| PeterB 2006-08-01, 4:40 pm |
|
0:-> wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> If you "knew" I couldn't provide it what would be your logic in
> demanding it?
To demonstrate that fact, what else.
>
> I most certainly did.
No, you did not. See my comments below the first 4 links you provided.
If the others were similar, that was a sad excuse for evidence on
which to force medicate another human being.
>
> Thousands? Scientific? All of them?
Do you not read outside the newsgroups?
>
> Fool's Gold looks like Gold. That doesn't make it Gold. And one can find
> a lot of it, compared to Gold, quite easily.
Boy, that's revealing.
> The quality, not the quantity, of research is the question.
I believe that was my comment to you after you posted your "evidence"
for chemo.
> I've found
> tons of "independent" research that's usable as toilet paper, and little
> else.
I would have to question your ability to evaluate what you find, much
less where.
>
> You won't prove your claims.
My argument regarding Abraham is based on the constitutional precept
that parents have jurisdiction over their own children. I need prove
nothing, sir.
>
> Trite.
You said it first, dufus.
>
> "Treatment centers?" what would they have to do with research?
About as much as your links had to do with good science.
> And do you honestly want to try and sell that "non-profit" research is
> not funding by those with agendas?
Naturally-occuring nutrients are not patentable, so any research
related to them is more like to represent good science. By contrast,
the enormous profits contained in patentable drugs represents a huge
conflict of interest on the part of the drug makers, which get to be
the fox over the hen house.
> Where DO they get funded from?
Who is "they?"
> You're a laugh riot, child.
You're an idiot, idiot.
> When you aren't running goal posts all around the field, you are
> spiralling in upon yourself with that glib nonsense above.
When you aren't saying that, you aren't saying anything else of value,
either.
> It LOOKS good at first casual read, but upon examination it turns out to
> be a pile of stinking innuendo.
Feel free to post more of your so-called evidence. And you still
haven't answered the questions in the other post, which Probert
conveniently covered for you, spewing his own unique form of
unintelligble gibberish.
> And my sources were not "marketing" efforts.
Anecdotal claims are just that, and nothing more.
PeterB
|