The "Alternative" Medicine Myth
PeterB - Original
There is no such thing as "alternative" medicine because the human
body has evolved to beneficially metabolize only nutrients in order to
maintain health. Drugs are therefore a false "alternative,"
"scientific" only in the sense that they are tested for short-term
toxicity in relatively small group of subjects, usually for about 3
mths. This is how Vioxx came to kill so many, and why so many drugs
are either recalled, relabeled, or both. If you don't believe it,
take a look at Poison Control data and compare the number of
hospitalizations resulting from use of prescription drugs to those
from use of vitamin or herbal supplements. It's not even close. FDA
approval means just about nothing.
Peter B
"PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:68af878f-14aa-417b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
The "Alternative" Medicine Myth
================================================
More proof of being agenda oriented. This folly of yours has already
been soundly trounced in this same thread and here you are starting it
afresh.
You give credence to the verse,
An idiot will become intelligent
when a donkey gives birth to a man child.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:68af878f-14aa-417b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> The "Alternative" Medicine Myth
>
> There is no such thing as "alternative" medicine because the human
> body has evolved to beneficially metabolize only nutrients in order to
> maintain health. Drugs are therefore a false "alternative,"
> "scientific" only in the sense that they are tested for short-term
> toxicity in relatively small group of subjects, usually for about 3
> mths. This is how Vioxx came to kill so many, and why so many drugs
> are either recalled, relabeled, or both. If you don't believe it,
> take a look at Poison Control data and compare the number of
> hospitalizations resulting from use of prescription drugs to those
> from use of vitamin or herbal supplements. It's not even close. FDA
> approval means just about nothing.
> ================================================
> More proof of being agenda oriented. This folly of yours has already
> been soundly trounced in this same thread and here you are starting it
> afresh.
The only thing you've soundly trounced is any hope that you would ever
eek out anything remotely intelligent.
> You give credence to the verse,
>
> An idiot will become intelligent
> when a donkey gives birth to a man child.
No one is expecting you to give birth to a man child.
Peter B
On Nov 28, 1:10 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:68af878f-14aa-417b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> The "Alternative" Medicine Myth
>
> There is no such thing as "alternative" medicine because the human
> body has evolved to beneficially metabolize only nutrients in order to
> maintain health. Drugs are therefore a false "alternative,"
> "scientific" only in the sense that they are tested for short-term
> toxicity in relatively small group of subjects, usually for about 3
> mths. This is how Vioxx came to kill so many, and why so many drugs
> are either recalled, relabeled, or both. If you don't believe it,
> take a look at Poison Control data and compare the number of
> hospitalizations resulting from use of prescription drugs to those
> from use of vitamin or herbal supplements. It's not even close. FDA
> approval means just about nothing.
> ================================================
> More proof of being agenda oriented. This folly of yours has already
> been soundly trounced in this same thread and here you are starting it
> afresh.
The only thing you've soundly trounced is any hope that you would ever
eek out anything remotely intelligent.
=================================================
ROTFLOL, EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You Suh, post ridiculous stuff.
> You give credence to the verse,
>
> An idiot will become intelligent
> when a donkey gives birth to a man child.
No one is expecting you to give birth to a man child.
===========================================
That is so, so lame.
AusShane
> The "Alternative" Medicine Myth
>
> There is no such thing as "alternative" medicine because the human
> body has evolved to beneficially metabolize only nutrients in order to
> maintain health.
Really??? Is codeine a nutrient??? So the body metabolising codeine
to morphine in the brain for pain relief is????? Oh and the fact that
the Morphine is chemically similar to a natural endorphin which is why
it works as pain relief - oh perhaps its an example of medicine
understanding natural processes and using them to advantage. As
opposed to your 3rd grade analysis.
PeterB - Original
> On Nov 28, 3:27 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The "Alternative" Medicine Myth
>
> > There is no such thing as "alternative" medicine because the human
> > body has evolved to beneficially metabolize only nutrients in order to
> > maintain health.
>
> Really???
Yes, really.
> Is codeine a nutrient???
No.
> So the body metabolising codeine
> to morphine in the brain for pain relief is?????
... not beneficial to homeostasis as are nutrients. If you want to
use the word "beneficial" in a purely subjective (non homeostatic)
sense, that's fine, but it shouldn't be confused with metabolic
REQUIREMENTS.
> Oh and the fact that
> the Morphine is chemically similar to a natural endorphin which is
> why it works as pain relief - oh perhaps its an example of medicine
> understanding natural processes and using them to advantage. As
> opposed to your 3rd grade analysis.
Ignoring the insult, the fact that morphine can be helpful in pain
management doesn't mean it's a metabolic requirement or that it isn't
inherently toxic to cells. Nothing you've said changes anything i've
said. [http://www.medicineau.net.au/clinical/palliativecare/
morphineprob.html]
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:68af878f-14aa-417b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Wasn't that how Conan the Barbarian born? Or was it
a cow or mare?
You never trounce anyone. You only make key
strokes and send digital messages onto the net
and into the ether. Just like the rest of us "here."
A mad cow sausage for Peter B the second................Trig
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
And morphine can speed some cancers according to some sources but
then again for some that might be a blessing.
AusShane
Ignoring the fact that only one branch of medicine deals with
maintaining health or prohylaxis - and that medicine is used to
address this thing we call disease - ie when health fails -
So what you are describing is nutrition which is not the same as
addressing disease Vioxx is not food. When was the last time you took
a medicine when you were hungry??
The fact that poison control data is used to track poisons not adverse
medicine reactions -
quote
"and compare the number of
hospitalizations resulting from use of prescription drugs to those
from use of vitamin or herbal supplements"
Bearing in mind that in most countries the billion dollar industry
that is known as big woo is under no obligation to prove:
1) ANY biochemical activity or proof of efficacy
2) ANY data regarding material safety.
Its hard to compare apples with apples would you not say.
sugar, water and alcohol don't exactly constitute medicine.
The fact that you have a deluded belief in 'natural' products having
no consequence.
Natural products are killing thousands of people around the globe
EVERY YEAR.
Try and move beyond the village idiot level of understanding.
AusShane
And doing nothing is frequently fatal - which is pretty much what we
did for 2000 years.
PeterB - Original
So morphine prevents cancer from being fatal? Got any evidence to
back that up?
PeterB - Original
More specifically, standard medicine is used to address the profit
motive in treating, but not curing, disease, while traditional
medicine (mostly herbal and nutritional) is used to effectively treat
and cure it.
> So what you are describing is nutrition which is not the same as
> addressing disease.
Wrong. According to WHO, most human disease is attributed to nutrient
insufficiency, even in well fed populations. Iron deficiency, for
instance, is the most common link to various states of disease
worldwide.
> Vioxx is not food.
Really? Is that why as many as 65,000 people may have been killed by
it so far?
> When was the last time you took
> a medicine when you were hungry??
Hippocrates once said "let food be thy medicine." It's still true.
> The fact that poison control data is used to track poisons not
> adverse medicine reactions -
False. Poison Control centers record poisoning by medication the same
as they do for anything else. You can find this in the PC data report
for any year you care to look.
> quote
> "and compare the number of
> hospitalizations resulting from use of prescription drugs to those
> from use of vitamin or herbal supplements"
Your point?
> Bearing in mind that in most countries the billion dollar industry
> that is known as big woo is under no obligation to prove:
>
> 1) ANY biochemical activity or proof of efficacy
Why would they be obligated to prove what is already proven? Have you
never read the history of medical science? Vitamins were originally
isolated because of their essential role in preventing and even curing
various human diseases. The entire pharmacopeia is based mostly on
the discoveries of nutritional science.
> 2) ANY data regarding material safety.
Because the empirical evidence is overwhelming and makes the evidence
threshold for natural medicine less stringent than for drugs.
> Its hard to compare apples with apples would you not say.
For you, apparently.
> sugar, water and alcohol don't exactly constitute medicine.
You've apparently never heard of IV glucose. If you were presented
with severe dehydration, do you think receiving H2O might be a good
idea?
> The fact that you have a deluded belief in 'natural' products having
> no consequence.
The consequence is that natural medicine cures disease and restores
health.
> Natural products are killing thousands of people around the globe
> EVERY YEAR.
Care to back that up with any actual evidence? I didn't think so.
> Try and move beyond the village idiot level of understanding.
To do that I'll have to leave your village.
AusShane
Hehehe word twisting noted Mr village idiot you really are going to
have to do better than that. From the man who lives in the whale.to
universe.
Rational treatment prevents cancers from being fatal not always and
not all cancers, but we have this thing called documented success. You
know live people who would have died in previous times and the numbers
are getting better all the time.
Jan Drew
Is another troll.
PeterB - Original
Oh, and what source are you using for this "documented success" of
yours? I suggest you read "Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial
Cancer," by Germany's Dr. Ulrich Abel, who compiled survival times in
patients treated for the most common and fatal adenocarcinomas like
breast and colon cancer. Here is a quote by him:
"Success of most chemotherapies is appalling…There is no scientific
evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of
patients suffering from the most common organic cancer… Chemotherapy
for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of
all cancers, is a scientific wasteland."
> You know live people who would have died in previous
> times and the numbers are getting better all the time.
No data + No facts = No Proof of Claim
AusShane
I think you already showed your dishonesty by quoting whale as a
credible source and one of the people here has already called you out
as a quote mining distorting liar so I wont bother to indulge. I have
no doubt if I were to waste the keystrokes I would find your quoted
paper to be bullshit
Oh look I did
http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/the-paper-that-never-was/
Oh and another quote
One more thing: I noticed that John Scudamore of whale.to has cited
this (non-existent?) Lancet paper in a thread on Science-Based
Medicine. He also links to several pages on his own site, thus
invoking Scopie’s Law. [Link to SBM: here.]
So we are back to to the standard distortions lies and quote mining of
which you were previously accused.
And you call ME a troll Bwahahahahahaha
AusShane
( More specifically, standard medicine is used to address the profit
> motive in treating, but not curing, disease, while traditional
> medicine (mostly herbal and nutritional) is used to effectively treat
> and cure it. )
Are you insane??? Do you actually know how many billions a year the
woo industry makes???? And the fact that they don't actually have any
'empirical' evidence nor do they have to prove it only increases the
profit margin..
Boiron is one of the world’s largest homeopathic manufacturers. Last
year their sales were 467 million euros – comparable to a drug
company. Impressive sales for a company that makes a product with no
raw materials and no research and development costs. You’d think that
with sales of almost half a billion euros, they could put a few
million to actually test what they claim: that homeopathy works.
(((crickets chirping))) We’re still waiting. Anyone? Anyone?
(> The consequence is that natural medicine cures disease and restores
> health.)
Hmm you mean like this??
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) - The unsettling little secret of Zicam Cold
Remedy finally spilled out earlier this month. Though widely sold for
years as a drug for colds, it was never tested by federal regulators
for safety like other drugs. And that was perfectly legal - until
scores of consumers lost their sense of smell.
Or this??
AP IMPACT: $2.5B Spent, No Alternative Med Cures
AP IMPACT: Can acupressure thwart Twinkie urge? $2.5B spent, no
alternative med cures found
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE AP Medical Writer
BETHESDA, Md. June 10, 2009 (AP)
The Associated Press
Ten years ago the government set out to test herbal and other
alternative health remedies to find the ones that work. After spending
$2.5 billion, the disappointing answer seems to be that almost none of
them do.
> Because the empirical evidence is overwhelming and makes the evidence
> threshold for natural medicine less stringent than for drugs
A quote from one of the more honest woo sites
1. Part of the kind of figure you quote is lots and lots of "basic
research" to identify drug targets and potential drug structures, and
test them in model systems and animals. This has no parallel in
testing CAM interventions, since with something like chiropractic we
know what the intervention is already.
2. Another cost element with pharmaceutical development is the "lost"
cost of drugs and strategies that did not make it to market because
they failed in the development process. Again, zero comparison in CAM
- NO CAM intervention has ever yet been abandoned because it was shown
to be ineffective. Not even the ones that have been clearly shown to
be ineffective.
3. A major part of the cost figure for a pharmaceutical remedy
reflects how many regulatory stages there are in licencing a drug.
Much of the cost of pharmaceutical medicine development results from
the need to make sure any new drug is tested for efficacy, and
especially for safety. These are tests that are REQUIRED before the
medicine can be sold.
They are also tests that CAM therapies, with minimal exceptions, never
have to undergo. In the UK the most stringent requirement is for
herbal medicines, which when marketed (as they invariably are) as
"food supplements" merely have to demonstrate that a review of the
available literature reports no evidence of harm.
With pharmaceuticals, the trials required for things like safety
approval are enormous in scale. In CAM, we typically don't even have
reliable small trials for efficacy. In the case of something like
chiropractic for colic, one of the subjects of the BCA vs. Singh libel
case, there are NO blinded trials with more than 100 participants - I
count one trial with 50, and another with 100. The cost of such a
trial, I would contend, would not be prohibitive. A trained observer
for a year, maybe? I assume the chiropractors would be happy to sign
up, indeed would want to participate - at least, assuming they are
actually interested in substantiating their practices with reliable
evidence. And given the ever-increasing number of CAM-interested
academics in mainstream Universities, let alone the CAM schools, I am
sure one or more such could be found to spend the time to carry out
such a study.
> Wrong. According to WHO, most human disease is attributed to nutrient
> insufficiency, even in well fed populations. Iron deficiency, for
> instance, is the most common link to various states of disease
> worldwide.
Hmm - smells like your other quoted papers but I really cant be
bothered to look.
> > sugar, water and alcohol don't exactly constitute medicine.
>
> You've apparently never heard of IV glucose. If you were presented
> with severe dehydration, do you think receiving H2O might be a good
> idea?
I guess the oblique reference to homeopathy was too sophisticated for
you.
"> Natural products are killing thousands of people around the globe
> EVERY YEAR.
Care to back that up with any actual evidence? I didn't think so. "
Hmm and alcohol and tobacco are not natural products?
PeterB - Original
> ( More specifically, standard medicine is used to address the profit
>
> > motive in treating, but not curing, disease, while traditional
> > medicine (mostly herbal and nutritional) is used to effectively treat
> > and cure it. )
>
> Are you insane??? Do you actually know how many billions a year
> the woo industry makes????
What difference would it make, it's still just a fraction what the
drug industry takes in while killing far more people than it saves.
> And the fact that they don't actually have any
> 'empirical' evidence nor do they have to prove it only increases the
> profit margin..
You obviously do know about the E Commission monographs used as the
basis for standard care in parts of Europe. There is a plethora of
good science on the disease-limiting effects of EFAs and magnesium.
The Passwater studies showed substantial life span gains in those
supplementing vitamins C and E. There are volumes of science on the
health benefits of all essential nutrients. Do you ever read the
medical literature?
> Boiron is one of the world’s largest homeopathic manufacturers. Last
> year their sales were 467 million euros – comparable to a drug
> company. Impressive sales for a company that makes a product with no
> raw materials and no research and development costs. You’d think that
> with sales of almost half a billion euros, they could put a few
> million to actually test what they claim: that homeopathy works.
> (((crickets chirping))) We’re still waiting. Anyone? Anyone?
From an earlier post on the subject of homeopathy:
We've discovered from the science of nutrigenomics that active gene
expression (epigenetics) is extremely sensitive to very minor inputs
from a variety of substances, such as dietary nutrients,
biosynthetics, such as hormones, and certainly to drugs and toxins.
Minute amounts of almost any chemical, whatever the method of
exposure, can be a factor in active gene coding. For instance, cases
of gene damage are clinically documented in the book, "Our Stolen
Future," by Colburn, Dumanonski, and Myers. [ref. http://www.ourstolenfuture.org]
The mechanics of this process is a result of evolutionary forces
acting over millions of years to utilize the beneficial effects of
nutrients in maintaining cellular health. These various discoveries
and data prove that highly dilutive chemistry has a basis in human
biology and cannot be ignored simply because the premise put forth by
Hahnemann is outdated. The question is whether those homeopathic
remedies without detectable amounts of particular herbs or nutrients
are also medicinal, or is there a point of dilution at which only the
effect of placebo remains? It should come as no surprise that the
drug makers themselves rely heavily on the placebo effect for a
positive response to various FDA-approved drugs, including pain
killers. But are drugs as safe? And while the metabolites of
prescription drugs and their effects are poorly understood, that
hazard does not extend to homeopathy, whose formulations contain only
trace amounts of various plant chemicals. And because many
homeopathics do, in fact, contain detectable amounts of these
naturally-occurring substances, the choice of remedy (as always when
using natural medicine) is simply a matter of proper selection.
> (> The consequence is that natural medicine cures disease and restores
>
> > health.)
>
> Hmm you mean like this??
> CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) - The unsettling little secret of Zicam Cold
> Remedy finally spilled out earlier this month. Though widely sold for
> years as a drug for colds, it was never tested by federal regulators
> for safety like other drugs. And that was perfectly legal - until
> scores of consumers lost their sense of smell.
That compares favorably to what happened after decades of HRT, never
mind Baycol and Vioxx. So much for FDA approval denoting safety.
> Or this??
>
> AP IMPACT: $2.5B Spent, No Alternative Med Cures
>
> AP IMPACT: Can acupressure thwart Twinkie urge? $2.5B spent, no
> alternative med cures found
> By MARILYNN MARCHIONE AP Medical Writer
> BETHESDA, Md. June 10, 2009 (AP)
> The Associated Press
>
> Ten years ago the government set out to test herbal and other
> alternative health remedies to find the ones that work. After
> spending $2.5 billion, the disappointing answer seems to be that
> almost none of them do.
And yet, the independent medical literature (i.e, not conflicted by
ties to industry sponsored junk science) proves quite the opposite.
This is why I ask you pharmnuts to cite your sources, which you refuse
to do, so heavily stacked are the facts against you.
> > Because the empirical evidence is overwhelming and makes the
> > evidence threshold for natural medicine less stringent than for
> > drugs
>
> A quote from one of the more honest woo sites
>
> 1. Part of the kind of figure you quote is lots and lots of "basic
> research" to identify drug targets and potential drug structures, and
> test them in model systems and animals. This has no parallel in
> testing CAM interventions, since with something like chiropractic
> we know what the intervention is already.
And yet, FDA approval means nothing more than green-lighting some
meaningless change in a disease marker that itself is not the cause of
disease. And you later get to roll the dice and see if this worthless
"treatment" kills you in the process. I'll take the garlic,
thanks.
> 2. Another cost element with pharmaceutical development is the "lost"
> cost of drugs and strategies that did not make it to market because
> they failed in the development process.
The patent model of medicine is costly because its scientific premise
is flawed. The price of admission for the drug makers is thus
shifted to an unsuspecting public that pays to have its health
diminished and its lives shortened. Only a corrupt bureaucratic
arrangement serving the interests of the drug makers could make that a
reality. FDA's operating budget is more than 50% funded by the
companies it purports to regulate.
Of course not, you wouldn't want the facts to get in your way.
> > > sugar, water and alcohol don't exactly constitute medicine.
>
> > You've apparently never heard of IV glucose. If you were presented
> > with severe dehydration, do you think receiving H2O might be a good
> > idea?
>
> I guess the oblique reference to homeopathy was too sophisticated
> for you.
And still you were wrong.
> "> Natural products are killing thousands of people around the globe
>
> > EVERY YEAR.
>
> Care to back that up with any actual evidence? I didn't think so. "
>
> Hmm and alcohol and tobacco are not natural products?
Not in the context of this discussion, but you knew that. Thanks for
showing us your true colors.
PeterB - Original
< chirp >
> > > You know live people who would have died in previous
> > > times and the numbers are getting better all the time.
>
> > No data + No facts = No Proof of Claim
>
> I think you already showed your dishonesty by quoting whale as a
> credible source and one of the people here has already called you
> out as a quote mining distorting liar so I wont bother to indulge.
IOW, you can't produce any published science to back up anything you
say. What a shocker.
> I have
> no doubt if I were to waste the keystrokes I would find your quoted
> paper to be bullshit
I have no doubt that your keystrokes are more like backstrokes...
just for show.
> Oh look I did
>
> http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/the-paper-that-never-was/
>
> Oh and another quote
>
> One more thing: I noticed that John Scudamore of whale.to has cited
> this (non-existent?) Lancet paper in a thread on Science-Based
> Medicine. He also links to several pages on his own site, thus
> invoking Scopie’s Law. [Link to SBM: here.]
Another disreputable pharmnut reference to "Scopies law," how
impressive. My citation was Abel's book, not a Lancet published
study.
> So we are back to to the standard distortions lies and quote mining
> of which you were previously accused.
No, we are back to your diversionary tactics and the fact that you
can't cite published science (as I do) supporting any of your
claims.
> And you call ME a troll Bwahahahahahaha
That was Jan, but she was just being nice. You're much worse than a
troll.
Peter Bowditch
As he didn't say it, why should he need any evidence?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Peter Bowditch
>According to WHO, most human disease is attributed to nutrient
>insufficiency, even in well fed populations
Reference, please.
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > And morphine can speed some cancers according to some sources but
> >> > then again for some that might be a blessing.
>
> >> And doing nothing is frequently fatal - which is pretty much what
> >> we did for 2000 years.
>
> >So morphine prevents cancer from being fatal? Got any evidence to
> >back that up?
>
> As he didn't say it, why should he need any evidence?
I knew what he said was meaningless, I just wanted to know if you were
paying attention.
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >According to WHO, most human disease is attributed to nutrient
> >insufficiency, even in well fed populations
>
> Reference, please.
Pubmed search: <nutritional deficiency mortality> Article count:
6,323
This was accomplished using your famously successful key word search
to find thousands of results just by typing in the pertinent word
string. Or, you can can find it in the article I posted to the
newsgroup earlier.
Peter Bowditch
>On Dec 3, 7:11�am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > And morphine can speed some cancers according to some sources but
>> >> > then again for some that might be a blessing.
>>
>> >> And doing nothing is frequently fatal - which is pretty much what
>> >> we did for 2000 years.
>>
>> >So morphine prevents cancer from being fatal? �Got any evidence to
>> >back that up?
>>
>> As he didn't say it, why should he need any evidence?
>
>I knew what he said was meaningless, I just wanted to know if you were
>paying attention.
Nice save. Now answer the question.
Peter Bowditch
>On Dec 3, 7:17�am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >According to WHO, most human disease is attributed to nutrient
>> >insufficiency, even in well fed populations
>>
>> Reference, please.
>
>Pubmed search: <nutritional deficiency mortality> Article count:
>6,323
>
>This was accomplished using your famously successful key word search
>to find thousands of results just by typing in the pertinent word
>string. Or, you can can find it in the article I posted to the
>newsgroup earlier.
I see that PubMed searches really are among the set of things of which
you are ignorant.
I didn't ask you for general knowledge, I asked you for a reference to
a quite specific claim that you made. To nobody's surprise, you failed
to come up with the goods.
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 3, 7:11 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> >> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > And morphine can speed some cancers according to some sources but
> >> >> > then again for some that might be a blessing.
>
> >> >> And doing nothing is frequently fatal - which is pretty much what
> >> >> we did for 2000 years.
>
> >> >So morphine prevents cancer from being fatal? Got any evidence to
> >> >back that up?
>
> >> As he didn't say it, why should he need any evidence?
>
> >I knew what he said was meaningless, I just wanted to know if you were
> >paying attention.
>
> Nice save. Now answer the question.
It was fair to ask him for evidence supporting his purposely vague
assertion. So I did.
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 3, 7:17 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> >> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >According to WHO, most human disease is attributed to nutrient
> >> >insufficiency, even in well fed populations
>
> >> Reference, please.
>
> >Pubmed search: <nutritional deficiency mortality> Article count:
> >6,323
>
> >This was accomplished using your famously successful key
> >word search
> >to find thousands of results just by typing in the pertinent word
> >string. Or, you can can find it in the article I posted to the
> >newsgroup earlier.
>
> I see that PubMed searches really are among the set of things of
> which you are ignorant.
I used the exact same method you use when you are challenged to back
your claims that vaccines are proven safe. I know, it only works
when you do it.
> I didn't ask you for general knowledge...
Neither did I when you claimed that vaccines had been proven safe. I
asked you for specific studies on which your opinions were based.
You obviously have a selective memory.
> , I asked you for a reference
> to a quite specific claim that you made. To nobody's surprise, you
> failed to come up with the goods.
I see the shoes of your hypocrisy fit well.
Peter Bowditch
It was so vague that it asserted nothing of the sort. But you knew
that and distorted the facts as usual.
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 3, 9:03 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> >> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 3, 7:11 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> >> >> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > And morphine can speed some cancers according to some sources but
> >> >> >> > then again for some that might be a blessing.
>
> >> >> >> And doing nothing is frequently fatal - which is pretty much what
> >> >> >> we did for 2000 years.
>
> >> >> >So morphine prevents cancer from being fatal? Got any evidence to
> >> >> >back that up?
>
> >> >> As he didn't say it, why should he need any evidence?
>
> >> >I knew what he said was meaningless, I just wanted to know if you were
> >> >paying attention.
>
> >> Nice save. Now answer the question.
>
> >It was fair to ask him for evidence supporting his purposely
> >vague assertion. So I did.
>
> It was so vague that it asserted nothing of the sort. But you knew
> that and distorted the facts as usual.
If there were facts present I would discuss them instead. But your
comment is amusing. Being purposely vague to the point of absurdity
is the pharmnut stock and trade. I politely gave him the chance to
clarify his comment. Why didn't he? Because like you, real
discussion falls out of the script. And, of course, your personal
attack was expected. Say hello to your sponsors for me.