~ Milloy Machetes Two More Critics ~
Ilena Rose
which supports Milloy.
Not proud to say, but my local paper published this Milloy piece on Killer
Bees. It's anti-environmentalist and anti-organics, while using "scare
mongering" which he claims to abhore.
http://www.uniontribune.com/news/uniontrib/fri/opinion/news_1e23milloy.html
It incited quite a discussion on his TrashTalk, and two of his last
surviving critics got axed in the process!
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000364.html
Quite indicative of the double standards and hypocrisy the Circle Jerking
Moderators use to gang up against any that dare to question King Milloy.
Interesting, even a few of the "regulars" dared to break rank, which
apparently lead to the premature locking up of the thread.
What is most fascinating is that he and Cato are libertarians and speak
out of defenders of free speech.
With these 2 new non-Milloy-o-Philes also being thrown off for daring to
write against him, it seems speech on TrashTalk is only "free" when it
supports the Corporate Sponsors. Karl is concerned his days may soon be
also numbered after this quote:
"Steve Milloy is bogus, in the most literal sense. He is a Market Liberal
first and a scientist second. He calls any research that yields evidence
which is not in in the financial interest of Cato's contributors 'junk
science'."
He's still postworthy, but of course, the thread got locked up tight. Of
course, Zillie got to add his usual scientific expertise:
________________________________________________
SPQR: posted 06-27-2000 01:05 PM
"So now we know that George O is the usual kind of troll who will happily
invent words to put into others' mouths.
Typical behavior for those who are incompetent to discuss the actual
points made."
________________________________________________
Also noted that a spicy, non Milloy loving thread got totally Nuked that
George O also contributed to.
________________________________________________
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000097.html
Animal Farm
File Not Found
The requested URL /ubb/Forum1/HTML/000097.html was not found on this server.
_______________________________________________
Here's the posting history on one of the daring axees . . . Tom Vir
http://www.cfis.org/ubbcgi/ubbmisc.cgi?action=getbio&UserName=TomVir
entropy
il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:
> Seems like on JunkScienceLand, the only real "free speech" allowed is
that
> which supports Milloy.
talk), both current and previous formats. I have had disagreements
with Milloy, some moderators, and many individual posters. I have been
flamed but to my knowledge I have never had a post removed. I have not
reviewed the posts currently questioned as I am usually more active in
population and resource issues, especially petroleum. Trash talk has a
good search engine for anyone who wants to explore this matter in
detail. One must register to post but can probably read without
registering. There are rules which are clearly stated. --- Incidently
Ilena, I would prefer that you not publish private information about me
as you have done previously.
>
> Quite indicative of the double standards and hypocrisy the Circle
Jerking
Profanity is not encouraged but is usually tolerated to some extent at
http://www.junkscience.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bill Holt
You may wish to curse my name because I am actually the one who evicted
Ilena Rosenthal from the Trash Talk board (sponsored by the junkscience.com
site) and it was entirely my decision to do so. As a result, her voluminous
stream of disconnected babble has been imposed on you. Please accept this
as my expression of regret.
Also, as it appears that she has gone through most of her standard dog and
pony show, I'll take a moment to correct the record.
First, it has been said that Ilena always lies. That is wrong. She only
lies when the truth is not convenient. Ad hom? Certainly, technically -
but supported by data.
For example: While the regular posters on the TT board did greet her claims
related to breast implants with skepticism, we debated and investigated. In
fact there was a substantial turn-around in the opinion of the majority of
the group. Ilena would have you believe that there is a corporate line
which everyone there toes. The truth, however, is that after considerable
debate the majority came to conclude:
1) The conflict between the oft-cited 3-5% failure rate and Ilena's
oft-cited 80% (+/-) failure rate is in the fine print, not in the numbers.
The former is an _annual_ rate, the latter is for a period in the range of
ten to twenty years. That is, the numbers are in general agreement with one
another.
2) That the failure rate is at least alarming, and that the incidence of
localized damage to tissue is undeniable. We also hypothesized the
existence of several mechanisms for other illnesses to occur as a result of
leaking implants.
3) Items 1 and 2 combined to make it obvious, to the regular TT group, that
breast implants, for trivial reasons, are foolish ... and most of us
actively attempt to persuade people not to take the risk without hard
consideration.
4) However, we were able to find nothing to support the claims of Ilena,
and some others, that implants lead to a wide array of nebulous mystery
maladies, and we were unable to find any reason to discard the
epidemiological studies which suggest, by the process of elimination, that
these maladies were hysteric.
Anyone who wants to go through the archives to verify this is invited to do
so. Here's the url for that now, inactive forum.
http://www.cfis.org/ubbcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Breast+Impla
nts&number=12&DaysPrune=1000&SUBMIT=Go
Later I - and only I - discontinued the breast implant topic as a separate
forum within the board. The reasons were simple.
First, contrary to Ilena's claims, the topic is not banned from the TT
board, it was merely redefined as a minor topic within a different forum as
it no longer generated sufficient, on-topic conversation to sustain a
separate forum.
Also, a lot of people were getting upset after they wondered onto the board
expecting to join a sympathetic support group. Of course, they were quite
disappointed when they found that, instead, they'd wondered into a group of
skeptics who were not about to accept anything at face value without
examination.
Ilena's ejection from the TT board would have been justified for reasons
that you have probably observed here: Reposting the same things, again and
again; cluttering the works with massive cut & paste posts of marginal
relevance; and her consistent, repetitious bleatings that everyone who
disagreed with her was either a liar, a fool, or the member of some sort of
conspiracy.
But that's not why she got the boot. I, personally, threw her off of the
board because she acquired personal information about another member, who
chose to post anonymously, and used that information as if to threaten. She
followed up her threats by attempting, via email, to get that poster in
trouble with her employer.
Even then, the termination of Ilena's posting privileges was not considered
by me to be permanent. She had the option, at the time, of merely stating
that she wouldn't do it again ... and I would have flipped her posting
switch back to the "on" position. But, apparently, the new feather for her
martyr hat was more important to her than her postings. Now, of course,
after witnessing her rather vigorous campaign of lies, reinstatement is no
longer an option. Sorry - you're stuck with her.
In the history of that board, no more than a half-dozen people have had
their posting privileges revoked. Ilena was the first. (Perhaps I should
send her a plaque?) A few of those suspended were hard core right wing
whackoes (my characterization, not theirs). Usually the left-wing idiots
seem to be more delicate and leave when their feelings are hurt by people
who question their ability to think. A few were members of what appears to
me to be the Ilena cult. By their behavior, it was clear that their only
function was to disrupt the exchange of ideas. Unlike Ilena, I won't
speculate about, or fabricate stories about, their motivations. It's not
worth the trouble, even for amusement ... not even when thoughts about
pheromones cross my mind.
But I should correct a few more of her misrepresentations about the TT
board. First, the "staff" is all volunteer (in spite of our standing joke
about the paychecks being lost in the mail for a year now), and the prime
directive is to do whatever is necessary to maintain a place where a useful
free exchange of ideas, that lead to the debunking of junk-science, can
happen. Of course, we use a more balanced definition of junk science than
Ilena would suggest. We have observed that junk science comes from all
directions, industry, governmental agencies, politicians, feel-good citizens
groups, and occasionally, from actual scientists. Much junk science is
actually the result of valid research being misrepresented, quoted out of
context, or excerpted without valuable qualifiers, so as to create an
impression which the researchers would not support.
Unfortunately, it does appear that most of what is initially identified as
probable junk, does turn out to be junk. So our initial responses tend to
be more critical than neutral, just because of that accumulated experience.
Ilena would have you believe that the staff marches in lock step to serve
whatever Milloy's issues might be. Here we have support for the old notion
that the best liars make good use of half-truths. I would suggest that most
staff members do, in fact, agree with Milloy's positions most of the time.
I do. I also have disagreed with him on a number of issues and verbalized
that disagreement on the board. Of course, my view is that I agree with him
most of the time because, most of the time he happens to be right. If
that's a conspiracy, so be it.
Regarding her suggestions that Milloy runs the TT board and causes people to
be expelled, to quiet them, you may be safely amused. I'm the guy with the
switch and the only one - ever - to have flipped it or to have made the
decision to flip it. Individual moderators have the power to lock down
threads or edit posts made within their forums - for relevance or to delete
unacceptable language - but I am the only one to ever lock anyone out.
On checking my records, I see that I have had fewer than a half-dozen email
exchanges with Milloy this year - one being a suggestion that a certain post
be removed because the poster was, apparently, cheering Timothy McVeigh's
approach for protesting governmental actions. (I ended up revoking that
person's posting privileges as well, although she was an extremely well-read
and energetic source of information which many of us found to be useful.)
There have been two occasions where Milloy did request that I reconsider my
act of locking out certain individuals. I did reconsider both cases, but
both of those individuals are still gone.
Now you have it. The whole truth, and nothing but.
Please accept this correction of the record as my apology for diverting
Ilena's energy in the direction of your forum. It was not by design -
although I do confess a certain joy at not seeing her name pop up every day
and not having to read her tripe.
Since Ilena's pattern is to attempt to counteract any criticisms with masses
of irrelevancies and fabrications, I don't plan to respond to anything she
writes in rebuttal. But if any of you who frequent this forum would like
more detail, please ask for it. Or, you wish, visit the Trash Talk forum at
http://www.cfis.org/ to see for yourself. You do not have to be a member to
read, only to post. Membership is free. The parent of the TT Board is at
http://www.junkscience.com. There, you will almost certainly see positions
taken that you agree with and some that you disagree with. You are invited
to present any case in agreement or disagreement on the TT board.
Cordially,
Bill Holt
David Ball
>Seems like on JunkScienceLand, the only real "free speech" allowed is that
>which supports Milloy.
>
>Not proud to say, but my local paper published this Milloy piece on Killer
>Bees. It's anti-environmentalist and anti-organics, while using "scare
>mongering" which he claims to abhore.
>
>http://www.uniontribune.com/news/uniontrib/fri/opinion/news_1e23milloy.html
>
>It incited quite a discussion on his TrashTalk, and two of his last
>surviving critics got axed in the process!
>
>http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000364.html
>
>
>Quite indicative of the double standards and hypocrisy the Circle Jerking
This may sound like a stupid question, but why are you worried
about this guy and his lackies? I paid a visit to the website and the
content on it is a joke! So are the so-called moderators. It's rife
with mis-information at best and downright ignorance at worst. Anyone
with a hint of grey-matter between their ears sees it for what it is.
Anyone who doesn't either isn't bright enough or already follows his
nonsensical viewpoint. In essence, he's preaching to the choir.
Putting a lot of newspaper articles on a website doesn't take any
brains nor does it take any brains to have a bunch of people called
moderators who know the jargon but haven't a clue what any of it means
posting stupid comments.
--
Dave
Ilena Rose
wrote:
There are rules which are clearly stated. --- Incidently
**Ilena, I would prefer that you not publish private information about me
**as you have done previously.
**
*
i have published nothing "private" about you. You wrote on TrashTalk that
you were a "retired mammographer."
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000058.html
further, i have posted NOTHING about anyone that is private. The whole Dr.
Rosalind "Stella" Dalefield incident was all information she posted on the
internet under her own name, while harassing and libeling me as "Stella."
As a retited mammographer, entropy, have you viewed (or tried to view)
breast tissue when implants are in place?
Ilena Rose
Holt, far more interesting that your vainglorious attempt to paint me as a
liar, is your one-sided telling of Dr. Dalefield's harassment of me. Far
from being my "victim" she chose to denigrate me, harass me, repeat lies
of O'Leary and his Network regarding my Foundation, while safely shielded
by you. Concurrently, she was posting sexual inferences about herself, her
breasts, and advertising her "Expert" Witness on the internet. You made
new rules to justify banning me, I broke none. Nor have I lied to you, or
anyone else.
Had Dalefield not run to her boss and lied to him about who I was, I would
not have felt the need to defend myself against her misrepresentations.
You leave that out of your fable, conveniently.
You and she confuse me with someone you can spread lies about, harass, and
who will quietly go stand in the corner. I put up with O'leary's lies for
4 years, until I finally uncovered his identity and the fact that he was
breaking Judge Pointer's (the International Breast Implant Judge) Court
Orders for defendants to NOT contact or try to influence plaintiffs.
Further, while boasting about her "pedigree" and her degrees,
Dalefield/Stella was making dangerous & unsubstantiated un-scientific
claims about silicone and the harm in the human body. Don't forget, though
you at "junkscience" give all the credit to her for educating you, months
before my banning, she was not even aware that silicone was NOT inert. She
also joined in your stupid mantra, "silicone is not silica" ~ which only
demonstrated that all of you had ignored my many posts illustrating that
EVERY implant contained silica.
What her boss does with her is his business ~ but no pushy, aggressive,
arrogant, insulting, demeaning harasser is going to libel me
internationally and think I'll not respond. Especially, when she
recommended that O'Leary, former President of a major international
Silicone Manufacturer, would vouch for her against me. Get real!
You never asked her to apologize for all the lies she spread about me. . .
. your typical TrashTalk double standard.
In article <B588FAFF.B5DF%bill...@iglou.com>, Bill Holt
<bill...@iglou.com> wrote:
**1) The conflict between the oft-cited 3-5% failure rate and Ilena's
**oft-cited 80% (+/-) failure rate is in the fine print, not in the numbers.
**The former is an _annual_ rate, the latter is for a period in the range of
**ten to twenty years. That is, the numbers are in general agreement with one
**another.
Holt, you are absolutely wrong that the failure rate that Milloy has
published of 4-6% was claimed to be an annualized rate. Your new
$iliconeGuru, O'Leary has tried to change history, and apparently you have
jumped on his self interested wagon.
Though true that the 4-6% is a good estimate of annualized rupture, that
was NEVER what Milloy/Marcia Angell/ was claiming. What you are doing is
the $ilicone $huffle, and O'Leary is your DanceTeacher.
In her book, and the MANY press releases, it was reported as total rupture
rate ~ and you are totally off base! It is one of the reasons I have
invested so much time in Milloy's Propaganda ~ millions of women with
disintegrating implants were given false assurances that only 4-6% (still
a high #) would break.
**2) That the failure rate is at least alarming, and that the incidence of
**localized damage to tissue is undeniable. We also hypothesized the
**existence of several mechanisms for other illnesses to occur as a result of
**leaking implants.
**3) Items 1 and 2 combined to make it obvious, to the regular TT group, that
**breast implants, for trivial reasons, are foolish ... and most of us
**actively attempt to persuade people not to take the risk without hard
**consideration.
I will quote some of the early harassment I got when I began posting what
you all now finally admit:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=627468113&fmt=text
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000007.html
dave fitz
Member
posted 08-21-1999 08:21 PM
. . . Breast implants have been studied in every conceivable way.. no
problems seem apparent.
I suggest we remove Ilena's posting authorization as a spammer and
hopeless waste of bandwidth.
Who's with me?
dave
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000017.html
Stella
Member
posted 11-29-1999 06:04 AM
"Upwards of 20studies have failed to find a statistical correlation
between silicone implants and the so-called auto-immune diseases they
supposedly cause."'
With scientific evidence on their side, the company believed that its main
defense of relying on that evidence was sound and rational. The public's
perception during times of crisis is not rational, therefore; the public
didn't accept the scientific evidence. This is the tragedy of Dow Corning.
This is the tragedy of junk science everywhere. This is what gets people
at this bulletin board exasperated. Like Dow Corning, rational people
accept the scientific evidence. People like ilena, who are irrational, do
not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000009.htm
dave fitz Member posted 08-24-1999 08:17 PM
The whole point of using silicone for implants into the human body is that
it is chemically inert and thus does not trigger immune responses.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000008.html
Stella Member posted 08-24-1999 06:29 AM
Well I have a PhD in pathology and I've never heard of this, in fact it
doesn't even make sense. For that matter, what on Earth is 'the pathology
of physiology'!? And what is 'fiberous tissue'? Any relation to fibrous
tissue? Besides all that, the abstract refers to 'Fatal Liver and Lung
Damage in Mice'. I have never heard of women who have had implants
complaining of liver or lung damage. Their complaints centre around SLE
and immune-based disorders of that ilk. I can't see how any silicone
leaking from a breast implant would end up slopping around in the
peritoneum, either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000016.html
Topic: FDA on TDA & Polyurethane Implants ~ For Fong Stella
Member posted 11-30-1999 05:53 AM
This is very weird. If polyurethane coatings biodegrade, how did they ever
get past the FDA?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000045.html
Stella Member posted 01-09-2000 07:50 AM
Silica is not silicone.
entropy
il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:
> In article <8jvjnf$blk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, entropy <entropy123@my-
deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> There are rules which are clearly stated. --- Incidently
> **Ilena, I would prefer that you not publish private information
about me
> **as you have done previously.
> **
> *
> i have published nothing "private" about you.
Usenet. What is your purpose?
Ilena Rose
wrote:
**In article <ilena-05070...@dt011n39.san.rr.com>,
** il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:
**> In article <8jvjnf$blk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, entropy <entropy123@my-
**deja.com>
**> wrote:
**>
**> There are rules which are clearly stated. --- Incidently
**> **Ilena, I would prefer that you not publish private information
**about me
**> **as you have done previously.
**> **
**> *
**> i have published nothing "private" about you.
**The information that you have posted about me was never before on the
**Usenet. What is your purpose?
**
If you believe and your "reading" is that the world wide web is "private"
and Usenet is not . . . then I thank the heavens that you are a "retired"
not present mammographer ~ women's lives are at stake according to what
mammographer's read.
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000058.html
After you went back to TrashTalk to tattle tale on me, where I was banned
for rules that were retroactive (Milloy added the rule after I supposively
broke it) ~ I chose to defend myself where I could not be silenced.
My purpose in life, is to expose the cover up and lies surrounding breast
implants, and concurrently, to expose the lies and cover ups surrounding
the Industry Funded, Milloy etc. "junk science" campaign.
Far more important to me, is the question you chose not to answer.
What were your experiences around mammography with implants in place?
entropy
> My purpose in life, is to expose the cover up and lies surrounding
breast
> implants, and concurrently, to expose the lies and cover ups
surrounding
> the Industry Funded, Milloy etc. "junk science" campaign.
>
> Far more important to me, is the question you chose not to answer.
>
> What were your experiences around mammography with implants in place?
Ilena, implants can cause complications. My experience strongly
indicates that you routinely lie about the frequency and nature of the
complications. Interested readers should visit
http://www.junkscience.com to determine for themselves if you also lie
about the participants at that site.
Ian St. John
"entropy" <entro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8k7ppg$ikv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > wrote:
> >
> > There are rules which are clearly stated. --- Incidently
> > **as you have done previously.
> > **
> > *
Entropy. Could you please cite the evedence? I have not been able to find a
posting from Ilena detailing your 'personal details' and would like to see
the material for myself. I will then ask Ilena to provide her sources, and
determine if the material is 'public domain'.
Ilena Rose
wrote:
**Ilena, implants can cause complications. My experience strongly
**indicates that you routinely lie about the frequency and nature of the
**complications.
"can cause complications."
sorry, that's a little "vague" and a little too unscientific for me.
Please be more specific.
Also, please cite where I have "lied" about the frequency and nature of
the complications.
here's the entire Breast Implant Forum on TrashTalk.
here's all the messages on deja.com that they presently have archived that
I posted on alt.support.breast-implant
Looking forward to seeing the references to your defamatory claims about me.
Ilena Rose
still waiting for evidence on your statements that i have been other than
honest with the information i've posted on the potential dangers of
implants.
as far as Milloy's TrashTalk forum, here's a current thread illustrating
their mocking endocrine disruptors, and Dr. Rosalind Dalefield's (who
hides there as "Stella") way with serious scientific concerns.
Ilena Rose
"My experience strongly
indicates that you routinely lie about the frequency and nature of the
complications. Interested readers should visit
http://www.junkscience.com to determine for themselves if you also lie
about the participants at that site."
Entropy"
I supplied you with the urls for all my postings on newsgroups and
Milloy's TrashTalk, yet you have only accused me of lying, while offering
no evidence.
Where did I "routinely" or even once, lie about the frequency and nature
of the complications??????
Or are you just another Milloy TrashTalk Thug who spreads lies, gossip and
rumours about the opponents of his Sponsors??????
Ilena Rose
i'm still waiting for your response.
Please have the courtesty of either backing up your
defamatory comments . . . or retracting them.
Ian St. John
"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ilena-18070...@dt011n39.san.rr.com...
I challenged him first.. and he never posted a reply supporting his
accusations. The conclusion is obvious.