A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Homeopathy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old December 23rd 06, 10:47 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health
vakker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default The LIES on Peter Bowditch's website


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote :

If what you say in 2006 is correct, it should be easy to
list the lies and point out why each one of them is a lie. But you
can't do either.


--
Peter Bowditch


I asked for a list of lies and reasons. As minimum, each member of
the list should consists of three parts - the URL of the page with the
lie on it, the words of the lie, the explanation of why the words
constitute a lie.


WE ASKED FOR RECEIPTS. LET'S SEE WHAT WE GOT............

$0.00 THAT'S WHAT.

PETER BOWDITCH DOESN'T OR CAN'T PROVIDE RECEIPTS FOR HIS OWN CHARITABLE
FOUNDATION. HE
ALSO WANTS OTHER GULLIBLE FOOLS TO DONATE THERE DESPITE THE FACT IT'S A DEAD
WEBSITE AND FOUNDATION AND HASN'T DONE NOTHING FOR YEARS!!!! NOBODY KNOWS
WHERE THE DONATIONS GOES??????? NEAT EHHHH????






Let's see what we got.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....a06ffcbf2c9ee8


That doesn't seem to be a URL which references anything on my web
site. In fact, the contents of that page are reproduced below. As that
URL belongs to Google, perhaps Jan is going to accuse Google of lying.
(Why not? She has accused just about everyone else.)


Apr 11 2006


Note that date. It will become important later.


[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html


ADHD prescribed 'without checks'


snip the contents of the page linked to above, because all of it is
reproduced in my reply below



http://groups.google.com/group/misc....c1626ebac3a6e7

Jan Drew" wrote:
[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]


Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong.



http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html



ADHD prescribed 'without checks'



HUNDREDS of Queensland children may have been wrongly diagnosed with ADHD
and put on courses of potentially harmful prescription drugs by a
psychologist who did not perform proper checks for several years.




Hmmm. I wonder what those words "may have" mean.



But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed
by
the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite
adverse
findings about her conduct.
A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action
has
been taken will not be recorded in the board's register."




What disciplinary action could be taken, Jan? Have you any idea how
difficult it can be for a body like the Queensland Board of
Psychologists to do anything?



The board's decision to conceal the action and leave hundreds of parents
unaware of Ms McHugh's flawed diagnostic procedures has angered health
and
education experts.



As it should.



They told The Courier-Mail they were concerned that children remain on
the
controversial drugs Ritalin and dexamphetamines for Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder despite never having
suffered the underlying conditions.



Yes, if the kids don't have the underlying conditions they should not
be getting the medications.



Board documents obtained by The Courier-Mail show Ms McHugh, who has been
a
leader in the assessment of children in Ipswich since the 1990s,
routinely
recommended psycho-stimulant medication despite having no medical
training.



She is a psychologist. That word means that she has no "medical
training", in the formal sense of having attended medical school.



Many of Ms McHugh's young patients have been referred to an Ipswich
pediatrician, Dr Malcolm Miller, who prescribes the drugs.


He yesterday mounted a strenuous defence of Ms McHugh, describing her as
a
highly respected professional.




He would say that, wouldn't he? (Do you remember Christine Keeler,
Jan?)



Ms McHugh, whose solicitor John Sneddon also strenuously defended her
conduct, was notified two months ago by the board's disciplinary
committee
that she had "demonstrated incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge,
skill, judgment or care".


She was found to have consistently used unacceptable diagnostic criteria
to
assess youngsters brought to her Wharf St, Ipswich practice by
stressed-out
parents frustrated by their children's behaviour.



But instead of a rigorous and comprehensive process to check if the
children
were experiencing difficulties because of problems at home or elsewhere,
Ms
McHugh, in most cases diagnosed ADHD or ADD, according to senior sources.




So she had a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which is always a bad
thing. (I am told, however, that this is OK if the diagnosis is autism
and the treatment is chelation. But I digress ...)



The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that
rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed
and
placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians.



A "controversial and ongoing debate" which is being driven by
anti-psychiatry oufits like Scientology's CCHR and other
Ritalin-haters.



The children who are patients of Ms McHugh live in the Oxley federal
electorate, which has Queensland's highest rate of prescriptions for
dexamphetamines and the 15th-highest rate in Australia, according to a
November 2004 Federal Parliament research paper.



How many electorates are there, Jan? I want to put the "15th-highest"
into context.



Two Brisbane psychologists, Keira Roffey-Mitchell and Trish Chandra, who
made a detailed complaint to the board about Ms McHugh, are regarded by
independent sources as highly qualified in ADD and ADHD. Both declined to
comment to The Courier-Mail.



These are the goodies, Jan. Congratulate them. "Organised psychology"
is concerned about Ms McHugh. Unfortunately, they are also a part of
"organised belief in ADHD", so you probably won't accept them.



Senior sources said Education Queensland, which schools about 80 per cent
of
the estimated 30,000 children in the Ipswich area, and Brisbane Catholic
Education were concerned about Ms McHugh's conduct and backed the
complaint
to the board.



"Organised education" is concerned about Ms McHugh, as they should be.



"We believe Ms McHugh's professional practice does not operate in the
best
interests of the children and in fact could be detrimental to them," the
complaint states.


It sets out how Ms McHugh had been relying heavily on an IQ test, known
as
WISC III, to diagnose the disorders despite this test being
internationally
renowned as "one of the worst measures" a psychologist could use.



The board appointed an expert to investigate the complaint and
participate
in a closed-door hearing late last year.



Board executive officer Jim O'Dempsey said legislation "prohibits the
board
from public identification or specific comment on complainants,
respondents
or decisions relating to complaints, investigation or disciplinary action
unless the matter is heard in public before the Health Practitioners
Tribunal".




So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything.



ADHD Association of Queensland president Steve Dossel, who had no
knowledge
of the case, said: " The parents should have been advised to seek a
further
assessment. I would hope that the parents of children, where there is any
doubt about a diagnosis, seek another assessment."



Good advice. "Organised belief in ADHD" is concerned about Ms McHugh.
--
Peter Bowditch


And here is Jan coming back. You will notice that she identifies no
lies. Even if she did, this is a Usenet message, not anything on my
web site.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....adc603ed4bf1f7

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message


. ..



"Jan Drew" wrote:


[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]



Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong.




Impossible...I have never said *that* before....


Remember the date - April 11. Note how Jan has removed it from her
reply. Keep remembering it, because it will become important later.




http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html



ADHD prescribed 'without checks'



HUNDREDS of Queensland children may have been wrongly diagnosed with
ADHD
and put on courses of potentially harmful prescription drugs by a
psychologist who did not perform proper checks for several years.



Hmmm. I wonder what those words "may have" mean.




Hmmm. You better stop reading.



But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed
by
the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite
adverse
findings about her conduct.
A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action
has
been taken will not be recorded in the board's register."




Did you notice the word *concealed*? You DO know what that means, don't
you, Peter? Despite the *adverse findings about her conduct.* You DO
understand
*that*, do you NOT, Peter?



What disciplinary action could be taken, Jan?



This is NOT a quiz for *me*, Peter. Just read the FACTS!


Have you any idea how



difficult it can be for a body like the Queensland Board of
Psychologists to do anything?



I do NOT live there, you DO.


Now hurry and put up a page on your website ALL about these DESPICABLE
ACTS
CONCERNING THESE CHILDREN!



The board's decision to conceal the action and leave hundreds of parents
unaware of Ms McHugh's flawed diagnostic procedures has angered health
and
education experts.



As it should.



They told The Courier-Mail they were concerned that children remain on
the
controversial drugs Ritalin and dexamphetamines for Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder despite never
having
suffered the underlying conditions.



Yes, if the kids don't have the underlying conditions they should not
be getting the medications.




So why did you ask what *may have* means?



Board documents obtained by The Courier-Mail show Ms McHugh, who has
been
a
leader in the assessment of children in Ipswich since the 1990s,
routinely
recommended psycho-stimulant medication despite having no medical
training.



She is a psychologist. That word means that she has no "medical
training", in the formal sense of having attended medical school.



Many of Ms McHugh's young patients have been referred to an Ipswich
pediatrician, Dr Malcolm Miller, who prescribes the drugs.



He yesterday mounted a strenuous defence of Ms McHugh, describing her as
a
highly respected professional.



He would say that, wouldn't he? (Do you remember Christine Keeler,
Jan?)


I know it's a bit late, but it was Mandy Rice Davies who uttered the
immortal words, not Christine Keeler. It didn't matter, because Jan
had obviously never heard of either of the ladies or of the famous
saying. You can see that from the fact that she called it a diversion.




I am very aware of your D I V E R S I O N S.......


AND


EFFORTS TO TRASH.....


Now...back to the subject.



Ms McHugh, whose solicitor John Sneddon also strenuously defended her
conduct, was notified two months ago by the board's disciplinary
committee
that she had "demonstrated incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge,
skill, judgment or care".



She was found to have consistently used unacceptable diagnostic criteria
to
assess youngsters brought to her Wharf St, Ipswich practice by
stressed-out
parents frustrated by their children's behaviour.



But instead of a rigorous and comprehensive process to check if the
children
were experiencing difficulties because of problems at home or elsewhere,
Ms
McHugh, in most cases diagnosed ADHD or ADD, according to senior
sources.



So she had a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which is always a bad
thing. (I am told, however, that this is OK if the diagnosis is autism
and the treatment is chelation. But I digress ...)




Actually you are making excuses and diverting, and I greatly doubt that
you
have been told any such thing. This is an example of how you write LIES on
your
SICK LYING WEBSITES.


You will notice how Jan has accused me of lying in a Usenet message
(which I hadn't done) and uses that as evidence that there are lies on
my web site.

List the lies on the site, Jan. can't do it? I didn't think so.




The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that
rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed
and
placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians.



A "controversial and ongoing debate" which is being driven by
anti-psychiatry oufits like Scientology's CCHR and other
Ritalin-haters.




WRONG. That is a SCAPE GOAT AND A LIE.


Perhaps Jan should look up a book to find out what a "scape goat" is.
I wonder if she could guess what book that would be. She might even
find out how the term has absolutely nothing to do with the very
well-known fact that Scientology and its front group CCHR are opposed
to psychiatry. CCHR will rear its ugly head later in this story.



The FACTS are as told EXACTLY as stated:


The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that
****rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly
diagnosed******


**** and placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and
pediatricians.******



The children who are patients of Ms McHugh live in the Oxley federal
electorate, which has Queensland's highest rate of prescriptions for
dexamphetamines and the 15th-highest rate in Australia, according to a
November 2004 Federal Parliament research paper.



How many electorates are there, Jan? I want to put the "15th-highest"
into context.




Do you consult *me* to help you put things in to context?


No, if something is the 15th biggest, it helps to know how many in the
total. If there are only 15, for example, it means smallest.




Two Brisbane psychologists, Keira Roffey-Mitchell and Trish Chandra, who
made a detailed complaint to the board about Ms McHugh, are regarded by
independent sources as highly qualified in ADD and ADHD. Both declined
to
comment to The Courier-Mail.



These are the goodies, Jan. Congratulate them. "Organised psychology"
is concerned about Ms McHugh. Unfortunately, they are also a part of
"organised belief in ADHD", so you probably won't accept them.




This is NOT about *me*.......



Senior sources said Education Queensland, which schools about 80 per
cent
of
the estimated 30,000 children in the Ipswich area, and Brisbane Catholic
Education were concerned about Ms McHugh's conduct and backed the
complaint
to the board.



"Organised education" is concerned about Ms McHugh, as they should be.



"We believe Ms McHugh's professional practice does not operate in the
best
interests of the children and in fact could be detrimental to them," the
complaint states.



It sets out how Ms McHugh had been relying heavily on an IQ test, known
as
WISC III, to diagnose the disorders despite this test being
internationally
renowned as "one of the worst measures" a psychologist could use.



The board appointed an expert to investigate the complaint and
participate
in a closed-door hearing late last year.



Board executive officer Jim O'Dempsey said legislation "prohibits the
board
from public identification or specific comment on complainants,
respondents
or decisions relating to complaints, investigation or disciplinary
action
unless the matter is heard in public before the Health Practitioners
Tribunal".



So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything.




WHAT can YOU do to change this????????


Are YOU in favor of keeping dirty little secrets....from the PARENTS
and the PUBLIC.....at the cost of CHILDREN?!?!?!


You just say.....


So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything.


To protect *ORGANIZED ADHD*


Organised ADHD??




ADHD Association of Queensland president Steve Dossel, who had no
knowledge
of the case, said: " The parents should have been advised to seek a
further
assessment. I would hope that the parents of children, where there is
any
doubt about a diagnosis, seek another assessment."



Good advice. "Organised belief in ADHD" is concerned about Ms McHugh.




WHO is at FAULT?!?!


NOT.....


Scientology's CCHR and other Ritalin-haters.


******But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being
concealed by
the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite
adverse
findings about her conduct.
A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action has
been taken will not be recorded in the board's register."********


--
Peter Bowditch


No lies on web sites yet. Let's continue.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....aabd2d2485880a

Jan Drew" wrote:

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Jan Drew" wrote:



"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
om...
"Jan Drew" wrote:



[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]



Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong.



Impossible...I have never said *that* before....



No, the words you used were "[Let Us See IF Peter Bowditch Puts This
On His Website?]" in a message headed "Families Called on to Join
Class Acton On ADHD Drug- Ritilan" posted on March 30, 2006.



I know you didn't use the exact same electrons, but you did say that
something wouldn't appear on my site. But it did.



Yes, I already addressed those LIES!


See Jan admitting that, in fact, she had challenged me to put
something on my site on a previous occasion, despite saying
"Impossible...I have never said *that* before....". If I were to be
uncharitable I might call that lying. But I'm not.




What LIES, Jan? You said I wouldn't talk about something on my site. I
talked about it on my site. How has this got anything to do with LIES?
Unless you are saying that the original article that you said I
wouldn't comment on was LIES. If it was, why did you post it here?


Even then I was trying to get Jan to point out some lies on the web
site, but all she seemed to be able to do was rant about a Usenet
message.


snip stuff which made sense before Jan started random snipping
--
Peter Bowditch


Still no web site lies. On we go.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....3d23c387fe6e89

How do you feel about the Catholic Church, Carole? Have you ever
wondered how an organisation could have such strong supporters on the
one hand and stand up for what was so good and right with their St
Vincent de Paul organisation and their social justice work, yet be so
maligned on the other?
--
Peter Bowditch

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....8c563945e607a7

Peter Bowditch diverted to:


Catholic Church


snip


This thread is NOT about the about....


[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....d227f7769fb0e3

I'm sorry that you didn't understand the analogy and had to snip it,
Jan.


Met any good Scientologists lately? Have you asked them if they still
think that Jesus was a pedophile?



snip



This thread is NOT about the about....



[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]




As I said, Jan, when you said this one before about another matter,
you were wrong.


In any case, why should this appear on my web site? My web site is not
about "organised medicine" catching the bad apples. In fact, when I
wrote about "organised medicine" chasing killer Dr Patel you accused
me of supporting him. Maybe you didn't, but who can tell with the way
you rant. In any case, you did not accept that my criticism of him was
criticism of him.


snip stuff which I have answered before about a psychologist who
should be run out of town on a rail

Peter Bowditch

~~~~~~~

Now let us compare that to wrote Peter wrote on his webite.


Ahh! At last we get to something on my web site.


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...l.htm#1ritalin

Updates made to The Millenium Project in April 2006

The sky is falling! Children are being drugged! (1/4/2006}


But, but, but - that date is April 1, so how could it have anything
to do with something published on April 11. All of the stuff above was
Jan complaining about how I wouldn't post something, but now she
points to something ten days earlier for some reason or other.

Now she has actually got to the web site, let's see her list the lies
and provide an explanation.


I was challenged during the week by someone who stated that a story in the
newspaper would not be reported here because of the immensely damaging
information it contained about the second-most evil and dangerous chemical
ever made, Ritalin. (The most dangerous is, of course, mercury, with
Prozac,
aspartame and fluoride closing in along the straight.) The horror story
that
I would be too afraid to tell is that a politician, well known as an
anti-Ritalin loon, has said that he is trying to round up participants for
a
class action against the makers and distributor of the drug. That's it.
That's the story. Someone is trying to organise a court action, but no
parties are yet involved, no court papers have been filed, and nothing has
happened. I can only imagine that someone at the newspaper will be
disciplined for not selling enough advertising and leaving a blank space
which had to be filled with drivel.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

Two major matters of concern are associated with this non story. The first
is that last week 14 kids aged around 13 or 14 at a school in Queensland
(as
far as you can get from the politician in question and still be in
Australia) managed to get their hands on some Ritalin which was not
prescribed for them and administered it to themselves using a delivery
method which is not how it is supposed to be taken. They all ended up in
hospital and local politicians are making noises about attacking drug
abuse.
It is drug abuse to consume drugs not prescribed for you in order to get
an
effect which the drugs do not give if taken according to directions, but
this means nothing to the anti-Ritalin loons. The drug was taken, there
was
harm, the drug is bad. Four legs good, two legs bad. I pointed out that it
was almost inevitable that 14 kids of that age had abused acetaminophen
somewhere in Australia during the week (many ending up in hospital) and an
absolute certainty that that number of kids had abused both nicotine and
alcohol (although the hospital visits for these may be deferred for some
time), but there are no calls for the banning of these drugs. Just
Ritalin,
because, as everyone knows, there is no such thing as ADHD and the
condition
was only invented to allow the sales of this dangerous, unproven drug.
(Methylphenidate was patented in 1954, so it is a matter of some interest
both why anyone bothered to research and patent a treatment for a
non-existent condition (CIBA-Geigy isn't a quackery potion manufacturer,
who
do this all the time), and who has been taking it for the last fifty years
other than the millions of kids who have benefited.)


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

The second major concern was that prescriptions for Ritalin had increased
"tenfold" since it was accepted into the Australian Pharmaceutical
Benefits
Scheme and therefore made affordable. I'm not quite sure where the
"tenfold"
comes from, because the latest figures available from the PBS for
prescriptions written in Australia are for the year ending June 30, 2005,
and Ritalin was not added to the scheme until August the same year. It is
worth noting here that the hundredth most prescribed drug in Australia up
until June 2005 accounted for 404,000 prescriptions during the year.
Another relevant statistic is that according to the Australian Bureau of
Statistics, there are about 276,000 people in the country who are aged 18
or
less.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

So how big is the Ritalin epidemic? Well, according to the opponents,
there
were 523 prescriptions written in August 2005 and "more than 5800" in
January 2006. (I love the "more than". It suggests extreme accuracy in
reporting.) The first thing I did was point out that this was an
elevenfold
increase, and, according to the rules set by the person telling the story
any deviation from absolute fact is a lie and there are no such things as
mistakes, therefore the person claiming a "tenfold" increase was lying.
(You
might think I am joking or exaggerating here. This person accused me of
lying for saying that Hulda Clark sued me for damaging sales of her books.
When I replied that a publishing company whose only products were books
had
sued me for damaging sales of its products and therefore books, I was told
to point to where the word "books" appeared in the lawsuit. Bizarre, I
know,
but true.) An exception was immediately made in this case (as it would
have
to be, because the person making the claim opposed Ritalin).


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

But back to the epidemic. There are about 276,000 people aged 18 or less
in
the country and less than 6,000 people taking Ritalin in total. If all of
those pill poppers were under 19 it would be 2%. Let's allow the number of
monthly prescriptions to rise to 6,000, giving 72,000 per year. This is a
very long way from the top 100 most prescribed drugs in the country (one
of
which is aspirin, which, as any alternaut knows, is never recommended for
anything because it can't be patented and nobody can make money out of
it).


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

So, we have a drug which used to be expensive but is now subsidised,
inevitably leading to an increase in both prescribing and consumption. The
huge increase in prescriptions is only huge when compared to a very low
starting point, but in relative terms compared to other prescription drugs
it isn't even a ripple on the pond. Kids who can benefit from the drug are
more likely to get it because their parents can now afford to pay for it.
Action is being taken to control abuse, but even before that action it is
still far less abused than some quite dangerous over-the-counter
medications. Everything seems to be good. Unless you think that sick
children don't need medication. But why would anyone want to deprive kids
of
effective treatment? I don't know the answer to that. I don't think that
there is an answer which would satisfy anyone who is concerned about
children and their welfare.


Not a single lie identified. What Jan forgot to quote from that page,
however, was where I scooped the mainstream media by identifying the
source of the newspaper article which Jan referred to (and said I
wouldn't comment on).

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...l.htm#8ritalin

Ritalin follow-up (8/4/2006)

I mentioned last week that hysteria had broken out in Australia
because kids who might benefit from the drug Ritalin would have
better access now that it is being subsidised by the Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme. The original beat-up story in the paper told horror
tales about adverse events arising following taking the drug, but the
paper forgot to mention that the main source of information for the
story was a branch of Scientology, the Citizen's Commission on Human
Rights. (CCHR won the Anus Maximus Award in 2003. Read about it here.)
They did mention CCHR, but the cloudy ancestry of the outfit was swept
under the carpet. It is amazing to see how people who would normally
reject Scientology outright as either a dangerous cult or, when
considering Tom Cruise's antics, as a font of hilarity, suddenly start
taking the cult seriously when it agrees with them.

When I first noticed this phenomenon I went looking for the origin of
the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Remarkably, the first
place I found it was on the web site of anti-psychiatrist Thomas
Szasz, where he used it to justify going into business with
Scientology to establish CCHR. (In one wonderful moment of bizarrity,
some alternative medicine believer once called me a liar for saying
that Szasz had ever used those words and defied me to produce evidence
of my claim. I referred to where the words appeared on Szasz's own web
site and was told that that was not good enough!) One of the most
ferocious anti-Ritalin and anti-medication campaigners I have come
across has told people that anything I say can be disregarded because
I am an atheist (my pointing out that I am an ordained minister of a
church did not earn me any credit) and, in fact, only Christians (and
then only some subset of Christians) can be trusted to tell the truth
about anything. Whenever this abuse of religion is brought into the
argument I make a point of quoting L. Ron Hubbard, writing in the
secret OT VIII documents.

"For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me
take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For
instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has
been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and
men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that
belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical
Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired
to see where it all inevitably leads. It is historic fact and yet man
still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious is the biologic
implanting".

I always like to remind Jan of Hubbard's opinion of Jesus.


~~~~~~

More lies after this on the same page:


As no lies have been identified yet, it is a bit premature to say
"more", but let's keep pressing on.


You might wonder what all this has to do with the matters of interest to
The
Millenium Project, but this week I fell into a conversation which would
make
Ionesco look like a jingle writer for McDonalds when it came to
measurements
on the weirdness scale.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

The 1931 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Dr Otto
Warburg for, as it says on the Nobel site, "his discovery of the nature
and
mode of action of the respiratory enzyme". It was thought at the time, by
Dr
Warburg and others, that his work might have some application to the
treatment of cancer, but that was not to be and research in this area
withered away and was finally abandoned. To believers in alternative
medicine, however, this must mean that Warburg's ideas have been
suppressed,
and a mythology has been created around him. One piece of mythology is
that
he was "voted" a second Nobel Prize in 1944. Pointing out to alternauts
that
nobody is "voted" a Nobel Prize who does not then go on to "win" the prize
had me being accused of lying. I have told the objectors that they should
write to the relevant Nobel committee and point out that there is a
mistake
on the Nobel web site because it says that the 1944 Medicine prize went to
Joseph Erlanger and Herbert S. Gasser, but I am yet to receive a
satisfactory answer. Or an answer at all, in fact.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

You might think that saying that someone has won two Nobel Prizes when he
has only won one would be so easily dismissed that further conversation
would be pointless, but it gets even stranger. You see, it is claimed that
there are many references to Dr Warburg and cancer on the Nobel site, so
this must mean that he won for his cancer cure. (At least two of the
references are to someone else named Warburg, but let's not let the facts
interfere with the story.) I pointed out that in Dr Warburg's Nobel
Lecture
the word "cancer" appears exactly zero times, something which seems
strange
if curing cancer was what he was getting the prize for. I also mentioned
that the word "cancer" did appear in the presentation speech made by
someone
else, but only as a comment on how a cure might happen in the future, but
meanwhile Dr Warburg was getting an award for something else.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

And this is where things started to get really weird. I had made the
mistake
of accidentally referring to Dr Warburg's Nobel Lecture as an "acceptance
speech". My error was pointed out and I agreed that I had used the wrong
form of words. I was then accused of lying for saying that it wasn't an
acceptance speech. The person doing the accusing gave me five examples of
laureates who had made "acceptance speeches" and nyah, nyah, I was wrong.
As
one of the examples was William Faulkner (Literature 1949) and he gave a
"Banquet Speech", not an "acceptance speech", I thought that two could
play
at the literalist pedant game, but my response was not taken well.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

In a complete about-face, the person who had been telling me that Medicine
or Physiology laureate Dr Warburg must have made an "acceptance speech"
because Martin Luther King (Peace 1963) and The 14th Dali Lama (Peace
1989)
had done so, suddenly announced that Dr Warburg's speech had probably been
given in support of his nomination (it was presented on December 10, after
the award had been announced).


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

I commented that nobody gets to address the voting commitee before the
final
announcement, and many people do not even know that they have been
nominated
until they are told that they have won. I gave the example of Peter
Doherty
(Medicine 1996) who was informed of his win ten minutes before the press
release went out from Stockholm so that he the media. Another player then
accused me of lying could getready for telephone calls from the media.
Another player then accused me of lying, because there wouldn't be time to
write a 15 page "acceptance speech" in ten minutes. My response was to say
that writing the speech would have been the least of his problems as he
only
had ten minutes to get into his white tie and tails and get from Memphis,
Tennessee to Stockholm, Sweden. I quoted from Professor Doherty's book,
but,
alas, I was dealing with the sort of people who cannot understand any form
of the spoken or written word which does not involve concrete thinking.
(As
an example, one of the players challenged me to something and then
included
the single-word paragraph "Well?". When I replied "Yes, I am well. Thanks
for asking" I was told that she hadn't been asking me anything.)


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

In another bizarre non sequitur, when I mentioned that I had seen the
Nobel
medal that had been awarded to Ernest Lawrence (Physics 1939, and another
who had delivered an "acceptance speech") I was informed about how many
Nobel laureates had come out of Berkeley. I suppose I should have replied
that there is a street in Berkeley township which has the same name as me.
It would have been just as relevant.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

I started out by mentioning a play, and I will end the same way. If
everything goes well I will have a short play here next week telling the
wonderful story of the Warburg controversy. There will be three main
characters - Max (a nutritionist who believes that there are no good or
bad
forms of cholesterol, that the best way to prevent chickenpox in children
is
to expose them to the wild virus, and that one Nobel Prize plus no other
Nobel Prize equals two Nobel Prizes), Jan (a lady who believes that the
most
evil chemicals in the world are mercury and Ritalin, that anti-vaccination
liars do not tell lies, that people who pray to saints are servants of
Satan
(but she is not a religious bigot of course, and has never said anything
about Catholics), and that anyone who even knows Stephen Barrett's email
address is intrinsically evil), and Peter (who has a prescription for SSRI
medication but refuses to take the pills in case the Scientologists turn
up
on his doorstep again and point at him and laugh, and whose serotonin can
stay right where it is). I will call the play "Acceptance Speech", which
should be suitably confusing for anyone who can't see that something can
have multiple signifiers and that words and phrases can sometimes mean
different things in different contexts.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

So where's the promised play? (8/4/2006)

My plans to write a play based on the weirdness of some Usenet
participants
were thrown into psychological disarray during the week, when I was
presented with some additional information about the mental states of the
subjects whom I was observing in order to create my piece of htémél
vérité.
One of the subjects told me that using Google to find things on the web
was
"the lazy man's way", and that he was better at finding things than
Google.
To add to this hubris, he then told me that it didn't make any sense for
someone to say that Nobel Laureates presented things called Nobel Lectures
and challenged me to name anybody who had done so.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

Show us all here how giving a 15 page lecture to those giving a Nobel
Prize is customary. I'm not just going to take your word for it,
especially
since it doesn't even make sense. The web site is right there. Find some
other Nobel Laureates that gave lectures to the audience upon receiving an
award. If it's customary, it should be easy to prove your point.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

I responded by giving references to the lectures presented by every
Laureate in 2005, and, as we had been talking about 1931, pointed out that
the only people who didn't give lectures in that year were either unable
to
attend the awards ceremony or, the ultimate in "unable to attend", had
died
during the time between the announcement of the awards and the
presentation.
(Thus exploiting a loophole in the Nobel regulations, as the prizes can
only
be awarded to living people. This is why Rosalind Franklin did not share
the
1962 Medicine prize with Watson, Crick and Wilkins.) I also offered the
information that the Nobel people had been publishing an annual book
containing the lectures since 1901. Better-than-Google replied that I
obviously didn't know what I was talking about.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

He then changed hats and announced that he had a dietary cure for all
sorts
of diseases which had been 100% successful both in effectiveness and
compliance by dieters. When pressed for details he said that the diet was
the one "used by native people all over the world for thousands of years".
I
asked him the following question, but I have yet to receive an answer.
Sadly, it appears that Max has run away and no longer wants to talk to me.
If someone else hadn't thought of the words first, I should probably say:
"If he come not, then the play is marred: it goes not forward, doth it?".


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

So where are the lies on my web site, Jan.

Remember - URL of offending page, words making up the lie, explanation
of why it is a lie.

I promise to fix every one of them and add an apology in every case.
Get on with it.



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



  #162  
Old December 24th 06, 01:04 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health
Peter Bowditch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,038
Default The LIES on Peter Bowditch's website

"vakker" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
.. .
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote :

If what you say in 2006 is correct, it should be easy to
list the lies and point out why each one of them is a lie. But you
can't do either.


--
Peter Bowditch


I asked for a list of lies and reasons. As minimum, each member of
the list should consists of three parts - the URL of the page with the
lie on it, the words of the lie, the explanation of why the words
constitute a lie.


WE ASKED FOR RECEIPTS. LET'S SEE WHAT WE GOT............


You got what you are entitled to.


$0.00 THAT'S WHAT.


Make a donation and you will get a receipt. Easy, isn't it?


PETER BOWDITCH DOESN'T OR CAN'T PROVIDE RECEIPTS FOR HIS OWN CHARITABLE
FOUNDATION. HE


It's not a "charitable foundation". And what "receipts" would you be
talking about?

ALSO WANTS OTHER GULLIBLE FOOLS TO DONATE THERE DESPITE THE FACT IT'S A DEAD
WEBSITE AND FOUNDATION AND HASN'T DONE NOTHING FOR YEARS!!!!


I agree that it "hasn't done nothing". You got that part right.

NOBODY KNOWS
WHERE THE DONATIONS GOES??????? NEAT EHHHH????


The English language is not your strong point, is it?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
  #163  
Old December 24th 06, 03:42 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default The LIES on Peter Bowditch's website


"vakker" wrote in message
news:wthjh.510699$1T2.371527@pd7urf2no...

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote :

If what you say in 2006 is correct, it should be easy to
list the lies and point out why each one of them is a lie. But you
can't do either.


--
Peter Bowditch


I asked for a list of lies and reasons. As minimum, each member of
the list should consists of three parts - the URL of the page with the
lie on it, the words of the lie, the explanation of why the words
constitute a lie.


WE ASKED FOR RECEIPTS. LET'S SEE WHAT WE GOT............

$0.00 THAT'S WHAT.

PETER BOWDITCH DOESN'T OR CAN'T PROVIDE RECEIPTS FOR HIS OWN CHARITABLE
FOUNDATION. HE
ALSO WANTS OTHER GULLIBLE FOOLS TO DONATE THERE DESPITE THE FACT IT'S A
DEAD
WEBSITE AND FOUNDATION AND HASN'T DONE NOTHING FOR YEARS!!!! NOBODY KNOWS
WHERE THE DONATIONS GOES??????? NEAT EHHHH????


He only lied some 16? times, (I lost track) in his post.

*Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.*







Let's see what we got.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....a06ffcbf2c9ee8


That doesn't seem to be a URL which references anything on my web
site. In fact, the contents of that page are reproduced below. As that
URL belongs to Google, perhaps Jan is going to accuse Google of lying.
(Why not? She has accused just about everyone else.)


Apr 11 2006


Note that date. It will become important later.


[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html


ADHD prescribed 'without checks'


snip the contents of the page linked to above, because all of it is
reproduced in my reply below



http://groups.google.com/group/misc....c1626ebac3a6e7

Jan Drew" wrote:
[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]

Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong.



http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html


ADHD prescribed 'without checks'


HUNDREDS of Queensland children may have been wrongly diagnosed with
ADHD
and put on courses of potentially harmful prescription drugs by a
psychologist who did not perform proper checks for several years.



Hmmm. I wonder what those words "may have" mean.



But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed
by
the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite
adverse
findings about her conduct.
A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action
has
been taken will not be recorded in the board's register."



What disciplinary action could be taken, Jan? Have you any idea how
difficult it can be for a body like the Queensland Board of
Psychologists to do anything?



The board's decision to conceal the action and leave hundreds of parents
unaware of Ms McHugh's flawed diagnostic procedures has angered health
and
education experts.


As it should.



They told The Courier-Mail they were concerned that children remain on
the
controversial drugs Ritalin and dexamphetamines for Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder despite never
having
suffered the underlying conditions.


Yes, if the kids don't have the underlying conditions they should not
be getting the medications.



Board documents obtained by The Courier-Mail show Ms McHugh, who has
been a
leader in the assessment of children in Ipswich since the 1990s,
routinely
recommended psycho-stimulant medication despite having no medical
training.


She is a psychologist. That word means that she has no "medical
training", in the formal sense of having attended medical school.



Many of Ms McHugh's young patients have been referred to an Ipswich
pediatrician, Dr Malcolm Miller, who prescribes the drugs.

He yesterday mounted a strenuous defence of Ms McHugh, describing her as
a
highly respected professional.



He would say that, wouldn't he? (Do you remember Christine Keeler,
Jan?)



Ms McHugh, whose solicitor John Sneddon also strenuously defended her
conduct, was notified two months ago by the board's disciplinary
committee
that she had "demonstrated incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge,
skill, judgment or care".

She was found to have consistently used unacceptable diagnostic criteria
to
assess youngsters brought to her Wharf St, Ipswich practice by
stressed-out
parents frustrated by their children's behaviour.


But instead of a rigorous and comprehensive process to check if the
children
were experiencing difficulties because of problems at home or elsewhere,
Ms
McHugh, in most cases diagnosed ADHD or ADD, according to senior
sources.



So she had a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which is always a bad
thing. (I am told, however, that this is OK if the diagnosis is autism
and the treatment is chelation. But I digress ...)



The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that
rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed
and
placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians.


A "controversial and ongoing debate" which is being driven by
anti-psychiatry oufits like Scientology's CCHR and other
Ritalin-haters.



The children who are patients of Ms McHugh live in the Oxley federal
electorate, which has Queensland's highest rate of prescriptions for
dexamphetamines and the 15th-highest rate in Australia, according to a
November 2004 Federal Parliament research paper.


How many electorates are there, Jan? I want to put the "15th-highest"
into context.



Two Brisbane psychologists, Keira Roffey-Mitchell and Trish Chandra, who
made a detailed complaint to the board about Ms McHugh, are regarded by
independent sources as highly qualified in ADD and ADHD. Both declined
to
comment to The Courier-Mail.


These are the goodies, Jan. Congratulate them. "Organised psychology"
is concerned about Ms McHugh. Unfortunately, they are also a part of
"organised belief in ADHD", so you probably won't accept them.



Senior sources said Education Queensland, which schools about 80 per
cent
of
the estimated 30,000 children in the Ipswich area, and Brisbane Catholic
Education were concerned about Ms McHugh's conduct and backed the
complaint
to the board.


"Organised education" is concerned about Ms McHugh, as they should be.



"We believe Ms McHugh's professional practice does not operate in the
best
interests of the children and in fact could be detrimental to them," the
complaint states.

It sets out how Ms McHugh had been relying heavily on an IQ test, known
as
WISC III, to diagnose the disorders despite this test being
internationally
renowned as "one of the worst measures" a psychologist could use.


The board appointed an expert to investigate the complaint and
participate
in a closed-door hearing late last year.


Board executive officer Jim O'Dempsey said legislation "prohibits the
board
from public identification or specific comment on complainants,
respondents
or decisions relating to complaints, investigation or disciplinary
action
unless the matter is heard in public before the Health Practitioners
Tribunal".



So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything.



ADHD Association of Queensland president Steve Dossel, who had no
knowledge
of the case, said: " The parents should have been advised to seek a
further
assessment. I would hope that the parents of children, where there is
any
doubt about a diagnosis, seek another assessment."


Good advice. "Organised belief in ADHD" is concerned about Ms McHugh.
--
Peter Bowditch


And here is Jan coming back. You will notice that she identifies no
lies. Even if she did, this is a Usenet message, not anything on my
web site.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....adc603ed4bf1f7

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message


...



"Jan Drew" wrote:

[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]


Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong.



Impossible...I have never said *that* before....


Remember the date - April 11. Note how Jan has removed it from her
reply. Keep remembering it, because it will become important later.




http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html


ADHD prescribed 'without checks'


HUNDREDS of Queensland children may have been wrongly diagnosed with
ADHD
and put on courses of potentially harmful prescription drugs by a
psychologist who did not perform proper checks for several years.


Hmmm. I wonder what those words "may have" mean.



Hmmm. You better stop reading.



But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed
by
the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite
adverse
findings about her conduct.
A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action
has
been taken will not be recorded in the board's register."



Did you notice the word *concealed*? You DO know what that means, don't
you, Peter? Despite the *adverse findings about her conduct.* You DO
understand
*that*, do you NOT, Peter?



What disciplinary action could be taken, Jan?


This is NOT a quiz for *me*, Peter. Just read the FACTS!


Have you any idea how



difficult it can be for a body like the Queensland Board of
Psychologists to do anything?


I do NOT live there, you DO.


Now hurry and put up a page on your website ALL about these DESPICABLE
ACTS
CONCERNING THESE CHILDREN!



The board's decision to conceal the action and leave hundreds of
parents
unaware of Ms McHugh's flawed diagnostic procedures has angered health
and
education experts.


As it should.


They told The Courier-Mail they were concerned that children remain on
the
controversial drugs Ritalin and dexamphetamines for Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder despite never
having
suffered the underlying conditions.


Yes, if the kids don't have the underlying conditions they should not
be getting the medications.



So why did you ask what *may have* means?



Board documents obtained by The Courier-Mail show Ms McHugh, who has
been
a
leader in the assessment of children in Ipswich since the 1990s,
routinely
recommended psycho-stimulant medication despite having no medical
training.


She is a psychologist. That word means that she has no "medical
training", in the formal sense of having attended medical school.


Many of Ms McHugh's young patients have been referred to an Ipswich
pediatrician, Dr Malcolm Miller, who prescribes the drugs.


He yesterday mounted a strenuous defence of Ms McHugh, describing her
as a
highly respected professional.


He would say that, wouldn't he? (Do you remember Christine Keeler,
Jan?)


I know it's a bit late, but it was Mandy Rice Davies who uttered the
immortal words, not Christine Keeler. It didn't matter, because Jan
had obviously never heard of either of the ladies or of the famous
saying. You can see that from the fact that she called it a diversion.




I am very aware of your D I V E R S I O N S.......


AND


EFFORTS TO TRASH.....


Now...back to the subject.



Ms McHugh, whose solicitor John Sneddon also strenuously defended her
conduct, was notified two months ago by the board's disciplinary
committee
that she had "demonstrated incompetence or a lack of adequate
knowledge,
skill, judgment or care".


She was found to have consistently used unacceptable diagnostic
criteria
to
assess youngsters brought to her Wharf St, Ipswich practice by
stressed-out
parents frustrated by their children's behaviour.


But instead of a rigorous and comprehensive process to check if the
children
were experiencing difficulties because of problems at home or
elsewhere,
Ms
McHugh, in most cases diagnosed ADHD or ADD, according to senior
sources.


So she had a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which is always a bad
thing. (I am told, however, that this is OK if the diagnosis is autism
and the treatment is chelation. But I digress ...)



Actually you are making excuses and diverting, and I greatly doubt that
you
have been told any such thing. This is an example of how you write LIES
on
your
SICK LYING WEBSITES.


You will notice how Jan has accused me of lying in a Usenet message
(which I hadn't done) and uses that as evidence that there are lies on
my web site.

List the lies on the site, Jan. can't do it? I didn't think so.




The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns
that
rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed
and
placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians.


A "controversial and ongoing debate" which is being driven by
anti-psychiatry oufits like Scientology's CCHR and other
Ritalin-haters.



WRONG. That is a SCAPE GOAT AND A LIE.


Perhaps Jan should look up a book to find out what a "scape goat" is.
I wonder if she could guess what book that would be. She might even
find out how the term has absolutely nothing to do with the very
well-known fact that Scientology and its front group CCHR are opposed
to psychiatry. CCHR will rear its ugly head later in this story.



The FACTS are as told EXACTLY as stated:


The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that
****rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly
diagnosed******


**** and placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and
pediatricians.******



The children who are patients of Ms McHugh live in the Oxley federal
electorate, which has Queensland's highest rate of prescriptions for
dexamphetamines and the 15th-highest rate in Australia, according to a
November 2004 Federal Parliament research paper.


How many electorates are there, Jan? I want to put the "15th-highest"
into context.



Do you consult *me* to help you put things in to context?


No, if something is the 15th biggest, it helps to know how many in the
total. If there are only 15, for example, it means smallest.




Two Brisbane psychologists, Keira Roffey-Mitchell and Trish Chandra,
who
made a detailed complaint to the board about Ms McHugh, are regarded by
independent sources as highly qualified in ADD and ADHD. Both declined
to
comment to The Courier-Mail.


These are the goodies, Jan. Congratulate them. "Organised psychology"
is concerned about Ms McHugh. Unfortunately, they are also a part of
"organised belief in ADHD", so you probably won't accept them.



This is NOT about *me*.......



Senior sources said Education Queensland, which schools about 80 per
cent
of
the estimated 30,000 children in the Ipswich area, and Brisbane
Catholic
Education were concerned about Ms McHugh's conduct and backed the
complaint
to the board.


"Organised education" is concerned about Ms McHugh, as they should be.


"We believe Ms McHugh's professional practice does not operate in the
best
interests of the children and in fact could be detrimental to them,"
the
complaint states.


It sets out how Ms McHugh had been relying heavily on an IQ test, known
as
WISC III, to diagnose the disorders despite this test being
internationally
renowned as "one of the worst measures" a psychologist could use.


The board appointed an expert to investigate the complaint and
participate
in a closed-door hearing late last year.


Board executive officer Jim O'Dempsey said legislation "prohibits the
board
from public identification or specific comment on complainants,
respondents
or decisions relating to complaints, investigation or disciplinary
action
unless the matter is heard in public before the Health Practitioners
Tribunal".


So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything.



WHAT can YOU do to change this????????


Are YOU in favor of keeping dirty little secrets....from the PARENTS
and the PUBLIC.....at the cost of CHILDREN?!?!?!


You just say.....


So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything.


To protect *ORGANIZED ADHD*


Organised ADHD??




ADHD Association of Queensland president Steve Dossel, who had no
knowledge
of the case, said: " The parents should have been advised to seek a
further
assessment. I would hope that the parents of children, where there is
any
doubt about a diagnosis, seek another assessment."


Good advice. "Organised belief in ADHD" is concerned about Ms McHugh.



WHO is at FAULT?!?!


NOT.....


Scientology's CCHR and other Ritalin-haters.


******But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being
concealed by
the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite
adverse
findings about her conduct.
A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action
has
been taken will not be recorded in the board's register."********


--
Peter Bowditch


No lies on web sites yet. Let's continue.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....aabd2d2485880a

Jan Drew" wrote:

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
m...
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
news:htto32tto9f8198tdtn0s04j1hp1hh4nau@4ax. com...
"Jan Drew" wrote:


[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]


Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong.


Impossible...I have never said *that* before....


No, the words you used were "[Let Us See IF Peter Bowditch Puts This
On His Website?]" in a message headed "Families Called on to Join
Class Acton On ADHD Drug- Ritilan" posted on March 30, 2006.


I know you didn't use the exact same electrons, but you did say that
something wouldn't appear on my site. But it did.


Yes, I already addressed those LIES!


See Jan admitting that, in fact, she had challenged me to put
something on my site on a previous occasion, despite saying
"Impossible...I have never said *that* before....". If I were to be
uncharitable I might call that lying. But I'm not.




What LIES, Jan? You said I wouldn't talk about something on my site. I
talked about it on my site. How has this got anything to do with LIES?
Unless you are saying that the original article that you said I
wouldn't comment on was LIES. If it was, why did you post it here?


Even then I was trying to get Jan to point out some lies on the web
site, but all she seemed to be able to do was rant about a Usenet
message.


snip stuff which made sense before Jan started random snipping
--
Peter Bowditch


Still no web site lies. On we go.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....3d23c387fe6e89

How do you feel about the Catholic Church, Carole? Have you ever
wondered how an organisation could have such strong supporters on the
one hand and stand up for what was so good and right with their St
Vincent de Paul organisation and their social justice work, yet be so
maligned on the other?
--
Peter Bowditch

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....8c563945e607a7

Peter Bowditch diverted to:


Catholic Church


snip


This thread is NOT about the about....


[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....d227f7769fb0e3

I'm sorry that you didn't understand the analogy and had to snip it,
Jan.


Met any good Scientologists lately? Have you asked them if they still
think that Jesus was a pedophile?



snip


This thread is NOT about the about....


[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]



As I said, Jan, when you said this one before about another matter,
you were wrong.


In any case, why should this appear on my web site? My web site is not
about "organised medicine" catching the bad apples. In fact, when I
wrote about "organised medicine" chasing killer Dr Patel you accused
me of supporting him. Maybe you didn't, but who can tell with the way
you rant. In any case, you did not accept that my criticism of him was
criticism of him.


snip stuff which I have answered before about a psychologist who
should be run out of town on a rail

Peter Bowditch

~~~~~~~

Now let us compare that to wrote Peter wrote on his webite.


Ahh! At last we get to something on my web site.


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...l.htm#1ritalin

Updates made to The Millenium Project in April 2006

The sky is falling! Children are being drugged! (1/4/2006}


But, but, but - that date is April 1, so how could it have anything
to do with something published on April 11. All of the stuff above was
Jan complaining about how I wouldn't post something, but now she
points to something ten days earlier for some reason or other.

Now she has actually got to the web site, let's see her list the lies
and provide an explanation.


I was challenged during the week by someone who stated that a story in
the
newspaper would not be reported here because of the immensely damaging
information it contained about the second-most evil and dangerous
chemical
ever made, Ritalin. (The most dangerous is, of course, mercury, with
Prozac,
aspartame and fluoride closing in along the straight.) The horror story
that
I would be too afraid to tell is that a politician, well known as an
anti-Ritalin loon, has said that he is trying to round up participants
for a
class action against the makers and distributor of the drug. That's it.
That's the story. Someone is trying to organise a court action, but no
parties are yet involved, no court papers have been filed, and nothing
has
happened. I can only imagine that someone at the newspaper will be
disciplined for not selling enough advertising and leaving a blank space
which had to be filled with drivel.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

Two major matters of concern are associated with this non story. The
first
is that last week 14 kids aged around 13 or 14 at a school in Queensland
(as
far as you can get from the politician in question and still be in
Australia) managed to get their hands on some Ritalin which was not
prescribed for them and administered it to themselves using a delivery
method which is not how it is supposed to be taken. They all ended up in
hospital and local politicians are making noises about attacking drug
abuse.
It is drug abuse to consume drugs not prescribed for you in order to get
an
effect which the drugs do not give if taken according to directions, but
this means nothing to the anti-Ritalin loons. The drug was taken, there
was
harm, the drug is bad. Four legs good, two legs bad. I pointed out that
it
was almost inevitable that 14 kids of that age had abused acetaminophen
somewhere in Australia during the week (many ending up in hospital) and
an
absolute certainty that that number of kids had abused both nicotine and
alcohol (although the hospital visits for these may be deferred for some
time), but there are no calls for the banning of these drugs. Just
Ritalin,
because, as everyone knows, there is no such thing as ADHD and the
condition
was only invented to allow the sales of this dangerous, unproven drug.
(Methylphenidate was patented in 1954, so it is a matter of some interest
both why anyone bothered to research and patent a treatment for a
non-existent condition (CIBA-Geigy isn't a quackery potion manufacturer,
who
do this all the time), and who has been taking it for the last fifty
years
other than the millions of kids who have benefited.)


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

The second major concern was that prescriptions for Ritalin had increased
"tenfold" since it was accepted into the Australian Pharmaceutical
Benefits
Scheme and therefore made affordable. I'm not quite sure where the
"tenfold"
comes from, because the latest figures available from the PBS for
prescriptions written in Australia are for the year ending June 30, 2005,
and Ritalin was not added to the scheme until August the same year. It is
worth noting here that the hundredth most prescribed drug in Australia up
until June 2005 accounted for 404,000 prescriptions during the year.
Another relevant statistic is that according to the Australian Bureau of
Statistics, there are about 276,000 people in the country who are aged 18
or
less.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

So how big is the Ritalin epidemic? Well, according to the opponents,
there
were 523 prescriptions written in August 2005 and "more than 5800" in
January 2006. (I love the "more than". It suggests extreme accuracy in
reporting.) The first thing I did was point out that this was an
elevenfold
increase, and, according to the rules set by the person telling the story
any deviation from absolute fact is a lie and there are no such things as
mistakes, therefore the person claiming a "tenfold" increase was lying.
(You
might think I am joking or exaggerating here. This person accused me of
lying for saying that Hulda Clark sued me for damaging sales of her
books.
When I replied that a publishing company whose only products were books
had
sued me for damaging sales of its products and therefore books, I was
told
to point to where the word "books" appeared in the lawsuit. Bizarre, I
know,
but true.) An exception was immediately made in this case (as it would
have
to be, because the person making the claim opposed Ritalin).


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

But back to the epidemic. There are about 276,000 people aged 18 or less
in
the country and less than 6,000 people taking Ritalin in total. If all of
those pill poppers were under 19 it would be 2%. Let's allow the number
of
monthly prescriptions to rise to 6,000, giving 72,000 per year. This is a
very long way from the top 100 most prescribed drugs in the country (one
of
which is aspirin, which, as any alternaut knows, is never recommended for
anything because it can't be patented and nobody can make money out of
it).


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

So, we have a drug which used to be expensive but is now subsidised,
inevitably leading to an increase in both prescribing and consumption.
The
huge increase in prescriptions is only huge when compared to a very low
starting point, but in relative terms compared to other prescription
drugs
it isn't even a ripple on the pond. Kids who can benefit from the drug
are
more likely to get it because their parents can now afford to pay for it.
Action is being taken to control abuse, but even before that action it is
still far less abused than some quite dangerous over-the-counter
medications. Everything seems to be good. Unless you think that sick
children don't need medication. But why would anyone want to deprive kids
of
effective treatment? I don't know the answer to that. I don't think that
there is an answer which would satisfy anyone who is concerned about
children and their welfare.


Not a single lie identified. What Jan forgot to quote from that page,
however, was where I scooped the mainstream media by identifying the
source of the newspaper article which Jan referred to (and said I
wouldn't comment on).

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...l.htm#8ritalin

Ritalin follow-up (8/4/2006)

I mentioned last week that hysteria had broken out in Australia
because kids who might benefit from the drug Ritalin would have
better access now that it is being subsidised by the Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme. The original beat-up story in the paper told horror
tales about adverse events arising following taking the drug, but the
paper forgot to mention that the main source of information for the
story was a branch of Scientology, the Citizen's Commission on Human
Rights. (CCHR won the Anus Maximus Award in 2003. Read about it here.)
They did mention CCHR, but the cloudy ancestry of the outfit was swept
under the carpet. It is amazing to see how people who would normally
reject Scientology outright as either a dangerous cult or, when
considering Tom Cruise's antics, as a font of hilarity, suddenly start
taking the cult seriously when it agrees with them.

When I first noticed this phenomenon I went looking for the origin of
the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Remarkably, the first
place I found it was on the web site of anti-psychiatrist Thomas
Szasz, where he used it to justify going into business with
Scientology to establish CCHR. (In one wonderful moment of bizarrity,
some alternative medicine believer once called me a liar for saying
that Szasz had ever used those words and defied me to produce evidence
of my claim. I referred to where the words appeared on Szasz's own web
site and was told that that was not good enough!) One of the most
ferocious anti-Ritalin and anti-medication campaigners I have come
across has told people that anything I say can be disregarded because
I am an atheist (my pointing out that I am an ordained minister of a
church did not earn me any credit) and, in fact, only Christians (and
then only some subset of Christians) can be trusted to tell the truth
about anything. Whenever this abuse of religion is brought into the
argument I make a point of quoting L. Ron Hubbard, writing in the
secret OT VIII documents.

"For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me
take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For
instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has
been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and
men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that
belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical
Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired
to see where it all inevitably leads. It is historic fact and yet man
still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious is the biologic
implanting".

I always like to remind Jan of Hubbard's opinion of Jesus.


~~~~~~

More lies after this on the same page:


As no lies have been identified yet, it is a bit premature to say
"more", but let's keep pressing on.


You might wonder what all this has to do with the matters of interest to
The
Millenium Project, but this week I fell into a conversation which would
make
Ionesco look like a jingle writer for McDonalds when it came to
measurements
on the weirdness scale.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

The 1931 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Dr Otto
Warburg for, as it says on the Nobel site, "his discovery of the nature
and
mode of action of the respiratory enzyme". It was thought at the time, by
Dr
Warburg and others, that his work might have some application to the
treatment of cancer, but that was not to be and research in this area
withered away and was finally abandoned. To believers in alternative
medicine, however, this must mean that Warburg's ideas have been
suppressed,
and a mythology has been created around him. One piece of mythology is
that
he was "voted" a second Nobel Prize in 1944. Pointing out to alternauts
that
nobody is "voted" a Nobel Prize who does not then go on to "win" the
prize
had me being accused of lying. I have told the objectors that they should
write to the relevant Nobel committee and point out that there is a
mistake
on the Nobel web site because it says that the 1944 Medicine prize went
to
Joseph Erlanger and Herbert S. Gasser, but I am yet to receive a
satisfactory answer. Or an answer at all, in fact.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

You might think that saying that someone has won two Nobel Prizes when he
has only won one would be so easily dismissed that further conversation
would be pointless, but it gets even stranger. You see, it is claimed
that
there are many references to Dr Warburg and cancer on the Nobel site, so
this must mean that he won for his cancer cure. (At least two of the
references are to someone else named Warburg, but let's not let the facts
interfere with the story.) I pointed out that in Dr Warburg's Nobel
Lecture
the word "cancer" appears exactly zero times, something which seems
strange
if curing cancer was what he was getting the prize for. I also mentioned
that the word "cancer" did appear in the presentation speech made by
someone
else, but only as a comment on how a cure might happen in the future, but
meanwhile Dr Warburg was getting an award for something else.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

And this is where things started to get really weird. I had made the
mistake
of accidentally referring to Dr Warburg's Nobel Lecture as an "acceptance
speech". My error was pointed out and I agreed that I had used the wrong
form of words. I was then accused of lying for saying that it wasn't an
acceptance speech. The person doing the accusing gave me five examples of
laureates who had made "acceptance speeches" and nyah, nyah, I was wrong.
As
one of the examples was William Faulkner (Literature 1949) and he gave a
"Banquet Speech", not an "acceptance speech", I thought that two could
play
at the literalist pedant game, but my response was not taken well.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

In a complete about-face, the person who had been telling me that
Medicine
or Physiology laureate Dr Warburg must have made an "acceptance speech"
because Martin Luther King (Peace 1963) and The 14th Dali Lama (Peace
1989)
had done so, suddenly announced that Dr Warburg's speech had probably
been
given in support of his nomination (it was presented on December 10,
after
the award had been announced).


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

I commented that nobody gets to address the voting commitee before the
final
announcement, and many people do not even know that they have been
nominated
until they are told that they have won. I gave the example of Peter
Doherty
(Medicine 1996) who was informed of his win ten minutes before the press
release went out from Stockholm so that he the media. Another player then
accused me of lying could getready for telephone calls from the media.
Another player then accused me of lying, because there wouldn't be time
to
write a 15 page "acceptance speech" in ten minutes. My response was to
say
that writing the speech would have been the least of his problems as he
only
had ten minutes to get into his white tie and tails and get from Memphis,
Tennessee to Stockholm, Sweden. I quoted from Professor Doherty's book,
but,
alas, I was dealing with the sort of people who cannot understand any
form
of the spoken or written word which does not involve concrete thinking.
(As
an example, one of the players challenged me to something and then
included
the single-word paragraph "Well?". When I replied "Yes, I am well. Thanks
for asking" I was told that she hadn't been asking me anything.)


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

In another bizarre non sequitur, when I mentioned that I had seen the
Nobel
medal that had been awarded to Ernest Lawrence (Physics 1939, and another
who had delivered an "acceptance speech") I was informed about how many
Nobel laureates had come out of Berkeley. I suppose I should have replied
that there is a street in Berkeley township which has the same name as
me.
It would have been just as relevant.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

I started out by mentioning a play, and I will end the same way. If
everything goes well I will have a short play here next week telling the
wonderful story of the Warburg controversy. There will be three main
characters - Max (a nutritionist who believes that there are no good or
bad
forms of cholesterol, that the best way to prevent chickenpox in children
is
to expose them to the wild virus, and that one Nobel Prize plus no other
Nobel Prize equals two Nobel Prizes), Jan (a lady who believes that the
most
evil chemicals in the world are mercury and Ritalin, that
anti-vaccination
liars do not tell lies, that people who pray to saints are servants of
Satan
(but she is not a religious bigot of course, and has never said anything
about Catholics), and that anyone who even knows Stephen Barrett's email
address is intrinsically evil), and Peter (who has a prescription for
SSRI
medication but refuses to take the pills in case the Scientologists turn
up
on his doorstep again and point at him and laugh, and whose serotonin can
stay right where it is). I will call the play "Acceptance Speech", which
should be suitably confusing for anyone who can't see that something can
have multiple signifiers and that words and phrases can sometimes mean
different things in different contexts.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

So where's the promised play? (8/4/2006)

My plans to write a play based on the weirdness of some Usenet
participants
were thrown into psychological disarray during the week, when I was
presented with some additional information about the mental states of the
subjects whom I was observing in order to create my piece of htémél
vérité.
One of the subjects told me that using Google to find things on the web
was
"the lazy man's way", and that he was better at finding things than
Google.
To add to this hubris, he then told me that it didn't make any sense for
someone to say that Nobel Laureates presented things called Nobel
Lectures
and challenged me to name anybody who had done so.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

Show us all here how giving a 15 page lecture to those giving a Nobel
Prize is customary. I'm not just going to take your word for it,
especially
since it doesn't even make sense. The web site is right there. Find some
other Nobel Laureates that gave lectures to the audience upon receiving
an
award. If it's customary, it should be easy to prove your point.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

I responded by giving references to the lectures presented by every
Laureate in 2005, and, as we had been talking about 1931, pointed out
that
the only people who didn't give lectures in that year were either unable
to
attend the awards ceremony or, the ultimate in "unable to attend", had
died
during the time between the announcement of the awards and the
presentation.
(Thus exploiting a loophole in the Nobel regulations, as the prizes can
only
be awarded to living people. This is why Rosalind Franklin did not share
the
1962 Medicine prize with Watson, Crick and Wilkins.) I also offered the
information that the Nobel people had been publishing an annual book
containing the lectures since 1901. Better-than-Google replied that I
obviously didn't know what I was talking about.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

He then changed hats and announced that he had a dietary cure for all
sorts
of diseases which had been 100% successful both in effectiveness and
compliance by dieters. When pressed for details he said that the diet was
the one "used by native people all over the world for thousands of
years". I
asked him the following question, but I have yet to receive an answer.
Sadly, it appears that Max has run away and no longer wants to talk to
me.
If someone else hadn't thought of the words first, I should probably say:
"If he come not, then the play is marred: it goes not forward, doth it?".


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

So where are the lies on my web site, Jan.

Remember - URL of offending page, words making up the lie, explanation
of why it is a lie.

I promise to fix every one of them and add an apology in every case.
Get on with it.



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





  #164  
Old December 24th 06, 03:43 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default The LIES on Peter Bowditch's website


"vakker" wrote in message
news:wthjh.510699$1T2.371527@pd7urf2no...

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote :

If what you say in 2006 is correct, it should be easy to
list the lies and point out why each one of them is a lie. But you
can't do either.


--
Peter Bowditch


I asked for a list of lies and reasons. As minimum, each member of
the list should consists of three parts - the URL of the page with the
lie on it, the words of the lie, the explanation of why the words
constitute a lie.


WE ASKED FOR RECEIPTS. LET'S SEE WHAT WE GOT............

$0.00 THAT'S WHAT.

PETER BOWDITCH DOESN'T OR CAN'T PROVIDE RECEIPTS FOR HIS OWN CHARITABLE
FOUNDATION. HE
ALSO WANTS OTHER GULLIBLE FOOLS TO DONATE THERE DESPITE THE FACT IT'S A
DEAD
WEBSITE AND FOUNDATION AND HASN'T DONE NOTHING FOR YEARS!!!! NOBODY KNOWS
WHERE THE DONATIONS GOES??????? NEAT EHHHH????


He will ask a bunch of questions. As is his norm.

Sad that.






Let's see what we got.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....a06ffcbf2c9ee8


That doesn't seem to be a URL which references anything on my web
site. In fact, the contents of that page are reproduced below. As that
URL belongs to Google, perhaps Jan is going to accuse Google of lying.
(Why not? She has accused just about everyone else.)


Apr 11 2006


Note that date. It will become important later.


[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html


ADHD prescribed 'without checks'


snip the contents of the page linked to above, because all of it is
reproduced in my reply below



http://groups.google.com/group/misc....c1626ebac3a6e7

Jan Drew" wrote:
[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]

Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong.



http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html


ADHD prescribed 'without checks'


HUNDREDS of Queensland children may have been wrongly diagnosed with
ADHD
and put on courses of potentially harmful prescription drugs by a
psychologist who did not perform proper checks for several years.



Hmmm. I wonder what those words "may have" mean.



But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed
by
the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite
adverse
findings about her conduct.
A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action
has
been taken will not be recorded in the board's register."



What disciplinary action could be taken, Jan? Have you any idea how
difficult it can be for a body like the Queensland Board of
Psychologists to do anything?



The board's decision to conceal the action and leave hundreds of parents
unaware of Ms McHugh's flawed diagnostic procedures has angered health
and
education experts.


As it should.



They told The Courier-Mail they were concerned that children remain on
the
controversial drugs Ritalin and dexamphetamines for Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder despite never
having
suffered the underlying conditions.


Yes, if the kids don't have the underlying conditions they should not
be getting the medications.



Board documents obtained by The Courier-Mail show Ms McHugh, who has
been a
leader in the assessment of children in Ipswich since the 1990s,
routinely
recommended psycho-stimulant medication despite having no medical
training.


She is a psychologist. That word means that she has no "medical
training", in the formal sense of having attended medical school.



Many of Ms McHugh's young patients have been referred to an Ipswich
pediatrician, Dr Malcolm Miller, who prescribes the drugs.

He yesterday mounted a strenuous defence of Ms McHugh, describing her as
a
highly respected professional.



He would say that, wouldn't he? (Do you remember Christine Keeler,
Jan?)



Ms McHugh, whose solicitor John Sneddon also strenuously defended her
conduct, was notified two months ago by the board's disciplinary
committee
that she had "demonstrated incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge,
skill, judgment or care".

She was found to have consistently used unacceptable diagnostic criteria
to
assess youngsters brought to her Wharf St, Ipswich practice by
stressed-out
parents frustrated by their children's behaviour.


But instead of a rigorous and comprehensive process to check if the
children
were experiencing difficulties because of problems at home or elsewhere,
Ms
McHugh, in most cases diagnosed ADHD or ADD, according to senior
sources.



So she had a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which is always a bad
thing. (I am told, however, that this is OK if the diagnosis is autism
and the treatment is chelation. But I digress ...)



The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that
rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed
and
placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians.


A "controversial and ongoing debate" which is being driven by
anti-psychiatry oufits like Scientology's CCHR and other
Ritalin-haters.



The children who are patients of Ms McHugh live in the Oxley federal
electorate, which has Queensland's highest rate of prescriptions for
dexamphetamines and the 15th-highest rate in Australia, according to a
November 2004 Federal Parliament research paper.


How many electorates are there, Jan? I want to put the "15th-highest"
into context.



Two Brisbane psychologists, Keira Roffey-Mitchell and Trish Chandra, who
made a detailed complaint to the board about Ms McHugh, are regarded by
independent sources as highly qualified in ADD and ADHD. Both declined
to
comment to The Courier-Mail.


These are the goodies, Jan. Congratulate them. "Organised psychology"
is concerned about Ms McHugh. Unfortunately, they are also a part of
"organised belief in ADHD", so you probably won't accept them.



Senior sources said Education Queensland, which schools about 80 per
cent
of
the estimated 30,000 children in the Ipswich area, and Brisbane Catholic
Education were concerned about Ms McHugh's conduct and backed the
complaint
to the board.


"Organised education" is concerned about Ms McHugh, as they should be.



"We believe Ms McHugh's professional practice does not operate in the
best
interests of the children and in fact could be detrimental to them," the
complaint states.

It sets out how Ms McHugh had been relying heavily on an IQ test, known
as
WISC III, to diagnose the disorders despite this test being
internationally
renowned as "one of the worst measures" a psychologist could use.


The board appointed an expert to investigate the complaint and
participate
in a closed-door hearing late last year.


Board executive officer Jim O'Dempsey said legislation "prohibits the
board
from public identification or specific comment on complainants,
respondents
or decisions relating to complaints, investigation or disciplinary
action
unless the matter is heard in public before the Health Practitioners
Tribunal".



So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything.



ADHD Association of Queensland president Steve Dossel, who had no
knowledge
of the case, said: " The parents should have been advised to seek a
further
assessment. I would hope that the parents of children, where there is
any
doubt about a diagnosis, seek another assessment."


Good advice. "Organised belief in ADHD" is concerned about Ms McHugh.
--
Peter Bowditch


And here is Jan coming back. You will notice that she identifies no
lies. Even if she did, this is a Usenet message, not anything on my
web site.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....adc603ed4bf1f7

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message


...



"Jan Drew" wrote:

[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]


Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong.



Impossible...I have never said *that* before....


Remember the date - April 11. Note how Jan has removed it from her
reply. Keep remembering it, because it will become important later.




http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html


ADHD prescribed 'without checks'


HUNDREDS of Queensland children may have been wrongly diagnosed with
ADHD
and put on courses of potentially harmful prescription drugs by a
psychologist who did not perform proper checks for several years.


Hmmm. I wonder what those words "may have" mean.



Hmmm. You better stop reading.



But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being concealed
by
the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite
adverse
findings about her conduct.
A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action
has
been taken will not be recorded in the board's register."



Did you notice the word *concealed*? You DO know what that means, don't
you, Peter? Despite the *adverse findings about her conduct.* You DO
understand
*that*, do you NOT, Peter?



What disciplinary action could be taken, Jan?


This is NOT a quiz for *me*, Peter. Just read the FACTS!


Have you any idea how



difficult it can be for a body like the Queensland Board of
Psychologists to do anything?


I do NOT live there, you DO.


Now hurry and put up a page on your website ALL about these DESPICABLE
ACTS
CONCERNING THESE CHILDREN!



The board's decision to conceal the action and leave hundreds of
parents
unaware of Ms McHugh's flawed diagnostic procedures has angered health
and
education experts.


As it should.


They told The Courier-Mail they were concerned that children remain on
the
controversial drugs Ritalin and dexamphetamines for Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder despite never
having
suffered the underlying conditions.


Yes, if the kids don't have the underlying conditions they should not
be getting the medications.



So why did you ask what *may have* means?



Board documents obtained by The Courier-Mail show Ms McHugh, who has
been
a
leader in the assessment of children in Ipswich since the 1990s,
routinely
recommended psycho-stimulant medication despite having no medical
training.


She is a psychologist. That word means that she has no "medical
training", in the formal sense of having attended medical school.


Many of Ms McHugh's young patients have been referred to an Ipswich
pediatrician, Dr Malcolm Miller, who prescribes the drugs.


He yesterday mounted a strenuous defence of Ms McHugh, describing her
as a
highly respected professional.


He would say that, wouldn't he? (Do you remember Christine Keeler,
Jan?)


I know it's a bit late, but it was Mandy Rice Davies who uttered the
immortal words, not Christine Keeler. It didn't matter, because Jan
had obviously never heard of either of the ladies or of the famous
saying. You can see that from the fact that she called it a diversion.




I am very aware of your D I V E R S I O N S.......


AND


EFFORTS TO TRASH.....


Now...back to the subject.



Ms McHugh, whose solicitor John Sneddon also strenuously defended her
conduct, was notified two months ago by the board's disciplinary
committee
that she had "demonstrated incompetence or a lack of adequate
knowledge,
skill, judgment or care".


She was found to have consistently used unacceptable diagnostic
criteria
to
assess youngsters brought to her Wharf St, Ipswich practice by
stressed-out
parents frustrated by their children's behaviour.


But instead of a rigorous and comprehensive process to check if the
children
were experiencing difficulties because of problems at home or
elsewhere,
Ms
McHugh, in most cases diagnosed ADHD or ADD, according to senior
sources.


So she had a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which is always a bad
thing. (I am told, however, that this is OK if the diagnosis is autism
and the treatment is chelation. But I digress ...)



Actually you are making excuses and diverting, and I greatly doubt that
you
have been told any such thing. This is an example of how you write LIES
on
your
SICK LYING WEBSITES.


You will notice how Jan has accused me of lying in a Usenet message
(which I hadn't done) and uses that as evidence that there are lies on
my web site.

List the lies on the site, Jan. can't do it? I didn't think so.




The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns
that
rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly diagnosed
and
placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and pediatricians.


A "controversial and ongoing debate" which is being driven by
anti-psychiatry oufits like Scientology's CCHR and other
Ritalin-haters.



WRONG. That is a SCAPE GOAT AND A LIE.


Perhaps Jan should look up a book to find out what a "scape goat" is.
I wonder if she could guess what book that would be. She might even
find out how the term has absolutely nothing to do with the very
well-known fact that Scientology and its front group CCHR are opposed
to psychiatry. CCHR will rear its ugly head later in this story.



The FACTS are as told EXACTLY as stated:


The case will fuel a controversial and ongoing debate over concerns that
****rising numbers of children around Australia are being wrongly
diagnosed******


**** and placed on mood-altering drugs by some psychologists and
pediatricians.******



The children who are patients of Ms McHugh live in the Oxley federal
electorate, which has Queensland's highest rate of prescriptions for
dexamphetamines and the 15th-highest rate in Australia, according to a
November 2004 Federal Parliament research paper.


How many electorates are there, Jan? I want to put the "15th-highest"
into context.



Do you consult *me* to help you put things in to context?


No, if something is the 15th biggest, it helps to know how many in the
total. If there are only 15, for example, it means smallest.




Two Brisbane psychologists, Keira Roffey-Mitchell and Trish Chandra,
who
made a detailed complaint to the board about Ms McHugh, are regarded by
independent sources as highly qualified in ADD and ADHD. Both declined
to
comment to The Courier-Mail.


These are the goodies, Jan. Congratulate them. "Organised psychology"
is concerned about Ms McHugh. Unfortunately, they are also a part of
"organised belief in ADHD", so you probably won't accept them.



This is NOT about *me*.......



Senior sources said Education Queensland, which schools about 80 per
cent
of
the estimated 30,000 children in the Ipswich area, and Brisbane
Catholic
Education were concerned about Ms McHugh's conduct and backed the
complaint
to the board.


"Organised education" is concerned about Ms McHugh, as they should be.


"We believe Ms McHugh's professional practice does not operate in the
best
interests of the children and in fact could be detrimental to them,"
the
complaint states.


It sets out how Ms McHugh had been relying heavily on an IQ test, known
as
WISC III, to diagnose the disorders despite this test being
internationally
renowned as "one of the worst measures" a psychologist could use.


The board appointed an expert to investigate the complaint and
participate
in a closed-door hearing late last year.


Board executive officer Jim O'Dempsey said legislation "prohibits the
board
from public identification or specific comment on complainants,
respondents
or decisions relating to complaints, investigation or disciplinary
action
unless the matter is heard in public before the Health Practitioners
Tribunal".


So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything.



WHAT can YOU do to change this????????


Are YOU in favor of keeping dirty little secrets....from the PARENTS
and the PUBLIC.....at the cost of CHILDREN?!?!?!


You just say.....


So there's the explanation about why the Board can't do anything.


To protect *ORGANIZED ADHD*


Organised ADHD??




ADHD Association of Queensland president Steve Dossel, who had no
knowledge
of the case, said: " The parents should have been advised to seek a
further
assessment. I would hope that the parents of children, where there is
any
doubt about a diagnosis, seek another assessment."


Good advice. "Organised belief in ADHD" is concerned about Ms McHugh.



WHO is at FAULT?!?!


NOT.....


Scientology's CCHR and other Ritalin-haters.


******But disciplinary action taken against Therese McHugh is being
concealed by
the regulatory body, the Queensland Board of Psychologists, despite
adverse
findings about her conduct.
A confidential notification states: "The fact that disciplinary action
has
been taken will not be recorded in the board's register."********


--
Peter Bowditch


No lies on web sites yet. Let's continue.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....aabd2d2485880a

Jan Drew" wrote:

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
m...
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
news:htto32tto9f8198tdtn0s04j1hp1hh4nau@4ax. com...
"Jan Drew" wrote:


[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]


Gee, Jan, the last time you said that you were wrong.


Impossible...I have never said *that* before....


No, the words you used were "[Let Us See IF Peter Bowditch Puts This
On His Website?]" in a message headed "Families Called on to Join
Class Acton On ADHD Drug- Ritilan" posted on March 30, 2006.


I know you didn't use the exact same electrons, but you did say that
something wouldn't appear on my site. But it did.


Yes, I already addressed those LIES!


See Jan admitting that, in fact, she had challenged me to put
something on my site on a previous occasion, despite saying
"Impossible...I have never said *that* before....". If I were to be
uncharitable I might call that lying. But I'm not.




What LIES, Jan? You said I wouldn't talk about something on my site. I
talked about it on my site. How has this got anything to do with LIES?
Unless you are saying that the original article that you said I
wouldn't comment on was LIES. If it was, why did you post it here?


Even then I was trying to get Jan to point out some lies on the web
site, but all she seemed to be able to do was rant about a Usenet
message.


snip stuff which made sense before Jan started random snipping
--
Peter Bowditch


Still no web site lies. On we go.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....3d23c387fe6e89

How do you feel about the Catholic Church, Carole? Have you ever
wondered how an organisation could have such strong supporters on the
one hand and stand up for what was so good and right with their St
Vincent de Paul organisation and their social justice work, yet be so
maligned on the other?
--
Peter Bowditch

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....8c563945e607a7

Peter Bowditch diverted to:


Catholic Church


snip


This thread is NOT about the about....


[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...2-1248,00.html

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....d227f7769fb0e3

I'm sorry that you didn't understand the analogy and had to snip it,
Jan.


Met any good Scientologists lately? Have you asked them if they still
think that Jesus was a pedophile?



snip


This thread is NOT about the about....


[ We won't see this on Peter Bowditch's website....]



As I said, Jan, when you said this one before about another matter,
you were wrong.


In any case, why should this appear on my web site? My web site is not
about "organised medicine" catching the bad apples. In fact, when I
wrote about "organised medicine" chasing killer Dr Patel you accused
me of supporting him. Maybe you didn't, but who can tell with the way
you rant. In any case, you did not accept that my criticism of him was
criticism of him.


snip stuff which I have answered before about a psychologist who
should be run out of town on a rail

Peter Bowditch

~~~~~~~

Now let us compare that to wrote Peter wrote on his webite.


Ahh! At last we get to something on my web site.


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...l.htm#1ritalin

Updates made to The Millenium Project in April 2006

The sky is falling! Children are being drugged! (1/4/2006}


But, but, but - that date is April 1, so how could it have anything
to do with something published on April 11. All of the stuff above was
Jan complaining about how I wouldn't post something, but now she
points to something ten days earlier for some reason or other.

Now she has actually got to the web site, let's see her list the lies
and provide an explanation.


I was challenged during the week by someone who stated that a story in
the
newspaper would not be reported here because of the immensely damaging
information it contained about the second-most evil and dangerous
chemical
ever made, Ritalin. (The most dangerous is, of course, mercury, with
Prozac,
aspartame and fluoride closing in along the straight.) The horror story
that
I would be too afraid to tell is that a politician, well known as an
anti-Ritalin loon, has said that he is trying to round up participants
for a
class action against the makers and distributor of the drug. That's it.
That's the story. Someone is trying to organise a court action, but no
parties are yet involved, no court papers have been filed, and nothing
has
happened. I can only imagine that someone at the newspaper will be
disciplined for not selling enough advertising and leaving a blank space
which had to be filled with drivel.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

Two major matters of concern are associated with this non story. The
first
is that last week 14 kids aged around 13 or 14 at a school in Queensland
(as
far as you can get from the politician in question and still be in
Australia) managed to get their hands on some Ritalin which was not
prescribed for them and administered it to themselves using a delivery
method which is not how it is supposed to be taken. They all ended up in
hospital and local politicians are making noises about attacking drug
abuse.
It is drug abuse to consume drugs not prescribed for you in order to get
an
effect which the drugs do not give if taken according to directions, but
this means nothing to the anti-Ritalin loons. The drug was taken, there
was
harm, the drug is bad. Four legs good, two legs bad. I pointed out that
it
was almost inevitable that 14 kids of that age had abused acetaminophen
somewhere in Australia during the week (many ending up in hospital) and
an
absolute certainty that that number of kids had abused both nicotine and
alcohol (although the hospital visits for these may be deferred for some
time), but there are no calls for the banning of these drugs. Just
Ritalin,
because, as everyone knows, there is no such thing as ADHD and the
condition
was only invented to allow the sales of this dangerous, unproven drug.
(Methylphenidate was patented in 1954, so it is a matter of some interest
both why anyone bothered to research and patent a treatment for a
non-existent condition (CIBA-Geigy isn't a quackery potion manufacturer,
who
do this all the time), and who has been taking it for the last fifty
years
other than the millions of kids who have benefited.)


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

The second major concern was that prescriptions for Ritalin had increased
"tenfold" since it was accepted into the Australian Pharmaceutical
Benefits
Scheme and therefore made affordable. I'm not quite sure where the
"tenfold"
comes from, because the latest figures available from the PBS for
prescriptions written in Australia are for the year ending June 30, 2005,
and Ritalin was not added to the scheme until August the same year. It is
worth noting here that the hundredth most prescribed drug in Australia up
until June 2005 accounted for 404,000 prescriptions during the year.
Another relevant statistic is that according to the Australian Bureau of
Statistics, there are about 276,000 people in the country who are aged 18
or
less.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

So how big is the Ritalin epidemic? Well, according to the opponents,
there
were 523 prescriptions written in August 2005 and "more than 5800" in
January 2006. (I love the "more than". It suggests extreme accuracy in
reporting.) The first thing I did was point out that this was an
elevenfold
increase, and, according to the rules set by the person telling the story
any deviation from absolute fact is a lie and there are no such things as
mistakes, therefore the person claiming a "tenfold" increase was lying.
(You
might think I am joking or exaggerating here. This person accused me of
lying for saying that Hulda Clark sued me for damaging sales of her
books.
When I replied that a publishing company whose only products were books
had
sued me for damaging sales of its products and therefore books, I was
told
to point to where the word "books" appeared in the lawsuit. Bizarre, I
know,
but true.) An exception was immediately made in this case (as it would
have
to be, because the person making the claim opposed Ritalin).


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

But back to the epidemic. There are about 276,000 people aged 18 or less
in
the country and less than 6,000 people taking Ritalin in total. If all of
those pill poppers were under 19 it would be 2%. Let's allow the number
of
monthly prescriptions to rise to 6,000, giving 72,000 per year. This is a
very long way from the top 100 most prescribed drugs in the country (one
of
which is aspirin, which, as any alternaut knows, is never recommended for
anything because it can't be patented and nobody can make money out of
it).


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

So, we have a drug which used to be expensive but is now subsidised,
inevitably leading to an increase in both prescribing and consumption.
The
huge increase in prescriptions is only huge when compared to a very low
starting point, but in relative terms compared to other prescription
drugs
it isn't even a ripple on the pond. Kids who can benefit from the drug
are
more likely to get it because their parents can now afford to pay for it.
Action is being taken to control abuse, but even before that action it is
still far less abused than some quite dangerous over-the-counter
medications. Everything seems to be good. Unless you think that sick
children don't need medication. But why would anyone want to deprive kids
of
effective treatment? I don't know the answer to that. I don't think that
there is an answer which would satisfy anyone who is concerned about
children and their welfare.


Not a single lie identified. What Jan forgot to quote from that page,
however, was where I scooped the mainstream media by identifying the
source of the newspaper article which Jan referred to (and said I
wouldn't comment on).

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...l.htm#8ritalin

Ritalin follow-up (8/4/2006)

I mentioned last week that hysteria had broken out in Australia
because kids who might benefit from the drug Ritalin would have
better access now that it is being subsidised by the Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme. The original beat-up story in the paper told horror
tales about adverse events arising following taking the drug, but the
paper forgot to mention that the main source of information for the
story was a branch of Scientology, the Citizen's Commission on Human
Rights. (CCHR won the Anus Maximus Award in 2003. Read about it here.)
They did mention CCHR, but the cloudy ancestry of the outfit was swept
under the carpet. It is amazing to see how people who would normally
reject Scientology outright as either a dangerous cult or, when
considering Tom Cruise's antics, as a font of hilarity, suddenly start
taking the cult seriously when it agrees with them.

When I first noticed this phenomenon I went looking for the origin of
the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Remarkably, the first
place I found it was on the web site of anti-psychiatrist Thomas
Szasz, where he used it to justify going into business with
Scientology to establish CCHR. (In one wonderful moment of bizarrity,
some alternative medicine believer once called me a liar for saying
that Szasz had ever used those words and defied me to produce evidence
of my claim. I referred to where the words appeared on Szasz's own web
site and was told that that was not good enough!) One of the most
ferocious anti-Ritalin and anti-medication campaigners I have come
across has told people that anything I say can be disregarded because
I am an atheist (my pointing out that I am an ordained minister of a
church did not earn me any credit) and, in fact, only Christians (and
then only some subset of Christians) can be trusted to tell the truth
about anything. Whenever this abuse of religion is brought into the
argument I make a point of quoting L. Ron Hubbard, writing in the
secret OT VIII documents.

"For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me
take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For
instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has
been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and
men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that
belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical
Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired
to see where it all inevitably leads. It is historic fact and yet man
still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious is the biologic
implanting".

I always like to remind Jan of Hubbard's opinion of Jesus.


~~~~~~

More lies after this on the same page:


As no lies have been identified yet, it is a bit premature to say
"more", but let's keep pressing on.


You might wonder what all this has to do with the matters of interest to
The
Millenium Project, but this week I fell into a conversation which would
make
Ionesco look like a jingle writer for McDonalds when it came to
measurements
on the weirdness scale.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

The 1931 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Dr Otto
Warburg for, as it says on the Nobel site, "his discovery of the nature
and
mode of action of the respiratory enzyme". It was thought at the time, by
Dr
Warburg and others, that his work might have some application to the
treatment of cancer, but that was not to be and research in this area
withered away and was finally abandoned. To believers in alternative
medicine, however, this must mean that Warburg's ideas have been
suppressed,
and a mythology has been created around him. One piece of mythology is
that
he was "voted" a second Nobel Prize in 1944. Pointing out to alternauts
that
nobody is "voted" a Nobel Prize who does not then go on to "win" the
prize
had me being accused of lying. I have told the objectors that they should
write to the relevant Nobel committee and point out that there is a
mistake
on the Nobel web site because it says that the 1944 Medicine prize went
to
Joseph Erlanger and Herbert S. Gasser, but I am yet to receive a
satisfactory answer. Or an answer at all, in fact.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

You might think that saying that someone has won two Nobel Prizes when he
has only won one would be so easily dismissed that further conversation
would be pointless, but it gets even stranger. You see, it is claimed
that
there are many references to Dr Warburg and cancer on the Nobel site, so
this must mean that he won for his cancer cure. (At least two of the
references are to someone else named Warburg, but let's not let the facts
interfere with the story.) I pointed out that in Dr Warburg's Nobel
Lecture
the word "cancer" appears exactly zero times, something which seems
strange
if curing cancer was what he was getting the prize for. I also mentioned
that the word "cancer" did appear in the presentation speech made by
someone
else, but only as a comment on how a cure might happen in the future, but
meanwhile Dr Warburg was getting an award for something else.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

And this is where things started to get really weird. I had made the
mistake
of accidentally referring to Dr Warburg's Nobel Lecture as an "acceptance
speech". My error was pointed out and I agreed that I had used the wrong
form of words. I was then accused of lying for saying that it wasn't an
acceptance speech. The person doing the accusing gave me five examples of
laureates who had made "acceptance speeches" and nyah, nyah, I was wrong.
As
one of the examples was William Faulkner (Literature 1949) and he gave a
"Banquet Speech", not an "acceptance speech", I thought that two could
play
at the literalist pedant game, but my response was not taken well.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

In a complete about-face, the person who had been telling me that
Medicine
or Physiology laureate Dr Warburg must have made an "acceptance speech"
because Martin Luther King (Peace 1963) and The 14th Dali Lama (Peace
1989)
had done so, suddenly announced that Dr Warburg's speech had probably
been
given in support of his nomination (it was presented on December 10,
after
the award had been announced).


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

I commented that nobody gets to address the voting commitee before the
final
announcement, and many people do not even know that they have been
nominated
until they are told that they have won. I gave the example of Peter
Doherty
(Medicine 1996) who was informed of his win ten minutes before the press
release went out from Stockholm so that he the media. Another player then
accused me of lying could getready for telephone calls from the media.
Another player then accused me of lying, because there wouldn't be time
to
write a 15 page "acceptance speech" in ten minutes. My response was to
say
that writing the speech would have been the least of his problems as he
only
had ten minutes to get into his white tie and tails and get from Memphis,
Tennessee to Stockholm, Sweden. I quoted from Professor Doherty's book,
but,
alas, I was dealing with the sort of people who cannot understand any
form
of the spoken or written word which does not involve concrete thinking.
(As
an example, one of the players challenged me to something and then
included
the single-word paragraph "Well?". When I replied "Yes, I am well. Thanks
for asking" I was told that she hadn't been asking me anything.)


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

In another bizarre non sequitur, when I mentioned that I had seen the
Nobel
medal that had been awarded to Ernest Lawrence (Physics 1939, and another
who had delivered an "acceptance speech") I was informed about how many
Nobel laureates had come out of Berkeley. I suppose I should have replied
that there is a street in Berkeley township which has the same name as
me.
It would have been just as relevant.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

I started out by mentioning a play, and I will end the same way. If
everything goes well I will have a short play here next week telling the
wonderful story of the Warburg controversy. There will be three main
characters - Max (a nutritionist who believes that there are no good or
bad
forms of cholesterol, that the best way to prevent chickenpox in children
is
to expose them to the wild virus, and that one Nobel Prize plus no other
Nobel Prize equals two Nobel Prizes), Jan (a lady who believes that the
most
evil chemicals in the world are mercury and Ritalin, that
anti-vaccination
liars do not tell lies, that people who pray to saints are servants of
Satan
(but she is not a religious bigot of course, and has never said anything
about Catholics), and that anyone who even knows Stephen Barrett's email
address is intrinsically evil), and Peter (who has a prescription for
SSRI
medication but refuses to take the pills in case the Scientologists turn
up
on his doorstep again and point at him and laugh, and whose serotonin can
stay right where it is). I will call the play "Acceptance Speech", which
should be suitably confusing for anyone who can't see that something can
have multiple signifiers and that words and phrases can sometimes mean
different things in different contexts.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

So where's the promised play? (8/4/2006)

My plans to write a play based on the weirdness of some Usenet
participants
were thrown into psychological disarray during the week, when I was
presented with some additional information about the mental states of the
subjects whom I was observing in order to create my piece of htémél
vérité.
One of the subjects told me that using Google to find things on the web
was
"the lazy man's way", and that he was better at finding things than
Google.
To add to this hubris, he then told me that it didn't make any sense for
someone to say that Nobel Laureates presented things called Nobel
Lectures
and challenged me to name anybody who had done so.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

Show us all here how giving a 15 page lecture to those giving a Nobel
Prize is customary. I'm not just going to take your word for it,
especially
since it doesn't even make sense. The web site is right there. Find some
other Nobel Laureates that gave lectures to the audience upon receiving
an
award. If it's customary, it should be easy to prove your point.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

I responded by giving references to the lectures presented by every
Laureate in 2005, and, as we had been talking about 1931, pointed out
that
the only people who didn't give lectures in that year were either unable
to
attend the awards ceremony or, the ultimate in "unable to attend", had
died
during the time between the announcement of the awards and the
presentation.
(Thus exploiting a loophole in the Nobel regulations, as the prizes can
only
be awarded to living people. This is why Rosalind Franklin did not share
the
1962 Medicine prize with Watson, Crick and Wilkins.) I also offered the
information that the Nobel people had been publishing an annual book
containing the lectures since 1901. Better-than-Google replied that I
obviously didn't know what I was talking about.


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

He then changed hats and announced that he had a dietary cure for all
sorts
of diseases which had been 100% successful both in effectiveness and
compliance by dieters. When pressed for details he said that the diet was
the one "used by native people all over the world for thousands of
years". I
asked him the following question, but I have yet to receive an answer.
Sadly, it appears that Max has run away and no longer wants to talk to
me.
If someone else hadn't thought of the words first, I should probably say:
"If he come not, then the play is marred: it goes not forward, doth it?".


Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.

So where are the lies on my web site, Jan.

Remember - URL of offending page, words making up the lie, explanation
of why it is a lie.

I promise to fix every one of them and add an apology in every case.
Get on with it.



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





  #165  
Old December 24th 06, 08:52 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health
Peter Bowditch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,038
Default The LIES on Peter Bowditch's website

"Jan Drew" wrote:


"vakker" wrote in message
news:wthjh.510699$1T2.371527@pd7urf2no...

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote :

If what you say in 2006 is correct, it should be easy to
list the lies and point out why each one of them is a lie. But you
can't do either.


--
Peter Bowditch

I asked for a list of lies and reasons. As minimum, each member of
the list should consists of three parts - the URL of the page with the
lie on it, the words of the lie, the explanation of why the words
constitute a lie.


WE ASKED FOR RECEIPTS. LET'S SEE WHAT WE GOT............

$0.00 THAT'S WHAT.

PETER BOWDITCH DOESN'T OR CAN'T PROVIDE RECEIPTS FOR HIS OWN CHARITABLE
FOUNDATION. HE
ALSO WANTS OTHER GULLIBLE FOOLS TO DONATE THERE DESPITE THE FACT IT'S A
DEAD
WEBSITE AND FOUNDATION AND HASN'T DONE NOTHING FOR YEARS!!!! NOBODY KNOWS
WHERE THE DONATIONS GOES??????? NEAT EHHHH????


He only lied some 16? times, (I lost track) in his post.


KACHING!! $1 - I'm sorry Jan, but claiming 16 lies doesn't get $16 for
ACAHF.


*Direct quote from the site. No lies identified.*


Quite right. You quoted whole paragraphs without ever identifying the
"lies" within them. Because you can't. Because there aren't any.

snip repetition of me showing that Jan had completely failed to
identify any "lies" on my web site

List them, Jan - URL of the offending page, the words which make up
the "lie", why it is a lie.

Off you go. I'm waiting.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
  #166  
Old December 30th 06, 01:35 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
David Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default Homeopathy

In article , David wrote:

"David Wright" wrote in message
et...
In article jABih.514506$R63.97045@pd7urf1no, vakker
wrote:

"David Wright" wrote in message
gy.net...
In article , David
wrote:

"David Wright" wrote in message
. net...
In article , David

wrote:

"David Wright" Why does it work for
babies?

Who says it does?

Many many people all over the world. You know, those folks who have real
experience over time. Not like you.

As I said, I tried homeopathy. Didn't do a damn thing for me. My
experience is just as valid as theirs.

Wanna tell us more about it?


Not really. I have no intention of naming the homeopath, for example;
no need to make him the fall guy.

How
bout you just tell what remedy for what condition, you used. In what form.
How much. How long. What else you did at the same time, coffee, tea, spicy
food, just the facts.


Nope.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins
  #167  
Old December 30th 06, 01:45 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Homeopathy

David, since you won't share the information about your Homeopathic
experience, it might be thought that you cannot because you didn't, or did
wrong. One of the two it seems. In either case, your opinion about
Homeopathic Medicine is worth nothing. You do not know. Ta Ta !


  #168  
Old January 2nd 07, 04:13 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
David Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default Homeopathy

In article , David wrote:
David, since you won't share the information about your Homeopathic
experience, it might be thought that you cannot because you didn't, or did
wrong. One of the two it seems. In either case, your opinion about
Homeopathic Medicine is worth nothing. You do not know. Ta Ta !


Aw, Tools, you're such a wet blanket. And here I was hoping you'd
condescend to regale us with a few anecdotes, based on your own
experience, of the merits of drinking your own urine.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Homeopathy: Holmes, Hogwarts, and the Prince of Wales Mark Probert Kids Health 2 October 21st 06 12:53 AM
A Review of ADHD Treatments Jan Drew General 18 October 16th 06 12:18 PM
A Review of ADHD Treatments Jan Drew Kids Health 17 October 16th 06 12:18 PM
Homeopathy vs allopathy - Part 2. [email protected] Kids Health 32 September 9th 06 03:24 PM
Homeopathy vs allopathy. [email protected] Kids Health 8 August 11th 06 06:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.