Bowditch nonthought
john
Lies http://www.whale.to/vaccine/real.html
Logical fallacy #1: (You are mad/paranoid)
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/propaganda3.html
Logical fallacy #2: (Unbelievable= untrue)
http://www.whale.to/b/appeal_to_incredulity.html
that's it
john
"In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a
credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you laughed
out of the room."
If that isn't a definition of a logical fallacy I don't know what is.
john
�Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they
think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than
think.�--Shaw
The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think
things out for himself... Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that
the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable. - H. L.
Mencken
john
destroy it, and to defend it even is to damage it."---R.T. Trall M.D.
Bowditch strategy explained
Peter Bowditch
Then you don't know what is.
--
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
PeterB - Original
> "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
> >Bowditch is going to explain Scopies law
>
> >"In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a
> >credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you laughed
> >out of the room."
>
> >If that isn't a definition of a logical fallacy I don't know what is.
>
> Then you don't know what is.
He's right, that's exactly what it is. I'm guessing there are several
hundred (at least) published scientists and researchers quoted on
John's site, and it's impossible for every citation to be in error.
This has simply been the pharmnut way of dismissing evidence that
can't be countered any other way.
john
"PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:76ac9376-2598-4ffe...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
One example---At least 30 original documents in these smallpox books
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox14.html
I was looking forward to Bowditch explaining the 'logic' of Scopie's Law but
that is utterly impossible to do. It is a strange form of insanity, pharma
mind control.
Bob Officer
It is an observation of fact.
Your web pages are nothing but junk. Shifting thought the shit you
may find a fact or two, but for the greatest part, it is junk, trash
and psuduo-science. Even much of it is un-attributed work of other
people. When you remove the attributes, you turn it into junk.
John, Go back to shoveling pig shit.
--
Bob Officer
Posting the truth
http://www.skeptics.com.au
Bob Officer
John for one you seem to think books and citations from old books are
immutable. You forget science is not a religion. You seem to think
once something is published, it can't be retracted, modified or
changed as new data, and observations come to light.
Go back to shoveling pig Shit, John.
Scopie's observation is true.
whale.to is a trash heap.
PeterB - Original
Good science doesn't go bad, booby. Knowledge expands when better
(not newer) evidence emerges. The advent of "junk" science is
primarily a post-1950s era phenomenon, which is why you and your team
refuse to cite evidence supporting your claims: you know you can't
defend industry-funded "research" designed for the purpose of
marketing.
> You forget science is not a religion.
Rather, you accuse him of what you yourself are guilty of, by failing
to cite evidence of your own beliefs.
> You seem to
> think once something is published, it can't be retracted, modified or
> changed as new data, and observations come to light.
So where is this "new data" you like to talk about but refuse to
produce? Don't tell me, you can't bothered to present it because it
would prove your ties to industry. But then, we knew that.