Perhaps Peter Moran Would Like to Retract?

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It's up to you, Peter, can you do the right thing?

This is a new low, even for you, expecting me to respond to something from John's (whaleto) site.
This is advocacy, not evidence, but you have never been able to tell the difference, have you?. This
is why you post so much that is repetetive and worthless.

But I'll do it.

Do a Medline search and you will find that B has published a pitiful amount of clinical research for
a supposed pillar of the scientific community, and someone getting supposedly spectacular results
with cancer. The stuff on his supporters' site has never been published anywhere.

The reason B can appear to have good results with brain tumours is that almost without exception his
patients have also been treated with surgery, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, often shortly before
he gets to treat them, many brain tumours are of low grade, and it is also not always easy to be
sure without a craniotomy and biopsy whether shadows on scans are cancer or not. He has not been
able to show good results with other cancers, which is part of the reason for doubt..

The only salient quote from what you posted ---

Quoted message said:

"Typical of Burzynski's extraordinary results were the outcomes for early groups of advanced cancer
patients treated with antineoplastons: 60 percent enjoyed objective remission, 47 percent
experienced complete remission, and

20

Quoted message said:

percent survived for over five years without cancer."

Well, they do mention five-year survival, I will give you that. If such results came from my old
surgical professor, who I know would have been diligent in establishing all these patients actually
had active and not otherwise treated cancer to begin with, I would believe it.

Coming from your sources, and via several indirect extremely biased routes I reserve judgement as to
whether this is even an accurate account of a real study. Even if they came from Burzinski directly
I would reserve judgement until I had been able to scrutinise all the data. Did you know that the
NCI tried to do a controlled trial of his method once, but it was abandoned because of a dispute
over protocol? You won't find that in any of your sources. I would have thought if his treatment was
as effective as he claims he would have been more eager to cooperate.

This "persecuted hero" garbage won't wash with anyone who knows how the system works. Oncologists
would be appplying the same standards of evidence to any mainsteam doctor who claimed to have a new
treatment of cancer, and likewise reserving judgement when the evidence is insufficient to justify
any diversion of their own resources. As mentioned here on many occasions the climate has never been
better for any cancer cure to stake its claim.

Peter Moran.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Perhaps Peter Moran Would Like to Retract? From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 1/1/2004 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <3ff4aeb4$0$829$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It's up to you, Peter, can you do the right thing?

This is a new low, even for you, expecting me to respond to something from John's (whaleto) site.

It is a real pity that John has taken all this garbage from the debunkers. He has exposed the many
lies of oganized medicine.

<snip more insults>

Quoted message said:

But I'll do it.

Quoted message said:

Do a Medline search and you will find that B has published a pitiful amount of clinical research
for a supposed pillar of the scientific community, and someone getting supposedly spectacular
results with cancer.

Not true.

cancerguide.orgburz cit.txtOpen ↗

cis.nci.nih.govfs7 43.pdfOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

The stuff on his supporters' site has never been published anywhere.

neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu2.2.999.07AMDr.BrzynskOpen ↗ i-v.html

alkalizeforhealth.netLburzynski.htmOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

The reason B can appear to have good results with brain tumours is that almost without exception
his patients have also been treated with surgery,

Almost without exception would be how many?

Did the surgery help?

Quoted message said:

radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, often shortly before he gets to treat them,

Gets to? Why?

Because it didn't help?

Quoted message said:

, many brain tumours are of low grade, and it is also not always easy to be sure without a
craniotomy and biopsy whether shadows on scans are cancer or not. He has not been able to show good
results with other

cancers, which is part of the reason for doubt..

Other cancers like what?

Quoted message said:

The only salient quote from what you posted ---

Quoted message said:

"Typical of Burzynski's extraordinary results were the outcomes for early

Quoted message said:

groups of advanced cancer patients treated with antineoplastons: 60 percent enjoyed objective
remission, 47 percent experienced complete remission, and

20percent survived for over five years without cancer."

Quoted message said:

Well, they do mention five-year survival, I will give you that.

Thank you. I did NOT lie, let alone lie,, yet again.

If such

Quoted message said:

results came from my old surgical professor, who I know would have been diligent in establishing
all these patients actually had active and not otherwise treated cancer to begin with, I would
believe it.

Righto. Diligently established.

As in ORGANIZED MEDICINE!!!

Quoted message said:

Coming from your sources, and via several indirect extremely biased routes

LOLOLOL, I am certainly glad, you are NOT bias, Peter!!

Quoted message said:

I reserve judgement as to whether this is even an accurate account of a real study.

I see.

Quoted message said:

Even if they came from Burzinski directly I would reserve judgement until I had been able to
scrutinise all the data. Did you know that the NCI tried to do a controlled trial of his method
once, but it was abandoned because of a dispute over protocol?

Yes. Another excuse from organized medicine?

Quoted message said:

You won't find that in any of your sources.

I found it on my own.

Quoted message said:

I would have thought if his treatment was as effective as he claims he would have been more eager
to cooperate.

Eager to cooperate??

You mean, DO IT OUR WAY, or we don't do it.

Good Grieg, man, had many times did they drag him to court?? How many trumpted up charges did they
falsely claim??

Quoted message said:

This "persecuted hero" garbage won't wash with anyone who knows how the system works.

B I N G O!!!

The system being *organized medicine*, we indeed see how it works!!!!!

The grief they gave Dr Burzynski is E V I L!!!

Quoted message said:

Oncologists would be appplying the same standards of evidence to any mainsteam doctor who claimed
to have a new treatment of cancer, and likewise reserving judgement when the evidence is
insufficient to

justify any diversion of their own resources.

You mean until they buckel under.

Quoted message said:

As mentioned here on many occasions the climate has never been better for any cancer cure to stake
its claim.

Oh Yeah.

You are so full of it.

The climate is as it always has been.

Either buckel under to OUR POWER, or forget it.

The more I read about Dr Burzynski, the more I believe he has a far better success rate than
conventional rate, and *organized medicine* will stop at nothing to STOP him.

Why has he been vindicated EVERY TIME?????

I saw no retraction, I saw MORE insulting.

I did NOT lie, and I did NOT lie,,,,yet again.

Keep your EGO intact and don't do the right thing. It is so low of me to ask you to do it.

Welcome to EVIL oganized medicine.

Jan

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Perhaps Peter Moran Would Like to Retract? From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 1/1/2004 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:

<[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It's up to you, Peter, can you do the right thing?

This is a new low, even for you, expecting me to respond to something

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

John's (whaleto) site.

It is a real pity that John has taken all this garbage from the debunkers.

He

Quoted message said:

has exposed the many lies of oganized medicine.

<snip more insults>

Quoted message said:

But I'll do it.

Quoted message said:

Do a Medline search and you will find that B has published a pitiful

amount

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of clinical research for a supposed pillar of the scientific community,

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

someone getting supposedly spectacular results with cancer.

Not true.

cancerguide.orgburz cit.txtOpen ↗

A few pilot studies among some non-clinical studies- more than I found, but still not much to show
for 25 years research. He has published a lot, but remarkably little on the outcome of his
treatments.

None of the other sites you include here contribute anything new.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason B can appear to have good results with brain tumours is that almost without exception
his patients have also been treated with

surgery,

Quoted message said:

Almost without exception would be how many?

All will have had surgery.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

cis.nci.nih.govfs7 43.pdfOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

The stuff on his supporters' site has never been published anywhere.

neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu2.2.999.07AMDr.BrzynskOpen ↗ i-v.html

alkalizeforhealth.netLburzynski.htmOpen ↗

Did the surgery help?

Quoted message said:

radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, often shortly before he gets to treat them,

Gets to? Why?

Because it didn't help?

Quoted message said:

, many brain tumours are of low grade, and it is also not always easy to be sure without a
craniotomy and biopsy whether shadows on scans are cancer or not. He has not been able to show
good results with other

cancers, which is part of the reason for doubt..

Other cancers like what?

Quoted message said:

The only salient quote from what you posted ---

Quoted message said:

"Typical of Burzynski's extraordinary results were the outcomes for early

Quoted message said:

groups of advanced cancer patients treated with antineoplastons: 60

percent

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

enjoyed objective remission, 47 percent experienced complete remission,

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

20percent survived for over five years without cancer."

Quoted message said:

Well, they do mention five-year survival, I will give you that.

Thank you. I did NOT lie, let alone lie,, yet again.

If such

Quoted message said:

results came from my old surgical professor, who I know would have been diligent in establishing
all these patients actually had active and not otherwise treated cancer to begin with, I would
believe it.

Righto. Diligently established.

As in ORGANIZED MEDICINE!!!

Quoted message said:

Coming from your sources, and via several indirect extremely biased

routes

Quoted message said:

LOLOLOL, I am certainly glad, you are NOT bias, Peter!!

Quoted message said:

I reserve judgement as to whether this is even an accurate account of a

real

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

study.

I see.

Quoted message said:

Even if they came from Burzinski directly I would reserve judgement until I had been able to
scrutinise all the data. Did you know that the NCI tried to do a controlled trial of his method
once, but it

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

abandoned because of a dispute over protocol?

Yes. Another excuse from organized medicine?

Quoted message said:

You won't find that in any of your sources.

I found it on my own.

Quoted message said:

I would have thought if his treatment was as effective as he claims he would have been more eager
to cooperate.

Eager to cooperate??

You mean, DO IT OUR WAY, or we don't do it.

Good Grieg, man, had many times did they drag him to court?? How many

trumpted

Quoted message said:

up charges did they falsely claim??

Quoted message said:

This "persecuted hero" garbage won't wash with anyone who knows how the system works.

B I N G O!!!

The system being *organized medicine*, we indeed see how it works!!!!!

The grief they gave Dr Burzynski is E V I L!!!

Quoted message said:

Oncologists would be appplying the same standards of evidence to any mainsteam doctor who
claimed to have a new treatment of cancer, and likewise reserving judgement when the evidence is

insufficient to

Quoted message said:

justify any diversion of their own resources.

You mean until they buckel under.

Quoted message said:

As mentioned here on many occasions the climate has never been better for any cancer cure to
stake its claim.

Oh Yeah.

You are so full of it.

The climate is as it always has been.

Either buckel under to OUR POWER, or forget it.

The more I read about Dr Burzynski, the more I believe he has a far better success rate than
conventional rate, and *organized medicine* will stop at nothing to STOP him.

Why has he been vindicated EVERY TIME?????

I saw no retraction, I saw MORE insulting.

I did NOT lie, and I did NOT lie,,,,yet again.

Keep your EGO intact and don't do the right thing. It is so low of me to

ask

Quoted message said:

you to do it.

Welcome to EVIL oganized medicine.

Jan

quackwatch.orgburzynski1.htmlOpen ↗

An article by Saul Green indicating some of the reasons why B is not regarded as very trustworthy.

Peter Moran

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

BTW, if you weren't aware, you can buy shares in Dr. B's Research Institute, Inc. The symbol is
BZYR.OB. The last trade on Friday ws for 6 cents a share, but it has gone to at least thrice that
at some point in the llast 52 weeks.

According to the 10QSB filed with the SEC, Dr. B has been doing all the funding for his research
institute out of his private funds & income from his separate private medical practice for the
last 20 years. The loss reported to the SEC for the most recent 6 months operation for the company
was $2.2 million. When the FDA required in 1997 that his/the company's clinical trial patients had
to be first treated by more raditional means, the company reported to the SEC that Dr. B expanded
his private practice to include chemotherapy, immunotherapy & hormonal therapy (not exactly
"alternative medicine", but, hey, somebody's got to do it) Anyway, for people that like that kind
of reading, the financials et al are available.

It would be interesting to read that alongside his personal financial papers. He admitted in a radio
program to have made over a million dollars the previous year.

I confess that some of his testimonials are fairly convincing, but any long-standing alternative
cancer cure acquires those, even when other evidence suggests that that any "cure" rate of persons
under that cure is miniscule. Some alt treatment might sometimes work. It is just frustrating to see
grandiose claims based upon such fragile data.

Peter Moran

Peter Moran

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote..................

Quoted message said:

It is a real pity that John has taken all this garbage from the debunkers.

...............

Hey Jan, why do you continue to use this term??

Pronunciation: ("😉dE-'b&[ng]k Function: transitive verb Date: 1923
: to expose the sham or falseness of <debunk a legend>

Is this because you agree that there is a sham and falseness that debunkers expose. Of course you
have sworn not to respond to my posts in MHA, and I know why - you can't handle the truth.

carabelli

I read an article that claimed that a patient in the trials was receiving a pitiful diluted dose of
the drug they should have been receiving. They complained to Burzinski, who treated them free of
charge in his own practice. Needless to say the person eventually died, not from cancer from another
cause. (That doesn't sound to me that Burzinski is a money grabbing quack) Anth

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ff52a25$0$898$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

Quoted message said:

quackwatch.orgburzynski1.htmlOpen ↗

An article by Saul Green indicating some of the reasons why B is not regarded as very trustworthy.

Peter Moran

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter:

I wonder whether where his company's stock price is hovering says a lot about the numbers coming
in for Dr. B's treatment. If the numbers were more impressive, it seems like the stock price would
be inching up in some sort of anticipation...one can only "hide their light under a bushelbasket"
for so long.

When are they going to assemble the data on those 71 (or 72) FDA Phase II trials for presentation,
or are they open-ended? Nothing was mentioned in their latest 10Q Summary about them at all,
though they may have been covered in the whole report.

He is compelled to do the trials, under the conditions under which he is allowed to practice, but I
guess he is not compelled to publish anything.

It would be interesting to get a look at his entire results.

Peter

Quoted message said:

Personally I really hope some good comes of this, but I'm not presently willing to invest in the
company.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So Peter, you're saying that Dr. B's FDA trials can go on & on to infinity? If so, I would presume
his research company would continue to leak money, which comes from his private medical practice,
unless he shuts it down? I imagine his medical patents have little value if he can't sell or
license them in the marketplace because of lack of FDA approval. Wonder if he's in over his head.

I think he is working the system beautifully. Most of research his name has been attached to in
recent times has been in vitro or animal research. Since a model can usually be found in these
fields where almost any chemical can appear to have useful anti-cancer activity, this may be seen by
him as the most advantageous direction for research.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

Must be hard being a Guru; people expect so much of you.

Most interesting.

Quoted message said:

So Peter, you're saying that Dr. B's FDA trials

They aren't "FDA trials". They are trials conducted under that portion of the FDA's rules which
allow trials to be conducted. One of those rules, that subjects for research into highly improbably
cancer treatments must have come close to exhausting all conventional options, improves his access
to the desperate people that are the target market for scamsters like him.

Quoted message said:

can go on & on to infinity? If so, I would presume his research company would continue to leak
money, which comes from his private medical practice,

His "private medical practice" is running the "trials". The "subjects" in the "trials" pay big bucks
to be there. The claims to be doing research are a smokescreen to hide the fact that he has found a
loophole in the anti-quackery laws. If he said he was doing treatment he would be held to a
different level of accountability and responsibility than he is while conducting "research". If he
claimed to be curing anyone by treatment he could be asked to produce the cured people, but instead
he just announces "promising results" of the "research" and leaves the cure announcements to sock-
puppets like the "patients group". It's all very cleverly done.

There is no obligation for a corporation to ever declare a profit, and it can go on accumulating
losses for ever. There would only be a problem if it were seen to be a vehicle for blatant tax
avoidance, but I am sure that Burzynski can afford clever accounting advice just as he can afford
clever lawyers. As a start, I would imagine that the corporation could find a way to legally pay a
lot of Burzynski's living expenses. He probably draws a substantial salary, and the rest of the
profit could be contributed to his retirement fund. Oops! Sorry! Nothing left over for the
shareholders.

Quoted message said:

unless he shuts it down? I imagine his medical patents have little value if he can't sell or
license them in the marketplace because of lack of FDA approval. Wonder if he's in over his head.

Why would he want to license the technology? Drug companies don't license the results of their
research, they sell it in products. Talk of licensing would have been a way of attracting funds to
the float of his company. Remember that if he had to get money from a bank he would have had to pay
it back with interest. The purchase of shares in the float of a new company is a gift to the owner,
who never has to pay the money back and never has to pay dividends if the accounting is done right.
Burzynski found another way to syphon money from people's pockets. I said he had good advisors.

Quoted message said:

Must be hard being a Guru; people expect so much of you.

It's actually quite easy being a guru because, in fact, followers expect very little of you once
they have come under the thrall, and will excuse your failings anyway. It's becoming a guru in the
first place that takes time and work.

Quoted message said:

Most interesting.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project ratbags.comrsolesOpen ↗
The Green Light ratbags.comgreenlightOpen ↗
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 ratbags.comloonOpen ↗
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I read an article that claimed that a patient in the trials was receiving

a

Quoted message said:

pitiful diluted dose of the drug they should have been receiving. They complained to Burzinski,
who treated them free of charge in his own practice. Needless to say the person eventually died,
not from cancer from another cause. (That doesn't sound to me that Burzinski is a money grabbing
quack) Anth

This sounds like an alt-slanted version of aomething "that I read somewhere". B wanted to give
children a huge dose of antineoplastins that would have constituted a massive sodium load (his
usual treatment for adults entails a sodium load of something like 25-40G of sodium salt daily
which is 3-5 times the normal requirements and has caused problems for some patients who ended up
in hospital as a result). Paediatricians were refusing. This caused B to refuse to participate
further in the trial.

When you understand that his treatment entails intravenous infusion of this stuff daily for up to
ten months, you will also appreciate why others might expect it to be backed up by better data

Peter Moran

Anth said:

I read an article that claimed that a patient in the trials was receiving a pitiful diluted dose of
the drug they should have been receiving. They complained to Burzinski, who treated them free of
charge in his own practice. Needless to say the person eventually died, not from cancer from
another cause. (That doesn't sound to me that Burzinski is a money grabbing quack) Anth

Then why was the person receiving "a pitiful diluted dose of the drug they should have been
receiving"?

The freebie has a long and happy tradition in marketing. I was given a free bottle of Coke once. It
is even better for the marketer if the customer who gets the freebie has already paid for the good
or service and the product costs nothing to make anyway.

One of the reasons for the perpetuation of the freebie is that it buys free publicity. See, it
worked on you.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project ratbags.comrsolesOpen ↗
The Green Light ratbags.comgreenlightOpen ↗
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 ratbags.comloonOpen ↗
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Which is also an excuse to give the patients a lower dose. Anth

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ff72cb2$0$894$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I read an article that claimed that a patient in the trials was

receiving

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

pitiful diluted dose of the drug they should have been receiving. They complained to Burzinski,
who treated them free of charge in his own practice. Needless to say the person eventually died,
not from cancer from another cause. (That doesn't sound to me that Burzinski is a money grabbing
quack) Anth

This sounds like an alt-slanted version of aomething "that I read somewhere". B wanted to give
children a huge dose of antineoplastins that would have constituted a massive sodium load (his
usual treatment

for

Quoted message said:

adults entails a sodium load of something like 25-40G of sodium salt daily which is 3-5 times the
normal requirements and has caused problems for

some

Quoted message said:

patients who ended up in hospital as a result). Paediatricians were refusing. This caused B to
refuse to participate further in the trial.

When you understand that his treatment entails intravenous infusion of

this

Quoted message said:

stuff daily for up to ten months, you will also appreciate why others

might

Quoted message said:

expect it to be backed up by better data

Peter Moran

And the quacks are in it for money but the pharms are not. Anth

"Peter Bowditch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anth said:

I read an article that claimed that a patient in the trials was receiving

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pitiful diluted dose of the drug they should have been receiving. They complained to Burzinski,
who treated them free of charge in his own practice. Needless to say the person eventually died,
not from cancer from another cause. (That doesn't sound to me that Burzinski is a money grabbing
quack) Anth

Then why was the person receiving "a pitiful diluted dose of the drug they should have been
receiving"?

The freebie has a long and happy tradition in marketing. I was given a free bottle of Coke once.
It is even better for the marketer if the customer who gets the freebie has already paid for the
good or service and the product costs nothing to make anyway.

One of the reasons for the perpetuation of the freebie is that it buys free publicity. See, it
worked on you.

--
Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project ratbags.comrsolesOpen ↗ The Green Light
ratbags.comgreenlightOpen ↗ and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added
Vitamins and

C-Q10 ratbags.comloonOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Anth said:

He treated the patient free of charge, which would normally run into thousands of dollars. Anth

He had already charged the patients the thousands of dollars. What he gave them for "free" was what
they had already paid for. Scumbags like Burzynski are like that.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project ratbags.comrsolesOpen ↗
The Green Light ratbags.comgreenlightOpen ↗
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 ratbags.comloonOpen ↗
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Quoted message said:

PB:

So even though the Company's 10Q says "The Company is currently conducting approximately 74 FDA
approved clinical trials" & later says that Dr. B is paying for them, what's actually happening is
that Dr. B's private practice is "running the trials" & Dr. B's private practice is billing the
Company for doing this? Oh my aching head!!

The "clinical trials" used to be posted on Burzynski's web site as Microsoft Word files. It would be
an insult to comedians to say that they were jokes.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project ratbags.comrsolesOpen ↗
The Green Light ratbags.comgreenlightOpen ↗
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 ratbags.comloonOpen ↗
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Hmmm, Talking about scum bags Peter, how do we address you and remain polite?

Rod "Peter Bowditch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Perhaps Peter Moran Would Like to Retract? From: Peter Bowditch
[email hidden] Date: 1/3/2004 7:30 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>He treated the patient free of charge, which would normally run into thousands of dollars. Anth

He had already charged the patients the thousands of dollars. What he gave them for "free" was
what they had already paid for. Scumbags like Burzynski are like that.

Calling Dr Buzynski a scumbag is another example of evil organized

medicine.

Quoted message said:

So someone can charge thousands of dollars for something and not supply it and when he gets caught
out you think it is OK to then offer it for free?

I called him a scumbag because I was being polite.

<snip advertising for Burzynski>

--
Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project ratbags.comrsolesOpen ↗ The Green Light
ratbags.comgreenlightOpen ↗ and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added
Vitamins and

C-Q10 ratbags.comloonOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com