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.

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.

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."

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"

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

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...

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

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_

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

"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".