Psychotropic Drugs Perfect Killing Machine ... MUST READ

"carole" wrote in
ond.com:

Or ....or .....?
They run to mexico because they are free to practice real medicine
which isn't allowed in the US.

Let's see their patients who really had a medically diagnosed cancer (I
know of court cases where the charlatans have told investigators who had
a clean health bill that they were full of cancer or HIV, so their word
alone is not enough, obviously) and who were cured by their treaments
alone, carole.

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

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

On 9/10/10 11:55 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
. 16.121...
wrote in
news
"Outlawing books that tell me how to heal myself (such as Stale Food
Versus Fresh Food) is racketeering activity. What the medical
gangsters have done to Rife, Hoxsey, Gerson, Ivy, Durovic,
Privitera, Krebs, Koch, Crane, Warner, Keller, Ghadiali, Beard,
Taylor, Wright, Brodie, Naessens, Burzynski, Halstead, Richardson,
Thurston, Pixley, Bolles and many others are great crimes, nearly
invariably done in the name of "protecting the public." "

Let's take a look of those "heroes" then. Rife's been already dealt
with previously, so I won't post about him again.

Hoxsey's herbal treatments include a paste of antimony, zinc and
bloodroot, arsenic, sulfur, and talc for external treatments. There
is also a liquid tonic of licorice, red clover, burdock root,
Stillingia root, barberry, Cascara, prickly ash bark, buckthorn bark,
and potassium iodide to be taken internally.

The paste is very caustic and can burn or scar the skin. The liquid
tonic can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, anxiety, trembling,
abdominal cramps and heart block. Moreover, red clover mimics
estrogen, and would never be suitable for women with
estrogen-responsive breast tumors. None of those have a known effect
against cancer, and it's a matter of record that Hoxey himself died
of the cancer his treatment failed to cure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxsey_Therapy

As noted previously, wikipedia isn't very reliable for anything that
concerns establishment policy.

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

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

You're showing us right now. "Corrupt" is a great adjective to describe
your unthinking support of Hoxley.

The current policy is to support pharmaceutical treatments, which has
been going on for a long time as there is big money involved.
If you want to get the real story you need to read other sources such
as http://www.ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm#hoxsey and reviews at
http://www.amazon.com/When-Healing-Becomes-Crime-
Alternative/dp/0892819
251

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

Well unfortunately, you can't tell the difference.

He can. You can't.

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

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

You just don't get it do you?

He does get it! Hoxley died of cancer. Hewas a thief and a murderer,
with his treatments.

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

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

He gets it. He understands what your doing, which is making a fool out
of yourself supporting a Hoxley. Hoxley was a charleton who sold snake oil.

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

Tu quoque fallacy.

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

You're joking right?

Considering the 80% of kids who get cancer and get cured, he's not joking.

Chemotherapy works to save lives.

Hoxley's treatment doesn't. He was theif and a murderer with his treatment.


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

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

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

Nice personal attack. Too bad you can't back your statements with facts
that show Hoxley was correct.

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

And chemo is what?
And costs how much?

Chemo is a therapy that has been proven to save lives. It costs several
thousand dollars, which is small compared to its benefit.

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

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


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

Not interested thankyou.

You are too dumb to deal with.

In other words, you can't support what you say, so it is it is
steelclaw's and my fault. Good try. It's not working.

Jeff

carole
www.conspiracee.com

On 9/10/10 12:09 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/9/10 10:04 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
. 16.121...
wrote in
nd.com:


"Outlawing books that tell me how to heal myself (such as Stale Food
Versus Fresh Food) is racketeering activity. What the medical
gangsters have done to Rife, Hoxsey, Gerson, Ivy, Durovic, Privitera,
Krebs, Koch, Crane, Warner, Keller, Ghadiali, Beard, Taylor, Wright,
Brodie, Naessens, Burzynski, Halstead, Richardson, Thurston, Pixley,
Bolles and many others are great crimes, nearly invariably done in the
name of "protecting the public." "

Let's take a look of those "heroes" then. Rife's been already dealt with
previously, so I won't post about him again.

Hoxsey's herbal treatments include a paste of antimony, zinc and
bloodroot, arsenic, sulfur, and talc for external treatments. There is
also a liquid tonic of licorice, red clover, burdock root, Stillingia
root, barberry, Cascara, prickly ash bark, buckthorn bark, and potassium
iodide to be taken internally.

The paste is very caustic and can burn or scar the skin. The liquid
tonic can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, anxiety, trembling,
abdominal cramps and heart block. Moreover, red clover mimics estrogen,
and would never be suitable for women with estrogen-responsive breast
tumors. None of those have a known effect against cancer, and it's a
matter of record that Hoxey himself died of the cancer his treatment
failed to cure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxsey_Therapy

As noted previously, wikipedia isn't very reliable for anything that
concerns establishment policy.
The current policy is to support pharmaceutical treatments, which has
been
going on for a long time as there is big money involved.

The current treatments have also been shown to work clinically.

They had to do a little adjusting of the data, and rule out some outliers,
and fudge a little here and there, but they got the conclusion they wanted.

Prove it.

People get the conclusion they want: Better treatment that works.

And lives improved and saved.

If you want to get the real story you need to read other sources such as
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm#hoxsey and reviews at
http://www.amazon.com/When-Healing-B.../dp/0892819251

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

What other sources? References and evidence that it works, please.

I'm sure you know how to use a search engine dr not doc.
All those years of studying pharmaceutical drugs must have given you some
search skills.

So, you can't back up your claims and it's my fault. Nice try. It's not
working.

Alternative medicine really means unproven medicine. This certainly is the
case with the Hoxley treatment.

And that's what they taught you in not med school, right?
Sorry mate, its a bit sad really.
But then they have their profit base to protect you know.

That's the definition of alternative medicine. If you don't like it
tough. But that's the way it is.

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

They work by killing cancerous cells. And, they have proven tract records.
Modern medicine (including surgery) cures about 80% of kids with cancer.

The old allopathic method, huh?

Yes. It works, unlike alternative medicine.

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

You've got the wrong words in the last sentence: "cures" is inappropriate
because those treatments don't work; competition is also inappropriate - a
better phrase would be "unproven treatments that don't work and waste
people's time and resources."

No of course they don't dr not doc.

I am glad you're getting the idea that alternative medicine doesn't work.

You just keep believing that, wouldn't want to rock your little world too
much would we?

I would love to find new therapies that really work. Unfortunately,
alternative medicine rarely delivers them.

My world doesn't depend on selling unproven treatments (no better than
snake oil really) as does alternetive medicine. People in alternative
medicine do what they do because they are making a profit.

So get real.

Jeff

carole
www.conspiracee.com

On 9/10/10 3:18 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/9/10 10:28 AM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:58:28 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:






No, this ng is concerned with the uselessness and dangers of drugs,
merely
to counter all the pharmaceutical apologists that populate it.

It isn't up to you to decide that Carole. The users themselves make
the decision by participation.

Peter b said "No Carole, there is nothing in the charter about
discussion
of
dangers of pharmaceutical drugs. You just like to add things which
are unnecessary or inflammatory, don't you?"

Which is true, the red herrings you toss in to discussions are
designed to do exactly what?

Read what you wrote before my response, moron.



There are only about 1 or 2 real alties in the group, the vast
majority
being pro pharmaceutical.

Well I happen to be pro-truth. and pro-evidence.

That's all very nice bob, but what happens when the evidence is stolen
or
otherwise goes missing?

What evidence are you talking about, Carole. you mean the stuff you
keep calling suppressed which can be found by the hundreds of books
and web sites?

Remember rummy's quote - There are things we know we know, things we know
we
don't know, and things we don't know that we don't know.
These books would fall into the "things we know we don't know" category.
ie
the knowledge is there but the practise of it is suppressed.
They DDT it with propaganda, and exile the treatments to mexico then do
writeups in conventional sources to say it didn't work.

Did it ever occur to you that these treatments don't work? There is no big
conspiracy. The knowledge is not there. The only thing that is there is
ignorance - you're a great example of that.

There is probability and possibility.
I'd say the treatments did work and somebody didn't like competition.

You can say that you're smart, too. But that doesn't make it so.

Prove the treatments work.

Really Carole? You don't have a clue. Evidence which is missing will
stand out like a glaring red light, just because it is missing. Like
a line of prose with a word missing, the Evidence tells a story, the
missing evidence will be just like the missing word. One need not
make up through speculation and conspiracy wishes missing evidence..

There are intelligence agencies which run around the world finding and
confiscating evidence of anything that is to be kept from the public, for
whatever contrived reason that best fits with plausible deniability, ie
"concern for the public good", "making the world a safer place",
"national
security" ...take your pick.

More conspiracy theory. What a piece of work!

Yet you claim to be a skeptic and reduce everything to your own dumbed-down
level.
What an irony!

In other words, you can't support your claims, but somehow your lack of
evidence is because I am stupid?

You're a joke, at best.

Do you really think you are in a position to understand how the system
works?

I am in a far better position than you, are Carole, because I can
understand what I read. I understand the evidence and the
technicalities and the "Jargon" as you call it often which is the
Precision of the Language developed to discuss the evidence.

No, I don't think you're in a better position unfortunately because as a
skeptic you look for any reasons to discredit anything that doesn't fit
in
with the status quo.
You are a "yes" man posing as an independent thinker.

What you're missing is that there is no evidence that the treatment works.
There is no conspiracy. There is nothing to discredit because it doesn't
work. There is nothing to cover up.

If the evidence is confiscated it wouldn't be there either, dingbat!

Nice conspiracy theory. Smart people aren't buying it.

I hope you don't thing you are an independent thinker - you're not a
thinker at all. You're a front for alternative medicine. Look at the
stupid web page you advertise.

I am an INTJ (myer briggs type test).


"Outlawing books that tell me how to heal myself (such as Stale Food
Versus
Fresh Food) is racketeering activity.

Fallacy, you haven't shown books actually tell you how to heal
yourself.

What the medical gangsters have done
to Rife, Hoxsey, Gerson, Ivy, Durovic, Privitera, Krebs, Koch, Crane,

Sorry We already debunk the claims to show that Rife's story isn't
how you and others presented it Carole.

You really need to ditch your skeptic dictionary bob.
"Debunking" ...what does that tell us?
That you (as a skeptic) have decided using your little (inadequate)
processes that some therapy or theory isn't valid.

You have yet to show it is valid. All you say is that people are out to
get you or the treatment. You have yet to show valid clinical data that
the treatment works or to reference any valid evidence.

You live in a small world dr no doc.

In other words, you can't support your claims, so the best you can do is
insult me.

I get it. So do thinking people.

Warner, Keller, Ghadiali, Beard, Taylor, Wright, Brodie, Naessens,
Burzynski, Halstead, Richardson, Thurston, Pixley, Bolles and many
others
are great crimes, nearly invariably done in the name of "protecting the
public." "

Who are you citing about, Carole. and many of those people you claim
as visionaries were crackpots. (Young and Kock)

Take them one by one and I'll look into them.
I'm not going to do the whole list ...one will do for now.
And don't use conventional sources to look them up, or wikipedia, the
establishment approved encyclopedia.



Were is your own evidence about the foot fungus?

That right you have none. and most of what you do post, is basically
nothing but fallacies.

Exactly what I mean bob.
Until you get given evidence, you don't believe anything.

Which is how science works carole. your anecdotal account is called a
story unless backed by evidence. In all things, the burden of proof
is the onus of the claimant.

There are problems with that MO though - the evidence can be confiscated,
there may be reasons such as expense that don't allow satisfactory tests,
or
the science might not agree with conventional thinking, a whole list of
reasons for no evidence - and vice versa. Things WITH evidence may not be
satisfactory for various reasons.

You're looking for a conspiracy where there is none. There is no evidence
that the treatment works. Period.

Not after it has all been confiscated and run out of town, no.

There never was any evidence.

And that's the way they like it.
Ever looked into the high price of pharmaceuticals in the US compared to
other countries?
I wonder why that is dr no doc?

Yeah, I have. It is because of greed. The same greed that alternative
medicine people have. You think they give away their treatments.

The pharmaceutical companies have a right to make a profit, too.

You live in your own little world, and the idea of a bigger picture
where
things are manipulated from high up the food chain doesn't compute with
you.

You do not understand I do see the bigger picture. I understand how
the system works and work with it. It is why I am successful person.

It all depends on your definition of success - different people have
different definitions.

All societies develop systems and methods. What you claim as
conspiracy is just you anto-social behavior.

Oh so you're into playing "blame the victim". Its not the fault of the
corrupt system, its the fault of the person talking about it.

What you're claiming is conspiracy is just your stupidity looking for a
way to believe something where there is no evidence, e.g., alternative
medicine works - there is no evidence that it works. In fact, that is the
definition of alternative medicine. If it were proven medicine, it would
be proven medicine.

In reality, there are two types of medicine:

1) Medicine that works.

2) Medicine that doesn't work. Alternative medicine goes here.

Obviously you've been to dumb down school, where they teach you about the
one and only pharmaceutical cures.

Speaking of dumb down, you need to look at your English.

So, alternative treatments don't work, yet I am dumb because I follow
the evidence.

Sorry, smart people don't buy your argument.

You think that showing some peer reviewed study or some randomed
controlled
clinical study shows the evidence and that the evidence can never be
wrong.

No It could be wrong. when it is wrong it will be shown to be wrong
sooner or later. that reason it will show up wrong sooner or later is
because those test and data should be tested and replicated and if
they are not in agreement then we know something is wrong.

Maybe but in the meantime?

Don't waste time and money on unproven treatments, particularly when there
is no valid scientific reason why they should work.

There's no scientific proof that you have a brain.

Nice personal insult. That's the best you can do.

Do you realize that every time you say something so stupid, you are
showing your true colors?

That's why when you cite a web page which shows the only person which
could even preform the tests or see the results claimed was just one
person, it is self-evidence that something isn't right.

What you don't understand is that there are very few pieces of
scientific
evidence that haven't got a opposing view, or that can't be controlled
or
manipulated.

Sorry, Carole that is your claim, it is up to you to prove it.


carole
www.conspiracee.com


You still haven't proven it.

That you have a brain?
No, it doesn't show.

See what I mean?

You can prove anything, but you blame me. People realize that that's the
best you can do and that you have no argument.

Jeff
carole
www.conspiracee.com



Jeff (dr no doc)

On 9/10/10 3:31 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:28:33 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:


"Bob wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:58:28 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:






No, this ng is concerned with the uselessness and dangers of drugs,
merely
to counter all the pharmaceutical apologists that populate it.

It isn't up to you to decide that Carole. The users themselves make
the decision by participation.

Peter b said "No Carole, there is nothing in the charter about
discussion
of
dangers of pharmaceutical drugs. You just like to add things which
are unnecessary or inflammatory, don't you?"

Which is true, the red herrings you toss in to discussions are
designed to do exactly what?

Read what you wrote before my response, moron.

Did, Carole. And it still is a fallacy none the less. that is what
you do. Remember a Fallacy is a defect in thinking. The continued use
of fallacies is a sign that you are not thinking at all.

Then why do you continue to use them boob?


There are only about 1 or 2 real alties in the group, the vast
majority
being pro pharmaceutical.

Well I happen to be pro-truth. and pro-evidence.

That's all very nice bob, but what happens when the evidence is stolen
or
otherwise goes missing?

What evidence are you talking about, Carole. you mean the stuff you
keep calling suppressed which can be found by the hundreds of books
and web sites?

Remember rummy's quote -

I do, Do you know what he is talking about? I do not believe you do.

No, I don't think you do.

The question was asked if you know what he is talking about. You have
given no evidence that you do.

There are things we know we know, things we know we
don't know, and things we don't know that we don't know.
These books would fall into the "things we know we don't know" category.
ie
the knowledge is there but the practise of it is suppressed.

No it isn't, the practice is well documented. It its mostly all post
hoc claims which fall apart under any testing or examination. You see
there is zero evidence to support any of those alternative claims.

Sorry boob, you've only ever demonstrated abilities to debunk.
this is all you can do

That's idea. There is no evidence to support the claims. Good, so you
must be realizing that the claims are false. That's the idea of
debunking, showing something is false.

They DDT it with propaganda, and exile the treatments to mexico then do
writeups in conventional sources to say it didn't work.

The treatments and the practitioners run to Mexico to escape the
possibility of lawsuit from practices which harm the patients. You
see Carole the Laws in Mexico will no allow people to sue a doctor
for anything. Hell Carole you do not even have to have a medical
degree to hang out your shingle. Even someone as poorly educated as
you are could call themselves a doctor and practice what ever you
wanted to call medicine, Provided you bride the local and federal
police.

Or ....or .....?
They run to mexico because they are free to practice real medicine which
isn't allowed in the US.

Wrong. The people with the unproven treatments run to Mexico because
they are free to sell their alternative medicine, effectively stealing
people's money and murdering them, because they can't get away with it
in the US.

Really Carole? You don't have a clue. Evidence which is missing will
stand out like a glaring red light, just because it is missing. Like
a line of prose with a word missing, the Evidence tells a story, the
missing evidence will be just like the missing word. One need not
make up through speculation and conspiracy wishes missing evidence..

There are intelligence agencies which run around the world finding and
confiscating evidence of anything that is to be kept from the public, for
whatever contrived reason that best fits with plausible deniability, ie
"concern for the public good", "making the world a safer place", "national
security" ...take your pick.

Really and you know this why and how Carole.

I read widely bob, which is something I recommend but unfortunately there
are those who prefer merely to debunk.

Reading something that is false is still reading something that is false.



Do you really think you are in a position to understand how the system
works?

I am in a far better position than you, are Carole, because I can
understand what I read. I understand the evidence and the
technicalities and the "Jargon" as you call it often which is the
Precision of the Language developed to discuss the evidence.

No, I don't think you're in a better position unfortunately because as a
skeptic you look for any reasons to discredit anything that doesn't fit in
with the status quo.

You an poorly education person that can't use logic, or tell the
truth from a lie? You have to be joking, Carole. You don't even know
how the patent office works but you will believe any nonsense someone
tells you because it fit your preconceived notions. Remember how that
line of discussion worked for you. You ended up showing everyone you
were an idiot.

Twisting the truth again bob.
Shame!

Unfortunately, Bob is correct. The fact that you can't back your claims
and your best argument is personal attacks demonstrates that.

You are a "yes" man posing as an independent thinker.

Carole, I am thinker. Thinking is a skill which must be learned. You
have never learn how to think at all. the fact you believe you think
is laughable.

Like peter b, being a "believer".
Yeah, we've heard it all before.

Yet, you have yet to show that you are a thinker. You can't back your
claims, blame that on others and make personal attacks.

"Outlawing books that tell me how to heal myself (such as Stale Food
Versus
Fresh Food) is racketeering activity.

Fallacy, you haven't shown books actually tell you how to heal
yourself.

What the medical gangsters have done
to Rife, Hoxsey, Gerson, Ivy, Durovic, Privitera, Krebs, Koch, Crane,

Sorry We already debunk the claims to show that Rife's story isn't
how you and others presented it Carole.

You really need to ditch your skeptic dictionary bob.
"Debunking" ...what does that tell us?
That you (as a skeptic) have decided using your little (inadequate)
processes that some therapy or theory isn't valid.

No we looked at the evidence the therapy did work as claimed. or the
evidence didn't support the claims at all.

But these guys have been DDT'd bob.
What makes you think there would be e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e to back their claims?

Nothing, because their claims don't make scientific sense, the people
who backed their claims didn't have the ability to do good science, and
the people who believe in them are deluded. The reason why there is no
evidence is that the evidence never was there.

Warner, Keller, Ghadiali, Beard, Taylor, Wright, Brodie, Naessens,
Burzynski, Halstead, Richardson, Thurston, Pixley, Bolles and many
others
are great crimes, nearly invariably done in the name of "protecting the
public." "

Who are you citing about, Carole. and many of those people you claim
as visionaries were crackpots. (Young and Kock)

Take them one by one and I'll look into them.

You do that. Make sure you look into their criminal trials. They
actually harmed people.

Like chemo does?

Gee, tell that to the 80% of kids with cancer who are cured. Or the more
than 50% of adults who get cancer who are cured.

I'm not going to do the whole list ...one will do for now.
And don't use conventional sources to look them up, or wikipedia, the
establishment approved encyclopedia.

You look them up. Look for evidence which supports their claims.

Nah, I've changed my mind.
It doesn't pay to spoon feed some people.

Yeap, you got that one right. We can give you information, but if you
are unable to understand simple things, you won't be able to change your
mind.

Were is your own evidence about the foot fungus?

That right you have none. and most of what you do post, is basically
nothing but fallacies.

Exactly what I mean bob.
Until you get given evidence, you don't believe anything.

Which is how science works carole. your anecdotal account is called a
story unless backed by evidence. In all things, the burden of proof
is the onus of the claimant.

There are problems with that MO though - the evidence can be confiscated,
there may be reasons such as expense that don't allow satisfactory tests,
or
the science might not agree with conventional thinking, a whole list of
reasons for no evidence - and vice versa. Things WITH evidence may not be
satisfactory for various reasons.

Sorry Carole, Missing evidence show up like a sore thumb. The Fact
you have to keep playing the same old broken record of fallacy after
fallacy shows your thinking process is defective from the start.

Really bob?
So you know what all those nazi scientists imported into the US after WWII
have been working on?
Amazing!

Why don't you tell us? And provide evidence to support your claim, too.

You live in your own little world, and the idea of a bigger picture
where
things are manipulated from high up the food chain doesn't compute with
you.

You do not understand I do see the bigger picture. I understand how
the system works and work with it. It is why I am successful person.

It all depends on your definition of success - different people have
different definitions.

And you believe yourself to be a success, but you really are nothing
more than an idiot on the internet.

Well, I think that's for others to say ...ie other than skeptics who merely
wish to debunk.

You speak like debunking bad claims is a bad thing. Debunking bad claims
is a good thing. People need to know that these treatments don't work.

All societies develop systems and methods. What you claim as
conspiracy is just you anto-social behavior.

Oh so you're into playing "blame the victim". Its not the fault of the
corrupt system, its the fault of the person talking about it.

That's your game Carole, Blame the system. Claim suppression, and
call everyone with an education dumbed down because they are smarter
and better educated that you are. Build the lies but you will never
be smart until you start working at it.

But you're into debunking bob ...everything and anything EXCEPT the
establishment policies.
Why is that?

Actually, I have not seen anything that suggest that Bob won't debunk
what you cal the establishment policies. The thing is, modern medicine
is supported with evidence. Alternative medicine isn't.

You think that showing some peer reviewed study or some randomed
controlled
clinical study shows the evidence and that the evidence can never be
wrong.

No It could be wrong. when it is wrong it will be shown to be wrong
sooner or later. that reason it will show up wrong sooner or later is
because those test and data should be tested and replicated and if
they are not in agreement then we know something is wrong.

Maybe but in the meantime?

we Still look at evidence and not stories, Carole.

But bob, the evidence has been confiscated or otherwise made to disappear
before you came on the scene.

Nice conspiracy theory. It doesn't hold up to the light.

Then along comes the skeptic and does what he does and guess what
....debunking, what every good little skeptic does best.

That's the idea. Get rid of the lies, like most of alternative medicine.
Hoxley is a great example of someone whose ideas we would be better off
without.

That's why when you cite a web page which shows the only person which
could even preform the tests or see the results claimed was just one
person, it is self-evidence that something isn't right.

What you don't understand is that there are very few pieces of
scientific
evidence that haven't got a opposing view, or that can't be controlled
or
manipulated.

Sorry, Carole that is your claim, it is up to you to prove it.

And Note: Carole has nothing but empty hands waving in the air.

Yes, I'll prove it with four little words.

"Rule out the impossible"

Whatever.

Jeff

carole
www.conspiracee.com

Bob Officer wrote in
:

But hey, you're an INTJ - not that it ever shows anywhere in your
posts.
Try and educate yourself, "mastermind".

You know I thought a bit about her claim. I know of several places on
the web which have "online" tests. These are not real Myers-Briggs
assessment instruments, but advertise themselves often as
briggs0myers type tests. (Myers-Briggs I have reason to believe is
either trade marked and/or copyright as brand/trade names.) So the
testing web sites call themselves a briggs-myers type test.

There is zero guarantee that whatever Carole took was anywhere near
the real assessment instrument. Some of those test are nothing close
to what a Myers-Briggs Assessment Instrument is in real life.

The real problem is Carole is not sharp enough to even see the
difference between the real MBIA, and some fake shame put up to fool
people into giving up their real names, ages, (Possible Other Stats)
and e-mail addresses.

No, she's not. Judging from her displayed nonexistent critical thinking
ability, utter lack of anything even resembling logic and total lack of
information literacy I'd say she does not have the potential, and that
would show should she ever encounter the real MBIA.

Don't make me laugh... What you've most likely read is other paranoid
kooks and you believe in them because their paranoia feeds yours. Get
professional help.

I suggested it to her.

She won't take it, though.

Its like 1984 and the ministry of truth.
You'll never work it out though.

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

Isn't odd that Carole, the one that uses words imprecisely, would
accuse others of being part of that 'ministry'.

carole has a very visible double standard...

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

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

"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
On 9/10/10 3:18 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/9/10 10:28 AM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:58:28 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:






No, this ng is concerned with the uselessness and dangers of drugs,
merely
to counter all the pharmaceutical apologists that populate it.

It isn't up to you to decide that Carole. The users themselves make
the decision by participation.

Peter b said "No Carole, there is nothing in the charter about
discussion
of
dangers of pharmaceutical drugs. You just like to add things which
are unnecessary or inflammatory, don't you?"

Which is true, the red herrings you toss in to discussions are
designed to do exactly what?

Read what you wrote before my response, moron.



There are only about 1 or 2 real alties in the group, the vast
majority
being pro pharmaceutical.

Well I happen to be pro-truth. and pro-evidence.

That's all very nice bob, but what happens when the evidence is
stolen
or
otherwise goes missing?

What evidence are you talking about, Carole. you mean the stuff you
keep calling suppressed which can be found by the hundreds of books
and web sites?

Remember rummy's quote - There are things we know we know, things we
know
we
don't know, and things we don't know that we don't know.
These books would fall into the "things we know we don't know"
category.
ie
the knowledge is there but the practise of it is suppressed.
They DDT it with propaganda, and exile the treatments to mexico then do
writeups in conventional sources to say it didn't work.

Did it ever occur to you that these treatments don't work? There is no
big
conspiracy. The knowledge is not there. The only thing that is there is
ignorance - you're a great example of that.

There is probability and possibility.
I'd say the treatments did work and somebody didn't like competition.

You can say that you're smart, too. But that doesn't make it so.

Prove the treatments work.

Prove the treatments didn't work.
Prove that the alternative practitioners weren't put out of business to
destroy pharmaceutical competition.

DDT
"A former high official at the NSA (National Security Agency) told me about
a protocol informally dubbed DDT - that old poisonous chemical long-banned
in much of the world. In this application, it stands for Decoy, Distract and
Trash - which is what sophisticated intelligence operatives use to set up
some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and
important, and trash the person or the subject." --stephen greer, disclosure
project

carole
www.conspiracee.com

On 9/11/10 10:32 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/10/10 3:18 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/9/10 10:28 AM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:58:28 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:






No, this ng is concerned with the uselessness and dangers of drugs,
merely
to counter all the pharmaceutical apologists that populate it.

It isn't up to you to decide that Carole. The users themselves make
the decision by participation.

Peter b said "No Carole, there is nothing in the charter about
discussion
of
dangers of pharmaceutical drugs. You just like to add things which
are unnecessary or inflammatory, don't you?"

Which is true, the red herrings you toss in to discussions are
designed to do exactly what?

Read what you wrote before my response, moron.



There are only about 1 or 2 real alties in the group, the vast
majority
being pro pharmaceutical.

Well I happen to be pro-truth. and pro-evidence.

That's all very nice bob, but what happens when the evidence is
stolen
or
otherwise goes missing?

What evidence are you talking about, Carole. you mean the stuff you
keep calling suppressed which can be found by the hundreds of books
and web sites?

Remember rummy's quote - There are things we know we know, things we
know
we
don't know, and things we don't know that we don't know.
These books would fall into the "things we know we don't know"
category.
ie
the knowledge is there but the practise of it is suppressed.
They DDT it with propaganda, and exile the treatments to mexico then do
writeups in conventional sources to say it didn't work.

Did it ever occur to you that these treatments don't work? There is no
big
conspiracy. The knowledge is not there. The only thing that is there is
ignorance - you're a great example of that.

There is probability and possibility.
I'd say the treatments did work and somebody didn't like competition.

You can say that you're smart, too. But that doesn't make it so.

Prove the treatments work.

Prove the treatments didn't work.

It is up to the alternative practitioners to prove that the treatments work.

Prove that the alternative practitioners weren't put out of business to
destroy pharmaceutical competition.

The treatments didn't work. They were put out of business to prevent
them from harming people.

The only conspiracy here is in your mind.

Jeff

DDT
"A former high official at the NSA (National Security Agency) told me about
a protocol informally dubbed DDT - that old poisonous chemical long-banned
in much of the world. In this application, it stands for Decoy, Distract and
Trash - which is what sophisticated intelligence operatives use to set up
some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and
important, and trash the person or the subject." --stephen greer, disclosure
project

carole
www.conspiracee.com

"Bob Officer" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 05:31:11 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:


"Bob Officer" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:28:33 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:


"Bob Officer" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:58:28 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:

No, this ng is concerned with the uselessness and dangers of drugs,
merely
to counter all the pharmaceutical apologists that populate it.

It isn't up to you to decide that Carole. The users themselves make
the decision by participation.

Peter b said "No Carole, there is nothing in the charter about
discussion
of
dangers of pharmaceutical drugs. You just like to add things which
are unnecessary or inflammatory, don't you?"

Which is true, the red herrings you toss in to discussions are
designed to do exactly what?

Read what you wrote before my response, moron.

Did, Carole. And it still is a fallacy none the less. that is what
you do. Remember a Fallacy is a defect in thinking. The continued use
of fallacies is a sign that you are not thinking at all.

Then why do you continue to use them boob?

You are confused again Carole. 1) My name is Bob. 2. It is you who
uses and relies on the fallacies at every turning. You are so
ill0equipted to think you can not even see the defects when you cut
and paste them. These are all logical defects which shows base errors
in your thought process.

What about your logic errors?
And all your ad hominems?


There are only about 1 or 2 real alties in the group, the vast
majority
being pro pharmaceutical.

Well I happen to be pro-truth. and pro-evidence.

That's all very nice bob, but what happens when the evidence is stolen
or
otherwise goes missing?

What evidence are you talking about, Carole. you mean the stuff you
keep calling suppressed which can be found by the hundreds of books
and web sites?

Remember rummy's quote -

I do, Do you know what he is talking about? I do not believe you do.

No, I don't think you do.

I do, Carole. Rummy was not the 1st to use that phrase, by the way.
Rummy's Quote Shows you still can't use the word suppressed in any
way correctly. The information is wide spread and well published, but
still wrong.

Rummy isn't with us any longer, a deposed neocon.
This is all we have left of him that was of any worth.

"There are things we know we know, things we know we don't know, and things
we don't know we don't know."

If rummy didn't make it up, who did?


Just the fact something get into print or is on the web does not make
it true. You have had a major failure of the ability to detect
Bull**** from Factual Information. The key of detecting the truth is
the use of logic. Logic will even show you when you have an
incomplete picture big or small.

Sorry bob, you can't tell **** from clay.


There are things we know we know, things we know we
don't know, and things we don't know that we don't know.
These books would fall into the "things we know we don't know" category.
ie
the knowledge is there but the practise of it is suppressed.

No it isn't, the practice is well documented. It its mostly all post
hoc claims which fall apart under any testing or examination. You see
there is zero evidence to support any of those alternative claims.

Sorry boob, you've only ever demonstrated abilities to debunk.
this is all you can do.

Sorry carole it is impossible to prove a negative. when the claimant
product data and evidence (remember testimonials is not evidence or
data) Then we have something to work on. And remember Carole that the
laws of physics just don't work magically. they are considered
constant.

You've lost your credibility with me bob.
Too many ad hominems for starters, then there is the skeptic things which
merely reduces everything to the lowest common demominator.
ie because there is no evidence no evidence ever existed.

Anybody with the capability to read can find instances where information has
been suppressed and confiscated.
In fact this is the nature of our society ...everything on a "need to know"
basis with those at the top in possession of secrets.
Whether it is in the interest of the people to know becomes immaterial.



They DDT it with propaganda, and exile the treatments to mexico then do
writeups in conventional sources to say it didn't work.

The treatments and the practitioners run to Mexico to escape the
possibility of lawsuit from practices which harm the patients. You
see Carole the Laws in Mexico will no allow people to sue a doctor
for anything. Hell Carole you do not even have to have a medical
degree to hang out your shingle. Even someone as poorly educated as
you are could call themselves a doctor and practice what ever you
wanted to call medicine, Provided you bride the local and federal
police.

Or ....or .....?
They run to mexico because they are free to practice real medicine which
isn't allowed in the US.

The are free to maim people without being stopped. Mexico is a fairly
lawless place. If you go there it is always a gamble of sorts. You
See Carole the courts do not offer any sort of protections to
consumers. IF you go into a store and By Something. it doesn't matter
what is in the bottle. if the product is tainted or adulterated, the
consumer has not right or means to complain or even get their money
back. You want to treat people by sitting them in a room with colored
lights to cure them, Mexico says come on down. Make sure to bribe the
proper authorities and you can do anything you want.

The courts often serve to pervert justice.


Now do you understand why Hulda Clark set up operations in Mexico?
And why Hoxsey went there? Because the laws do not protect the people
at all.

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806)



Really Carole? You don't have a clue. Evidence which is missing will
stand out like a glaring red light, just because it is missing. Like
a line of prose with a word missing, the Evidence tells a story, the
missing evidence will be just like the missing word. One need not
make up through speculation and conspiracy wishes missing evidence..

There are intelligence agencies which run around the world finding and
confiscating evidence of anything that is to be kept from the public,
for
whatever contrived reason that best fits with plausible deniability, ie
"concern for the public good", "making the world a safer place",
"national
security" ...take your pick.

Really and you know this why and how Carole.

I read widely bob, which is something I recommend but unfortunately there
are those who prefer merely to debunk.

Carole, I read far more widely than you do, and have done so far
longer than you, Because I am older than you.

1. You don't know my age
2. Because somebody is older doesn't mean they've read more widely.


IT is one thing to read, and anther to believe. When a article starts
with Fallacies and mis-representation of evidence, then The little
bull**** detectors should start going off.

You just don't get it, do you?


Do you really think you are in a position to understand how the system
works?

I am in a far better position than you, are Carole, because I can
understand what I read. I understand the evidence and the
technicalities and the "Jargon" as you call it often which is the
Precision of the Language developed to discuss the evidence.

No, I don't think you're in a better position unfortunately because as a
skeptic you look for any reasons to discredit anything that doesn't fit
in
with the status quo.

You an poorly education person that can't use logic, or tell the
truth from a lie? You have to be joking, Carole. You don't even know
how the patent office works but you will believe any nonsense someone
tells you because it fit your preconceived notions. Remember how that
line of discussion worked for you. You ended up showing everyone you
were an idiot.

Twisting the truth again bob.
Shame!

No it isn't "twisted" anything at all. It left you looking like an
idiot, Carole, again..

How ****ed is your continual use of ad hominemem while berating me for my
perceived logic errors.


You are a "yes" man posing as an independent thinker.

Carole, I am thinker. Thinking is a skill which must be learned. You
have never learn how to think at all. the fact you believe you think
is laughable.

Like peter b, being a "believer".
Yeah, we've heard it all before.


"Outlawing books that tell me how to heal myself (such as Stale Food
Versus
Fresh Food) is racketeering activity.

Fallacy, you haven't shown books actually tell you how to heal
yourself.

What the medical gangsters have done
to Rife, Hoxsey, Gerson, Ivy, Durovic, Privitera, Krebs, Koch, Crane,

Sorry We already debunk the claims to show that Rife's story isn't
how you and others presented it Carole.

You really need to ditch your skeptic dictionary bob.
"Debunking" ...what does that tell us?
That you (as a skeptic) have decided using your little (inadequate)
processes that some therapy or theory isn't valid.

No we looked at the evidence the therapy did work as claimed. or the
evidence didn't support the claims at all.

But these guys have been DDT'd bob.
What makes you think there would be e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e to back their claims?


Warner, Keller, Ghadiali, Beard, Taylor, Wright, Brodie, Naessens,
Burzynski, Halstead, Richardson, Thurston, Pixley, Bolles and many
others
are great crimes, nearly invariably done in the name of "protecting
the
public." "

Who are you citing about, Carole. and many of those people you claim
as visionaries were crackpots. (Young and Kock)

Take them one by one and I'll look into them.

You do that. Make sure you look into their criminal trials. They
actually harmed people.

Like chemo does?

The benefit verses risk is far better than the Hoxsey hoax of a
treatment.

You know that because ....?
The AMA (corrupt organisation that they are) told you, or your little
skeptic circle (ACAHF) told you?
Ever heard of lies, bob?


I'm not going to do the whole list ...one will do for now.
And don't use conventional sources to look them up, or wikipedia, the
establishment approved encyclopedia.

You look them up. Look for evidence which supports their claims.

Nah, I've changed my mind.
It doesn't pay to spoon feed some people.

Because there is no evidence, Carole. Claims and testimonials are not
the data or evidence.

You really need to ditch that skeptic crap.
As I said before, evidence can be made to disappear quite easily.
On top of that there is the DDT (decoy, distract and trash) used by
intelligence agencies to throw people off something real and serious.

You do know that intelligence agencies do more than protect national
security, I hope.


Were is your own evidence about the foot fungus?

That right you have none. and most of what you do post, is basically
nothing but fallacies.

Exactly what I mean bob.
Until you get given evidence, you don't believe anything.

Which is how science works carole. your anecdotal account is called a
story unless backed by evidence. In all things, the burden of proof
is the onus of the claimant.

There are problems with that MO though - the evidence can be
confiscated,
there may be reasons such as expense that don't allow satisfactory
tests,
or
the science might not agree with conventional thinking, a whole list of
reasons for no evidence - and vice versa. Things WITH evidence may not
be
satisfactory for various reasons.

Sorry Carole, Missing evidence show up like a sore thumb. The Fact
you have to keep playing the same old broken record of fallacy after
fallacy shows your thinking process is defective from the start.

Really bob?
So you know what all those nazi scientists imported into the US after WWII
have been working on?

Those guys are mostly Dead. I knew some of them. Mom worked for the
AEC (now DOE) and then LVNL and LANL. The few that are left alive are
in the late 80's and 90's, Carole. Look around Carole read about
those men. most of them were very old at the end of WW2. How many WW2
vets do you know of which are still alive??

Sure bob. They were imported into the US for their charm and good looks.


Amazing!

Yes, those people were amazing.

You live in your own little world, and the idea of a bigger picture
where
things are manipulated from high up the food chain doesn't compute
with
you.

You do not understand I do see the bigger picture. I understand how
the system works and work with it. It is why I am successful person.

It all depends on your definition of success - different people have
different definitions.

And you believe yourself to be a success, but you really are nothing
more than an idiot on the internet.

Well, I think that's for others to say ...ie other than skeptics who
merely
wish to debunk.

Offer us proof you are anything but an idiot, Carole. Use the logic
you learned in school.

Well we know you are, so why go any further?


All societies develop systems and methods. What you claim as
conspiracy is just you anto-social behavior.

Oh so you're into playing "blame the victim". Its not the fault of the
corrupt system, its the fault of the person talking about it.

That's your game Carole, Blame the system. Claim suppression, and
call everyone with an education dumbed down because they are smarter
and better educated that you are. Build the lies but you will never
be smart until you start working at it.

But you're into debunking bob ...everything and anything EXCEPT the
establishment policies.

What policies? I don't work with policies, Carole. I work with Facts,
figures and evidence. Policies do not enter into my work. Some people
have tried to implement things through declarations by some
authority, but they do not last. In the end Facts, Figures and
Evidence win out every time.

So what you're saying is that you're thick?
We all knew that.


Why is that?

But the rules of applied physics agree with the way things work
Carole. Rife's microscope simple could not work as claimed Because he
couldn't change the rules under which the universe operates. The
funny thing is you were "spoon feed" an almost identical situation,
the account of the N-Rays, and you understood how a person could
simple be wrong and deceive themselves.

You're kidding right?


When observations can not be verified or test redone and get the same
results the odds are the initial observers could have been wrong.
more observations and more tests are done, independently. The results
either verify the observation or test, or don't. Things which
constantly fail the repeated observation test or can not be
reproduced are discounted or discarded. That is not called
suppression, not matter what you say Carole.

Have you ever heard of anti-gravity machines such as UFOs?
Do you think they work by jet force or that they're powered by petrol?


You think that showing some peer reviewed study or some randomed
controlled
clinical study shows the evidence and that the evidence can never be
wrong.

No It could be wrong. when it is wrong it will be shown to be wrong
sooner or later. that reason it will show up wrong sooner or later is
because those test and data should be tested and replicated and if
they are not in agreement then we know something is wrong.

Maybe but in the meantime?

we Still look at evidence and not stories, Carole.

But bob, the evidence has been confiscated or otherwise made to disappear
before you came on the scene.

You mean like Wakefield's evidence. Did you see how that worked
Carole. When he results couldn't be reproduced, people started
actually examines where the test were done and under what conditions
the Samples were taken. He entire claim fell apart.

Anytime evidence is tampered with it is noticeable sooner or later.
That's how fraud works Carole. Lies will not hold up or stand the
test of time. You can't suppress technology or advancement because
discoveries are logical processes built upon someone else's work or
observations.

Not in your case bob, you would never notice missing evidence because you
only know how to debunk.



Then along comes the skeptic and does what he does and guess what
....debunking, what every good little skeptic does best.

I doubt, I question, I look at evidence, facts and figures. I don't
not accept what someone says at face value. Some Things I know from
experience. I usually will accept what at called verified facts from
independent sources.

And you use ad hominems in the same breath as berating somebody for not
using logic.
Double standards I think they call it.


Person "a" in Arizona Observes a new Comet sends a telegram to
Marsden, and gives a location in the sky and time. I get a copy of
the initial discovery via e-mail. I go outside and it is cloudy, but
Person "B" in Hawaii goes outside and verifies the sighting. And then
Person "C" in Japan verifies it, and then Maybe person "J" in Russia
also adds the observation. You see, then I would consider that
Person "a" observation claim, Even when I couldn't verify it myself.

Science works, Carole.

If Marsden decided to suppress the discovery for some reason the odds
are pretty good that some other person would re-discover the Comet.
and there are multiple independent avenues of announcement in the
world.

That's why when you cite a web page which shows the only person which
could even preform the tests or see the results claimed was just one
person, it is self-evidence that something isn't right.

What you don't understand is that there are very few pieces of
scientific
evidence that haven't got a opposing view, or that can't be controlled
or
manipulated.

Sorry, Carole that is your claim, it is up to you to prove it.

And Note: Carole has nothing but empty hands waving in the air.

Yes, I'll prove it with four little words.

"Rule out the impossible"

When one rules out the improbable, what is left? The words improbable
and impossible are different.

I think you should learn to use those words in a more precise
(proper) way.

Rule out the impossible not the improbable.
You can't rule out the improbable.

carole
www.conspiracee.com

dr_jeff wrote:

On 9/10/10 2:22 AM, john wrote:
"Peter wrote in message
...


If these things were suppressed we wouldn't be able to find out about
them. That is why there are no books or web sites about Hoxsey or the
hollow Earth.


********, as usual http://whale.to/a/cancer_c.html

http://whale.to/cancer/hoxsey.html

If the whaleto site, the laughing stock of the internet, thinks it is
good, it must be total rubbish.

I liked the way that my sarcasm whoooooossssshhhhhed straight over
John's head. I'm surprised it wasn't detected and destroyed by his
cloud shooters.


John once again shows us that the author of the whaleto site have no
clue about medicine or science.

A much better site about Hoxsey:
http://quackwatch.org/search/webglim...1&query=hoxsey

Jeff

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter