| PeterB 2006-10-20, 4:30 pm |
|
David Wright wrote:
> In article <1160422999.081431.229970@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> PeterB uses intimidation, mockery, and insults on anyone who disagrees
> with him.
A review of the history of my posts shows your claim to be untrue. I
have discussed various topics with any number of posters in the
newsgroups in a productive and respectful manner. If you feel
insulted, perhaps you should ask yourself about the quality of your own
exchanges.
>
> PeterB attacks anyone who suggests that mainstream medicine may have
> its positive points.
That's a far cry from reality too. I've gone out of my way to laud the
efforts of emergency medicine, making it clear that not all drugs are
bad. If I take a poster to task for engaging in promotion of drugs,
it's because they promote them without citing scientific studies or
knowing the risk-adjusted benefit. If I hold you to task for your
stated belief in "evidence based medicine" because you never provide
the evidence, that is no one's fault but your own.
>
> PeterB strives obsessively tohave the last word and often attempts to
> bury other posters with sheer volume.
I'm not a sheer volume kind of guy. The "pile on" is a tactic used by
you and your team to avoid standing alone against legitimate posters.
I've updated item #5 in the Warning post to reference this.
>
> PeterB posts extremely rapid responses, especially during the day.
> This does make one wonder what exactly he does during the day.
A review of the history of our posts will show which one of us has the
most time for responding on the newsgroups (it isn't me.)
>
> PeterB likes to tag-team with Vernon, Jan Drew, etc.
If someone takes the time to compare the "tag team" behaviour exhibited
by you, Rosalind, PeterBowditch, Mark Probert, Mark Thorson, Rich,
Johndoe, Smile, Johnny Huang, NanaWeedeater, and all the other PR
grunts working the newsgroups, with the spontaneous interaction between
the legitimate posters, it will be obvious who uses this method as a
contrivance.
>
> You can't refute something that's true.
Why not? You do it all the time.
> PeterB seldom cites anything
> from the medical literature, and he has a very small pool of articles
> he likes to bring up.
I suppose that is meant to annoy me. A review of the history of my
posts from the past year (or more) will prove the falsity of that
statement. I provide more scientific references in support of my
statements than any other poster on mha. A possible exception is
Roman, whose posts on natural medicine reference published articles on
the available science, his primary focus. Unlike me, however, Roman
rarely engages in discussion or debate (something I really admire him
for.)
>
> PeterB doesn't like it if anyone can point readers to articles that
> disagree with him.
Actually, I make a habit of throwing down the gauntlet, in hopes you'll
provide *anything* in support of your positions, but I haven't noticed
you responding. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of
published references you've provided over the past year, compared to
hundreds from me in the same time frame. Feel free to point readers
wherever you like, but it seems to be limited to the websites of
court-spanked Peter Bowditch and Stephen Barrett, quacks in their own
right.
>
> PeterB avoids the use of "junk science" by simply inventing numbers
> and theories.
So give us one claim regarding a number for which I haven't provided a
scientific reference. I can't say it's never happened, but I challenge
you to present your evidence. It's easy to make unsubstantiated
claims, DavidW, and you are certainly the master of that.
>
> PeterB is mathematically challenged and resents other people who use
> numbers, as he finds numbers mysterious.
Too funny. I would remind you that you once said a hospital murder had
skewed the iatrogenic data in a study I referenced. That was telling.
>
> PeterB likes to sound authoritative by citing seemingly precise
> numbers, e.g. "100,000" even though those numbers are generally on
> shaky ground and, in fact, the true numbers are unknown.
Large numbers are always estimates, but "100,000" is a conservative
figure representing the number of non-error drug deaths in the USA,
according to the IOM, which stated that 70,000 was a substantial under
count. Lazarou's study result is consistent with that view.
> Tip: Do not bother to explain to PeterB that a Usenet newsgroup is
> not a "blog." He is impervious to this information.
You might bother taking note, however, that I never referred to the
newsgroup as a "blog." Instead, I referred to your behaviour as
"blogging" on behalf of your corporate sponsors. DavidW, one of our
resident pharmboys, and (for the record), the first PR grunt assigned
to take me on in the newsgroups, is not what he seems. If you believe
he doesn't read well, understand what he reads, or cares about the
facts, you're not paying attention. Don't be so sure that industry
doesn't care what you think.
PeterB
|