|
| PeterB wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
>
> To demonstrate that fact, what else.
>
>
> No, you did not.
Now to the blah blah blah.
> 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.
Your opinion does not constitute proofs.
>
> Do you not read outside the newsgroups?
Heavily.
>
> Boy, that's revealing.
Well, that is what one hopes when offering analogy.
>
> I believe that was my comment to you after you posted your "evidence"
> for chemo.
Could be. Like minds and all.
>
> I would have to question your ability to evaluate what you find, much
> less where.
What you have to do is question your own capacity.
>
> My argument regarding Abraham is based on the constitutional precept
> that parents have jurisdiction over their own children. I need prove
> nothing, sir.
Covered in another post, where I take apart your "proofs" through
citations of cases.
>
>
> You said it first, dufus.
Mmmm...how does something become "Trite" dufi?
>
> About as much as your links had to do with good science.
You brought them up as support, so now live with it.
>
> Naturally-occuring nutrients are not patentable, so any research
> related to them is more like to represent good science.
Do you have the least idea what the Nutraceuticals Industry is worth
these days, BOY?
I haven't experienced anyone on Usenet dig themselves a giant hole to
fall into any faster than you. You deserve a medal.
And this was in 2003:
"Global nutra market worth $60.0B in 2003.(nutraceuticals) Industry ...
Goliath Industry and Business News includes thousands of articles from
journals, newspapers, newswires, and magazines, covering a wide range of
industries ...
goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3633052/Global-nutra-market-worth-60.html
- 16k - Cached - Similar pages"
Some of the "not for profit...r r rr " "research" has resulted in
dangerous substances being marketed as cures, BOY!
And the market fails to control even for quality, let alone offer up
scientifically sound research.
> 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.
Unn...the drug makers are REQUIRED to do the research and submit to to
be able to go to market with a product.
It's called the FDA.
When was the last time the Nutraceuticals Industry submitted research to
the FDA?
>
> Who is "they?"
Your non-profit researchers, stupid?
>
>
> You're an idiot, idiot.
It must seem so to you, when you mind goes blank immediately after being
asked a question you cannot handle, or come with a lie to support your
position.
>
> When you aren't saying that, you aren't saying anything else of value,
> either.
Now there is a brilliant comeback.
>
> Feel free to post more of your so-called evidence.
I'm tired of being run around the the field to next position of your
goal posts. Thanks anyway.
> 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.
Gosh I had no trouble at all understanding that he saw your claim to the
Abraham case violating constitutional rights finally be stated clearly
enough to challenge.
Then, if I read him correctly <chuckle> he challenged your premise.
I think found your reply, a mismash of cited caselaw, findings that you
claimed were of the constitutionality of parental rights.
One was on the parents right to limit access of a grandparents, a case
I'm most familiar with, and the other of the state's capacity to
intervene legally in a family.
Both made the point, and I'll yell so you notice, finally: THAT THE
STATE DID INDEED HAVE THE RIGHT IF THE PARENTS FAILED TO KEEP THE CHILD
SAFE FROM HARM, OR POTENTIAL HARM.
The issue in both cases was THE LACK OF EVIDENCE to support the
g'parents of right of access to the child, and the state's lack of
sufficient evidence to prove their case of negligence.
A far cry, BOY, from your claim that the constitution provides what
you'd apparently like us to believe in; a blanket right of the parent to
hold the state at bay regardless of circumstances.
Or did you not mean that?
Find my post to you were I reply to your nonsense citation of cases.
>
>
> Anecdotal claims are just that, and nothing more.
You seemed to have not read.
>
> PeterB
>
I sense a frantic tic and a shifting back and forth that suggests a
weasel run is about to commence.
You wouldn't go crazy on us now would you, and start with wild claims
and ad hom etc.?
0:->
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
|
|