|
Home > Archive > Alternative health > October 2004 > Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
|
|
|
| (scroll to bottom to see what Quaxk Quack has WRONGLY and FALSELY posted on his
sicko websites)
Toxic chemicals caused Gulf War Syndrome: report
AFP
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...44,11106300%255
E31477,00.html
October 18, 2004
A US government-appointed panel has concluded that toxic chemical exposure and
not wartime stress caused neurological damage and illness suffered by many
veterans of the 1991 Gulf War, The New York Times reported Friday.
"The Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses concludes in
its draft report that 'a substantial proportion of Gulf War veterans are ill
with multisymptom conditions not explained by wartime stress or psychiatric
illness'," the daily quoted a draft report as saying.
The paper said the draft report cited a growing body of research on effects of
exposure to low levels of neurotoxins suggesting that many veterans' symptoms
have a neurological cause and that there is a "probable link" to exposure to
neurotoxins.
Among the potential sources cited were "sarin, a nerve gas, from an Iraqi
weapons depot blown up by American forces in 1991; a drug, pyridostigmine
bromide, given to troops to protect against nerve gas; and pesticides used to
protect soldiers in the region," the daily reported.
Doctor Joyce Lashof, the chair of a presidential advisory group that reported
in 1996 that there was no causal link between toxic exposure and the veterans'
symptoms, told the newspaper Thursday that she had not seen the new draft
report.
But she said she was "open to changing her views if the findings were based on
solid new research and not advocacy by veterans' groups," the Times reported.
"We certainly weren't sure that our report was the definitive answer," Lashof
told the Times. "It was based on the best evidence available at the time."
The chemicals cited in the new study belong to the group called
acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, which can cause a range of symptoms from pain
to fatigue, diarrhea and cognitive impairment. Committee members told the
Times, which obtained a copy of the draft, that one changes could be made in it
but that basic scientific findings would not change.
Some 22,000 US service men and women, out of the 700,000 who participated in
the first Gulf War, are still suffering from a host of chronic and debilitating
illnesses more than a decade after they returned from the region, according to
US officials.
"Gulf War Syndrome" is a term popularly applied to a vast range of symptoms
among veterans of the 1990-91 conflict in Iraq, from memory loss, chronic
fatigue and dizziness to swollen joints, depression and lack of concentration.
About 100,000 US troops as well as thousands of British, Canadian and French
troops who took part in the operation against Baghdad to liberate Kuwait have
reported one or more of these problems.
To date, researchers had been unable to pinpoint the cause, or causes of the
condition and there is no approved therapy to treat it.
Speculation about the origin of the illnesses has focused on the veterans'
exposure to chemical and biological agents and pesticides during the Gulf War.
Some 158,000 US troops received shots designed to protect them from the
biological warfare agents, anthrax and botulinum toxoid, for example.
A combination of behavioral therapy and graded exercise has been shown to help
sufferers of other multisymptom chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue
syndrome and fibromyalgia, prompting the Veterans Administration to explore its
benefits for veterans with Gulf War Syndrome.
=======
Quack Barrett:
Fad Diseases
People tend to assume that sensational terms represent reality. Multiple
chemical sensitivity and Gulf War syndrome are prime examples. The existence of
a name does not necessarily mean that there is a corresponding real event.
However, spurious allegations may appear plausible if associated with common
symptoms. of human existence, especially if depicted by an expert.
===
The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences has concluded
that the term "Gulf War Syndrome" is inappropriate because it implies a
singular disorder exclusive to Gulf War veterans [2,3]. Although no such
disease pattern has been found, many people are blaming Gulf War service for
cancers, birth defects, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, lupus
erythematosus, depression, and a long list of other health problems.
=====
Many veterans clearly are experiencing medical difficulties connected to their
service in the Gulf War. Continuing to provide clinical care to evaluate and
treat their service-connected illnesses is vital. However, a causal link
between a single factor and the symptoms they report remains elusive.
The most frequently reported symptoms are joint pain, fatigue, rash, and memory
loss, all of which are also common in the general adult population in the
United States.
Veterans deployed to the Gulf reported more symptoms than did other veterans.
However, no consistent laboratory or physical findings have been found in
groups with increased symptoms.
Baseline data on military populations were not available, but it appears that
the incidence of birth defects [normally about three percent of the general
population] was not different among deployed and nondeployed groups.
After the war, Gulf War veterans had higher death rates from motor vehicle
accidents and other external causes, but their death rates from all illnesses,
including infectious diseases and cancer, have been the same or lower.
Objective tests of memory, and concentration were the same or slightly lower
among Gulf War groups, but self-perceptions of memory dysfunction were greater.
[5]
====
The key question is whether stress was a significant causal factor in many of
the ill-defined Gulf War cases. The Presidential Advisory Committee concluded
that it was.
Current scientific evidence does not support a causal link between the symptoms
and illnesses reported today by Gulf War veterans and exposures while in the
Gulf region to the following environmental risk factors assessed by the
committee: pesticides, chemical warfare agents, biological warfare agents,
vaccines, pyridostigmine bromide, infectious diseases, depleted uranium,
oil-well fires and smoke, and petroleum products.
The big losers in all of this are the ailing veterans whose confusion about
what happened prevents them from getting on with their lives.
(note the word *confusion*)
Many Americans believe that exposure to common foods and chemicals makes them
ill. This book is about people who hold such beliefs but are wrong. Their
misbeliefs can be very costly-to health and/or pocketbook-not only for them,
but for employers, insurance companies, and others who pay indirectly
(protecting $$$$$$ NOT ill people)
This 220-page book spotlights the "environmental" conditions for which diet
and/or chemical exposure are falsely blamed
(more lies from books by Barrett)
Mercury-amalgam toxicity is said to be a problem for everyone with "silver"
tooth fillings. Promoters of this concept claim that significant amounts of
mercury escape from the amalgam and poison the body and can cause multiple
sclerosis and a long list of other health problems. The authors debunks these
claims and tell how the leading anti-amalgamist had his dental license revoked.
(Sue Happy's speciality, wasting taxpayers money)
Gulf War syndrome is a controversial though ill-defined condition said to
involve thousands of Gulf War veterans.
Get ready,,,,,,,,,here it comes:
Many recipients of these diagnoses wind up being financially exploited as well
as mistreated. In addition, insurance companies, employers, educational
facilities, homeowners, other taxpayers, and ultimately all citizens are being
burdened by dubious claims for disability and damages.
Go figure.
| |
| Ilena Rose 2004-10-18, 11:06 am |
| On 17 Oct 2004 21:45:55 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
What is very revealing is that Quack Barrett NEVER divulges who pays
him to write his garbage ...
His garbage on MCS was funded by ACSH who is funded by the chemical
cartel ... of course ... he refuses to admit this.
Excellent post ... thanks Jan.
| |
| Mark Probert 2004-10-18, 7:06 pm |
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in her official capacity as Director
of the DE-LICENSED Humantics Foundation, in message
news:hhl7n09c5lhsup14fb8dr9jqmructf8r22@4ax.com...
> On 17 Oct 2004 21:45:55 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
> What is very revealing is that Quack Barrett NEVER divulges who pays
> him to write his garbage ...
What is very revealing is that YOU never divulge who pays you to write and
stalk the internet. Of course, YOU claim that your De-licensed Foundation
recevies donations and you use them to benefit women. However, there is NO
PROOF.
Further, you claim to have spent your own money on helping women, but,
again, there is no proof, other than your unsupported claim.
| |
|
|
| Mark Probert 2004-10-18, 7:06 pm |
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in her official capacity as Director
of the DE-LICENSED Humantics Foundation, in message
ews:78s7n0tqt5e1ehiaodjpg4lfa09eicfk8k@4ax.com...
Her usual non response to excellent points made.
| |
|
| >Subject: Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
>From: Ilena Rose ilena@san.rr.com
>Date: 10/18/2004 6:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <hhl7n09c5lhsup14fb8dr9jqmructf8r22@4ax.com>
>
>On 17 Oct 2004 21:45:55 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>What is very revealing is that Quack Barrett NEVER divulges who pays
>him to write his garbage ...
>
>His garbage on MCS was funded by ACSH who is funded by the chemical
>cartel ... of course ... he refuses to admit this.
>
>Excellent post ... thanks Jan.
You are welcome. I doubt the *gang* will have much to say.
He's also all wet on most of his subjects.
| |
| paghat 2004-10-20, 10:06 pm |
| Stephen Barrett runs Quackwatch at the behest of Merck, the manufacturer
of ridalin, & the company that in 1914 brought us Ecstasy which also
servies the interets of youths. Quackwatch, funded by Merck & other
pharmaceutical & chemical companies, pretends to be funded only by sales
of its publications. Yeah right; like anyone would pay for that crap.
Now Quackwatch does some good work. Most herbal remedies are frauds, & the
rest of them are persistently recommended for things they cannot possibly
assist, so Barrett is usually on solid ground picking on the cretinish
herbal industry. He of course doesn't care that some small fraction of the
herbal industry is NOT fraudulant, but when he focuses his sights on
something, even just the "odds" (even without Barrett having any concern
for honesty) pretty much insures a high likelihood that the target
deserves the thrashing.
But Barrett goes further in that he doesn't sees quackery extending to
physicians, psychiatrists, & especially drug companies, in any case, ever,
under any circumstance. He has never written anything that did not
foremost serve the likes of Merck. He has put himself upfront as an expert
on ridalin not because of his hatred for herbalists but because he is a
shill for Merck.
When Barrett & Wallace Sampson's quackwatch activities were found guilty
in California courts of being "biased, and unworthy of credibility"
because of what amounted to untruthful testimony in favor of ridalin &
against non-drug treatments, the courts were understating Stevey & Wally's
degree of dishonesty. (For specifics of Barrett/Sampson dishonesty in
context, see this article:
<http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lhealthfreedom2.htm>
It's unfortunate that Barrett & Sampson types (& the tiny imitations,
Probert & TaskForce) aren't honest in their concern for public health, &
that they care very little about health frauds committed by M.D.s, Ph.D.s,
& especially by drug companies, whom they serve. These drug-company
dobermans go after chiropractors & anything labeled herbal without regard
for that tiny percentage of herbs that aren't frauds. It's a flat-out war
against any aspect of health care that is unprofitable for Merck & Eli
Lily. Concern for human health is not part of the picture.
And that's too bad because ALL aspects of healthcare need watchdogging. It
may well be that 90% of "alternate" health systems are crackpot & a vastly
smaller percentage of the actual medical community will be so fraught with
frauds & superstions, but when something bad is embraced by M.D.s &
Ph.D.s, or pursued only for the sake of profits by drug corporations, the
damage can be even greater, whether it's kids being born without arms or
kids increasingly misdiagnosed as medically ill in order to feed them
Merck products. I worked behind the scenes for years in a university
research hospital, & I can assure you, there are drunken drug-addicted
surgeons who kill people pretty regularly & the worst that can happen to
them is they get squeezed out of that hospital into another one. There are
crackpot schemes to grab drug-company funding & only one-week of research
ever started, barely enough to trump up another grant to renew the
drug-funding (I wrote the grants; I edited faked medical papers by leading
surgeons; I anymously forwarded documentation to allegedly concerned
authorities who help cover all this up because the watchdogs turn out to
be fake. A quack is not just a fake doctor but ANY doctor who perpetuates
frauds & dangerous practices, & the very name Quackwatch is a fraud
because it is not concerned with quackery in its own ranks).
Part of the Barrett/Merck campaign is to assault UseNet with
misinformation posing as individuals with personal concerns. Mark Probert
is one of these, filled with trollings, insults, & dissimiilations, but
never even trying to be factual or even moderately rational. Such shills
tend to be one-topic people who stick around for years repeating the same
lies on UseNet until they can do it by rote without even thinking, & the
lack of thought becomes increasingly evident with time. He may sound like
a lunatic but it's just a gambit with an agenda, & I am even going to tell
you why it doesn't matter that he sounds crazy & convinces nobody, because
even that is part of the game that serves Merck. I mean heck, if the
"best" argument against these rascals begins to look like Tim Bolen's
unwanted & hate-spewing nutball newsletter that arrives like a drunken
uncle you should never have bailed out of jail that first time because now
you'll never be rid of him, well hey, Merck & Quackwatch win by default.
To pick on worthless herbs is a big winner for these quackwatch types; &
to that degree they are quite right to shout Bravo when truth is told. But
to repeat in their presenced the concerns & findings of physicians &
researchers who do not support the Merck corporate profiteering & the
destruction of the souls of children, THAT truth is unforgiveable by the
same flacks who were so glad to see echinacea or ginkgo debunked.
Therefore I got a resounding "Bravo!" from jkingoff@aol.comMercury
(TaskForce 626) when I pointed out the absurdity of a specific herbal
product of no earthly value to anyone. Whatever Stephen Barrett would
like, TaskForce likes. But when the same critical & truthful eye fell to a
Merck product, TaskForce turned into a loon using dissimilating tactics in
lieu of informed discussion, echoing the behavior of Probert. Probert &/or
TaskForce are in the final analysis little cretinish versions of Barrett &
Sampson, only the usenutter tin versions couldn't score the big bucks
telling Merck's lies in court as expert witnesses declared by the judge
"unworthy of credibiolity," & are stuck with the cheezy job of cluttering
up Usenet, as unworthy of credibility as their mentors.
Now some have suggested that Probert has worked as an attorney for Merck
or for Barrett, though I find it difficult to believe he is even
employable. That he has spent years serving Merck/Berrett on Usenet is
obvioius, & if someone payed me for dinking around on usenet, I'd be
tempted too, since I'm dinking around anyway. To a degree it is a relief
to know Probert is not on the level, because it made me so sad every time
I thought of that alleged son of his kept drugged for sixteen years.
Seeing how deeply disturbed & dishonest this guy (or those guys) can be, I
can almost credit the claims that Probert is a netstalker as charged, but
I don't know the story behind these charges & the angry victims, if
victims they are, don't come off calm enough to tell the story
convincingly. Ilena documented convincingly that Probert tells lies & uses
sockpuppets, but that's just basic trolly stuff on usenet, & I don't know
how much of the rest of that stuff to believe. Even if it were all true,
I've caught Ilena making crap up from scratch, so it just looks like nut
vs nut, not stalker vs victim. The greater likelihood is that even a nut
can be victimized, but anyone promoting bad medicine is equally skanky,
whether it's misguidedly pro-Merck or misguidedly pro-Alternative. There
are lots of good drugs & a few good alternative systems; the goal should
be to assess which is which & in what circumstances.
The problem with answering lying drug-company flacks posing as usenutters
is that all too often the people who have the correct citations that
rationally question whether so many children should be drugged go much too
far & posit alternative tereatments that are purely wacka-wacka. So it
ends up looking like two sides of an argument for which both sides appear
to be lunatics. Even when nothing wacka-wacka is suggested as an
alternative, the strawdog at least is there.
This is why the Proberts of usenet don't care that they look like
hamstruck sociopaths who couldn't argue rationally if their next breath
demanded it to go on living. The important thing is to make the issue seem
absurd -- Probert is moronic & absurd & always incorrect ON PURPOSE,
hoping the other side of the argument conclude how magic beans are better.
Merck is well-served by the discussion never becoming rational, by leaving
the impression that only the most amazing crackpots on either side of the
discussion are interested.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com
| |
| Gymmy Bob 2004-10-21, 2:06 am |
| Is "ridalin" the same drug as "ritalin"?
"paghat" <paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:paghatSPAM-ME-NOT-2010041952230001@soggy72.drizzle.com...
> Stephen Barrett runs Quackwatch at the behest of Merck, the manufacturer
> of ridalin, & the company that in 1914 brought us Ecstasy which also
> servies the interets of youths. Quackwatch, funded by Merck & other
> pharmaceutical & chemical companies, pretends to be funded only by sales
> of its publications. Yeah right; like anyone would pay for that crap.
>
> Now Quackwatch does some good work. Most herbal remedies are frauds, & the
> rest of them are persistently recommended for things they cannot possibly
> assist, so Barrett is usually on solid ground picking on the cretinish
> herbal industry. He of course doesn't care that some small fraction of the
> herbal industry is NOT fraudulant, but when he focuses his sights on
> something, even just the "odds" (even without Barrett having any concern
> for honesty) pretty much insures a high likelihood that the target
> deserves the thrashing.
>
> But Barrett goes further in that he doesn't sees quackery extending to
> physicians, psychiatrists, & especially drug companies, in any case, ever,
> under any circumstance. He has never written anything that did not
> foremost serve the likes of Merck. He has put himself upfront as an expert
> on ridalin not because of his hatred for herbalists but because he is a
> shill for Merck.
>
> When Barrett & Wallace Sampson's quackwatch activities were found guilty
> in California courts of being "biased, and unworthy of credibility"
> because of what amounted to untruthful testimony in favor of ridalin &
> against non-drug treatments, the courts were understating Stevey & Wally's
> degree of dishonesty. (For specifics of Barrett/Sampson dishonesty in
> context, see this article:
> <http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lhealthfreedom2.htm>
>
> It's unfortunate that Barrett & Sampson types (& the tiny imitations,
> Probert & TaskForce) aren't honest in their concern for public health, &
> that they care very little about health frauds committed by M.D.s, Ph.D.s,
> & especially by drug companies, whom they serve. These drug-company
> dobermans go after chiropractors & anything labeled herbal without regard
> for that tiny percentage of herbs that aren't frauds. It's a flat-out war
> against any aspect of health care that is unprofitable for Merck & Eli
> Lily. Concern for human health is not part of the picture.
>
> And that's too bad because ALL aspects of healthcare need watchdogging. It
> may well be that 90% of "alternate" health systems are crackpot & a vastly
> smaller percentage of the actual medical community will be so fraught with
> frauds & superstions, but when something bad is embraced by M.D.s &
> Ph.D.s, or pursued only for the sake of profits by drug corporations, the
> damage can be even greater, whether it's kids being born without arms or
> kids increasingly misdiagnosed as medically ill in order to feed them
> Merck products. I worked behind the scenes for years in a university
> research hospital, & I can assure you, there are drunken drug-addicted
> surgeons who kill people pretty regularly & the worst that can happen to
> them is they get squeezed out of that hospital into another one. There are
> crackpot schemes to grab drug-company funding & only one-week of research
> ever started, barely enough to trump up another grant to renew the
> drug-funding (I wrote the grants; I edited faked medical papers by leading
> surgeons; I anymously forwarded documentation to allegedly concerned
> authorities who help cover all this up because the watchdogs turn out to
> be fake. A quack is not just a fake doctor but ANY doctor who perpetuates
> frauds & dangerous practices, & the very name Quackwatch is a fraud
> because it is not concerned with quackery in its own ranks).
>
> Part of the Barrett/Merck campaign is to assault UseNet with
> misinformation posing as individuals with personal concerns. Mark Probert
> is one of these, filled with trollings, insults, & dissimiilations, but
> never even trying to be factual or even moderately rational. Such shills
> tend to be one-topic people who stick around for years repeating the same
> lies on UseNet until they can do it by rote without even thinking, & the
> lack of thought becomes increasingly evident with time. He may sound like
> a lunatic but it's just a gambit with an agenda, & I am even going to tell
> you why it doesn't matter that he sounds crazy & convinces nobody, because
> even that is part of the game that serves Merck. I mean heck, if the
> "best" argument against these rascals begins to look like Tim Bolen's
> unwanted & hate-spewing nutball newsletter that arrives like a drunken
> uncle you should never have bailed out of jail that first time because now
> you'll never be rid of him, well hey, Merck & Quackwatch win by default.
>
> To pick on worthless herbs is a big winner for these quackwatch types; &
> to that degree they are quite right to shout Bravo when truth is told. But
> to repeat in their presenced the concerns & findings of physicians &
> researchers who do not support the Merck corporate profiteering & the
> destruction of the souls of children, THAT truth is unforgiveable by the
> same flacks who were so glad to see echinacea or ginkgo debunked.
>
> Therefore I got a resounding "Bravo!" from jkingoff@aol.comMercury
> (TaskForce 626) when I pointed out the absurdity of a specific herbal
> product of no earthly value to anyone. Whatever Stephen Barrett would
> like, TaskForce likes. But when the same critical & truthful eye fell to a
> Merck product, TaskForce turned into a loon using dissimilating tactics in
> lieu of informed discussion, echoing the behavior of Probert. Probert &/or
> TaskForce are in the final analysis little cretinish versions of Barrett &
> Sampson, only the usenutter tin versions couldn't score the big bucks
> telling Merck's lies in court as expert witnesses declared by the judge
> "unworthy of credibiolity," & are stuck with the cheezy job of cluttering
> up Usenet, as unworthy of credibility as their mentors.
>
> Now some have suggested that Probert has worked as an attorney for Merck
> or for Barrett, though I find it difficult to believe he is even
> employable. That he has spent years serving Merck/Berrett on Usenet is
> obvioius, & if someone payed me for dinking around on usenet, I'd be
> tempted too, since I'm dinking around anyway. To a degree it is a relief
> to know Probert is not on the level, because it made me so sad every time
> I thought of that alleged son of his kept drugged for sixteen years.
>
> Seeing how deeply disturbed & dishonest this guy (or those guys) can be, I
> can almost credit the claims that Probert is a netstalker as charged, but
> I don't know the story behind these charges & the angry victims, if
> victims they are, don't come off calm enough to tell the story
> convincingly. Ilena documented convincingly that Probert tells lies & uses
> sockpuppets, but that's just basic trolly stuff on usenet, & I don't know
> how much of the rest of that stuff to believe. Even if it were all true,
> I've caught Ilena making crap up from scratch, so it just looks like nut
> vs nut, not stalker vs victim. The greater likelihood is that even a nut
> can be victimized, but anyone promoting bad medicine is equally skanky,
> whether it's misguidedly pro-Merck or misguidedly pro-Alternative. There
> are lots of good drugs & a few good alternative systems; the goal should
> be to assess which is which & in what circumstances.
>
> The problem with answering lying drug-company flacks posing as usenutters
> is that all too often the people who have the correct citations that
> rationally question whether so many children should be drugged go much too
> far & posit alternative tereatments that are purely wacka-wacka. So it
> ends up looking like two sides of an argument for which both sides appear
> to be lunatics. Even when nothing wacka-wacka is suggested as an
> alternative, the strawdog at least is there.
>
> This is why the Proberts of usenet don't care that they look like
> hamstruck sociopaths who couldn't argue rationally if their next breath
> demanded it to go on living. The important thing is to make the issue seem
> absurd -- Probert is moronic & absurd & always incorrect ON PURPOSE,
> hoping the other side of the argument conclude how magic beans are better.
> Merck is well-served by the discussion never becoming rational, by leaving
> the impression that only the most amazing crackpots on either side of the
> discussion are interested.
>
> -paghat the ratgirl
>
> --
> "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
> "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
> -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
> Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com
| |
| Liquid Memory 2004-10-21, 2:06 am |
|
"paghat" <paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:paghatSPAM-ME-NOT-2010041952230001@soggy72.drizzle.com...
> Stephen Barrett runs Quackwatch at the behest of Merck, the manufacturer
> of ridalin, & the company that in 1914 brought us Ecstasy which also
> servies the interets of youths. Quackwatch, funded by Merck & other
> pharmaceutical & chemical companies, pretends to be funded only by sales
> of its publications. Yeah right; like anyone would pay for that crap.
>
> Now Quackwatch does some good work. Most herbal remedies are frauds,
Thats because most herbal companies hire people that can't tell one herb
from
another and they throw various herbs into one mixture not knowing what is in
the bottle. I personally deal with www.himalayausa.com for all my herbs.
They fingerprint all their herbal remedies and you get only the ingredients
listed
on the bottle.
Sorry, I snipped the rest, cause I want to make a point. If Quacks at
quackwatch are funded by Merck then of course they are going to downgrade
anything that is better than what Merck has. And FYI, guess who made
the gas that killed all those people during the Hitler years. Yep, Merck.
Liquid Memory
| |
|
| >Subject: Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
>From: paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net (paghat)
>Date: 10/20/2004 6:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <paghatSPAM-ME-NOT-2010041952230001@soggy72.drizzle.com>
Just one correct.
Andrew Kingoff quotes the quack, even though he states his usual garbage about
acupuncture.
Otherwise, you have seen right through the *gang*.
Great Post!
Jan
>tephen Barrett runs Quackwatch at the behest of Merck, the manufacturer
>of ridalin, & the company that in 1914 brought us Ecstasy which also
>servies the interets of youths. Quackwatch, funded by Merck & other
>pharmaceutical & chemical companies, pretends to be funded only by sales
>of its publications. Yeah right; like anyone would pay for that crap.
>
>Now Quackwatch does some good work. Most herbal remedies are frauds, & the
>rest of them are persistently recommended for things they cannot possibly
>assist, so Barrett is usually on solid ground picking on the cretinish
>herbal industry. He of course doesn't care that some small fraction of the
>herbal industry is NOT fraudulant, but when he focuses his sights on
>something, even just the "odds" (even without Barrett having any concern
>for honesty) pretty much insures a high likelihood that the target
>deserves the thrashing.
>
>But Barrett goes further in that he doesn't sees quackery extending to
>physicians, psychiatrists, & especially drug companies, in any case, ever,
>under any circumstance. He has never written anything that did not
>foremost serve the likes of Merck. He has put himself upfront as an expert
>on ridalin not because of his hatred for herbalists but because he is a
>shill for Merck.
>
> When Barrett & Wallace Sampson's quackwatch activities were found guilty
>in California courts of being "biased, and unworthy of credibility"
>because of what amounted to untruthful testimony in favor of ridalin &
>against non-drug treatments, the courts were understating Stevey & Wally's
>degree of dishonesty. (For specifics of Barrett/Sampson dishonesty in
>context, see this article:
><http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lhealthfreedom2.htm>
>
>It's unfortunate that Barrett & Sampson types (& the tiny imitations,
>Probert & TaskForce) aren't honest in their concern for public health, &
>that they care very little about health frauds committed by M.D.s, Ph.D.s,
>& especially by drug companies, whom they serve. These drug-company
>dobermans go after chiropractors & anything labeled herbal without regard
>for that tiny percentage of herbs that aren't frauds. It's a flat-out war
>against any aspect of health care that is unprofitable for Merck & Eli
>Lily. Concern for human health is not part of the picture.
>
>And that's too bad because ALL aspects of healthcare need watchdogging. It
>may well be that 90% of "alternate" health systems are crackpot & a vastly
>smaller percentage of the actual medical community will be so fraught with
>frauds & superstions, but when something bad is embraced by M.D.s &
>Ph.D.s, or pursued only for the sake of profits by drug corporations, the
>damage can be even greater, whether it's kids being born without arms or
>kids increasingly misdiagnosed as medically ill in order to feed them
>Merck products. I worked behind the scenes for years in a university
>research hospital, & I can assure you, there are drunken drug-addicted
>surgeons who kill people pretty regularly & the worst that can happen to
>them is they get squeezed out of that hospital into another one. There are
>crackpot schemes to grab drug-company funding & only one-week of research
>ever started, barely enough to trump up another grant to renew the
>drug-funding (I wrote the grants; I edited faked medical papers by leading
>surgeons; I anymously forwarded documentation to allegedly concerned
>authorities who help cover all this up because the watchdogs turn out to
>be fake. A quack is not just a fake doctor but ANY doctor who perpetuates
>frauds & dangerous practices, & the very name Quackwatch is a fraud
>because it is not concerned with quackery in its own ranks).
>
>Part of the Barrett/Merck campaign is to assault UseNet with
>misinformation posing as individuals with personal concerns. Mark Probert
>is one of these, filled with trollings, insults, & dissimiilations, but
>never even trying to be factual or even moderately rational. Such shills
>tend to be one-topic people who stick around for years repeating the same
>lies on UseNet until they can do it by rote without even thinking, & the
>lack of thought becomes increasingly evident with time. He may sound like
>a lunatic but it's just a gambit with an agenda, & I am even going to tell
>you why it doesn't matter that he sounds crazy & convinces nobody, because
>even that is part of the game that serves Merck. I mean heck, if the
>"best" argument against these rascals begins to look like Tim Bolen's
>unwanted & hate-spewing nutball newsletter that arrives like a drunken
>uncle you should never have bailed out of jail that first time because now
>you'll never be rid of him, well hey, Merck & Quackwatch win by default.
>
>To pick on worthless herbs is a big winner for these quackwatch types; &
>to that degree they are quite right to shout Bravo when truth is told. But
>to repeat in their presenced the concerns & findings of physicians &
>researchers who do not support the Merck corporate profiteering & the
>destruction of the souls of children, THAT truth is unforgiveable by the
>same flacks who were so glad to see echinacea or ginkgo debunked.
>
>Therefore I got a resounding "Bravo!" from jkingoff@aol.comMercury
>(TaskForce 626) when I pointed out the absurdity of a specific herbal
>product of no earthly value to anyone. Whatever Stephen Barrett would
>like, TaskForce likes. But when the same critical & truthful eye fell to a
>Merck product, TaskForce turned into a loon using dissimilating tactics in
>lieu of informed discussion, echoing the behavior of Probert. Probert &/or
>TaskForce are in the final analysis little cretinish versions of Barrett &
>Sampson, only the usenutter tin versions couldn't score the big bucks
>telling Merck's lies in court as expert witnesses declared by the judge
>"unworthy of credibiolity," & are stuck with the cheezy job of cluttering
>up Usenet, as unworthy of credibility as their mentors.
>
>Now some have suggested that Probert has worked as an attorney for Merck
>or for Barrett, though I find it difficult to believe he is even
>employable. That he has spent years serving Merck/Berrett on Usenet is
>obvioius, & if someone payed me for dinking around on usenet, I'd be
>tempted too, since I'm dinking around anyway. To a degree it is a relief
>to know Probert is not on the level, because it made me so sad every time
>I thought of that alleged son of his kept drugged for sixteen years.
>
>Seeing how deeply disturbed & dishonest this guy (or those guys) can be, I
>can almost credit the claims that Probert is a netstalker as charged, but
>I don't know the story behind these charges & the angry victims, if
>victims they are, don't come off calm enough to tell the story
>convincingly. Ilena documented convincingly that Probert tells lies & uses
>sockpuppets, but that's just basic trolly stuff on usenet, & I don't know
>how much of the rest of that stuff to believe. Even if it were all true,
>I've caught Ilena making crap up from scratch, so it just looks like nut
>vs nut, not stalker vs victim. The greater likelihood is that even a nut
>can be victimized, but anyone promoting bad medicine is equally skanky,
>whether it's misguidedly pro-Merck or misguidedly pro-Alternative. There
>are lots of good drugs & a few good alternative systems; the goal should
>be to assess which is which & in what circumstances.
>
>The problem with answering lying drug-company flacks posing as usenutters
>is that all too often the people who have the correct citations that
>rationally question whether so many children should be drugged go much too
>far & posit alternative tereatments that are purely wacka-wacka. So it
>ends up looking like two sides of an argument for which both sides appear
>to be lunatics. Even when nothing wacka-wacka is suggested as an
>alternative, the strawdog at least is there.
>
>This is why the Proberts of usenet don't care that they look like
>hamstruck sociopaths who couldn't argue rationally if their next breath
>demanded it to go on living. The important thing is to make the issue seem
>absurd -- Probert is moronic & absurd & always incorrect ON PURPOSE,
>hoping the other side of the argument conclude how magic beans are better.
>Merck is well-served by the discussion never becoming rational, by leaving
>the impression that only the most amazing crackpots on either side of the
>discussion are interested.
>
>-paghat the ratgirl
>
>--
>"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
>"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
> -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
>Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Mark Probert 2004-10-21, 11:06 am |
| Yes, but the OP cannot seem to spell it correctly even after I provided the
correct spelling. These are other errors that can be pointed out.
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:Q6GdncOiHpuosurcRVn-sQ@golden.net...
> Is "ridalin" the same drug as "ritalin"?
>
> "paghat" <paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:paghatSPAM-ME-NOT-2010041952230001@soggy72.drizzle.com...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
possibly[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
ever,[vbcol=seagreen]
expert[vbcol=seagreen]
guilty[vbcol=seagreen]
Wally's[vbcol=seagreen]
Ph.D.s,[vbcol=seagreen]
regard[vbcol=seagreen]
war[vbcol=seagreen]
It[vbcol=seagreen]
vastly[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
are[vbcol=seagreen]
research[vbcol=seagreen]
leading[vbcol=seagreen]
perpetuates[vbcol=seagreen]
Probert[vbcol=seagreen]
same[vbcol=seagreen]
like[vbcol=seagreen]
tell[vbcol=seagreen]
because[vbcol=seagreen]
now[vbcol=seagreen]
But[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
&/or[vbcol=seagreen]
&[vbcol=seagreen]
cluttering[vbcol=seagreen]
time[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
but[vbcol=seagreen]
uses[vbcol=seagreen]
know[vbcol=seagreen]
usenutters[vbcol=seagreen]
too[vbcol=seagreen]
appear[vbcol=seagreen]
seem[vbcol=seagreen]
better.[vbcol=seagreen]
leaving[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
| |
| Mark Probert 2004-10-21, 11:06 am |
| Perpetual trouble maker post.
"Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041021015948.01064.00001756@mb-m26.aol.com...
>
> Just one correct.
>
> Andrew Kingoff quotes the quack, even though he states his usual garbage
about
> acupuncture.
>
> Otherwise, you have seen right through the *gang*.
>
> Great Post!
>
> Jan
>
the[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
ever,[vbcol=seagreen]
expert[vbcol=seagreen]
Wally's[vbcol=seagreen]
Ph.D.s,[vbcol=seagreen]
It[vbcol=seagreen]
vastly[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
are[vbcol=seagreen]
leading[vbcol=seagreen]
like[vbcol=seagreen]
tell[vbcol=seagreen]
because[vbcol=seagreen]
now[vbcol=seagreen]
But[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
&/or[vbcol=seagreen]
&[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
uses[vbcol=seagreen]
too[vbcol=seagreen]
seem[vbcol=seagreen]
better.[vbcol=seagreen]
leaving[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
| |
| Ilena Rose 2004-10-21, 11:06 am |
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:52:23 -0700, paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net
(paghat) wrote:
> Even if it were all true,
>I've caught Ilena making crap up from scratch,
Could you please share what crap you believe I made up from scratch?
Thanks.
| |
| Ilena Rose 2004-10-21, 11:06 am |
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:52:23 -0700, paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net
(paghat) wrote:
>To a degree it is a relief
>to know Probert is not on the level, because it made me so sad every time
>I thought of that alleged son of his kept drugged for sixteen years.
Well said.
| |
| Ilena Rose 2004-10-21, 11:06 am |
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:52:23 -0700, paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net
(paghat) wrote:
>There
>are lots of good drugs & a few good alternative systems; the goal should
>be to assess which is which & in what circumstances.
Exactly.
| |
| paghat 2004-10-21, 11:06 am |
| In article <esefn09i565ks75jjasvb9a5ah6bi8ttda@4ax.com>, Ilena Rose
<ilena@san.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:52:23 -0700, paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net
> (paghat) wrote:
>
>
>
> Could you please share what crap you believe I made up from scratch?
>
> Thanks.
The very first post of yours I ever read alleged things about headers of
some commentator you disagreed with, so that you could charge someone with
sockpuppet activity. Your misepresentation of the headers were either a
delusion or a lie. It didn't seem possible that you were just being
paranoid because you misrepresented what the headers stated; of the two
possibilities, that you're paranoid or a liar, I chose liar as the most
probable explanation for the misrepresentation. SInced that was my very
first exposure to your methods, I've taken everything else you say with a
big grain of salt.
You'll be called a liar by the likes of Probert even if you always tell
the truth. But if you WOULD always tell the truth, the maniac ravings of a
drug company shill will not fool the rest of us. Sure, it's frustrating
when dishonest people lie their asses off against you, but if you adopt
their tactic of dishonesty, your credibility ceases to outshine theirs.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com
| |
| Ilena Rose 2004-10-21, 11:06 am |
| On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:20:15 -0700, paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net
(paghat) wrote:
> Your misepresentation of the headers were either a
>delusion or a lie.
I truly have no idea what you are talking about ... and believe you
have made an error in judgement about me.
After 9 years of speaking out on Usenet as to the dangers of breast
implants ... I've had plenty of experience tracking headers of my
"critics" ... if you can give me an example where I was lying, I'll
certain re-research it to "upgrade" my opinion ... if you think I was
"deluded" ... I'll admit to it if I can see that I was.
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
| |
| Nana Weedkiller 2004-10-21, 11:06 am |
|
"paghat" <paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:paghatSPAM-ME-NOT-2010041952230001@soggy72.drizzle.com...
> Stephen Barrett runs Quackwatch at the behest of Merck, the manufacturer
> of ridalin, & the company that in 1914 brought us Ecstasy which also
> servies the interets of youths. Quackwatch, funded by Merck & other
> pharmaceutical & chemical companies, pretends to be funded only by sales
> of its publications. Yeah right; like anyone would pay for that crap.
>
LOL!
Hot damn, paggers, it's good to see your writing again!
--
LadyNi--pulling up a comfy chair
| |
| James Drew 2004-10-21, 7:06 pm |
| >Stephen Barrett runs Quackwatch at the behest of Merck, the manufacturer
>of ridalin,
Firstly, there is no such thing as "ridalin". You might as well be talking
about pixie dust.
Secondly, I think Dr Stephen Barrett runs Quackwatch at the behest of ....[wait
for it....] Dr Stephen Barrett! It appears, from all accounts, that Barrett is
the one who started the wholesome QuackWatch.Org website and is still calling
the shots.
No puppetteering necessary.
Now, go re-read Joe Parson's Ritalin Faq. I'll save the bandwidth because I
know you've me post it and I suspect you've printed out copies to make
flash-cards, cliff-notes, and inspirational messages.
| |
| Peter Bowditch 2004-10-21, 7:06 pm |
| >"paghat" <paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net> wrote in message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:paghatSPAM-ME-NOT-2010041952230001@soggy72.drizzle.com...
You would have some evidence of Merck being the manufacturer of
Ritalin, I suppose.
By the way, the misspelling of Ritalin is getting a bit old.
--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud
http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
| |
| Ilena Rose 2004-10-21, 7:06 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:54:33 GMT, Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> w
I was doing a little research for a webpage to counter the lies that
Nidiffer is spreading currently ... and found that you claim that the
Ragtag Posse has been around since 2000 ...
However, it seems that it was just formed and advertised as of the end
of July, 2001 ... just days after all 3 Plaintiffs LOST to me in
Superior Court ...
Seems quite a coinkydink ...
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#RagtagPosse
| |
| Boyd Haley 2004-10-21, 10:06 pm |
| >>"paghat" <paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
>You would have some evidence of Merck being the manufacturer of
>Ritalin, I suppose.
Oh, Peter, if you expect such evidence to be on the Internet.......!
<ultra sarcasm, for the humor impaired>
>By the way, the misspelling of Ritalin is getting a bit old.
Pag's unwillingness to read, heed, and unconditionally accept Joe Parson's
Ritalin FAQ is becoming quite tedious, as well.
>--
>Peter Bowditch
| |
| Boyd Haley 2004-10-21, 10:06 pm |
| >On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:54:33 GMT, Peter Bowditch
><myfirstname@ratbags.com> w
>
>
>I was doing a little research for a webpage to counter the lies that
>Nidiffer is spreading currently ... and found that you claim that the
>Ragtag Posse has been around since 2000 ...
>
>However, it seems that it was just formed and advertised as of the end
>of July, 2001 ... just days after all 3 Plaintiffs LOST to me in
>Superior Court ...
>
>Seems quite a coinkydink ...
Firstly, the "Ragtag Posse" is just another name for the Iluminati. We've
existed under many names since the dawning of civilization. Secondly, you
yourself refered to the "Ragtag Posse" on the date of May 13th, 2001. Notice
that Randy Barrett, whom you cite, mentions then on July 17, 2000.
Some coinkydink. More like a coinky-ditz whose delisted support group has let
its business license expire.
From: Ilena Rose (ilena@san.rr.com)
Subject: Joel ... apparently just another of the Ragtag Posse of Snake Oil
Vigilantes.
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
Date: 2001-05-13 13:16:36 PST
Joel ... you posted a threat of litigation against Ms Drew claiming she
libeled you.
You have refused to post what specifically she has claimed about you, that
is not her opinion, but is a false fact about you.
Please do so ... if you refuse, you are just revealing you are using Bully
tactics learned from the HealthFraud "Ragtag Posse of Snake Oil
Vigilantes."
FTC's Quack Attack
By Randy Barrett, Inter@ctive Week
July 17, 2000 3:58 AM PT
URL: http://www.healthwatcher.net/index.html
"A rag-tag posse of snake-oil vigilantes occasionally helps identify
culprits and even contributes to
investigations. Quackwatch's Barrett falls into this category."
>www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#RagtagPosse
>
| |
| Gymmy Bob 2004-10-21, 10:06 pm |
| Secondly, you are full of shit. Do a Google for "ridalin" and see what the
pharmaceutical companies have to say about your denial.
"James Drew" <jkingoff@aol.comNoSpam> wrote in message
news:20041021155748.05268.00001777@mb-m23.aol.com...
>
> Firstly, there is no such thing as "ridalin". You might as well be
talking
> about pixie dust.
>
> Secondly, I think Dr Stephen Barrett runs Quackwatch at the behest of
.....[wait
> for it....] Dr Stephen Barrett! It appears, from all accounts, that
Barrett is
> the one who started the wholesome QuackWatch.Org website and is still
calling
> the shots.
>
> No puppetteering necessary.
>
> Now, go re-read Joe Parson's Ritalin Faq. I'll save the bandwidth because
I
> know you've me post it and I suspect you've printed out copies to make
> flash-cards, cliff-notes, and inspirational messages.
| |
| Boyd Haley 2004-10-21, 10:06 pm |
| >Secondly, you are full of shit.
That is only true when you address your mirror.
> Do a Google for "ridalin" and see what the
>pharmaceutical companies have to say about your denial.
Ok, here's the results of a Web search:
Results 1 - 1 of 1 for ridalin denial pharmaceutical
Keppig
Going back to how your wife feels about you on meds, I want to share a story of
my ex. When Scott, my children's father, was diagnosed with ADHD and they put
him on Ridalin, I was just as scared as your wife is. My issues was things
changing from what I was used to and also a fear that if he came to his senses
he might realize that he doesn't want to be with me.
What I found out was that most doctors in the USA put you on the lowest meds at
first and gradually increase it. For many ADDers are sensitive so some only
need alittle. I, myself, only take 5 mg of Ridalin and it does so much much for
me.
Tell her that. The meds will help clear your mind but it won't change you. She
might be thrilled that you can actually pay attention to her more. That you
don't drift off in conversation. You don't get frustrated so much. All positive
things.
Having your wife asking your doctor questions might help ease her mind, it
shows her thoughts are being listen too.
Paul, I wish you the best. I also wish I wasn't such a worry wort when I was
married to Scott. It was a hard thing for him... as it is for you now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Now, for a Google Groups search:
Your search - ridalin denial pharmaceutical - did not match any documents
--------------------
Now, for Merck producing Ridalin or Ritalin, survey says "ZERO"
Novartis produces it, formerly Ciba-Geigy. The notion that Dr Barrett is
pushing "ridalin" at the behest of Merck is just another Bag O'Steamin' Feces.
You should be quite comfortable with that, Gymmie.
>"James Drew" <jkingoff@aol.comNoSpam> wrote in message
>news:20041021155748.05268.00001777@mb-m23.aol.com...
>talking
>....[wait
>Barrett is
>calling
>I
>
>
>
| |
| Ilena Rose 2004-10-21, 10:06 pm |
| On 22 Oct 2004 00:33:36 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Boyd Haley)
wrote:
>Firstly, the "Ragtag Posse" is just another name for the Iluminati. We've
>existed under many names since the dawning of civilization. Secondly, you
>yourself refered to the "Ragtag Posse" on the date of May 13th, 2001. Notice
>that Randy Barrett, whom you cite, mentions then on July 17, 2000.
I was quoting him ... not talking about the site Barrett/Ratz put up
.... they got the idea from the article ... as always ... you're upside
down and backwards
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#RagtagPosse
| |
| Peter Bowditch 2004-10-22, 2:06 am |
| Ilena Rose <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote:
>On 22 Oct 2004 00:33:36 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Boyd Haley)
>wrote:
>
>
>
>I was quoting him ... not talking about the site Barrett/Ratz put up
>... they got the idea from the article ... as always ... you're upside
>down and backwards
>
>www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#RagtagPosse
According to a unanimous vote of Windows Explorer and FrontPage, the
image of Bat Masterson, Wyatt Earp et al which appears on the front
page of the Rag-tag Posse site was last updated on my computer on July
21, 2000. This makes that date the latest date on which the site could
have been first created. I have emails dated the same date where
people were asking to be included in the list.
--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud
http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
| |
|
| >>On 22 Oct 2004 00:33:36 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Boyd Haley)
Dr Boyd Haley has been notified.
| |
| Peter Bowditch 2004-10-22, 2:06 am |
| jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>
>Dr Boyd Haley has been notified.
Notified about what? Andrew is just truthfully calling himself _Boy_
who _D_id _H_is _A_cupuncture _L_ectures in _E_arlier _Y_ears. You
were the one who called Andrew "Boy", and Dr Haley surely understands
that words are just acronyms.
Do you think it is offensive to refer to autism as "mad child
disease"?
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud
http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
| |
|
| >Subject: Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
>From: Peter Bowditch myfirstname@ratbags.com
>Date: 10/21/2004 10:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <5j8hn0hluege5v23p9d75ctl85bb5c85fd@4ax.com>
>
>jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>
>Notified about what
Impersonation.
>Andrew is just truthfully
Andrew Kingoff is one despicable liar and trouble maker.
I also talked with AOL, who is taking immediate action.
He pulls this unlawful act again, his service is terminated.
>Dr Haley surely understands
>that words are just acronyms.
Words aren't the issue. Impersonating is.
The fact you condone his filth, tells all.
However, you did display an excellent example of just how low you are, and an
example of how you write your disgusting lying websites.
Peter, the deceiver.
Defending the mouth of Andrew Kingoff.
<snip lies and spam>
Jan
| |
|
| >From: Peter Bowditch
BTW. Quack Barrett's *OPINION* Exposed.
He owes even signle person who has GWS an apology, and should be strung upside
down for his part is thier not receiving the benefits well deserved.
He is a despicable sorry excuse for a human being.
Just as you are.
(scroll to bottom to see what Quack Quack has WRONGLY and FALSELY posted on his
sicko websites)
DECEIVING while claiming to protect the public.
That's E V I L.
Toxic chemicals caused Gulf War Syndrome: report
AFP
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...44,11106300%255
E31477,00.html
October 18, 2004
A US government-appointed panel has concluded that toxic chemical exposure and
not wartime stress caused neurological damage and illness suffered by many
veterans of the 1991 Gulf War, The New York Times reported Friday.
"The Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses concludes in
its draft report that 'a substantial proportion of Gulf War veterans are ill
with multisymptom conditions not explained by wartime stress or psychiatric
illness'," the daily quoted a draft report as saying.
The paper said the draft report cited a growing body of research on effects of
exposure to low levels of neurotoxins suggesting that many veterans' symptoms
have a neurological cause and that there is a "probable link" to exposure to
neurotoxins.
Among the potential sources cited were "sarin, a nerve gas, from an Iraqi
weapons depot blown up by American forces in 1991; a drug, pyridostigmine
bromide, given to troops to protect against nerve gas; and pesticides used to
protect soldiers in the region," the daily reported.
Doctor Joyce Lashof, the chair of a presidential advisory group that reported
in 1996 that there was no causal link between toxic exposure and the veterans'
symptoms, told the newspaper Thursday that she had not seen the new draft
report.
But she said she was "open to changing her views if the findings were based on
solid new research and not advocacy by veterans' groups," the Times reported.
"We certainly weren't sure that our report was the definitive answer," Lashof
told the Times. "It was based on the best evidence available at the time."
The chemicals cited in the new study belong to the group called
acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, which can cause a range of symptoms from pain
to fatigue, diarrhea and cognitive impairment. Committee members told the
Times, which obtained a copy of the draft, that one changes could be made in it
but that basic scientific findings would not change.
Some 22,000 US service men and women, out of the 700,000 who participated in
the first Gulf War, are still suffering from a host of chronic and debilitating
illnesses more than a decade after they returned from the region, according to
US officials.
"Gulf War Syndrome" is a term popularly applied to a vast range of symptoms
among veterans of the 1990-91 conflict in Iraq, from memory loss, chronic
fatigue and dizziness to swollen joints, depression and lack of concentration.
About 100,000 US troops as well as thousands of British, Canadian and French
troops who took part in the operation against Baghdad to liberate Kuwait have
reported one or more of these problems.
To date, researchers had been unable to pinpoint the cause, or causes of the
condition and there is no approved therapy to treat it.
Speculation about the origin of the illnesses has focused on the veterans'
exposure to chemical and biological agents and pesticides during the Gulf War.
Some 158,000 US troops received shots designed to protect them from the
biological warfare agents, anthrax and botulinum toxoid, for example.
A combination of behavioral therapy and graded exercise has been shown to help
sufferers of other multisymptom chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue
syndrome and fibromyalgia, prompting the Veterans Administration to explore its
benefits for veterans with Gulf War Syndrome.
=======
Quack Barrett:
Fad Diseases
People tend to assume that sensational terms represent reality. Multiple
chemical sensitivity and Gulf War syndrome are prime examples. The existence of
a name does not necessarily mean that there is a corresponding real event.
However, spurious allegations may appear plausible if associated with common
symptoms. of human existence, especially if depicted by an expert.
===
The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences has concluded
that the term "Gulf War Syndrome" is inappropriate because it implies a
singular disorder exclusive to Gulf War veterans [2,3]. Although no such
disease pattern has been found, many people are blaming Gulf War service for
cancers, birth defects, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, lupus
erythematosus, depression, and a long list of other health problems.
=====
Many veterans clearly are experiencing medical difficulties connected to their
service in the Gulf War. Continuing to provide clinical care to evaluate and
treat their service-connected illnesses is vital. However, a causal link
between a single factor and the symptoms they report remains elusive.
The most frequently reported symptoms are joint pain, fatigue, rash, and memory
loss, all of which are also common in the general adult population in the
United States.
Veterans deployed to the Gulf reported more symptoms than did other veterans.
However, no consistent laboratory or physical findings have been found in
groups with increased symptoms.
Baseline data on military populations were not available, but it appears that
the incidence of birth defects [normally about three percent of the general
population] was not different among deployed and nondeployed groups.
After the war, Gulf War veterans had higher death rates from motor vehicle
accidents and other external causes, but their death rates from all illnesses,
including infectious diseases and cancer, have been the same or lower.
Objective tests of memory, and concentration were the same or slightly lower
among Gulf War groups, but self-perceptions of memory dysfunction were greater.
[5]
====
The key question is whether stress was a significant causal factor in many of
the ill-defined Gulf War cases. The Presidential Advisory Committee concluded
that it was.
Current scientific evidence does not support a causal link between the symptoms
and illnesses reported today by Gulf War veterans and exposures while in the
Gulf region to the following environmental risk factors assessed by the
committee: pesticides, chemical warfare agents, biological warfare agents,
vaccines, pyridostigmine bromide, infectious diseases, depleted uranium,
oil-well fires and smoke, and petroleum products.
The big losers in all of this are the ailing veterans whose confusion about
what happened prevents them from getting on with their lives.
(note the word *confusion*)
Many Americans believe that exposure to common foods and chemicals makes them
ill. This book is about people who hold such beliefs but are wrong. Their
misbeliefs can be very costly-to health and/or pocketbook-not only for them,
but for employers, insurance companies, and others who pay indirectly
(protecting $$$$$$ NOT ill people)
This 220-page book spotlights the "environmental" conditions for which diet
and/or chemical exposure are falsely blamed
(more lies from books by Barrett)
Mercury-amalgam toxicity is said to be a problem for everyone with "silver"
tooth fillings. Promoters of this concept claim that significant amounts of
mercury escape from the amalgam and poison the body and can cause multiple
sclerosis and a long list of other health problems. The authors debunks these
claims and tell how the leading anti-amalgamist had his dental license revoked.
(Sue Happy's speciality, wasting taxpayers money)
Gulf War syndrome is a controversial though ill-defined condition said to
involve thousands of Gulf War veterans.
Get ready,,,,,,,,,here it comes:
Many recipients of these diagnoses wind up being financially exploited as well
as mistreated. In addition, insurance companies, employers, educational
facilities, homeowners, other taxpayers, and ultimately all citizens are being
burdened by dubious claims for disability and damages.
Go figure.
| |
| Peter Bowditch 2004-10-22, 7:06 am |
| jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>Impersonation.
It is not necessary to provide an answer for what is obviously a
rhetorical question.
>
>Andrew Kingoff is one despicable liar and trouble maker.
>
>I also talked with AOL, who is taking immediate action.
>
>He pulls this unlawful act again, his service is terminated.
Jan forgot to mention that she snipped a joke here. Joke. Joke. Joke.
>
>Words aren't the issue. Impersonating is.
>
>The fact you condone his filth, tells all.
Convention has it that a pronoun usually refers to the immediately
preceding relevant noun. Does the "his" in your last sentence refer to
Dr Haley's filth? It sure reads that way.
>However, you did display an excellent example of just how low you are, and an
>example of how you write your disgusting lying websites.
Do you mean that I write my "disgusting lying websites" in a witty
manner? I thought you had a sense of humour.
>Peter, the deceiver.
Facts not in evidence.
>Defending the mouth of Andrew Kingoff.
Isn't it sad that someone cannot appreciate a joke? I realise that the
joke wasn't as funny as a turd sandwich, but it wasn't the worst joke
I had heard this week. (That was some chemist saying that when you
call autistic kids "mad" you are just acronymising.)
>
><snip lies and spam>
Here are the "lies" that Jan snipped:
Do you think it is offensive to refer to autism as "mad child
disease"?
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
Lies? Lies? How can a question be a lie?
>Jan
--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud
http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
| |
| Mark Probert 2004-10-22, 11:06 am |
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:esefn09i565ks75jjasvb9a5ah6bi8ttda@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:52:23 -0700, paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net
> (paghat) wrote:
>
>
>
> Could you please share what crap you believe I made up from scratch?
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http:/...istprobert.html
| |
| Mark Probert 2004-10-22, 11:06 am |
|
"paghat" <paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:paghatSPAM-ME-NOT-2110040820150001@soggy72.drizzle.com...
> In article <esefn09i565ks75jjasvb9a5ah6bi8ttda@4ax.com>, Ilena Rose
> <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> The very first post of yours I ever read alleged things about headers of
> some commentator you disagreed with, so that you could charge someone with
> sockpuppet activity. Your misepresentation of the headers were either a
> delusion or a lie. It didn't seem possible that you were just being
> paranoid because you misrepresented what the headers stated; of the two
> possibilities, that you're paranoid or a liar, I chose liar as the most
> probable explanation for the misrepresentation. SInced that was my very
> first exposure to your methods, I've taken everything else you say with a
> big grain of salt.
Smart, very smart.
> You'll be called a liar by the likes of Probert even if you always tell
> the truth.
Wrong. Very wrong.
But if you WOULD always tell the truth, the maniac ravings of a
> drug company shill
Wrong, very wrong.
| |
| Mark Probert 2004-10-22, 11:06 am |
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:shlfn0pqrj8cdm4q463e124srtgumjldhp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:20:15 -0700, paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net
> (paghat) wrote:
>
>
>
> I truly have no idea what you are talking about ... and believe you
> have made an error in judgement about me.
>
> After 9 years of speaking out on Usenet as to the dangers of breast
> implants ... I've had plenty of experience tracking headers of my
> "critics" ... if you can give me an example where I was lying, I'll
> certain re-research it to "upgrade" my opinion ... if you think I was
> "deluded" ... I'll admit to it if I can see that I was.
>
> www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
Better:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http:/...istprobert.html
| |
| Mark Probert 2004-10-22, 11:06 am |
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:q9qgn0l28vm631mfh1281ja0cfo7kqpm9n@4ax.com...
> On 22 Oct 2004 00:33:36 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Boyd Haley)
> wrote:
>
We've[vbcol=seagreen]
you[vbcol=seagreen]
Notice[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> I was quoting him ... not talking about the site Barrett/Ratz put up
> ... they got the idea from the article ... as always ... you're upside
> down and backwards
>
> www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#RagtagPosse
Wrong, backpedaler!
Here is the first page:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http:/...se/whoarewe.htm
September 2000.
| |
| Mark Probert 2004-10-22, 11:06 am |
|
"Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041022001212.24921.00003398@mb-m20.aol.com...
>
>
> Dr Boyd Haley has been notified.
Which one? The one in Bloomington or the one in Little Rock:
HALEY, BOYD
S Rogers St
Bloomington, IN 47403
XXX-XXX-YYYY
HALEY, BOYD
Warwick Rd
Little Rock, AR 72205
SSS-TTT-TTTT
So, which is it, Jan????
You are such a little fascist.
(Please repost)
| |
|
|
| Rich.@. 2004-10-22, 11:06 am |
| On 22 Oct 2004 06:52:19 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>He owes even signle person who has GWS an apology, and should be strung upside
>down for his part is thier not receiving the benefits well deserved.
Judge not, lest you be judged.
Aloha,
Rich
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
The best defense to logic is ignorance
| |
| Mark Probert 2004-10-22, 11:06 am |
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aa8in09ngo37ol8ee27ch474gl509mja1l@4ax.com...
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?num...htm&btnG=Search
>
> The advertising on Usenet for this Quack group was first mentioned
> right BEFORE not right AFTER the Quacks lost to me in Superior Court
> ...
>
> Even the Quacks can't be wrong all the time ... after 4 years ...
> "Marla" and Ratz finally got something right!
>
> Take your bows boys!
Nope, take yours. I always give credit where credit is due.
If I had wagered money as to whether you would acknowledge your error
pointed out by me, I would have lost.
> www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html
Like her six webpages show, I use my name, or some very easy torecognize
variant. Even when I used an annonymized name, I posted it first with my
real name. You see, I know htis woman's perfidy, and wanted to ensure that
she could not whine about it without looking like the jerk she is.
| |
| Boyd Haley 2004-10-22, 7:06 pm |
| >On 22 Oct 2004 00:33:36 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Boyd Haley)
>wrote:
>
>Notice
>
>
>I was quoting him ... not talking about the site Barrett/Ratz put up
>... they got the idea from the article ... as always ... you're upside
>down and backwards
>
>www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#RagtagPosse
>
The long and the short of it is that YOU, Ilena, are wrong & I am right.
Make a note of it.
| |
| Boyd Haley 2004-10-22, 7:06 pm |
| >>>On 22 Oct 2004 00:33:36 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Boyd Haley)
>
>
>Dr Boyd Haley has been notified.
Excellent! Notify Dr Jerome, Hulda Clark, and Dr Wilson, who remains on staff.
| |
| Boyd Haley 2004-10-22, 7:06 pm |
| >>Subject: Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
>
>Impersonation.
>
>
>Andrew Kingoff is one despicable liar and trouble maker.
>
>I also talked with AOL, who is taking immediate action.
>
>He pulls this unlawful act again, his service is terminated.
>
I'm sure that you realize your preceding statement is a LIE. I'm still here,
Jan, and there ain't nothin' you can do to stop me.
No, wait, that's the AOL strikeforce at my door!!! Egad, they are serving me a
notice to log off! They have now cut off the electricity, water, phone, and
cable from my office! I'm offline!
q578q2o5iosfpa(*&@$(!^$(!&#$0)
<No Carrier>...............
| |
| Paghat the Ratite 2004-10-22, 7:06 pm |
| >jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>
>Notified about what? Andrew is just truthfully calling himself _Boy_
>who _D_id _H_is _A_cupuncture _L_ectures in _E_arlier _Y_ears. You
>were the one who called Andrew "Boy", and Dr Haley surely understands
>that words are just acronyms.
>
Quite right, St Pete. My current Acronym is Paghat. It stands for Petulence
Against Gassy, Heinous, XXX-Clownish Twits.
| |
|
|
| Ilena Rose 2004-10-22, 7:06 pm |
| On 22 Oct 2004 19:25:00 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Paghat the
Ratite) wrote:
>
>Quite right, St Pete. My current Acronym is Paghat. It stands for Petulence
>Against Gassy, Heinous, XXX-Clownish Twits.
You represent Barrett & Polevoy so well ..
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andyspossse.htm#ragtagPosse
| |
|
| >Subject: Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
>From: paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net (paghat)
>Date: 10/20/2004 6:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <paghatSPAM-ME-NOT-2010041952230001@soggy72.drizzle.com>
Just one correct.
Andrew Kingoff quotes the quack, even though he states his usual garbage about
acupuncture.
Otherwise, you have seen right through the *gang*.
Great Post!
Jan
>tephen Barrett runs Quackwatch at the behest of Merck, the manufacturer
>of ridalin, & the company that in 1914 brought us Ecstasy which also
>servies the interets of youths. Quackwatch, funded by Merck & other
>pharmaceutical & chemical companies, pretends to be funded only by sales
>of its publications. Yeah right; like anyone would pay for that crap.
>
>Now Quackwatch does some good work. Most herbal remedies are frauds, & the
>rest of them are persistently recommended for things they cannot possibly
>assist, so Barrett is usually on solid ground picking on the cretinish
>herbal industry. He of course doesn't care that some small fraction of the
>herbal industry is NOT fraudulant, but when he focuses his sights on
>something, even just the "odds" (even without Barrett having any concern
>for honesty) pretty much insures a high likelihood that the target
>deserves the thrashing.
>
>But Barrett goes further in that he doesn't sees quackery extending to
>physicians, psychiatrists, & especially drug companies, in any case, ever,
>under any circumstance. He has never written anything that did not
>foremost serve the likes of Merck. He has put himself upfront as an expert
>on ridalin not because of his hatred for herbalists but because he is a
>shill for Merck.
>
> When Barrett & Wallace Sampson's quackwatch activities were found guilty
>in California courts of being "biased, and unworthy of credibility"
>because of what amounted to untruthful testimony in favor of ridalin &
>against non-drug treatments, the courts were understating Stevey & Wally's
>degree of dishonesty. (For specifics of Barrett/Sampson dishonesty in
>context, see this article:
><http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lhealthfreedom2.htm>
>
>It's unfortunate that Barrett & Sampson types (& the tiny imitations,
>Probert & TaskForce) aren't honest in their concern for public health, &
>that they care very little about health frauds committed by M.D.s, Ph.D.s,
>& especially by drug companies, whom they serve. These drug-company
>dobermans go after chiropractors & anything labeled herbal without regard
>for that tiny percentage of herbs that aren't frauds. It's a flat-out war
>against any aspect of health care that is unprofitable for Merck & Eli
>Lily. Concern for human health is not part of the picture.
>
>And that's too bad because ALL aspects of healthcare need watchdogging. It
>may well be that 90% of "alternate" health systems are crackpot & a vastly
>smaller percentage of the actual medical community will be so fraught with
>frauds & superstions, but when something bad is embraced by M.D.s &
>Ph.D.s, or pursued only for the sake of profits by drug corporations, the
>damage can be even greater, whether it's kids being born without arms or
>kids increasingly misdiagnosed as medically ill in order to feed them
>Merck products. I worked behind the scenes for years in a university
>research hospital, & I can assure you, there are drunken drug-addicted
>surgeons who kill people pretty regularly & the worst that can happen to
>them is they get squeezed out of that hospital into another one. There are
>crackpot schemes to grab drug-company funding & only one-week of research
>ever started, barely enough to trump up another grant to renew the
>drug-funding (I wrote the grants; I edited faked medical papers by leading
>surgeons; I anymously forwarded documentation to allegedly concerned
>authorities who help cover all this up because the watchdogs turn out to
>be fake. A quack is not just a fake doctor but ANY doctor who perpetuates
>frauds & dangerous practices, & the very name Quackwatch is a fraud
>because it is not concerned with quackery in its own ranks).
>
>Part of the Barrett/Merck campaign is to assault UseNet with
>misinformation posing as individuals with personal concerns. Mark Probert
>is one of these, filled with trollings, insults, & dissimiilations, but
>never even trying to be factual or even moderately rational. Such shills
>tend to be one-topic people who stick around for years repeating the same
>lies on UseNet until they can do it by rote without even thinking, & the
>lack of thought becomes increasingly evident with time. He may sound like
>a lunatic but it's just a gambit with an agenda, & I am even going to tell
>you why it doesn't matter that he sounds crazy & convinces nobody, because
>even that is part of the game that serves Merck. I mean heck, if the
>"best" argument against these rascals begins to look like Tim Bolen's
>unwanted & hate-spewing nutball newsletter that arrives like a drunken
>uncle you should never have bailed out of jail that first time because now
>you'll never be rid of him, well hey, Merck & Quackwatch win by default.
>
>To pick on worthless herbs is a big winner for these quackwatch types; &
>to that degree they are quite right to shout Bravo when truth is told. But
>to repeat in their presenced the concerns & findings of physicians &
>researchers who do not support the Merck corporate profiteering & the
>destruction of the souls of children, THAT truth is unforgiveable by the
>same flacks who were so glad to see echinacea or ginkgo debunked.
>
>Therefore I got a resounding "Bravo!" from jkingoff@aol.comMercury
>(TaskForce 626) when I pointed out the absurdity of a specific herbal
>product of no earthly value to anyone. Whatever Stephen Barrett would
>like, TaskForce likes. But when the same critical & truthful eye fell to a
>Merck product, TaskForce turned into a loon using dissimilating tactics in
>lieu of informed discussion, echoing the behavior of Probert. Probert &/or
>TaskForce are in the final analysis little cretinish versions of Barrett &
>Sampson, only the usenutter tin versions couldn't score the big bucks
>telling Merck's lies in court as expert witnesses declared by the judge
>"unworthy of credibiolity," & are stuck with the cheezy job of cluttering
>up Usenet, as unworthy of credibility as their mentors.
>
>Now some have suggested that Probert has worked as an attorney for Merck
>or for Barrett, though I find it difficult to believe he is even
>employable. That he has spent years serving Merck/Berrett on Usenet is
>obvioius, & if someone payed me for dinking around on usenet, I'd be
>tempted too, since I'm dinking around anyway. To a degree it is a relief
>to know Probert is not on the level, because it made me so sad every time
>I thought of that alleged son of his kept drugged for sixteen years.
>
>Seeing how deeply disturbed & dishonest this guy (or those guys) can be, I
>can almost credit the claims that Probert is a netstalker as charged, but
>I don't know the story behind these charges & the angry victims, if
>victims they are, don't come off calm enough to tell the story
>convincingly. Ilena documented convincingly that Probert tells lies & uses
>sockpuppets, but that's just basic trolly stuff on usenet, & I don't know
>how much of the rest of that stuff to believe. Even if it were all true,
>I've caught Ilena making crap up from scratch, so it just looks like nut
>vs nut, not stalker vs victim. The greater likelihood is that even a nut
>can be victimized, but anyone promoting bad medicine is equally skanky,
>whether it's misguidedly pro-Merck or misguidedly pro-Alternative. There
>are lots of good drugs & a few good alternative systems; the goal should
>be to assess which is which & in what circumstances.
>
>The problem with answering lying drug-company flacks posing as usenutters
>is that all too often the people who have the correct citations that
>rationally question whether so many children should be drugged go much too
>far & posit alternative tereatments that are purely wacka-wacka. So it
>ends up looking like two sides of an argument for which both sides appear
>to be lunatics. Even when nothing wacka-wacka is suggested as an
>alternative, the strawdog at least is there.
>
>This is why the Proberts of usenet don't care that they look like
>hamstruck sociopaths who couldn't argue rationally if their next breath
>demanded it to go on living. The important thing is to make the issue seem
>absurd -- Probert is moronic & absurd & always incorrect ON PURPOSE,
>hoping the other side of the argument conclude how magic beans are better.
>Merck is well-served by the discussion never becoming rational, by leaving
>the impression that only the most amazing crackpots on either side of the
>discussion are interested.
>
>-paghat the ratgirl
>
>--
>"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
>"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
> -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
>Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Gymmy Bob 2004-10-25, 2:06 am |
| Secondly, you are full of shit. Do a Google for "ridalin" and see what the
pharmaceutical companies have to say about your denial.
"James Drew" <jkingoff@aol.comNoSpam> wrote in message
news:20041021155748.05268.00001777@mb-m23.aol.com...
>
> Firstly, there is no such thing as "ridalin". You might as well be
talking
> about pixie dust.
>
> Secondly, I think Dr Stephen Barrett runs Quackwatch at the behest of
.....[wait
> for it....] Dr Stephen Barrett! It appears, from all accounts, that
Barrett is
> the one who started the wholesome QuackWatch.Org website and is still
calling
> the shots.
>
> No puppetteering necessary.
>
> Now, go re-read Joe Parson's Ritalin Faq. I'll save the bandwidth because
I
> know you've me post it and I suspect you've printed out copies to make
> flash-cards, cliff-notes, and inspirational messages.
| |
| James Drew 2004-10-26, 11:06 am |
| >Stephen Barrett runs Quackwatch at the behest of Merck, the manufacturer
>of ridalin,
Firstly, there is no such thing as "ridalin". You might as well be talking
about pixie dust.
Secondly, I think Dr Stephen Barrett runs Quackwatch at the behest of ....[wait
for it....] Dr Stephen Barrett! It appears, from all accounts, that Barrett is
the one who started the wholesome QuackWatch.Org website and is still calling
the shots.
No puppetteering necessary.
Now, go re-read Joe Parson's Ritalin Faq. I'll save the bandwidth because I
know you've me post it and I suspect you've printed out copies to make
flash-cards, cliff-notes, and inspirational messages.
| |
| Boyd Haley 2004-10-26, 11:06 am |
| >On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:54:33 GMT, Peter Bowditch
><myfirstname@ratbags.com> w
>
>
>I was doing a little research for a webpage to counter the lies that
>Nidiffer is spreading currently ... and found that you claim that the
>Ragtag Posse has been around since 2000 ...
>
>However, it seems that it was just formed and advertised as of the end
>of July, 2001 ... just days after all 3 Plaintiffs LOST to me in
>Superior Court ...
>
>Seems quite a coinkydink ...
Firstly, the "Ragtag Posse" is just another name for the Iluminati. We've
existed under many names since the dawning of civilization. Secondly, you
yourself refered to the "Ragtag Posse" on the date of May 13th, 2001. Notice
that Randy Barrett, whom you cite, mentions then on July 17, 2000.
Some coinkydink. More like a coinky-ditz whose delisted support group has let
its business license expire.
From: Ilena Rose (ilena@san.rr.com)
Subject: Joel ... apparently just another of the Ragtag Posse of Snake Oil
Vigilantes.
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
Date: 2001-05-13 13:16:36 PST
Joel ... you posted a threat of litigation against Ms Drew claiming she
libeled you.
You have refused to post what specifically she has claimed about you, that
is not her opinion, but is a false fact about you.
Please do so ... if you refuse, you are just revealing you are using Bully
tactics learned from the HealthFraud "Ragtag Posse of Snake Oil
Vigilantes."
FTC's Quack Attack
By Randy Barrett, Inter@ctive Week
July 17, 2000 3:58 AM PT
URL: http://www.healthwatcher.net/index.html
"A rag-tag posse of snake-oil vigilantes occasionally helps identify
culprits and even contributes to
investigations. Quackwatch's Barrett falls into this category."
>www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#RagtagPosse
>
| |
| Boyd Haley 2004-10-26, 7:07 pm |
| >>"paghat" <paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
>You would have some evidence of Merck being the manufacturer of
>Ritalin, I suppose.
Oh, Peter, if you expect such evidence to be on the Internet.......!
<ultra sarcasm, for the humor impaired>
>By the way, the misspelling of Ritalin is getting a bit old.
Pag's unwillingness to read, heed, and unconditionally accept Joe Parson's
Ritalin FAQ is becoming quite tedious, as well.
>--
>Peter Bowditch
| |
| Boyd Haley 2004-10-26, 7:07 pm |
| >Secondly, you are full of shit.
That is only true when you address your mirror.
> Do a Google for "ridalin" and see what the
>pharmaceutical companies have to say about your denial.
Ok, here's the results of a Web search:
Results 1 - 1 of 1 for ridalin denial pharmaceutical
Keppig
Going back to how your wife feels about you on meds, I want to share a story of
my ex. When Scott, my children's father, was diagnosed with ADHD and they put
him on Ridalin, I was just as scared as your wife is. My issues was things
changing from what I was used to and also a fear that if he came to his senses
he might realize that he doesn't want to be with me.
What I found out was that most doctors in the USA put you on the lowest meds at
first and gradually increase it. For many ADDers are sensitive so some only
need alittle. I, myself, only take 5 mg of Ridalin and it does so much much for
me.
Tell her that. The meds will help clear your mind but it won't change you. She
might be thrilled that you can actually pay attention to her more. That you
don't drift off in conversation. You don't get frustrated so much. All positive
things.
Having your wife asking your doctor questions might help ease her mind, it
shows her thoughts are being listen too.
Paul, I wish you the best. I also wish I wasn't such a worry wort when I was
married to Scott. It was a hard thing for him... as it is for you now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Now, for a Google Groups search:
Your search - ridalin denial pharmaceutical - did not match any documents
--------------------
Now, for Merck producing Ridalin or Ritalin, survey says "ZERO"
Novartis produces it, formerly Ciba-Geigy. The notion that Dr Barrett is
pushing "ridalin" at the behest of Merck is just another Bag O'Steamin' Feces.
You should be quite comfortable with that, Gymmie.
>"James Drew" <jkingoff@aol.comNoSpam> wrote in message
>news:20041021155748.05268.00001777@mb-m23.aol.com...
>talking
>....[wait
>Barrett is
>calling
>I
>
>
>
| |
| Ilena Rose 2004-10-26, 7:07 pm |
| On 22 Oct 2004 00:33:36 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Boyd Haley)
wrote:
>Firstly, the "Ragtag Posse" is just another name for the Iluminati. We've
>existed under many names since the dawning of civilization. Secondly, you
>yourself refered to the "Ragtag Posse" on the date of May 13th, 2001. Notice
>that Randy Barrett, whom you cite, mentions then on July 17, 2000.
I was quoting him ... not talking about the site Barrett/Ratz put up
.... they got the idea from the article ... as always ... you're upside
down and backwards
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#RagtagPosse
| |
| Peter Bowditch 2004-10-26, 7:07 pm |
| jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>Impersonation.
It is not necessary to provide an answer for what is obviously a
rhetorical question.
>
>Andrew Kingoff is one despicable liar and trouble maker.
>
>I also talked with AOL, who is taking immediate action.
>
>He pulls this unlawful act again, his service is terminated.
Jan forgot to mention that she snipped a joke here. Joke. Joke. Joke.
>
>Words aren't the issue. Impersonating is.
>
>The fact you condone his filth, tells all.
Convention has it that a pronoun usually refers to the immediately
preceding relevant noun. Does the "his" in your last sentence refer to
Dr Haley's filth? It sure reads that way.
>However, you did display an excellent example of just how low you are, and an
>example of how you write your disgusting lying websites.
Do you mean that I write my "disgusting lying websites" in a witty
manner? I thought you had a sense of humour.
>Peter, the deceiver.
Facts not in evidence.
>Defending the mouth of Andrew Kingoff.
Isn't it sad that someone cannot appreciate a joke? I realise that the
joke wasn't as funny as a turd sandwich, but it wasn't the worst joke
I had heard this week. (That was some chemist saying that when you
call autistic kids "mad" you are just acronymising.)
>
><snip lies and spam>
Here are the "lies" that Jan snipped:
Do you think it is offensive to refer to autism as "mad child
disease"?
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
Lies? Lies? How can a question be a lie?
>Jan
--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud
http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
| |
| Mark Probert 2004-10-26, 7:07 pm |
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aa8in09ngo37ol8ee27ch474gl509mja1l@4ax.com...
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?num...htm&btnG=Search
>
> The advertising on Usenet for this Quack group was first mentioned
> right BEFORE not right AFTER the Quacks lost to me in Superior Court
> ...
>
> Even the Quacks can't be wrong all the time ... after 4 years ...
> "Marla" and Ratz finally got something right!
>
> Take your bows boys!
Nope, take yours. I always give credit where credit is due.
If I had wagered money as to whether you would acknowledge your error
pointed out by me, I would have lost.
> www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html
Like her six webpages show, I use my name, or some very easy torecognize
variant. Even when I used an annonymized name, I posted it first with my
real name. You see, I know htis woman's perfidy, and wanted to ensure that
she could not whine about it without looking like the jerk she is.
| |
| Mark Probert 2004-10-26, 7:07 pm |
|
"Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041022001212.24921.00003398@mb-m20.aol.com...
>
>
> Dr Boyd Haley has been notified.
Which one? The one in Bloomington or the one in Little Rock:
HALEY, BOYD
S Rogers St
Bloomington, IN 47403
XXX-XXX-YYYY
HALEY, BOYD
Warwick Rd
Little Rock, AR 72205
SSS-TTT-TTTT
So, which is it, Jan????
You are such a little fascist.
(Please repost)
| |
|
|
| Paghat the Ratite 2004-10-26, 7:07 pm |
| >jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>
>Notified about what? Andrew is just truthfully calling himself _Boy_
>who _D_id _H_is _A_cupuncture _L_ectures in _E_arlier _Y_ears. You
>were the one who called Andrew "Boy", and Dr Haley surely understands
>that words are just acronyms.
>
Quite right, St Pete. My current Acronym is Paghat. It stands for Petulence
Against Gassy, Heinous, XXX-Clownish Twits.
| |
|
| >Subject: Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
>From: Peter Bowditch myfirstname@ratbags.com
>Date: 10/21/2004 10:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <5j8hn0hluege5v23p9d75ctl85bb5c85fd@4ax.com>
>
>jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>
>Notified about what
Impersonation.
>Andrew is just truthfully
Andrew Kingoff is one despicable liar and trouble maker.
I also talked with AOL, who is taking immediate action.
He pulls this unlawful act again, his service is terminated.
>Dr Haley surely understands
>that words are just acronyms.
Words aren't the issue. Impersonating is.
The fact you condone his filth, tells all.
However, you did display an excellent example of just how low you are, and an
example of how you write your disgusting lying websites.
Peter, the deceiver.
Defending the mouth of Andrew Kingoff.
<snip lies and spam>
Jan
| |
| Peter Bowditch 2004-10-27, 10:06 pm |
| jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>
>Dr Boyd Haley has been notified.
Notified about what? Andrew is just truthfully calling himself _Boy_
who _D_id _H_is _A_cupuncture _L_ectures in _E_arlier _Y_ears. You
were the one who called Andrew "Boy", and Dr Haley surely understands
that words are just acronyms.
Do you think it is offensive to refer to autism as "mad child
disease"?
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud
http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
| |
| Mark Probert 2004-10-27, 10:06 pm |
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:q9qgn0l28vm631mfh1281ja0cfo7kqpm9n@4ax.com...
> On 22 Oct 2004 00:33:36 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Boyd Haley)
> wrote:
>
We've[vbcol=seagreen]
you[vbcol=seagreen]
Notice[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> I was quoting him ... not talking about the site Barrett/Ratz put up
> ... they got the idea from the article ... as always ... you're upside
> down and backwards
>
> www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#RagtagPosse
Wrong, backpedaler!
Here is the first page:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http:/...se/whoarewe.htm
September 2000.
| |
|
| >>On 22 Oct 2004 00:33:36 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Boyd Haley)
Dr Boyd Haley has been notified.
| |
| Rich.@. 2004-10-27, 10:06 pm |
| On 22 Oct 2004 06:52:19 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>He owes even signle person who has GWS an apology, and should be strung upside
>down for his part is thier not receiving the benefits well deserved.
Judge not, lest you be judged.
Aloha,
Rich
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
The best defense to logic is ignorance
| |
| Boyd Haley 2004-10-27, 10:06 pm |
| >>Subject: Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
>
>Impersonation.
>
>
>Andrew Kingoff is one despicable liar and trouble maker.
>
>I also talked with AOL, who is taking immediate action.
>
>He pulls this unlawful act again, his service is terminated.
>
I'm sure that you realize your preceding statement is a LIE. I'm still here,
Jan, and there ain't nothin' you can do to stop me.
No, wait, that's the AOL strikeforce at my door!!! Egad, they are serving me a
notice to log off! They have now cut off the electricity, water, phone, and
cable from my office! I'm offline!
q578q2o5iosfpa(*&@$(!^$(!&#$0)
<No Carrier>...............
| |
| Boyd Haley 2004-10-27, 10:06 pm |
| >>>On 22 Oct 2004 00:33:36 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Boyd Haley)
>
>
>Dr Boyd Haley has been notified.
Excellent! Notify Dr Jerome, Hulda Clark, and Dr Wilson, who remains on staff.
| |
| Boyd Haley 2004-10-27, 10:06 pm |
| >On 22 Oct 2004 00:33:36 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Boyd Haley)
>wrote:
>
>Notice
>
>
>I was quoting him ... not talking about the site Barrett/Ratz put up
>... they got the idea from the article ... as always ... you're upside
>down and backwards
>
>www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#RagtagPosse
>
The long and the short of it is that YOU, Ilena, are wrong & I am right.
Make a note of it.
| |
|
|
| Ilena Rose 2004-10-27, 10:06 pm |
| On 22 Oct 2004 19:25:00 GMT, jkingoff@aol.comMercury (Paghat the
Ratite) wrote:
>
>Quite right, St Pete. My current Acronym is Paghat. It stands for Petulence
>Against Gassy, Heinous, XXX-Clownish Twits.
You represent Barrett & Polevoy so well ..
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andyspossse.htm#ragtagPosse
|
| |
|
|