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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
HCN wrote: "PeterB" wrote in message ups.com... WARNING: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine .... None of those groups are blogs. (you claiming otherwise makes you look like an idiot) Good point. Now I can focus on this detail and dismiss the rest of what he is saying. He must be wrong. Thank God there are rational people here. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact thePublic Discourse on Matters of Public Health
Sammybaby wrote:
Mark Probert wrote: PeterB wrote: WARNING: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Petey, I hope one day that someone takes pity on you and writes a song of the quality of the Edmund Fitzgerald about your shipwreck. Good rational, scientific response. You must represent pharmaceutical companies. Making the same baseless, unproven comment? Why is it that you AltNuts have to resort to that when you have no facts to support your so-called ideas? It only makes you look like an asshole. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
In misc.health.alternative Sammybaby wrote:
: HCN wrote: : None of those groups are blogs. : : (you claiming otherwise makes you look like an idiot) : Good point. Now I can focus on this detail and dismiss the rest of : what he is saying. He must be wrong. Thank God there are rational : people here. For better or for worse, many people reason inductively as follows: if a poster cannot even get simple, easily verified facts correct, what is his track record likely to be on controversial or complicated matters? ----- Richard Schultz Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
In misc.health.alternative Sammybaby wrote:
: Good rational, scientific response. You must represent pharmaceutical : companies. Which is, of course, part of the problem. Apparently, not only are the people who post here in support of "alternative medicine" incapable of forumlating a rational argument; they believe in principle that one should not *use* rational arguments. This difference in worldview between them and the more skeptical crowd is basically insurmountable. ----- Richard Schultz Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
In article ,
vernon stillhere@anhere wrote: wrote in message mu.edu... We know we know, we still seek one example of a newsgroup post where industry is sending posters in the way the original author suggested to make further discussion aside from gossip and speculation possible. "If you can't see them by reading, you are hopeless." We know we know, now we need someone with the "special magic glasses" to point we the blind to one example in the real world so we can discuss it. I "see" some "alternative" supporters being challendged on the science of their claims, are those the "pharmabloggers"? Challenged? Challenge on the base that they state that prescription drugs are not dangerous even though officially classified as such by the FDA. Challenge on the basis that all drugs are safe. Challenge on the base that NO supplements are advantageous. Challenge on the base that the average American does not need supplements. Intensely stupid or paid. I can't imagine any one that stupid. Well, yes, many otherwise intelligent sales people start actually believing their own hype. But nobody here is making claims that "all drugs are safe." Just good ol' vernon, setting up another row of straw men. I don't know where you've been lately, vernon, but I think they let you out of the restraints too soon. -- 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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
WARNING: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
vernon wrote: "PeterB" wrote in message ups.com... vernon wrote: "HCN" wrote in message . .. "PeterB" wrote in message ups.com... WARNING: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine .... None of those groups are blogs. (you claiming otherwise makes you look like an idiot) Claiming that the statement inferred that the News Groups are / were Blogs is outright ignorance. FYI Blogging a News Group is posting information on a News Group that one would expect and see on a personal (or paid) agenda blog. DDUUUHHHH Welcome back -- I thought you might be on vacation. You're right, it's a description of the activity, not the medium. I guess I could have used "pharmaflogging," but knowing they hate "pharmablogger" more, I'll stick with that. PeterB Pharmanure? Pharmanurring? Pharmiging? Pharmplopping? All good... |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Warning, was "WARNING: Industry"
Richard Schultz wrote: In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote: : Richard Schultz wrote: : In misc.health.alternative wrote: : : The last time this was posted the author was asked to provide an example : : by which this "shotgun" approach could be illustrated, it is of yet not : : forthcoming. : When has the author been forthcoming about *anything*? : Have you posted a new thread with your links as requested, or will you : make excuses for not having my address for postal delivery? I posted the journal references. For anyone with a high school education, that should have been sufficient. For you, I posted links to the web locations of the articles themselves. If you are not sufficiently competent in your use of Google to be able to find that post, that's your problem, not mine. I am not going to do any more of your homework for you than I already have. So, you refuse to post your collection of scary vitamin stories in a new thread even if it means getting your point across. Now, why would that be? There cannot be too many reasons for it, frankly. It could not be that you actually mind spending the time, as your incessant personal attacks against me clearly shows you are willing to spend your days here frivolously. It could not be that this material is difficult to re-post, as you must have bothered to retain it for future reference, assuming you are the least bit rational. Having retained it, you should be quite willing to re-post it for the purpose of your own topical interest. In the absence of any logical reason for your refusal, therefore, I can only conclude that you are too stupid to know how to create a thread of your own. What else can it be? You are too stupid to know how to click the virtual button that allows you to create a new thread, and you don't want to admit it, so you tell me you won't do "my homework" for me. If you weren't so obviously inept at evaluating scientific material put before you, I might feel sorry for you. As it is, I can only take pleasure in pointing out that you are quite a bafoon. Either that, or you sponsors won't allow you to post a new thread with such material because it makes your motives too obvious. Which is it, Schultzie? Are you stupid, or just a dumb pharmboy? PeterB |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Warning, was "WARNING: Industry"
In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote:
: So, you refuse to post your collection of scary vitamin stories in a : new thread even if it means getting your point across. It's not a collection of "scary vitamin stories" (another lie from PeterB). It's a collection of articles that discuss some of the negative side effects of "natural" medicines. I had deliberately left out articles that talked about negative interactions between "natural" medicines and other drugs, although it would be interesting to know whether or not you believe that "natural" medicines should have drug interaction warnings on their labels. : Now, why would that be? There cannot be too many reasons for it, frankly. And the correct one is the obvious one: I believe that you cannot have it both ways. When I ask you for a reference, your response is that you will not do my homework for me (I'm still waiting for where on the web the *original paper* by McKinlay and McKinlay, not a secondary source that has a one-sentence reference to it, can be found). When I provide you with all of the information that you need to find the articles in question, you claim that you can't be bothered to find them. When I post links to web pages that have the articles, you mysteriously fail to see the post in question. You have commented several times on the use of Google to find information on the web. You could easily find the post in question in a small fraction of the time that it took you to post your tripe. I'm still not sure if you are a hypocrite, or if you really are unaware of just what it is that you are doing. : It could not be that you actually mind spending the time, as your incessant : personal attacks against me clearly shows you are willing to spend your : days here frivolously. It could not be that this material is difficult : to re-post, as you must have bothered to retain it for future : reference, assuming you are the least bit rational. Why should I "retain" it? Any time that I want the information, I can Google the original post. My newsreading software does automatically archive my posts, AFAIK, but I find it easier to look them up using Google. Too bad that you lack that ability. : In the absence of any logical reason for your : refusal, therefore, I can only conclude that you are too stupid to know : how to create a thread of your own. Considering that I have been posting to usenet for upwards of 20 years, and considering that *you* don't even know the difference between a Message-ID and an email address, I would say that your logical reasoning skills in this matter are rather faulty. And if you don't believe me when I say that I know how to create a new thread, all you have to do is to do a Google search for posts in rec.music.classical.recordings that have "Walter" and "Mahler" in the subject line and see who started the most recent thread on the topic of whether the two Bruno Walter/Concertgebouw recordings of Mahler's 4th are of two different performances, or if one was mislabeled. : What else can it be? You are too : stupid to know how to click the virtual button that allows you to : create a new thread, I don't post from Google Groups, which you are apparently too "stupid" to notice. I post from a university account using the "tin" program running under UNIX. : and you don't want to admit it, so you tell me you won't do : "my homework" for me. The reason that I won't do your homework for me is that you constantly use that excuse for your inability to find the answers to the questions that I ask you. Sauce for the goose, and all that. If you believe that there is some kind of obligation to post sufficient information that another reader could find out where on the net a certain reference can be found, then you should be willing to post such information yourself. If you refuse to post that information, then you can hardly complain when someone else refuses to post it three times. : If you weren't so obviously inept at evaluating scientific material put : before you, I might feel sorry for you. You should tell that to the editors of the scientific journals who have sent me research articles for review -- it would save me the time of having to review them. (How many articles have you reviewed for peer-reviewed journals?) But since you are such an expert on "evaluating scientific material," perhaps you'd be willing to answer some of the questions that I have put to you, such as o What deficiency disease is caused by insufficient "Vitamin B17" in the diet? o Do you believe that it the hypothesis that the Jews, the Jesuits, and the Masons are conspiring to take over the world is a reasonable one? o What is the difference between a Phase I clinical trial, a Phase II clinical trial, and a Phase III clinical trial? : As it is, I can only take pleasure in pointing out that you are : quite a bafoon. That may be true, but at least I know how to spell the word "buffoon." : Either that, or you sponsors won't allow you to post a : new thread with such material because it makes your motives too : obvious. Which is it, Schultzie? Are you stupid, or just a dumb : pharmboy? So far, you have produced exactly zero evidence that I have any sponsors. Nor have you provided an answer to my question of why the pharmaceutical companies would be willing to "sponsor" someone who openly criticizes some of their practices, and whose own scientific research is not in pharmaceuticals or anything related to them? ----- Richard Schultz Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Warning, was "WARNING: Industry"
Richard Schultz wrote: In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote: : I don't push products, I merely point out the differences between drugs : and nutrients. What deficiency disease is caused by a lack of "Vitamin B17" in the diet? If Krebs was right, then cancer is the result. Even if his understanding of the mechanism of nitrilosides in human biochemistry was somewhat amiss, we may still require naturally-occuring laetrile in fruit seeds to remain cancer free. PeterB |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Warning, was "WARNING: Industry"
"PeterB" wrote in message ups.com... Richard Schultz wrote: In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote: : I don't push products, I merely point out the differences between drugs : and nutrients. What deficiency disease is caused by a lack of "Vitamin B17" in the diet? If Krebs was right, then cancer is the result. Even if his understanding of the mechanism of nitrilosides in human biochemistry was somewhat amiss, we may still require naturally-occuring laetrile in fruit seeds to remain cancer free. PeterB Don't get side tracked into one specific "food" when his general pharm propaganda is about ALL supplements. B17 is not anywhere near being generally accepted in alternate or preventive medicine. You are being dragged into never never land. The question is what deficiency disease is caused by a lack of ANY (A-N-Y) drug. Even in the world of supplements or alternatives people a deficiency does not necessarily cause a deficiency "disease". Pharm boys refer to anything that can be perceptively altered by a drug as a "disease". That way, they can submit to FDA and get an "approval". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health | PeterB | General Discussion | 102 | November 29th, 2006 04:19 PM |
TC, once again, public announces his idiocy. | Mr. Natural-Health | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | April 8th, 2006 08:35 PM |
my fitday public journal | Aquarijen | General Discussion | 1 | August 10th, 2004 04:21 PM |