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:
<[email hidden]>

"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.

http://www.cancerguide.org/burz_cit.txt

http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/pdfdraft/7_therap/fs7_43.pdf

Quoted message said:

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

http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/forum/BrainCancerF/2.2.999.07AMDr.Brzynsk
i-v.html

http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lburzynski.htm

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.

http://www.cancerguide.org/burz_cit.txt

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:

http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/pdfdraft/7_therap/fs7_43.pdf

Quoted message said:

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

http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/forum/BrainCancerF/2.2.999.07AMDr.Brzynsk
i-v.html

http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lburzynski.htm

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

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

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

Peter Moran

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.

<[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

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.

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

"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

<[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.

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:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

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

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Perhaps Peter Moran Would Like to Retract?
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 1/2/2004 10:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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:[email hidden].

com.au...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

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

Peter Moran

Yeah, fits right in with *no alternative practitioner can be trusted*

Completely and totally absurd, as are most of Barrett's OPINIONS.

Jan

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.

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

Most interesting.

Anth: I'm unclear as to why if a trial participant gets a pitifully
diluted drug from Dr. B's Institute's cancer trial & then Dr. B'
replaces it with a non-pittifully non-undiluted drug, how that proves
Dr. B isn't money-grubbing (per your post)? I would expect the same
rsponse from Macy's if I bought a defective TV set there & wouldn't pat
them on the back for that. Am I missing something?

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

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

Quoted message said:

Anth: I'm unclear as to why if a trial participant gets a pitifully
diluted drug from Dr. B's Institute's cancer trial & then Dr. B'
replaces it with a non-pittifully non-undiluted drug, how that proves
Dr. B isn't money-grubbing (per your post)? I would expect the same
rsponse from Macy's if I bought a defective TV set there & wouldn't pat
them on the back for that. Am I missing something?

<[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:

"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

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

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

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

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 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

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 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