All I am saying is: have consistant standards.

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

Quoted message said:

OK. Many of you can see that Hulda Clark is a quack. This is good.

Now... apply that same standard to other (medical) claims.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this pressing matter. 🙂

You mean other medical claims that conflict with well-trodden paths of
physiology and pathology, that are supported by no scientific evidence, and
are nevertheless used to sell books and treat seriously ill people?

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

OK. Many of you can see that Hulda Clark is a quack. This is good.

Now... apply that same standard to other (medical) claims.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this pressing matter. 🙂

You mean other medical claims that conflict with well-trodden paths of
physiology and pathology, that are supported by no scientific evidence, and
are nevertheless used to sell books and treat seriously ill people?

Actually, Peter, she is trying to equate vaccination with Hulda's methods. She
is a bloody pillock.

Peter Moran said:

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

Quoted message said:

OK. Many of you can see that Hulda Clark is a quack. This is good.

Now... apply that same standard to other (medical) claims.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this pressing matter. 🙂

You mean other medical claims that conflict with well-trodden paths of
physiology and pathology, that are supported by no scientific evidence, and
are nevertheless used to sell books and treat seriously ill people?

Well, yeah.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: All I am saying is: have consistant standards.
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 4/17/2004 2:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

OK. Many of you can see that Hulda Clark is a quack. This is good.

Now... apply that same standard to other (medical) claims.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this pressing matter. 🙂

You mean other medical claims that conflict with well-trodden paths of
physiology and pathology, that are supported by no scientific evidence, and
are nevertheless used to sell books and treat seriously ill people?

Peter Moran

ZZzz.

Natural therapies are not
scientifically proven to give better results than conventional treatment.
Medical authorities, of course, control all research funds and facilities, and
nothing is given to natural therapists to prove their case. When conventional
medical institutions investigated natural remedies, it was done in such a way
that a negative outcome was guaranteed.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: All I am saying is: have consistant standards.
From: [email hidden] (Sweet Ilsa9)
Date: 4/17/2004 3:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

OK. Many of you can see that Hulda Clark is a quack. This is good.

Now... apply that same standard to other (medical) claims.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this pressing matter. 🙂

You mean other medical claims that conflict with well-trodden paths of
physiology and pathology, that are supported by no scientific evidence, and
are nevertheless used to sell books and treat seriously ill people?

Actually, Peter, she is trying to equate vaccination with Hulda's methods.
She
is a bloody pillock.

Andrew/Ilsa is just one of life's failures.His sole purpose in life is to serve
to remind decent folk what decent really means.I guess you could say that his
role creates comfort for many people so that they can read what comes up from
the bottom of the cesspool.It is a tough job Andrew has taken on but he
certainly is imminently qualified to wade up to his neck in the wastage of his
own life.
Rod

In article
<[email hidden]
om.au>,

Peter Moran said:

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

Quoted message said:

OK. Many of you can see that Hulda Clark is a quack. This is good.

Now... apply that same standard to other (medical) claims.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this pressing matter. 🙂

You mean other medical claims that conflict with well-trodden paths of
physiology and pathology, that are supported by no scientific evidence, and
are nevertheless used to sell books and treat seriously ill people?

Actually, I don't care if she means conventional medical claims. I'm
happy to apply the same standards to conventional medical claims.
Indeed, I'm happy to apply exactly the same scientific standards to
alt-med claims and to conventional medicine. However, it is usually the
alties that get all upset when I do so, because they don't like the
results. Most of their "therapies" and claims can't stand up to the
routine scientific scrutiny that conventional medical claims must stand
up to.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: All I am saying is: have consistant standards.
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 4/17/2004 2:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

OK. Many of you can see that Hulda Clark is a quack. This is good.

Now... apply that same standard to other (medical) claims.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this pressing matter. 🙂

You mean other medical claims that conflict with well-trodden paths of
physiology and pathology, that are supported by no scientific evidence, and
are nevertheless used to sell books and treat seriously ill people?

Peter Moran

ZZzz.

Natural therapies are not
scientifically proven to give better results than conventional treatment.
Medical authorities, of course, control all research funds and facilities,
and
nothing is given to natural therapists to prove their case. When conventional
medical institutions investigated natural remedies, it was done in such a way
that a negative outcome was guaranteed.

Whine, whine, whine.

Excuses, excuses, Jan. If that's the case, then perhaps you can give us
a concrete example, with a detailed explanation of how the study
couldn't possibly have worked.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"