Re: The Anti Alts who have been here for years.

In article <d477e9a7-74bf-4aa7-8bc9-b898fd0e1dc8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:> : Schultzie has been caught changing quoted material in order to support
:> : his own arguments in a shameless display of intellectual dishonesty.
:>
:> Would you care to provide an example? ?I didn't think so. ?
:
: You misquoted the study reference in "Public Health at the Crossroads"
: cited a few years ago, using false attribution to bolster your poorly
: argued position.

This is a lie. I cut and pasted the text directly from the page as it
appeared on the amazon.com website. What happened was that *you*
continued to lie about the contents of the book *even after* I posted
a direct quotation from the text.

: I predict you will continue to do so despite the
: direct misquote. You're a liar and it's in the archives. Any reader
: can easily find this by searching on the book title above and
: including your name or mine. You placed words into quote marks that
: were *not* part of the actual text and you were spanked for it.
: Please do invite readers to do a search and see for themselves.

I assume that the reason that you didn't do the search yourself is theat
you know very well that I did not do what you accuse me of. I never quite
understood why you kept repeating this accusation even as it became
more and more obvious that you either had absolutely no understanding
of the text in question or that you were deliberately lying about its
content. If you believe that I am now misrepresenting what occurred,
feel free to post a direct reference to a post in which I "misquoted"
the book in question, and show where the text of the book differs from
what I posted. The text of the book was at the time available from the
"Look Inside" (or whatever they call it) function on the book's page
at amazon.com; I have not checked to see whether it still is or not.

[re: the "dangers of aspirin" article and PeterB's claim that I could
not find it]

:> If I couldn't find the article in question, how is it that *I* managed
:> to provide a quote from it -- and if you have read the article in question,
:> how is it that you did not recognize that I was quoting from the
:> same article?

: Forgive me, Schultzie, if I take a moment to laugh at your so-called
: "ability" to place the words of others inside of quote marks.

In other words, you no longer claim that I could not find the article
in question. And since you obviously never read it (only those parts of
it given you by your handlers), you did not realize that I was quoting
from the same article.

: You willfully misquote both me and other sources in a shameless attempt to
: refute arguments you can't take down using your own logic.

You still have to show that I misquoted the article in question, or for
that matter, any other sources.

: Don't blame me because you're stupid. I am not compelled to check you for
: accuracy or to "go see" what it is you *might* be talking about.

You misrepresented the contents of the article in question. I sent you to
the table in the article in which the information on the population measured
for risk of daily aspirin intake was described for three reasons: (1) if
you posted it yourself, you could not accuse me of lying about it; (2) to
demonstrate that you had not read the article in question; (3) to demonstrate
that you would be unwilling to provide any further evidence that you had
misrepresented the content of the article in question.

: If you are quoting a source accurately, which I doubt, bully for you.

I posted a direct quote from the article. If my quote is not accurate,
then provide an accurate quote rather than bluster and obfuscation.

: Unless you want to explicity make your argument, don't bother asking
: me to make it for you. I am only here to consider the points you
: actually make. This tactic is not very clever and probably represents
: the limits of your intellect. Let me be explicit. The reason that
: you refuse to be explicit in your own arguments is because YOU DO NOT
: HAVE ONE OR YOU CANNOT ARGUE IT. As they say in the states, ole chap
: -- Put up, or shut up.

I do have an argument. In the study that you cited, the assessment of
risk of aspirin intake was not made for the general population, but for a
specific subgroup within that population (men over 50, IIRC). The subgroup
in question is at higher risk for conditions for which daily aspirin intake
is recommended, so claiming that they are at risk from taking aspirin is
meaningless unless you can demonstrate that the increased risk from the
aspirin is greater than the *decreased* risk of other complications. I'm
not saying that it can't be done -- only that you failed to do it.

:> For what specific demographic were the risks of
:> taking aspirin reported in the study you quoted?
:
: Schultzie doesn't know, of course, and it's irrelevant anyway.
: Aspirin is OTC and anyone outside the study demographic can enter that
: demographic at any time. Duh.

I do know -- it's found in the article. If I didn't know, I wouldn't have
asked the question. The point is either that you *don't* know, or that you
do know and realize that answering the question will weaken your argument.

-----
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
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DIPHTHERIA
    ... :> study concede that the increased risk of certain bad outcomes may ... want to ride that pony, provide data on how many lives aspirin is ... I provide a direct quote from a source, and a citation to where others ... showed that the peak concentration of the metabolites occurs within 2 hours ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: On aspirin Meta study What about Plavix?
    ... Meta-analysis questions use of aspirin in primary prevention ... Oxford UK - The authors of a new meta-analysis of aspirin use in primary ... moderate level of risk for coronary heart disease. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • On aspirin Meta study What about Plavix?
    ... Meta-analysis questions use of aspirin in primary prevention ... Oxford UK - The authors of a new meta-analysis of aspirin use in primary ... moderate level of risk for coronary heart disease. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Challenge: Where is the Evidence in Evidence-based Medicine?
    ... life years are lost to the use of this drug for that purpose. ... Aspirin for reduction of mortality risk from heart attack is a good ... The evidence of benefit in primary prevention is equivocal, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: On aspirin Meta study What about Plavix?
    ... Bleeding risk for daily Plavix is greater than that for daily baby ... Meta-analysis questions use of aspirin in primary prevention ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
Loading