Dr. K's UNANSWERED QUESTION TO SNAKE-OIL SELLER, MARK PROBERT REGARDING MERCURY

On Mar 7, 9:23*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
The problem with searching for the truth is that there are, in my
opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the
truth, do not report objectively, and attack and defame individuals
that do not agree with their objectives.

Gee, and the alternative health crowd would NEVER do anything like
that, now would they? *I mean, we wouldn't see the anti-vaccine
militia using the Poling case to claim that vaccines cause autism.

They have a huge PR machine that could be used for the greater good
but, in my opinion, is instead used to support special interests that
is not necessarily in the public interest.

Wow, a "huge PR machine?" *Where do you come up with this stuff?

If there was such a huge PR machine involved, we would't be seeing all
these nitwit "vaccines cause autism" stories over the last few days.

That is not to say that there are not people and therapies that may
belong on their list. But the motives, methods, and selective
reporting is, in my opinion, quite destructive.

"May" belong on their list? *Like there's any doubt that there are
plenty such?

* -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
* * *These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
* * *"Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Bill Maher

Your post is an example of the problem on both sides of the aisle. You
appear to be an extremist.
As I have mentioned, there is good and bad from both the mainstream
and the "alternative" perspective.
Unfortunately you only see one side of the equation.

In article ,
wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:23*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
The problem with searching for the truth is that there are, in my
opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the
truth, do not report objectively, and attack and defame individuals
that do not agree with their objectives.

Gee, and the alternative health crowd would NEVER do anything like
that, now would they? *I mean, we wouldn't see the anti-vaccine
militia using the Poling case to claim that vaccines cause autism.

They have a huge PR machine that could be used for the greater good
but, in my opinion, is instead used to support special interests that
is not necessarily in the public interest.

Wow, a "huge PR machine?" *Where do you come up with this stuff?

If there was such a huge PR machine involved, we would't be seeing all
these nitwit "vaccines cause autism" stories over the last few days.

That is not to say that there are not people and therapies that may
belong on their list. But the motives, methods, and selective
reporting is, in my opinion, quite destructive.

"May" belong on their list? *Like there's any doubt that there are
plenty such?

Your post is an example of the problem on both sides of the aisle. You
appear to be an extremist.
As I have mentioned, there is good and bad from both the mainstream
and the "alternative" perspective.
Unfortunately you only see one side of the equation.

Must be nice to be you, sitting there with your delusions of
omniscience.

As a matter of fact, I've tried a number of alternative modalities and
use some of them regularly. So how does that grab you?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
-- Bill Maher

On Mar 7, 11:39*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article ,





wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:23*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
The problem with searching for the truth is that there are, in my
opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the
truth, do not report objectively, and attack and defame individuals
that do not agree with their objectives.

Gee, and the alternative health crowd would NEVER do anything like
that, now would they? *I mean, we wouldn't see the anti-vaccine
militia using the Poling case to claim that vaccines cause autism.

They have a huge PR machine that could be used for the greater good
but, in my opinion, is instead used to support special interests that
is not necessarily in the public interest.

Wow, a "huge PR machine?" *Where do you come up with this stuff?

If there was such a huge PR machine involved, we would't be seeing all
these nitwit "vaccines cause autism" stories over the last few days.

That is not to say that there are not people and therapies that may
belong on their list. But the motives, methods, and selective
reporting is, in my opinion, quite destructive.

"May" belong on their list? *Like there's any doubt that there are
plenty such?

Your post is an example of the problem on both sides of the aisle. You
appear to be *an extremist.
As I have mentioned, there is good and bad from both the mainstream
and the "alternative" perspective.
Unfortunately you only see one side of the equation.

Must be nice to be you, sitting there with your delusions of
omniscience.

As a matter of fact, I've tried a number of alternative modalities and
use some of them regularly. *So how does that grab you?

* -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
* * *These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
* * *"Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Bill Maher- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It doesn't grab me at all actually.
You can do whatever you want.
Where do you get "delusions of omniscience?"
Do you think that is a constructive statement or do you
just like being nasty?

In article ,
Kulacz wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:39*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:23*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
The problem with searching for the truth is that there are, in my
opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the
truth, do not report objectively, and attack and defame individuals
that do not agree with their objectives.

Gee, and the alternative health crowd would NEVER do anything like
that, now would they? *I mean, we wouldn't see the anti-vaccine
militia using the Poling case to claim that vaccines cause autism.

They have a huge PR machine that could be used for the greater good
but, in my opinion, is instead used to support special interests that
is not necessarily in the public interest.

Wow, a "huge PR machine?" *Where do you come up with this stuff?

If there was such a huge PR machine involved, we would't be seeing all
these nitwit "vaccines cause autism" stories over the last few days.

That is not to say that there are not people and therapies that may
belong on their list. But the motives, methods, and selective
reporting is, in my opinion, quite destructive.

"May" belong on their list? *Like there's any doubt that there are
plenty such?

Your post is an example of the problem on both sides of the aisle. You
appear to be *an extremist.
As I have mentioned, there is good and bad from both the mainstream
and the "alternative" perspective.
Unfortunately you only see one side of the equation.

Must be nice to be you, sitting there with your delusions of
omniscience.

As a matter of fact, I've tried a number of alternative modalities and
use some of them regularly. *So how does that grab you?

It doesn't grab me at all actually.
You can do whatever you want.
Where do you get "delusions of omniscience?"

From your "Unfortunately, you only see one side of the equation."
How the hell do you know what I see? You've been on this newsgroup
for what, a few days now, and you know all about me?

Do you think that is a constructive statement or do you
just like being nasty?

Oh, I can enjoy being nasty, but it depends on the target. I don't
know if I'd consider it a "constructive" statement, but then yours
wasn't either. I have to agree with DCS, though: you seem to be
decidedly the sort who is terribly sensitive to any slights he feels
have been given him, and quite blind to any he's giving to others.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
-- Bill Maher

On Mar 7, 11:55*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article ,





Kulacz wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:39*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:23*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
The problem with searching for the truth is that there are, in my
opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the
truth, do not report objectively, and attack and defame individuals
that do not agree with their objectives.

Gee, and the alternative health crowd would NEVER do anything like
that, now would they? *I mean, we wouldn't see the anti-vaccine
militia using the Poling case to claim that vaccines cause autism.

They have a huge PR machine that could be used for the greater good
but, in my opinion, is instead used to support special interests that
is not necessarily in the public interest.

Wow, a "huge PR machine?" *Where do you come up with this stuff?

If there was such a huge PR machine involved, we would't be seeing all
these nitwit "vaccines cause autism" stories over the last few days.

That is not to say that there are not people and therapies that may
belong on their list. But the motives, methods, and selective
reporting is, in my opinion, quite destructive.

"May" belong on their list? *Like there's any doubt that there are
plenty such?

Your post is an example of the problem on both sides of the aisle. You
appear to be *an extremist.
As I have mentioned, there is good and bad from both the mainstream
and the "alternative" perspective.
Unfortunately you only see one side of the equation.

Must be nice to be you, sitting there with your delusions of
omniscience.

As a matter of fact, I've tried a number of alternative modalities and
use some of them regularly. *So how does that grab you?

It doesn't grab me at all actually.
You can do whatever you want.
Where do you get "delusions of omniscience?"

From your "Unfortunately, you only see one side of the equation."
How the hell do you know what I see? *You've been on this newsgroup
for what, a few days now, and you know all about me?

Do you think that is a constructive statement or do you
just like being nasty?

Oh, I can enjoy being nasty, but it depends on the target. *I don't
know if I'd consider it a "constructive" statement, but then yours
wasn't either. *I have to agree with DCS, though: *you seem to be
decidedly the sort who is terribly sensitive to any slights he feels
have been given him, and quite blind to any he's giving to others.

* -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
* * *These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
* * *"Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Bill Maher- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are entitled to your opinion.
I have atempted to be civil in all my posts.
As you know the internet cannot convey tone or body language.Sometimes
people mistake an opposing opinion with an insult.
I prefer civil academic discussions but I have been called everything
from an asshole to molesting my patients.

I apologize if I have offended anyone. It is certainly not my
intention. It is not easy to agree to disagee here.

On Mar 8, 12:34*am, Kulacz wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:55*pm, (David Wright) wrote:





In article ,

Kulacz wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:39*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:23*pm, (David Wright) wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
The problem with searching for the truth is that there are, in my
opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the
truth, do not report objectively, and attack and defame individuals
that do not agree with their objectives.

Gee, and the alternative health crowd would NEVER do anything like
that, now would they? *I mean, we wouldn't see the anti-vaccine
militia using the Poling case to claim that vaccines cause autism.

They have a huge PR machine that could be used for the greater good
but, in my opinion, is instead used to support special interests that
is not necessarily in the public interest.

Wow, a "huge PR machine?" *Where do you come up with this stuff?

If there was such a huge PR machine involved, we would't be seeing all
these nitwit "vaccines cause autism" stories over the last few days.

That is not to say that there are not people and therapies that may
belong on their list. But the motives, methods, and selective
reporting is, in my opinion, quite destructive.

"May" belong on their list? *Like there's any doubt that there are
plenty such?

Your post is an example of the problem on both sides of the aisle. You
appear to be *an extremist.
As I have mentioned, there is good and bad from both the mainstream
and the "alternative" perspective.
Unfortunately you only see one side of the equation.

Must be nice to be you, sitting there with your delusions of
omniscience.

As a matter of fact, I've tried a number of alternative modalities and
use some of them regularly. *So how does that grab you?

It doesn't grab me at all actually.
You can do whatever you want.
Where do you get "delusions of omniscience?"

From your "Unfortunately, you only see one side of the equation."
How the hell do you know what I see? *You've been on this newsgroup
for what, a few days now, and you know all about me?

Do you think that is a constructive statement or do you
just like being nasty?

Oh, I can enjoy being nasty, but it depends on the target. *I don't
know if I'd consider it a "constructive" statement, but then yours
wasn't either. *I have to agree with DCS, though: *you seem to be
decidedly the sort who is terribly sensitive to any slights he feels
have been given him, and quite blind to any he's giving to others.

* -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
* * *These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct..
* * *"Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Bill Maher- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are entitled to your opinion.
I have atempted to be civil in all my posts.
As you know the internet cannot convey tone or body language.Sometimes
people mistake an opposing opinion with an insult.
I prefer civil academic discussions but I have been called everything
from an asshole to molesting my patients.

I apologize if I have offended anyone. It is certainly not my
intention. It is not easy to agree to disagee here.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think if you go back and look who was throwing the first "punches"
you may see things differently.
You are mistaking overly sensitive, which I am definately not, with
the desire to engage in a civil discussion.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 2, 8:47 pm, wrote:
On Mar 2, 8:40 pm, Mark Probert wrote:

On Mar 2, 2:25 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:

I just saw that Dr. K has several times asked disbarred attorney Mark
Probert this same important question.

And I answered it the first time. Dr. K even responded to that post.
He has reading issues.

Do try to keep it civil.

Yes Mark, please try to keep it civil if that is possible for you.

By now, you should have been able to discern that I do keep it civil,
when the other party keeps it civil. Note how I am followed around by
a junk yard dog yelping at my heels, and how I am gratuitously
attacked by several posters.

Aww, poor baby. You civil? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sadly, I do not expect you to see that, or acknowledge these facts.
You seem to have allied yourself with a stalker, a bigot and Tim
Bolen, who defies simple description.

LOL Now........that is civil.

Poor Mark S Probert.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...e/73819e3a.gif

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 7:43 pm, wrote:
On Mar 7, 7:31 pm, Mark Probert wrote:





On Mar 7, 8:20 am, wrote:

On Mar 7, 6:59 am, Mark Probert wrote:

On Mar 2, 8:47 pm, wrote:

On Mar 2, 8:40 pm, Mark Probert wrote:

On Mar 2, 2:25 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:

I just saw that Dr. K has several times asked disbarred
attorney Mark
Probert this same important question.

And I answered it the first time. Dr. K even responded to that
post.
He has reading issues.

Do try to keep it civil.

Yes Mark, please try to keep it civil if that is possible for you.

By now, you should have been able to discern that I do keep it
civil,
when the other party keeps it civil. Note how I am followed around
by
a junk yard dog yelping at my heels, and how I am gratuitously
attacked by several posters.

Sadly, I do not expect you to see that, or acknowledge these facts.
You seem to have allied yourself with a stalker, a bigot and Tim
Bolen, who defies simple description.

I simply seek the truth wherever it takes me.

Fair enough.We'll follow the truth train down the tracks.

No alliances unlike you

and your gang.

Well, you just fell off the truth train. There is no alliance, except
in the mind of thos people who need to believe that there is because
they want to dismiss what refutes their firmly held beliefs and do not
want to address facgts that they either cannot understand or refute.

That is your projection.

Wrong. Consider me a black body.

I have changed my mind on many of my former beliefs by objectively
looking at the facts.

Great. Back on track for the truth train.

Do I have all the answers? Of course not.

No one does.

I have freely admitted that.

Truth is is a constant search that only can move forward with an open
mind.-

Quite true.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The problem with searching for the truth is that there are, in my
opinion, groups like the quackbusters that deliberately distort the
truth,

I have read many articles on Quackwatch. There are some with which I
disagree. However, there are many that are factually accurate.

For real truth distortion, view Bolen's bilge. I have yet to find a
reality based article on his site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That was civil and not defaming??

do not report objectively, and attack and defame individuals
that do not agree with their objectives.

Disagree. They report the activities of people whom they feel are
dangerous, or wasteful of people's money, time and hope..If those
people's actions are defamatory, then it is their problem.

They have a huge PR machine

Not acording to Bolen. He claims that it is operated from a
basement.

that could be used for the greater good but, in my opinion, is instead
used to support special interests that is not necessarily in the
public interest.

See above. Exposing quackery is in the public interest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agreed

http://www.wholisticresearch.com/inf....php3?artid=20


That is not to say that there are not people and therapies that may
belong on their list. But the motives, methods, and selective
reporting is, in my opinion, quite destructive

Your brush is very broad.