Re: Bacteria cause for many illnesses: Parasites !

cathyb wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> > cathyb wrote:
> > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > cathyb wrote:
> > > > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > > > cathyb wrote:
> > > > > > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > > > > > cathyb wrote:
> > > > > > > > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > rich.@ wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 5 Jan 2006 06:32:52 -0800, "cathyb" <cathybeesley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Tee-hee. Poor Petey. He can't let it drop.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Petey, I admitted the error, immediately it was pointed out. I'm aware
> > > > > > > > > > > >that you can't do that, preferring to dig yourself deeper when you err.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Peter is obviously a very insecure guy with a fragile ego. When his
> > > > > > > > > > > argument is shown to be fallacious he can't quite come to grips with
> > > > > > > > > > > his being wrong and then redefines terms. When that does not work he
> > > > > > > > > > > makes ad hominem arguments.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's not an ad hominem to point out another person's gross error or the
> > > > > > > > > > fact they demonstrate a pattern of willful obfuscation. Cathy is just
> > > > > > > > > > pissed because I know how to identify her bull***. As for you, well,
> > > > > > > > > > what can I say that I haven't already?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > PeterB
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Oh, bless. Poor Petey is still harping on a numerical error I made
> > > > > > > > > months ago? And calling it a "pattern"?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, the pattern is much larger than any one error or irrelevancy.
> > > > > > > > You've admitted to having no credentials for promoting various medical
> > > > > > > > interventions (and it shows), while your ipso facto declarations have
> > > > > > > > continued unabated.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think Rich must have been right with his "insecure" comment. But who
> > > > > > > > > wouldn't be insecure after spouting such rubbish as "nutrition can cure
> > > > > > > > > most cancers" and then having to spend days redefining most terms in
> > > > > > > > > the statement so it made sense?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I provided evidence that cancer is quelled at the level of DNA errors
> > > > > > > > (where scientists believe most cancer has its genesis), while you
> > > > > > > > hysterically screech that clinical cancer is not cured by nutrition (a
> > > > > > > > claim I never made.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > O petey. You did, you know. It was about the time you were trying to
> > > > > > > come up with a new definition of cancer that didn't make you look
> > > > > > > stupid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What was the new definition of cancer you are referring to? I
> > > > > > challenge you to post a link to this "new definition" you claim I put
> > > > > > forth. I'll be happy to discuss any nuances of the subject of cancer
> > > > > > with you, assuming you have the intellectual capacity to do so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, that was when you claimed that prevention of cancer by antioxidant
> > > > > activity preventing DNA damage is what you meant by *curing* cancer. To
> > > > > put it in words simple enough for you PeteyB, that's defining cancer as
> > > > > DNA damage.
> > > >
> > > > I define cancer in terms of its stages of development, including its
> > > > genesis. If you were sincere in your desire to help people, so would
> > > > you. BTW, the scientific article I referenced discusses the role of
> > > > nutrients in both prevention *and* repair of errant dna. Most
> > > > scientists agree that is where cancer has its genesis.
> >
> > Cathy had no comment. That's because her sole objective is to
> > dismantle the argument that cancer is preventable, treatable, or
> > curable without standard drugs. Even in her silence, she lies.
>
> Bollocks, as usual. No-one has ever denied that diet and lifestyle are
> important in preventing cancer.

So tell us, at what point in the genesis of cancer is intervention
preventive, and at what point is it curative? Please provide a
scientific reference that establishes a clinical definition supporting
your argument, whatever it happens to be at the moment. If you can't
do that, please be adult enough to admit that you're simply unable to
back up what you say. Fair enough?

> Petey claimed that nutrition can *cure* cancer. He referenced a chap
> who, despite having carried out no clinical trials, claims that he can
> cure metasticised cancer:

What kind of cancer did I say nutrition would cure? Post the
scientific reference I used to make this claim. And if you disagree
with that reference, post a valid scientific reference in rebuttal, or
just keep babbling like a fool.

> ""The Natural Cancer Therapy is a complete, safe, non-toxic cancer
> therapy, based on the research of Dr. Matthias Rath, Dr. Hugh Riordan,
> and others. It can be used instead of standard oncological cancer
> therapy. This therapy has been shown to reverse cancer, inhibit cancer
> spread and metastases and enhance health. Taken after standard oncology
> therapy, the regimen helps to rebuild and maintain the immune system
> and prevent metastases. It is non-toxic and has no adverse side
> effects."

Notice the Rath website says the regimen *helps* rebuilt immunity and
prevent metastasis, it doesn't guarantee a cure for cancer. If we look
at 95% of mainstream cancer treatment today, and the majority of cancer
patients undergoing treatment, we see no data supporting a curative
effect, and a huge rate of mortality despite use of drugs.

> > > > > > > Having made your claim that nutrition can cure most cancers, you
> > > > > > > provided as "evidence" links to sites selling Matthias Rath's ideas,
> > > > > > > remember?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I referenced Dr. Rath because he is a credible researcher.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not so Petey. Why must you make repetition so necessary:
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to air your misinformation campaign. People can make up
> > > > their own minds.
> > >
> > > I'm sure they have.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > http://skepdic.com/rath.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Rath claims his vitamin therapy can even cure cancer. But after one of
> > > > >
> > > > > his patients died...
> > > >
> > > > A terminal cancer patient, someone already extremely ill and
> > > > unresponsive to conventional treatment...
> > >
> > > Someone Rath said he could cure with vitamins...
> >
> > Bull. Post Rath's statement guaranteeing that he could save a
> > terminally ill patient.
>
> Right, Petey. He took money from the kid's parents without telling them
> that his vitamin treatment would do some good? He persuaded them to
> drop conventional treatment without saying he could help?

I don't think he has to go knocking on doors for patients when the
chance for survival *with* standard cancer treatment offers little or
no hope. As for persuading people to choose a treatment, what about
all those people resorting to mainstream medicine that don't live one
extra day as a result (and probably suffer more harm than good) --
whose pockets are *they* lining? We're talking about many billions of
dollars. You know, the same profits that make your time here possible.

> And all without having a single clinical trial to his name.
>
> And the patient was very ill, but not terminal. His doctor's reckoned
> he had about a 25% chance.

Right, about the same chance he would have had *without* such
treatment. The parents made a choice that offered them hope, but not a
guarantee. And you want to shame them for loving their child that
much. You should be ashamed.

> If Rath didn't pretend he could cure the kid, why would his parents
> have gone to him?

Why do people submit to chemotherapy thinking the odds of success are
greater than they really are? Who tells them the truth? You?

> Look again at what the site Petey recommended said:
>
> "This therapy has been shown to reverse cancer, inhibit cancer spread
> and metastases and enhance health. Taken after standard oncology
> therapy, the regimen helps to rebuild and maintain the immune system
> and prevent metastases. It is non-toxic and has no adverse side
> effects."

Dr. Rath is happy to work with patients who have already undergone
standard treatment, as the quote clearly states. His regimen provides
nutrient fortification that isn't so different in most respects from
palliative care, though it's more intense. His premise is that any
treatment beneficial to host immunity is a factor in improving
prognosis.

> Dominik's parents must have actually believed him.

We all face situations in which we need to make an effort that isn't
necessarily right for everyone. I'm sure Dominik agreed to this loving
effort to save him. No one said that every moon shot results in a
lunar landing.

> > > >
> > > > > , he was ordered by a Berlin court to stop advertising
> > > > >
> > > > > such claims in Germany or face a fine of ?250,000.* The court ruling
> > > > > centered on the death of a nine-year-old boy, Dominik Feld, who died
> > > > > after being taken off conventional cancer treatment and put on Rath's
> > > > > vitamin treatment. "
> > > >
> > > > As I understand it, he was no longer responsive (or had never been
> > > > responsive in a positive way) to conventional treatment. He was a late
> > > > stage cancer patient.
> > >
> > > Someone Rath said he could cure with vitamins...
> > >
> > > The court treated that claim with the contempt it deserved.
> >
> > Pioneers in medical research have always threatened the status quo, and
> > the courts rarely deviate from established practice, especially in
> > medicine.
>
> Oddly then, the courts allowed the Felds to take their kid out of
> conventional therapy and to Rath.
>
> It was only after the poor kid died that they came down heavily on the
> fraud.

That's a non sequitur. Fraud isn't defined as failure, or your
sponsors would be serving million-year sentences already. I do believe
your sponsors *are* guilty of fraud, however. That's a question of
intent. And you're right there with them.

> > > > > "Rath achieved some notoriety when he took out a full-page ad in the
> > > > > New York Times1 and other newspapers in which he refers to
> > > > > pharmaceutical firms as "the pharmaceutical drug cartel" and charges
> > > > > that this cartel promotes antiretroviral drugs "to maintain their
> > > > > global market with patented AIDS drugs." Despite the evidence that
> > > > > these drugs are effective, he claims that pharmaceutical firms know not
> > > > >
> > > > > only that they are ineffective but also that they are aimed at
> > > > > increasing the spread of AIDS."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Critics of Rath's micronutrient theories are condemned as lapdogs of
> > > > > the drug industry. Among those critics are the Swiss Study Group for
> > > > > Complementary and Alternative Methods in Cancer. As noted above, Rath
> > > > > claims that micronutrients can prevent cancer. According to the Swiss
> > > > > report:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > After examining the literature and other available information, the
> > > > > Swiss Study Group for Complementary and Alternative Methods in Cancer
> > > > > (SKAK) and the Swiss Cancer League (SCL) have found no proof that the
> > > > > vitamin preparations of Dr. Matthias Rath have any effect on human
> > > > > cancer....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So far there are only a few studies that indicate a causal link between
> > > > >
> > > > > micronutrients and cancer. A cancer-curing effect has not been
> > > > > documented for any of these substances. Nor is there any proof that the
> > > > >
> > > > > preparations sold by Matthias Rath, some with high dosages, are useful
> > > > > in cancer prevention - leave alone curing cancer. Rath still owes
> > > > > proof regarding the correctness of his claims. Proof of effect cannot
> > > > > be provided by analogy with in vitro, animal or cell experiments.
> > > > > Because there is no proof for effect nor for the harmlessness of the
> > > > > preparations, SKAK advises against their use."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And lots, lots more. The guy's loopy.
> > > >
> > > > You and your sponsors denounce anyone who threaten your profits. It's
> > > > only going to get worse.
> > >
> > > None of it's untrue Petey; you're right though, in that a statement of
> > > the facts does amount to a denunciation in this case.
> >
> > You haven't shown any facility with facts, information, or statistics.
> > Why should this be any different?
>
> So you don't deny that any of the stuff is true; simply that you don't
> like my posting it. What a surprise.

I'm all for airing the monopoly behaviour on the part of your sponsors
(and their lobby-friendly politicians) in order to show it as
systemically destructive to society as cancer to the human body. As
disease rates and your sponsors' profits continue to climb, people will
continue to wake up. One day, you'll be out of a job.

> > > > > This is interesting:
> > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1483792,00.html.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > While it's true that you finally, grudgingly, admitted that
> > > > > > > there was no actual evidence on that particular fraud's sites that
> > > > > > > showed that nutrition could cure cancer...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To the contrary. Dr. Rath is not a fraud, and the anecdotal reports
> > > > > > may very well represent cancer remissions attributable to nutritional
> > > > > > therapies.
> > > > >
> > > > > Petey, only a few paragraphs ago, you said:
> > > > >
> > > > > "you hysterically screech that clinical cancer is not cured by
> > > > > nutrition (a claim I never made.).
> > > >
> > > > My position is that we don't have controlled studies showing how
> > > > effective nutritional therapies may be in treating cancer. That
> > > > doesn't mean anecdotal reports of success are false. It's hard growing
> > > > a brain, isn't it cathy?
> >
> > No comment here means Cathy isn't interested in a discussion, just
> > obfuscation.
>
> I addressed it below, when you again claimed that testimonials on
> Rath's advert were "evidence". Sheesh. Grow a brain.

Learn to read.

> > > > > And now you make the claim again.
> > > >
> > > > You're a sad excuse for a pharma blogger. Anyone can see through this.
> > > > As I said earlier, you're so transparent that wind blows right through
> > > > you.
> > >
> > > ?
> > > You made the claim; you said you'd never made the claim; you repeated
> > > the claim. It *is* fairly transparent.
> >
> > Either learn to read, or I'll continue pointing out your ineptitudes.
> >
> > > > > You support the work of a man who is
> > > > > so convinced that he can nutritionally cure clinical cancer that he
> > > > > contributed to the death of a 9-year-old boy .
> > > >
> > > > What evidence do you have that he contributed to the boy's death? The
> > > > fact the child was already eat up with terminal cancer was the cause of
> > > > his death. Dr. Rath was actually trying to save him after conventional
> > > > treatment failed.
> >
>
> The fact that a court in Germany which looked at all the evidence
> thought so. Oh, and conventional therapy hadn't failed. It wasn't given
> a chance. Thanks to Rath.

Don't blame Dr. Rath because Dominik's parents wanted to give their son
a chance at life. Conventional treatment wasn't going to save him.

> > > > > Admitting, as you do below, that there's no evidence for your claim is
> > > > > not the same as not making the claim.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wrong again. Anecdotal reports *are* evidence; they've been a factor
> > > > in medical science for hundreds of years. They will continue to be.
> > > > But we need controlled studies in the study of disease and applied
> > > > nutrition, as I've said from the beginning. Quality of data is
> > > > something I've talked about at length. All you can manage to do is
> > > > take cheap shots and play dumb.
> > >
> > > Petey, you already admitted there's no evidence for your claim.
> >
> > There is indeed evidence for it, and I posted the evidence, which you
> > ignored. What's not available are controlled studies, which is
> > different. This is why I pointed out to you, repeatedly, that quality
> > of data is always a factor in both epidemiology and treatment. Since
> > you don't have the brains to grasp this, you continue to insist that
> > evidence is already proof, a glaring non sequitur.
>
> Petey, you poor pet. Testimonials on an advert are not evidence. Even
> you have admitted, for instance, that Hulda Clark is (probably) a
> fraud. She has testimonials. I could post a pile of testimonials here
> and say I can cure cancer. It wouldn't be evidence.

Since you don't grasp that clinical evidence isn't always part of a
study, your dim-witted conclusions mean that you wouldn't properly
document your clinical data anyway, so it wouldn't be evidence coming
from you. But we're talking about you here, not a peer-reviewed
scientist.

> Er, it would be fraud.
>
> >
> > > Anecdotal reports (like Hulda Clark claiming she's cured cancer, or
> > > Rath claiming he's cured cancer) aren't evidence until they've been
> > > investigated and discredited or credited.
> >
> > Wrong. Anecdotal reports are an untested collection of evidence.
> > Virtually every hypothesis in the natural world (and many in medical
> > science) began with an acecdotal observation. Remember Newton's Apple?
> > Or should we be talking about someone from the Muppets so that you can
> > understand this?
>
> See above, halfwit.

See above and below, dimwit.

> > > > > So far there are only a few studies that indicate a causal link between
> > > > >
> > > > > micronutrients and cancer. A cancer-curing effect has not been
> > > > > documented for any of these substances. Nor is there any proof that the
> > > > >
> > > > > preparations sold by Matthias Rath, some with high dosages, are useful
> > > > > in cancer prevention - leave alone curing cancer. Rath still owes
> > > > > proof regarding the correctness of his claims. Proof of effect cannot
> > > > > be provided by analogy with in vitro, animal or cell experiments.
> > > > > Because there is no proof for effect nor for the harmlessness of the
> > > > > preparations, SKAK advises against their use."
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > What I acknowledged (freely) is that we don't have
> > > > > > sufficient science on nutritional therapy in clinical cancer through
> > > > > > controlled trials, which isn't the same thing. It was clear from the
> > > > > > outset (my link in the original post demonstrates this) that I was
> > > > > > referring to the role of nutrition in cancer genesis at the level of
> > > > > > dna errors, not the proven use of nutritional therapy in clinical
> > > > > > cancer. Once you figure out what various words really mean, we can
> > > > > > start to talk about how they are used in real sentences. For now, all
> > > > > > I can say is, you're dumb.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bollocks Petey. If that had been what you meant, you wouldn't have
> > > > > posted links to the fraud, Rath...
> > > >
> > > > You're the fraud, not Dr. Rath.
> > >
> > > Do prove that Petey. Show even one piece of evidence (not wishful
> > > thinking) that I am either paid to post here, or like Rath, have been
> > > denounced by courts, complementary medicine organisations, cancer
> > > organisations or the bleeding UN, for heaven's sake.
> >
> > You are the one making the case against yourself, I'm simply pointing
> > it out. And no one here questions that you are a pharma blogger,
> > except your team-mates. Don't think of it in terms of *who* you are,
> > but in terms of what you do.
>
> Do prove that Petey. Show even one piece of evidence (not wishful
> thinking) that I am either paid to post here, or like Rath, have been
> denounced by courts, complementary medicine organisations, cancer
> organisations or the bleeding UN, for heaven's sake.

The fact that you post to me hundreds of times, repeating yourself
without variation, while calling me a lunatic and saying I'm not worth
your time. So, whose time is it worth? At one point you actually said
you would no longer continue posting to me. Your bosses didn't like
that, did they cathy? And the fact you completely changed your online
persona afterward (remember your former sappy demeanor, like some
brain-dead soccer mom?), in response to my original taunts, which
clearly got under your skin and pissed you off. It wasn't working, was
it? And the fact you are here at all hours defending mainstream
medicine on a newsgroup devoted to a discussion of natural medicine
(along with several of your team-mates), alternatives you denounce
whenever their use conflict with the interests of your sponsors. So it
turns out you were never the dingy blonde you pretended to be, but you
still aren't smart enough to fool your intended audience.

> (Of course, now I understand that all it takes for you to believe
> someone can cure cancer is that they have a website and say so, I
> understand your delusions a little better.)

I look at the evidence and go from there. It's not a matter of
believing. All anyone can do is look at the evidence. I accept that
some cancer drugs are effective in treating some patients and some
cancers. I recognize that a dearth of data supporting their use in the
majority of cancer (a fact you hypocritically cover up) is not being
addressed. In either case, I want to see a quality of evidence that
isn't there. If I were looking for your brain, I would already have
all the proof I needed that it doesn't exist, because you've
demonstrated it so many times.

> > > Moreover, find a piece of Dr Rath's published research (scientific
> > > literature, Petey, not testimonial) that proves he's cured cancer
> > > using vitamins. Then look at the claims on his website and ask yourself
> > > why you're so anxious to believe him.
> >
> > It isn't Dr. Rath that I believe in, it's 4 billion years of biochemial
> > evolution. But I'm glad he understands this and wants to pioneer
> > nutritional methods in the treatment of cancer.
> >
> > > > > , and like any normal person you would
> > > > > have said "oh, actually I meant cure DNA error, not cancer". Instead of
> > > > > continuing to dig your hole.
> > > >
> > > > It's your hole, not mine.
> > >
> > > No. It wasn't I who claimed nutritional methods could cure cancer.
> >
> > There is evidence, anecdotally, that remissions may be the product of
> > such methods. That is what I claimed.
>
> Nope. You claimed there was evidence of such remissions, and posted
> sites that claimed nutrition could cure metasticised cancer:

Again, there is such evidence, and those case reports are that
evidence. Whether those results are proven to be associated with
nutritional therapy is open for debate. I do believe it's worth
pursuing.

> "As for evidence that people
> have cured their cancer using nutrition, see
> http://www.cqs.com/cancertherapy.htm and also
> http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/ for published reports of cancer
> cures without the use of mainstream medicine."
>
> You didn't say "As for anecdotal crap, unverifiable..."

No, I don't write in incomplete sentences.

> There was no such evidence. Merely testimonials such as you can find on
> any quack's sites.

Evidence comes in all shapes and sizes. Physicians rely on
testimonials in their practice on a daily basis, when patients describe
their reactions to prescription medication. Try to get out more.

> > > > > > > , your initial response was:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "As for evidence that people have cured their cancer using nutrition,
> > > > > > > see http://www.cqs.com/cancertherapy.htm and also
> > > > > > > http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/ for published reports of cancer
> > > > > > > cures without the use of mainstream medicine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One of those sites includes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ""The Natural Cancer Therapy is a complete, safe, non-toxic cancer
> > > > > > > therapy, based on the research of Dr. Matthias Rath, Dr. Hugh Riordan,
> > > > > > > and others. It can be used instead of standard oncological cancer
> > > > > > > therapy. This therapy has been shown to reverse cancer, inhibit cancer
> > > > > > > spread and metastases and enhance health. Taken after standard oncology
> > > > > > > therapy, the regimen helps to rebuild and maintain the immune system
> > > > > > > and prevent metastases. It is non-toxic and has no adverse side
> > > > > > > effects."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which is to say that you did claim that "clinical" cancer is cured by
> > > > > > > nutrition.
> > > >
> > > > I agree we have evidence for it. Remissions have occured following
> > > > nutritional therapies. Does that mean we don't need controlled studies
> > > > to be sure there is an association? I've said already that we do.
> > >
> > > The only "evidence" you have provided that remission has occurred
> > > following nutritional therapies have been testimonials from an advert
> > > for Rath's therapies. Pfui.
> >
> > This from someone who says she wants to see people burn in hell for not
> > vaccinating. Bless.
>
> No, I didn't say that. As you know. To quote our resident bigot ,
> that's a LIE. Desperation, Petey?

Then set the record straight. What exactly did you say? When you did
this before, you only made bad matters worse. As you know, that
original post occured before your online persona change. Now you want
me to let you bury your past mha incarnation. Go ahead, tell us what
you said so everyone can see what I'm talking about. I'll be waiting.

> I note you use it to avoid the fact that the only "evidence" you have
> provided that remission has occurred following nutritional therapies
> have been testimonials from an advert for Rath's therapies.

You think the only people with such stories were patients of Dr. Rath?
You don't read much outside the newsgroups, do you cathy?

> > > > > > I claimed there are reports of cures, and there are. I also
> > > > > > acknowledged we don't have enough science to measure the effect of
> > > > > > nutritional therapy in clinical cancer, while you continue to distort
> > > > > > what I've said repeatedly. This is what I mean by "your pattern."
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, Petey, I just remember what you've said. I don't need to
> > > > > distort it.
> > > >
> > > > Your methods would distort Shakespeare; memory has nothing to do with
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > Petey, I've merely pointed out a series of inconsistencies in what
> > > you've posted. Your constitutional inability to simply say you made a
> > > mistake does not mean I'm distorting what you have said.
> >
> > This fabrication of yours is simply an attempt to denounce the idea
> > that cancer can be treated using natural medicine. It's not working.
>
> What fabrication Petey? You haven't pointed one out.

All of your recitals supposedly quoting me, actually.

> > > > > > > And for everyone's entertainment, you've since claimed that those sites
> > > > > > > are "scientific literature".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dr. Rath includes a list of peer reviewed scientific papers, written by
> > > > > > him and others.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's so. Those weren't what you referred us to, though. You wanted us
> > > > > to see the anecdotes about the people he claims to have cured on a
> > > > > website that is an advertisement for his unproven therapies.
> > > >
> > > > Most drugs used in cancer treatment are unproven, yet they continue to
> > > > be used.
> > >
> > > I think people referred you to Peter Moran's site; you did say you'd
> > > look at it and comment...
> >
> > I did.
> >
> > > > > Of course, Dominik Feld isn't mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to continue to think of those anecdotes as "scientific
> > > > > literature", go right ahead. It's almost as impressive as your use of
> > > > > whale.to as a research resource.
> > > >
> > > > Either learn to read, or I'll simply continue pointing out your
> > > > ineptitudes.
> > >
> > > Either learn not to contradict yourself (and stop making utterly
> > > ridiculous and sweeping generalisations), or I'll simply continue to
> > > laugh at your blind faith.
> >
> > Maybe another trip to the wizard and you'll find your brain, cathy. It
> > seemed to help the last time. Then again, these inept responses are
> > part of your script, meaning the price you pay to particpate in this
> > campaign is making a fool of yourself. That's gotta suck.
>
> Oh, bless. It's always fun to watch PeteyB reduce his credibility still
> further.

Please keep posting to me, cathy. I need the attention.

PeterB

.