PA Health Systems

Web Forum-style access to our favorite medical and health related Usenet groups for our customers and visitors
Not affiliated with state of Pennsylvania or any health care provider in Pennsylvania.
Registration is free! Edit your profile Calendar Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search this Forum:

ExamVouchers.com - CompTIA discount exam vouchers - save money

Sponsor: Cert21.com
Free Online practice tests



Pages (7): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » ... Last »
 
Last Thread   Next Thread

Author
Post New Thread    
Jan



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 a
nd
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 i
n
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' symptom
s
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 t
o
protect soldiers in the region," the daily reported.

Doctor Joyce Lashof, the chair of a presidential advisory group that reporte
d
in 1996 that there was no causal link between toxic exposure and the veteran
s'
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," Lasho
f
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 pa
in
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 debilitat
ing
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 concentratio
n.

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 hav
e
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 Wa
r.

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 he
lp
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 the
ir
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 mem
ory
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 tha
t
the incidence of birth defects [normally about three percent of the gene
ral
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 illnesse
s,
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 great
er.
[5]
====

The key question is whether stress was a significant causal factor in many o
f
the ill-defined Gulf War cases. The Presidential Advisory Committee conclude
d
that it was.

Current scientific evidence does not support a causal link between the sympt
oms
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 the
m
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 thes
e
claims and tell how the leading anti-amalgamist had his dental license revok
ed.

(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 we
ll
as mistreated. In addition, insurance companies, employers, educational
facilities, homeowners, other taxpayers, and ultimately all citizens are bei
ng
burdened by dubious claims for disability and damages.

Go figure.







Old Post 10-18-04 12:06 AM
   Edit/Delete IP: Logged
Ilena Rose



Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
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.



Old Post 10-18-04 04:06 PM
   Edit/Delete IP: Logged
Mark Probert



Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed

"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.








Old Post 10-19-04 12:06 AM
   Edit/Delete IP: Logged
Ilena Rose



Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:12:02 GMT, "Mark Probert" <Mark
Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:


is yet another crossdressing lying Quack Flack for the Web of Deceit:

www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm

www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html



Old Post 10-19-04 12:06 AM
   Edit/Delete IP: Logged
Mark Probert



Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed

"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.






Old Post 10-19-04 12:06 AM
   Edit/Delete IP: Logged
Jan



Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
>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.



Old Post 10-19-04 03:06 AM
   Edit/Delete IP: Logged
paghat



Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
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



Old Post 10-21-04 03:06 AM
   Edit/Delete IP: Logged
Gymmy Bob



Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
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





Old Post 10-21-04 07:06 AM
   Edit/Delete IP: Logged
Liquid Memory



Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed

"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





Old Post 10-21-04 07:06 AM
   Edit/Delete IP: Logged
Jan



Re: Quack Barrett's *OPINIONS* Exposed
>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 abo
ut
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Old Post 10-21-04 07:06 AM
   Edit/Delete IP: Logged




Pages (7): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » ... Last »
All times are GMT.
The time now is 10:58 PM.   
Pages (7): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » ... Last »
Post New Thread    


Alternative health archive | Real Estate forum

Featured sites

Featured site: MCSE, MCSD, CompTIA, CCNA training videos



Popular medical Forums
Diabetes forum Asthma Support Herpes Support
Arthritis forum Migrane Support Hepatitis-C support
Allergy Lyme Disease HIV AIDS Support Forum
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Politics and Medicine Pharmacy
Depression Support Depression Medications Nutrition forum


Print this thread Show a Printable Version | Email this thread Email This Page to Someone! | Receive updates to this thread

Forum Jump:
Rate This Thread:
 


Health Information forum archive

 
 We recommend: Database administration help | Exam Notes | Web Design forum
  Copyright 2003 - 2006 PA Health Systems  Term of Service  

Offshore web hosting by serverslease.net

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000, 2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.