It Appears Things are NOT Going Well For Baratz

News flash!! News flash! Stop the presses! Politicians found to be
economical with the truth! Iraq is riddled with atom bombs and mustard
gas shells! I did not have sex with that woman!

(Jan) said:

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/wisconsin_legislature.htm

WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE

P.O. Box 7882 Madison, WI 53707-7882

July 16, 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For more information, contact:

Rep. Sheryl Albers 608-266-853

Sen. Dale Schultz 608-266-0703

Schultz, Albers Blast Chelation Therapy Witch Hunt

State Agency Spends $50,000 On “Expert” Witness With Suspect Background

State Capitol – Sen. Dale Schultz (R – Richland Center) and Rep. Sheryl
Albers (R – Reedsburg) questioned today the legitimacy of a disciplinary
process underway against a state doctor using alternative therapies to treat
patients.

The Department of Regulation and Licensing (DRL) is currently in the middle of
disciplinary proceeding against Dr. Eleazar Kadile, in part for using chelation
therapy as an alternative treatment for patients with heart disease. Similar
arguments have been levied at LaValle resident Dr. Robert Waters, who runs the
Waters Preventative Medicine Center in Wisconsin Dells.

In part for using the WRONG chemical to perform chelation. Surely, any
doctor using such a piece-meal procedure should be censured. If this
were to happen in an operating theatre, someone might die.

Quoted message said:

“We have constituents who swear by this treatment. If they feel better as a
result of it, who are we to take that from them?” said Schultz. “When it
comes to health care, individuals should make these decisions, not overzealous
paper-pushers.”

Men in South Africa have reported feeling better after raping babies
to cure AIDS. Expect Sen Schultz to introduce a bill shortly to make
this practice legal in Wisconsin. Witnesses in cases of malpractice
brought against physicians prescribing this treatment must have
baby-raping as a major part of their practice in order to qualify as
experts. Maybe even ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.

Quoted message said:

Much of the attention surrounds the state’s expert witness, Dr. Robert
Baratz. Baratz runs the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), a
non-profit organization based near Boston, Massachusetts. However, many
individuals have questioned his professional credibility. He has been accused
of padding his resume as an expert in alternative medicine so that he can
collect fees for testifying before licensing and review boards. To date,
Baratz has received $48,806 in state funds for his services. According to
Christopher Klein, DRL Executive Assistant, Baratz has dropped off an
additional stack of invoices to cover his fees for this appearance. However,
it is unclear as to what further payments Baratz will receive from the state.

And Dr Baratz's fees have exactly what to do with administering the
wrong chemical? Oh, I forgot, he doesn't have using the wrong
medication as a major part of his medical practice.

Quoted message said:

According to the NCAHF’s 2001 tax return, the non-profit organization
reported just $17,967 in contributions, including $13,000 from one individual.
“No matter how big or grand it tries to appear on paper, this organization is
hardly a major player in the medical field,” Albers said.

Hardly a major player, yet scaring copious diarrhea out of alt-med
supporters. Better than rhubarb root, in fact. Why are they so
frightened, when all they have to do is produce the cured people?

Quoted message said:

“As taxpayers, we are outraged that a person with such a questionable record
has soaked us to the tune of $50,000,” Schultz added. “We’re paying
$50,000 to fly in some character from Boston who has entire websites devoted to
questioning his expertise. Sounds to me like a bad investment of our tax
dollars.”

Those entire web sites are, of course, created by an advisor to the
defence team. Funny, the politicians forgot to mention that.

Quoted message said:

At the request of Dr. Robert Waters, Schultz and Albers have introduced
identical bills in the Senate and Assembly to allow physicians who practice
chelation therapy to do so without aggressive bureaucrats attacking their
credibility. “Dale and I are both aware that studies are still being done as
to the effectiveness of chelation therapy for some conditions,” Albers said.
“The FDA licenses chelation therapy for treating lead toxicity. Dr. Waters
provides chelation therapy as one option for his patients and properly informs
them of the potential risks. If people want to spend their hard-earned money
on this treatment, why shouldn’t they be able to?”

If people want to spend their hard earned money on sprinkling fairy
dust in the back yard to ward off plesiosaur attacks, why shouldn't
they be able to? A very fair question.

Quoted message said:

Jan

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
I'm a Bright. Are you?

In said:

News flash!! News flash! Stop the presses! Politicians found to be
economical with the truth! Iraq is riddled with atom bombs and mustard
gas shells! I did not have sex with that woman!

Two out of three ain't bad.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: It Appears Things are NOT Going Well For Baratz
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/28/2003 7:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

News flash!! News flash! Stop the presses! Politicians found to be
economical with the truth! Iraq is riddled with atom bombs and mustard
gas shells! I did not have sex with that woman!

Things NOT going well for Baratz sure brings out the best in Peter Bowditch.

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote:

And Peter just wrote:

A new moratorium on discussion with those who refuse to comprehend and
who selectively snip (sometimes without mentioning it) has been
declared until further notice. I will, however, address this last
message.

But, he just can't abide by his word.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/wisconsin_legislature.htm

WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE

P.O. Box 7882 Madison, WI 53707-7882

July 16, 2003

Quoted message said:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Quoted message said:

For more information, contact:

Rep. Sheryl Albers 608-266-853

Sen. Dale Schultz 608-266-0703

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Schultz, Albers Blast Chelation Therapy Witch Hunt

State Agency Spends $50,000 On “Expert” Witness With Suspect Background

Quoted message said:

State Capitol – Sen. Dale Schultz (R – Richland Center) and Rep. Sheryl

Quoted message said:

Albers (R – Reedsburg) questioned today the legitimacy of a disciplinary
process underway against a state doctor using alternative therapies to treat
patients.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Department of Regulation and Licensing (DRL) is currently in the middle

of

Quoted message said:

disciplinary proceeding against Dr. Eleazar Kadile, in part for using

chelation

Quoted message said:

therapy as an alternative treatment for patients with heart disease.

Similar

Quoted message said:

arguments have been levied at

LaValle resident Dr. Robert Waters, who runs the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Waters Preventative Medicine Center in Wisconsin Dells.

Quoted message said:

In part for using the WRONG chemical to perform chelation.

*Alledged*

Quoted message said:

Surely, any doctor using such a piece-meal procedure should be censured.

Oops, the piece-meal was referring to the system of reporting mistakes.

Are you trying deceive AGAIN, Peter?!?!

Quoted message said:

If this
were to happen in an operating theatre, someone might die.

Somebody DID die.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

“We have constituents who swear by this treatment. If they feel better as

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

result of it, who are we to take that from them?” said Schultz. “When it
comes to health care, individuals should make these decisions, not

overzealous

Quoted message said:

paper-pushers.”

Quoted message said:

Men in South Africa

OOOps.

Diversion and stupid skeptics tricks, thrown in this fit of temper.

Quoted message said:

have reported feeling better after raping babies
to cure AIDS.

Expect Sen Schultz to introduce a bill shortly to make

Quoted message said:

this practice legal in Wisconsin. Witnesses in cases of malpractice
brought against physicians prescribing this treatment must have
baby-raping as a major part of their practice in order to qualify as
experts. Maybe even ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.

You need to settle down, Peter, you are making a complete fool of yourself.

Your briused EGO might cause a heart attack.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Much of the attention surrounds the state’s expert witness, Dr. Robert
Baratz. Baratz runs the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), a
non-profit organization based near Boston, Massachusetts. However, many
individuals have questioned his professional credibility. He has been

accused

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of padding his resume as an expert in alternative medicine so that he can
collect fees for testifying before licensing and review boards. To date,
Baratz has received $48,806 in state funds for his services. According to
Christopher Klein, DRL Executive Assistant, Baratz has dropped off an
additional stack of invoices to cover

his fees for this appearance. However,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it is unclear as to what further payments Baratz will receive from the

state.

Quoted message said:

And Dr Baratz's fees have exactly what to do with administering the
wrong chemical?

This comes from the Wisconsin Legislature.

NOT Peter Bowditch.

Quoted message said:

Oh, I forgot, he doesn't have using the wrong
medication as a major part of his medical practice.

You would like to forget this:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Much of the attention surrounds the state’s expert witness, Dr. Robert
Baratz. Baratz runs the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), a
non-profit organization based near Boston, Massachusetts. However, many
individuals have questioned his professional credibility. He has been

accused

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of padding his resume as an expert in alternative medicine so that he can
collect fees for testifying before licensing and review boards. To date,
Baratz has received $48,806 in state funds for his services. According to
Christopher Klein, DRL Executive Assistant, Baratz has dropped off an
additional stack of invoices to cover

his fees for this appearance. However,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it is unclear as to what further payments Baratz will receive from the

state.

<snip repeating>

Quoted message said:

According to the NCAHF’s 2001 tax return, the non-profit organization

Quoted message said:

reported just $17,967 in contributions, including $13,000 from one

individual.

Quoted message said:

“No matter how big or grand it tries to appear on paper, this organization

is

Quoted message said:

hardly a major player in the medical field,” Albers said.

Quoted message said:

Hardly a major player, yet scaring copious diarrhea out of alt-med
supporters. Better than rhubarb root, in fact. Why are they so
frightened, when all they have to do is produce the cured people?

A pity you don't have the *control* to have written it *YOUR* way.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

“As taxpayers, we are outraged that a person with such a questionable

record

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has soaked us to the tune of $50,000,” Schultz added. “We’re paying
$50,000 to fly in some character from Boston who has entire websites devoted

to

Quoted message said:

questioning his expertise. Sounds to me like a bad investment of our tax

dollars.”

Quoted message said:

Those entire web sites are, of course, created by an advisor to the
defence team. Funny, the politicians forgot to mention that.

YEAH!!! It's the politicians dishonesty and NOT Baratz's.

Quoted message said:

At the request of Dr. Robert Waters, Schultz and Albers have introduced

Quoted message said:

identical bills in the Senate and Assembly to allow physicians who practice
chelation therapy to do so without aggressive bureaucrats attacking their
credibility. “Dale and I are both aware that studies are still being done

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to the effectiveness of chelation therapy for some conditions,” Albers

said.
“The FDA licenses chelation therapy for treating lead toxicity. Dr. Waters

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

provides chelation therapy as one option for his patients and properly

informs

Quoted message said:

them of the potential risks. If people want to spend their

hard-earned money

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on this treatment, why shouldn’t they be able to?”

Quoted message said:

If people want to spend their hard earned money on sprinkling fairy
dust in the back yard to ward off plesiosaur attacks, why shouldn't
they be able to? A very fair question.

A pity YOU being a Bright and all don't have the *POWER* to write it *YOUR*
way.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jan

"rb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"We have constituents who swear by this treatment. If they feel better as

a

Quoted message said:

result of it, who are we to take that from them?" said Schultz. "When it
comes to health care, individuals should make these decisions, not
overzealous paper- pushers!

If you mean "unscrupulous promoters of worthless therapies" when you say
"we", the argument makes more sense. If you mean "people who are concerned
that people are being deceived", then it's another story.
erf

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: It Appears Things are NOT Going Well For Baratz
From: "Happy Dog" [email hidden]
Date: 7/28/2003 9:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"rb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"We have constituents who swear by this treatment. If they feel better as

a

Quoted message said:

result of it, who are we to take that from them?" said Schultz. "When it
comes to health care, individuals should make these decisions, not
overzealous paper- pushers!

If you mean "unscrupulous promoters of worthless therapies" when you say
"we", the argument makes more sense. If you mean "people who are concerned
that people are being deceived", then it's another story.
erf

He meant what he said, that is the story.

moo

In article <[email hidden]>,

rb said:

I wonder what kind of worthless idiotic Jackass can compare chelation
therapy to baby rape? This report on Baratz and the NCAHF seems to have so
rankled and embittered you that it seems the true colors of your "character"
are shining through. Not a nice scene at all you big zero. If Kingoffer/Nein
were to call you a steaming bag of feces I'd have to agree with him for
once. --rb

Obviously you missed the point. Peter was obviously purposely comparing
"testimonials" for chelation therapy to "testimonials" for something
completely overblown and ridiculous in order to show the ridiculousness
of the argument put forth by Senator Schultz for chelation therapy in
the article you cited. So, for your benefit, I'll make it explicit: The
claims of some people that they "feel better" after chelation are just
as meaningless as the claims by some African men who superstitiously
believe that raping children will cure AIDS and therefore claim to "feel
better" after doing just that.

My quibble with Peter is that, although I understand using shock to make
a point, I personally wouldn't have chosen such an inflammatory example.
That's because such an example makes it too easy for alties like you to
ignore the basic point he made about testimonial in favor of going on a
rant about how offensive the chosen example is (and you did exactly
that--no surprise). Nonetheless, Peter's basic point remains correct,
your rant notwithstanding. Shultz's rationale of "We have constituents
who swear by this treatment. If they feel better as a result of it, who
are we to take that from them?" is basically a second-hand (not to
mention vague) testimonial. It is therefore is grossly inadequate to
base legislating a therapy (any therapy) on. It doesn't even merit
being called "evidence."

Schultz then goes on to play the populist card ("When it comes to health
care, individuals should make these decisions, not overzealous paper-
pushers!"😉 to try to distract from how weak his position is. Not
surprising, when every well-designed randomized clinical trial since
1990 has shown no benefit of chelation therapy over placebo for
cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease and no objective evidence
of stabilization or regressioin of atherosclerotic plaques.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Jan said:

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/wisconsin_legislature.htm

WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE

P.O. Box 7882 Madison, WI 53707-7882

July 16, 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For more information, contact:

Rep. Sheryl Albers 608-266-853

Sen. Dale Schultz 608-266-0703

Schultz, Albers Blast Chelation Therapy Witch Hunt

State Agency Spends $50,000 On “Expert” Witness With Suspect Background

State Capitol – Sen. Dale Schultz (R – Richland Center) and Rep. Sheryl
Albers (R – Reedsburg) questioned today the legitimacy of a disciplinary
process underway against a state doctor using alternative therapies to treat
patients.

The Department of Regulation and Licensing (DRL) is currently in the middle of
disciplinary proceeding against Dr. Eleazar Kadile, in part for using chelation
therapy as an alternative treatment for patients with heart disease. Similar
arguments have been levied at LaValle resident Dr. Robert Waters, who runs the
Waters Preventative Medicine Center in Wisconsin Dells.

“We have constituents who swear by this treatment. If they feel better as a
result of it, who are we to take that from them?” said Schultz. “When it
comes to health care, individuals should make these decisions, not overzealous
paper-pushers.”

Much of the attention surrounds the state’s expert witness, Dr. Robert
Baratz. Baratz runs the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), a
non-profit organization based near Boston, Massachusetts. However, many
individuals have questioned his professional credibility. He has been accused
of padding his resume as an expert in alternative medicine so that he can
collect fees for testifying before licensing and review boards. To date,
Baratz has received $48,806 in state funds for his services. According to
Christopher Klein, DRL Executive Assistant, Baratz has dropped off an
additional stack of invoices to cover his fees for this appearance. However,
it is unclear as to what further payments Baratz will receive from the state.

According to the NCAHF’s 2001 tax return, the non-profit organization
reported just $17,967 in contributions, including $13,000 from one individual.
“No matter how big or grand it tries to appear on paper, this organization is
hardly a major player in the medical field,” Albers said.

“As taxpayers, we are outraged that a person with such a questionable record
has soaked us to the tune of $50,000,” Schultz added. “We’re paying
$50,000 to fly in some character from Boston who has entire websites devoted to
questioning his expertise. Sounds to me like a bad investment of our tax
dollars.”

At the request of Dr. Robert Waters,

Why did he request this? because he is in the same boat as Kadile. He
has charges pending.

IOW, he has a major vested interest. Not very objective, eh?

Schultz and Albers have introduced

Quoted message said:

identical bills in the Senate and Assembly to allow physicians who practice
chelation therapy to do so without aggressive bureaucrats attacking their
credibility. “Dale and I are both aware that studies are still being done as
to the effectiveness of chelation therapy for some conditions,” Albers said.
“The FDA licenses chelation therapy for treating lead toxicity. Dr. Waters
provides chelation therapy as one option for his patients and properly informs
them of the potential risks. If people want to spend their hard-earned money
on this treatment, why shouldn’t they be able to?”

Don'tcha just love those politicians who advocate for scammers?

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

rb said:

I wonder what kind of worthless idiotic Jackass can compare chelation
therapy to baby rape? This report on Baratz and the NCAHF seems to have

so

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rankled and embittered you that it seems the true colors of your

"character"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are shining through. Not a nice scene at all you big zero. If

Kingoffer/Nein

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

were to call you a steaming bag of feces I'd have to agree with him for
once. --rb

Obviously you missed the point. Peter was obviously purposely comparing
"testimonials" for chelation therapy to "testimonials" for something
completely overblown and ridiculous in order to show the ridiculousness
of the argument put forth by Senator Schultz for chelation therapy in
the article you cited. So, for your benefit, I'll make it explicit: The
claims of some people that they "feel better" after chelation are just
as meaningless as the claims by some African men who superstitiously
believe that raping children will cure AIDS and therefore claim to "feel
better" after doing just that.

My quibble with Peter is that, although I understand using shock to make
a point, I personally wouldn't have chosen such an inflammatory example.
That's because such an example makes it too easy for alties like you to
ignore the basic point he made about testimonial in favor of going on a
rant about how offensive the chosen example is (and you did exactly
that--no surprise). Nonetheless, Peter's basic point remains correct,
your rant notwithstanding. Shultz's rationale of "We have constituents
who swear by this treatment. If they feel better as a result of it, who
are we to take that from them?" is basically a second-hand (not to
mention vague) testimonial. It is therefore is grossly inadequate to
base legislating a therapy (any therapy) on. It doesn't even merit
being called "evidence."

Schultz then goes on to play the populist card ("When it comes to health
care, individuals should make these decisions, not overzealous paper-
pushers!"😉 to try to distract from how weak his position is. Not
surprising, when every well-designed randomized clinical trial since
1990 has shown no benefit of chelation therapy over placebo for
cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease and no objective evidence
of stabilization or regressioin of atherosclerotic plaques.

None from the PMIC requiring FDA approval except those skewered ones.
Plenty elsewhere.--rb

Quoted message said:

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

Orac said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

rb said:

I wonder what kind of worthless idiotic Jackass can compare chelation
therapy to baby rape? This report on Baratz and the NCAHF seems to have so
rankled and embittered you that it seems the true colors of your "character"
are shining through. Not a nice scene at all you big zero. If Kingoffer/Nein
were to call you a steaming bag of feces I'd have to agree with him for
once. --rb

Obviously you missed the point. Peter was obviously purposely comparing
"testimonials" for chelation therapy to "testimonials" for something
completely overblown and ridiculous in order to show the ridiculousness
of the argument put forth by Senator Schultz for chelation therapy in
the article you cited. So, for your benefit, I'll make it explicit: The
claims of some people that they "feel better" after chelation are just
as meaningless as the claims by some African men who superstitiously
believe that raping children will cure AIDS and therefore claim to "feel
better" after doing just that.

My quibble with Peter is that, although I understand using shock to make
a point, I personally wouldn't have chosen such an inflammatory example.
That's because such an example makes it too easy for alties like you to
ignore the basic point he made about testimonial in favor of going on a
rant about how offensive the chosen example is (and you did exactly
that--no surprise). Nonetheless, Peter's basic point remains correct,
your rant notwithstanding. Shultz's rationale of "We have constituents
who swear by this treatment. If they feel better as a result of it, who
are we to take that from them?" is basically a second-hand (not to
mention vague) testimonial. It is therefore is grossly inadequate to
base legislating a therapy (any therapy) on. It doesn't even merit
being called "evidence."

Schultz then goes on to play the populist card ("When it comes to health
care, individuals should make these decisions, not overzealous paper-
pushers!"😉 to try to distract from how weak his position is. Not
surprising, when every well-designed randomized clinical trial since
1990 has shown no benefit of chelation therapy over placebo for
cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease and no objective evidence
of stabilization or regressioin of atherosclerotic plaques.

What is most upsetting about this political interference in a civil
matter is that they are ignoring the possibility that some poor soul
will try this for serious atherosclerosis, like 90% narrowing of the
LAD, and then feel better just before the big one takes him from his
family.

rb said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

rb said:

I wonder what kind of worthless idiotic Jackass can compare chelation
therapy to baby rape? This report on Baratz and the NCAHF seems to have

so

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rankled and embittered you that it seems the true colors of your

"character"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are shining through. Not a nice scene at all you big zero. If

Kingoffer/Nein

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

were to call you a steaming bag of feces I'd have to agree with him for
once. --rb

Obviously you missed the point. Peter was obviously purposely comparing
"testimonials" for chelation therapy to "testimonials" for something
completely overblown and ridiculous in order to show the ridiculousness
of the argument put forth by Senator Schultz for chelation therapy in
the article you cited. So, for your benefit, I'll make it explicit: The
claims of some people that they "feel better" after chelation are just
as meaningless as the claims by some African men who superstitiously
believe that raping children will cure AIDS and therefore claim to "feel
better" after doing just that.

My quibble with Peter is that, although I understand using shock to make
a point, I personally wouldn't have chosen such an inflammatory example.
That's because such an example makes it too easy for alties like you to
ignore the basic point he made about testimonial in favor of going on a
rant about how offensive the chosen example is (and you did exactly
that--no surprise). Nonetheless, Peter's basic point remains correct,
your rant notwithstanding. Shultz's rationale of "We have constituents
who swear by this treatment. If they feel better as a result of it, who
are we to take that from them?" is basically a second-hand (not to
mention vague) testimonial. It is therefore is grossly inadequate to
base legislating a therapy (any therapy) on. It doesn't even merit
being called "evidence."

Schultz then goes on to play the populist card ("When it comes to health
care, individuals should make these decisions, not overzealous paper-
pushers!"😉 to try to distract from how weak his position is. Not
surprising, when every well-designed randomized clinical trial since
1990 has shown no benefit of chelation therapy over placebo for
cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease and no objective evidence
of stabilization or regressioin of atherosclerotic plaques.

None from the PMIC requiring FDA approval except those skewered ones.
Plenty elsewhere.--rb

rb's definition:

skewered study: a study which does not support what I think it should
plenty elsewhere: a study which sows what I want it to show. It does nto
matter that it is bad science.

Quoted message said:

From: Mark Probert [email hidden]
Date: 7/29/2003 5:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

<snip>

Quoted message said:

IOW, he has a major vested interest. Not very objective, eh?

Oh it is A OK for the CDC and FDA with vaccines, even waivers granted.

You are a proven hypocrite.

Jan

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Probert said:

rb said:

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

[Snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Schultz then goes on to play the populist card ("When it comes to health
care, individuals should make these decisions, not overzealous paper-
pushers!"😉 to try to distract from how weak his position is. Not
surprising, when every well-designed randomized clinical trial since
1990 has shown no benefit of chelation therapy over placebo for
cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease and no objective evidence
of stabilization or regressioin of atherosclerotic plaques.

None from the PMIC requiring FDA approval except those skewered ones.
Plenty elsewhere.--rb

rb's definition:

skewered study: a study which does not support what I think it should

Or any study that contradicts my deeply ingrained beliefs about alt med.

Quoted message said:

plenty elsewhere: a study which sows what I want it to show. It does nto
matter that it is bad science.

Or no science at all, which is the usual case.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac said:

My quibble with Peter is that, although I understand using shock to make
a point, I personally wouldn't have chosen such an inflammatory example.
That's because such an example makes it too easy for alties like you to
ignore the basic point he made about testimonial in favor of going on a
rant about how offensive the chosen example is (and you did exactly
that--no surprise).

I knew what the reaction would be, but I deliberately chose an example
where there could be no ambiguity. If I had used something like
vitamins or eight glasses of water a day or some other useless thing
that makes people feel better there would have been the "prove it
doesn't work" claims. I picked the most extreme and offensive form of
alternative medicine in the world because it is impossible for any
thinking person to believe that it works.

Using this example placed the alt supporters in the position of
agreeing with me that some forms of alternative medicine are
unacceptable and cannot be justified on the basis of "if it feels good
and does you no harm, do it", or of attacking the messenger.

To nobody's surprise, it seems that the latter is more agreeable to
them.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
I'm a Bright. Are you?

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

Quoted message said:

Orac said:

My quibble with Peter is that, although I understand using shock to make
a point, I personally wouldn't have chosen such an inflammatory example.
That's because such an example makes it too easy for alties like you to
ignore the basic point he made about testimonial in favor of going on a
rant about how offensive the chosen example is (and you did exactly
that--no surprise).

I knew what the reaction would be, but I deliberately chose an example
where there could be no ambiguity. If I had used something like
vitamins or eight glasses of water a day or some other useless thing
that makes people feel better there would have been the "prove it
doesn't work" claims. I picked the most extreme and offensive form of
alternative medicine in the world because it is impossible for any
thinking person to believe that it works.

Using this example placed the alt supporters in the position of
agreeing with me that some forms of alternative medicine are
unacceptable and cannot be justified on the basis of "if it feels good
and does you no harm, do it", or of attacking the messenger.

Raping Baby's is not an alternative medicine you jackass. It's a
diabolical evil whose practitioners should be dealt with most severely. I do
wonder what's wrong with the mind of a man who would trivialise it so?
Concerning alternative therapies, which if any of them would Peter
Bowditch consider is more efficacious in the treatment of various diseases
than the standard conventional treatment for that particular disease? Maybe
you would agree that at least "some" of them might be found in that
category?-(Not bloody likely!)--rb

Quoted message said:

To nobody's surprise, it seems that the latter is more agreeable to
them.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
I'm a Bright. Are you?

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Orac said:

My quibble with Peter is that, although I understand using shock to

make

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a point, I personally wouldn't have chosen such an inflammatory

example.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's because such an example makes it too easy for alties like you to
ignore the basic point he made about testimonial in favor of going on a
rant about how offensive the chosen example is (and you did exactly
that--no surprise).

I knew what the reaction would be, but I deliberately chose an example
where there could be no ambiguity. If I had used something like
vitamins or eight glasses of water a day or some other useless thing
that makes people feel better there would have been the "prove it
doesn't work" claims. I picked the most extreme and offensive form of
alternative medicine in the world because it is impossible for any
thinking person to believe that it works.

Using this example placed the alt supporters in the position of
agreeing with me that some forms of alternative medicine are
unacceptable and cannot be justified on the basis of "if it feels good
and does you no harm, do it", or of attacking the messenger.

Raping Baby's is not an alternative medicine you jackass. It's a
diabolical evil whose practitioners should be dealt with most severely.
wonder what's wrong with the mind of a man who would trivialise it so?

What -- now you've changed your mind that God permits evil? Or is
slaughtering Jews "permissible" but raping babies "diabolical"? Should we
wonder what's wrong with YOUR mind to trivialize the former? You've told us
that scum like baby rapists are loved by God & sometimes don't know why they
do what they do -- now they're practitioners of diabolical evil?

Maybe if you'd actually answer the questions you've been avoiding it would
make your contradictory statements appear a bit more logical?

Michele
I ENJOY being a cranky [censored].

Quoted message said:

I do
Concerning alternative therapies, which if any of them would Peter
Bowditch consider is more efficacious in the treatment of various diseases
than the standard conventional treatment for that particular disease?

Maybe

Quoted message said:

you would agree that at least "some" of them might be found in that
category?-(Not bloody likely!)--rb

Quoted message said:

To nobody's surprise, it seems that the latter is more agreeable to
them.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
I'm a Bright. Are you?

Quoted message said:

From: Mark Probert [email hidden]
Date: 7/29/2003 12:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

<snip>

Quoted message said:

What is most upsetting about this political interference in a civil
matter is that they are ignoring the possibility that some poor soul
will try this for serious atherosclerosis, like 90% narrowing of the
LAD, and then feel better just before the big one takes him from his
family.

Do post the number of people who have died from chelation.

Jan

In said:

Raping Baby's is not an alternative medicine you jackass. It's a
diabolical evil whose practitioners should be dealt with most severely. I do
wonder what's wrong with the mind of a man who would trivialise it so?

Call it what you like, it's reputed to cure AIDS and there
are no end of testimonials reporting that those who tried
it feel better afterward.

As Jan would ask, do you have any ACTUAL EXPERIENCE?

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Bowditch said:

Orac said:

My quibble with Peter is that, although I understand using shock to make
a point, I personally wouldn't have chosen such an inflammatory example.
That's because such an example makes it too easy for alties like you to
ignore the basic point he made about testimonial in favor of going on a
rant about how offensive the chosen example is (and you did exactly
that--no surprise).

I knew what the reaction would be, but I deliberately chose an example
where there could be no ambiguity. If I had used something like
vitamins or eight glasses of water a day or some other useless thing
that makes people feel better there would have been the "prove it
doesn't work" claims. I picked the most extreme and offensive form of
alternative medicine in the world because it is impossible for any
thinking person to believe that it works.

Using this example placed the alt supporters in the position of
agreeing with me that some forms of alternative medicine are
unacceptable and cannot be justified on the basis of "if it feels good
and does you no harm, do it", or of attacking the messenger.

To nobody's surprise, it seems that the latter is more agreeable to
them.

I can see your point here. However, I still think you chose an example
that was a bit too inflammatory, an example that made it way too easy
for the alties to avoid addressing your very legitimate point about
"testimonials" and about justifying allowing a treatment because people
claim to feel better after it in favor of self-righteous rants about how
offensive your example was. There is such a thing of too much shock to
make a point.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: It Appears Things are NOT Going Well For Baratz
From: "D. C. Sessions" [email hidden]
Date: 7/29/2003 8:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In said:

Raping Baby's is not an alternative medicine you jackass. It's a
diabolical evil whose practitioners should be dealt with most severely. I

do

Quoted message said:

wonder what's wrong with the mind of a man who would trivialise it so?

Call it what you like,

Disgusting.

Diversion

Hissy fit.

Peter lost it.

Jan, do you have any ACTUAL EXPERIENCE?

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end