Re: Death by Supplement: 5 years for mail fraud

(Jan) said:

You want to see dishonest????

Try three dead children.

I assume you are referring to
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/deadkids.htm

Yes, there was a lot of dishonesty associated with those dead
children. One of them was killed by quacks who dishonestly represented
themselves as having some sort of ability to treat medical or
psychological complaints. One of them was murdered and the murderer
and his supporters have been applying a continuous stream of dishonest
tactics since then to deflect attention from the crime.

And one of them died accidentally and the fact of his death has been
used dishonestly on a regular basis to attack a whole class of people
- doctors. This boy's death was referred to more than 20 times in one
month by one person, in each case within a conversation about another
topic, as a means if diverting the discussion. In one bizarre
incident, this boy's death was mentioned to divert a conversation
about the murder mentioned above, as if an accidental death where
everyone admitted responsibility could have anything to do with a
murder where not only the murderer denied responsibility but he has
support from people who deny even the possibility of the crime.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Death by Supplement: 5 years for mail fraud
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/1/2003 7:05 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

You want to see dishonest????

Try three dead children.

I assume you are referring to
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/deadkids.htm

Yes.

Three Dead Children

(note Peter starts right off with tactics, NOT the issue of why Dateline did
the show)

One of the tactics of supporters of "alternative medicine" is to deflect
criticism of quackery by pointing out that people sometimes die while under the
care of real doctors.

((In this case the article was posted to show WHY we still have sooooo many
NEEDLESS deaths and mistakes, HOW can we lower this number??

AND

((WHY do we have a piecemeal system at best??))

AND

((WHY Dateline intevestigated and the *PROCEDURE* that killed Ben Kolb was
STILL BEING USED))

AND

((There was ABSOLUTELY NO reason to EVER taken the medication OUT of the
bottle and put it in a UNLABELED bowl!!!))

To rational people,

((Now while Peter is here attacking people, he is talking of WHO is rational))

NOT THE ISSUE

** this is not surprising as the people seeing doctors and being admitted to
hospitals are sick. When a rare mistake by doctors is discovered, a feeding
frenzy can sometimes break out and all discussion of "alternative medicine" is
diverted by continual reference to the mistake. **

(( no diversion whatsoever, a desire to DO SOMETHING TO IMPROVE ALL THE MANY
NEEDLESS DEATHS AND MISTAKES))

**A recent example of this happened on the Usenet newsgroup
misc.health.alternative in a discussion about how the despicable
anti-vaccination liars had decided to use a convicted child murderer as part of
their lying campaign to convince people that Shaken Baby Syndrome is really
vaccine damage. The arguments from "alternative medicine" supporters fell into
two classes - as it cannot be proved conclusively and without any doubt
whatsoever that Alan Yurko murdered the baby then he probably didn't do because
the vaccines did, and the bizarre non sequitur that by talking about this
murderer I was avoiding the issue of Ben Kolb who had died as a result of a
medical accident in 1995. I wrote the following piece to examine three tragic
incidents and their relationship to "alternative medicine".**

((which has nothing whatsoever to do with Ben Kolb))

((So while Peter accuses others, it is plainly seen, HE is the one who is
guilty))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Now, after all that. Could we get down to the issue. HOW the mistake was made.
HOW it was reported so it wouldn't happen again??

WHY dateline did the show!

NOPE!

*Some proponents of "alternative medicine" have tried to make an issue out of
Ben's death, apparently on the basis that a mistake made by real doctors
somehow has something to do with children dying because pretend doctors treat
them with snake oil.*

LIE NUMBER ONE.

((I was the one whjo posted it and no where at any time was it EVER posted for
any other reason than to IMPROVE the deaths and mistakes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,AND
LEARN FROM THEM!!))

**If the adrenaline had been deliberately administered to Ben as part of some
mad, unproven treatment protocol invented by someone with no medical training,
no knowledge of science and no justification other than their own idiosyncratic
quackery then it would have been something to do with "alternative medicine".**

((It HAS to do with our CURRENT MEDICAL SYSTEM,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,))

**When I first went to the web site of the lawyers who acted for Ben Kolb's
parents in their negotiations with the hospital, I expected to find some
ambulance chasers in full flight. Instead, when I looked there I was pleasantly
surprised to find a balanced and sensitive approach to the incident and the
doctors who were as much a part of the tragedy as the parents. The attitude of
the parents' lawyers stands in stark contrast to the way "alternative
medicine"**

LIE NUMBER TWO!!!

((there was NO stark contrast, Peter made it up!!!))

((He has been asked MANY times to show us that stark contrast, he can't.))

** supporters attempt to demonise the people who made a tragic mistake.**

LIE NUMBER THREE

((At NO time was there EVER any *demonising* of the people who made a tragic
mistake))

((Peter has been asked MANY times to show us this *demonising*. He can't, he
made it up!!!))

((In FACT it was just the complete OPPOSITE!!!))

Quoted message said:

Yes, there was a lot of dishonesty associated with those dead
children

INDEED and it ALL came from YOU!!

<snip>

Quoted message said:

And one of them died accidentally and the fact of his death has been
used dishonestly on a regular basis to attack a whole class of people
- doctors

NEVER HAPPENED!!!!

Quoted message said:

This boy's death was referred to more than 20 times in one
month by one person

YES, it was becasue YOU KEPT on LYING and YOU are STILL LYING.

Now either PROVE your claims or SHUT UP.

YOU ARE A DESPICABLE LIAR PETER BOWDITCH!!!!!

Jan

In said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Death by Supplement: 5 years for mail fraud
From: dcs [email hidden]
Date: 7/1/2003 11:02 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In said:

>From: Tsu Dho Nimh [email hidden]
>Date: 6/30/2003 3:15 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email hidden]>
>Mark Probert <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

>>http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lidnp0628,0,1946656.stor
y?coll=ny-linews-headlines
>>Husband Takes Max to Help Wife
>
>>Dinitrophenol has been banned since the 1930s.
>>Zhang's case was believed to be the first prosecution involving the sale
>>of DNP. Under Food and Drug Administration regulations, it is a crime to
>>sell a banned chemical or a drug for an unapproved use.
>
>He was selling THAT!
>
>http://www.quack

How dishonest

ROTFLOL!!!!

Losers, losers, losers.

Quoted message said:

What Tsu actually posted was the URL:

On-topic content snipped.

In <[email hidden]>, Jan wrote:
# When the *truth* is posted, the messenger bcomes the focus, it's called
# sidetracking.

Speaking of sidetracking, here's a prime example:

Quoted message said:

Quack Quack Quack.

You want to see dishonest????

Try three dead children.

Try no coverups by Peter Moran.

Oh that's right,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Members of *organized medicine* overlook their own dishonesty.

Death by supplement!!

ALERT ALERT ALERT!!!!

The number is overwhelming, I tell ya!!!

Needless death and mistakes by conventional medicine,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Doctors (?) leading cause of death.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Drug deaths.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

--
| 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