Cruisin' for a bruisin'

Vashti wrote:
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when PeterB wrote:


Folks, observe this fairly interesting Pharma Blogging tactic.
Having realized how strongly the public feels about their highly
agressive marketing practices, the Bloggers have been told they
can express sympathies for the public's sensibility and desire for
restraint. What's crucial to note, however, is the reference to
"evidence-based" medicine in the same paragraph, which is a
constant refrain of Pharma Bloggers in defense of
pharmaceutical-sponsored drug testing, which they assert is
completely ethical and results in drugs that are safe and
effective. Obviously, with the huge cast of recalled
drugs(frequently after fortunes have been made), there is no
reason to believe that Big Pharma is ethical, or capable of
manufacturing drugs that are safe for public use.


Isn't that exactly the same text you posted in reply to someone from
the ADHD support group? I guess you really do think everyone who
disagrees with you is a paid "Pharma Blogger"...

It is called "thinking by label" and is the sign of Lazy Mind Syndrome.

Tell all these folks where they can collect the cash, would you?

I have been asking for that for years. Do you know what it costs to fill
up the fuel tanks of my boat these days?

JohnDoe wrote:

Does the SCAM-industry (So Call Alternative Medicine)

I love it!

Excellent!

Perfectly descriptive!

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news
PeterB wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:

PeterB wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:


PeterB wrote:



Folks, observe this fairly interesting Pharma Blogging tactic. Having
realized how strongly the public feels about their highly agressive
marketing practices, the Bloggers have been told they can express
sympathies for the public's sensibility and desire for restraint.
What's crucial to note, however, is the reference to "evidence-based"
medicine in the same paragraph, which is a constant refrain of Pharma
Bloggers in defense of pharmaceutical-sponsored drug testing, which
they assert is completely ethical and results in drugs that are safe
and effective. Obviously, will the huge cast of recalled drugs
(frequently after fortunes have been made), there is no reason to
believe that Big Pharma is ethical, or capable of manufacturing drugs
that are safe for public use.

Now I know why you spout so much bull****. You are so full of yourself
that you are overflowing and post it here.

Do you get nosebleeds on the pedestal you have placed yourself on?


Awww, Mark, will you get a star for that one??

Nah...I did not even break a sweat....

Personal attacks are so

lame when they are propped in front of a substantive post.

True, that is why it is not lame, i.e., because your post is not
substantive, unless you call bull**** substantive.

How do you

earn your keep? Don't tell me. Tenure?

Nope. Work. Owning a business. Employing people. Generating tax revenue.


PeterB

Now, what do you do?


I point out that Pharma Bloggers like you engage in distraction so that
readers will not see meaningful content. So, here it is again...

Yawn...so you are unemployed or on the dole....

In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

92-02731

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747

November 9, 1992, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
Probert.

DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,

HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings

Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.

COUNSEL:

Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.

JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.

Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.

OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.

OPINION: [*282]

[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee.

[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.

The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.

The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Vashti wrote:
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when PeterB wrote:


Folks, observe this fairly interesting Pharma Blogging tactic. Having
realized how strongly the public feels about their highly
agressive marketing practices, the Bloggers have been told they
can express sympathies for the public's sensibility and desire for
restraint. What's crucial to note, however, is the reference to
"evidence-based" medicine in the same paragraph, which is a
constant refrain of Pharma Bloggers in defense of
pharmaceutical-sponsored drug testing, which they assert is
completely ethical and results in drugs that are safe and
effective. Obviously, with the huge cast of recalled
drugs(frequently after fortunes have been made), there is no
reason to believe that Big Pharma is ethical, or capable of
manufacturing drugs that are safe for public use.


Isn't that exactly the same text you posted in reply to someone from
the ADHD support group? I guess you really do think everyone who
disagrees with you is a paid "Pharma Blogger"...

It is called "thinking by label" and is the sign of Lazy Mind Syndrome.

Tell all these folks where they can collect the cash, would you?

I have been asking for that for years. Do you know what it costs to fill
up the fuel tanks of my boat these days?

Perhaps you should pay back the people you still owe.

In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

92-02731

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747

November 9, 1992, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
Probert.

DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,

HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings

Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.

COUNSEL:

Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.

JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.

Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.

OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.

OPINION: [*282]

[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee.

[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.

The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.

The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately

LadyLollipop wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news
PeterB wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:


PeterB wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:



PeterB wrote:




Folks, observe this fairly interesting Pharma Blogging tactic. Having
realized how strongly the public feels about their highly agressive
marketing practices, the Bloggers have been told they can express
sympathies for the public's sensibility and desire for restraint.
What's crucial to note, however, is the reference to "evidence-based"
medicine in the same paragraph, which is a constant refrain of Pharma
Bloggers in defense of pharmaceutical-sponsored drug testing, which
they assert is completely ethical and results in drugs that are safe
and effective. Obviously, will the huge cast of recalled drugs
(frequently after fortunes have been made), there is no reason to
believe that Big Pharma is ethical, or capable of manufacturing drugs
that are safe for public use.

Now I know why you spout so much bull****. You are so full of yourself
that you are overflowing and post it here.

Do you get nosebleeds on the pedestal you have placed yourself on?


Awww, Mark, will you get a star for that one??

Nah...I did not even break a sweat....

Personal attacks are so


lame when they are propped in front of a substantive post.

True, that is why it is not lame, i.e., because your post is not
substantive, unless you call bull**** substantive.

How do you


earn your keep? Don't tell me. Tenure?

Nope. Work. Owning a business. Employing people. Generating tax revenue.



PeterB

Now, what do you do?


I point out that Pharma Bloggers like you engage in distraction so that
readers will not see meaningful content. So, here it is again...

Yawn...so you are unemployed or on the dole....


In the Matter of Mark Probert

Yes, you have once again served your handler well, and have
conclusivcely proven that you are *Ilena's Hyena*.

Mark Probert wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:

Does the SCAM-industry (So Call Alternative Medicine)

I love it!

Excellent!

Perfectly descriptive!

As they always suggest supplements, I have long called it
Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, or SCAM for
short. The beauty of this is that they can't deny it.

Watch Jan deny it.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter B said:
First of all, learn how to read. I never said doctors don't
recommend
wise lifestyle choices. I said doctors don't "typically recommend
non-prescription products." If you need to look up the word
"product,"
feel free. I was obviously referring to dietary supplements.

george of the bush said:
If you had a good diet you wouldn't need a lot of supplements.

Peter B said:
Straw man. This has nothing to do with whether doctors typically
prescribe natural supplements.

(I think) Joe Parsons said:
Now this is interesting.

Peter B said:
You have cut-n-paste these various quotes out of order, genius. It
makes them meaningless. So I corrected the order to show what was
originally said, and to whom. You Pharma Bloggers must need a vacation
badly to be resorting to this kind of silliness. And just to clarify:
My statement that foggy's comment was a "straw man" was ONLY in
reference to HIS statement that "If you had a good diet you wouldn't
need a lot of supplements."

That's the second time you've misattributed me (last time you attributed my
words to someone else). I suppose I'm the "foggy" to whom you refer here
(my former handle was pfogg), but I did not make the statement above. I
bailed from the thread fairly early on.

--Patti

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news
LadyLollipop wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news
PeterB wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:


PeterB wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:



PeterB wrote:




Folks, observe this fairly interesting Pharma Blogging tactic.
Having
realized how strongly the public feels about their highly agressive
marketing practices, the Bloggers have been told they can express
sympathies for the public's sensibility and desire for restraint.
What's crucial to note, however, is the reference to
"evidence-based"
medicine in the same paragraph, which is a constant refrain of
Pharma
Bloggers in defense of pharmaceutical-sponsored drug testing, which
they assert is completely ethical and results in drugs that are safe
and effective. Obviously, will the huge cast of recalled drugs
(frequently after fortunes have been made), there is no reason to
believe that Big Pharma is ethical, or capable of manufacturing
drugs
that are safe for public use.

Now I know why you spout so much bull****. You are so full of
yourself
that you are overflowing and post it here.

Do you get nosebleeds on the pedestal you have placed yourself on?


Awww, Mark, will you get a star for that one??

Nah...I did not even break a sweat....

Personal attacks are so


lame when they are propped in front of a substantive post.

True, that is why it is not lame, i.e., because your post is not
substantive, unless you call bull**** substantive.

How do you


earn your keep? Don't tell me. Tenure?

Nope. Work. Owning a business. Employing people. Generating tax
revenue.



PeterB

Now, what do you do?


I point out that Pharma Bloggers like you engage in distraction so that
readers will not see meaningful content. So, here it is again...

Yawn...so you are unemployed or on the dole....


In the Matter of Mark Probert

Yes, you , NO, it's YOU.

In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

92-02731

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747

November 9, 1992, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
Probert.

DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,

HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings

Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.

COUNSEL:

Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.

JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.

Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.

OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.

OPINION: [*282]

[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee.

[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.

The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.

The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately

PeterB wrote:
00doc wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Remember, I was talking
about what doctors do typically, and typically doctors don't
recommend
alternatives to prescription medication.

That depends on the supplement. When there is one that is proved to
work for a given situation they typically do.

Care to name them?

Saw Palmetto for prostatism
St. Johns Wort for mild to moderate depression
Glucosamine is recommended routinely by orthopedics
Vitamin E for menstrual cramps and menopausal symptoms
melatonin for sleep
B vitamins of neuropathies
Calium, folate, pyrodoxine for migraines
Calcium to help with weight loss
Calium and vitamin D to help prevent fractures
Vitamin D to help prevent falls in the elderly
B vitamins for heart health
Fish oil for hypertriglyceridemia and general heart health.

Just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure if I took just a few
minutes I could come up with wuite a bit more.

Oh, and yes - I just got an e-mail regarding the contents for the
upcomming issue of the The Medical Letter. The topic will be vitamin
supplements.

--
00doc

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:52:08 GMT, "Rich" wrote:


"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com...



No one can prove a negative.

He contorted his logic again. Just for fun, I'll prove a negative.



i^2=-1, by definition!

It's common knowledge, however, that
doctors routinely write prescriptions (3 billion a year) whereas
supplements are NOT typically recommended to patients.


This is a silly argument in the first place. Of course doctors do not
routinely prescribe nutritional supplements,

Because they are not prescribed, by definition. Doctors recommend
them but there's no paper trail to prove it.

_g