Re: Natural cancer treatments

In article <1177343772.471750.224880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: On Apr 23, 10:06 am, schu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Schultz) wrote:

:> You recommended a book by a particular author. The competence of that
:> author to judge evidence placed before him is certainly a reasonable
:> topic for discussion. Given your complete ignorance, repeatedly
:> demonstrated, of usenet, I would suggest that net.cop is not your
:> ideal profession.

: Poor Schultzie has no argument, hardly surprising for one who claims
: to have "accidentally stumbled" onto mha and later admitting to us
: that he has a "diseased mind" (his words.) That was the most amusing
: freudian/fraudian slip we've ever seen here, not something I imagine
: Schultzie's sponsors were too pleased with.

I personally find your obsession with those two posts to be amusing,
especially given your own admission that kava can cause liver damage.

:> : That would be impossible, Schultzie, as I do not attribute my own
:> : words to the published works of others.
:>
:> Nor do I.
:
: Oh, but you do, Schultzie, and I proved it. Here are your words, just
: in case you forgot:
:
: "The authors of the chapter in _Public Health at the Crossroads_ in
: which the reference to McKinlay and McKinlay appears follow that
: reference by an explicit statement that vaccination was of "major
: importance" IN LOWERING THE MORTALITY RATE IN THE U.S. DURING THE 20TH
: CENTURY [emphasis mine.]" None of the words in ALL CAPS (**your**
: words) appear in the original text in relation to the phrase "of major
: importance," so your efforts to embellish are quite transparent.

As I have said on numerous occasions, my God, you are an idiot. Not
just because you cannot differentiate between a direct quote (the two
words that appear in quotation marks) and a conclusion based on the
context of that quote, but because you repeatedly post an accusation
that your own words prove is false.

:> On the other hand, you have shown a repeated and demonstrable
:> ability not to be able to understand what you read -- e.g. an article about
:> the effect on [SIC] an herb on rats that you consistently discussed as if it
:> had been an article about the effect of the herb on mice.
:
: Schultzie, I'll try harder to distinguish between you and your other
: friends. Meanwhile, try not to be illiterate when pointing out these
: very profound and weighty matters.

From article <1168979525.309008.109720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

#:> -----------------
#:> [3] Gregoretti, B.; Stebel, M.; Candussio, L.; Crivellato, E.; Bartoli, F.;
#:> Decorti, G. Toxicity of Hypericum perforatum (St. John's wort)
#:> administered during pregnancy and lactation in rats. Toxicology and
#:> Applied Pharmacology (2004), 200(3), 201-205.
#:> -----------------
#:>
#:> : The next study abstract talks about the toxic potential of various
#:> : herbs consumed by mice,

As I said, your reading comprehension is apparently so low that you cannot
even correctly read the *title* of an article, let alone its content.
Your feeble attempts at personal insult cannot erase the massive stupidity
demonstrated by what you wrote.

:> Among the many, many questions you have failed to answer is the following.
:>
:> Page 43 of the book _Public Health at the Crossroads_ (ed. Robert
:> Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita) contains the following sentence:
:>
:> "On the other hand, targeted public health interventions including
:> vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health care
:> services, were of major importance."
:
: "On the other hand" refers to a combination of health services or
: practices not individually quantified for their health effects,
: whereas the statement cannot be used to void the previous discussion
: about the limited role of vaccine in stemming mortality due to
: infectious disease. You see, Schultzie, I have no reason to make it
: say something it doesn't.

You have no *reason* to do so, but your inability to read for comprehension
makes it inevitable that you will do so anyway. "On the other hand" is
a phrase used to contrast the content that follows with that which precedes.
In the particular case at hand, the previous sentence talked about
"medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases" and the
minimal effect that McKinlay and McKinlay attribute to those measures on
the overall decline in mortality. That means that the material that follows
is a list of measures that *did* have an impact on overall mortality,
which is why the sentence concludes with the phrase "were of major importance."

:> For what -- specifically -- were those three things of major importance?
:
: Obviously, no discussion of public health need be soley about
: mortality. Still, the statement does not quantify the individual
: effects of these measures and that is why you (stupidly) are trying to
: read more into it. No surprise there.

For what -- specifically -- were those three things of major importance?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Compared with Man, we have to admit that the insect does not display what
we can describe as intelligence. But don't feel too proud about that, because
where there is no intelligence, there is also no stupidity."
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: selection criteria for obesity
    ... That may be the direct reason, but the indirect reason is that most ... good health have a widening of the pelvis associated with a healthy ... Provided these are taken care of natural childbirth is not ... Obesity is a problem because. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Self-rated health and mortality in older men and women: A time-dependent covariate analysis
    ... Self-rated health and mortality in older men and women: ... Although the relation between self-rated health and mortality is ... SRH both as a constant and as a time-dependent covariate predicts ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: _Public Health at the Crossroads_ Redux (was Re: Awful consequences of anti-vax activity)
    ... :> interventions that were of MAJOR IMPORTANCE in reducing the mortality rate. ... it's still just 3.5% of the total decline. ... "...not the mortality from infectious diseases?" ... cited a larger passage from "Public Health at the Crossroads: ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Heres a thought
    ... would STILL come up with a reason try continue to ban smoking. ... antis are not interested in our health. ... Our local newspaper's "Sound Off" column this week was devoted to an informal man-on-the-street poll on the ban. ... "Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: Since my last note was published when I didnt want it to be lets discuss the topic rationally
    ... >>>If someone wants to be vegetarian for health or taste reason, ... someone who is infirm and whose health would ... While it is preferable to say kiddush over wine, ... Pesach (assuming wheat-free/gluten-free matzah is not available and even ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)