OT: How to debunk just about everything

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

Quoted message said:

tcm.phy.cam.ac.ukdrasin.htmlOpen ↗ Anth

So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself?

You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care for honesty of truth. These
types of lists are generally made up by those who get [censored] because their favorite pet
thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have the capability of handling it. Most of us involved in
a science related area have seen our pet theories shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get
used to it. Now, when this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you instead
abandon reality?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming the newsgroup all about
bickering and name calling which is against the MHA charter. I seem to remember one of the very
bickerers complaining once because I had included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very
same person is responsible for line after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice
I put OT in the subject and debunking is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I
regularly post topics which are relevant to MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair
enough Doug Anth

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

tcm.phy.cam.ac.ukdrasin.htmlOpen ↗ Anth

So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself?

You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care for honesty of truth. These
types of lists are generally made up by those who get [censored] because their favorite pet
thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have

the

Quoted message said:

capability of handling it. Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet
theories shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now, when this happens, is
it better to abandon the theory, or should you instead abandon reality?

--
"The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

Where is the MHA charter? If you can produce it I have much work to do to clean this group up. ISP's
will listen to charter violations. I suggest the rest of you do the same if you are truly interested
in MHA topics and not just JCD. (Jan compulsive disorder) This woman exerts so much control over
these weak minded perverts they cannot stop of their own free will so we require their ISP's help to
shut them off.

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

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming the newsgroup all about
bickering and name calling which is against the

MHA

Quoted message said:

charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I

had

Quoted message said:

included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is responsible for line
after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and

debunking

Quoted message said:

is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are
relevant

to

Quoted message said:

MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

tcm.phy.cam.ac.ukdrasin.htmlOpen ↗ Anth

So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself?

You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care for honesty of truth. These
types of lists are generally made up by those who get [censored] because their favorite pet
thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't have

the

Quoted message said:

capability of handling it. Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet
theories shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now,

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you instead abandon reality?

--
"The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

It's on google somewhere, you would have to fins the original source. Anth

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

Quoted message said:

Where is the MHA charter? If you can produce it I have much work to do to clean this group up.
ISP's will listen to charter violations. I suggest

the

Quoted message said:

rest of you do the same if you are truly interested in MHA topics and not just JCD. (Jan
compulsive disorder) This woman exerts so much control over these weak minded perverts they cannot
stop of their own free will so we require their ISP's help to shut them off.

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

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics

spamming

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the

MHA

Quoted message said:

charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I

had

Quoted message said:

included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is responsible for line
after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and

debunking

Quoted message said:

is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are
relevant

to

Quoted message said:

MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth

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

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> tcm.phy.cam.ac.ukdrasin.htmlOpen ↗ Anth
>
>

So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself?

You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

honesty of truth. These types of lists are generally made up by those who get [censored]
because their favorite pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

capability of handling it. Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet

theories

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now,

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you

instead

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

abandon reality?

--
"The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

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

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming the newsgroup all about
bickering and name calling which is against the

MHA

Quoted message said:

charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I

had

Quoted message said:

included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is responsible for line
after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and

debunking

Quoted message said:

is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are
relevant

to

Quoted message said:

MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth

No Anth, you are not the enemy. You do not agree with me on many things, and that does make for some
interesting discussion.

As for the link you posted, I think the main problem with it is that the author does not seem to be
able to tell the difference between debunking, legitimate critisism, and trashing.

Most of the problems that the 'debunker' crowd has with AM is that it has not gone through the type
of testing that most normal medicine has. In addition, where it has, it often does not hold up. And
rather than abandoning these discredited methodologies, a lot of practitioners continue as if
nothing has happened. Add to all this that mixed in with legitimate AM practitioners is a fair
number of quacks, and these quacks do need a thorough debunking as a public duty.

want to say more, but baby is just waking up, and I won't have much time

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug said:

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

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics spamming the newsgroup all
about bickering and name calling which is against the

MHA

Quoted message said:

charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I

had

Quoted message said:

included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is responsible for line
after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and

debunking

Quoted message said:

is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are
relevant

to

Quoted message said:

MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth

No Anth, you are not the enemy. You do not agree with me on many things, and that does make for
some interesting discussion.

As for the link you posted, I think the main problem with it is that the author does not seem to
be able to tell the difference between debunking, legitimate critisism, and trashing.

Precisely. He lumps legitimate skepticism and questioning in with ideologically-motivated or close-
minded trashing. He makes no distinction between the two.

Quoted message said:

Most of the problems that the 'debunker' crowd has with AM is that it has not gone through the
type of testing that most normal medicine has.

Correct. As I have said time and time again, "alt-med" should be treated exactly the same as
conventional medicine with regards to the sort of evidence that is needed to show efficacy.

Quoted message said:

In addition, where it has, it often does not hold up.

Also correct. One example: chelation therapy for atherosclerotic heart disease.

Quoted message said:

And rather than abandoning these discredited methodologies, a lot of practitioners continue as if
nothing has happened.

Also correct. This is a key difference between alt-med and conventional medicine. When something in
conventional medicine is shown to be ineffective or less effective than something new, eventually
the inferior treatment is abandoned. It may take many years for doctors to change their practices.
Occasionally it may even take a new generation of doctors coming up through their training and into
practice to eliminate the old treatment, but eventually the ineffective treatments die out.

Not so alt-med, where many of the treatments today were actually shown not to be effective a very
long time ago, but still adherents cling to them.

Quoted message said:

Add to all this that mixed in with legitimate AM practitioners is a fair number of quacks, and
these quacks do need a thorough debunking as a public duty.

The other problem is that the legitimate AM practitioners rarely denounce the quacks. Indeed, they
often defend the quacks.

[Snip]

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

Another Altie fascist grows...

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

Quoted message said:

Where is the MHA charter? If you can produce it I have much work to do to clean this group up.
ISP's will listen to charter violations. I suggest

the

Quoted message said:

rest of you do the same if you are truly interested in MHA topics and not just JCD. (Jan
compulsive disorder) This woman exerts so much control over these weak minded perverts they cannot
stop of their own free will so we require their ISP's help to shut them off.

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

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics

spamming

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against the

MHA

Quoted message said:

charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because I

had

Quoted message said:

included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person is responsible for line
after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT in the subject and

debunking

Quoted message said:

is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are
relevant

to

Quoted message said:

MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth

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

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> tcm.phy.cam.ac.ukdrasin.htmlOpen ↗ Anth
>
>

So, does this mean you will be kill filing yourself?

You can indeed debunk anything using this method, if you don't care

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

honesty of truth. These types of lists are generally made up by those who get [censored]
because their favorite pet thoeries are shown to be bunk, and don't

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

capability of handling it. Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet

theories

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

shot down in flames by cold, hard reality. We get used to it. Now,

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this happens, is it better to abandon the theory, or should you

instead

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

abandon reality?

--
"The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two.. Anth

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-8ED5DB.12502128022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Doug"

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics

spamming

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

MHA

Quoted message said:

charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

had

Quoted message said:

included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

responsible for line after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT
in the subject and

debunking

Quoted message said:

is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are

relevant

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth

No Anth, you are not the enemy. You do not agree with me on many things, and that does make for
some interesting discussion.

As for the link you posted, I think the main problem with it is that the author does not seem to
be able to tell the difference between

debunking,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

legitimate critisism, and trashing.

Precisely. He lumps legitimate skepticism and questioning in with ideologically-motivated or close-
minded trashing. He makes no distinction between the two.

Quoted message said:

Most of the problems that the 'debunker' crowd has with AM is that it

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not gone through the type of testing that most normal medicine has.

Correct. As I have said time and time again, "alt-med" should be treated exactly the same as
conventional medicine with regards to the sort of evidence that is needed to show efficacy.

Quoted message said:

In addition, where it has, it often does not hold up.

Also correct. One example: chelation therapy for atherosclerotic heart disease.

Quoted message said:

And rather than abandoning these discredited methodologies, a lot of practitioners

continue

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as if nothing has happened.

Also correct. This is a key difference between alt-med and conventional medicine. When something
in conventional medicine is shown to be ineffective or less effective than something new,
eventually the inferior treatment is abandoned. It may take many years for doctors to change their
practices. Occasionally it may even take a new generation of doctors coming up through their
training and into practice to eliminate the old treatment, but eventually the ineffective
treatments die out.

Not so alt-med, where many of the treatments today were actually shown not to be effective a very
long time ago, but still adherents cling to them.

Quoted message said:

Add to all this that mixed in with legitimate AM practitioners is a fair number of quacks, and
these quacks do need a thorough debunking as a

public

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

duty.

The other problem is that the legitimate AM practitioners rarely denounce the quacks. Indeed, they
often defend the quacks.

[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]>,

Anth said:

There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two.. Anth

No, actually, it's you who seem to be confused between the two, mistaking legitimate scientific
skepticism for cynicism or close-mindedness.

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

Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer? Anth

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-330B67.21093828022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Anth"

Quoted message said:

There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the

two..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anth

No, actually, it's you who seem to be confused between the two, mistaking legitimate scientific
skepticism for cynicism or close-mindedness.

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

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

Quoted message said:

There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two.. Anth

Sceptisism is when I debunk you. Cynicism is when you debunk me.

See, an answer both cynical and sarcastic at the same time......

Anth, I think you are mistaking the two. This is a common problem, and it can be hard to distinguish
the two when the sceptic is criticising something that is close to your heart. I find that cynics
tend to be negative about everything, where as sceptics just demand a reasonable level of proof.
After all, you would not want me to try something without reasonable grounds to believe it works?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

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

Quoted message said:

There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two.. Anth

Sceptisism is when I debunk you. Cynicism is when you debunk me.

See, an answer both cynical and sarcastic at the same time......

Anth, I think you are mistaking the two. This is a common problem, and it can be hard to distinguish
the two when the sceptic is criticising something that is close to your heart. I find that cynics
tend to be negative about everything, where as sceptics just demand a reasonable level of proof.
After all, you would not want me to try something without reasonable grounds to believe it works?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the

two..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anth

Sceptisism is when I debunk you. Cynicism is when you debunk me.

See, an answer both cynical and sarcastic at the same time......

Anth, I think you are mistaking the two. This is a common problem, and it can be hard to
distinguish the two when the sceptic is criticising

something

Quoted message said:

that is close to your heart. I find that cynics tend to be negative about everything, where as
sceptics just demand a reasonable level of proof.

There you go with semantics - what is a reasonable level of proof?

That is when your cynicism comes in. Cynicism is being a Cynic. Scepticism is being a sceptic.

Quoted message said:

After all, you would not want me to try something without reasonable

grounds

Quoted message said:

to believe it works?

Everybodies 'reasonable grounds' are different when in fact you don't actually know. You can
claim something doesn't work before it has been tested - typically Hulda's cancer 'cure.' I can
claim something works when in fact I don't know. In which case what is being talked about is
personal opinion.

Just look at the way people pass the word 'cure' about on this forum. Personally I don't like the
word 'cure' because it is applied to so many meanings.

Anth

Quoted message said:

--
"The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

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

Quoted message said:

Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer? Anth

Of course not. If it did, a lot of what we know would be proven wrong. In addition, all other
alternative cancer cures would be wrong as well. So tell me Anth, what makes you think that the
liver fluke causes cancer?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the

two..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anth

Sceptisism is when I debunk you. Cynicism is when you debunk me.

See, an answer both cynical and sarcastic at the same time......

Anth, I think you are mistaking the two. This is a common problem, and it can be hard to
distinguish the two when the sceptic is criticising

something

Quoted message said:

that is close to your heart. I find that cynics tend to be negative about everything, where as
sceptics just demand a reasonable level of proof.

There you go with semantics - what is a reasonable level of proof?

That is when your cynicism comes in. Cynicism is being a Cynic. Scepticism is being a sceptic.

Quoted message said:

After all, you would not want me to try something without reasonable

grounds

Quoted message said:

to believe it works?

Everybodies 'reasonable grounds' are different when in fact you don't actually know. You can
claim something doesn't work before it has been tested - typically Hulda's cancer 'cure.' I can
claim something works when in fact I don't know. In which case what is being talked about is
personal opinion.

Just look at the way people pass the word 'cure' about on this forum. Personally I don't like the
word 'cure' because it is applied to so many meanings.

Anth

Quoted message said:

--
"The emperor is naked!" "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

(and it isn't even clear when applied) For instance you get 100 patients with heart disease, they
take 'Giles Organic Offal Mix' All of them get well - their symptoms go away. That is pretty much
grounds to say they have been cured. (Just by the definition of the word) 5 years later they all die
from heart disease. Hulda does this in her book - no long term follow ups - the xrays show the
tumours dissolving - the cancer is gone - that's about it. She uses the word 'cure' also. Anth

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

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

Quoted message said:

Ok then does Hulda Clarks protocol cure cancer? Anth

Of course not. If it did, a lot of what we know would be proven wrong. In addition, all other
alternative cancer cures would be wrong as well. So tell me Anth, what makes you think that the
liver fluke causes cancer?

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

Also by definition dictionary.reference.comsearchOpen ↗ You can differentiate between
the cynics in this newsgroup and the sceptics. (To be fair they are on both sides) Anth

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in

(and it isn't even clear when applied) For instance you get 100 patients with heart disease, they
take 'Giles Organic Offal Mix' All of them get well - their symptoms go away. That is pretty much
grounds to say they have been cured. (Just by the definition of the word) 5 years later they all die
from heart disease. Hulda does this in her book - no long term follow ups - the xrays show the
tumours dissolving - the cancer is gone - that's about it. She uses the word 'cure' also. Anth

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