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

Psychotropic Drugs Perfect Killing Machine ... MUST READ



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 10th 10, 05:09 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Psychotropic Drugs Perfect Killing Machine ... MUST READ


"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
On 9/9/10 10:04 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
. 16.121...
wrote in
nd.com:


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

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

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

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


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


The current treatments have also been shown to work clinically.


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


The old allopathic method, huh?


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


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


No of course they don't dr not doc.
You just keep believing that, wouldn't want to rock your little world too
much would we?

carole
www.conspiracee.com




  #22  
Old September 10th 10, 08:18 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Psychotropic Drugs Perfect Killing Machine ... MUST READ


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






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

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

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

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


Read what you wrote before my response, moron.



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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


More conspiracy theory. What a piece of work!


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


I am an INTJ (myer briggs type test).


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

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

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

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


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


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


You live in a small world dr no doc.


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

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


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



Were is your own evidence about the foot fungus?

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

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

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


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


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


Not after it has all been confiscated and run out of town, no.
And that's the way they like it.
Ever looked into the high price of pharmaceuticals in the US compared to
other countries?
I wonder why that is dr no doc?



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

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


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

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


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


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

In reality, there are two types of medicine:

1) Medicine that works.

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


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



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

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


Maybe but in the meantime?


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


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


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

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

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



carole
www.conspiracee.com



You still haven't proven it.


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

carole
www.conspiracee.com



Jeff (dr no doc)



  #23  
Old September 10th 10, 08:31 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Psychotropic Drugs Perfect Killing Machine ... MUST READ


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


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






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

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

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

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


Read what you wrote before my response, moron.


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


Then why do you continue to use them boob?


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

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

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

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


Remember rummy's quote -


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


No, I don't think you do.


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


Really and you know this why and how Carole.


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



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

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


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


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


Twisting the truth again bob.
Shame!


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


Like chemo does?


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


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


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


Were is your own evidence about the foot fungus?

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


Maybe but in the meantime?


we Still look at evidence and not stories, Carole.


But bob, the evidence has been confiscated or otherwise made to disappear
before you came on the scene.
Then along comes the skeptic and does what he does and guess what
.....debunking, what every good little skeptic does best.



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

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

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


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


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

"Rule out the impossible"

carole
www.conspiracee.com




  #24  
Old September 10th 10, 09:37 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
Peter B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Psychotropic Drugs Perfect Killing Machine ... MUST READ


"carole" wrote in message
ond.com...

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


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






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

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

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

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

Read what you wrote before my response, moron.


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


Then why do you continue to use them boob?


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

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

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

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

Remember rummy's quote -


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


No, I don't think you do.


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


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


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



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


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


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


That sentence really proves your ignorance, walks away shaking my head,
stupidity.

  #25  
Old September 10th 10, 10:28 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
Steelclaws
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Psychotropic Drugs Perfect Killing Machine ... MUST READ

"carole" wrote in
ond.com:

You rule things out because there is no evidence but all the time the
evidence has been made to disappear.


Your paranoid fantasies are not evidence either. Fact remains that you
cannot back that claim in any which way except your personal belief.
Sorry, but personal beliefs are not evidence of anything except your
psychopathology.

You don't understand about DDT (Decoy, Distract and Trash) which
intelligence operatives employ to get the public's attention off
something real and important.


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

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

Jeff


Quackwatch is rubbish.
All silly nonsense, part of the skeptic club.
The skeptics are as thick as **** but think they are heroes for saving
the world against quacks.


"WAAH WAAH WAAH! The big bad meanie skeptics won't believe my say-so!"
*carole stomps foot and sulks*

This group is policed by skeptics, who have the official story down
pat. probably have a set of notes online to refer to as to what is the
official position and what is allowed.


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

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

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #26  
Old September 10th 10, 10:47 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
Steelclaws
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Psychotropic Drugs Perfect Killing Machine ... MUST READ

"carole" wrote in
nd.com:

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


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


No, you just don't get it.
Innovation is stifled, inventors are kept quiet by the pharmaceutical
cartel.


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

You won't find references because they make the evidence disappear and
do propaganda on the inventors to make them appear stupid.


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

EVERY single "cure"/"treatment"/device based on "suppressed technology"
you've so far mentioned I and others have been able to find for sale on
the internet. That's a lot of references - not to mention Rife's notes,
Reich's books etc which all are freely available - and disproves your
paranoid claim.

It's a good thing to let people know that something does not work and/or
it's harmful or a fraud.

But in carole's little paranoid world that is propaganda created to
"suppress" the noble, heroic inventors - who in real life are either
outright frauds or self-deluded cranks.

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


You're so stupid, you wouldn't know if these guys were true or not.
You simply believe whatever the establishment tells you.


Unlike you, I'm fully able to evaluate the evidence and to learn. I
remember you whinging about not being able to read PubMed articles, as
they were too complicated for your understanding. Just because you're so
dense that light bends around you, does not mean everybody is as damn
stupid and ignorant as you.

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

Wikipedia which is monitored constantly and changes made to some
entries as soon as they are posted.
As soon as somebody makes an entry it is changed to reflect official
policy on some things.


The wikipedia article I've written was edited by people who knew more
about the subject I did, and there's nothing wrong with that. The
article was about an abandoned London railway station - and I doubt even
you could imagine a vast conspiracy all policing that the correct policy
is adhered to when it comes to transport history. Though maybe you can,
I doubt we've yet seen the depths of your paranoia.

I've read about it.


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

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


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

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

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #27  
Old September 10th 10, 11:03 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
Steelclaws
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Psychotropic Drugs Perfect Killing Machine ... MUST READ

"carole" wrote in news:zysio.6172$FH2.1037
@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com:

As noted previously, you only have empty assertions about your claim,
but evidence is missing. Please also remember I do check the

references,
and wikipedia editors cannot change the contents of external links.


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


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

Healing is not a crime - huckstering stuff that cannot work and can

be
dangerous for big bucks IS.


Well unfortunately, you can't tell the difference.


Actually, I can. Cure rates and valid evidence for the cure working is
pretty effective. Too bad quacks are never able to produce any.

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


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


You just don't get it do you?


That's carolespeak for "I can't do that so I'll try and avoid".

YOU claimed there are other sources, now let's see what you can come up
with.

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


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


More carolespeak for "I can't refute what is being said, so I'll try ad
hominems instead."

BTW, calling you paranoid and stupid is not an ad hominemn - it's a
diagnosis.

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


Tu quoque fallacy.

Nobody's claimed chemo is completely harmless, but it has been shown

to
have a beneficial effect, unlike Hoxley's quackery.


You're joking right?


Not in the slightest.

"It has now become clear that chemotherapy for advanced nonsmall-cell
lung cancer, compared with best supportive care only, improves survival,
even if the amplitude of the benefit remains disappointing. However,
some clinicians are still reluctant to prescribe chemotherapy in this
patient population, arguing that the survival gain is too small to
counterbalance the side effects. Therefore, randomized trials using
quality of life as an endpoint and comparing best supportive care with
or without chemotherapy were reviewed. Although there are difficulties
in the methodology of quality of life assessments and in the analysis of
quality of life data, most of the selected trials showed an improvement
for quality of life in various components in the chemotherapy arm."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12130921

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

eliminate
the competition.


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


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


carole, I have no problems whatsoever looking at the crap sites you
post. You, however, are deathly afraid of anything that might challenge
your beliefs.

You have bragged here that you like to do your own research. That is
simply self-delusion. You refuse to look in depth into anything, and
accept only what supports your paranoia. Then you brag about being a
deluded gullible fool. But hey, if you have nothing else to build your
self-esteem on, then stay stupid and ignorant and imagine that you know
everything better than anyone else - especially better than people who
actually have researched things for themselves.

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


And chemo is what?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12130921

And costs how much?


Would not cost a penny for me, if I ever needed it.

Look up Ghadiali, btw. Maybe you like sexual predators, but I don't.

He
did 5 years in jail for violating the Mann Act. The case is Ghadiali

v.
United States, 9 Cir., 17 F.2d 236


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


That is a court case reference, carole. So you're so afraid of being in
the wrong you refuse to look at something that is only a record of what
happened in the court during the case. Figures

"In 1925, when Ghadiali was on a lecture tour, he was arrested in
Seattle and sentenced under the Mann Act to five years in the Atlanta
Penitentiary. He later published a two-volume work, Railroading a
Citizen, in which he blamed this unjust "persecution" on the medical
trusts, the KKK, Catholics, Negroes, Henry Ford, the Department of
Justice, and Great Britain. The book reprints the more sensational

parts
of the trial in which his teen-age secretary accuses him of rape,
forcing her into "unnatural practices," and later performing an
abortion. Ghadiali's purpose in reprinting this testimony is to allow
himself a chance to interject comments accusing the girl of lying.
Unfortunately, the impression left on the reader is that the girl was
telling a straightforward story."
- Gardner, Fads and Fallacies, 1957


Not interested thankyou.


Read his own book as the name of it is given in the quote. Then let's
see if you can figure out for yourself what really happened. Though I
doubt that.

You are too dumb to deal with.


That's carolespeak for "I got to run away, I'm scared of something I
might find out".

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

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #28  
Old September 10th 10, 11:07 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
Steelclaws
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Psychotropic Drugs Perfect Killing Machine ... MUST READ

"carole" wrote in
ond.com:

Most all of Wikipedia's references are from CAM or authoritative
sources with documents references. The key with any internet based
(or Printed) source is to fully read the references.


I don't care where wikipedia gets its information.


That shows how incredibly information illiterate you are. I've told you
before that wikipedia editors cannot change the extrenal references, so
the trick is to check those for verification of what the wikipedia
articles say.

But I guess such simple checks are way above the skills of a
"mastermind".

I have heard that entries in wikipedia are changed as fast as they are
put in to reflect the establishment views.


I have heard that the moon is green cheese. I don't believe in that
either.

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

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #29  
Old September 10th 10, 11:13 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default Psychotropic Drugs Perfect Killing Machine ... MUST READ

On 9/10/10 10:21 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/10/10 2:22 AM, john wrote:
"Peter wrote in message
...


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


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

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


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


All you skeptics are a joke.
You rule things out because there is no evidence but all the time the
evidence has been made to disappear.


Nice conspiracy theory!

It's not working, though.

You don't understand about DDT (Decoy, Distract and Trash) which
intelligence operatives employ to get the public's attention off something
real and important.


Irrelevent. Hoxsey is neither real nor important, except as an example
of alternative medicine that doesn't work and people trying to rip other
people off.

Jeff

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


More than you not doc.


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

Jeff


Quackwatch is rubbish.
All silly nonsense, part of the skeptic club.
The skeptics are as thick as **** but think they are heroes for saving the
world against quacks.

This group is policed by skeptics, who have the official story down pat.
probably have a set of notes online to refer to as to what is the official
position and what is allowed.

carole
www.conspiracee.com




  #30  
Old September 10th 10, 11:16 PM posted to misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,misc.health.alternative
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default Psychotropic Drugs Perfect Killing Machine ... MUST READ

On 9/10/10 10:25 AM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:22:35 +0100, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:


"Peter wrote in message
...


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


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

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


Thanks, Pig-****-for-brains-John, for showing I was right the
information isn't suppressed if you are distributing it.

Suppressed doesn't mean it is rejected or shown to be ineffective.


But it is suppressed if Hoxley had to go to Mexico to practice it
****-for-brains-boob.


Nice personal attack.

That's like saying that my driving was surpressed when I was 8 years old
because I had to ride my bike until I got my driver's license.

For Hoxsey's treatment to be allowed in the US, it would have to be
shown to work. GOOD for America! Not getting unproven treatments that
delay effective, proven therapies is a good thing and the only thing
suppressed is bad medicine.

Jeff

carole
www.conspiracee.com




 




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
BOSTON, MA -- Psychotropic Medications Overprescribed in Foster-Care fx Spanking 0 November 2nd 07 08:13 AM
BOSTON, MA -- Psychotropic Medications Overprescribed in Foster-Care fx Foster Parents 0 November 2nd 07 08:13 AM
if you take prescription drugs, you need to read [email protected] General 0 February 20th 07 01:31 AM
Are Parents Increasing The Need For Psychotropic Drugs? Jan Drew Kids Health 0 September 19th 06 06:40 AM
2/3 Fosters TX on psychotropic *chemical restraints* One on 17 Fern5827 Spanking 0 November 12th 04 04:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47 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.