jayant
Patel, late of Bundaberg Hospital in Queensland, Australia. My first
response was that I don't have a page about every quack or charlatan
in the world, not even all those whose web sites are listed here. My
second response was that Dr Patel does not appear to have a web site
himself, and nobody seems to have one supporting him. My third point
was that Dr Patel was not practising quackery but was just a
dangerously incompetent doctor. That wasn't good enough, and it was
claimed that by not having something to say about him I was condoning
his behaviour and I was exhibiting a double standard by criticising
quacks but not members of something called "evil organised medicine".
In fact, I was protecting him by not calling him a quack and it was
all part of some form of cover-up.


To people outside Australia (and those within who have been in a coma
or otherwise disconnected from the world for the last few weeks) the
name Dr Jayant Patel might mean nothing, but he was a doctor who
managed to get a job at Bundaberg Hospital by lying about his
qualifications and overseas experience. It now seems that he may have
been directly responsible for the deaths of at least 87 patients. He
may not have deliberately killed them, but his negligence and
ignorance did. His hiring has revealed a huge hole in the recruitment
practices of whoever it was that let him have a job, and the extent of
the damage has shown that better methods of whistleblowing are
required. Dr Patel has fled the country and nobody knows where he is.


Quackery supporters are using Dr Patel as an example of the dangers of
real medicine as compared to the absolute safety of alternatives. I
have been challenged to name a single alternative practitioner who has
killed 87 people. The facts are that real medicine has methods to deal
with disasters like this, but alternative medicine hasn't even any
useful system of adverse event reporting. There is a government
enquiry under way, the recruitment and reporting problems are being
identified and corrected, Dr Patel will be charged with criminal
offences (manslaughter at least, possibly even murder), his
extradition to Australia will be sought as soon as he is located, and
he is looking forward to a long time behind bars. This was not a case
of medical fraud, but one of a failure of management. It is a tragedy
and a disgrace, but something is being done to stop it happening
again.


One delightful irony of this whole matter is that Dr Patel apparently
said that it was not necessary to wash hands between patients because
germs mean nothing. It is rather bizarre to see people holding these
comments up as examples of the incorrect thinking of real doctors when
those same people accept chiropractic, naturopathy, energy medicine,
acupuncture, homeopathy and other magical medical paradigms in which
pathogenic organisms play no part. But then, hypocrisy is never short
on the ground when quacks start criticising medicine.


=====


Now Rod, The HONEST Man.


WOW what a difference!!!


Peter,


I would hope that you would point out that it took over two years to
finally
get some action. (7 deaths per month) But then this Guy has been in the
system for over 20 years. Not the first time for this it appears.


Now some of the things that really occurred we


1.Early in the piece, Hospital Staff were addressed by the State Medical
Board and told that reporting internal matters to the Union could see them
in Jail.


FEAR
2.When the issue was placed before Hospital Management their response was
to
award Dr Patel "Employee of the Month"


JEER
3.Just before the announcement in State Parliament, a new contract was
drawn
up by the Hospital Board for 5 years at $8000 per week for Dr Patel.


REWARD
4.It is on the record that the Hospitals Income had soared from the
activity
of Dr Patel and as such he was highly regarded by the Medical system.


GREED


5.The State Medical Board paid for Dr Patel's flight out of Australia.


HIDE


6.Dr Patel has a record that goes back to 1994
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050*520/ap/d8a6pvn83.html


TOTAL INCOMPETENCE


7.Apparently Dr Patel's record has been on Archives since Mid 90's which
just proves that nobody believes what is on the Internet.


IGNORANCE


8. When the matter was bought up in Parliament what exactly did the AMA
request in writing back in March 2005. "A full apology and retraction" !!


THREATS


What really is at stake here is not just a rogue Dr but rather a Rogue
system that has allowed this to occur. The system went much further than
Hospital Administration and its Staff, it went to the State Medical Board,
The AMA.
Finally the people who believed in what is right rather than who won
through. (The Whistleblowers)


WHAT'S RIGHT TRIUMPHS


Gee I am having trouble accepting that this is not "Organised Medicine" at
its worst. A Chain of highly qualified people from Anaesthetists, Doctors,
Nurses, Boards, Government Representatives Morticians, patients past Drs,
family and friends of the patients, family and friends of the hospital
workers and of course the major watch dog of the AMA.
Just how many people do you think was in that "Management" chain. You know
that rotten old management chain that probably held about a couple of
hundred people that actually knew and were not going to do anything.


Your reference to better methods of whistle could perhaps be termed a
little
better. Perhaps we could call these people genuinely concerned citizens
(Guardian Angels more appropriately)that have to endure enormous pressure
to
do what is right.


Is anyone offering them fame, money and flights ?


No, I thought not. But Organised Medicine did for Dr Patel.


But of course you knew all this.


Rod

Rosanlind/ aka Stella/ aka cathyb Lied. AGAIN.........................


Jan Drew wrote:
"Peter Bowditch" wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
. ..
"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
m...

As I say to all AIDS deniers - are you willing to be injected with
blood from an HIV+ person, John? If not, why not?
--

You mean HIV = AIDS deniers. Dr Willner did that 10 years ago on
Spanish
TV. Didn't make any difference to anything, and he was an MD, so what
woyuld be the point of me doing it?

And why don't you take the vax test--inject yourself with the
equivalent
dosage of what babies get?
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/20,000Offer.htm


Any time, any place. I have offered this before. Unlike the AIDS/HIV
deniers I am not a hypocrite.

ROTFLOL!

OHHHH what LIES.

Please explain how offering to be injected with vaccines is a lie.

No. That is NOT what I addressed.
But--you knew that.



You are not a liar...either.

You are correct.

Yes, indeed.


Starting off with this HUGH lie:

Hugh Jackman? Hugh Grant?

H U G E......

Hey, look! Jan finally learnt something. It's a start...

Wrong. HarASSer.

"huge"

Searched all groups Results 1 - 100 of 661 for your query (0.52
seconds)


"huge"

Searched all groups Results 1 - 85 of 85 for your query (0.48
seconds)


ONE HUGE WHOPPER

Sep 13 2005

[post # 3 was from you]

"huge"

Searched all groups Results 1 - 53 of 53 for your query (0.25
seconds)


"huge"

Searched all groups Results 1 - 55 of 55 for your query (0.18
seconds)





snip bizarre rant which has nothing to do with vaccines
--
Peter Bowditch

It has to do with your complete lack of character.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....c1e66995e7d7ff

WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their
Monopolies


Peter Bowditch said:



Max has already stated that he is opposed to vaccinations for no
rational reason (there is none, anyway), he thinks Mercola is a good
source for anything, and he says that Jan presents cogent arguments.
Why should his inability to understand this difference be surprising?


Post 168

I see... I've completely discredited you in several other threads so
the best you can do is attack me personally? Please provide the link
where I said that all vaccinations are bad and then gave no good reason
for it.


I have also not used Dr. Mercola's opinion for any reference. If you
knew how to debate, you would have followed the Mercola.com links I've
provided and seen that they were simply referenced studies or press
releases that the site had copies of. They weren't Dr. Mercola's work.


Try sticking to the facts. Your credibility is dwindling fast.


Max.



Peter Bowditch wrote:
Google are always looking for people to help them do a better job of
indexing the 'net. As you are better at spidering a site than the
Google engine, you can probably name your salary.
http://www.google.com/jobs/index.html


Wow. You're really looking for any way to be right. However, this one
won't cut it. It has nothing to do with me being better than Google.
My guess is that you did a Google search for "Warburg" using Google's
advanced search feature to search just that one site, then you just
counted the number of hits you got back. Then you noticed that there
was also an E. Warburg and assumed that I was counting his name too.
Otherwise, why would you ask about him? You know what they say about
assuming.


Make me look bad. List them. Don't forget to tell me who "E. Warburg"
is.


sigh If I must. But for the record, let's just spell it out here
what you and I were both saying. That way we're clear that you were
wrong.


Peter Bowditch wrote:
There is ONE mention of cancer in the Presentation Speech by Professor
E. Hammarsten.


in reply to this:


Jan wrote:
There are however, MANY references to CANCER in the very subject
relating
to the Nobel Prize won by *DR* Warburg.


and Peter said:


Otto Warburg's research had nothing to do
with cancer, despite what alternuts have to say.


Then I proceeded to prove you wrong by saying that the Nobel site
contained MANY referneces to Ottor Warburg with regards to cancer. I
then wrote the following:
_____________________________
Mentions of cancer and Dr. Warburg in the Nobel literatu

1 - in his Nobel biography
"This discovery has opened up new ways in the fields of cellular
metabolism and cellular respiration. He has shown, among other things,
that cancerous cells can live and develop, even in the absence of
oxygen."


2 - again in his Nobel biography
"In the last years he added to the problems of his Institute:
chemotherapeutics of cancer, and the mechanism of X-ray's action."


3 - in the presentation speech (as you said)
"The medical world expects great things from your experiments on cancer
and other tumours, experiments which seem already to be sufficiently
far advanced to be able to furnish an explanation for at least one
cause of the destructive and unlimited growth of these tumours.


4 & 5 - in his two 1927 Nobel nominations
"Work on anaerobic energy production in cancer cells, and the roll of
iron in the oxidation mechanism of cells."


6, 7, 8, 9. 10 and 11 - in his six 1928 Nobel nominations
"Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of oxidative processes
in general."
_____________________________


So now, at your request, I'll list out the rest of the times cancer was
mentioned with regards to Dr. OTTO Warburg on the Nobel site:


Nobel nominations:
12 - in 1929 for his "Work on the mechanism of cell respiration,
enzymes involved in respiration and on the metabolism of tumor cells."


13 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of
oxidative processes in general."


14 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells, and of
enzymes involved in respiration."


15 - in 1929 for his "Studies of respiration in normal vs cancer cells,
and of enzymes involved in respiration."


16 - in 1929 for his "Work on the mechanism of cell respiration,
enzymes involved in respiration and on the metabolism of tumor cells."


17 - in 1929 for his "Work on the etiology of cancer, chemistry of
cancer cells and enzymes involved in respiration."


18 - in 1929 for his "Studies of respiration in normal vs cancer cells,
and of enzymes involved in respiration."


19 - in 1929 for his "Studies of the metabolism of cancer cells and of
oxidative processes in general."


20 - in 1930 for his "Work on the metabolism in tumour cells."


21 - in 1930 for his "Work on oxidation mechanisms (iron catalysis,
respiratory enzyme) and the metabolism in tumors."


22 - in 1931 for his "Work on cancer."


So ,as you can see, when I said around 20 mentions of cancer with
regards to Dr. Otto Warburg, I was actually being a bit conservative.


I dont know who E. Warburg is. Would you care to enlighten us?


Max.



Peter Bowditch wrote: Post #290
I'm sorry I offended you by responding to someone else. But then, why
should I care about the feelings of someone who thinks that a banquet
speech is an acceptance speech?
By the way the "around 20 mentions of cancer on the Nobel web site
with direct regards to Dr. Warburg" seems to be "around 15" according
to Google, and that is before you remove the ones referring to a
different Warburg and the duplicate listing for the history of the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. All of which has nothing to do with the
facts that Dr Warburg did not mention cancer in his one-and-only Nobel
lecture, and the single mention in the presentation speech was making
the point the Dr Warburg's prize wasn't for finding a cure for cancer.


Post 295
LOL! Give it up, Peter. It's not like we all can't go back to the
beginning of this thread to see EXACTLY what you said and EXACTLY how I
corrected you. I have already listed the individual mentions of cancer
with relation to Dr. Warburg up through 1929 on the Nobel web site. I
also stated that there were several more for 1930 and 1931. I counted
them myself... I didn't take the lazy man's way and depend on Google.

If you make me list them out here, it's just going to make you look
bad. You're better off dropping it.


Max.


What a tangle web Peter weaves when he tries to DECEIVE.


Under the thread The Cancer Challegene.
Post # 16 Peter posted:
One must ask, then, why the word "cancer" appears ZERO times in Dr
Warburg's 1931 Nobel acceptance speech.


[note the word *acceptance* and the word *cancer*.
NOT lecture and NOT a *CURE* for cancer.
In the above thread he also mentions:
*Presentation Speech*
*Banquet Speech*
Post #48


Max NAILED Peter!
Oh, this is just beautiful. You get backed in to a corner because you
can't provide information to support your position, so you completely
CHANGE your position, ADMIT you changed your position, and then begin
lecturing ME about the very subject I corrected you on. You have
absolutely ZERO credibility. I'm sorry, but I can no longer take you
seriously. I HOPE you're just doing this because you enjoy arguing and
NOT because you have convinced yourself that you're right. If it's the
later, I have a great deal of pity for you.


I actually love the fact that you like to represent the medical
community. I'm sure doctors on this board aren't so fond of it,
though.


Max.


Now Peter being the TOTAL LIAR he is, has to WEASEL...
Comes up with this PATHETIC story on his LYING website....


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.


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.
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.
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?".
Which native people exactly, Max? The Inuit natives of the far north west
of
the North American continent? Australian Aborigines from Cape York?
Australian Aborigines from around the Sydney basin? Australian Aborigines
from Tasmania? Australian Aborigines from the centre of the continent?
Natives of the area in the US now known as Louisiana? Natives of the Andes
region of South America? Natives from the Cape Town area of South Africa?
Natives of New Guinea? Natives from the area where the Niger River enters
the Atlantic Ocean? Natives of the area now called Israel? Natives of the
Japanese islands? Natives of the islands which make up the eastern half of
Indonesia? Natives of central Asia, north of the Himalayas? Native of the
Maldives? Natives of Tahiti? Did they all eat the same food?
This gives an indication of how difficult it can be to deal with some of
these people. When anyone can spout nonsense which is so obviously
nonsense
it can seem that the task of fighting this idiocy is hopeless. Sometimes I
have to take a break just to let my mind adjust to reality again. If I was
being paid to do this I would ask for more money.


==


Do show us where Dr. Haley's fans said he has apologized!


Do prove Mark S Probert disbarred attorney is NOT the Mark S. Probert that
posts here on this newsgroup.


Do show us Where Peter Moran was accused of LYING once for not spelling
"syncrometer" correctly.


Just WHERE was it claimed that you were condoning Dr. Patel's
behavior?????


Just WHERE did anyone say you were *protecting* him ot it was some kind of
cover up?????


Just WHERE has anyone one said there was absolute safety in alternative??


Just WHERE has anyone demanded evidence that anyone said or believed that
liver flukes cause cancer?


Just WHERE has anyone one *said* that liver flukers cause cancer on the
newsgroup as of the date you you changed the wording?


Just WHO is a strong supporter of cancer quack Hulda Clark?


MANY OF THESE LIES ARE ON PETER'S WEBSITES!!!!



Dr. Haley wrote:


Ethylmercury is extremely neurotoxic, killing neurons at 10-25 nanomolar
levels. For your information the vaccine is 125,000 nanomolar in
thimerosal
and injecting one vaccine (12.5 micrograms) into one 4-6lbs infant would
represent a very toxic exposure. Furhter, unlike many elements (N,O,C,
etc.)
Hg has no known usefulness in biological systems, being toxic to them all.
Also, all occurring forms of Hg (methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal
dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+, etc.) have been reported to be extremely
toxic.

Here is what Peter Said:


A professor of chemistry deliberately talks about two different chemical
compounds (ethylmercury and methylmercury) as if they are interchangeable
and have identical properties.


That is a LIE.


Dr Haley said NO such thing.


He said:


(methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+,
etc.) have been reported to be extremely toxic.


He is absolutely correct.


Ethylmercury has also been shown, like methylmercury, to accumulate in the
brain and causes tissue damage methylmercury, to accumulate in the brain
and
causes tissue damage


Like methylmercury, ethylmercury is toxic to the brain and crosses the
blood-brain barrier. (9) "Higher-dose exposure to ethylmercury from
Thimerosal results in toxicity comparable to that observed after high-dose
exposure to methylmercury."
==



Peter Bowditch" wrote in message


...


"LadyLollipop" wrote:
"cathyb" wrote in message
groups.com...
Vashti wrote:
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when george_of_the_bush wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 12:55:09 -0700, "PeterB"
wrote:
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when VashTIC used this tired
old phrase for the one billionth time, like a little tic that
never gets tired of sucking your leg. Is it just senescence or a
bored Pharma Blogger waiting for the weekend? Fair and Balanced.
You Decide.
PeterB
That was a sorry excuse of a personal attack. You should
apologize for your behaviour.
He won't and probably won't see the need to: in another MHA thread
he's added a few from ASAD to his list of "Pharma Bloggers" with
similar twists on their names.
From this message of his I gather he's not meaning a tourette tic
but a *tick*, unless he intended it to be a combined slur. Pretty
lame either way.
And I paid him the compliment of assuming he meant 'tic' when he said
it. Bugger.
Lame? My pre-adolescent kids could do better. His evident delight at
having coined Bowdick/Blowdick make me wonder if we are in fact
dealing
with an adolescent.
Oh my yes.
Do not let us mention the many lame words of Peter Bowditch, or Mark
Probert
, or the many many times they needed to apologize.
I can't speak for Mark, but I have rarely had a need to apologise.
That doesn't mean that people haven't asked me to apologise, but
someone asking doesn't necessarily create a need. They would have to
provide evidence that there was something to apologise for.


That's been done, over and over.


Subject: A song for Ilena
From: Peter Bowditch
Date: 9/19/2004 11:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
(Jan) wrote:
Subject: A song for Ilena
From: Peter Bowditch
Peter has time to belittle, but likeOrac, he has been silent with
correcting
his mistakes, and giving needed apology.
Jan
I'm sorry you didn't like the song,


snip diverson , using the word apologize and further belittling

Now down to the business.


Hello Peter Bowditch


Peter did NOT reply.


From: Jan )
Subject: Hello Peter Bowditch
View: Complete Thread (3 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-09-10 17:46:47 PST


From: Peter Bowditch )
Subject: Yurko freed from life sentence in son's death
View: Complete Thread (79 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-28 19:12:07 PST



(Jan) wrote:
Subject: Yurko freed from life sentence in son's death
From: W_B
Date: 8/28/2004 4:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
Sorry Gail, your pet theory is bogus.
Quite wrong.
Your posts and your denial of REAL diseass and the causes are bogus.
You might wake up when amalgams are banned.
Jan


Speaking of amalgam, Gail totally disagrees with you about Crohn's
Disease. Many anti-amalgamists (including ones quoted on that fountain
of "truth", the whale.to site) say that Crohn's Disease is caused by
amalgams. Gail, however, says that all these people are wrong because
it is really caused by some kind of telepathic transfer of the effects
of psychiatric drugs, where the people who take the drugs are not
affected but others who come into contact with the drug takers get
Crohn's Disease. Her hypothesis absolves amalgam as a cause for
Crohn's Disease and therefore implies that amalgam fillings are safer
than some people think.

I replied:


Well, no that is impossible since I have never stated any thing about
Crohns.


Moving on.


From: Peter Bowditch )
Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
View: Complete Thread (98 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-30 20:44:09 PST


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -



(Jan) wrote:
Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
From: Orac
Date: 8/30/2004 4:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
In article ,
(Jan) wrote:
Enuff Orac,
I agree. Enough is enough.
But you have to have the last word???
One does not say something is a fact when one has no idea what the
facts
are.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Why do you make assertions about Hulda Clark's
zapper when you yourself have admitted that you haven't studied it?
Say what?????
WOW!!!
I made NO assertions whatsoever about the zappicator, NOT zapper.
UNTIL I studied it.
Your attmept at diversion is noted along with you being totally confused.
Now that you have made that claim, do prove it. Do posts where I made
assertions about Hulda Clark's zappicator, NOT zapper.
One does not say something is a fact when one has no idea what the
facts
are.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MARK DID.
Jan


Could there ever be a better example of fundamentalist, concrete
thinking than this? Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine. Because the words "zapper"
and "zappicator" have different spellings, Jan assumes that they must
refer to different objects. This is the same person who keeps telling
us that "quacksalver" and "quicksilver" mean the same thing because
they share some letters.

We need to find out what Jan's brain is made of. The material could be
used to replace depleted uranium in anti-tank shells.


To which I replied:



Subject: Mark S. Probert from Merrick, NY ... 10th Judicial District
From: Peter Bowditch


Ahhhhhhhhh. Along comes Peter to try and cover both Mark and Orac.

snip belittling



Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine


Ummm, NOT.

From: Peter Moran )
Subject: What are Skeptics? (1/2)
View: Complete Thread (10 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2004-08-26 22:12:47 PST



"Jan" wrote in message


...


Subject: What are Skeptics? (1/2)


snip something or other

Jan, at the risk of being "on topic" for this newsgroup, what do you
think
of Hulda's "Zappicator"? Are you using one? If not, why not?


Peter Moran


Next?



Because the words "zapper"
and "zappicator" have different spellings, Jan assumes that they must
refer to different objects


Correct, I have never heard of the zappicator, so I looked it up.

Perhaps you should also??


snip insults and belittling


Care to correct your mistake????



Someone jokingly uses the word "zappicator" to
refer to Hulda's magic cure-all machine.


Matter of fact make that TWO mistakes.

Hulda has NEVER claimed the zapper is a magic cure-all machine.


You correction and apology await.


Jan


Fuuny, I have seen no correction or apology.


==


Peter Bowditch.


Dr Death


I was criticised recently for lack of balance in my choices of which
forms and instances of medical fraud to feature here. The specific
complaint was that I didn't have a page on this site about Dr Jayant
Patel, late of Bundaberg Hospital in Queensland, Australia. My first
response was that I don't have a page about every quack or charlatan
in the world, not even all those whose web sites are listed here. My
second response was that Dr Patel does not appear to have a web site
himself, and nobody seems to have one supporting him. My third point
was that Dr Patel was not practising quackery but was just a
dangerously incompetent doctor. That wasn't good enough, and it was
claimed that by not having something to say about him I was condoning
his behaviour and I was exhibiting a double standard by criticising
quacks but not members of something called "evil organised medicine".
In fact, I was protecting him by not calling him a quack and it was
all part of some form of cover-up.


To people outside Australia (and those within who have been in a coma
or otherwise disconnected from the world for the last few weeks) the
name Dr Jayant Patel might mean nothing, but he was a doctor who
managed to get a job at Bundaberg Hospital by lying about his
qualifications and overseas experience. It now seems that he may have
been directly responsible for the deaths of at least 87 patients. He
may not have deliberately killed them, but his negligence and
ignorance did. His hiring has revealed a huge hole in the recruitment
practices of whoever it was that let him have a job, and the extent of
the damage has shown that better methods of whistleblowing are
required. Dr Patel has fled the country and nobody knows where he is.


Quackery supporters are using Dr Patel as an example of the dangers of
real medicine as compared to the absolute safety of alternatives. I
have been challenged to name a single alternative practitioner who has
killed 87 people. The facts are that real medicine has methods to deal
with disasters like this, but alternative medicine hasn't even any
useful system of adverse event reporting. There is a government
enquiry under way, the recruitment and reporting problems are being
identified and corrected, Dr Patel will be charged with criminal
offences (manslaughter at least, possibly even murder), his
extradition to Australia will be sought as soon as he is located, and
he is looking forward to a long time behind bars. This was not a case
of medical fraud, but one of a failure of management. It is a tragedy
and a disgrace, but something is being done to stop it happening
again.


One delightful irony of this whole matter is that Dr Patel apparently
said that it was not necessary to wash hands between patients because
germs mean nothing. It is rather bizarre to see people holding these
comments up as examples of the incorrect thinking of real doctors when
those same people accept chiropractic, naturopathy, energy medicine,
acupuncture, homeopathy and other magical medical paradigms in which
pathogenic organisms play no part. But then, hypocrisy is never short
on the ground when quacks start criticising medicine.


=====


Now Rod, The HONEST Man.


WOW what a difference!!!


Peter,


I would hope that you would point out that it took over two years to
finally
get some action. (7 deaths per month) But then this Guy has been in the
system for over 20 years. Not the first time for this it appears.


Now some of the things that really occurred we


1.Early in the piece, Hospital Staff were addressed by the State Medical
Board and told that reporting internal matters to the Union could see them
in Jail.


FEAR
2.When the issue was placed before Hospital Management their response was
to
award Dr Patel "Employee of the Month"


JEER
3.Just before the announcement in State Parliament, a new contract was
drawn
up by the Hospital Board for 5 years at $8000 per week for Dr Patel.


REWARD
4.It is on the record that the Hospitals Income had soared from the
activity
of Dr Patel and as such he was highly regarded by the Medical system.


GREED


5.The State Medical Board paid for Dr Patel's flight out of Australia.


HIDE


6.Dr Patel has a record that goes back to 1994
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050*520/ap/d8a6pvn83.html


TOTAL INCOMPETENCE


7.Apparently Dr Patel's record has been on Archives since Mid 90's which
just proves that nobody believes what is on the Internet.


IGNORANCE


8. When the matter was bought up in Parliament what exactly did the AMA
request in writing back in March 2005. "A full apology and retraction" !!


THREATS


What really is at stake here is not just a rogue Dr but rather a Rogue
system that has allowed this to occur. The system went much further than
Hospital Administration and its Staff, it went to the State Medical Board,
The AMA.
Finally the people who believed in what is right rather than who won
through. (The Whistleblowers)


WHAT'S RIGHT TRIUMPHS


Gee I am having trouble accepting that this is not "Organised Medicine" at
its worst. A Chain of highly qualified people from Anaesthetists, Doctors,
Nurses, Boards, Government Representatives Morticians, patients past Drs,
family and friends of the patients, family and friends of the hospital
workers and of course the major watch dog of the AMA.
Just how many people do you think was in that "Management" chain. You know
that rotten old management chain that probably held about a couple of
hundred people that actually knew and were not going to do anything.


Your reference to better methods of whistle could perhaps be termed a
little
better. Perhaps we could call these people genuinely concerned citizens
(Guardian Angels more appropriately)that have to endure enormous pressure
to
do what is right.


Is anyone offering them fame, money and flights ?


No, I thought not. But Organised Medicine did for Dr Patel.


But of course you knew all this.


Rod

"Peter Bowditch" Tries to trash. AGAIN.
"john" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/20,000Offer.htm


Any time, any place. I have offered this before. Unlike the AIDS/HIV
deniers I am not a hypocrite.


contact Jock then.

snip
--
Peter Bowditch

snip johns inane ramblings

This post comes at an interesting time - the journal Science just did a
special feature on the 25th "anniversary" of the HIV epidemic. This
includes a real interesting video they released about the so-called
"forgotten epidemic" in the Caribbean. For those interested in the REAL
story, not john's paranoid fantasy, here it is:

http://www.biocompare.com/video/science/aidsamericas/

Bryan

"CWatters"

Well I believe Dr Willner died soon after so we don't know if his
experiment
was a success or not do we?


the fact he actually did it was the thing, but I bet you never even read his
book, and we have hundreds of "HIV positive" people alive and well 10 years
and more

FACT: No drug cure of AIDs yet.
FACT: Dr Shulze cured 16 last stage aids patients with naturopathic
herbalism