Heckler filter list?

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Heckler filter list?
From: [email hidden] (soft-eng)
Date: 2/8/2004 12:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain
logic to me as any explanation that you could offer would only cause
me more confusion. Stick to explaining things that you know something
about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been
verified by a double-blind test involving a control
group and a test group, where the control group
is given a placebo and the test group is given
the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Therefore -- according to Orac -- the airbag tests
involving the dummies don't prove anything.
Note that Orac's position is that "airbags may
save lives" is not "unknown", it is "false".

Why? Because in order to prove it as "true",
the only true way is to take lots of real people
(NOT dummies), put half of them in airbag-equipped
cars and the other half in cars with airbag-like
things that are not real airbags, and crash
test the whole lot of them.

Until this has been done with a paper trail,
according to Orac, the "airbags save lives"
is so much hogwash.

My position, on the other hand, is that controlled
medical tests are ONE out of many ways to
find facts.

So "airbags save lives" fits into my worldview.
It doesn't in Orac's (though I am sure there
is some kind of thought-contortion that will
make it appear to fit...)

Is that any better? Do you understand now why
your comment was directed towards the wrong participant,
and therefore simply illogical nonsense?

Those who are brainwashed by organized medicine make exceptions.

There is not one single study proving amalgams to be safe, so they claim to go
by record, yet they have no idea what the record is, as there are more and more
*UNANSWERED* health problems.

They also deny the biggest part of conventional medicine has NEVER been proven.

Brainwashing is mighty powerful.

Jan

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (soft-eng) wrote:

[Snip]

Quoted message said:

I am the one who is willing to listen to
multiple sources of evidence.

Actually, you're the one who can't distinguish between reliable and
unreliable sources of evidence and listens to both.

[Snip]

--
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]>,

carabelli said:

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Bowditch <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain
logic to me as any explanation that you could offer would only cause
me more confusion. Stick to explaining things that you know something
about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been
verified by a double-blind test involving a control
group and a test group, where the control group
is given a placebo and the test group is given
the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Therefore -- according to Orac -- the airbag tests
involving the dummies don't prove anything.
Note that Orac's position is that "airbags may
save lives" is not "unknown", it is "false".

Why? Because in order to prove it as "true",
the only true way is to take lots of real people
(NOT dummies), put half of them in airbag-equipped
cars and the other half in cars with airbag-like
things that are not real airbags, and crash
test the whole lot of them.

Until this has been done with a paper trail,
according to Orac, the "airbags save lives"
is so much hogwash.

My position, on the other hand, is that controlled
medical tests are ONE out of many ways to
find facts.

So "airbags save lives" fits into my worldview.
It doesn't in Orac's (though I am sure there
is some kind of thought-contortion that will
make it appear to fit...)

Is that any better? Do you understand now why
your comment was directed towards the wrong participant,
and therefore simply illogical nonsense?

A control group does not have to have a placebo to be valid. A crash test
dummy does not know if it's car has air bags or not. A cell culture does
not know if it has been given a drug, etc.. Therefore a control group in
this case doesn't require a placebo.

Good point. In fact, in most clinical trials, where it is unethical to
give a placebo (because an effective treatment already exists for the
disease in question), the control group is a group given the accepted
standard of care therapy for the disease and the experimental group gets
the new drug. There is no placebo. The object is to determine if the new
drug is better than the currently accepted standard of care.

In the case of crash test dummies, it is well known how much force
administered to humans at various points of their anatomy is lethal, how
much is required to break bones, etc. The dummies measure this.
Similarly, crash tests have been done using actual corpses to confirm
these findings regarding the amount of force necessary to cause specific
injuries in humans. An interesting account of such experiments can be
found in one of the chapters in "Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human
Cadavers," by Mary Roach.

--
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]>,

(soft-eng) said:

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

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain
logic to me as any explanation that you could offer would only cause
me more confusion. Stick to explaining things that you know something
about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been
verified by a double-blind test involving a control
group and a test group, where the control group
is given a placebo and the test group is given
the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

[censored]. That is not my position at all, as I have explained time and
time again. That you choose to misrepresent my position on the issue yet
again only verifies that you are either incapable of understanding,
unwilling to understand, or you are choosing to intentionally
misrepresent what I have said.

Quoted message said:

Therefore -- according to Orac -- the airbag tests
involving the dummies don't prove anything.
Note that Orac's position is that "airbags may
save lives" is not "unknown", it is "false".

Again, utter [censored] (not to mention an obvious strawman argument
misrepresenting my opinion). You obviously have ignored all the posts
I've made about levels of evidence and the hierarchy of clinical
evidence for the efficacy of various therapies.

[Remainder of misrepresentations of my positions (possibly even
downright lies about it) deleted.]

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

(soft-eng) said:

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

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain
logic to me as any explanation that you could offer would only cause
me more confusion. Stick to explaining things that you know something
about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been
verified by a double-blind test involving a control
group and a test group, where the control group
is given a placebo and the test group is given
the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Why do you need to lie?

Quoted message said:

Therefore -- according to Orac -- the airbag tests
involving the dummies don't prove anything.
Note that Orac's position is that "airbags may
save lives" is not "unknown", it is "false".

Why do you need to lie?

Quoted message said:

Why? Because in order to prove it as "true",
the only true way is to take lots of real people
(NOT dummies), put half of them in airbag-equipped
cars and the other half in cars with airbag-like
things that are not real airbags, and crash
test the whole lot of them.

Why do you need to lie?

Quoted message said:

Until this has been done with a paper trail,
according to Orac, the "airbags save lives"
is so much hogwash.

Why do you need to lie?

Quoted message said:

My position, on the other hand, is that controlled
medical tests are ONE out of many ways to
find facts.

Which is the position of most people, including Orac and me.

Quoted message said:

So "airbags save lives" fits into my worldview.
It doesn't in Orac's (though I am sure there
is some kind of thought-contortion that will
make it appear to fit...)

Why do you need to lie?

Quoted message said:

Is that any better? Do you understand now why
your comment was directed towards the wrong participant,
and therefore simply illogical nonsense?

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

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

Quoted message said:

In the case of crash test dummies, it is well known how much force
administered to humans at various points of their anatomy is lethal, how
much is required to break bones, etc. The dummies measure this.

Surely you are not going to start accepting mere _deduction_?

Quoted message said:

Similarly, crash tests have been done using actual corpses to confirm
these findings regarding the amount of force necessary to cause specific

Still not a clinical double-blind controlled trial, is it?
Are you going to start accepting mere "reasonable" logic?

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

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

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain
logic to me as any explanation that you could offer would only cause
me more confusion. Stick to explaining things that you know something
about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been
verified by a double-blind test involving a control
group and a test group, where the control group
is given a placebo and the test group is given
the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

[censored]. That is not my position at all, as I have explained time and
time again. That you choose to misrepresent my position on the issue yet
again only verifies that you are either incapable of understanding,
unwilling to understand, or you are choosing to intentionally
misrepresent what I have said.

Ok, then perhaps you can explain your position
a little slowly. I have to admit I thought when
you said "no connection exists", that you meant
"no connection exists".

Quoted message said:

From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Why do you need to lie?

Quoted message said:

Why do you need to lie?

Quoted message said:

Why do you need to lie?

Why do you need to lie?

Why do you need to lie?

Good questions, and touche.

I've been asking that for sometime, now, the lying continues.

Why did you lie, are the three lies still on your websiite??

Why are you still advertising your websites?

Jan

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Bowditch said:

(soft-eng) said:

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

Quoted message said:

Which other things am I confused about? Please do not try to explain
logic to me as any explanation that you could offer would only cause
me more confusion. Stick to explaining things that you know something
about. This will also save bandwidth.

Ok, I will try to go slow.

Orac's position is that anything that has not been
verified by a double-blind test involving a control
group and a test group, where the control group
is given a placebo and the test group is given
the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Why do you need to lie?

Because he has no chance of persuading anyone with his bogus arguments?

[Snip]

--
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]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Are you going to start accepting mere "reasonable" logic?

I've always accepted reasonable logic. Unfortunately, your "logic"
rarely qualifies.

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

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in news:orac-67E07E.20241509022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Orac's position is that anything that has not been
verified by a double-blind test involving a control
group and a test group, where the control group
is given a placebo and the test group is given
the actual remedy -- is not simply "uknown" but "false".

Why do you need to lie?

Because he has no chance of persuading anyone with his bogus arguments?

Particularly considering that since you're a surgeon, you'd have to believe
that everything you did was "false" if you really held the position he
claims you do.