Leaving aside the "kill the messenger" content of this post, would the
quacks suddenly find vindication if he should disappear? Would they be
embrased by science and would government regulation of them cease? The
problem with the quacks is themselves, not that people and science and
government are on their case with justification. Speaking of money, shall
we flip the coin, pun entended? Is any intrest in increasing already huge
profits in the intrests of those who whine because the spot light of
science is being directed their way?
General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion
Re: "Quackbusting" - is a Profitable Business
Thread navigation
Jump through the discussion
Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.
Thread details
What we know about this thread
- Original section
- General fitness, health and nutrition
- Published
- 4 September 2005
- Last activity
- 14 September 2005
- Original author
- Email address hidden
- Posts
- 104
- Discussion status
- Public discussion
- Total views
- 2,667
- Views / 30 days
- 0
The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.
-
-
Quoted message said:
Leaving aside the "kill the messenger" content of this post, would the
quacks suddenly find vindication if he should disappear?True quacks would not. And there ARE quacks. Some practice allopathic
medicine.What makes Barrett et al. so utterly completely worthless to those of
us making treatment choices and living with chronic diseases is they
paint with a broad brush. And that is simply, demonstrably wrong.They're nothing but profiteering bigots.
George M. Carter
-
"GMCarter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Leaving aside the "kill the messenger" content of this post, would the
quacks suddenly find vindication if he should disappear?True quacks would not. And there ARE quacks. Some practice allopathic
medicine.What makes Barrett et al. so utterly completely worthless to those of
us making treatment choices and living with chronic diseases is they
paint with a broad brush. And that is simply, demonstrably wrong.They're nothing but profiteering bigots.
OK. Pick a claim that Barret makes and argue here that it's completely
wrong.moo
-
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:11:30 -0400, "Happy Dog" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
"GMCarter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Leaving aside the "kill the messenger" content of this post, would the
quacks suddenly find vindication if he should disappear?True quacks would not. And there ARE quacks. Some practice allopathic
medicine.What makes Barrett et al. so utterly completely worthless to those of
us making treatment choices and living with chronic diseases is they
paint with a broad brush. And that is simply, demonstrably wrong.They're nothing but profiteering bigots.
OK. Pick a claim that Barret makes and argue here that it's completely
wrong.moo
His garbage about going after the licenses of scientists and
physicians working to figure out the complexity of MCS is one thing
.... particularly with him being unlicenced and not able to pass the
board certifications himself.The Lyme Info is also bogus .... typical Quack garbage.
Thanks for asking Wesley.
-
"True quacks would not. And there ARE quacks. Some practice allopathic
medicine."True, some mix "alternative" quackery with standard methods.
"What makes Barrett et al. so utterly completely worthless to those of us
making treatment choices and living with chronic diseases is they paint
with a broad brush. And that is simply, demonstrably wrong."When reading his page he provides specific examples to illustrate his
views
and those examples are based in science. If the quacks want to refute his
view then refute first the science on which it is based. It is the
quackery, not the reporter of it that is the problem. "Choices" must be
based in science not clever marketing to the ill and desperate."They're nothing but profiteering bigots."
Taking all whatever income any of them makes in defending science based
medicine, a view not a broadbrush would mention the vulgar obscene profits
the quacks make. -
Quoted message said:
and those examples are based in science. If the quacks want to refute his
view then refute first the science on which it is based. It is the
quackery, not the reporter of it that is the problem. "Choices" must be
based in science not clever marketing to the ill and desperate.Medical scientism is the biggest health scam of the century. The whole
process of publishing research papers in review journals is a total
joke. Any fool can see this.You have my condolences.
-
"Medical scientism is the biggest health scam of the century."
Agreed, scientisim is replete among quacks, the surface use and appearence
of science without content."The whole process of publishing research papers in review journals is a
total joke."And the quacks would be vindicated if such were suddenly dropped? Almost
nothing would change with them of course, not at present being burdened
with having to do same."Any fool can see this."
Apparently.
-
Quoted message said:
"The whole process of publishing research papers in review journals is a
total joke."And the quacks would be vindicated if such were suddenly dropped? Almost
nothing would change with them of course, not at present being burdened
with having to do same.Perhaps, if you were to concentrate?
The subject of this THREAD is Quackbusting and the Quackbusters.
Quacks are NOT on trial here, but the Quackbusters are and what they
represent is.Just thought that you might want to know, Idiot.
-
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:11:30 -0400, "Happy Dog" <[email hidden]>
wrote:snip...
Quoted message said:
OK. Pick a claim that Barret makes and argue here that it's completely
wrong.I don't care to take the time at the moment, missa boss-massah.
-
Quoted message said:
"True quacks would not. And there ARE quacks. Some practice allopathic
medicine."True, some mix "alternative" quackery with standard methods.
Hey! Another briandead bigot!
Nope, not what I meant. I meant some of your so-called "standard
methods" are either inherently quackery or may be misused and
constitute quackery.That does not render allopathic medicine in toto quackery.
Quoted message said:
"What makes Barrett et al. so utterly completely worthless to those of us
making treatment choices and living with chronic diseases is they paint
with a broad brush. And that is simply, demonstrably wrong."When reading his page he provides specific examples to illustrate his
views
and those examples are based in science.Wrong. They're often based on his twisted, bigoted interpretations and
twisting findings to suit his bigotry.George M. Carter
-
GMCarter said:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:11:30 -0400, "Happy Dog" <[email hidden]>
wrote:snip...
Quoted message said:
OK. Pick a claim that Barret makes and argue here that it's completely
wrong.I don't care to take the time at the moment, missa boss-massah.
That's a lot of words to just say "I can't".
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com -
GMCarter said:
snip...Quoted message said:
OK. Pick a claim that Barret makes and argue here that it's completely
wrong.I don't care to take the time at the moment, missa boss-massah.
You make a definitive claim and then get bent out of shape when asked to
provide a shred of evidence or even your reasoning behind it? Idiot.moo
-
The Ratbaggers always ignore the blatant lies of their Hero ...
His garbage about going after the licenses of scientists and
physicians working to figure out the complexity of MCS is one thing
.... particularly with him being unlicenced and not able to pass the
board certifications himself.The Lyme Info is also bogus .... typical Quack garbage.
Thanks for asking Wesley.
-
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:51:38 -0400, "Happy Dog" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
GMCarter said:
snip...Quoted message said:
OK. Pick a claim that Barret makes and argue here that it's completely
wrong.I don't care to take the time at the moment, missa boss-massah.
You make a definitive claim and then get bent out of shape when asked to
provide a shred of evidence or even your reasoning behind it? Idiot.Nope. Just not gonna bother with an [censored] like you. Been there, done
that. -
GMCarter said:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:51:38 -0400, "Happy Dog" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
GMCarter said:
snip...
>OK. Pick a claim that Barret makes and argue here that it's completely
>wrong.I don't care to take the time at the moment, missa boss-massah.
You make a definitive claim and then get bent out of shape when asked to
provide a shred of evidence or even your reasoning behind it? Idiot.Nope. Just not gonna bother with an [censored] like you. Been there, done
that.A lot of words to just say "I can't".
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com -
GMCarter said:
Quoted message said:
You make a definitive claim and then get bent out of shape when asked to
provide a shred of evidence or even your reasoning behind it? Idiot.Nope. Just not gonna bother with an [censored] like you. Been there, done
that.Fair enough. But, I note, that you haven't provided this evidence for
anybody here. You're just preaching to the choir.BTW, the only :bothering" you've done on my behalf hasn't consisted of any
cogent defense of your claims. Perhaps you should just talk to yourself.moo
-
Peter Bowditch said:
Can't, won't, ...A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all.
Little wonder they use people that have such a complete inability to
parse a significant difference as "can't or won't" to conduct your
worthless smear campaigns.Quackwatch does not serve science. They're no better than the idiots
that push "intelligent design."George M. Carter
-
"Quackwatch does not serve science. They're no better than the idiots that
push "intelligent design.""An intresting false oppisition of a strawman. Unlike the science on quack
watch intellegent design has no science at all, nothing but marketing.
We need to focus the question again, to show quack watch wrong one must
show the science on whitch it is based to be wrong, the reporter posting
the views based on that science only reflects the larger scientific
community. If quack watch should disappear none of the truth claims of
the quacks would be supported, they would still have to rise or fall based
on the now absent support in science. To this point they can't fall, they
are still flat on the ground scientifically. -
GMCarter said:
Peter Bowditch said:
Can't, won't, ...A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all.
Little wonder they use people that have such a complete inability to
parse a significant difference as "can't or won't" to conduct your
worthless smear campaigns.I am well aware of the difference between "can't" and "won't" in
normal use. I your case, however you won't because you can't.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com -
GMCarter said:
Quackwatch does not serve science. They're no better than the idiots
that push "intelligent design."So you say. And, you refuse to back your claim with examples of inaccurate
claims on quackwatch (with your discussion of the evidence). You claim that
you won't do this because you don't like the people asking the questions.
However, I've gone through your posts and can't see where you've done this
for *anybody*. Have you? Ever? Am I just not looking hard enough?moo
Active in the last 60 minutes
Active in this thread
0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total
No signed-in users are active right now.
No known search crawlers active right now.