As Disbarred Probert would say ... prescribing doctors MURDERED 2000 PEOPLE!
Ilena Rose
someone dies after con-med has failed them ... and they visit an
alternative medical practitioner and later die.
To use his ILL LOGIC ... the doctors who prescribed these meds
MURDERED their patients and should be tried as such.
The consumer group Public Citizen is calling on the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to withdraw a popular prescription painkiller from the
market.
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=16271
The group says the widely prescribed pain reliever propoxyphene
(Darvon, Darvocet and generic versions), should be phased out because
it has been associated with more than 2,000 accidental deaths between
1981 and 1999, (nearly 6 percent of all drug-related fatalities), is
physically addictive and is no more effective than safer alternatives.
In 2004, 23 million prescriptions for propoxyphene were filled, making
it the 12th most commonly prescribed generic drug in the United
States.
Four companies - Mylan, Mallinkrodt, Teva and QLT - account for more
than 91 percent of U.S. prescriptions.
Only last year British health authorities announced a phased
withdrawal of the drug because of its negligible effectiveness and the
high risk of overdose and death.
They say it has been impossible to identify any patient group in whom
the risk-benefit ratio may be positive.
The U.S. advocacy group is calling on the FDA to follow suit.
A large proportion of the deaths occurred because the drug is
converted into a metabolite that is highly toxic to the heart and
lasts longer in the body than the original compound, resulting in
cardiac depression.
Adverse cardiac events associated with propoxyphene include an
interruption of heart transmission of electrical impulses, slowed
heartbeats and a decreased ability of the heart to contract properly.
Propoxyphene is also considered inappropriate for the elderly because
of it's effect on the central nervous system such as sedation and
confusion, which increase the likelihood of falls and fall-related
fractures in the elderly.
However the drug is used is widely in the institutionalized
population, in emergency rooms and in communities catering for older
people, in whom propoxyphene is most dangerous.
It has also been implicated in hundreds of suicides.
Public Citizen is calling for the drug to be phased out, rather than
banned immediately, because of its addictive quality.
Two Swedish experts on propoxyphene, Drs. Ulf and Birgitta Jonasson,
say the number of deaths involving propoxyphene in the U.S. alone is
striking.
FDA spokeswoman Laura Alvey confirmed that the agency received the
petition and would review it carefully but could not comment further.
Dr. Sidney Wolfe, head of Public Citizen's Health Research Group first
petitioned the FDA in the late 1970s, but the lack of any action on
their part has prompted the filing of the second petition.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
PeterB
Meanwhile, FDA has the time to issue advisories warning people about
the "dangers" of Kava, effectively destroying its market and misleading
those who would prefer a safer alternative to prosac. The following
from herbalgram:
"Kava (often referred to as kava kava in Polynesia or awa in Hawaii) is
the traditional ritual tranquilizing beverage from the rootstock of a
plant in the pepper family, believed to be native to the Pacific Island
of Vanuatu. It has long enjoyed a reputation as the most revered
medicinal and ritual herb in Polynesia, where it has been long used for
ceremonial purposes, as a symbolic welcome for VIPs, as a beverage for
culminating the marriage ceremony, and as a medicine for relaxation and
also used to treat urinary tract infections.7 There have been at least
13 clinical studies conducted on 619 participants demonstrating
kava's positive effects for conditions including anxiety, mental
function, reaction time, sleep quality, and peri-menopausal symptoms,8
with two published meta-analyses of three of the trials that met the
highest criteria for evaluation, that kava is safe and more effective
than placebo in treating symptoms of anxiety.9,10 Because of its
historical use and modern scientific data to demonstrate safety and
efficacy, the German Commission E, a special expert committee of the
German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (Bundesinstitut
für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, or BfArM), analogous to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, has approved kava preparations as
nonprescription drugs for the treatment of anxiety disorders, stress
and restlessness.11
"The Swiss government issued an advisory on kava in 2000,13 based on
the initial four case reports, and later banned a trademarked,
acetone-based kava extract called Laitan®. This was a highly
concentrated product, standardized to 70 percent kavalactone content
(also sometimes referred to as kavapyrones), manufactured by a leading
German phytomedicine company, W. Schwabe (Karlsruhe, Germany). While
only the acetone extracts were removed from the Swiss market at this
time, the government gave manufacturers of ethanolic extracts three
years to market these products and monitor their safety to see if any
liver problems were reported. In addition, all manufacturers of
ethanolic extracts in Switzerland have been asked to substantiate
safety by conducting new toxicological and clinical trials, which may
pose a significant financial challenge to these (mostly small)
companies.
"It should come as no surprise that the initial reports [of liver
toxicity] in Switzerland pertain to the acetone kava extract; since it
dominates the market there with an approximately 80-85 percent share.
Ethanolic kava extracts comprise the balance. Ironically, the acetone
extract has been the subject of the most scientific scrutiny; with at
least seven controlled clinical trials on this product indicating its
safety and efficacy compared to placebo.8-10 Interestingly, the
decision by the Swiss authorities was made despite the fact that in
three cases other potentially hepatotoxic drugs (e.g., diclofenac) had
been taken by those affected and concurrent viral infections, and
alcohol use or abuse could not be ruled out in these cases."
PeterB
Mark Probert
> Probert screams MURDERER when
> someone dies after con-med has failed them ... and they visit an
> alternative medical practitioner and later die.
>
> To use his ILL LOGIC ... the doctors who prescribed these meds
> MURDERED their patients and should be tried as such.
When the Vioxx news broke, and the media carried stories about how the
manufacturer covered up information regarding the dangers involved, I
called for a criminal investigation. Sadly, no one listened to me.
When conventional medicine has not been able to reverse the course of
cancer, people should be free to choose whatever treatments they wish.
If they choose something like Laetrile, they should be given full
disclosure as to the results of scientific tests.
When I claim that Laetrile pushers should be criminally prosecuted, I
base it on several facts:
> No clinical study has ever shown that Laetrile is effective in
treating any form of cancer.
> There are those people who are afraid of conventional chemotherapy
and radiation therapy, and will fore go those treatments for
alternatives, since the alternatives, notably Laetrile, claim to be
"safe" "all natural" "no side effects", etc.
> These pushers are well aware of the facts as I have stated them, and
they continue to push their potions of death.
It is this precise set of circumstances where criminal prosecution is
warranted.
In the case of Vioxx, and now Darvon, the medications do have
significant medical usage which was proven by scientific testing, and
affirmed by those who finally found relief from chronic pain. That
clearly distinguishes them from Laetrile, which has only been proven to
be utterly useless.
The individual medical practitioners who have prescribed Vioxx and
Darvon did not have the knowledge that there was a problem, and
prosecuting them for anything is absurd.
However, prosecuting anyone who knew there were problems and did
nothing, or covered it up, is a wonderful idea.
That is my precise opinion, and is not the one as you stated.
Dr. Wolfe, a member of *organized medicine* is, once again, right on the
money. His castigation of multiply convicted Kevin Trudeau for his
antics was well done.
Unknown
LOL ... Disbarred Merck Probert is lying yet again ...
When the news first broke on the Vioxx disaster ... he defended Merck
and applauded them for 'voluntarily' pulling the product ...
It wasn't until all the evidence was undeniable, that he did his
backtrack and attemped to change history about his support for Merck
... which continues to date.
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PropagandistProbert.html
Mark Probert
>
> LOL ... Disbarred Merck Probert is lying yet again ...
>
> When the news first broke on the Vioxx disaster ... he defended Merck
> and applauded them for 'voluntarily' pulling the product ...
True. When the facts came out that they had knowledge of the cardiac
problems, I immediately called for a full investigation and possible
criminal prosecution.
>
> It wasn't until all the evidence was undeniable, that he did his
> backtrack and attemped to change history about his support for Merck
> ... which continues to date.
Not at all. However, it is true that I did wait for all the evidence to
come out. Unlike the kneeJERKers, I do not foam at the mouth immediately.
Skeptic
"Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:2onNf.401$JJ...@fe09.lga...
speaking of vioxx - have any of the deaths alleged to be related been as a
result of taking therapeutic doses? I seem to recall the early information
suggested the doses associated with it tended to be well above the label's
recommendation, as in treating refractory arthritis, etc.
Unknown
Let's see, are you hypothesizing that people took more of the
medication than prescribed (probably because they were still in pain,
not that the wanted to spend more $$ on this expensive drug) which led
to the heart attack deaths?
BTW ... it's the industry deception that I find fault with ... like
the silicone manufactures and now the Vioxx makers who did the dangers
for years ... and then have fools like Barrett's Probert here to
attempt to change industry history.
>speaking of vioxx - have any of the deaths alleged to be related been as a
result of taking therapeutic doses? I seem to recall the early
information suggested the doses associated with it tended to be well
above the label's recommendation, as in treating refractory arthritis,
etc.
Skeptic
<Ilena Rose> wrote in message
news:l8ec02ta62i3qdpvt...@4ax.com...
> Good question Skeptic ...
>
> Let's see, are you hypothesizing that people took more of the
> medication than prescribed (probably because they were still in pain,
> not that the wanted to spend more $$ on this expensive drug) which led
> to the heart attack deaths?
I'm not hypothesizing anything. It was well publicized that some of the
early reports of problems were with patients who were on doses of medication
used to treat the severe pain associated with severe arthritis, which
exceeds the recommended dose.
I'm not saying it was wrong to do that nor am I saying that makes everything
ok, nor am I saying all cases were like that... thus the question.
By the way, did you ever answer my question to you? Namely, do you deal at
all with male patients suffering from the sequelae of silicone based
testicular implants, or just women and breast implants?
Ilena Rose
on problems with other silicone implants than breast.
Skeptic asked from the shadows:
>Ilena, do you work with other patients who have received silicone implants, or just breasts? Men get testicular implants, do you care about them? Just curious.
In the over 10 years I've raised awareness to silicone dangers, I've
been contacted by several testicular implantees, people who had
various joints implanted and many, many, many who suffer effects from
liquid silicone injections.
I'll dig up a study done years ago on other silicone implant problems
...
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/coverup.htm
The Silicone Cover-Up and Political Manipulations
The silicone controversy is a little of everything that is wrong with
America.
"The greedy plaintiff's attorneys have created this hysteria" is but
one
of the many myths, huge, PR machines fueled by deep, deep pockets and
no
conscience have sold to the American public. "Saline implants are
perfectly fine, perfectly safe" is another. These falsehoods and
countless others are part of the dis-information churned out by the
mega-manufacturers whose devotion to their bottom line supercedes any
modicum of truth or concern for their customers. No plastic surgeon
mentions the overgrowth of fungus, mold and bacteria that finds
fertile
breeding ground in these salty petri dishes. The ill and disfigured
plaintiffs are treated like rape victims ~ blamed for believing the
lies
of their plastic surgeons. The "scientific studies" paid for and
orchestrated by the manufacturers are merely a gross manipulation of
the
medical, legal and political systems.
It's gotten honed to a formula. Deny, stonewall, and ultimately blame
the victims. Not unlike gay men kept "in the closet" by guilt and
fear, the
silicone victims are blamed for their misguided choices like AIDS
victims are told they "deserve" their viral destruction.
Asbestos, Agent Orange, and the Dalkon Shield were justp ractice to
refine the silicone cover-up .
The present Gulf War chemical warfareuncovering brings this issue back
to the front pages of the papers.
The neurological damage our soldiers are suffering mirrors the
symptomology the "toxic chemical soup" creates as it escapes from
degradable silicone bags and floods women's systems with many of these
same chemicals and heavy metals.
The mighty manufacturers and the medical profession are so addicted to
silicone money now that they can't separate fact from fiction. It's
well
known that the orthopedic industry would be out of business with no
silicone joints to place. And breast implants are the most coveted
implant ever. Too bad the manufacturers failed to test them for safety
before
permanently implanting them into around 2 million trusting and duped
women. "They'll last a lifetime" women were assured. Of course you can
nurse your babies." The only basis for these assurances were "crossed
fingers" and wishful thinking. No second generation ~ or adequate
first
generation studies had been done before mass installation of
unrecallable, defective products began.
The manufacturers are ruthless ~ they play to win ~ to keep their vast
fortunes. The victims are fighting for their lives ~ to cover their
mounting medical expenses. The Dows (Corning & Chemical) have a long
incestuous relationship with the government. Supplying Agent Orange
for
Viet Nam alone could have made a success of any chemical company. How
many years of denial preceded the miniscule restitution for the lives
of
thousands of our young soldiers?
As countless thousands of women's immune systems and ultimately their
health fails them, where will they turn? The government routinely
denies
them disability payments. Who will pay to remove these failed devices?
How could platinum and freon and solvents and polyurethane become
ingredients of this never FDA approved device? Why have the mountains
of
concealed, damaging documents been allowed to stay hidden with "gag"
orders?
Who benefits from this secrecy?
This silicone"smoking gun" may well become the "blazing cannon" of the
new millennium.
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
1996呼lena Rosenthal
PeterB
Ilena Rose wrote:
> LOL ... Disbarred Merck Probert is lying yet again ...
>
> When the news first broke on the Vioxx disaster ... he defended Merck
> and applauded them for 'voluntarily' pulling the product ...
I remember. It was shameful.
> It wasn't until all the evidence was undeniable, that he did his
> backtrack and attemped to change history about his support for Merck
> ... which continues to date.
He apparently wants to be like Barrett.
Mark Probert
I have not followed the gritty nitty on this carefully. The most recent
case to go to verdict found no liability, but, it appears that the
deceased had been only taking it for 30 days, or so, and he had a
substantial pre-existing cardiac history. Those factors would make it
hard to link the death to the medication.
Mark Probert
> <Ilena Rose> wrote in message
> news:l8ec02ta62i3qdpvt...@4ax.com...
>> Good question Skeptic ...
>>
>> Let's see, are you hypothesizing that people took more of the
>> medication than prescribed (probably because they were still in pain,
>> not that the wanted to spend more $$ on this expensive drug) which led
>> to the heart attack deaths?
>
> I'm not hypothesizing anything. It was well publicized that some of the
> early reports of problems were with patients who were on doses of medication
> used to treat the severe pain associated with severe arthritis, which
> exceeds the recommended dose.
>
> I'm not saying it was wrong to do that nor am I saying that makes everything
> ok, nor am I saying all cases were like that... thus the question.
>
> By the way, did you ever answer my question to you? Namely, do you deal at
> all with male patients suffering from the sequelae of silicone based
> testicular implants, or just women and breast implants?
I recall that Ms. Rosenthal did respond, with an affirmative answer. She
is consistent in her questioning of silicone based implants.
Mark Probert
> Ilena Rose wrote:
>> LOL ... Disbarred Merck Probert is lying yet again ...
>>
>> When the news first broke on the Vioxx disaster ... he defended Merck
>> and applauded them for 'voluntarily' pulling the product ...
>
> I remember. It was shameful.
Check your memory, and check Google. Work on it.
The initial reports implied that the company was advised, and then
pulled Vioxx off the shelves.
Only later was their cover up reported, and when that happened, I called
for a criminal investigation and prosecution.
>> It wasn't until all the evidence was undeniable, that he did his
>> backtrack and attemped to change history about his support for Merck
>> ... which continues to date.
>
> He apparently wants to be like Barrett.
You are so wrong that if you amputated your entire left side you would
still not be right.
I have constantly and consistently criticized Barrett for his litigious
actions. There is a proper time for litigation, and, he has managed not
to be able to pick a correct time as yet. There are also proper issues
for litigation, and, he has not as yet picked one that I agree with.
PeterB
Which doesn't mean it isn't linked, just that it's difficult to show
how much more quickly sick people die when they take drugs. What's sad
is how extremely simple it is to construct a study demonstrating the
life-shorterning effects of prescription drugs, which in fact is being
done. Why don't you champion that?
PeterB
Skeptic
> Skeptic wrote:
>> <Ilena Rose> wrote in message
>> news:l8ec02ta62i3qdpvt...@4ax.com...
>>> Good question Skeptic ...
>>>
>>> Let's see, are you hypothesizing that people took more of the
>>> medication than prescribed (probably because they were still in pain,
>>> not that the wanted to spend more $$ on this expensive drug) which led
>>> to the heart attack deaths?
>>
>> I'm not hypothesizing anything. It was well publicized that some of the
>> early reports of problems were with patients who were on doses of
>> medication used to treat the severe pain associated with severe
>> arthritis, which exceeds the recommended dose.
>>
>> I'm not saying it was wrong to do that nor am I saying that makes
>> everything ok, nor am I saying all cases were like that... thus the
>> question.
>>
>> By the way, did you ever answer my question to you? Namely, do you deal
>> at all with male patients suffering from the sequelae of silicone based
>> testicular implants, or just women and breast implants?
>
> I recall that Ms. Rosenthal did respond, with an affirmative answer. She
> is consistent in her questioning of silicone based implants.
Yep, I caught her repost. Missed it as I was off skiing.
Mark Probert
A study should not be designed to demonstrate anything. Studies should
be designed to investigate.
However, I find your idea that a study should be designed to demonstrate
how to shorten lives to be most distasteful. Didn't Dr. Mengele do
something like that?
PeterB
Well, this is one investigation that will have a predictably
demonstrable outcome.
> However, I find your idea that a study should be designed to demonstrate
> how to shorten lives to be most distasteful. Didn't Dr. Mengele do
> something like that?
We already have the victims, all we need is someone willing to sign off
on the paperwork.
PeterB
Skeptic
"PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141326013.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
You're really a nutjob, aren't you? What causes someone to develop such a
blinded venom for others as you have?
Go get laid, you'll feel better.
PeterB
Your defense of those who commoditize disease for profit makes you a
criminal. How does that feel, exactly?
Mark Probert
Your preconceived ideas are showing.
Mark Probert
Considering the source, it does not affect me at all, except a slight
degree of bemusement.
PeterB
Markey, I had no idea you would speak up for Skeptic. What a shock.
PeterB
PeterB
You mean you really aren't two different people?
Skeptic
Does this mean you know you need more sex? As for me being criminal, I
laugh in your general direction and bid you farewell, troll.
vernon
It's a trade off. Life shortening effects of some prescription drugs in some
applications. The disease may kill in 5 years and the drug in 10. Also
MANY would rather die quicker but out of pain.
vernon
Exactly, but there are certain observations to review.
vernon
"Skeptic" <bcs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:drHNf.797613$x96.409829@attbi_s72...
From the AMA, AHA, ADA
19.1% of all deaths in diseases are due to doctors' prescribing. That's a
start.
Approx. 110,000 deaths due to misapplication of treatment by Doctors and
hospitals, EVERY YEAR.
Skeptic
"vernon" <he...@here.com> wrote in message
news:44078374$0$17595$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
A start with what? Prescribing errors? Or does this include adverse
reactions, etc.? How many of people would have died without prescriptions?
I think that sort of quantitation is nearly if not completely impossible to
accurately assess and the people that throw those percentages around (no
offense to you as I find you a reasonable poster even if I do disagree with
most everything) are being reckless and possibly dangerous.
vernon
19.1% due to flat out error. The unexpected adverse reactions are aside
from that.
People? throw these numbers out? Do you actually think that these medical
associations are overstating?
THEIR assessment was that THEY need to be more careful and insist on better
education of each other.
That's to their credit.
vernon
>
P.S.
There is always going to be error and ignorance. What they would like to do
is reduce the number to less than 10%.
It would be foolish to think it could be eliminated or even approach 5%.
Rich
Also, you have to take into account that in an argument, 87.3% of all
statistics are made up on the spot.
--
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/
Skeptic
I'm not suggesting counter numbers. I'm not suggesting medical errors are
not a huge problem. What I'm saying is that I don't find it reasonable to
attach a number to it. I could be 19%. It could be less. It could be
more. I've seen some of the studies done attempting to quantitate medical
errors. They're so fraught with inadequacies I not only find them hollow,
but I'm embarrassed for the journals that publish them.
Skeptic
"Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:TkNNf.18$99...@tornado.socal.rr.com...
I hear you - statistics can be manipulated to say virtually anything you wan
them to (cover your ears Herman!). I see people die given my profession.
Based on personal experience, I don't see any way that one fifth of all
deaths are due to prescribing errors.
Rich
I have a friend who is in end-stage emphysema. He has been taking prednisone
for 13 years now, and the drug's side effects are devastating. When he dies,
the prednisone will probably have contributed to the cause of death (most
likely by reducing his resistance to pneumonia). But, on balance, he
probably would have suffocated from his emphysema eight or ten years ago
were it not for the steroid. Damned if you do and . . .
PeterB
You should be laughing at your inability to write.
PeterB
vernon
Well, qualified and concerned physicians do. They don't wear blinders and
say, "Not us".
They, the concerned ones, who want to improve say it is THEIR fault.
I'm talking about the kingpins in their profession, not notoriety gleaning
people. They run research labs AND treat people. They are concerned and
don't fluff it off.
PeterB
Actually, it's the other way around. Very few people live more than a
few additional weeks or months by taking a drug, while many more people
taking those same drugs experience life-threatening complications,
disabling side effects, and early death. The attrition due to this
effect means the risk-reward benefit from drugs is in favor of doing
nothing when compared to relying on prescription meds. Of course,
natural medicine would effectively treat and even reverse most disease
in the modern world.
PeterB
David Wright
19.1%? What a lovely figure. Looks nice and precise. It's crap.
You have no source for it. You never do.
>Approx. 110,000 deaths due to misapplication of treatment by Doctors and
>hospitals, EVERY YEAR.
Oh, so you're going to try to use Lazarou et al's figure of 106,000?
It's still garbage.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Skeptic
Your implication is rather unflattering.... I think most, in fact the
overwhelming majority of docs, care. We are concerned about upholding our
first and most sacred rule of do no harm. Leaving that alone for now, as
I'm sure you weren't intending to take some personal jabs, the issue is how
to quantify. In every profession there are alarmists and there are those
who are too laid back. It's not wearing blinders to be skeptical that a
fifth of all deaths in the US are caused by prescription errors... it's good
common sense. That would be an extraordinary claim which would require
extraordinary proof - of which there is none.
PeterB
Skeptic, one of our resident pharma bloggers, wants to keep the focus
on doctors and their errors. But a much bigger issue is the
culpability of drug makers in the deaths resulting from "properly"
prescribed and administered medications -- legal drugs that kill.
Incredibly, one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. is
prescription drugs that have been "properly" prescribed and ingested.
I'd like to know what's "proper" about it? More than 2 million
prescription drug-related hospital admissions occur in the US each
year. At least 70,000 of those admissions don't make it back home
(whereas many estimates put the figure over 100,000.[1]) This doesn't
even count non-error prescription drug deaths in nursing homes,
ambulatory care, or other medical settings outside hospitals. When FDA
approves a medication for use by the general public, less than half of
the serious drug reactions are known in advance. That means you and
your loved ones become experimental subjects for the drug makers when
you take their poisons.
PeterB
[1] Kohn L, ed., Corrigan J, ed., Donaldson M, ed. To Err Is Human:
Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 1999.
Mark Probert
Skeptic
> Skeptic, one of our resident pharma bloggers,
You got me! Despite never being paid a penny by any pharmaceutical company,
I'm a "pharma blogger". Damn, I've been found out. At least you are
consistent with the factual content of your posts.
You can believe what you like. You can insult whom you choose. I can
handle - this is an internet discussion board, after all. What I don't
understand, however, is why people, like yourself, who are arguing one
aspect of medicine (using the term broadly) do not wish to hear the opinion
from those who actually treat patients daily. I would think, whether you
agree with me or not, that I'd be the very kind of person you'd want to
engage in a discussion. Is it more fun for you to just go on agreeing with
those who share your viewpoint? Sort of defeats the purpose of a
"discussion" board, eh?
PeterB
Skeptic wrote:
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141395091....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Skeptic, one of our resident pharma bloggers,
>
> You got me! Despite never being paid a penny by any pharmaceutical company,
> I'm a "pharma blogger". Damn, I've been found out. At least you are
> consistent with the factual content of your posts.
The fact you argue in defense of mainstream medicine on a ng devoted to
alternative medicine, and attack me and others, is proof enough of
that. But if you are a doctor, then you have been compensated by the
drug makers one way or the other.
> You can believe what you like. You can insult whom you choose. I can
> handle - this is an internet discussion board, after all. What I don't
> understand, however, is why people, like yourself, who are arguing one
> aspect of medicine (using the term broadly) do not wish to hear the opinion
> from those who actually treat patients daily.
Have you not freely expressed your ideas here for everyone to see? I
think what you mean to say is that because I haven't acquiesced to your
gutless evaluations, you are somehow being ignored.
> I would think, whether you
> agree with me or not, that I'd be the very kind of person you'd want to
> engage in a discussion...
You are free to discuss anything with me you like, but you are
consistently OT. It's quite obvious you aren't here to discuss
alternative medicine.
> Is it more fun for you to just go on agreeing with
> those who share your viewpoint?
No, I prefer responding to you, actually. Isn't that obvious?
> Sort of defeats the purpose of a
> "discussion" board, eh?
That depends on how you define "defeat," "purpose," "discussion," and
"bored." eh?
cathyb
Really? This should be interesting. PeteyB has said :
"I've always backed up what I say with scientific references."
Go for it.
>, while many more people
> taking those same drugs experience life-threatening complications,
> disabling side effects, and early death.
Go for it.
> The attrition due to this
> effect means the risk-reward benefit from drugs is in favor of doing
> nothing when compared to relying on prescription meds.
Go for it.
>Of course, natural medicine would effectively treat and even reverse most disease
> in the modern world.
Go for it.
Cathy
>
> PeterB
PeterB
I've also said it's incumbant upon the provider of a medical
intervention to prove it works. It's not my responsibility to prove
that it doesn't. What little science your sponsors provide for their
shoddily researched products tells me that, if the results were any
better, it would have made headline news before now.
> >, while many more people
> > taking those same drugs experience life-threatening complications,
> > disabling side effects, and early death.
>
> Go for it.
Schuster M, McGlynn E, Brook R. How good is the quality of health care
in the United States? Milbank Q. 1998; 76:517-563.
Kohn L, ed., Corrigan J, ed., Donaldson M, ed. To Err Is Human:
Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 1999.
Starfield B. Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs, Services, and
Technology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998.
World Health Report 2000. Available at
http://www.who.int/whr2001/2001/archives/2000/en/index.htm. Accessed
June 28, 2000.
Kunst A. Cross-National Comparisons of Socioeconomic Differences in
Mortality. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Erasmus University; 1997.
Law M, Wald N. Why heart disease mortality is low in France: The time
lag explanation. BMJ. 1999; 313:1471-1480.
Starfield B. Evaluating the State Children's Health Insurance Program:
critical considerations. Annual Rev. Public Health. 2000; 21:569-585.
Leape L. Unnecessary surgery. Annual Rev. Public Health. 1992;
13:363-383.
Phillips D, Christenfeld N, Glynn L. Increase in U.S. medication-error
deaths between 1983 and 1993. Lancet, 1998; 351:643-644.
Lazarou J, Pomeranz B, Corey P. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in
hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1998; 279:1200-1205.
Weingart SN, Wilson RM, Gibberd RW, Harrison B. Epidemiology and
medical error. BMJ. 2000; 320:774-777.
Wilkinson R. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality.
London, England: Routledge; 1996.
Evans R, Roos N. What is right about the Canadian health system?
Milbank Q. 1999; 77:393-399.
Guyer B, Hoyert D, Martin J, Ventura S, MacDorman M, Strobino D.
Annual summary of vital statistics, 1998. Pediatrics. 1999;
104:1229-1246.
Harrold LR, Field TS, Gurwitz JH. Knowledge, patterns of care, and
outcomes of care for generalists and specialists. J Gen Intern Med.
1999; 14:499-511.
Donahoe MT. Comparing generalist and specialty care: discrepancies,
deficiencies, and excesses. Arch Intern Med. 1998; 158:1596-1607.
Anderson G, Poullier J-P. Health Spending, Access, and Outcomes:
Trends in Industrialized Countries. New York, NY: The Commonwealth
Fund; 1999.
Mold J, Stein H. The cascade effect in the clinical care of patients.
N Engl J Med. 1986; 314:512-514.
Shi L, Starfield B. Income inequality, primary care, and health
indicators. J Fam Pract.1999; 48:275-284.
> > The attrition due to this
> > effect means the risk-reward benefit from drugs is in favor of doing
> > nothing when compared to relying on prescription meds.
>
> Go for it.
Same as above.
> >Of course, natural medicine would effectively treat and even reverse most disease
> > in the modern world.
>
> Go for it.
Don't you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?
Mark Probert
I have found that AltNuts, like Petey, et al, are the ones who tell
people to shut up, call ISPs, whine about others postings, etc. all in
an effort to silence them.
AFAIAC, they are afraid of hearing things which they cannot refute.
Mark Probert
> Skeptic wrote:
>> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141395091....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Skeptic, one of our resident pharma bloggers,
>> You got me! Despite never being paid a penny by any pharmaceutical company,
>> I'm a "pharma blogger". Damn, I've been found out. At least you are
>> consistent with the factual content of your posts.
>
> The fact you argue in defense of mainstream medicine on a ng devoted to
> alternative medicine, and attack me and others, is proof enough of
> that. But if you are a doctor, then you have been compensated by the
> drug makers one way or the other.
Can you prove that? Of course you cannot. It is purely an ad hominem
attack, which is your forte. Your "pharmablogger" crap is another
logical fallacy.
When you engage in this type of rhetoric, you should expect to be
scorned and attacked for doing so.
>> You can believe what you like. You can insult whom you choose. I can
>> handle - this is an internet discussion board, after all. What I don't
>> understand, however, is why people, like yourself, who are arguing one
>> aspect of medicine (using the term broadly) do not wish to hear the opinion
>> from those who actually treat patients daily.
>
> Have you not freely expressed your ideas here for everyone to see? I
> think what you mean to say is that because I haven't acquiesced to your
> gutless evaluations, you are somehow being ignored.
Gutless? far from it. Full of gut, meat, potatoes, etc.
>> I would think, whether you
>> agree with me or not, that I'd be the very kind of person you'd want to
>> engage in a discussion...
>
> You are free to discuss anything with me you like, but you are
> consistently OT. It's quite obvious you aren't here to discuss
> alternative medicine.
Petey seems to think, a term I use loosely with him, that only being in
the Amen Chorus is discussing.
PeterB
ISP snooping, whining, suppression of free speech? I'm for none of
that (and engage in none of it.) I'm GLAD you're here. You're WHY I'm
here. When I told Johndoe to shut up the other day, that was purely
rhetorical. This would be no fun without you guys.
> AFAIAC, they are afraid of hearing things which they cannot refute.
When have I not refuted the crap you spew?
Aren't Fridays great?
PeterB
vernon
No one said a fifth of all deaths, not even a fifth of all deaths due to
disease.
These are FAR from alarmists and their PRIMARY focus is on the increased
successes due to new methods, including supplements AND pharmaceuticals
within what they can get information.
vernon
Yes, there are dangerous and outright morally illegal drugs on the market
where negativity has been hidden by individual pharmaceutical companies.
Most Doctors have the information "available" to them, and they don't read.
THUS "improperly" prescribed.
That goes right along with thousands of Doctor's who are more than 20 pounds
overweight, don't exercise, eat junk.
vernon
I try to be an enemy of all sides.
I actually care.
Nothing totally destroys a theory or application quicker than those who
overstate their case and include hyperbole.
Re: one fifth as a result of wrong application. 100% of all people die.
Solution 100% abortion.
vernon
>
> Skeptic wrote:
>> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141395091....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Skeptic, one of our resident pharma bloggers,
>>
>> You got me! Despite never being paid a penny by any pharmaceutical
>> company,
>> I'm a "pharma blogger". Damn, I've been found out. At least you are
>> consistent with the factual content of your posts.
>
> The fact you argue in defense of mainstream medicine on a ng devoted to
> alternative medicine, and attack me and others, is proof enough of
> that. But if you are a doctor, then you have been compensated by the
> drug makers one way or the other.
>
The ONLY way a discussion of "alternative" medication can be realistic is if
"alternative to what" is clearly stated.
I.E. Which is better Statin or Red Yeast Rice. Answer, neither. Either
have alternatives that are safer and better.
vernon
> PeterB wrote:
>> Skeptic wrote:
>>> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1141395091....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Skeptic, one of our resident pharma bloggers,
>>> You got me! Despite never being paid a penny by any pharmaceutical
>>> company,
>>> I'm a "pharma blogger". Damn, I've been found out. At least you are
>>> consistent with the factual content of your posts.
>>
>> The fact you argue in defense of mainstream medicine on a ng devoted to
>> alternative medicine, and attack me and others, is proof enough of
>> that. But if you are a doctor, then you have been compensated by the
>> drug makers one way or the other.
>
> Can you prove that? Of course you cannot. It is purely an ad hominem
> attack, which is your forte. Your "pharmablogger" crap is another logical
> fallacy.
>
> When you engage in this type of rhetoric, you should expect to be scorned
> and attacked for doing so.
>
It destroys everything that those who like alternatives are striving for.
Open mind is NOT empty mind or closed mind.
vernon
The information is primarily published by hospitals. People go bananas over
100,000. It's a big number but still small to those who are helped.
The real problem that needs immediate attention is hospital acquired
diseases.
No, It really isn't a conspiracy of pharmaceuticals to distribute more
drugs.
vernon
You really have no clue of the overall subject, do you?
Your statement is the equivalent to saying one need not splint or treat a
broken bone. It will heal with the proper "alternative" meds.
Never do anything for appendics. Never do anything for endemic heart fault.
Never do anything for the person who cannot use iron no matter what other
supplements are used. If a person has a heart attack, don't use a
defibrillator. It isn't natural
PeterB
How is my comment about the effects of prescription drugs in any way
equivalent to setting a broken bone? Are you having another fit?
> Never do anything for appendics.
Someone close to me had an appendectomy two years ago, at age 85, and
survived it. It was the worst infection of its kind the doctor had
ever seen. There wasn't much confidence in the outcome. The year
before, she had been diagnosed with CHF, and given a year to live
without medication. With my help, she chose not to take the drugs. My
confidence was in the fact that we had reversed her CHF completely
using natural medicine/ But knowing the odds doesn't mean beating the
odds. Still, there were no complications and she recovered quickly.
Her life is back to normal. So yes. Emergency medicine plays an
important role in society, but that isn't what I'm talking about.
Millions of people lying in coffins would be alive today if emergency
medicine combined with nutritional therapy were all we had. That
isn't the case.
> Never do anything for endemic heart fault.
What is "endemic heart fault?" As I explained above, you can cure most
heart disease with natural medicine. Science has proven conclusively
that most CVD is a result of vitamin deficiencies (most of the studies
were done in europe.)
> Never do anything for the person who cannot use iron no matter what other
> supplements are used.
If you mean the genetic disorder, hemochromatosis, this is quite rare,
though certainly not as rare as other genetic diseases. Do you know
what the current treatment for this is? Bloodletting. In any case,
natural medicine helps here, as well. A combination of folic acid,
B12, B6, and the synergist vitamin C, optimizes the existing
biochemical machinery and improves uptake. And natural medicine can
help substantially with all that free iron, as well. It's called
lactoferrin, and you can buy it at the health food store. People
should also never take prescription iron, because invariably it's non
heme based. Only heme-based iron absorbs well. You can get that from
Colorado Biolabs. I have to buy it for my sister every three months.
She wouldn't be without it (though I'm cautioning her to reduce her
intake. Although iron-deficiency is a common health problem in much
of the world, meat eaters don't need supplemental iron. The RDA is
also much too high.)
> If a person has a heart attack, don't use a
> defibrillator. It isn't natural
You can use one on me any time I have a heart attack and I'll be
grateful. Just don't leave it attached to my chest or ask me to wear
it. You can also leave the statins, beta blockers, calcium channel
blockers, and nitroglycerine on the shelf where they belong. The cure
for heart disease is an optimal supply of vitamin C, E, lysine,
proline, and b complex vitamins.
PeterB
Mark Probert
100,000 in this context is an imaginary number as there is no factual
basis to support it.
Ilena Rose
that Barrett hates and attacks ... screaming MURDERER at those whose
beliefs and therapies are counter to his Pharma Handlerls ... and
sluffs off all the deaths them as non consequential ...
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Mark Probert
> Probert is Barrett's ultimate Parrot
Incorrect. Like I posted earlier this week, I strongly disagree with
much of Barrett's tactics. He is way too litigious for one thing.
... hating and attacking those
> that Barrett hates and attacks
The only alties I hate are those who push or entice people away from
treatment that works, to treatment that has never worked. Laetrile
pushers fit this standard quite well. A study performed by Naturopaths
found that Laetrile had ZERO effect on people with cancer.
> ... screaming MURDERER at those whose
> beliefs and therapies
No, just those whose practices will most assuredly lead to death. In
addition to Laetrile pushers, those who claim that they have the cure
for all cancers also fit the mold.
are counter to his Pharma Handlerls ... and
> sluffs off all the deaths them as non consequential ...
I never sluff (actually slough) off any deaths.
vernon
Why would hospital groups publish it?
The nitwits say more.
>
> It's a big number but still small to those who are helped.
Correct
vernon
The RDA is for people between the equivalent ages of puberty and menopause.
Men over 18 or 25 should NEVER take addition iron unless analysed to have a
problem.
>
>> If a person has a heart attack, don't use a
>> defibrillator. It isn't natural
>
> You can use one on me any time I have a heart attack and I'll be
> grateful. Just don't leave it attached to my chest or ask me to wear
> it. You can also leave the statins, beta blockers, calcium channel
> blockers, and nitroglycerine on the shelf where they belong. The cure
> for heart disease is an optimal supply of vitamin C, E, lysine,
> proline, and b complex vitamins.
>
> PeterB
>
WRONG.
It's a great help for many, but NOT a carte blanch cure.
Ilena Rose
that Barrett hates and attacks ... screaming MURDERER at those whose
beliefs and therapies are counter to his Pharma Handlerls ... and
sluffs off all the deaths them as non consequential ...
He lies about his lies ... changes history regularly ... and is a
hero in his own deluded mind only.
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/SandraProbert.htm
Text of Barrett's Parrot's disbarment ...
Jan Drew
> Skeptic wrote:
>> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141395091....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Skeptic, one of our resident pharma bloggers,
>>
>> You got me! Despite never being paid a penny by any pharmaceutical
>> company, I'm a "pharma blogger". Damn, I've been found out. At least
>> you are consistent with the factual content of your posts.
>>
>> You can believe what you like. You can insult whom you choose. I can
>> handle - this is an internet discussion board, after all. What I don't
>> understand, however, is why people, like yourself, who are arguing one
>> aspect of medicine (using the term broadly) do not wish to hear the
>> opinion from those who actually treat patients daily. I would think,
>> whether you agree with me or not, that I'd be the very kind of person
>> you'd want to engage in a discussion. Is it more fun for you to just go
>> on agreeing with those who share your viewpoint? Sort of defeats the
>> purpose of a "discussion" board, eh?
>
> I have found that AltNuts, like Petey, et al, are the ones who tell people
> to shut up,
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine, alt.support.breast-implant,
misc.health.alternative, alt.support.attn-deficit
From: Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:24:08 -0400
Local: Tues, Jul 19 2005 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: Mark Probert LIES & Vashti LIES (was God Bless Dr Breggin)
So, either post some real proof that I intended to disrupt, or shut the
fuck up.
Newsgroup: misc.health.alternative
From Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com>
Sun, Jun 26 2005 9:01 am
Subject: Mark Probert Blathers (I missed it)
PeterB, you are invited to email me...if you choose not to do so, shut
the fuck up.
Skeptic
become very apparent that this board is quite dominated by extremists of
supplement world. Those like PeterB have a plethora of venomous opinions
backed by opinions and completely devoid of both fact and reality.
"cathyb" <cathyb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1141399515.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Skeptic
19.1% is, to me, one fifth. If I'm misinterpreting your post, please
clarify.
Skeptic
>
> "Skeptic" <bcs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aXYNf.590151$084.315816@attbi_s22...
>>
>> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141395091....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Skeptic, one of our resident pharma bloggers,
>>
>> You got me! Despite never being paid a penny by any pharmaceutical
>> company, I'm a "pharma blogger". Damn, I've been found out. At least
>> you are consistent with the factual content of your posts.
>>
>> You can believe what you like. You can insult whom you choose. I can
>> handle - this is an internet discussion board, after all. What I don't
>> understand, however, is why people, like yourself, who are arguing one
>> aspect of medicine (using the term broadly) do not wish to hear the
>> opinion from those who actually treat patients daily. I would think,
>> whether you agree with me or not, that I'd be the very kind of person
>> you'd want to engage in a discussion. Is it more fun for you to just go
>> on agreeing with those who share your viewpoint? Sort of defeats the
>> purpose of a "discussion" board, eh?
>
> I try to be an enemy of all sides.
>
> I actually care.
and I have no problem with your posts except for disagreeing with them,
which is ok and healthy. This PeterB character is just a spineless and
igorant troll.
vernon
disease.
vernon
>
>>> If a person has a heart attack, don't use a
>>> defibrillator. It isn't natural
>>
>> You can use one on me any time I have a heart attack and I'll be
>> grateful. Just don't leave it attached to my chest or ask me to wear
>> it. You can also leave the statins, beta blockers, calcium channel
>> blockers, and nitroglycerine on the shelf where they belong. The cure
>> for heart disease is an optimal supply of vitamin C, E, lysine,
>> proline, and b complex vitamins.
>>
>> PeterB
>>
>
> WRONG.
>
> It's a great help for many, but NOT a carte blanch cure.
P.S.
To your knowledge (yes I know the plethora of web sites) what is the minimum
of each, what is the optimum of each in the combo of
C, Lysine, proline.
E is separate and B complex is separate, same with Omega 3.
BTW, there is no sub for nitroglycerine. There are those things to help
prevent the problem, but no substitute.
Skeptic
> No one said 19% of all deaths, not even 19% of all deaths due to
> disease.
Good - since there was no way I was going to buy that.
Peter Bowditch
Someone did. Look upthread:
>>>>>>>> 19.1% of all deaths in diseases are due to doctors' prescribing.
>>>>>>>> That's a start.
--
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
Happy Dog
>>>> Peter Bowditch posted on this yarn. Look it up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The information is primarily published by hospitals. People go bananas
>>> over 100,000.
>>
>> 100,000 in this context is an imaginary number as there is no factual
>> basis to support it.
>
> Why would hospital groups publish it?
So far, nobody's called you an idiot on this. You richly deserve it. This
has been debunked many times here. Educate yourself. You haven't even
looked, have you?
moo
Peter Bowditch
I posted a refutation of it within the last week, but, like mushrooms
after a summer storm, it just keeps popping up.
vernon
"Happy Dog" <happ...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6tcOf.7333$RM2.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
vernon
Mark Probert
Peter Bowditch posted a URL to a PDF report discussing it. Why groups
publish it is often political.
Mark Probert
Note that I said that AltNuts who cannot refute, tell people to shut up.
The comments of mine, which you took out of context, which is a form of
lying, were made to people who were accusing me of disgusting deeds of
which I am not guilty.
Thus, my comment to prove it, or shut the fuck up.
Mark Probert
> Probert is Barrett's ultimate Parrot
Incorrect. Like I posted earlier this week, I strongly disagree with
much of Barrett's tactics. He is way too litigious for one thing.
... hating and attacking those
> that Barrett hates and attacks
The only alties I hate are those who push or entice people away from
treatment that works, to treatment that has never worked. Laetrile
pushers fit this standard quite well. A study performed by Naturopaths
found that Laetrile had ZERO effect on people with cancer.
> ... screaming MURDERER at those whose
> beliefs and therapies
No, just those whose practices will most assuredly lead to death. In
addition to Laetrile pushers, those who claim that they have the cure
for all cancers also fit the mold.
are counter to his Pharma Handlerls ... and
> sluffs off all the deaths them as non consequential ...
I never sluff (actually slough) off any deaths.
vernon
> vernon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Approx. 110,000 deaths due to misapplication of treatment by Doctors
>>>>>> and hospitals, EVERY YEAR.
>>>>> Peter Bowditch posted on this yarn. Look it up.
>>>>>
>>>> The information is primarily published by hospitals. People go bananas
>>>> over 100,000.
>>> 100,000 in this context is an imaginary number as there is no factual
>>> basis to support it.
>>
>> Why would hospital groups publish it?
>> The nitwits say more.
>
> Peter Bowditch posted a URL to a PDF report discussing it. Why groups
> publish it is often political.
All I can assume is that the hospital publications would be as conservative
(not political) as possible.
What I have yet to see is any response in this news group which shows the
reality of the publications. The publications explain quite clearly and
although deaths are deaths, the number is small. All anyone does is go off
the deep end with polarized views.
Ilena Rose
that Barrett hates and attacks ... screaming MURDERER at those whose
beliefs and therapies are counter to his Pharma Handlerls ... and
sluffs off all the deaths them as non consequential ...
David Wright
Skeptic <bcs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1141395091....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Skeptic, one of our resident pharma bloggers,
>
>You got me! Despite never being paid a penny by any pharmaceutical company,
>I'm a "pharma blogger". Damn, I've been found out. At least you are
>consistent with the factual content of your posts.
>
>You can believe what you like. You can insult whom you choose. I can
>handle - this is an internet discussion board, after all. What I don't
>understand, however, is why people, like yourself, who are arguing one
>aspect of medicine (using the term broadly) do not wish to hear the opinion
>from those who actually treat patients daily. I would think, whether you
>agree with me or not, that I'd be the very kind of person you'd want to
>engage in a discussion. Is it more fun for you to just go on agreeing with
>those who share your viewpoint? Sort of defeats the purpose of a
>"discussion" board, eh?
Shucks, most people aren't really interested in discussion, they just
want validation of a point of view they have no intention of leaving
anyway. PeterB is one such. Those who disagree with him are dubbed
"pharma bloggers." (Yeah, it's a really stupid term, but he loves it
and will not abandon it -- PeterB feels that the world should revolve
around him.)
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Jan Drew
I took absolutely NOTHING out of context.
which is a form of
> lying, were made to people who were accusing me of disgusting deeds of
> which I am not guilty.
Of course you are.
You are a PROVEN LIAR!
"Mark Probert" <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote
>>>LadyLollipop wrote:
>> Migraine headaches
> snip of sales site crap
Now there's a big fat lie!
Just where did you see anything for sale??
Let this be proof of one more of Mark Probert's LIES
Migraine headaches are caused by a rapid widening and narrowing of blood
vessel walls in the brain and head. This causes the pain fibers in the blood
vessel wall to become irritated. Blood vessels in the scalp are often
involved. Some of the events that have been reported to causes migraine
headaches are: hunger, cheese, changes in weather, nuts, fatigue, avocados,
oral contraceptives, chocolate, menstrual periods, food cured with nitrates
(e.g., hot dogs), emotional stress, meat tenderizers (e.g., MSG), and
alcoholic beverages. It is not known why some individuals have migraines and
others do not.
The vascular system and its influence under stimuli of the autonomic or
neurovegetative nervous system play an extremely important role, not only in
Neurootology, but also in the origin of severe headache or migraine.
Every modification in capillary diameter produces nourishment disorders at
cell level modifying its functions. Changes in capillary diameter could be
the result of vessels dilation phenomena as it takes place in hypotensions,
or of vessels spasms as it should be the case of blood hypertension.
The pattern of a woman's migraines may be affected by her menstrual cycle
and is often altered when she undergoes menopause. In addition, pregnancy or
the use of oral contraceptives may change a woman's migraine symptoms or
frequency.
Migraine occurs most often among people aged twenty to fifty and is
frequently considered to be an inherited disorder.
Migraines can be caused by stress, many perfectionist are known to have
migraines.
Migraines have absolutely nothing to do with any somatization disorder.
Jan Drew
> Ilena Rose wrote:
> > Probert is Barrett's ultimate Parrot
>
> Incorrect. Like I posted earlier this week, I strongly disagree with much
> of Barrett's tactics. He is way too litigious for one thing.
>
> ... hating and attacking those
> > that Barrett hates and attacks
>
> The only alties I hate are those who push or entice people away from
> treatment that works, to treatment that has never worked.
Sad that you have NOT learned to hate.
Laetrile pushers fit this standard quite well. A study performed by
Naturopaths
> found that Laetrile had ZERO effect on people with cancer.
AND, of course, YOU dismiss this:
Mark Probert
> "Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:lijOf.16$8P6...@fe08.lga...
>> Ilena Rose wrote:
>>> Probert is Barrett's ultimate Parrot
>> Incorrect. Like I posted earlier this week, I strongly disagree with much
>> of Barrett's tactics. He is way too litigious for one thing.
>>
>> ... hating and attacking those
>>> that Barrett hates and attacks
>> The only alties I hate are those who push or entice people away from
>> treatment that works, to treatment that has never worked.
>
> Sad that you have NOT learned to hate.
Correct. I have not learned to hate. I want to like these people, but,
after showing them that they are utterly wrong, they persist in pushing
their deadly potions.
Hating a person's whose actions lead to death of innocent and desperate
others is not a bad thing.
> Laetrile pushers fit this standard quite well. A study performed by
> Naturopaths
>> found that Laetrile had ZERO effect on people with cancer.
>
> AND, of course, YOU dismiss this:
>
> http://www.laetrile.com.au/
Yes, I fully dismiss it as it is not evidence based. ALL clinical
studies of Laetrile have shown that it has no effect on cancer patients.
Regular doctors and Naturopaths have little in common, however,
studies done by both specialties have had identical results.
Scientific investigation of medical and treatment issues looks for
replication of results to confirm validity of findings. Clearly, two
such disparate groups finding the same thing results in a very high
confidence level of agreement.
An excellent example of this would be a circumstance where you and I
agree on something.
Mark Probert
> Probert is Barrett's ultimate Parrot
Incorrect. Like I posted earlier this week, I strongly disagree with
much of Barrett's tactics. He is way too litigious for one thing.
... hating and attacking those
> that Barrett hates and attacks
The only alties I hate are those who push or entice people away from
treatment that works, to treatment that has never worked. Laetrile
pushers fit this standard quite well. A study performed by Naturopaths
found that Laetrile had ZERO effect on people with cancer.
> ... screaming MURDERER at those whose
> beliefs and therapies
No, just those whose practices will most assuredly lead to death. In
addition to Laetrile pushers, those who claim that they have the cure
for all cancers also fit the mold.
are counter to his Pharma Handlerls ... and
> sluffs off all the deaths them as non consequential ...
I never sluff (actually slough) off any deaths.
Rich
"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3EmOf.36922$Jd....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> AND, of course, YOU dismiss this:
>
> http://www.laetrile.com.au/
Everybody with any ability to think clearly dismisses that. It is a sales
site, marketing false hope and worthless products. It is vile and evil and
sickening and other stuff that I cannot find language foul enough to
describe.
--
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/
Mark Probert
Sure you did, as you did not post the entire thread, or the
circumstances leading up to my comments.
> which is a form of
>> lying, were made to people who were accusing me of disgusting deeds of
>> which I am not guilty.
>
> Of course you are.
>
> You are a PROVEN LIAR!
The "lies" are "proven" by you as you take things out of context, and
you do not understand much of what I write, as it goes over your head.
Jan Drew
"David Wright" <wri...@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:2JlOf.2831$Hw3....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
When you start whining about personalities,don't be surprised that it
generates comments about your own. David Wright
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always arrogant and
> hypocritical
Jan Drew
> Jan Drew wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>> news:lijOf.16$8P6...@fe08.lga...
>>> Ilena Rose wrote:
>>>> Probert is Barrett's ultimate Parrot
>>> Incorrect. Like I posted earlier this week, I strongly disagree with
>>> much of Barrett's tactics. He is way too litigious for one thing.
>>>
>>> ... hating and attacking those
>>>> that Barrett hates and attacks
>>> The only alties I hate are those who push or entice people away from
>>> treatment that works, to treatment that has never worked.
>>
>> Sad that you have NOT learned to hate.
>
> Correct. I have not learned to hate. I want to like these people, but,
> after showing them that they are utterly wrong, they persist in pushing
> their deadly potions.
>
> Hating a person's whose actions lead to death of innocent and desperate
> others is not a bad thing.
You need to check that out.
http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/rya3-chi.htm
As the Torah vigorously combats total hatred, each
person must coerce his attitude and overcome his hatred. If
that is the case, how does one simultaneously overcome one's
hatred and exercise what the Gemara says is one's right - even
duty - to hate? On this the Tanya (32) says: Even those who
ignore reproof and whom it is a mitzvah to hate - it is also a
mitzvah to love them: hate the evil in them, and love the good
in them.
Such, then, is the nature of that precept to hate.
It is worthwhile recalling what the Tanya says about those
who have become so alienated from things Jewish that one is not
even required to reprove them, since the commandment to do so
applies only to "your fellow" in Torah and observance, and not
merely to any neighbor of countryman. Hating people who are so
alienated is forbidden.
>
>> Laetrile pushers fit this standard quite well. A study performed by
>> Naturopaths
>>> found that Laetrile had ZERO effect on people with cancer.
>>
>> AND, of course, YOU dismiss this:
>>
>> http://www.laetrile.com.au/
>
> Yes, I fully dismiss it as it is not evidence based.
That would be wrong. There are researchers there.
ALL clinical studies of Laetrile have shown that it has no effect on
cancer patients.
That is wrong also.
Southern Research Institute (Birmingham Alabama), for the NCI, in a majority
of 280 BDF1 mice bearing Lewis lung cancers, treated with up to 400 mg
Laetrile (Amygdalin MF) per kg body weight, with respect to increased median
life span (Dec 3, 1973).
Sloan Kettering (New York) with CD8 F1 mice bearing spontaneous mammary
carcinomas, inhibition of formation of lung metastases, inhibition of growth
of primary tumours, and greater health and appearance of animal hosts, upon
treatment with 1-2 gm Laetrile/per kg body weight/day. (June 13, 1973)
Scind Laboratories, University of San Francisco, 400 rats bearing Walker 256
carcinoma (200 treated with Amygdalin, 200 controls), with 80% increase in
life span at optimum dosage. "The data provided by the McNaughton Foundation
certainly indicates some activity in animal tumour systems" (emphasis
added). [This is a typical medical understatement]
Pasteur Institute (Paris), with human cancer strain maintained in mice,
treated at optimal dosage of 500 mg Amygdalin Marsan/kg body weight/day,
increased life span and delayed tumour growth up to 100% (Dec 6, 1971).
Institute von ardenne (Dresden, Germnay), H strain mice bearing Ehrlich
ascites carcinoma treated with bitter almond amygdalin ad libitum in
addition to regular chow diet, yielded increased life span and decreased
rate of cancer growth, treatment beginning 15 days before cancer inoculation
(arch. Geschwulstorsch. 42, 135-7 (1973).
ANIMAL LAETRILE TESTS
There have been various animal studies that suggest an anti-cancer effect
from Laetrile. The SCIND Laboratories in California conducted several
experiments [with Laetrile]. In their second study on carcinoma of rats
(Walker 256), with amygdalin in doses of 500 milligrams per kilogram
injected intraperitoneally on days one, three and six after [transplanted]
tumor take, the following results were found:
DAYS SURVIVAL TIME (number of days)
Controls: 19,19,19,19,20,20,22,22,22,22,24,24,24,25,25,26,26, 26,26
Treated: 27,28,28,28,29,29,29,30,30,30,30,30.31,32,32,32,60, 60,60,60
The mean survival time of the control rats was thus 23 days. With the
amygdalin-treated rats, mean survival time was 38 days, i.e. a 70% increase
over the controls. The survival time of every Laetrile-treated animal was
greater than that of every control animal.
" ...in a test by Dr. Paul Reitnauer, chief biochemist of the Manfred von
Ardenne Institute, Dresden (East Germany), 20 of 40 H-strain mice were given
bitter almonds in addition to their standard diet. Bitter almonds contain
relatively high levels of Laetrile. Fifteen days after initiation of this
regimen, all 40 mice were inoculated with 1 million Ehriich ascites [cancer]
cells. The 20 control mice lived an average of 21.9 days following this
injection. The 20 mice receiving the bitter almond supplement lived an
average of 25.8 days, which was statistically significant...."
" In 1977, Dr. Vern L. van Breeman of Salisbury State College, Maryland,
reported that the addition of apricot kernels [rich in Laetrile] to standard
food in pilot experiments with special strains of mice bred to develop
breast cancer and leukemia showed impressive differences both in terns of
developing the disease and increased survival times between the animals that
[ate] the kernels and those that did not. When he reported his early
findings... seven of the animals in the leukemia control group and five in
the breast cancer [control] group had died, while none of the mice on the
kernels had. Ultimately only one of the mammary cancer mice developed a
slow-growing tumor, and, while the leukemia results were less impressive in
terms of total symptoms, leukemia-prone mice that ate apricot kernels
enjoyed life extensions up to 50% over what would normally be expected."
Veteran cancer researcher Kanematsu Sugiura (who had a 4-volume set of his
collected scientific papers published in 1965) performed three sets of
experiments between September 1972 and June 1973 "to determine the effects
of amygdalin...upon mice with spontaneous mammary tumors." In an internal
report to his colleagues at Sloan-Kettering Institute, he said that "The
results clearly show that amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of
lung metastases in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and increases
significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary tumor over the
appearance of inhibition in the untreated animals."
These are just some of the Laetrile animal studies yielding positive
results, while they hardly prove Laetrile to be a "cure" for cancer (which
scientific Laetrile proponents have never claimed it to be), they clearly
evidence some anti-cancer effect.
> Regular doctors and Naturopaths have little in common,
As Probert says which is a LIE.
Naturopath is the politically correct term for witch doctor.
Dr. Douglas Brodie also uses Laetrile to treat his cancer patients. "After
years of observing patients using amygdalin, we can say with complete
assurance that it is neither toxic nor worthless.... Nor do we find it to be
a cure or panacea for cancer. The experience of our clinic... is that
amygdalin has the ability to improve the patient's sense of well-being,
relieve the pain of cancer, and reduce the requirement for pain medicine."
Dr. Emesto Contreras has used Laetrile as a cornerstone of his cancer
practice since 1963. He remarks that "For the prevention of cancer and the
maintenance of remission, there is nothing as effective as Laetrile.... Its
nontoxicity permits its use indefinitely while surgery, radiation and
chemotherapy can only be administered for a limited time.... the majority of
cancers that occur more frequently, such as cancers of the lung, breast,
colon, ovaries, stomach, esophagus, prostate, and the lymphomas, are much
helped by Laetrile."
Robert Atkins, M.D., notes that "Amygdalin appears to neutralize the
oxidative cancer-promoting compounds such as free radicals.... It's just one
more key component for keeping cancer from growing or spreading. Contrary to
what people have said about Laetrile... it should be considered an
effective, entirely ' safe treatment for all types of cancer."
Burton Goldberg Many of the physicians whose anti-cancer programs are
detailed in Burton Goldberg's 1116 page Alternative Medicine Definitive
Guide to Cancer also report positive Laetrile results as part of their
cancer treatment programs.
Manuel Navarro, M.D., former professor of medicine and surgery at the Univ.
of Santo Tomas in Manilla wrote in 1971:
" I... have specialized in oncology [the study of tumors] for the past
eighteen years. For the same number of years I have been using
Laetrile-amygdalin in the treatment of my cancer patients. During this
eighteen year period I have treated a total of over five hundred patients
with Laetrile-amygdalin by various routes of administration, including the
oral and the I.V. The majority of my patients receiving Laetrile-amygdalin
have been in a terminal state when treatment with this material commenced.
It is my carefully considered clinical judgment, as a practicing oncologist
and researcher in this field, that I have obtained most significant and
encouraging results with the use of Laetrile-amygdalin in the treatment of
terminal cancer patients, and that these results are comparable or superior
to the results I have obtained with the use of the more toxic standard
cytotoxic agents."
In 1994, P.E. Binzel published his results from treating cancer patients
with Laetrile between 1974 and 1991. He used a combination of intravenous
and oral Laetrile. Intravenous doses started with 3 gms and worked up to 9
gms. After a period of months, oral Laetrile, 1 gm at bedtime, was begun in
place of the injections. Binzel also used various nutrient supplements and
pancreatic enzymes, as well as a low animal-protein, no junk-food diet as
part of his regimen. Out of a series of 180 patients with primary cancer
(non-metastasized, confined to a single organ or tissue), 138 were still
alive in 1991 when he compiled his treatment results. At that time, 58 of
the patients had been followed for 2 to 4 years, while 80 had a medical
follow-up from 5 to 18 years. Of the 42 patients who had died by 1991, 23
died from their cancers, 12 from unrelated causes, and 7 died of "cause
unknown".
Among his metastatic cancer patients, 32 of 108 died from their disease,
while 6 died of unrelated causes, and 9 died of "cause unknown". Of his 61
patients still alive in 1991, 30 had a follow-up between 2 and 4 years,
while 31 had been followed for 5 to 18 years.
Binzel's results are impressive. Some of the individual patients discussed
in his book were still alive (and well!) 15-18 years after their initial
Laetrile treatment. Binzel also notes that none of the cancer diagnoses were
made by him (a small town, "family doctor") - all patients had diagnoses
from other physicians. Many had already suffered the ravages of standard
"cut-bum-and poison" (surgery/X-ray/chemotherapy) medicine before being
given up as hopeless cases by orthodox doctors.
Other physicians who have worked with Laetrile have also reported favorable
results using it.
http://www.laetrile.com.au/testimon/testimpage1.htm
>
> Scientific investigation of medical and treatment issues looks for
> replication of results to confirm validity of findings. Clearly, two such
> disparate groups finding the same thing results in a very high confidence
> level of agreement.
>
> An excellent example of this would be a circumstance where you and I agree
> on something.
>
>>>> ... screaming MURDERER at those whose
>>>> beliefs and therapies
>>> No, just those whose practices will most assuredly lead to death. In
>>> addition to Laetrile pushers, those who claim that they have the cure
>>> for all cancers also fit the mold.
>>>
>>> are counter to his Pharma Handlerls ... and
>>>> sluffs off all the deaths them as non consequential ...
>>> I never sluff (actually slough) off any deaths.
And testimonies?
http://www.laetrile.com.au/testimon/testimpage1.htm
Jan Drew
>
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3EmOf.36922$Jd....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>
>>
>> AND, of course, YOU dismiss this:
>>
>> http://www.laetrile.com.au/
>
>
>
> --Rich
>
> Recommended websites:
>
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> http://www.acahf.org.au
> http://www.quackwatch.org/
> http://www.skeptic.com/
> http://www.csicop.org/
> It is vile and evil and sickening and other stuff that I cannot find
> language foul enough to describe.
Finally we agree!
Skeptic
What do you think you just did???
Rich
Hardly. You are not only snipping to change meaning, you are rearranging the
order of the lines to change meaning. That is dishonest. In fact, it is a
lie, but just what we might expect from a liar like you.
Jan Drew
>
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:jDoOf.18707$rL5...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> "Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:iUmOf.1231$pV5...@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>>
>>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:3EmOf.36922$Jd....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> AND, of course, YOU dismiss this:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.laetrile.com.au/
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> --Rich
>>>
>>> Recommended websites:
>>>
>>> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
>>> http://www.acahf.org.au
>>> http://www.quackwatch.org/
>>> http://www.skeptic.com/
>>> http://www.csicop.org/
>>
>>> It is vile and evil and sickening and other stuff that I cannot find
>>> language foul enough to describe.
>>
>> Finally we agree!
>
> Hardly. You are not only snipping to change meaning, you are rearranging
> the order of the lines to change meaning. That is dishonest. In fact, it
> is a lie, but just what we might expect from a liar like you.
Care to address your own lies?
Jan has stalked people outside of the newsgroup through e-mail and telephone
calls
She has repeatedly posted slurs against Catholics and people of color.
Jan has professed herself to be a Christian many times.
There are at least four James Drews in Bloomington, IN.
Mark Probert doesn't lie.
There was no lump, lump head.
There are more Jews in New York than there are in Israel
YOU called your LIES,,,,,,,,,,,FACTS!
1. That you have stalked Mark MD by contacting someone to attack him.
> 2. That you smoke cigarettes.
> Considering that you habitually lie without conscience,
DO SHOW PROVE OF THAT!
___________________________________________________________________________茁__________________________________________________________________________茁_______________________________
___________________________________________________________________________茁______________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________茁______________________________________________
These lines remain empty. You have NO proof.
> --
>
>
> --Rich
>
> Recommended websites:
Three dead Children
[snip spam]
NO medical training
QUACK QUACK
*Alternative therapy" is a marketing term that should not be permitted.*
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/98news/alternat.htm
Schools Opening Up to Alternative Medicine
*While a few of those so accredited are naive physicians, most are
nonmedical persons who only play
at being doctor and use this certification as an umbrella for a host of
unproven New Age hokum treatments. Unfortunately, a few HMOs, hospitals, and
even medical schools are succumbing to the bait and exposing patients to
such bogus treatments when they need real medical care*
The National Council Against Health Fraud has concluded:
a.. Acupuncture is an unproven modality of treatment
That clearly is a LIE!!!!!
http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/42/12/1508
{spin spam}
Peter Bowditch
>
>"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:3EmOf.36922$Jd....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>
>>
>> AND, of course, YOU dismiss this:
>>
>> http://www.laetrile.com.au/
>
>Everybody with any ability to think clearly dismisses that. It is a sales
>site, marketing false hope and worthless products. It is vile and evil and
>sickening and other stuff that I cannot find language foul enough to
>describe.
On behalf of all compassionate, caring and honest Australians, I would
like to say that we dissociate ourselves from that web site, its lies,
and its reckless disregard for the health and welfare of its victims.
Peter Bowditch
If you mean "Why would hospital groups publish the number 100,000",
then the answer is they wouldn't, because it is not true.
Jan Drew
"Peter Bowditch" wrote
> "Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>news:3EmOf.36922$Jd....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> AND, of course, YOU dismiss this:
>>>
>>> http://www.laetrile.com.au/
>>
>>Everybody with any ability to think clearly dismisses that. It is a sales
>>site, marketing false hope and worthless products. It is vile and evil and
>>sickening and other stuff that I cannot find language foul enough to
>>describe.
>
> On behalf of all compassionate, caring and honest Australians,
That would leave Peter Bowditch out.
<snip>
> --
> Peter Bowditch
snip proven lies.
Peter Bowditch
Wrong there, Jan. I certainly care enough to not want people to be
told that eating cyanide can cure cancer.
>
><snip>
>
>> --
>> Peter Bowditch
>
>snip proven lies.
How can URLs be lies?
Mark Probert
If you are referring to this page:
http://www.laetrile.com.au/copy.asp?sect=q1&page=tested
the research clearly substantiates MY position:
At the conclusion of the trials, on June 15, 1977 the SMKCR released a
press statement. Over 100 reporters and half a dozen film crews from the
leading television stations had been assembled to hear the long awaited
official verdict on laetrile from the worlds most prestigious cancer
research centre. On the Dais were physicians with impeccable
credentials. Dr Robert Good began to speak. After general remarks
condemning laetrile and its use, he passed the microphone to Dr Stock.
The same Doctor Chester Stock who had praised Segiura's work took the
microphone and began describing the finer details of the testing. As his
voice droned on... it was evident all eyes were on Dr Sugiura but he was
not given the opportunity to speak.
The press release said,
"...laetrile was found to possess neither preventative, nor
tumor-regressent, nor anti-metastatic, nor curative anticancer activity."
IOW, no effect whatsoever.
I did read the claim that the "boss at Sloan Kettering" Dr. Kenamatsu
Sugiura allegedly stated:
"Do you stick by your belief that laetrile stops the spread of cancer?
He replied; "I stick."
There is NO proof of that statement and its veracity is highly
questionable. The article on the site goes on to say that Dr. Sugiura
had been researching cancer since 1911. The study was reported in 1977,
which would mean that he had been doing research for 66 years. Since one
is around the age of 25/26 when they graduate medical school, and then
they go for some post graduate training, he would have to be well over
90 when he made the statement.
This piqued my curiosity and I decided to check the Social Security
Death index. I found:
KANEMATSU SUGIURA 87 05 Jun 1892 Oct 1979 10528 (Harrison, Westchester,
NY) (none specified) 100-26-5219 New York
where the date of death is October 1979. Clearly, he was alive and 85
when the study was published. However, doing some simple math, assuming
that he did cancer research until the day he died, the 66 year figure
means that he began doing cancer research in 1913, when he was...19
years old.
Thus, there is an obvious falsehood in the advertising.
> ALL clinical studies of Laetrile have shown that it has no effect on
> cancer patients.
>
> That is wrong also.
Does this website have the actual studies? I have already demonstrated
that they play fast and lose with numbers.
Not at all. Look at the underlying philosophy of both, and see if they
can compare.
Where are all of the cancer survivors who have proven that they actually
had cancer and were cured by this shit? I do not see any.
>> Scientific investigation of medical and treatment issues looks for
>> replication of results to confirm validity of findings. Clearly, two such
>> disparate groups finding the same thing results in a very high confidence
>> level of agreement.
>>
>> An excellent example of this would be a circumstance where you and I agree
>> on something.
>>
>>>>> ... screaming MURDERER at those whose
>>>>> beliefs and therapies
>>>> No, just those whose practices will most assuredly lead to death. In
>>>> addition to Laetrile pushers, those who claim that they have the cure
>>>> for all cancers also fit the mold.
>>>>
>>>> are counter to his Pharma Handlerls ... and
>>>>> sluffs off all the deaths them as non consequential ...
>>>> I never sluff (actually slough) off any deaths.
>
> And testimonies?
>
> http://www.laetrile.com.au/testimon/testimpage1.htm
Worthless. I read a few...and they are worthless.
Mark Probert
Jan never does what she whines about.
Jan Drew
Posted proof of David Wright's hypocrisy.
What did you do???
Skeptic
No, you made a whining post about whining.
> What did you do???
Pointed out your hypocrisy.