Discussion:
Does everyone remember this program
Add Reply
Bob Officer
2014-01-13 00:06:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?

From: Reg Griswold <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

This was the link Reg/carole posted.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm

and here is ABC media watchdog site with a critique of the program.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm

<cite>
Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly
unbalanced; and some of their so-called ‘experts’ had questionable
qualifications.
</cite>

<cite>
If you make claims like that on an ABC Science program you’d want be
sure they’re pretty well-sourced, especially when they contradict the
vast weight of mainstream medical opinion.

So who are these three ‘experts’ that Dr Maryanne Demasi so relied
on?

Well, Dr Jonny Bowden and Dr Stephen Sinatra are co-authors of this
popular American potboiler.


"The Great Cholesterol Myth—why lowering your cholesterol
won’t prevent heart disease and the statin-free plan that
will

— The Great Cholesterol Myth, Jonny Bowden and Stephen
Sinatra"

The foreword to this book was written by the other “expert” we saw in
the opening clip, Dr Michael Eades.

Three men with one mind, presented as three independent points of
view.

And what exactly is their expertise?

Well, ‘Doctor’ Jonny Bowden isn’t a medical doctor at all even though
Catalyst claimed he is.

And he also has a conflict of interest.

The self-styled ‘Rogue Nutritionist’ who has written 14 books on
healing, weight loss and longevity, sells heart health pills, which
compete with statins, he also sell pills for brain power and
anti-aging.

And while he does have a PhD it’s not from a recognised university.

It’s a Clayton’s PhD obtained by correspondence from the Clayton
College of Natural Health in Alabama, which offered degrees in
naturopathy, holistic nutrition, herbal studies and iridology before
it went out of business in 2010.

Damned by one critic at the time as


"The biggest quack school in natural medicine ...
— The Huffington Post, 12th July, 2010"

<cite>

There is much more criticism of the uneven reporting and unethical
behavior on the shown by the reporter and staff of Catalyst Show.

Please read it for yourself.


and lastly one of the most misunderstood men of our time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys

<cite>
His interest in diet and cardio-vascular disease (CVD) was prompted,
in part, by seemingly counterintuitive data: American business
executives, presumably among the best-fed persons, had high rates of
heart disease, while in post-war Europe, CVD rates had decreased
sharply in the wake of reduced food supplies. Keys postulated a
correlation between cholesterol levels and CVD and initiated a study
of Minnesota businessmen (the first prospective study of CVD),[24]
culminating in what came to be known as the Seven Countries
Study.[25]

After observing the highest concentration of centenarians in the
world, (southern Italy) Keys hypothesized that a Mediterranean-style
diet low in animal fat protected against heart disease and that a
diet high in animal fats led to heart disease. The results of what
later became known as the Seven Countries Study appeared to show that
serum cholesterol was strongly related to coronary heart disease
mortality both at the population and at the individual level.[26][27]
As a result, in 1956, representatives of the American Heart
Association appeared on television to inform people that a diet which
included large amounts of butter, lard, eggs and beef would lead to
coronary heart disease. This resulted in the American government
recommending that people adopt a low-fat diet in order to prevent
heart disease.

Keys had concluded that saturated fats as found in milk and meat have
adverse effects opposite to the beneficial effects of the unsaturated
fats found in vegetable oils. This message was obscured for a 20-year
period starting around 1985, when all dietary fats were considered
unhealthy. This was driven largely by the hypothesis that all dietary
fats cause obesity and cancer.[28]

Keys was always considered an interventionist. He generally shunned
food fads and vigorously promoted the benefits of the "reasonably
low-fat diets"

[24] Keys A, Taylor HL, Blackburn H, Brozek J, Anderson JT, Simonson
E (1 September 1963). "Coronary heart disease among Minnesota
business and professional men followed 15 years". Circulation 28 (3):
381–95. PMID 14059458

[25] Keys, Ancel (1980). Seven Countries: A Multivariate Analysis of
Death and Coronary Heart Disease. Harvard University Press. ISBN
0-674-80237-3.

[26]Kromhout D: Serum cholesterol in cross-cultural perspective. The
Seven-Countries Study. Acta Cardiol 1999;54:155–158


[27] Katan MB, Beynen AC. Linoleic acid consumption and coronary
heart disease in U.S.A. and U.K. Lancet. 1981 Aug 15;2(8242):371

[28] Prentice RL, Sheppard L. Dietary fat and cancer: consistency of
the epidemiologic data, and disease prevention that may follow from a
practical reduction in fat consumption. Cancer Causes Control. 1990
Jul;1(1):81-97

</cite>

< Sigh>

Other opinions very across the board

http://genevieveyates.com/2013/11/03/listen-to-your-heart-my-response-to-abc-tvs-catalyst-program/

Nice web site, while not US based is still well presented with lots
of nice links:
http://foam4gp.com/2013/11/05/gp-foamed-map-to-statin-or-not-to-statin-that-is-the-question/

and his is another voice which is taking a different look at the
Catalyst program and looking for the money trail:
http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1121

Wow! about 1/2 the way down the article!

<cite>
To understand who is driving it we need to ask a simple question: who
benefits from a challenge to the lipid hypothesis and from
questioning the role of saturated fat? The answer is easy enough –
industries that generate a lot of saturated fat. There are only four
suspects – the meat, dairy, coconut oil and palm oil industries. But
which of these would be prepared to trash public health in order to
sell more saturated fat in Australia?

The meat industry’s response to concern about saturated fat has been
responsible – producing leaner beasts and leaner cuts of meat so I
think they are off the hook. A quick check of Dairy Australia’s
website shows that this organisation has been doing its fair share to
rehabilitate the reputation of saturated fat. However, Dairy
Australia’s approach is at least subtle and the organisation states
categorically that it had nothing to do with the Catalyst programs,
so we have to take them at their word. Coconut oil marketing is
pretty wacky but it looks very unsophisticated. It’s hard to imagine
that this industry could conceive and execute a major public
relations campaign of this ilk.

Which leaves us with the palm oil industry. Take a quick look at Palm
Oil Health. Lo and behold:

Jonny Bowden on the radio in Florida recommending Malaysian
palmoil to lower inflammation.

Jonny Bowden on Fox 9 News recommending Malaysian palm oil
to boost brain power.

Jonny Bowden on the Hallmark Channel discussing Malaysian
palm oil and cholesterol.

Jonny Bowden on One Life Radio in Dallas recommending
Malaysian palm oil.
Jonny Bowden on TV in San Diego recommending Malaysian
palm oil.

Jonny Bowden on the Catalyst program.

It would appear that Jonny Bowden has been employed by the Malaysian
palm oil industry to assist in the marketing of its product.
Australia may have been targeted because imports of palm oil have
fallen by over 20% in recent years as major fast food chains in
Australia such as McDonald’s and KFC have adopted healthier
unsaturated fats for frying.
</cite>

It seems that the old saying 'follow the money' may be true after all
is said and done. The question is what part did Catalyst have in this
marketing ploy?

As alway it is interesting reading the comments, This one I used a
watchful eye on Bruce Tabor's comments especially in the detail
reading and tracking down of cited studies used on the catalyst
program in question. Paid special interest to his comments made on
November 8, 2013 at 1:06 pm, November 8, 2013 at 1:43 pm, November
8, 2013 at 1:55 pm, November 8, 2013 at 2:28 pm,

Then I ran across what I feel maybe one of the more balanced sites:

http://broomedocs.com/2013/11/letter-registrars-statins-stuff/
<cite>
So my fellows where does this leave us?

We are back in 2002. You need to go back to the classroom and
relearn – educate yourself about cardiovascular risk, statins and the
like. Realise that we are talking about drugs that have a minor
effect if any on the long term health and well-being of your patient.
You need to understand the magnitudes of the benefit and risks
involved, not blindly follow guidelines.

Here is a starting point: check out theNNT.com - look at the numbers.
Read the papers that they use to generate the numbers, read the
editorial commentary in the big journals and then read some more.

Then you will be in a great place to have a real discussion with your
patients. Forget the hype, know your stuff and understand that you
are fiddling around the margins of risk.
</cite>

After about two days of reading, The last web site seems to be
balanced and fair to all. It is all about identifying risk and then
managing and mitigation the risk.

The author this blog leads one to think along these lines:
You visit the doc. So the Doc looks at your blood test result and
goes over the numbers. HE takes the time to explain what the numbers
means to him and how they effect you. He may say your lipid level
seems to be a bit off. A good Doctor might discuss your parents
health and ask question about their diet and lifestyle, and compare
it your own. A great Doctor may even compare your health at when they
were your age and how their lifestyle practices and diet effected
their health outcomes, the best of doctors might make specific
suggestions and discuss with you what he feels might be the best of
all health practices for you. Diet and exercise, reduction of certain
types of foods, even increasing certain types of food. He maybe even
suggest and prescribe certain medications while you are making the
changes to your lifestyle. HE may say lets see you in two or three
months and monitor how well the lifestyle changes/diet or medications
are working for you.

TV shows life the catalyst program was too alarmist, one sided and
uneven. Is there some concern? Maybe or maybe not. Like one of the
blogs I cited, It might be 2002 and HRT all over or not.

Sometimes the easy way isn't the best way in the long run

No doubt the health issues are complex, and there exist overt and
covert conflicts of interests on both sides. Someplace there is a
balanced middle ground were evidence based medicine will overcomes
hype, fears mongers, dogma and superstitions.
--
Bob Officer
Carole Hubbard stuns the world showing her belief that 2+2 = 3 or 5 says to me
"And one day they might find a cause for your lack of cognitive ability in
putting 2+2 together and coming up with 4 instead of 3 or 5."
in Message-ID:
<f61b82a3-85de-43b2-8ca3-***@p7g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-13 16:15:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
<snip>

Whatever bob the pharmaceutical pawn.

You never followed the money trail on why statins are routinely given
to people over 40.


Clayton

"When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have
a thousand reasons to smile." - Anonymous
Bob Officer
2014-01-13 17:57:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:15:37 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
<snip>
Whatever bob the pharmaceutical pawn.
You never followed the money trail on why statins are routinely given
to people over 40.
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...

oops.

Did you do the followup reading or follow any of the URL? I picked
people from both side issue including a ABC media watchdog group
there only looked at what wasn't a fair and even presentation.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-13 20:20:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:15:37 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
<snip>
Whatever bob the pharmaceutical pawn.
You never followed the money trail on why statins are routinely given
to people over 40.
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Did you do the followup reading or follow any of the URL? I picked
people from both side issue including a ABC media watchdog group
there only looked at what wasn't a fair and even presentation.
I think its a well known fact that trans fats are bad, saturated fats
less so and a certain amount are probably harmless.

I wasn't aware there was such a large trade in palm oil, but of course
these days it must be sustainable, and I know that's no help to the
orangatangs that have lots their trees already. Not sure what the
definition of sustainable is, presumably that which doesn't cause loss
of habitat for orangatangs.

Hey but good on you for doing some research, even if it did take a
couple of months for the penny to drop. Be good if you did similar
research on some other topics.


Clayton


"The matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Businessmen,
Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that
system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of
these people are not ready to be unplugged. (told the truth). And many
of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they
will fight to protect it."

Morpheus, The Matrix. (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.)
Bob Officer
2014-01-13 21:25:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:20:17 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:15:37 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
<snip>
Whatever bob the pharmaceutical pawn.
You never followed the money trail on why statins are routinely given
to people over 40.
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.

oops.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Did you do the followup reading or follow any of the URL? I picked
people from both side issue including a ABC media watchdog group
there only looked at what wasn't a fair and even presentation.
I think its a well known fact that trans fats are bad, saturated fats
less so and a certain amount are probably harmless.
I wasn't aware there was such a large trade in palm oil, but of course
these days it must be sustainable, and I know that's no help to the
orangatangs that have lots their trees already. Not sure what the
definition of sustainable is, presumably that which doesn't cause loss
of habitat for orangatangs.
Hey but good on you for doing some research, even if it did take a
couple of months for the penny to drop. Be good if you did similar
research on some other topics.
Yes,
The real penny was the catalyst program was uneven and false
reporting.

The money trail showed the staff of catalyst program were running an
story to promote palm oil and unhealthy diet and lifestyle. The only
question now is were they paid off by the palm oil industry?
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-17 01:44:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:20:17 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:15:37 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
<snip>
Whatever bob the pharmaceutical pawn.
You never followed the money trail on why statins are routinely given
to people over 40.
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.

The trade-off for anybody else isn't worth it as there are side
effects that compromise a person's health in other areas.
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Oops !!
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Did you do the followup reading or follow any of the URL? I picked
people from both side issue including a ABC media watchdog group
there only looked at what wasn't a fair and even presentation.
I think its a well known fact that trans fats are bad, saturated fats
less so and a certain amount are probably harmless.
I wasn't aware there was such a large trade in palm oil, but of course
these days it must be sustainable, and I know that's no help to the
orangatangs that have lots their trees already. Not sure what the
definition of sustainable is, presumably that which doesn't cause loss
of habitat for orangatangs.
Hey but good on you for doing some research, even if it did take a
couple of months for the penny to drop. Be good if you did similar
research on some other topics.
Yes,
The real penny was the catalyst program was uneven and false
reporting.
It was refreshing for a change and can't imagine how it got past the
establishment censors.
Post by Bob Officer
The money trail showed the staff of catalyst program were running an
story to promote palm oil and unhealthy diet and lifestyle. The only
question now is were they paid off by the palm oil industry?
Maybe, and that was a good bit of detective work on your part.
It is a possibility that the palm oil industry was involved somehow -
however, the bottom line is pharmaceutical drugs aren't always good.

An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.


Clayton



"The matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Businessmen,
Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that
system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of
these people are not ready to be unplugged. (told the truth). And many
of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they
will fight to protect it."

Morpheus, The Matrix. (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.)
Bob Officer
2014-01-17 01:58:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:20:17 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:15:37 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
<snip>
Whatever bob the pharmaceutical pawn.
You never followed the money trail on why statins are routinely given
to people over 40.
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
Post by Clayton
The trade-off for anybody else isn't worth it as there are side
effects that compromise a person's health in other areas.
Also shown not to be true.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Oops !!
Yes you should by now realize the three principle people featured on
the show were not really qualified in the field to have their
opinions given much weight. The facts the show staff and speakers,
misused studies and presented much of what they said in a false
light.

The investigation has moved on to find the reason the show presented
the false information and why they allowed the reporters manner to be
on-sided in facial expression and body mannerism.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Did you do the followup reading or follow any of the URL? I picked
people from both side issue including a ABC media watchdog group
there only looked at what wasn't a fair and even presentation.
I think its a well known fact that trans fats are bad, saturated fats
less so and a certain amount are probably harmless.
I wasn't aware there was such a large trade in palm oil, but of course
these days it must be sustainable, and I know that's no help to the
orangatangs that have lots their trees already. Not sure what the
definition of sustainable is, presumably that which doesn't cause loss
of habitat for orangatangs.
Hey but good on you for doing some research, even if it did take a
couple of months for the penny to drop. Be good if you did similar
research on some other topics.
Yes,
The real penny was the catalyst program was uneven and false
reporting.
It was refreshing for a change and can't imagine how it got past the
establishment censors.
How can lies, spin and false statements be refreshing, chaussette?
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The money trail showed the staff of catalyst program were running an
story to promote palm oil and unhealthy diet and lifestyle. The only
question now is were they paid off by the palm oil industry?
Maybe, and that was a good bit of detective work on your part.
It is a possibility that the palm oil industry was involved somehow -
however, the bottom line is pharmaceutical drugs aren't always good.
No the real bottom line is no matter what the claim one must read all
the links and fact check every statement made. When one checks the
fact, one find statins do help the majority of the people. when taken
along side diet and lifestyle changes, it tends to make the body more
healthy.
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an ap[ple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.

This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-17 05:19:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The trade-off for anybody else isn't worth it as there are side
effects that compromise a person's health in other areas.
Also shown not to be true.
Who by -- big pharma with their cherry-picked studies?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Oops !!
Yes you should by now realize the three principle people featured on
the show were not really qualified in the field to have their
opinions given much weight. The facts the show staff and speakers,
misused studies and presented much of what they said in a false
light.
But bob, that description ie "unqualified" is applied to anybody who
doesn't support mainstream pharmaceutical medicine.

Look at what happened to simoncini when he let it slip that cancer was
due to a fungus and could be cured with something cheap like bicarb.
He was crucified - under the pretext of concern for the public of
course.
Post by Bob Officer
The investigation has moved on to find the reason the show presented
the false information and why they allowed the reporters manner to be
on-sided in facial expression and body mannerism.
Well, they might be able to find some grounds to charge those who
participated in the show with deception, however, the basic premise
that statins are over-used and should not be used long-term due to
adverse side effects, is still a legitimate comment.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Did you do the followup reading or follow any of the URL? I picked
people from both side issue including a ABC media watchdog group
there only looked at what wasn't a fair and even presentation.
I think its a well known fact that trans fats are bad, saturated fats
less so and a certain amount are probably harmless.
I wasn't aware there was such a large trade in palm oil, but of course
these days it must be sustainable, and I know that's no help to the
orangatangs that have lots their trees already. Not sure what the
definition of sustainable is, presumably that which doesn't cause loss
of habitat for orangatangs.
Hey but good on you for doing some research, even if it did take a
couple of months for the penny to drop. Be good if you did similar
research on some other topics.
Yes,
The real penny was the catalyst program was uneven and false
reporting.
It was refreshing for a change and can't imagine how it got past the
establishment censors.
How can lies, spin and false statements be refreshing, chaussette?
Oh bob, it happens all the time - big pharma only got to predominate
in mainstream medicine through deceptive practices like ghose written
articles, cherry picked studies, finding reasons to crucify
alternative medicine and similar such deceptions.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The money trail showed the staff of catalyst program were running an
story to promote palm oil and unhealthy diet and lifestyle. The only
question now is were they paid off by the palm oil industry?
Maybe, and that was a good bit of detective work on your part.
It is a possibility that the palm oil industry was involved somehow -
however, the bottom line is pharmaceutical drugs aren't always good.
No the real bottom line is no matter what the claim one must read all
the links and fact check every statement made. When one checks the
fact, one find statins do help the majority of the people. when taken
along side diet and lifestyle changes, it tends to make the body more
healthy.
I don't think so, except to a pharmaceutical pawn.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an ap[ple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?



The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zgmi 


The History of the Pharma-Cartel
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cartel.html


Clayton
Bob Officer
2014-01-17 06:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:02 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
You made several points:

1.
Post by Clayton
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
That's usually a given.
Post by Clayton
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
You have a medical degree from where?
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Again your medical degree and research are from where and when?
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The trade-off for anybody else isn't worth it as there are side
effects that compromise a person's health in other areas.
Also shown not to be true.
Who by -- big pharma with their cherry-picked studies?
Now all the studies done, and not cherry picked. if you learned to
read them you might learn something.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Oops !!
Yes you should by now realize the three principle people featured on
the show were not really qualified in the field to have their
opinions given much weight. The facts the show staff and speakers,
misused studies and presented much of what they said in a false
light.
But bob, that description ie "unqualified" is applied to anybody who
doesn't support mainstream pharmaceutical medicine.
No.
Post by Clayton
Look at what happened to simoncini when he let it slip that cancer was
due to a fungus and could be cured with something cheap like bicarb.
He was crucified - under the pretext of concern for the public of
course.
You mean the man wanted for manslaughter and fraud? The Italian
government investigated after his treatments actually cause the death
of many people. They found his claims of initial studies and trials
were FABRICATED.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The investigation has moved on to find the reason the show presented
the false information and why they allowed the reporters manner to be
on-sided in facial expression and body mannerism.
Well, they might be able to find some grounds to charge those who
participated in the show with deception, however, the basic premise
that statins are over-used and should not be used long-term due to
adverse side effects, is still a legitimate comment.
No it isn't. and the Studies which they cited never had data which
suggested that.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Did you do the followup reading or follow any of the URL? I picked
people from both side issue including a ABC media watchdog group
there only looked at what wasn't a fair and even presentation.
I think its a well known fact that trans fats are bad, saturated fats
less so and a certain amount are probably harmless.
I wasn't aware there was such a large trade in palm oil, but of course
these days it must be sustainable, and I know that's no help to the
orangatangs that have lots their trees already. Not sure what the
definition of sustainable is, presumably that which doesn't cause loss
of habitat for orangatangs.
Hey but good on you for doing some research, even if it did take a
couple of months for the penny to drop. Be good if you did similar
research on some other topics.
Yes,
The real penny was the catalyst program was uneven and false
reporting.
It was refreshing for a change and can't imagine how it got past the
establishment censors.
How can lies, spin and false statements be refreshing, chaussette?
Oh bob, it happens all the time - big pharma only got to predominate
in mainstream medicine through deceptive practices like ghose written
articles, cherry picked studies, finding reasons to crucify
alternative medicine and similar such deceptions.
The program was presented as being factual. When in truth, much of
the program was based on deliberate lies and deception. And you claim
such a presentation was refreshing. That must be because you like
lies and deception.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The money trail showed the staff of catalyst program were running an
story to promote palm oil and unhealthy diet and lifestyle. The only
question now is were they paid off by the palm oil industry?
Maybe, and that was a good bit of detective work on your part.
It is a possibility that the palm oil industry was involved somehow -
however, the bottom line is pharmaceutical drugs aren't always good.
No the real bottom line is no matter what the claim one must read all
the links and fact check every statement made. When one checks the
fact, one find statins do help the majority of the people. when taken
along side diet and lifestyle changes, it tends to make the body more
healthy.
I don't think so, except to a pharmaceutical pawn.
The real problem is you don't think. you believe. you except dogma
was being truthful even when there is evidence presented which shows
The dogma isn't truthful at all.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an apple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
I know how you operate. you don't have the ability to reason or use
logic.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-17 13:03:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:02 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
1.
Post by Clayton
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
That's usually a given.
Post by Clayton
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
You have a medical degree from where?
You don't have a medical degree bob, yet that doesn't stop you putting
in your 2 bobs worth.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Again your medical degree and research are from where and when?
I'm an altie bob, where did your get your medical degree from?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The trade-off for anybody else isn't worth it as there are side
effects that compromise a person's health in other areas.
Also shown not to be true.
Who by -- big pharma with their cherry-picked studies?
Now all the studies done, and not cherry picked. if you learned to
read them you might learn something.
Big pharma achieves dominance in the market place by infiltrating
government bodies, getting legislation changed to suit its purposes
and doing what it can to eliminate alternatives.

Something you probably didn't know

http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/
"The Food and Drug Administration began life as the Division of
Chemistry, and was later known as the Bureau of Chemistry, long before
changing its name to the FDA. Its name was changed to conceal its
chemical industry agenda."


"The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”. Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations
totaled over $550,000,000. In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical
schools across 14 countries.The modern FDA. came into being in 1913 —
the same year that the Rockefeller Foundation was created. The FDA
works hand-in-hand with the Rockefeller Foundation and the American
Medical Association.
The Rockefeller Foundation

Its partners at the FDA began an aggressive campaign of suppressing
medicines that competed with the chemical industry. An unholy alliance
formed between the American Medical Association, the FDA, and the
Rockefeller Foundation."

Read more at
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/#o3fP3Z881tqjMx9S.99
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Oops !!
Yes you should by now realize the three principle people featured on
the show were not really qualified in the field to have their
opinions given much weight. The facts the show staff and speakers,
misused studies and presented much of what they said in a false
light.
But bob, that description ie "unqualified" is applied to anybody who
doesn't support mainstream pharmaceutical medicine.
No.
Post by Clayton
Look at what happened to simoncini when he let it slip that cancer was
due to a fungus and could be cured with something cheap like bicarb.
He was crucified - under the pretext of concern for the public of
course.
You mean the man wanted for manslaughter and fraud? The Italian
government investigated after his treatments actually cause the death
of many people. They found his claims of initial studies and trials
were FABRICATED.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The investigation has moved on to find the reason the show presented
the false information and why they allowed the reporters manner to be
on-sided in facial expression and body mannerism.
Well, they might be able to find some grounds to charge those who
participated in the show with deception, however, the basic premise
that statins are over-used and should not be used long-term due to
adverse side effects, is still a legitimate comment.
No it isn't. and the Studies which they cited never had data which
suggested that.
Studies can be rigged and negated. Only those which are beneficial to
big pharma are allowed to stand. Its a racket, which is why you get
books written by insiders with names like "The Drug Racket" and
similar.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
It was refreshing for a change and can't imagine how it got past the
establishment censors.
How can lies, spin and false statements be refreshing, chaussette?
Oh bob, it happens all the time - big pharma only got to predominate
in mainstream medicine through deceptive practices like ghose written
articles, cherry picked studies, finding reasons to crucify
alternative medicine and similar such deceptions.
The program was presented as being factual. When in truth, much of
the program was based on deliberate lies and deception. And you claim
such a presentation was refreshing. That must be because you like
lies and deception.
The lies and deception are from the pharmaceutical business with
disease.


The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zgmi 


The History of the Pharma-Cartel
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cartel.html
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The money trail showed the staff of catalyst program were running an
story to promote palm oil and unhealthy diet and lifestyle. The only
question now is were they paid off by the palm oil industry?
Maybe, and that was a good bit of detective work on your part.
It is a possibility that the palm oil industry was involved somehow -
however, the bottom line is pharmaceutical drugs aren't always good.
No the real bottom line is no matter what the claim one must read all
the links and fact check every statement made. When one checks the
fact, one find statins do help the majority of the people. when taken
along side diet and lifestyle changes, it tends to make the body more
healthy.
I don't think so, except to a pharmaceutical pawn.
The real problem is you don't think. you believe. you except dogma
was being truthful even when there is evidence presented which shows
The dogma isn't truthful at all.
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an apple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
I know how you operate. you don't have the ability to reason or use
logic.
You know nothing.


Clayton

"When life gives you lemons, make lemonade." - unknown
Bob Officer
2014-01-17 14:43:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:02 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
1.
Post by Clayton
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
That's usually a given.
Post by Clayton
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
You have a medical degree from where?
You don't have a medical degree bob, yet that doesn't stop you putting
in your 2 bobs worth.
You are the one making the comment, directly. not citing an expert.
Your claim to authority was noted and found deficient.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Again your medical degree and research are from where and when?
I'm an altie bob, where did your get your medical degree from?
You don't have really are talking not from experience or knowledge
them. These are your statements made as an expert. Just how and where
did you get your information. You made to declarations by fiat. Both
appear to be fallacies of the post hoc declaration type.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The trade-off for anybody else isn't worth it as there are side
effects that compromise a person's health in other areas.
Also shown not to be true.
Who by -- big pharma with their cherry-picked studies?
Now all the studies done, and not cherry picked. if you learned to
read them you might learn something.
Big pharma achieves dominance in the market place by infiltrating
government bodies, getting legislation changed to suit its purposes
and doing what it can to eliminate alternatives.
Something you probably didn't know
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/
"The Food and Drug Administration began life as the Division of
Chemistry, and was later known as the Bureau of Chemistry, long before
changing its name to the FDA. Its name was changed to conceal its
chemical industry agenda."
Doesn't provide evidence to back your claim Chaussette.
Post by Clayton
"The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”. Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations
totaled over $550,000,000. In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical
schools across 14 countries.The modern FDA. came into being in 1913 —
the same year that the Rockefeller Foundation was created. The FDA
works hand-in-hand with the Rockefeller Foundation and the American
Medical Association.
The Rockefeller Foundation
Still doesn't provide evidence to back your claim.
Do you understand what you are reading?
Post by Clayton
Its partners at the FDA began an aggressive campaign of suppressing
medicines that competed with the chemical industry. An unholy alliance
formed between the American Medical Association, the FDA, and the
Rockefeller Foundation."
Read more at
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/#o3fP3Z881tqjMx9S.99
That is still a claim by the author and the 1st two paragraphs do not
provide evidence to support the conclusion he is making.

A 1st year debate student in high school would have spotted that,
Chaussette.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Oops !!
Yes you should by now realize the three principle people featured on
the show were not really qualified in the field to have their
opinions given much weight. The facts the show staff and speakers,
misused studies and presented much of what they said in a false
light.
But bob, that description ie "unqualified" is applied to anybody who
doesn't support mainstream pharmaceutical medicine.
No.
Post by Clayton
Look at what happened to simoncini when he let it slip that cancer was
due to a fungus and could be cured with something cheap like bicarb.
He was crucified - under the pretext of concern for the public of
course.
You mean the man wanted for manslaughter and fraud? The Italian
government investigated after his treatments actually cause the death
of many people. They found his claims of initial studies and trials
were FABRICATED.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The investigation has moved on to find the reason the show presented
the false information and why they allowed the reporters manner to be
on-sided in facial expression and body mannerism.
Well, they might be able to find some grounds to charge those who
participated in the show with deception, however, the basic premise
that statins are over-used and should not be used long-term due to
adverse side effects, is still a legitimate comment.
No it isn't. and the Studies which they cited never had data which
suggested that.
Studies can be rigged and negated. Only those which are beneficial to
big pharma are allowed to stand. Its a racket, which is why you get
books written by insiders with names like "The Drug Racket" and
similar.
Can be, but minus proof, isn't.

You can be an monkey, but minus proof one must assume you human.

Logic is not your strong suit, is it?
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
It was refreshing for a change and can't imagine how it got past the
establishment censors.
How can lies, spin and false statements be refreshing, chaussette?
Oh bob, it happens all the time - big pharma only got to predominate
in mainstream medicine through deceptive practices like ghose written
articles, cherry picked studies, finding reasons to crucify
alternative medicine and similar such deceptions.
The program was presented as being factual. When in truth, much of
the program was based on deliberate lies and deception. And you claim
such a presentation was refreshing. That must be because you like
lies and deception.
The lies and deception are from the pharmaceutical business with
disease.
<snip of debunked articles.>
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The money trail showed the staff of catalyst program were running an
story to promote palm oil and unhealthy diet and lifestyle. The only
question now is were they paid off by the palm oil industry?
Maybe, and that was a good bit of detective work on your part.
It is a possibility that the palm oil industry was involved somehow -
however, the bottom line is pharmaceutical drugs aren't always good.
No the real bottom line is no matter what the claim one must read all
the links and fact check every statement made. When one checks the
fact, one find statins do help the majority of the people. when taken
along side diet and lifestyle changes, it tends to make the body more
healthy.
I don't think so, except to a pharmaceutical pawn.
The real problem is you don't think. you believe. you except dogma
was being truthful even when there is evidence presented which shows
The dogma isn't truthful at all.
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
No I think. I gather facts and connect them were possible. the more
detailed the fact the better overall understanding or picture is
generated.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an apple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
I know how you operate. you don't have the ability to reason or use
logic.
You know nothing.
I have forgotten far more than you ever will know in your lifetime.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-17 16:18:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:02 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
1.
Post by Clayton
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
That's usually a given.
Post by Clayton
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
You have a medical degree from where?
You don't have a medical degree bob, yet that doesn't stop you putting
in your 2 bobs worth.
You are the one making the comment, directly. not citing an expert.
Your claim to authority was noted and found deficient.
Sure bob. I am extropolating from my own experience. Things that I
have cured with alternative remedies are those things which
pharmaceutical products are prescribed.
So IOW mainstream medicine is trained to give pharmaceutical products,
increasingly to treat for life of patient, rather than treat or cure
with nutritional or homeopathic remedies.

This is my own experience and I'm sure many other alties have had this
same experience. So this qualifies me to comment on the uselessness
and deception of using mainstream medication. So much for mainstream
experts and those "qualified" to speak.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Again your medical degree and research are from where and when?
I'm an altie bob, where did your get your medical degree from?
You don't have really are talking not from experience or knowledge
them. These are your statements made as an expert. Just how and where
did you get your information. You made to declarations by fiat. Both
appear to be fallacies of the post hoc declaration type.
Sure bob - I see what you're trying to say.
Pharmaceutical drugs are a deception. Anybody who relies on them
hasn't done their homework and is trusting in something they'd be
better off not trusting in. But the way the system is set up at the
moment with a lot of knowledge being lost due to mainstream medicine
pushing alternative aside, these days pharmaceutical drugs are used to
stabilise people in emergency situations and that is ok. However, for
chronic and long-term situations, other solutions should be
investigated wherever possible. Obviously if a person relies on pharma
products for lifesaving purposes they should continue to do so, but
also investigate other possibilities.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The trade-off for anybody else isn't worth it as there are side
effects that compromise a person's health in other areas.
Also shown not to be true.
Who by -- big pharma with their cherry-picked studies?
Now all the studies done, and not cherry picked. if you learned to
read them you might learn something.
Big pharma achieves dominance in the market place by infiltrating
government bodies, getting legislation changed to suit its purposes
and doing what it can to eliminate alternatives.
Something you probably didn't know
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/
"The Food and Drug Administration began life as the Division of
Chemistry, and was later known as the Bureau of Chemistry, long before
changing its name to the FDA. Its name was changed to conceal its
chemical industry agenda."
Doesn't provide evidence to back your claim Chaussette.
The whole system of the FDA being there to protect the consumer begins
to look more like its purpose was to protect the chemical
pharmaceutical industry.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
"The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”. Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations
totaled over $550,000,000. In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical
schools across 14 countries.The modern FDA. came into being in 1913 —
the same year that the Rockefeller Foundation was created. The FDA
works hand-in-hand with the Rockefeller Foundation and the American
Medical Association.
The Rockefeller Foundation
Still doesn't provide evidence to back your claim.
Do you understand what you are reading?
Which claim are you talking about fred?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Its partners at the FDA began an aggressive campaign of suppressing
medicines that competed with the chemical industry. An unholy alliance
formed between the American Medical Association, the FDA, and the
Rockefeller Foundation."
Read more at
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/#o3fP3Z881tqjMx9S.99
That is still a claim by the author and the 1st two paragraphs do not
provide evidence to support the conclusion he is making.
There are plenty more websites which say similar.
Post by Bob Officer
A 1st year debate student in high school would have spotted that,
Chaussette.
What were we discussing again?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Studies can be rigged and negated. Only those which are beneficial to
big pharma are allowed to stand. Its a racket, which is why you get
books written by insiders with names like "The Drug Racket" and
similar.
Can be, but minus proof, isn't.
There is the death rate from pharm drugs which supposedly have been
tested.
Post by Bob Officer
You can be an monkey, but minus proof one must assume you human.
Or I might be a human, but minus proof assume I'm not.
What's your point?
Certain things are a given - that we're human.
Post by Bob Officer
Logic is not your strong suit, is it?
Yes, logic is my strong suit - not so much trained in logic but
natural.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
It was refreshing for a change and can't imagine how it got past the
establishment censors.
How can lies, spin and false statements be refreshing, chaussette?
Oh bob, it happens all the time - big pharma only got to predominate
in mainstream medicine through deceptive practices like ghose written
articles, cherry picked studies, finding reasons to crucify
alternative medicine and similar such deceptions.
The program was presented as being factual. When in truth, much of
the program was based on deliberate lies and deception. And you claim
such a presentation was refreshing. That must be because you like
lies and deception.
The lies and deception are from the pharmaceutical business with
disease.
<snip of debunked articles.>
Now bob, you snipped some very important and relevant information.
Excuse me if I insert it back in.
Please refrain from snipping this information unless you want your
information snipped.


The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zgmi 


The History of the Pharma-Cartel
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cartel.html


Now what you need to realise is that the world is a very stuffed up
place with mainstream holding sway using deception, spin and lies.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
No I think. I gather facts and connect them were possible. the more
detailed the fact the better overall understanding or picture is
generated.
Sure bob, in your field and your technical work that might be true,
but in other areas no.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an apple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
I know how you operate. you don't have the ability to reason or use
logic.
You know nothing.
I have forgotten far more than you ever will know in your lifetime.
Slow but sure wins the race.


Clayton

"The matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Businessmen,
Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that
system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of
these people are not ready to be unplugged. (told the truth). And many
of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they
will fight to protect it."

Morpheus, The Matrix. (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.)
Bob Officer
2014-01-18 01:18:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:18:00 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:02 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
1.
Post by Clayton
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
That's usually a given.
Post by Clayton
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
You have a medical degree from where?
You don't have a medical degree bob, yet that doesn't stop you putting
in your 2 bobs worth.
You are the one making the comment, directly. not citing an expert.
Your claim to authority was noted and found deficient.
Sure bob. I am extropolating from my own experience. Things that I
have cured with alternative remedies are those things which
pharmaceutical products are prescribed.
What do you claim to have cured, how was the condition diagnosed?
Post by Clayton
So IOW mainstream medicine is trained to give pharmaceutical products,
increasingly to treat for life of patient, rather than treat or cure
with nutritional or homeopathic remedies.
This is my own experience and I'm sure many other alties have had this
same experience. So this qualifies me to comment on the uselessness
and deception of using mainstream medication. So much for mainstream
experts and those "qualified" to speak.
You still not qualified. You made post hoc claims but I doubt any
thinking person will ever believe you.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Again your medical degree and research are from where and when?
I'm an altie bob, where did your get your medical degree from?
You don't have really are talking not from experience or knowledge
them. These are your statements made as an expert. Just how and where
did you get your information. You made to declarations by fiat. Both
appear to be fallacies of the post hoc declaration type.
Sure bob - I see what you're trying to say.
<snip of nonsense>
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-18 23:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
You are the one making the comment, directly. not citing an expert.
Your claim to authority was noted and found deficient.
Sure bob. I am extropolating from my own experience. Things that I
have cured with alternative remedies are those things which
pharmaceutical products are prescribed.
What do you claim to have cured, how was the condition diagnosed?
Lots of things bob from stomach upsets, headaches, muscle and joint
pain, allergies. You see, its a furphy that people need "safe and
efficacious" pharmaceutical drugs to cure what ails them. This is
propaganda and marketing, plus the elimination of any alternative
treatments "to keep the public safe from snake oil salesman" when ALL
THE TIME it is big pharma which is the snake oil treatment.

The pharmaceutical industry is based on deception.

http://hemphealer.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/the-rockefellers-from-drug-and-oil-monopoly-to-war-on-drugs-and-hemp-prohibition/
"Many people believe the Rockefellers began their fortune with oil.
However, it was wealth from drugs that enabled them to invest in oil
and create their vast fortune.

In the 19th century it was William Avery Rockefeller who hawked
remedies and medications; medications that had opiate bases. He was
literally a traveling salesman, a ‘hack doctor’ and a trickster. He
was, in fact, a drug dealer.

He called himself a ‘cancer specialist’, and eventually, with the
sales of his elixirs and growing ‘snake oil fortune’, was able to give
large amounts of money to his son, John Davison Rockefeller, who used
that money to start an oil business."
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
So IOW mainstream medicine is trained to give pharmaceutical products,
increasingly to treat for life of patient, rather than treat or cure
with nutritional or homeopathic remedies.
This is my own experience and I'm sure many other alties have had this
same experience. So this qualifies me to comment on the uselessness
and deception of using mainstream medication. So much for mainstream
experts and those "qualified" to speak.
You still not qualified. You made post hoc claims but I doubt any
thinking person will ever believe you.
What is a qualification but a piece of paper issued from a certain
school of learning that is recognised by mainstream.
However, when mainstream has been infiltrated and taken over by big
pharma, all you have is rigged and cherry picked industry studies,
vendettas and destruction of any competition, marketing and spin.
That is what big pharma has going for it - lies and deception.

So you see bob, that only an establishment pawn would go along with
medicine that treats symptoms and is unable to come up with answers to
serious questions - how to cure cancer, and what causes autism PLUS
flogs high priced drugs (chemo) which have very little chance of
curing anything while all the time demonising herbal remedies that do
cure things eg BLACK SALVE.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Again your medical degree and research are from where and when?
I'm an altie bob, where did your get your medical degree from?
You don't have really are talking not from experience or knowledge
them. These are your statements made as an expert. Just how and where
did you get your information. You made to declarations by fiat. Both
appear to be fallacies of the post hoc declaration type.
Sure bob - I see what you're trying to say.
<snip of nonsense>
Clayton

"The matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Businessmen,
Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that
system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of
these people are not ready to be unplugged. (told the truth). And many
of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they
will fight to protect it."

Morpheus, The Matrix. (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.)
Lu
2014-01-19 05:40:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
You are the one making the comment, directly. not citing an expert.
Your claim to authority was noted and found deficient.
Sure bob. I am extropolating from my own experience. Things that I
have cured with alternative remedies are those things which
pharmaceutical products are prescribed.
What do you claim to have cured, how was the condition diagnosed?
Lots of things bob from stomach upsets, headaches, muscle and joint
pain, allergies. You see, its a furphy that people need "safe and
efficacious" pharmaceutical drugs to cure what ails them. This is
propaganda and marketing, plus the elimination of any alternative
treatments "to keep the public safe from snake oil salesman" when ALL
THE TIME it is big pharma which is the snake oil treatment.
With your wonderful preventive treatment, why are you even experiencing these
problems?
Post by Clayton
The pharmaceutical industry is based on deception.
And they stay in business by deceiving us about the effectiveness of their
products and in order to do that they have brainwashed us into believing that
their products work even when they don't. Is that what you are telling this
NG?
http://hemphealer.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/the-rockefellers-from-drug-and-oil-
Post by Clayton
monopoly-to-war-on-drugs-and-hemp-prohibition/
"Many people believe the Rockefellers began their fortune with oil.
However, it was wealth from drugs that enabled them to invest in oil
and create their vast fortune.
I do not particularly care what Rockefeller did or didn't do way back when.
Post by Clayton
In the 19th century it was William Avery Rockefeller who hawked
remedies and medications; medications that had opiate bases. He was
literally a traveling salesman, a ‘hack doctor’ and a trickster. He
was, in fact, a drug dealer.
I do not care about what Rockefellers ancestors or descendants did either.
It is all past history.
Post by Clayton
He called himself a ‘cancer specialist’, and eventually, with the
sales of his elixirs and growing ‘snake oil fortune’, was able to give
large amounts of money to his son, John Davison Rockefeller, who used
that money to start an oil business."
Ho Hum! Carole is on a rant again. How often is she going to throw
Rockefeller at us? Are we expected to defend him or feel shame about crimes
Carole claims, no evidence, just claims of crimes the man committed.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
So IOW mainstream medicine is trained to give pharmaceutical products,
increasingly to treat for life of patient, rather than treat or cure
with nutritional or homeopathic remedies.
This is my own experience and I'm sure many other alties have had this
same experience. So this qualifies me to comment on the uselessness
and deception of using mainstream medication. So much for mainstream
experts and those "qualified" to speak.
You still not qualified. You made post hoc claims but I doubt any
thinking person will ever believe you.
What is a qualification but a piece of paper issued from a certain
school of learning that is recognised by mainstream.
You really do have balls to belittle that little piece of paper that will
never be yours.
Post by Clayton
However, when mainstream has been infiltrated and taken over by big
pharma, all you have is rigged and cherry picked industry studies,
vendettas and destruction of any competition, marketing and spin.
That is what big pharma has going for it - lies and deception.
What BS? Haven't you ever noticed all the different brands of Aspirin
sitting on the store shelves?
Post by Clayton
So you see bob, that only an establishment pawn would go along with
medicine that treats symptoms and is unable to come up with answers to
serious questions - how to cure cancer, and what causes autism PLUS
flogs high priced drugs (chemo) which have very little chance of
curing anything while all the time demonising herbal remedies that do
cure things eg BLACK SALVE.
If you tried that Black Salve on your foot fungus you could let us know if
the suppression of that product is warranted or just an attempt by the
pharmaceutical industry to get rid of competition.

Those you call pawns are the intelligent ones. They go for the best that is
available in medicine. I will take modern medicine and a chance of living
over your unproven claims of alternative cures and certain death, for the
conditions you mention, any day.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Again your medical degree and research are from where and when?
I'm an altie bob, where did your get your medical degree from?
You don't have really are talking not from experience or knowledge
them. These are your statements made as an expert. Just how and where
did you get your information. You made to declarations by fiat. Both
appear to be fallacies of the post hoc declaration type.
Sure bob - I see what you're trying to say.
<snip of nonsense>
Clayton
"The matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Businessmen,
Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that
system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of
these people are not ready to be unplugged. (told the truth). And many
of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they
will fight to protect it."
Morpheus, The Matrix. (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.)
--
Lu
Bob Officer
2014-01-19 06:02:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 00:40:29 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
So you see bob, that only an establishment pawn would go along with
medicine that treats symptoms and is unable to come up with answers to
serious questions - how to cure cancer, and what causes autism PLUS
flogs high priced drugs (chemo) which have very little chance of
curing anything while all the time demonising herbal remedies that do
cure things eg BLACK SALVE.
Wow! Black Salve is just like pouring battery acid on your skin.
Post by Lu
If you tried that Black Salve on your foot fungus you could let us know if
the suppression of that product is warranted or just an attempt by the
pharmaceutical industry to get rid of competition.
Those you call pawns are the intelligent ones. They go for the best that is
available in medicine. I will take modern medicine and a chance of living
over your unproven claims of alternative cures and certain death, for the
conditions you mention, any day.
black salve and carole's promotion of it lead her to the creation of
her chaussette. She hides who she is in the belief the law will not
get her. She doesn't know that they also know how 4ax,com generates
those Message ID numbers and they will lead right back to carole
hubbard.
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Again your medical degree and research are from where and when?
I'm an altie bob, where did your get your medical degree from?
You don't have really are talking not from experience or knowledge
them. These are your statements made as an expert. Just how and where
did you get your information. You made to declarations by fiat. Both
appear to be fallacies of the post hoc declaration type.
Sure bob - I see what you're trying to say.
<snip of nonsense>
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Ernie
2014-01-19 18:42:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 00:40:29 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
black salve and carole's promotion of it lead her to the creation of
her chaussette. She hides who she is in the belief the law will not
get her. She doesn't know that they also know how 4ax,com generates
those Message ID numbers and they will lead right back to carole
hubbard.
I surely hope they do lead right back to carole hubbard of Melbourne.
She should be prosecuted for promoting a dangerous substance as bona
fide health remedy.
Ernie
2014-01-19 12:03:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
In the 19th century it was William Avery Rockefeller who hawked
remedies and medications; medications that had opiate bases. He was
literally a traveling salesman, a ‘hack doctor’ and a trickster. He
was, in fact, a drug dealer.
I do not care about what Rockefellers ancestors or descendants did either.
It is all past history.
Post by Clayton
He called himself a ‘cancer specialist’, and eventually, with the
sales of his elixirs and growing ‘snake oil fortune’, was able to give
large amounts of money to his son, John Davison Rockefeller, who used
that money to start an oil business."
Ho Hum! Carole is on a rant again. How often is she going to throw
Rockefeller at us? Are we expected to defend him or feel shame about crimes
Carole claims, no evidence, just claims of crimes the man committed.
<snip>
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
What is a qualification but a piece of paper issued from a certain
school of learning that is recognised by mainstream.
You really do have balls to belittle that little piece of paper that will
never be yours.
Too bad she's not someone's uncle. Or may she's some monkey's uncle?
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
However, when mainstream has been infiltrated and taken over by big
pharma, all you have is rigged and cherry picked industry studies,
vendettas and destruction of any competition, marketing and spin.
That is what big pharma has going for it - lies and deception.
What BS? Haven't you ever noticed all the different brands of Aspirin
sitting on the store shelves?
she's too self-absorbed to notice. Or she just ignores things that go
contrary to her beliefs. her character would be a gem for several
Twilight Zone episodes.
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
So you see bob, that only an establishment pawn would go along with
medicine that treats symptoms and is unable to come up with answers to
serious questions - how to cure cancer, and what causes autism PLUS
flogs high priced drugs (chemo) which have very little chance of
curing anything while all the time demonising herbal remedies that do
cure things eg BLACK SALVE.
If you tried that Black Salve on your foot fungus you could let us know if
the suppression of that product is warranted or just an attempt by the
pharmaceutical industry to get rid of competition.
Those you call pawns are the intelligent ones. They go for the best that is
available in medicine. I will take modern medicine and a chance of living
over your unproven claims of alternative cures and certain death, for the
conditions you mention, any day.
Oh here we go again, that pawn business. carole is the only pawn here.
Lu
2014-01-19 18:36:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clayton
<snip>
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
In the 19th century it was William Avery Rockefeller who hawked
remedies and medications; medications that had opiate bases. He was
literally a traveling salesman, a ‘hack doctor’ and a trickster. He
was, in fact, a drug dealer.
I do not care about what Rockefellers ancestors or descendants did either.
It is all past history.
Post by Clayton
He called himself a ‘cancer specialist’, and eventually, with the
sales of his elixirs and growing ‘snake oil fortune’, was able to give
large amounts of money to his son, John Davison Rockefeller, who used
that money to start an oil business."
Ho Hum! Carole is on a rant again. How often is she going to throw
Rockefeller at us? Are we expected to defend him or feel shame about crimes
Carole claims, no evidence, just claims of crimes the man committed.
<snip>
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
What is a qualification but a piece of paper issued from a certain
school of learning that is recognised by mainstream.
You really do have balls to belittle that little piece of paper that will
never be yours.
Too bad she's not someone's uncle. Or may she's some monkey's uncle?
More like the descendent of a hay burner with diarrhea .
Post by Clayton
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
However, when mainstream has been infiltrated and taken over by big
pharma, all you have is rigged and cherry picked industry studies,
vendettas and destruction of any competition, marketing and spin.
That is what big pharma has going for it - lies and deception.
What BS? Haven't you ever noticed all the different brands of Aspirin
sitting on the store shelves?
she's too self-absorbed to notice. Or she just ignores things that go
contrary to her beliefs. her character would be a gem for several
Twilight Zone episodes.
She just ignores such obvious evidence that she is wrong.
Post by Clayton
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
So you see bob, that only an establishment pawn would go along with
medicine that treats symptoms and is unable to come up with answers to
serious questions - how to cure cancer, and what causes autism PLUS
flogs high priced drugs (chemo) which have very little chance of
curing anything while all the time demonising herbal remedies that do
cure things eg BLACK SALVE.
If you tried that Black Salve on your foot fungus you could let us know if
the suppression of that product is warranted or just an attempt by the
pharmaceutical industry to get rid of competition.
Those you call pawns are the intelligent ones. They go for the best that is
available in medicine. I will take modern medicine and a chance of living
over your unproven claims of alternative cures and certain death, for the
conditions you mention, any day.
Oh here we go again, that pawn business. carole is the only pawn here.
Carole had a very limited repertoire and all these socks have exactly those
same limitations.
--
Lu
Ernie
2014-01-19 18:52:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Lu
Ho Hum! Carole is on a rant again. How often is she going to throw
Rockefeller at us? Are we expected to defend him or feel shame about crimes
Carole claims, no evidence, just claims of crimes the man committed.
<snip>
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
What is a qualification but a piece of paper issued from a certain
school of learning that is recognised by mainstream.
You really do have balls to belittle that little piece of paper that will
never be yours.
Too bad she's not someone's uncle. Or may she's some monkey's uncle?
More like the descendent of a hay burner with diarrhea .
Yep. A real horse's arse.
Lu
2014-01-20 00:04:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ernie
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Lu
Ho Hum! Carole is on a rant again. How often is she going to throw
Rockefeller at us? Are we expected to defend him or feel shame about crimes
Carole claims, no evidence, just claims of crimes the man committed.
<snip>
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
What is a qualification but a piece of paper issued from a certain
school of learning that is recognised by mainstream.
You really do have balls to belittle that little piece of paper that will
never be yours.
Too bad she's not someone's uncle. Or may she's some monkey's uncle?
More like the descendent of a hay burner with diarrhea .
Yep. A real horse's arse.
And here I was trying not to be too crass. ROFL

--
Lu
Ernie
2014-01-20 02:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lu
Post by Ernie
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Lu
Ho Hum! Carole is on a rant again. How often is she going to throw
Rockefeller at us? Are we expected to defend him or feel shame about crimes
Carole claims, no evidence, just claims of crimes the man committed.
<snip>
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
What is a qualification but a piece of paper issued from a certain
school of learning that is recognised by mainstream.
You really do have balls to belittle that little piece of paper that will
never be yours.
Too bad she's not someone's uncle. Or may she's some monkey's uncle?
More like the descendent of a hay burner with diarrhea .
Yep. A real horse's arse.
And here I was trying not to be too crass. ROFL
It's gotten to the point with you-know-who
where being crass is no vice. ;-)
Poor Peter Bowditch
2014-01-19 23:40:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clayton
So you see bob, that only an establishment pawn would go along with
medicine that treats symptoms
Like homeopathy?

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ausscience1104_symptoms.htm
--
Poor Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Blog at http://peterbowditch.com/wp/
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter
Lu
2014-01-18 04:18:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Bob Officer
2014-01-18 04:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:18:00 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
No I think. I gather facts and connect them were possible. the more
detailed the fact the better overall understanding or picture is
generated.
Sure bob, in your field and your technical work that might be true,
but in other areas no.
IS this another "saver"? I nearly fell off my chair when I read this one
statement.
I suspect it is.

The entire use of debunked claims seems to take place to waste
people's time.

Yes I work a technical field, where knowledge and experience beats
the dickens out of Guessing and idle speculation. However I picked
this field because it gave me time to read and study.

I will point out how quickly I put the one fact I studied briefly 40
years in a geography class together with a new modern medical study.
The yellow flag went up when I realized the numbers do not add up. I
a still looking to find the connection between the apple industry and
the study's principles.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an apple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
I know how you operate. you don't have the ability to reason or use
logic.
You know nothing.
I have forgotten far more than you ever will know in your lifetime.
Slow but sure wins the race.
'Slow' does describe The Chaussette de Deuxième
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Lu
2014-01-18 18:22:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:18:00 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
No I think. I gather facts and connect them were possible. the more
detailed the fact the better overall understanding or picture is
generated.
Sure bob, in your field and your technical work that might be true,
but in other areas no.
IS this another "saver"? I nearly fell off my chair when I read this one
statement.
I suspect it is.
The entire use of debunked claims seems to take place to waste
people's time.
Yes I work a technical field, where knowledge and experience beats
the dickens out of Guessing and idle speculation. However I picked
this field because it gave me time to read and study.
I will point out how quickly I put the one fact I studied briefly 40
years in a geography class together with a new modern medical study.
The yellow flag went up when I realized the numbers do not add up. I
a still looking to find the connection between the apple industry and
the study's principles.
What nearly knocked me off my chair was the thought that Carole really does
not know how to study/research anything. Seems to me that Carole's schooling
was so dumbed down that they did not even give her to tools she needed to
figure out what is what and that Carole was also told that she was to follow
instructions and never ask questions.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an apple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
I know how you operate. you don't have the ability to reason or use
logic.
You know nothing.
I have forgotten far more than you ever will know in your lifetime.
Slow but sure wins the race.
'Slow' does describe The Chaussette de Deuxième
--
Lu
Bob Officer
2014-01-18 18:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:22:56 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:18:00 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
No I think. I gather facts and connect them were possible. the more
detailed the fact the better overall understanding or picture is
generated.
Sure bob, in your field and your technical work that might be true,
but in other areas no.
IS this another "saver"? I nearly fell off my chair when I read this one
statement.
I suspect it is.
The entire use of debunked claims seems to take place to waste
people's time.
Yes I work a technical field, where knowledge and experience beats
the dickens out of Guessing and idle speculation. However I picked
this field because it gave me time to read and study.
I will point out how quickly I put the one fact I studied briefly 40
years in a geography class together with a new modern medical study.
The yellow flag went up when I realized the numbers do not add up. I
a still looking to find the connection between the apple industry and
the study's principles.
What nearly knocked me off my chair was the thought that Carole really does
not know how to study/research anything. Seems to me that Carole's schooling
was so dumbed down that they did not even give her to tools she needed to
figure out what is what and that Carole was also told that she was to follow
instructions and never ask questions.
I was taught by my parents to always ask questions. And then how to
find the answers, and then make sure I had the right answers. You
would be surprised how many times I found so called "common
knowledge" was usually slightly wrong as well as slightly right.

The more knowledge you have the more able a person is able to see the
holes in what is known, and look to fill in the gaps. When the gaps
are fulled in the 'picture' is more complete. The more that facts you
have are checked and cross checked, the depth of the 'picture'
increases dramatically.

Knowledge is closer to a 3-D image than a flat image, with little
bits and pieces interconnected from one field of knowledge to
another.

Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.

The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an apple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
I know how you operate. you don't have the ability to reason or use
logic.
You know nothing.
I have forgotten far more than you ever will know in your lifetime.
Slow but sure wins the race.
'Slow' does describe The Chaussette de Deuxième
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-18 23:24:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:51:20 -0800, Bob Officer <*.*@*.*> wrote:

.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
Yes I work a technical field, where knowledge and experience beats
the dickens out of Guessing and idle speculation. However I picked
this field because it gave me time to read and study.
I will point out how quickly I put the one fact I studied briefly 40
years in a geography class together with a new modern medical study.
The yellow flag went up when I realized the numbers do not add up. I
a still looking to find the connection between the apple industry and
the study's principles.
What nearly knocked me off my chair was the thought that Carole really does
not know how to study/research anything. Seems to me that Carole's schooling
was so dumbed down that they did not even give her to tools she needed to
figure out what is what and that Carole was also told that she was to follow
instructions and never ask questions.
I was taught by my parents to always ask questions. And then how to
find the answers, and then make sure I had the right answers. You
would be surprised how many times I found so called "common
knowledge" was usually slightly wrong as well as slightly right.
The more knowledge you have the more able a person is able to see the
holes in what is known, and look to fill in the gaps. When the gaps
are fulled in the 'picture' is more complete. The more that facts you
have are checked and cross checked, the depth of the 'picture'
increases dramatically.
Knowledge is closer to a 3-D image than a flat image, with little
bits and pieces interconnected from one field of knowledge to
another.
Sure bob, however a person can never really be free of bias until they
can admit that conspiracies exist and that the whole way this world
operates is from strings being pull from behind the scenes.
Failure to acknowledge this possibility merely leads a person round in
circles with pre-determined outcomes for their thinking - ie all human
error, mistakes, human failing, other.

The little people are crucified and the string pullers get away with
everything. Big pharma puts out a drug that sells like hot cakes, that
drug is later found to have unacceptable side effects, and big pharma
just cops the fine and is still out in front.
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
You are saying that there aren't enough applies to go around?
Well I'm sure there is a solution to that dilemma if a person puts
their mind to it.
Post by Bob Officer
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
That is a lot of rubbish bob.
Apples sell for as little as $2 kg - if there was great demand, I'm
sure there would be plenty of people happy to grow them for guaranteed
high prices.

You sure know how to come up with some rubbish when put to the test.


Clayton

"When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have
a thousand reasons to smile." - Anonymous
Bob Officer
2014-01-19 01:42:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:24:25 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
<Snip of nutter's conspiracy spittle>
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
That is a lot of rubbish bob.
Apples sell for as little as $2 kg - if there was great demand, I'm
sure there would be plenty of people happy to grow them for guaranteed
high prices.
chaussette, you don't seem to get a handle on the basic math, economy
or what it takes to grow apples. The UK would need to put at least 5
times the acreage under production for apples just for those people
over 50 years of age. There would still be no extra apples for anyone
else.

The fact is arable land is simply not available to put under
cultivation. If there is an increase in production of apples, it
would have to displace some other crop.

In the mean time, There is not enough apples for the entire world's
population over 50 years of age, if there was enough land, the demand
would force the prices to be much, much, higher.
Post by Clayton
You sure know how to come up with some rubbish when put to the test.
That is classical psychological projection. The math shows the apple
study is rubbish at best, fomented by a vegetarian, and two others
which are using a study to justify a religious and dietary choice.

Nothing like showing the world you are an idiot, chaussette.
--
Bob Officer
Carole Hubbard stuns the world showing her belief that 2+2 = 3 or 5 says to me
"And one day they might find a cause for your lack of cognitive ability in
putting 2+2 together and coming up with 4 instead of 3 or 5."
in Message-ID:
<f61b82a3-85de-43b2-8ca3-***@p7g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-19 23:26:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:24:25 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
<Snip of nutter's conspiracy spittle>
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
That is a lot of rubbish bob.
Apples sell for as little as $2 kg - if there was great demand, I'm
sure there would be plenty of people happy to grow them for guaranteed
high prices.
chaussette, you don't seem to get a handle on the basic math, economy
or what it takes to grow apples. The UK would need to put at least 5
times the acreage under production for apples just for those people
over 50 years of age. There would still be no extra apples for anyone
else.
The fact is arable land is simply not available to put under
cultivation. If there is an increase in production of apples, it
would have to displace some other crop.
Are you stupid or just playing stupid?
Obviously if people ate apples they would be NOT eating something else
that would have taken space to grow.
Post by Bob Officer
In the mean time, There is not enough apples for the entire world's
population over 50 years of age, if there was enough land, the demand
would force the prices to be much, much, higher.
Don't be stupid?
If there was the demand, the apples would be grown.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
You sure know how to come up with some rubbish when put to the test.
That is classical psychological projection. The math shows the apple
study is rubbish at best, fomented by a vegetarian, and two others
which are using a study to justify a religious and dietary choice.
Nothing like showing the world you are an idiot, chaussette.
That is the most pathetic piece of logic I've ever seen you come up
with, and you do come up with some meaningless rot here and there
fred.


Clayton

"This is America"


Harold and Kumer Interrogation scene

Lu
2014-01-19 04:49:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Bob Officer
2014-01-19 05:57:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:49:56 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:22:56 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:18:00 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
No I think. I gather facts and connect them were possible. the more
detailed the fact the better overall understanding or picture is
generated.
Sure bob, in your field and your technical work that might be true,
but in other areas no.
IS this another "saver"? I nearly fell off my chair when I read this one
statement.
I suspect it is.
The entire use of debunked claims seems to take place to waste
people's time.
Yes I work a technical field, where knowledge and experience beats
the dickens out of Guessing and idle speculation. However I picked
this field because it gave me time to read and study.
I will point out how quickly I put the one fact I studied briefly 40
years in a geography class together with a new modern medical study.
The yellow flag went up when I realized the numbers do not add up. I
a still looking to find the connection between the apple industry and
the study's principles.
What nearly knocked me off my chair was the thought that Carole really does
not know how to study/research anything. Seems to me that Carole's schooling
was so dumbed down that they did not even give her to tools she needed to
figure out what is what and that Carole was also told that she was to follow
instructions and never ask questions.
I was taught by my parents to always ask questions. And then how to
find the answers, and then make sure I had the right answers. You
would be surprised how many times I found so called "common
knowledge" was usually slightly wrong as well as slightly right.
Yes, we were all taught to ask questions, look for the answers and think for
ourselves.
Common knowledge changes with constant repeating.
Indeed. I am reminded of a skit on Saturday Night Live.
jeopardy, using what teenagers consider common knowledge.

Funny.
Post by Bob Officer
The more knowledge you have the more able a person is able to see the
holes in what is known, and look to fill in the gaps. When the gaps
are fulled in the 'picture' is more complete. The more that facts you
have are checked and cross checked, the depth of the 'picture'
increases dramatically.
Knowledge is closer to a 3-D image than a flat image, with little
bits and pieces interconnected from one field of knowledge to
another.
I never thought of that before but it is true.
It was something I learned a while back. I guess it was from a
special on how the brain operates and how different people recover
from brain injuries. it must have been about 25 years ago on PSB or
discovery channel. Back when I used to watch TV.
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
Well the dots connected nicely.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
The Ambrosia apple is thin skinned as is the Pink Lady. Both of those
apples are barely commercially viable because the skins are almost
too thin.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an apple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
I know how you operate. you don't have the ability to reason or use
logic.
You know nothing.
I have forgotten far more than you ever will know in your lifetime.
Slow but sure wins the race.
'Slow' does describe The Chaussette de Deuxime
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Lu
2014-01-19 18:52:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Bob Officer
2014-01-19 20:25:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:52:09 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:49:56 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
<snip>
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
I was taught by my parents to always ask questions. And then how to
find the answers, and then make sure I had the right answers. You
would be surprised how many times I found so called "common
knowledge" was usually slightly wrong as well as slightly right.
Yes, we were all taught to ask questions, look for the answers and think for
ourselves.
Common knowledge changes with constant repeating.
Indeed. I am reminded of a skit on Saturday Night Live.
jeopardy, using what teenagers consider common knowledge.
I was reminded of that old game or lessen taught to children in the lower
grades in school. The game of whispering a secret down a line of 10 children
to find out what that last child in the line heard and if there is any
resemblance to what that first child whispered to the second child.
We used the same skit as a lesson at camp about how rumors grow. One
of the fastest growing thing in a closed community is rumors.
Post by Bob Officer
Funny.
Post by Bob Officer
The more knowledge you have the more able a person is able to see the
holes in what is known, and look to fill in the gaps. When the gaps
are fulled in the 'picture' is more complete. The more that facts you
have are checked and cross checked, the depth of the 'picture'
increases dramatically.
Knowledge is closer to a 3-D image than a flat image, with little
bits and pieces interconnected from one field of knowledge to
another.
I never thought of that before but it is true.
It was something I learned a while back. I guess it was from a
special on how the brain operates and how different people recover
from brain injuries. it must have been about 25 years ago on PSB or
discovery channel. Back when I used to watch TV.
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
Well the dots connected nicely.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
The Ambrosia apple is thin skinned as is the Pink Lady. Both of those
apples are barely commercially viable because the skins are almost
too thin.
Will have to check those out. Seeif they are sold on the east coast.
One comes from Chile. they are major exporter to the US.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap
of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an apple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
I know how you operate. you don't have the ability to reason or use
logic.
You know nothing.
I have forgotten far more than you ever will know in your lifetime.
Slow but sure wins the race.
'Slow' does describe The Chaussette de Deuxiå¶me
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Lu
2014-01-20 00:07:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Clayton
2014-01-19 23:36:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:49:56 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:22:56 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:18:00 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
No I think. I gather facts and connect them were possible. the more
detailed the fact the better overall understanding or picture is
generated.
Sure bob, in your field and your technical work that might be true,
but in other areas no.
IS this another "saver"? I nearly fell off my chair when I read this one
statement.
I suspect it is.
The entire use of debunked claims seems to take place to waste
people's time.
Yes I work a technical field, where knowledge and experience beats
the dickens out of Guessing and idle speculation. However I picked
this field because it gave me time to read and study.
I will point out how quickly I put the one fact I studied briefly 40
years in a geography class together with a new modern medical study.
The yellow flag went up when I realized the numbers do not add up. I
a still looking to find the connection between the apple industry and
the study's principles.
What nearly knocked me off my chair was the thought that Carole really does
not know how to study/research anything. Seems to me that Carole's schooling
was so dumbed down that they did not even give her to tools she needed to
figure out what is what and that Carole was also told that she was to follow
instructions and never ask questions.
I was taught by my parents to always ask questions. And then how to
find the answers, and then make sure I had the right answers. You
would be surprised how many times I found so called "common
knowledge" was usually slightly wrong as well as slightly right.
Yes, we were all taught to ask questions, look for the answers and think for
ourselves.
Common knowledge changes with constant repeating.
Indeed. I am reminded of a skit on Saturday Night Live.
jeopardy, using what teenagers consider common knowledge.
Funny.
Post by Bob Officer
The more knowledge you have the more able a person is able to see the
holes in what is known, and look to fill in the gaps. When the gaps
are fulled in the 'picture' is more complete. The more that facts you
have are checked and cross checked, the depth of the 'picture'
increases dramatically.
The only problem is that it is not always easy to come up with facts
when so much of history is rewritten and replaced with so much
propaganda. Also there is a lot of spin and hype put onto everything
political to spin something for public acceptance that would otherwise
be rejected.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
Knowledge is closer to a 3-D image than a flat image, with little
bits and pieces interconnected from one field of knowledge to
another.
I never thought of that before but it is true.
It was something I learned a while back. I guess it was from a
special on how the brain operates and how different people recover
from brain injuries. it must have been about 25 years ago on PSB or
discovery channel. Back when I used to watch TV.
So what are the different ways people's brains recover?
What are the differences?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Obviously people only eat a certain amount of food a day - if apples
were grown and eaten, then it would mean that some other foods
wouldn't be grown and eaten. So no change.

Australia has some of the best climate for growing applies in
Tasmania, known as the 'apple isle'. But also NZ would have suitable
climate, and no doubt parts of US and UK. The arguments against
growing apples are laughable and weak. I can only assume that people
who suggest eating apples isn't plausible are pharmacetlcal pawns.
Post by Bob Officer
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
Well the dots connected nicely.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
The Ambrosia apple is thin skinned as is the Pink Lady. Both of those
apples are barely commercially viable because the skins are almost
too thin.
Clayton


"This is America"
http://youtu.be/ihsem2vvnnM
Lu
2014-01-20 02:52:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:49:56 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:22:56 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:18:00 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
No I think. I gather facts and connect them were possible. the more
detailed the fact the better overall understanding or picture is
generated.
Sure bob, in your field and your technical work that might be true,
but in other areas no.
IS this another "saver"? I nearly fell off my chair when I read this one
statement.
I suspect it is.
The entire use of debunked claims seems to take place to waste
people's time.
Yes I work a technical field, where knowledge and experience beats
the dickens out of Guessing and idle speculation. However I picked
this field because it gave me time to read and study.
I will point out how quickly I put the one fact I studied briefly 40
years in a geography class together with a new modern medical study.
The yellow flag went up when I realized the numbers do not add up. I
a still looking to find the connection between the apple industry and
the study's principles.
What nearly knocked me off my chair was the thought that Carole really does
not know how to study/research anything. Seems to me that Carole's schooling
was so dumbed down that they did not even give her to tools she needed to
figure out what is what and that Carole was also told that she was to follow
instructions and never ask questions.
I was taught by my parents to always ask questions. And then how to
find the answers, and then make sure I had the right answers. You
would be surprised how many times I found so called "common
knowledge" was usually slightly wrong as well as slightly right.
Yes, we were all taught to ask questions, look for the answers and think for
ourselves.
Common knowledge changes with constant repeating.
Indeed. I am reminded of a skit on Saturday Night Live.
jeopardy, using what teenagers consider common knowledge.
Funny.
Post by Bob Officer
The more knowledge you have the more able a person is able to see the
holes in what is known, and look to fill in the gaps. When the gaps
are fulled in the 'picture' is more complete. The more that facts you
have are checked and cross checked, the depth of the 'picture'
increases dramatically.
The only problem is that it is not always easy to come up with facts
when so much of history is rewritten and replaced with so much
propaganda. Also there is a lot of spin and hype put onto everything
political to spin something for public acceptance that would otherwise
be rejected.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
Knowledge is closer to a 3-D image than a flat image, with little
bits and pieces interconnected from one field of knowledge to
another.
I never thought of that before but it is true.
It was something I learned a while back. I guess it was from a
special on how the brain operates and how different people recover
from brain injuries. it must have been about 25 years ago on PSB or
discovery channel. Back when I used to watch TV.
So what are the different ways people's brains recover?
What are the differences?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Obviously people only eat a certain amount of food a day - if apples
were grown and eaten, then it would mean that some other foods
wouldn't be grown and eaten. So no change.
And you want to decide which foods they should eat.

Aren't you the one who bitches about Monsanto and genetically engineered
foods and here you are wanting to interfere with the world food supply by
dumping one farm grown product for the apple???????
Post by Clayton
Australia has some of the best climate for growing applies in
Tasmania, known as the 'apple isle'. But also NZ would have suitable
climate, and no doubt parts of US and UK. The arguments against
growing apples are laughable and weak. I can only assume that people
who suggest eating apples isn't plausible are pharmacetlcal pawns.
It is amazing how your analyzing ability works.

Amazing!

Bob said the world can not product enough apples to fill the need. Just how
does that make him a pharmaceutical pawn? Your claimed skill at analyzing
anything is overcome by your deep seated desire to insult your opponent at
every opportunity.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
Well the dots connected nicely.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
The Ambrosia apple is thin skinned as is the Pink Lady. Both of those
apples are barely commercially viable because the skins are almost
too thin.
Clayton
"This is America"
http://youtu.be/ihsem2vvnnM
--
Lu
Kaye
2014-01-20 03:05:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 21:52:15 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
Obviously people only eat a certain amount of food a day - if apples
were grown and eaten, then it would mean that some other foods
wouldn't be grown and eaten. So no change.
And you want to decide which foods they should eat.
Aren't you the one who bitches about Monsanto and genetically engineered
foods and here you are wanting to interfere with the world food supply by
dumping one farm grown product for the apple???????
Post by Clayton
Australia has some of the best climate for growing applies in
Tasmania, known as the 'apple isle'. But also NZ would have suitable
climate, and no doubt parts of US and UK. The arguments against
growing apples are laughable and weak. I can only assume that people
who suggest eating apples isn't plausible are pharmacetlcal pawns.
It is amazing how your analyzing ability works.
Amazing!
Bob said the world can not product enough apples to fill the need. Just how
does that make him a pharmaceutical pawn? Your claimed skill at analyzing
anything is overcome by your deep seated desire to insult your opponent at
every opportunity.
And that is the crux of the matter for Carole. Even if Bob agreed
with her, which he wouldn't, but if he did she would still find fault.
She is single minded in that matter.
--
Kaye
Homeopathy: Imaginary medicine for imaginary ills.
Ernie
2014-01-20 03:11:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kaye
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 21:52:15 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
Obviously people only eat a certain amount of food a day - if apples
were grown and eaten, then it would mean that some other foods
wouldn't be grown and eaten. So no change.
And you want to decide which foods they should eat.
Aren't you the one who bitches about Monsanto and genetically engineered
foods and here you are wanting to interfere with the world food supply by
dumping one farm grown product for the apple???????
Post by Clayton
Australia has some of the best climate for growing applies in
Tasmania, known as the 'apple isle'. But also NZ would have suitable
climate, and no doubt parts of US and UK. The arguments against
growing apples are laughable and weak. I can only assume that people
who suggest eating apples isn't plausible are pharmacetlcal pawns.
It is amazing how your analyzing ability works.
Amazing!
Bob said the world can not product enough apples to fill the need. Just how
does that make him a pharmaceutical pawn? Your claimed skill at analyzing
anything is overcome by your deep seated desire to insult your opponent at
every opportunity.
And that is the crux of the matter for Carole. Even if Bob agreed
with her, which he wouldn't, but if he did she would still find fault.
She is single minded in that matter.
I hate to play amateur psychologist, but I would guess there's a bit of
psychopathology going on there in her transference onto Bob.
Ernie
2014-01-20 03:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:49:56 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:22:56 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:18:00 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
No I think. I gather facts and connect them were possible. the more
detailed the fact the better overall understanding or picture is
generated.
Sure bob, in your field and your technical work that might be true,
but in other areas no.
IS this another "saver"? I nearly fell off my chair when I read this one
statement.
I suspect it is.
The entire use of debunked claims seems to take place to waste
people's time.
Yes I work a technical field, where knowledge and experience beats
the dickens out of Guessing and idle speculation. However I picked
this field because it gave me time to read and study.
I will point out how quickly I put the one fact I studied briefly 40
years in a geography class together with a new modern medical study.
The yellow flag went up when I realized the numbers do not add up. I
a still looking to find the connection between the apple industry and
the study's principles.
What nearly knocked me off my chair was the thought that Carole really does
not know how to study/research anything. Seems to me that Carole's schooling
was so dumbed down that they did not even give her to tools she needed to
figure out what is what and that Carole was also told that she was to follow
instructions and never ask questions.
I was taught by my parents to always ask questions. And then how to
find the answers, and then make sure I had the right answers. You
would be surprised how many times I found so called "common
knowledge" was usually slightly wrong as well as slightly right.
Yes, we were all taught to ask questions, look for the answers and think for
ourselves.
Common knowledge changes with constant repeating.
Indeed. I am reminded of a skit on Saturday Night Live.
jeopardy, using what teenagers consider common knowledge.
Funny.
Post by Bob Officer
The more knowledge you have the more able a person is able to see the
holes in what is known, and look to fill in the gaps. When the gaps
are fulled in the 'picture' is more complete. The more that facts you
have are checked and cross checked, the depth of the 'picture'
increases dramatically.
The only problem is that it is not always easy to come up with facts
when so much of history is rewritten and replaced with so much
propaganda. Also there is a lot of spin and hype put onto everything
political to spin something for public acceptance that would otherwise
be rejected.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
Knowledge is closer to a 3-D image than a flat image, with little
bits and pieces interconnected from one field of knowledge to
another.
I never thought of that before but it is true.
It was something I learned a while back. I guess it was from a
special on how the brain operates and how different people recover
from brain injuries. it must have been about 25 years ago on PSB or
discovery channel. Back when I used to watch TV.
So what are the different ways people's brains recover?
What are the differences?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Obviously people only eat a certain amount of food a day - if apples
were grown and eaten, then it would mean that some other foods
wouldn't be grown and eaten. So no change.
And you want to decide which foods they should eat.
Aren't you the one who bitches about Monsanto and genetically engineered
foods and here you are wanting to interfere with the world food supply by
dumping one farm grown product for the apple???????
Post by Clayton
Australia has some of the best climate for growing applies in
Tasmania, known as the 'apple isle'. But also NZ would have suitable
climate, and no doubt parts of US and UK. The arguments against
growing apples are laughable and weak. I can only assume that people
who suggest eating apples isn't plausible are pharmacetlcal pawns.
It is amazing how your analyzing ability works.
Amazing!
Bob said the world can not product enough apples to fill the need. Just how
does that make him a pharmaceutical pawn? Your claimed skill at analyzing
anything is overcome by your deep seated desire to insult your opponent at
every opportunity.
You-know-who is really an insulting type, not worth the time of day.

I've said this in the past: Bob really does fulfill the role of
"loyal opposition" in the best sense of the word, when it comes to
you-know-who. Yet she takes that for granted. At some point, she should
realize that all good things must come to an end.
Ernie
2014-01-19 11:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
I have heard this about apples many times over the years, that the
skin is chief source of the apple's fiber, and the underside of the skin
is where all the apple's nutrients are found. It's probably old farmers'
lore ... or is it?

Also, it seems that most home-grown fruit, including apples, seem to
have thinner or softer skins that their counter-parts in the commercial
farmers' market. Has anyone else noticed that, or is it just my imagination?
Lu
2014-01-19 18:56:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ernie
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
I have heard this about apples many times over the years, that the
skin is chief source of the apple's fiber, and the underside of the skin
is where all the apple's nutrients are found. It's probably old farmers'
lore ... or is it?
Also, it seems that most home-grown fruit, including apples, seem to
have thinner or softer skins that their counter-parts in the commercial
farmers' market. Has anyone else noticed that, or is it just my imagination?
Interesting. I never heard this before. I wonder if all the time spent in
shipping causes thicker skins?
--
Lu
Ernie
2014-01-19 19:14:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lu
Post by Ernie
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
I have heard this about apples many times over the years, that the
skin is chief source of the apple's fiber, and the underside of the skin
is where all the apple's nutrients are found. It's probably old farmers'
lore ... or is it?
Also, it seems that most home-grown fruit, including apples, seem to
have thinner or softer skins that their counter-parts in the commercial
farmers' market. Has anyone else noticed that, or is it just my imagination?
Interesting. I never heard this before. I wonder if all the time spent in
shipping causes thicker skins?
I've "heard" two explanations. I apologize in advance for failing to
provide any evidence to support either. I'm dabbling in hearsay. For all
I know, the explanations are as bogus as "Rockefeller rules Big Pharma
and modern medical care from the grave."

One is that the use pesticides by commercial growers causes thicker
skins in apples.

The other is that apples are harvested before they fully ripen, placed
in cold storage until there's a demand for shipment to market, and that
process causes the thicker skins.
Lu
2014-01-20 00:35:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ernie
Post by Lu
Post by Ernie
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
I have heard this about apples many times over the years, that the
skin is chief source of the apple's fiber, and the underside of the skin
is where all the apple's nutrients are found. It's probably old farmers'
lore ... or is it?
Also, it seems that most home-grown fruit, including apples, seem to
have thinner or softer skins that their counter-parts in the commercial
farmers' market. Has anyone else noticed that, or is it just my imagination?
Interesting. I never heard this before. I wonder if all the time spent in
shipping causes thicker skins?
I've "heard" two explanations. I apologize in advance for failing to
provide any evidence to support either. I'm dabbling in hearsay. For all
I know, the explanations are as bogus as "Rockefeller rules Big Pharma
and modern medical care from the grave."
You have already explained that you "heard" so I did not expect evidence.
Post by Ernie
One is that the use pesticides by commercial growers causes thicker
skins in apples.
The other is that apples are harvested before they fully ripen, placed
in cold storage until there's a demand for shipment to market, and that
process causes the thicker skins.
I do not think long shipping times has anything to do with the thickness of
the skin on an Apple. There are a few thin skinned Apples sold in US. I
bookmarked this site for future reference for myself.

http://michiganappleorchard.com/Apples/AppleVarieties.aspx

If really interested you could take a look at
http://www.cazv.cz/userfiles/File/ZA%2033_108-113.pdf. I am not that
interested. :-D
--
Lu
Ernie
2014-01-20 01:33:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lu
Post by Ernie
Post by Lu
Post by Ernie
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
I have heard this about apples many times over the years, that the
skin is chief source of the apple's fiber, and the underside of the skin
is where all the apple's nutrients are found. It's probably old farmers'
lore ... or is it?
Also, it seems that most home-grown fruit, including apples, seem to
have thinner or softer skins that their counter-parts in the commercial
farmers' market. Has anyone else noticed that, or is it just my imagination?
Interesting. I never heard this before. I wonder if all the time spent in
shipping causes thicker skins?
I've "heard" two explanations. I apologize in advance for failing to
provide any evidence to support either. I'm dabbling in hearsay. For all
I know, the explanations are as bogus as "Rockefeller rules Big Pharma
and modern medical care from the grave."
You have already explained that you "heard" so I did not expect evidence.
Post by Ernie
One is that the use pesticides by commercial growers causes thicker
skins in apples.
The other is that apples are harvested before they fully ripen, placed
in cold storage until there's a demand for shipment to market, and that
process causes the thicker skins.
I do not think long shipping times has anything to do with the thickness of
the skin on an Apple. There are a few thin skinned Apples sold in US. I
bookmarked this site for future reference for myself.
http://michiganappleorchard.com/Apples/AppleVarieties.aspx
If really interested you could take a look at
http://www.cazv.cz/userfiles/File/ZA%2033_108-113.pdf. I am not that
interested. :-D
Wow, that is interesting. The article suggests skin thickness is not
only peculiar to each cultivar, but also to the year the cultivar is
grown (suggesting growing conditions also influence skin thickness).

Thanks for the link. ;-)

Would you believe there are 7,500 known cultivars of apples?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apple_cultivars

Truly, an amazing work of nature and cultivation by mankind.
Ernie
2014-01-19 19:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lu
Post by Ernie
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
I have heard this about apples many times over the years, that the
skin is chief source of the apple's fiber, and the underside of the skin
is where all the apple's nutrients are found. It's probably old farmers'
lore ... or is it?
Also, it seems that most home-grown fruit, including apples, seem to
have thinner or softer skins that their counter-parts in the commercial
farmers' market. Has anyone else noticed that, or is it just my imagination?
Interesting. I never heard this before. I wonder if all the time spent in
shipping causes thicker skins?
Good question. I'm working on it. So far it appears the varieties with
thicker skins come that way via their inherited DNA.

But here's something interesting I found. It's a nutritional analysis of
a raw apple, with skin:

http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2200?qlookup=09003&format=Full&max=25&man=&lfacet=&new=1

Same link, but shortened: http://bitsy.spinics.net/952
Ernie
2014-01-19 19:38:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lu
Post by Ernie
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
I have heard this about apples many times over the years, that the
skin is chief source of the apple's fiber, and the underside of the skin
is where all the apple's nutrients are found. It's probably old farmers'
lore ... or is it?
Also, it seems that most home-grown fruit, including apples, seem to
have thinner or softer skins that their counter-parts in the commercial
farmers' market. Has anyone else noticed that, or is it just my imagination?
Interesting. I never heard this before. I wonder if all the time spent in
shipping causes thicker skins?
Found this:

"Don't peel your apple. Two-thirds of the fiber and lots of antioxidants
are found in the peel. Antioxidants help to reduce damage to cells,
which can trigger some diseases."

Also this:

"Many apples after harvesting and cleaning have commercial grade wax
applied. Waxes are made from natural ingredients."

The waxes cause the skin to harden?

http://urbanext.illinois.edu/apples/facts.cfm
Bob Officer
2014-01-19 20:18:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:38:29 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Ernie
Post by Ernie
Post by Lu
Post by Ernie
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
I have heard this about apples many times over the years, that the
skin is chief source of the apple's fiber, and the underside of the skin
is where all the apple's nutrients are found. It's probably old farmers'
lore ... or is it?
Also, it seems that most home-grown fruit, including apples, seem to
have thinner or softer skins that their counter-parts in the commercial
farmers' market. Has anyone else noticed that, or is it just my imagination?
Interesting. I never heard this before. I wonder if all the time spent in
shipping causes thicker skins?
"Don't peel your apple. Two-thirds of the fiber and lots of antioxidants
are found in the peel. Antioxidants help to reduce damage to cells,
which can trigger some diseases."
"Many apples after harvesting and cleaning have commercial grade wax
applied. Waxes are made from natural ingredients."
The waxes cause the skin to harden?
http://urbanext.illinois.edu/apples/facts.cfm
Waxes slow the aging/drying out process of an apple. Most all waxes
are water soluble and simply wash off.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Kaye
2014-01-19 23:51:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:38:29 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Ernie
Post by Ernie
Post by Lu
Post by Ernie
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
I have heard this about apples many times over the years, that the
skin is chief source of the apple's fiber, and the underside of the skin
is where all the apple's nutrients are found. It's probably old farmers'
lore ... or is it?
Also, it seems that most home-grown fruit, including apples, seem to
have thinner or softer skins that their counter-parts in the commercial
farmers' market. Has anyone else noticed that, or is it just my imagination?
Interesting. I never heard this before. I wonder if all the time spent in
shipping causes thicker skins?
"Don't peel your apple. Two-thirds of the fiber and lots of antioxidants
are found in the peel. Antioxidants help to reduce damage to cells,
which can trigger some diseases."
"Many apples after harvesting and cleaning have commercial grade wax
applied. Waxes are made from natural ingredients."
The waxes cause the skin to harden?
http://urbanext.illinois.edu/apples/facts.cfm
I would think the wax would slow down the water evaporation and keep
them a little fresher in transit to the market. I don't know if that
contributes to the thicker skin.
Lu
2014-01-20 00:57:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ernie
Post by Lu
Post by Ernie
Post by Bob Officer
Like the 'Study of apples replacing statins', it is nice idea, but
the supply of the worlds apple production is inadequate to supply
enough apples for just those over 50 years of age.
The study is interesting, but a dead end. Even if production of
apples increased, it would decrease production of other foodstuffs,
leaving a shortage in some other place. Apples are really highly
dependant on the climate and terrain, Often where the terrain is
suitable, the climate isn't, or there isn't enough water available to
grow them. Locally in this area, the heat of the summer is nearly too
high for even the most heat tolerant apples. (it only apple grown
here locally is a variety called 'Garden Delicious'. It is generally
a very small apple and low production pre tree and more of a 'cooking
apple' with a very tart taste. Ten miles from here where it gets even
hotter the apple will not produce fruit because it is too hot.)
Your study is interesting. Not something I would ever even thought to do.
I like apples but not the skins. The Gala Apple is the only apple I have
found, so far, with thinner skins.
I have heard this about apples many times over the years, that the
skin is chief source of the apple's fiber, and the underside of the skin
is where all the apple's nutrients are found. It's probably old farmers'
lore ... or is it?
Also, it seems that most home-grown fruit, including apples, seem to
have thinner or softer skins that their counter-parts in the commercial
farmers' market. Has anyone else noticed that, or is it just my imagination?
Interesting. I never heard this before. I wonder if all the time spent in
shipping causes thicker skins?
"Don't peel your apple. Two-thirds of the fiber and lots of antioxidants
are found in the peel. Antioxidants help to reduce damage to cells,
which can trigger some diseases."
Fortunately I hate peeling Apples. (G)
Post by Ernie
"Many apples after harvesting and cleaning have commercial grade wax
applied. Waxes are made from natural ingredients."
I don't think it is just Apples.
Post by Ernie
The waxes cause the skin to harden?
http://urbanext.illinois.edu/apples/facts.cfm
That is a very interesting site.
--
Lu
The Other Guy
2014-01-20 01:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lu
Post by Ernie
http://urbanext.illinois.edu/apples/facts.cfm
That is a very interesting site.
One thing not mentioned there is that each seed in an apple
can produce a different breed of apple.

Thus, seeds from a Granny Smith apple don't necessarily
grow into an apple tree that produces more Granny Smith apples.

Always thought that was kind of strange.









To reply by email, lose the Ks...


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Kaye
2014-01-19 05:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:18:00 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:02 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
1.
Post by Clayton
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
That's usually a given.
Post by Clayton
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
You have a medical degree from where?
You don't have a medical degree bob, yet that doesn't stop you putting
in your 2 bobs worth.
You are the one making the comment, directly. not citing an expert.
Your claim to authority was noted and found deficient.
Sure bob. I am extropolating from my own experience. Things that I
have cured with alternative remedies are those things which
pharmaceutical products are prescribed.
So tell us then, what have you cured with alternative remedies?
Post by Clayton
So IOW mainstream medicine is trained to give pharmaceutical products,
increasingly to treat for life of patient, rather than treat or cure
with nutritional or homeopathic remedies.
This is my own experience and I'm sure many other alties have had this
same experience. So this qualifies me to comment on the uselessness
and deception of using mainstream medication. So much for mainstream
experts and those "qualified" to speak.
So, where are they? They sure aren't here backing up your claims for
you.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Again your medical degree and research are from where and when?
I'm an altie bob, where did your get your medical degree from?
You don't have really are talking not from experience or knowledge
them. These are your statements made as an expert. Just how and where
did you get your information. You made to declarations by fiat. Both
appear to be fallacies of the post hoc declaration type.
Sure bob - I see what you're trying to say.
Pharmaceutical drugs are a deception. Anybody who relies on them
hasn't done their homework and is trusting in something they'd be
better off not trusting in. But the way the system is set up at the
moment with a lot of knowledge being lost due to mainstream medicine
pushing alternative aside, these days pharmaceutical drugs are used to
stabilise people in emergency situations and that is ok. However, for
chronic and long-term situations, other solutions should be
investigated wherever possible. Obviously if a person relies on pharma
products for lifesaving purposes they should continue to do so, but
also investigate other possibilities.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The trade-off for anybody else isn't worth it as there are side
effects that compromise a person's health in other areas.
Also shown not to be true.
Who by -- big pharma with their cherry-picked studies?
Now all the studies done, and not cherry picked. if you learned to
read them you might learn something.
Big pharma achieves dominance in the market place by infiltrating
government bodies, getting legislation changed to suit its purposes
and doing what it can to eliminate alternatives.
Something you probably didn't know
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/
"The Food and Drug Administration began life as the Division of
Chemistry, and was later known as the Bureau of Chemistry, long before
changing its name to the FDA. Its name was changed to conceal its
chemical industry agenda."
Doesn't provide evidence to back your claim Chaussette.
The whole system of the FDA being there to protect the consumer begins
to look more like its purpose was to protect the chemical
pharmaceutical industry.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
"The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”. Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations
totaled over $550,000,000. In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical
schools across 14 countries.The modern FDA. came into being in 1913 —
the same year that the Rockefeller Foundation was created. The FDA
works hand-in-hand with the Rockefeller Foundation and the American
Medical Association.
The Rockefeller Foundation
Still doesn't provide evidence to back your claim.
Do you understand what you are reading?
Which claim are you talking about fred?
Too much baking soda messing up your cognitive abilities and memory?
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Its partners at the FDA began an aggressive campaign of suppressing
medicines that competed with the chemical industry. An unholy alliance
formed between the American Medical Association, the FDA, and the
Rockefeller Foundation."
Read more at
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/#o3fP3Z881tqjMx9S.99
That is still a claim by the author and the 1st two paragraphs do not
provide evidence to support the conclusion he is making.
There are plenty more websites which say similar.
Post by Bob Officer
A 1st year debate student in high school would have spotted that,
Chaussette.
What were we discussing again?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Studies can be rigged and negated. Only those which are beneficial to
big pharma are allowed to stand. Its a racket, which is why you get
books written by insiders with names like "The Drug Racket" and
similar.
Can be, but minus proof, isn't.
There is the death rate from pharm drugs which supposedly have been
tested.
Post by Bob Officer
You can be an monkey, but minus proof one must assume you human.
Or I might be a human, but minus proof assume I'm not.
What's your point?
Certain things are a given - that we're human.
Post by Bob Officer
Logic is not your strong suit, is it?
Yes, logic is my strong suit - not so much trained in logic but
natural.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
It was refreshing for a change and can't imagine how it got past the
establishment censors.
How can lies, spin and false statements be refreshing, chaussette?
Oh bob, it happens all the time - big pharma only got to predominate
in mainstream medicine through deceptive practices like ghose written
articles, cherry picked studies, finding reasons to crucify
alternative medicine and similar such deceptions.
The program was presented as being factual. When in truth, much of
the program was based on deliberate lies and deception. And you claim
such a presentation was refreshing. That must be because you like
lies and deception.
The lies and deception are from the pharmaceutical business with
disease.
<snip of debunked articles.>
Now bob, you snipped some very important and relevant information.
Excuse me if I insert it back in.
Please refrain from snipping this information unless you want your
information snipped.
The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zgmi 
The History of the Pharma-Cartel
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cartel.html
Now what you need to realise is that the world is a very stuffed up
place with mainstream holding sway using deception, spin and lies.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
No I think. I gather facts and connect them were possible. the more
detailed the fact the better overall understanding or picture is
generated.
Sure bob, in your field and your technical work that might be true,
but in other areas no.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an apple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
I know how you operate. you don't have the ability to reason or use
logic.
You know nothing.
I have forgotten far more than you ever will know in your lifetime.
Slow but sure wins the race.
Clayton
"The matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Businessmen,
Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that
system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of
these people are not ready to be unplugged. (told the truth). And many
of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they
will fight to protect it."
Morpheus, The Matrix. (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.)
--
Kaye
Homeopathy: Imaginary medicine for imaginary ills.
Ernie
2014-01-19 12:05:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:18:00 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Sure bob. I am extropolating from my own experience. Things that I
have cured with alternative remedies are those things which
pharmaceutical products are prescribed.
ex what?
Post by Bob Officer
So tell us then, what have you cured with alternative remedies?
she cured a ham?
Kaye
2014-01-19 23:42:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 07:05:54 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Ernie
Post by Ernie
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:18:00 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Sure bob. I am extropolating from my own experience. Things that I
have cured with alternative remedies are those things which
pharmaceutical products are prescribed.
ex what?
Post by Bob Officer
So tell us then, what have you cured with alternative remedies?
she cured a ham?
LOL
Lu
2014-01-19 21:13:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Kaye
2014-01-20 02:09:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 16:13:13 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:18:00 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:02 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
1.
Post by Clayton
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
That's usually a given.
Post by Clayton
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
You have a medical degree from where?
You don't have a medical degree bob, yet that doesn't stop you putting
in your 2 bobs worth.
You are the one making the comment, directly. not citing an expert.
Your claim to authority was noted and found deficient.
Sure bob. I am extropolating from my own experience. Things that I
have cured with alternative remedies are those things which
pharmaceutical products are prescribed.
So tell us then, what have you cured with alternative remedies?
Post by Clayton
So IOW mainstream medicine is trained to give pharmaceutical products,
increasingly to treat for life of patient, rather than treat or cure
with nutritional or homeopathic remedies.
This is my own experience and I'm sure many other alties have had this
same experience. So this qualifies me to comment on the uselessness
and deception of using mainstream medication. So much for mainstream
experts and those "qualified" to speak.
So, where are they? They sure aren't here backing up your claims for
you.
She has to change some settings before her puppets can back up her lies
"oops" I mean claims.
I know. It's funny though when she forgets to, and the wrong
signature comes up. :-) She calls that a glitch.
I was wondering how long it was going to take Carole's puppets to get to
talking about Carole's cures? Took her longer than I thought but here she
is.
And yet, when she has a hangover she resorts to acetaminophen
(Tylenol) rather than her homeopathic treatments. Why is that, do you
suppose?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Again your medical degree and research are from where and when?
I'm an altie bob, where did your get your medical degree from?
You don't have really are talking not from experience or knowledge
them. These are your statements made as an expert. Just how and where
did you get your information. You made to declarations by fiat. Both
appear to be fallacies of the post hoc declaration type.
Sure bob - I see what you're trying to say.
Pharmaceutical drugs are a deception. Anybody who relies on them
hasn't done their homework and is trusting in something they'd be
better off not trusting in. But the way the system is set up at the
moment with a lot of knowledge being lost due to mainstream medicine
pushing alternative aside, these days pharmaceutical drugs are used to
stabilise people in emergency situations and that is ok. However, for
chronic and long-term situations, other solutions should be
investigated wherever possible. Obviously if a person relies on pharma
products for lifesaving purposes they should continue to do so, but
also investigate other possibilities.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The trade-off for anybody else isn't worth it as there are side
effects that compromise a person's health in other areas.
Also shown not to be true.
Who by -- big pharma with their cherry-picked studies?
Now all the studies done, and not cherry picked. if you learned to
read them you might learn something.
Big pharma achieves dominance in the market place by infiltrating
government bodies, getting legislation changed to suit its purposes
and doing what it can to eliminate alternatives.
Something you probably didn't know
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/
"The Food and Drug Administration began life as the Division of
Chemistry, and was later known as the Bureau of Chemistry, long before
changing its name to the FDA. Its name was changed to conceal its
chemical industry agenda."
Doesn't provide evidence to back your claim Chaussette.
The whole system of the FDA being there to protect the consumer begins
to look more like its purpose was to protect the chemical
pharmaceutical industry.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
"The Rockefeller Foundationâs main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, ãto promote the well-being of humanity around
the worldä. Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations
totaled over $550,000,000. In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical
schools across 14 countries.The modern FDA. came into being in 1913 ÷
the same year that the Rockefeller Foundation was created. The FDA
works hand-in-hand with the Rockefeller Foundation and the American
Medical Association.
The Rockefeller Foundation
Still doesn't provide evidence to back your claim.
Do you understand what you are reading?
Which claim are you talking about fred?
Too much baking soda messing up your cognitive abilities and memory?
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Its partners at the FDA began an aggressive campaign of suppressing
medicines that competed with the chemical industry. An unholy alliance
formed between the American Medical Association, the FDA, and the
Rockefeller Foundation."
Read more at
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/
#o3fP3Z881tqjMx9S.99
That is still a claim by the author and the 1st two paragraphs do not
provide evidence to support the conclusion he is making.
There are plenty more websites which say similar.
Post by Bob Officer
A 1st year debate student in high school would have spotted that,
Chaussette.
What were we discussing again?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Studies can be rigged and negated. Only those which are beneficial to
big pharma are allowed to stand. Its a racket, which is why you get
books written by insiders with names like "The Drug Racket" and
similar.
Can be, but minus proof, isn't.
There is the death rate from pharm drugs which supposedly have been
tested.
Post by Bob Officer
You can be an monkey, but minus proof one must assume you human.
Or I might be a human, but minus proof assume I'm not.
What's your point?
Certain things are a given - that we're human.
Post by Bob Officer
Logic is not your strong suit, is it?
Yes, logic is my strong suit - not so much trained in logic but
natural.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
It was refreshing for a change and can't imagine how it got past the
establishment censors.
How can lies, spin and false statements be refreshing, chaussette?
Oh bob, it happens all the time - big pharma only got to predominate
in mainstream medicine through deceptive practices like ghose written
articles, cherry picked studies, finding reasons to crucify
alternative medicine and similar such deceptions.
The program was presented as being factual. When in truth, much of
the program was based on deliberate lies and deception. And you claim
such a presentation was refreshing. That must be because you like
lies and deception.
The lies and deception are from the pharmaceutical business with
disease.
<snip of debunked articles.>
Now bob, you snipped some very important and relevant information.
Excuse me if I insert it back in.
Please refrain from snipping this information unless you want your
information snipped.
The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharm
aceutical_industry.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zgmiÊ
The History of the Pharma-Cartel
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cart
el.html
Now what you need to realise is that the world is a very stuffed up
place with mainstream holding sway using deception, spin and lies.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
No I think. I gather facts and connect them were possible. the more
detailed the fact the better overall understanding or picture is
generated.
Sure bob, in your field and your technical work that might be true,
but in other areas no.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an apple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
I know how you operate. you don't have the ability to reason or use
logic.
You know nothing.
I have forgotten far more than you ever will know in your lifetime.
Slow but sure wins the race.
Clayton
"The matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Businessmen,
Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that
system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of
these people are not ready to be unplugged. (told the truth). And many
of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they
will fight to protect it."
Morpheus, The Matrix. (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.)
Ernie
2014-01-20 03:01:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kaye
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 16:13:13 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:18:00 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:02 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the
money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
1.
Post by Clayton
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
That's usually a given.
Post by Clayton
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
You have a medical degree from where?
You don't have a medical degree bob, yet that doesn't stop you putting
in your 2 bobs worth.
You are the one making the comment, directly. not citing an expert.
Your claim to authority was noted and found deficient.
Sure bob. I am extropolating from my own experience. Things that I
have cured with alternative remedies are those things which
pharmaceutical products are prescribed.
So tell us then, what have you cured with alternative remedies?
Post by Clayton
So IOW mainstream medicine is trained to give pharmaceutical products,
increasingly to treat for life of patient, rather than treat or cure
with nutritional or homeopathic remedies.
This is my own experience and I'm sure many other alties have had this
same experience. So this qualifies me to comment on the uselessness
and deception of using mainstream medication. So much for mainstream
experts and those "qualified" to speak.
So, where are they? They sure aren't here backing up your claims for
you.
She has to change some settings before her puppets can back up her lies
"oops" I mean claims.
I know. It's funny though when she forgets to, and the wrong
signature comes up. :-) She calls that a glitch.
I was wondering how long it was going to take Carole's puppets to get to
talking about Carole's cures? Took her longer than I thought but here she
is.
And yet, when she has a hangover she resorts to acetaminophen
(Tylenol) rather than her homeopathic treatments. Why is that, do you
suppose?
Actually, she resorts to panadeine, which is paracetamol (acetaminophen
in the USA) plus codeine phosphate. Codeine is considered an opiate, or
a narcotic opioid alkaloid found as a natural product in the opium poppy.

So in addition to over-indulging in alcohol, she also finds relief by
using an over-the-counter narcotic drug.

The reason, you ask? Because there's nothing in her homeopathic
"arsenal" that provides relief equal to acetaminophen plus codeine.

Is she admitting that homeopathy is no better than placebo when it comes
to hangovers?
Post by Kaye
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Again your medical degree and research are from where and when?
I'm an altie bob, where did your get your medical degree from?
You don't have really are talking not from experience or knowledge
them. These are your statements made as an expert. Just how and where
did you get your information. You made to declarations by fiat. Both
appear to be fallacies of the post hoc declaration type.
Sure bob - I see what you're trying to say.
Pharmaceutical drugs are a deception. Anybody who relies on them
hasn't done their homework and is trusting in something they'd be
better off not trusting in. But the way the system is set up at the
moment with a lot of knowledge being lost due to mainstream medicine
pushing alternative aside, these days pharmaceutical drugs are used to
stabilise people in emergency situations and that is ok. However, for
chronic and long-term situations, other solutions should be
investigated wherever possible. Obviously if a person relies on pharma
products for lifesaving purposes they should continue to do so, but
also investigate other possibilities.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The trade-off for anybody else isn't worth it as there are side
effects that compromise a person's health in other areas.
Also shown not to be true.
Who by -- big pharma with their cherry-picked studies?
Now all the studies done, and not cherry picked. if you learned to
read them you might learn something.
Big pharma achieves dominance in the market place by infiltrating
government bodies, getting legislation changed to suit its purposes
and doing what it can to eliminate alternatives.
Something you probably didn't know
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/
"The Food and Drug Administration began life as the Division of
Chemistry, and was later known as the Bureau of Chemistry, long before
changing its name to the FDA. Its name was changed to conceal its
chemical industry agenda."
Doesn't provide evidence to back your claim Chaussette.
The whole system of the FDA being there to protect the consumer begins
to look more like its purpose was to protect the chemical
pharmaceutical industry.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
"The Rockefeller Foundationâs main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, ãto promote the well-being of humanity around
the worldä. Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations
totaled over $550,000,000. In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical
schools across 14 countries.The modern FDA. came into being in 1913 ÷
the same year that the Rockefeller Foundation was created. The FDA
works hand-in-hand with the Rockefeller Foundation and the American
Medical Association.
The Rockefeller Foundation
Still doesn't provide evidence to back your claim.
Do you understand what you are reading?
Which claim are you talking about fred?
Too much baking soda messing up your cognitive abilities and memory?
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Its partners at the FDA began an aggressive campaign of suppressing
medicines that competed with the chemical industry. An unholy alliance
formed between the American Medical Association, the FDA, and the
Rockefeller Foundation."
Read more at
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/
#o3fP3Z881tqjMx9S.99
That is still a claim by the author and the 1st two paragraphs do not
provide evidence to support the conclusion he is making.
There are plenty more websites which say similar.
Post by Bob Officer
A 1st year debate student in high school would have spotted that,
Chaussette.
What were we discussing again?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Studies can be rigged and negated. Only those which are beneficial to
big pharma are allowed to stand. Its a racket, which is why you get
books written by insiders with names like "The Drug Racket" and
similar.
Can be, but minus proof, isn't.
There is the death rate from pharm drugs which supposedly have been
tested.
Post by Bob Officer
You can be an monkey, but minus proof one must assume you human.
Or I might be a human, but minus proof assume I'm not.
What's your point?
Certain things are a given - that we're human.
Post by Bob Officer
Logic is not your strong suit, is it?
Yes, logic is my strong suit - not so much trained in logic but
natural.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
It was refreshing for a change and can't imagine how it got past the
establishment censors.
How can lies, spin and false statements be refreshing, chaussette?
Oh bob, it happens all the time - big pharma only got to predominate
in mainstream medicine through deceptive practices like ghose written
articles, cherry picked studies, finding reasons to crucify
alternative medicine and similar such deceptions.
The program was presented as being factual. When in truth, much of
the program was based on deliberate lies and deception. And you claim
such a presentation was refreshing. That must be because you like
lies and deception.
The lies and deception are from the pharmaceutical business with
disease.
<snip of debunked articles.>
Now bob, you snipped some very important and relevant information.
Excuse me if I insert it back in.
Please refrain from snipping this information unless you want your
information snipped.
The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharm
aceutical_industry.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zgmiÊ
The History of the Pharma-Cartel
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cart
el.html
Now what you need to realise is that the world is a very stuffed up
place with mainstream holding sway using deception, spin and lies.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
That is how you think. You don't think, you read manuals and
documentation from "expert", "reliable" and "authoratitive sources"
all mainstream sources.
No I think. I gather facts and connect them were possible. the more
detailed the fact the better overall understanding or picture is
generated.
Sure bob, in your field and your technical work that might be true,
but in other areas no.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an apple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
I know how you operate. you don't have the ability to reason or use
logic.
You know nothing.
I have forgotten far more than you ever will know in your lifetime.
Slow but sure wins the race.
Clayton
"The matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Businessmen,
Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that
system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of
these people are not ready to be unplugged. (told the truth). And many
of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they
will fight to protect it."
Morpheus, The Matrix. (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.)
Ernie
2014-01-20 03:15:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ernie
Post by Kaye
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 16:13:13 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Lu
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:18:00 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:03:40 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:02 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the
money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the
ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
1.
Post by Clayton
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
That's usually a given.
Post by Clayton
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
You have a medical degree from where?
You don't have a medical degree bob, yet that doesn't stop you putting
in your 2 bobs worth.
You are the one making the comment, directly. not citing an expert.
Your claim to authority was noted and found deficient.
Sure bob. I am extropolating from my own experience. Things that I
have cured with alternative remedies are those things which
pharmaceutical products are prescribed.
So tell us then, what have you cured with alternative remedies?
Post by Clayton
So IOW mainstream medicine is trained to give pharmaceutical products,
increasingly to treat for life of patient, rather than treat or cure
with nutritional or homeopathic remedies.
This is my own experience and I'm sure many other alties have had this
same experience. So this qualifies me to comment on the uselessness
and deception of using mainstream medication. So much for mainstream
experts and those "qualified" to speak.
So, where are they? They sure aren't here backing up your claims for
you.
She has to change some settings before her puppets can back up her lies
"oops" I mean claims.
I know. It's funny though when she forgets to, and the wrong
signature comes up. :-) She calls that a glitch.
I was wondering how long it was going to take Carole's puppets to get to
talking about Carole's cures? Took her longer than I thought but here she
is.
And yet, when she has a hangover she resorts to acetaminophen
(Tylenol) rather than her homeopathic treatments. Why is that, do you
suppose?
Actually, she resorts to panadeine, which is paracetamol (acetaminophen
in the USA) plus codeine phosphate. Codeine is considered an opiate, or
a narcotic opioid alkaloid found as a natural product in the opium poppy.
So in addition to over-indulging in alcohol, she also finds relief by
using an over-the-counter narcotic drug.
The reason, you ask? Because there's nothing in her homeopathic
"arsenal" that provides relief equal to acetaminophen plus codeine.
Is she admitting that homeopathy is no better than placebo when it comes
to hangovers?
Also, why is she relying on the evil and overly-profitable Big Pharma
(allegedly influenced by Rockefeller through his relationship with IG
Farben) for relief?

Seems a bit hypocritical on her part.

Kaye
2014-01-18 22:33:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:02 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
And that is where the doctor recommends diet and exercise.
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Do you even understand what chronic and degenerative? They don't
just go away, and they certainly can't be treated with baking soda or
whatever "treatment of the day" you are advocating today.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The trade-off for anybody else isn't worth it as there are side
effects that compromise a person's health in other areas.
Also shown not to be true.
Who by -- big pharma with their cherry-picked studies?
You don't think alternative pushers cherry pick? Not only do they
cherry pick, they twist and contort statements to mean something
completely different. Much like when you reiterate something here
with the sentence beginning "So what your saying is....." then you
completely twist till you have made a lie out of it. It's what you
do. We know this. Any time you start with that phrase we know a lie
is following.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Oops !!
Yes you should by now realize the three principle people featured on
the show were not really qualified in the field to have their
opinions given much weight. The facts the show staff and speakers,
misused studies and presented much of what they said in a false
light.
But bob, that description ie "unqualified" is applied to anybody who
doesn't support mainstream pharmaceutical medicine.
Look at what happened to simoncini when he let it slip that cancer was
due to a fungus and could be cured with something cheap like bicarb.
He was crucified - under the pretext of concern for the public of
course.
Post by Bob Officer
The investigation has moved on to find the reason the show presented
the false information and why they allowed the reporters manner to be
on-sided in facial expression and body mannerism.
Well, they might be able to find some grounds to charge those who
participated in the show with deception, however, the basic premise
that statins are over-used and should not be used long-term due to
adverse side effects, is still a legitimate comment.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Did you do the followup reading or follow any of the URL? I picked
people from both side issue including a ABC media watchdog group
there only looked at what wasn't a fair and even presentation.
I think its a well known fact that trans fats are bad, saturated fats
less so and a certain amount are probably harmless.
I wasn't aware there was such a large trade in palm oil, but of course
these days it must be sustainable, and I know that's no help to the
orangatangs that have lots their trees already. Not sure what the
definition of sustainable is, presumably that which doesn't cause loss
of habitat for orangatangs.
Hey but good on you for doing some research, even if it did take a
couple of months for the penny to drop. Be good if you did similar
research on some other topics.
Yes,
The real penny was the catalyst program was uneven and false
reporting.
It was refreshing for a change and can't imagine how it got past the
establishment censors.
How can lies, spin and false statements be refreshing, chaussette?
Oh bob, it happens all the time - big pharma only got to predominate
in mainstream medicine through deceptive practices like ghose written
articles, cherry picked studies, finding reasons to crucify
alternative medicine and similar such deceptions.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The money trail showed the staff of catalyst program were running an
story to promote palm oil and unhealthy diet and lifestyle. The only
question now is were they paid off by the palm oil industry?
Maybe, and that was a good bit of detective work on your part.
It is a possibility that the palm oil industry was involved somehow -
however, the bottom line is pharmaceutical drugs aren't always good.
No the real bottom line is no matter what the claim one must read all
the links and fact check every statement made. When one checks the
fact, one find statins do help the majority of the people. when taken
along side diet and lifestyle changes, it tends to make the body more
healthy.
I don't think so, except to a pharmaceutical pawn.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an ap[ple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zgmi 
The History of the Pharma-Cartel
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cartel.html
Clayton
--
Kaye

"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Bob Officer
2014-01-19 00:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:33:13 -0800, in misc.health.alternative, Kaye
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:02 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
And that is where the doctor recommends diet and exercise.
Some "pharmaceutical drugs" (they) are meant to be taken for a
lifetime. Thyroid replacement and insulin in Type-1 diabetics come to
mind, as do anti rejection drugs for most people with organ
transplants. There are even some anti clotting drugs which help
people which have been given mechanical heart valves.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Do you even understand what chronic and degenerative? They don't
just go away, and they certainly can't be treated with baking soda or
whatever "treatment of the day" you are advocating today.
People born with defective heart valves used to just die. often at an
early age. Today, they are given mechanical and pig's valves. both
require continuing treatment with Drugs.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The trade-off for anybody else isn't worth it as there are side
effects that compromise a person's health in other areas.
Also shown not to be true.
Who by -- big pharma with their cherry-picked studies?
You don't think alternative pushers cherry pick? Not only do they
cherry pick, they twist and contort statements to mean something
completely different. Much like when you reiterate something here
with the sentence beginning "So what your saying is....." then you
completely twist till you have made a lie out of it. It's what you
do. We know this. Any time you start with that phrase we know a lie
is following.
Yeppers.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Oops !!
Yes you should by now realize the three principle people featured on
the show were not really qualified in the field to have their
opinions given much weight. The facts the show staff and speakers,
misused studies and presented much of what they said in a false
light.
But bob, that description ie "unqualified" is applied to anybody who
doesn't support mainstream pharmaceutical medicine.
Look at what happened to simoncini when he let it slip that cancer was
due to a fungus and could be cured with something cheap like bicarb.
He was crucified - under the pretext of concern for the public of
course.
Post by Bob Officer
The investigation has moved on to find the reason the show presented
the false information and why they allowed the reporters manner to be
on-sided in facial expression and body mannerism.
Well, they might be able to find some grounds to charge those who
participated in the show with deception, however, the basic premise
that statins are over-used and should not be used long-term due to
adverse side effects, is still a legitimate comment.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
oops.
Did you do the followup reading or follow any of the URL? I picked
people from both side issue including a ABC media watchdog group
there only looked at what wasn't a fair and even presentation.
I think its a well known fact that trans fats are bad, saturated fats
less so and a certain amount are probably harmless.
I wasn't aware there was such a large trade in palm oil, but of course
these days it must be sustainable, and I know that's no help to the
orangatangs that have lots their trees already. Not sure what the
definition of sustainable is, presumably that which doesn't cause loss
of habitat for orangatangs.
Hey but good on you for doing some research, even if it did take a
couple of months for the penny to drop. Be good if you did similar
research on some other topics.
Yes,
The real penny was the catalyst program was uneven and false
reporting.
It was refreshing for a change and can't imagine how it got past the
establishment censors.
How can lies, spin and false statements be refreshing, chaussette?
Oh bob, it happens all the time - big pharma only got to predominate
in mainstream medicine through deceptive practices like ghose written
articles, cherry picked studies, finding reasons to crucify
alternative medicine and similar such deceptions.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The money trail showed the staff of catalyst program were running an
story to promote palm oil and unhealthy diet and lifestyle. The only
question now is were they paid off by the palm oil industry?
Maybe, and that was a good bit of detective work on your part.
It is a possibility that the palm oil industry was involved somehow -
however, the bottom line is pharmaceutical drugs aren't always good.
No the real bottom line is no matter what the claim one must read all
the links and fact check every statement made. When one checks the
fact, one find statins do help the majority of the people. when taken
along side diet and lifestyle changes, it tends to make the body more
healthy.
I don't think so, except to a pharmaceutical pawn.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
An apple a day does more for a person's health than a whole heap of
expensive drugs.
Actually while you might say that, an ap[ple will not prevent a lot
of different diseases, and in a few cases might actually do harm.
This of course is one of your normal false statements which really
isn't based on fact, is it?
Not the way big pharma puts its facts together - no.
But then we all know about how they operate, don't we?
The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zgmi 
Look at who she is citing 'dr rath', the genocide.

Maybe this is the reason she likes the killer of black africans:

"The white people are the only ones with enough brains to understand
that the world is way past being overpopulated. "
Carole Hubbard, puppeteer
Message-ID: <Qh6a6.18$***@news0.optus.net.au>

Yes this Rath is same person that convinced the south africa
government to stop providing anti-virals and buy his brand of
vitamins mix to treat AIDS. The Death told was in the 100s of
thousands of people in the 1 st of the program.

I have a large citation below, most of you can skip it. I post the
important part below, and it should defuse the Chaussette from using
Rath's work as a citation ever again, hopefully.

<cite>
He [rath] even claimed that his activities were endorsed by huge
lists of sponsors and affiliates including the World Health
Organization, UNICEF and UNAIDS. All have issued statements flatly
denouncing his claims and activities.
</cite>

Rath is a liar, and I do not have any idea why anyone would cite his
work as an authority. [if rath is a real alternative therapist, why
would he lie about having mainstream endorsements?]

Now he is in a battle of using projection as a defense mechanism.
What he is calling other people he may be guilty of doing himself.
(is this an example of classic case of psychological projection?)

What is the truth? HEre may be a glimmer of it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Matthias_Rath
<cite>
Matthias Rath is a (notorious quack) vitamin pill magnate who
unsuccessfully tried to sue The Grauniad after nerd cheerleader and
quackbuster Ben Goldacre cited strong evidence that he was
responsible for deadly misinformation and health fraud
profiteering.[1]

Rath is a peddler of vitamin pills which he claims to have
near-magical curative power, and is an influential AIDS denialist,
being in no small part responsible for the South African government's
shameful and deadly policy on AIDS under Thabo Mbeki. Public health
researchers have attributed 330,000 to 340,000 AIDS deaths, along
with 171,000 other HIV infections and 35,000 infant HIV infections,
to the South African government's former embrace of AIDS
denialism.[2]

His campaign against South Africa's Treatment Action Campaign and
founder Zackie Achmat was vicious to the point of being almost
surreal. Former employee Anthony Brink actually filed a charge at the
International Criminal Court in The Hague accusing Achmat of
genocide, based on his support for use of antiretrovirals. Rath and
his associates accused TAC of taking money from pharmaceutical
companies (an allegation which is categorically false) and acting as
shills for big pharma despite TAC's widely publicised and trenchant
criticism of the pharmaceutical industry.

[...]

Rath's lawsuit prevented Goldacre from including a chapter on Rath in
Bad Science. Happily the lawsuit having been dropped and the
Guradian's costs paid, Rath has effectively accepted that he has no
case, so Goldacre has published the missing chapter online:
http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/
http://badscience.net/files/The-Doctor-Will-Sue-You-Now.pdf

[1] Bad Science, September 2008
[2] Chigwedere P, Seage GR, Gruskin S, Lee TH, Essex M (October
2008). "Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in
South Africa". Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)
49 (4): 410–415. [1]
</cite>

and
http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/
http://badscience.net/files/The-Doctor-Will-Sue-You-Now.pdf
Steal this Chapter!

This is an extract from
BAD SCIENCE by Ben Goldacre
Published by Harper Perennial 2009.

You are free to copy it, paste it, bake it, reprint it, read it
aloud, as long as you don’t change it – including this bit – so that
people know that they can find more ideas for free at
www.badscience.net

The Doctor Will Sue You Now

This chapter did not appear in the original edition of this book,
because for fifteen months leading up to September 2008 the
vitamin-pill entrepreneur Matthias Rath was suing me personally,
and the Guardian, for libel. This strategy brought only mixed
success. For all that nutritionists may fantasise in public that any
critic is somehow a pawn of big pharma, in private they would do well
to remember that, like many my age who work in the public sector, I
don’t own a flat. The Guardian generously paid for the lawyers, and
in September 2008 Rath dropped his case, which had cost in excess of
£500,000 to defend. Rath has paid £220,000 already, and the rest will
hopefully follow. Nobody will ever repay me for the endless meetings,
the time off work, or the days spent poring over tables filled with
endlessly cross-referenced court documents.

On this last point there is, however, one small consolation, and I
will spell it out as a cautionary tale: I now know more about
Matthias Rath than almost any other person alive. My notes,
references and witness statements, boxed up in the room where I am
sitting right now, make a pile as tall as the man himself, and what I
will write here is only a tiny fraction of the fuller story that is
waiting to be told about him. This chapter, I should also mention, is
available free online for anyone who wishes to see it.

Matthias Rath takes us rudely outside the contained, almost academic
distance of this book. For the most part we’ve been interested in the
intellectual and cultural consequences of bad science, the made-up
facts in national newspapers, dubious academic practices in
universities, some foolish pill-peddling, and so on. But what happens
if we take these sleights of hand, these pill-marketing techniques,
and transplant them out of our decadent Western context into a
situation where things really matter?

In an ideal world this would be only a thought experiment.

AIDS is the opposite of anecdote. Twenty-five million people
have died from it already, three million in the last year alone,
and 500,000 of those deaths were children. In South Africa it
kills 300,000 people every year: that’s eight hundred people
every day, or one every two minutes. This one country has 6.3
million people who are HIV positive, including 30 per cent of
all pregnant women. There are 1.2 million AIDS orphans under
the age of seventeen. Most chillingly of all, this disaster has
appeared suddenly, and while we were watching: in 1990, just 1
per cent of adults in South Africa were HIV positive. Ten years
later, the figure had risen to 25 per cent.

It’s hard to mount an emotional response to raw numbers,
but on one thing I think we would agree. If you were to walk
into a situation with that much death, misery and disease, you
would be very careful to make sure that you knew what you
were talking about. For the reasons you are about to read, I
suspect that Matthias Rath missed the mark.

This man, we should be clear, is our responsibility. Born and
raised in Germany, Rath was the head of Cardiovascular
Research at the Linus Pauling Institute in Palo Alto in California,
and even then he had a tendency towards grand gestures,
publishing a paper in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine
Bad Science in 1992 titled ‘A Unified Theory of Human Cardiovascular
Disease Leading the Way to the Abolition of this Disease as a
Cause for Human Mortality’. The unified theory was high-dose
vitamins.

He first developed a power base from sales in Europe, selling
his pills with tactics that will be very familiar to you from the
rest of this book, albeit slightly more aggressive. In the UK, his
adverts claimed that ‘90 per cent of patients receiving chemotherapy
for cancer die within months of starting treatment’, and suggested
that three million lives could be saved if cancer patients stopped
being treated by conventional medicine. The pharmaceutical industry
was deliberately letting people die for financial gain, he explained.
Cancer treatments were ‘poisonous compounds’ with ‘not even one
effective treatment’.

The decision to embark on treatment for cancer can be the most
difficult that an individual or a family will ever take, representing
a close balance between well-documented benefits and equally
well-documented side-effects. Adverts like these might play
especially strongly on your conscience if your mother has just lost
all her hair to chemotherapy, for example, in the hope of staying
alive just long enough to see your son speak.

There was some limited regulatory response in Europe, but it was
generally as weak as that faced by the other characters in this book.
The Advertising Standards Authority criticised one of his adverts in
the UK, but that is essentially all they are able to do. Rath was
ordered by a Berlin court to stop claiming that his vitamins could
cure cancer, or face a €250,000 fine.

But sales were strong, and Matthias Rath still has many supporters in
Europe, as you will shortly see. He walked into South Africa with all
the acclaim, self-confidence and wealth he had amassed as a
successful vitamin-pill entrepreneur in Europe and America, and began
to take out full-page adverts in newspapers.

‘The answer to the AIDS epidemic is here,’ he proclaimed.
Anti-retroviral drugs were poisonous, and a conspiracy to kill
patients and make money. ‘Stop AIDS Genocide by the Drugs
Cartel’ said one headline. ‘Why should South Africans continue
to be poisoned with AZT? There is a natural answer to AIDS.’
The answer came in the form of vitamin pills. ‘Multivitamin
treatment is more effective than any toxic AIDS drug.’‘Multivitamins
cut the risk of developing AIDS in half.’

Rath’s company ran clinics reflecting these ideas, and in 2005
he decided to run a trial of his vitamins in a township near Cape
Town called Khayelitsha, giving his own formulation, VitaCell,
to people with advanced AIDS. In 2008 this trial was declared
illegal by the Cape High Court of South Africa. Although Rath
says that none of his participants had been on anti-retroviral
drugs, some relatives have given statements saying that they
were, and were actively told to stop using them.

Tragically, Matthias Rath had taken these ideas to exactly the
right place. Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa at the
time, was well known as an ‘AIDS dissident’, and to international
horror, while people died at the rate of one every two minutes
in his country, he gave credence and support to the claims of a
small band of campaigners who variously claim that AIDS does
not exist, that it is not caused by HIV, that anti-retroviral
medication does more harm than good, and so on.

At various times during the peak of the AIDS epidemic in
South Africa their government argued that HIV is not the cause
of AIDS, and that anti-retroviral drugs are not useful for
patients. They refused to roll out proper treatment programmes,
they refused to accept free donations of drugs, and they refused
to accept grant money from the Global Fund to buy drugs.

One study estimates that if the South African national
government had used anti-retroviral drugs for prevention and
treatment at the same rate as the Western Cape province (which
defied national policy on the issue), around 171,000 new HIV
infections and 343,000 deaths could have been prevented
between 1999 and 2007. Another study estimates that between
2000 and 2005 there were 330,000 unnecessary deaths, 2.2
million person years lost, and 35,000 babies unnecessarily born
with HIV because of the failure to implement a cheap and
simple mother-to-child-transmission prevention program.
Between one and three doses of an ARV drug can reduce transmission
dramatically. The cost is negligible. It was not available.

Interestingly, Matthias Rath’s colleague and employee, a
South African barrister named Anthony Brink, takes the credit
for introducing Thabo Mbeki to many of these ideas. Brink
stumbled on the ‘AIDS dissident’ material in the mid-1990s,
and after much surfing and reading, became convinced that it
must be right. In 1999 he wrote an article about AZT in a
Johannesburg newspaper titled ‘a medicine from hell’. This led
to a public exchange with a leading virologist. Brink contacted
Mbeki, sending him copies of the debate, and was welcomed as
an expert. This is a chilling testament to the danger of elevating
cranks by engaging with them.

In his initial letter of motivation for employment to Matthias
Rath, Brink described himself as ‘South Africa’s leading AIDS
dissident, best known for my whistle-blowing exposé of the
toxicity and inefficacy of AIDS drugs, and for my political
activism in this regard, which caused President Mbeki and
Health Minister Dr Tshabalala-Msimang to repudiate the drugs
in 1999’.

In 2000, the now infamous International AIDS Conference
took place in Durban. Mbeki’s presidential advisory panel
beforehand was packed with ‘AIDS dissidents’, including Peter
Duesberg and David Rasnick. On the first day, Rasnick
suggested that all HIV testing should be banned on principle,
and that South Africa should stop screening supplies of blood
for HIV. ‘If I had the power to outlaw the HIV antibody test,’ he
said, ‘I would do it across the board.’When African physicians
gave testimony about the drastic change AIDS had caused in
their clinics and hospitals, Rasnick said he had not seen ‘any
evidence’ of an AIDS catastrophe. The media were not allowed
in, but one reporter from the Village Voice was present. Peter
Duesberg, he said, ‘gave a presentation so removed from African
medical reality that it left several local doctors shaking their
heads’. It wasn’t AIDS that was killing babies and children, said
the dissidents: it was the anti-retroviral medication.

President Mbeki sent a letter to world leaders comparing the
struggle of the ‘AIDS dissidents’ to the struggle against apartheid.
The Washington Post described the reaction at the White House:
‘So stunned were some officials by the letter’s tone and timing –
during final preparations for July’s conference in Durban – that
at least two of them, according to diplomatic sources, felt
obliged to check whether it was genuine.’Hundreds of delegates
walked out of Mbeki’s address to the conference in disgust, but
many more described themselves as dazed and confused. Over
5,000 researchers and activists around the world signed up to
the Durban Declaration, a document that specifically addressed
and repudiated the claims and concerns – at least the more
moderate ones – of the ‘AIDS dissidents’. Specifically, it
addressed the charge that people were simply dying of poverty:

The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is
clearcut,exhaustive and unambiguous … As with any other
chronic infection, various co-factors play a role in
determining the risk of disease. Persons who are
malnourished, who already suffer other infections or
who are older, tend to be more susceptible to
the rapid development of AIDS following HIV infection.

However, none of these factors weaken the scientific evidence
that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS … Mother-to-child
transmission can be reduced by half or more by short courses
of antiviral drugs … What works best in one country may not
be appropriate in another. But to tackle the disease,
everyone must first understand that HIV is the enemy.

Research, not myths, will lead to the development of more
effective and cheaper treatments.

It did them no good. Until 2003 the South African government
refused, as a matter of principle, to roll out proper antiretroviral
medication programmes, and even then the process was half-hearted.
This madness was only overturned after a massive campaign by
grassroots organisations such as the Treatment Action Campaign, but
even after the ANC cabinet voted to allow medication to be given,
there was still resistance. In mid-2005, at least 85 per cent of
HIV-positive people who needed anti-retroviral drugs were still
refused them. That’s around a million people.

This resistance, of course, went deeper than just one man;
much of it came from Mbeki’s Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-
Msimang. An ardent critic of medical drugs for HIV, she would
cheerfully go on television to talk up their dangers, talk down their
benefits, and became irritable and evasive when asked how many
patients were receiving effective treatment. She declared in 2005
that she would not be ‘pressured’ into meeting the target of three
million patients on anti-retroviral medication, that people had
ignored the importance of nutrition, and that she would continue to
warn patients of the sideeffects of anti-retrovirals, saying: ‘We
have been vindicated in this regard.We are what we eat.’

It’s an eerily familiar catchphrase. Tshabalala-Msimang has also gone
on record to praise the work of Matthias Rath, and refused to
investigate his activities. Most joyfully of all, she is a staunch
advocate of the kind of weekend glossy-magazine-style nutritionism
that will by now be very familiar to you.

The remedies she advocates for AIDS are beetroot, garlic, lemons and
African potatoes. A fairly typical quote, from the Health Minister in
a country where eight hundred people die every day from AIDS, is
this: ‘Raw garlic and a skin of the lemon – not only do they give you
a beautiful face and skin but they also protect you from disease.’
South Africa’s stand at the 2006 World AIDS Conference in Toronto was
described by delegates as the ‘salad stall’. It consisted of some
garlic, some beetroot, the African potato, and assorted other
vegetables. Some boxes of anti-retroviral drugs were added later, but
they were reportedly borrowed at the last minute from other
conference delegates.

Alternative therapists like to suggest that their treatments and
ideas have not been sufficiently researched. As you now know, this is
often untrue, and in the case of the Health Minister’s favoured
vegetables, research had indeed been done, with results that were far
from promising. Interviewed on SABC about this, Tshabalala-Msimang
gave the kind of responses you’d expect to hear at any North London
dinner-party discussion of alternative therapies.

First she was asked about work from the University of Stellenbosch
which suggested that her chosen plant, the African potato, might be
actively dangerous for people on AIDS drugs. One study on African
potato in HIV had to be terminated prematurely, because the patients
who received the plant extract developed severe bone-marrow
suppression and a drop in their CD4 cell count – which is a bad thing
– after eight weeks. On top of this, when extract from the same
vegetable was given to cats with Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, they
succumbed to full-blown Feline AIDS faster than their non-treated
controls. African potato does not look like a good bet.

Tshabalala-Msimang disagreed: the researchers should go back to the
drawing board, and ‘investigate properly’. Why? Because HIV-positive
people who used African potato had shown improvement, and they had
said so themselves. If a person says he or she is feeling better,
should this be disputed, she demanded to know, merely because it had
not been proved scientifically? ‘When a person says she or he is
feeling better, I must say “No, I don’t think you are feeling
better”? “I must rather go and do science on you”?’ Asked whether
there should be a scientific basis to her views, she replied: ‘Whose
science?’

And there, perhaps, is a clue, if not exoneration. This is a
continent that has been brutally exploited by the developed world,
first by empire, and then by globalised capital. Conspiracy theories
about AIDS and Western medicine are not entirely absurd in this
context. The pharmaceutical industry has indeed been caught
performing drug trials in Africa which would be impossible anywhere
in the developed world. Many find it suspicious that black Africans
seem to be the biggest victims of AIDS, and point to the biological
warfare programmes set up by the apartheid governments; there have
also been suspicions that the scientific discourse of HIV/AIDS might
be a device, a Trojan horse for spreading even more exploitative
Western political and economic agendas around a problem that is
simply one of poverty.

And these are new countries, for which independence and self-rule are
recent developments, which are struggling to find their commercial
feet and true cultural identity after centuries of colonisation.
Traditional medicine represents an important link with an autonomous
past; besides which, anti-retroviral medications have been
unnecessarily – offensively, absurdly – expensive, and until moves to
challenge this became partially successful, many Africans were
effectively denied access to medical treatment as a result.

It’s very easy for us to feel smug, and to forget that we all have
our own strange cultural idiosyncrasies which prevent us from taking
up sensible public-health programmes. For examples,we don’t even have
to look as far as MMR. There is a good evidence base, for example, to
show that needle-exchange programmes reduce the spread of HIV, but
this strategy has been rejected time and again in favour of ‘Just say
no.’ Development charities funded by US Christian groups refuse to
engage with birth control, and any suggestion of abortion, even in
countries where being in control of your own fertility could mean the
difference between success and failure in life, is met with a cold,
pious stare. These impractical moral principles are so deeply
entrenched that Pepfar, the US Presidential Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief, has insisted that every recipient of international
aid money must sign a declaration expressly promising not to have any
involvement with sex workers.

We mustn’t appear insensitive to the Christian value system, but it
seems to me that engaging sex workers is almost the cornerstone of
any effective AIDS policy: commercial sex is frequently the ‘vector
of transmission’, and sex workers a very high-risk population; but
there are also more subtle issues at stake. If you secure the legal
rights of prostitutes to be free from violence and discrimination,
you empower them to demand universal condom use, and that way you can
prevent HIV from being spread into the whole community. This is where
science meets culture. But perhaps even to your own friends and
neighbours, in whatever suburban idyll has become your home, the
moral principle of abstinence from sex and drugs is more important
than people dying of AIDS; and perhaps, then, they are no less
irrational than Thabo Mbeki.

So this was the situation into which the vitamin-pill entrepreneur
Matthias Rath inserted himself, prominently and expensively, with the
wealth he had amassed from Europe and America, exploiting
anti-colonial anxieties with no sense of irony, although he was a
white man offering pills made in a factory abroad. His adverts and
clinics were a tremendous success. He began to tout individual
patients as evidence of the benefits that could come from vitamin
pills – although in reality some of his most famous success stories
have died of AIDS. When asked about the deaths of Rath’s star
patients, Health Minister Tshabalala-Msimang replied: ‘It doesn’t
necessarily mean that if I am taking antibiotics and I die, that I
died of antibiotics.’

She is not alone: South Africa’s politicians have consistently
refused to step in, Rath claims the support of the government, and
its most senior figures have refused to distance themselves from his
operations or to criticise his activities. Tshabalala-Msimang has
gone on the record to state that the Rath Foundation ‘are not
undermining the government’s position. If anything, they are
supporting it.’

In 2005, exasperated by government inaction, a group of 199 leading
medical practitioners in South Africa signed an open letter to the
health authorities of the Western Cape, pleading for action on the
Rath Foundation. ‘Our patients are being inundated with propaganda
encouraging them to stop life-saving medicine,’ it said. ‘Many of us
have had experiences with HIVinfected patients who have had their
health compromised by stopping their anti-retrovirals due to the
activities of this Foundation.’

Rath’s adverts continue unabated. He even claimed that his activities
were endorsed by huge lists of sponsors and affiliates including the
World Health Organization, UNICEF and UNAIDS. All have issued
statements flatly denouncing his claims and activities. The man
certainly has chutzpah.

His adverts are also rich with detailed scientific claims. It would
be wrong of us to neglect the science in this story, so we should
follow some through, specifically those which focused on a Harvard
study in Tanzania. He described this research in full-page
advertisements, some of which have appeared in the New York Times and
the Herald Tribune. He refers to these paid adverts, I should
mention, as if he had received flattering news coverage in the same
papers. Anyway, this research showed that multivitamin supplements
can be beneficial in a developing world population with AIDS: there’s
no problem with that result, and there are plenty of reasons to think
that vitamins might have some benefit for a sick and frequently
malnourished population.

The researchers enrolled 1,078 HIV-positive pregnant women and
randomly assigned them to have either a vitamin supplement or
placebo. Notice once again, if you will, that this is another large,
well-conducted, publicly funded trial of vitamins, conducted by
mainstream scientists, contrary to the claims of nutritionists that
such studies do not exist. The women were followed up for several
years, and at the end of the study, 25 per cent of those on vitamins
were severely ill or dead, compared with 31 per cent of those on
placebo. There was also a statistically significant benefit in CD4
cell count (a measure of HIV activity) and viral loads. These results
were in no sense dramatic – and they cannot be compared to the
demonstrable life-saving benefits of anti-retrovirals – but they did
show that improved diet, or cheap generic vitamin pills, could
represent a simple and relatively inexpensive way to marginally delay
the need to start HIV medication in some patients.

In the hands of Rath, this study became evidence that vitamin pills
are superior to medication in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, that
anti-retroviral therapies ‘severely damage all cells in the body –
including white blood cells’, and worse, that they were ‘thereby not
improving but rather worsening immune deficiencies and expanding the
AIDS epidemic’. The researchers from the Harvard School of Public
Health were so horrified that they put together a press release
setting out their support for medication, and stating starkly, with
unambiguous clarity, that Matthias Rath had misrepresented their
findings.

Media regulators failed to act.

To outsiders the story is baffling and terrifying. The United
Nations has condemned Rath’s adverts as ‘wrong and misleading’.
‘This guy is killing people by luring them with unrecognised
treatment without any scientific evidence,’ said Eric Goemaere, head
of Médecins sans Frontières SA, a man who pioneered anti-retroviral
therapy in South Africa. Rath sued him.


It’s not just MSF who Rath has gone after. He has also brought
time-consuming, expensive, stalled or failed cases against a
professor of AIDS research, critics in the media and others.

His most heinous campaign has been against the Treatment Action
Campaign. For many years this has been the key organisation
campaigning for access to anti-retroviral medication in South Africa,
and it has been fighting a war on four fronts. Firstly, it campaigns
against its own government, trying to compel it to roll out treatment
programmes for the population. Secondly, it fights against the
pharmaceutical industry, which claims that it needs to charge full
price for its products in developing countries in order to pay for
research and development of new drugs – although, as we shall see,
out of its $550 billion global annual revenue, the pharmaceutical
industry spends twice as much on promotion and admin as it does on
research and development. Thirdly, it is a grassroots organisation,
made up largely of black women from townships who do important
prevention and treatment-literacy work on the ground, ensuring that
people know what is available, and how to protect themselves. Lastly,
it fights against people who promote the type of information peddled
by Matthias Rath and his like.

Rath has taken it upon himself to launch a massive campaign against
this group. He distributes advertising material against them, saying
‘Treatment Action Campaign medicines are killing you’ and ‘Stop AIDS
genocide by the drug cartel’, claiming – as you will guess by now –
that there is an international conspiracy by pharmaceutical companies
intent on prolonging the AIDS crisis in the interests of their own
profits by giving medication that makes people worse. TAC must be a
part of this, goes the reasoning, because it criticises Matthias
Rath. Just like me writing on Patrick Holford or Gillian McKeith, TAC
is perfectly in favour of good diet and nutrition. But in Rath’s
promotional literature it is a front for the pharmaceutical industry,
a ‘Trojan horse’ and a ‘running dog’. TAC has made a full disclosure
of its funding and activities, showing no such connection: Rath
presented no evidence to the contrary, and has even lost a court case
over the issue, but will not let it lie. In fact he presents the loss
of this court case as if it was a victory.

The founder of TAC is a man called Zackie Achmat, and he is the
closest thing I have to a hero. He is South African, and coloured, by
the nomenclature of the apartheid system in which he grew up.At the
age of fourteen he tried to burn down his school, and you might have
done the same in similar circumstances. He has been arrested and
imprisoned under South Africa’s violent, brutal white regime, with
all that entailed. He is also gay, and HIV-positive, and he refused
to take anti-retroviral medication until it was widely available to
all on the public health system, even when he was dying of AIDS, even
when he was personally implored to save himself by Nelson Mandela, a
public supporter of anti-retroviral medication and Achmat’s work.

And now, at last, we come to the lowest point of this whole story,
not merely for Matthias Rath’s movement, but for the alternative
therapy movement around the world as a whole. In 2007, with a huge
public flourish, to great media coverage, Rath’s former employee
Anthony Brink filed a formal complaint against Zackie Achmat, the
head of the TAC. Bizarrely, he filed this complaint with the
International Criminal Court at The Hague, accusing Achmat of
genocide for successfully campaigning to get access to HIV drugs for
the people of South Africa.

It’s hard to explain just how influential the ‘AIDS dissidents’ are
in South Africa. Brink is a barrister, a man with important friends,
and his accusations were reported in the national news media – and in
some corners of the Western gay press – as a serious news story. I do
not believe that any one of those journalists who reported on it can
possibly have read Brink’s indictment to the end.

I have.

The first fifty-seven pages present familiar anti-medication and
‘AIDS-dissident’ material. But then, on page fifty-eight, this
‘indictment’ document suddenly deteriorates into something altogether
more vicious and unhinged, as Brink sets out what he believes would
be an appropriate punishment for Zackie.
Because I do not wish to be accused of selective editing, I will
now reproduce for you that entire section, unedited, so you can
see and feel it for yourself.

APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL SANCTION

In view of the scale and gravity of Achmat’s crime and his
direct personal criminal culpability for ‘the deaths of
thousands of people’, to quote his own words, it is
respectfully submitted that the International Criminal Court
uught to impose on him the highest sentence provided by
Article 77.1(b) of the Rome Statute, namely to permanent
confinement in a small white steel and concrete cage, bright
fluorescent light on all the time to keep an eye on him, his
warders putting him out only to work every day in the prison
garden to cultivate nutrient-rich vegetables, including when
it’s raining. In order for him to repay his debt to society,
with the ARVs he claims to take administered daily under
close medical watch at the full prescribed dose, morning noon
and night, without interruption, to prevent him faking that
he’s being treatment compliant, pushed if necessary down his
forced-open gullet with a finger, or, if he bites, kicks and
screams too much, dripped into his arm after he’s been
restrained on a gurney with cable ties around his ankles,
wrists and neck, until he gives up the ghost on them, so as
to eradicate this foulest, most loathsome, unscrupulous and
malevolent blight on the human race, who has plagued and
poisoned the people of South Africa, mostly black, mostly
poor, for nearly a decade now, since the day he and his TAC
first hit the scene.

Signed at Cape Town, South Africa, on 1 January 2007
Anthony Brink

The document was described by the Rath Foundation as
‘entirely valid and long overdue’.

This story isn’t about Matthias Rath, or Anthony Brink, or Zackie
Achmat, or even South Africa. It is about the culture of how ideas
work, and how that can break down.Doctors criticise other doctors,
academics criticise academics, politicians criticise politicians:
that’s normal and healthy, it’s how ideas improve. Matthias Rath is
an alternative therapist, made in Europe. He is every bit the same as
the British operators that we have seen in this book. He is from
their world.

Despite the extremes of this case, not one single alternative
therapist or nutritionist, anywhere in the world, has stood up to
criticise any single aspect of the activities of Matthias Rath and
his colleagues. In fact, far from it: he continues to be fêted to
this day. I have sat in true astonishment and watched leading figures
of the UK’s alternative therapy movement applaud Matthias Rath at a
public lecture (I have it on video, just in case there’s any doubt).
Natural health organisations continue to defend Rath. Homeopaths’
mailouts continue to promote his work. The British Association of
Nutritional Therapists has been invited to comment by bloggers, but
declined. Most, when challenged, will dissemble. ‘Oh,’ they say, ‘I
don’t really know much about it.’ Not one person will step forward
and dissent.

The alternative therapy movement as a whole has demonstrated itself
to be so dangerously, systemically incapable of critical
self-appraisal that it cannot step up even in a case like that of
Rath: in that count I include tens of thousands of practitioners,
writers, administrators and more. This is how ideas go badly wrong.
In the conclusion to this book, written before I was able to include
this chapter, I will argue that the biggest dangers posed by the
material we have covered are cultural and intellectual.

I may be mistaken.
The Doctor Will Sue You Now

</cite>

.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The History of the Pharma-Cartel
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cartel.html
You do know that Rath is no one to be citing as an authority? Most of
what he writes is lashing out as a noose tighten around his next. In
20 years Rath will be known as the "Hilter of South Africa" by the
whole world.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Kaye
2014-01-19 23:28:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:36:42 -0800, in misc.health.alternative, Bob
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The History of the Pharma-Cartel
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cartel.html
You do know that Rath is no one to be citing as an authority? Most of
what he writes is lashing out as a noose tighten around his next. In
20 years Rath will be known as the "Hilter of South Africa" by the
whole world.
Okay, I know I snipped a lot of text due to the length, but I have to
say what a horrible nightmare this man, Rath, has created for those
people who so desperately need treatment, and indeed for that whole
country. So very sad. What a monster he is.
Kaye
Clayton
2014-01-19 23:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:33:13 -0800, in misc.health.alternative, Kaye
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:02 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:44:15 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
However it seem if you follow the money trail, it leads to the
manufacturers of palm oil company that is upset about the 25%
reduction in the use of saturated fats in Australia. Follow the money
indeed, chaussette...
From memory and going by the title, the main thrust of the ABC story
was that statins were over-prescribed.
which was shown later to be a false claim.
Only a small percentage of people benefit from statins - ie those who
have already had a heart attack and are in danger of dying from
another one.
Not true.
All pharmaceutical drugs have trade-offs.
They aren't meant to be taken long-term for things where diet and
exercise will achieve the same result.
And that is where the doctor recommends diet and exercise.
Some "pharmaceutical drugs" (they) are meant to be taken for a
lifetime. Thyroid replacement and insulin in Type-1 diabetics come to
mind, as do anti rejection drugs for most people with organ
transplants. There are even some anti clotting drugs which help
people which have been given mechanical heart valves.
1. Thyroid replacement would not be necessary if cures for thyroid
cancer weren't suppressed.
2. Same for type 1 diabetics - if they were identified and treated
properly before the condition became irreversible.
3. Big pharma makes $12-15K pa on anti-rejection drugs for the life of
the patient. So rather than cure their organs before they fail, they
look to replace the organ then supply drugs. Much more profit.

You need to remember that big pharma is in business to make money, not
cure anything.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs are the downhill slide to
long-term chronic degenerative ill-health and incapacity.
Do you even understand what chronic and degenerative? They don't
just go away, and they certainly can't be treated with baking soda or
whatever "treatment of the day" you are advocating today.
Chronic and degenerative can be reversed until they get to the stage
of organ failure, or irreversible damage.
Post by Bob Officer
People born with defective heart valves used to just die. often at an
early age. Today, they are given mechanical and pig's valves. both
require continuing treatment with Drugs.
Why are people born with these defects?
Maybe due to toxins injested by the mother in the air, water or
medications. It can be hereditary which can be accumulated damage from
one generation to another and can be reversed but only over
generations.

But this is it, big pharma doesn't look to "cure" but to "treat" for
the life of the patient. There is NO money in a cured healthy patient.
The money is in ill health and sub-standard health.

Big pharma is in business to MAKE MONEY.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zgmi 
Look at who she is citing 'dr rath', the genocide.
"The white people are the only ones with enough brains to understand
that the world is way past being overpopulated. "
Carole Hubbard, puppeteer
Yes this Rath is same person that convinced the south africa
government to stop providing anti-virals and buy his brand of
vitamins mix to treat AIDS. The Death told was in the 100s of
thousands of people in the 1 st of the program.
I have a large citation below, most of you can skip it. I post the
important part below, and it should defuse the Chaussette from using
Rath's work as a citation ever again, hopefully.
<cite>
He [rath] even claimed that his activities were endorsed by huge
lists of sponsors and affiliates including the World Health
Organization, UNICEF and UNAIDS. All have issued statements flatly
denouncing his claims and activities.
</cite>
But where is the link?
Post by Bob Officer
Rath is a liar, and I do not have any idea why anyone would cite his
work as an authority. [if rath is a real alternative therapist, why
would he lie about having mainstream endorsements?]
Where is the link?
This is probably big pharma propaganda - as usual it denounces those
who oppose its pharmaceutical solutions.

Same as they did with Simoncini - demonised him for using bicarb to
cure cancer which turns out to be a fungus. And all these years with
all the best and brightest minds working away to find out what cancer
was and a cure they couldn't come up with anything.
Those dratted grants - they only pay them out for "approved" theories
and topics. Simoncini must have done it without a grant because he
never would have gotten one, and now he has been de-licensed due to
the fact that he hasn't gone the pharmaceutical route and there is no
money in it for big pharma.


I notice there is no response to the idea of Rockefeller embedded with
IGFarben. This is big pharma's strategy to concoct against anybody who
challenges it.


You should watch that copyright thing fred.
That piece you cut and pasted was a bit too long and you are in danger
in infringement under some regulation or other.

<snipped as it was overly long and infringement of copyright>

Don't let the censors notice what you just did - you might be in for
it, and put you away for being a terrorist or something.


Clayton

"When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have
a thousand reasons to smile." - Anonymous
Clayton
2014-01-20 00:45:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
Yes this Rath is same person that convinced the south africa
government to stop providing anti-virals and buy his brand of
vitamins mix to treat AIDS. The Death told was in the 100s of
thousands of people in the 1 st of the program.
I have a large citation below, most of you can skip it. I post the
important part below, and it should defuse the Chaussette from using
Rath's work as a citation ever again, hopefully.
This is typical propaganda put out by big pharma against ANYBODY who
challenges it.
Post by Bob Officer
<cite>
He [rath] even claimed that his activities were endorsed by huge
lists of sponsors and affiliates including the World Health
Organization, UNICEF and UNAIDS. All have issued statements flatly
denouncing his claims and activities.
</cite>
Rath is a liar, and I do not have any idea why anyone would cite his
work as an authority. [if rath is a real alternative therapist, why
would he lie about having mainstream endorsements?]
Big pharma is a liar - there is plenty of evidence for that going over
many years beginning with William Avery Rockefeller, snake oiil
salesman. John D. learned the ways of snake oil medicine and deception
from his father..

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/rockefeller.html
"John Davison Rockefeller (1839-1937), the world’s first billionaire,
was America’s most generous philanthropist, fascist financier and Nazi
collaborator.
Descended from hardworking German immigrants, his father William Avery
Rockefeller was a travelling, snake oil salesman. “Big Bill” excelled
as a quack doctor, or pitch man, conning the sick and desperate into
buying expensive remedies that were either useless or downright
dangerous. “He would be gone for months and come back with a great
roll of money…. He would go to small towns and put up handbills
advertising himself as ‘The Celebrated Dr. Levingston.’ He advertised
to cure anything, but made a specialty of cancer and kidney troubles”
(MacDonald, “Double Life,” New York World, February 2, 1908). But
these were not “Doc’s” only crimes. He was indicted for rape, but was
not arrested or tried. He fled the area with family and escaped
neighbours who accused him of horse thieving, burglary, arson and
counterfeiting. He had two wives, simultaneously, and was a bigamist
for 34 years. He met his second wife in Norwich, Ontario, where he
sold lumber in 1853, calling himself William Levingston."
Post by Bob Officer
Now he is in a battle of using projection as a defense mechanism.
What he is calling other people he may be guilty of doing himself.
(is this an example of classic case of psychological projection?)
What is the truth? HEre may be a glimmer of it.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Matthias_Rath
<cite>
Matthias Rath is a (notorious quack) vitamin pill magnate who
unsuccessfully tried to sue The Grauniad after nerd cheerleader and
quackbuster Ben Goldacre cited strong evidence that he was
responsible for deadly misinformation and health fraud
profiteering.[1]
Rath is a peddler of vitamin pills which he claims to have
near-magical curative power, and is an influential AIDS denialist,
being in no small part responsible for the South African government's
shameful and deadly policy on AIDS under Thabo Mbeki. Public health
researchers have attributed 330,000 to 340,000 AIDS deaths, along
with 171,000 other HIV infections and 35,000 infant HIV infections,
to the South African government's former embrace of AIDS
denialism.[2]
His campaign against South Africa's Treatment Action Campaign and
founder Zackie Achmat was vicious to the point of being almost
surreal. Former employee Anthony Brink actually filed a charge at the
International Criminal Court in The Hague accusing Achmat of
genocide, based on his support for use of antiretrovirals. Rath and
his associates accused TAC of taking money from pharmaceutical
companies (an allegation which is categorically false) and acting as
shills for big pharma despite TAC's widely publicised and trenchant
criticism of the pharmaceutical industry.
[...]
Seems Rath had some success with his vitamins.

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/open_letters/HIV_AIDS_DrRath_was_RIGHT.html
"A clinical trial published in November 2013 found that long-term
supplementation with multivitamins and selenium for HIV-infected
patients in Botswana reduced the risk of immune decline and illness.
Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA),
the world's most widely circulated medical journal, it is particularly
notable that the patients in this study had not previously received
toxic antiretroviral (ARV) drug therapy."


http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1785464
"Conclusions and Relevance In ART-naive HIV-infected adults, 24-month
supplementation with a single supplement containing multivitamins and
selenium was safe and significantly reduced the risk of immune decline
and morbidity. Micronutrient supplementation may be effective when
started in the early stages of HIV disease."


Personally, I think this is a good result. To give people who are on
inadequate diets a simple pill containing a few nutrients, and get a
result is good. Imagine what it would do if combined with a well
balanced diet.



<snipped illegal cut and paste>


Clayton

"The matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Businessmen,
Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that
system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of
these people are not ready to be unplugged. (told the truth). And many
of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they
will fight to protect it."

Morpheus, The Matrix. (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.)
Genelle
2014-01-13 16:56:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
This was the link Reg/carole posted.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
and here is ABC media watchdog site with a critique of the program.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
<cite>
Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly
unbalanced; and some of their so-called ‘experts’ had questionable
qualifications.
</cite>
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
John D. Rockefeller donated money to medical schools who taught
drug-based medicine. I guess one of his mottos would have been that
you've got to spend money to make money.

The pharmaceutical business prime objective is to make money, not heal
anybody of anything. Big donations to medical schools are a conflict
of interest.






<snip all the bob trivia>

You have to ask yourself what took him that long to respond to this
topic that goes back a few months and why he doesn't address the main
thrust of the ABC program which was statins being over-prescribed.


Genelle
Health & Beauty expert

"Beauty is as beauty does"
Bob Officer
2014-01-13 18:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:56:32 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Genelle
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
This was the link Reg/carole posted.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
and here is ABC media watchdog site with a critique of the program.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
<cite>
Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly
unbalanced; and some of their so-called ‘experts’ had questionable
qualifications.
</cite>
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
John D. Rockefeller donated money to medical schools who taught
drug-based medicine. I guess one of his mottos would have been that
you've got to spend money to make money.
The university of california (one school) gets tens times more money
donated in any given week of the year, than Rockefeller gave to ten
universities as a one time grant over 100 years ago.

The effect of what still amounted to a small donation (by the time
the money was scattered over several schools) ear marked for building
construction, and buying from companies owned by rockefeller didn't
buy control over any schools.

The ironic thing is Rockefeller himself used alternative and
homeopathic treatments.
Post by Genelle
<snip all the bob trivia>
I don't thing it was trivial at all. It was some very well written
material which exposed the catalyst for what amounted to deceptive
and false programming, at what appears to be the behests of a palm
oil producer seeking to fix declining sales in Australia.

Here just part of what the chaussette refused to read.
http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1121

Wow! about 1/2 the way down the article!

<cite>
To understand who is driving it we need to ask a simple question: who
benefits from a challenge to the lipid hypothesis and from
questioning the role of saturated fat? The answer is easy enough –
industries that generate a lot of saturated fat. There are only four
suspects – the meat, dairy, coconut oil and palm oil industries. But
which of these would be prepared to trash public health in order to
sell more saturated fat in Australia?

The meat industry’s response to concern about saturated fat has been
responsible – producing leaner beasts and leaner cuts of meat so I
think they are off the hook. A quick check of Dairy Australia’s
website shows that this organisation has been doing its fair share to
rehabilitate the reputation of saturated fat. However, Dairy
Australia’s approach is at least subtle and the organisation states
categorically that it had nothing to do with the Catalyst programs,
so we have to take them at their word. Coconut oil marketing is
pretty wacky but it looks very unsophisticated. It’s hard to imagine
that this industry could conceive and execute a major public
relations campaign of this ilk.

Which leaves us with the palm oil industry. Take a quick look at Palm
Oil Health. Lo and behold:

Jonny Bowden on the radio in Florida recommending Malaysian
palmoil to lower inflammation.

Jonny Bowden on Fox 9 News recommending Malaysian palm oil
to boost brain power.

Jonny Bowden on the Hallmark Channel discussing Malaysian
palm oil and cholesterol.

Jonny Bowden on One Life Radio in Dallas recommending
Malaysian palm oil.
Jonny Bowden on TV in San Diego recommending Malaysian
palm oil.

Jonny Bowden on the Catalyst program.

It would appear that Jonny Bowden has been employed by the Malaysian
palm oil industry to assist in the marketing of its product.
Australia may have been targeted because imports of palm oil have
fallen by over 20% in recent years as major fast food chains in
Australia such as McDonald’s and KFC have adopted healthier
unsaturated fats for frying.
</cite>

It seems that the old saying 'follow the money' may be true after all
is said and done. The question is what part did Catalyst have in this
marketing ploy?

As alway it is interesting reading the comments, This one I used a
watchful eye on Bruce Tabor's comments especially in the detail
reading and tracking down of cited studies used on the catalyst
program in question. Pay special interest to his comments made on
November 8, 2013 at 1:06 pm, November 8, 2013 at 1:43 pm, November
8, 2013 at 1:55 pm, November 8, 2013 at 2:28 pm,
Post by Genelle
You have to ask yourself what took him that long to respond to this
topic that goes back a few months and
It takes lots of time to read lots of articles, and do the follow-up
fact checking.

Some of the information was posted in immediate replies, other things
like the drop in palm oil sales in Australia, and Boden's connection
to Sinatra, and both of their connection to Eades is amazing. and
took time for people to track down.

What catalyst tried to present as three independent opinions turns
out to be just one highly conflicted of interest opinion, which one
person purporting to be a doctor, really wasn't one. The only real
medical doctor wasn't a specialist in the field in which he was
issuing an opinion as if he was an expert.

and
Post by Genelle
why he doesn't address the main
thrust of the ABC program which was statins being over-prescribed.
I did. and you didn't read it or didn't understand it.

So I will repost it for you.

http://broomedocs.com/2013/11/letter-registrars-statins-stuff/
<cite>
So my fellows where does this leave us?

We are back in 2002. You need to go back to the classroom and
relearn – educate yourself about cardiovascular risk, statins and the
like. Realise that we are talking about drugs that have a minor
effect if any on the long term health and well-being of your patient.
You need to understand the magnitudes of the benefit and risks
involved, not blindly follow guidelines.

Here is a starting point: check out theNNT.com - look at the numbers.
Read the papers that they use to generate the numbers, read the
editorial commentary in the big journals and then read some more.

Then you will be in a great place to have a real discussion with your
patients. Forget the hype, know your stuff and understand that you
are fiddling around the margins of risk.
</cite>

You then cut away my own recap. but then you seldom understand
anything you read, right chaussette?
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-17 02:30:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:56:32 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Genelle
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
This was the link Reg/carole posted.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
and here is ABC media watchdog site with a critique of the program.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
<cite>
Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly
unbalanced; and some of their so-called ‘experts’ had questionable
qualifications.
</cite>
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
John D. Rockefeller donated money to medical schools who taught
drug-based medicine. I guess one of his mottos would have been that
you've got to spend money to make money.
The university of california (one school) gets tens times more money
donated in any given week of the year, than Rockefeller gave to ten
universities as a one time grant over 100 years ago.
We're living in different times. Medicine has become a much more
lucrative industry and these days is unaffordable to a lot of people.
The Rockefeller donations turned the tide of what has become
mainstream medicine.
Post by Bob Officer
The effect of what still amounted to a small donation (by the time
the money was scattered over several schools) ear marked for building
construction, and buying from companies owned by rockefeller didn't
buy control over any schools.
No, Rockefeller didn't believe in donating money unless there was
something in it for him. Back in those days there was a culture
amongst the industrialists of getting onto boards of schools and
wherever they could gain influence.
Post by Bob Officer
The ironic thing is Rockefeller himself used alternative and
homeopathic treatments.
Exactly, but he wanted the public to use chemical substances.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Genelle
<snip all the bob trivia>
I don't thing it was trivial at all. It was some very well written
material which exposed the catalyst for what amounted to deceptive
and false programming, at what appears to be the behests of a palm
oil producer seeking to fix declining sales in Australia.
Here just part of what the chaussette refused to read.
http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1121
Wow! about 1/2 the way down the article!
<cite>
To understand who is driving it we need to ask a simple question: who
benefits from a challenge to the lipid hypothesis and from
questioning the role of saturated fat? The answer is easy enough –
industries that generate a lot of saturated fat. There are only four
suspects – the meat, dairy, coconut oil and palm oil industries. But
which of these would be prepared to trash public health in order to
sell more saturated fat in Australia?
The meat industry’s response to concern about saturated fat has been
responsible – producing leaner beasts and leaner cuts of meat so I
think they are off the hook. A quick check of Dairy Australia’s
website shows that this organisation has been doing its fair share to
rehabilitate the reputation of saturated fat. However, Dairy
Australia’s approach is at least subtle and the organisation states
categorically that it had nothing to do with the Catalyst programs,
so we have to take them at their word. Coconut oil marketing is
pretty wacky but it looks very unsophisticated. It’s hard to imagine
that this industry could conceive and execute a major public
relations campaign of this ilk.
Which leaves us with the palm oil industry. Take a quick look at Palm
Jonny Bowden on the radio in Florida recommending Malaysian
palmoil to lower inflammation.
Jonny Bowden on Fox 9 News recommending Malaysian palm oil
to boost brain power.
Jonny Bowden on the Hallmark Channel discussing Malaysian
palm oil and cholesterol.
Jonny Bowden on One Life Radio in Dallas recommending
Malaysian palm oil.
Jonny Bowden on TV in San Diego recommending Malaysian
palm oil.
Jonny Bowden on the Catalyst program.
It would appear that Jonny Bowden has been employed by the Malaysian
palm oil industry to assist in the marketing of its product.
Australia may have been targeted because imports of palm oil have
fallen by over 20% in recent years as major fast food chains in
Australia such as McDonald’s and KFC have adopted healthier
unsaturated fats for frying.
</cite>
It seems that the old saying 'follow the money' may be true after all
is said and done. The question is what part did Catalyst have in this
marketing ploy?
As alway it is interesting reading the comments, This one I used a
watchful eye on Bruce Tabor's comments especially in the detail
reading and tracking down of cited studies used on the catalyst
program in question. Pay special interest to his comments made on
November 8, 2013 at 1:06 pm, November 8, 2013 at 1:43 pm, November
8, 2013 at 1:55 pm, November 8, 2013 at 2:28 pm,
Post by Genelle
You have to ask yourself what took him that long to respond to this
topic that goes back a few months and
It takes lots of time to read lots of articles, and do the follow-up
fact checking.
Really, so you admit this ..how refreshing.
Post by Bob Officer
Some of the information was posted in immediate replies, other things
like the drop in palm oil sales in Australia, and Boden's connection
to Sinatra, and both of their connection to Eades is amazing. and
took time for people to track down.
The drop in palm oil is due to loss of habitat for endangered
orangatangs who are having their habitat chopped down for profits.
Post by Bob Officer
What catalyst tried to present as three independent opinions turns
out to be just one highly conflicted of interest opinion, which one
person purporting to be a doctor, really wasn't one. The only real
medical doctor wasn't a specialist in the field in which he was
issuing an opinion as if he was an expert.
Bob, there is no such thing as good pharmaceutical drugs.
There is always an alternative that is safer and more effective
without side effects.
Post by Bob Officer
and
Post by Genelle
why he doesn't address the main
thrust of the ABC program which was statins being over-prescribed.
I did. and you didn't read it or didn't understand it.
So I will repost it for you.
http://broomedocs.com/2013/11/letter-registrars-statins-stuff/
<cite>
So my fellows where does this leave us?
We are back in 2002. You need to go back to the classroom and
relearn – educate yourself about cardiovascular risk, statins and the
like. Realise that we are talking about drugs that have a minor
effect if any on the long term health and well-being of your patient.
You need to understand the magnitudes of the benefit and risks
involved, not blindly follow guidelines.
Here is a starting point: check out theNNT.com - look at the numbers.
Read the papers that they use to generate the numbers, read the
editorial commentary in the big journals and then read some more.
I'm not interested in reading about the benefits of pharmaceutical
drugs - as far as I'm concerned there are none - maybe emergency use
although if alternatives weren't so suppressed I'm sure there would be
better alternatives even for emergency use.
Post by Bob Officer
Then you will be in a great place to have a real discussion with your
patients. Forget the hype, know your stuff and understand that you
are fiddling around the margins of risk.
</cite>
I consider myself in a great place to have a discussion on
pharmaceutical drugs - ie they're poisons and usually do nothing that
can't be done much better by good diet or nutritional supplements.
Post by Bob Officer
You then cut away my own recap. but then you seldom understand
anything you read, right chaussette?
Don't you talk bob, you often cut my good posts.
It was payback.


Clayton

"The matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Businessmen,
Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that
system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of
these people are not ready to be unplugged. (told the truth). And many
of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they
will fight to protect it."

Morpheus, The Matrix. (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.)
Bob Officer
2014-01-17 04:32:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:30:16 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:56:32 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Genelle
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
This was the link Reg/carole posted.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
and here is ABC media watchdog site with a critique of the program.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
<cite>
Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly
unbalanced; and some of their so-called ‘experts’ had questionable
qualifications.
</cite>
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
John D. Rockefeller donated money to medical schools who taught
drug-based medicine. I guess one of his mottos would have been that
you've got to spend money to make money.
The university of california (one school) gets tens times more money
donated in any given week of the year, than Rockefeller gave to ten
universities as a one time grant over 100 years ago.
We're living in different times. Medicine has become a much more
lucrative industry and these days is unaffordable to a lot of people.
The Rockefeller donations turned the tide of what has become
mainstream medicine.
You didn't say anything which is conviencing or counters the point
that the donation which was spent on building material which were
bought from companies controlled by Rockefeller and friends is and
was at the time of his donation fairly insignificant.

Leyland Stanford donated and built an entire university from the
ground up in California at nearly the same time. You still don't get
that fact rockefeller used homeopathic remedies himself. The idea you
are repeating is not really support by facts or evidence.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The effect of what still amounted to a small donation (by the time
the money was scattered over several schools) ear marked for building
construction, and buying from companies owned by rockefeller didn't
buy control over any schools.
No, Rockefeller didn't believe in donating money unless there was
something in it for him. Back in those days there was a culture
amongst the industrialists of getting onto boards of schools and
wherever they could gain influence.
How do you did you read his mind?

The fact his donation was specific for building material. Steal and
quarried stone from quarries he owned and steel mills owned by
Carnegie or Mellon. At the time of the donations the US was in a deep
depression and rockefeller felt investing in buildings and education
system would pay off in the long run. It did the building boom
triggered some of the US greatest growth in industry and commerce and
gains by the middle working class people.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The ironic thing is Rockefeller himself used alternative and
homeopathic treatments.
Exactly, but he wanted the public to use chemical substances.
How do you know that, did you or someone else read his mind?
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Genelle
<snip all the bob trivia>
I don't think it was trivial at all. It was some very well written
material which exposed the catalyst for what amounted to deceptive
and false programming, at what appears to be the behests of a palm
oil producer seeking to fix declining sales in Australia.
Here just part of what the chaussette refused to read.
http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1121
Wow! about 1/2 the way down the article!
<cite>
To understand who is driving it we need to ask a simple question: who
benefits from a challenge to the lipid hypothesis and from
questioning the role of saturated fat? The answer is easy enough –
industries that generate a lot of saturated fat. There are only four
suspects – the meat, dairy, coconut oil and palm oil industries. But
which of these would be prepared to trash public health in order to
sell more saturated fat in Australia?
The meat industry’s response to concern about saturated fat has been
responsible – producing leaner beasts and leaner cuts of meat so I
think they are off the hook. A quick check of Dairy Australia’s
website shows that this organisation has been doing its fair share to
rehabilitate the reputation of saturated fat. However, Dairy
Australia’s approach is at least subtle and the organisation states
categorically that it had nothing to do with the Catalyst programs,
so we have to take them at their word. Coconut oil marketing is
pretty wacky but it looks very unsophisticated. It’s hard to imagine
that this industry could conceive and execute a major public
relations campaign of this ilk.
Which leaves us with the palm oil industry. Take a quick look at Palm
Jonny Bowden on the radio in Florida recommending Malaysian
palmoil to lower inflammation.
Jonny Bowden on Fox 9 News recommending Malaysian palm oil
to boost brain power.
Jonny Bowden on the Hallmark Channel discussing Malaysian
palm oil and cholesterol.
Jonny Bowden on One Life Radio in Dallas recommending
Malaysian palm oil.
Jonny Bowden on TV in San Diego recommending Malaysian
palm oil.
Jonny Bowden on the Catalyst program.
It would appear that Jonny Bowden has been employed by the Malaysian
palm oil industry to assist in the marketing of its product.
Australia may have been targeted because imports of palm oil have
fallen by over 20% in recent years as major fast food chains in
Australia such as McDonald’s and KFC have adopted healthier
unsaturated fats for frying.
</cite>
It seems that the old saying 'follow the money' may be true after all
is said and done. The question is what part did Catalyst have in this
marketing ploy?
As alway it is interesting reading the comments, This one I used a
watchful eye on Bruce Tabor's comments especially in the detail
reading and tracking down of cited studies used on the catalyst
program in question. Pay special interest to his comments made on
November 8, 2013 at 1:06 pm, November 8, 2013 at 1:43 pm, November
8, 2013 at 1:55 pm, November 8, 2013 at 2:28 pm,
Post by Genelle
You have to ask yourself what took him that long to respond to this
topic that goes back a few months and
It takes lots of time to read lots of articles, and do the follow-up
fact checking.
Really, so you admit this ..how refreshing.
Yes considering I read about 400-500 pages of material, including the
referenced studies. It called fact checking. Why don't you try it,
sometime?
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Some of the information was posted in immediate replies, other things
like the drop in palm oil sales in Australia, and Boden's connection
to Sinatra, and both of their connection to Eades is amazing. and
took time for people to track down.
The drop in palm oil is due to loss of habitat for endangered
orangatangs who are having their habitat chopped down for profits.
No the supply was and still is increasing, Chaussette. The demand is
what has dropped.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
What catalyst tried to present as three independent opinions turns
out to be just one highly conflicted of interest opinion, which one
person purporting to be a doctor, really wasn't one. The only real
medical doctor wasn't a specialist in the field in which he was
issuing an opinion as if he was an expert.
Bob, there is no such thing as good pharmaceutical drugs.
Tell that to the person whose life depends on the pharmaceutical
drugs. Tell the Type 1 Diabetic that the insulin which they must have
or they die, isn't "good". Tell the person that had Hashimoto's
syndrome that the Synthroid is not good. Tell the person without a
parathyroid gland that the calcitonin nasal spray isn't "good".

This just another case where you make an asinine blanket statement
which tells the world you are an idiot.
Post by Clayton
There is always an alternative that is safer and more effective
without side effects.
Not there isn't. That is the problem you make silly and stupid
claims, which are without foundation. The reason you do this must
because you are really, really stupid.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
and
Post by Genelle
why he doesn't address the main
thrust of the ABC program which was statins being over-prescribed.
I did. and you didn't read it or didn't understand it.
So I will repost it for you.
http://broomedocs.com/2013/11/letter-registrars-statins-stuff/
<cite>
So my fellows where does this leave us?
We are back in 2002. You need to go back to the classroom and
relearn – educate yourself about cardiovascular risk, statins and the
like. Realise that we are talking about drugs that have a minor
effect if any on the long term health and well-being of your patient.
You need to understand the magnitudes of the benefit and risks
involved, not blindly follow guidelines.
Here is a starting point: check out theNNT.com - look at the numbers.
Read the papers that they use to generate the numbers, read the
editorial commentary in the big journals and then read some more.
I'm not interested in reading about the benefits of pharmaceutical
drugs - as far as I'm concerned there are none - maybe emergency use
although if alternatives weren't so suppressed I'm sure there would be
better alternatives even for emergency use.
Post by Bob Officer
Then you will be in a great place to have a real discussion with your
patients. Forget the hype, know your stuff and understand that you
are fiddling around the margins of risk.
</cite>
I consider myself in a great place to have a discussion on
pharmaceutical drugs - ie they're poisons and usually do nothing that
can't be done much better by good diet or nutritional supplements.
No you don't. you neither have the required background in medicine,
chemistry or biology. What is even worse, when do you read something
you don't understand it. The lack of reading ability is a big barrier
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
You then cut away my own recap. but then you seldom understand
anything you read, right chaussette?
Don't you talk bob, you often cut my good posts.
It was payback.
Nothing you post is worth reading the second time around, carole.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-17 05:50:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:30:16 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:56:32 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Genelle
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
This was the link Reg/carole posted.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
and here is ABC media watchdog site with a critique of the program.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
<cite>
Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly
unbalanced; and some of their so-called ‘experts’ had questionable
qualifications.
</cite>
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
John D. Rockefeller donated money to medical schools who taught
drug-based medicine. I guess one of his mottos would have been that
you've got to spend money to make money.
The university of california (one school) gets tens times more money
donated in any given week of the year, than Rockefeller gave to ten
universities as a one time grant over 100 years ago.
We're living in different times. Medicine has become a much more
lucrative industry and these days is unaffordable to a lot of people.
The Rockefeller donations turned the tide of what has become
mainstream medicine.
You didn't say anything which is conviencing or counters the point
that the donation which was spent on building material which were
bought from companies controlled by Rockefeller and friends is and
was at the time of his donation fairly insignificant.
That's the story bob.
We all know that John D. Rockefeller was known for his "altruism" and
we also know the expression "you've got to spend money to make money".
We also know that the captains of industry / robber barons were a
ruthless mob and would do anything to gain a competitive advantage.
Post by Bob Officer
Leyland Stanford donated and built an entire university from the
ground up in California at nearly the same time. You still don't get
that fact rockefeller used homeopathic remedies himself. The idea you
are repeating is not really support by facts or evidence.
The fact that Rockefeller used homeopathic remedies showed that he was
aware of what it took to keep good health but yet promoted medicines
made from oil to build his pharmaceutical empire and didn't give any
donations to medical schools that taught homeopathy.

If he thought homeopathy was good, and his altruism was real, why
didn't he support that which he knew worked, rather than invest in
schools where he could make a profit?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The effect of what still amounted to a small donation (by the time
the money was scattered over several schools) ear marked for building
construction, and buying from companies owned by rockefeller didn't
buy control over any schools.
No, Rockefeller didn't believe in donating money unless there was
something in it for him. Back in those days there was a culture
amongst the industrialists of getting onto boards of schools and
wherever they could gain influence.
One of his sayings was that "competition was a sin" - he liked to
merge with other companies or destroy them.
There are records of how these industrialists got themselves on boards
of companies and schools so they could set the curriculums.
Post by Bob Officer
How do you did you read his mind?
The fact his donation was specific for building material. Steal and
quarried stone from quarries he owned and steel mills owned by
Carnegie or Mellon. At the time of the donations the US was in a deep
depression and rockefeller felt investing in buildings and education
system would pay off in the long run. It did the building boom
triggered some of the US greatest growth in industry and commerce and
gains by the middle working class people.
The recession/s were planned and created by certain parties who knew
how to manipulate the markets. during the recession/s the money flows
to the top and those pulling the strings are able to make a killing.

So maybe give with one hand, take with another.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
The ironic thing is Rockefeller himself used alternative and
homeopathic treatments.
Exactly, but he wanted the public to use chemical substances.
How do you know that, did you or someone else read his mind?
Why did he push the pharmaceutical products?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Genelle
<snip all the bob trivia>
I don't think it was trivial at all. It was some very well written
material which exposed the catalyst for what amounted to deceptive
and false programming, at what appears to be the behests of a palm
oil producer seeking to fix declining sales in Australia.
Here just part of what the chaussette refused to read.
http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1121
Wow! about 1/2 the way down the article!
<cite>
To understand who is driving it we need to ask a simple question: who
benefits from a challenge to the lipid hypothesis and from
questioning the role of saturated fat? The answer is easy enough –
industries that generate a lot of saturated fat. There are only four
suspects – the meat, dairy, coconut oil and palm oil industries. But
which of these would be prepared to trash public health in order to
sell more saturated fat in Australia?
The meat industry’s response to concern about saturated fat has been
responsible – producing leaner beasts and leaner cuts of meat so I
think they are off the hook. A quick check of Dairy Australia’s
website shows that this organisation has been doing its fair share to
rehabilitate the reputation of saturated fat. However, Dairy
Australia’s approach is at least subtle and the organisation states
categorically that it had nothing to do with the Catalyst programs,
so we have to take them at their word. Coconut oil marketing is
pretty wacky but it looks very unsophisticated. It’s hard to imagine
that this industry could conceive and execute a major public
relations campaign of this ilk.
Which leaves us with the palm oil industry. Take a quick look at Palm
Jonny Bowden on the radio in Florida recommending Malaysian
palmoil to lower inflammation.
Jonny Bowden on Fox 9 News recommending Malaysian palm oil
to boost brain power.
Jonny Bowden on the Hallmark Channel discussing Malaysian
palm oil and cholesterol.
Jonny Bowden on One Life Radio in Dallas recommending
Malaysian palm oil.
Jonny Bowden on TV in San Diego recommending Malaysian
palm oil.
Jonny Bowden on the Catalyst program.
It would appear that Jonny Bowden has been employed by the Malaysian
palm oil industry to assist in the marketing of its product.
Australia may have been targeted because imports of palm oil have
fallen by over 20% in recent years as major fast food chains in
Australia such as McDonald’s and KFC have adopted healthier
unsaturated fats for frying.
</cite>
It seems that the old saying 'follow the money' may be true after all
is said and done. The question is what part did Catalyst have in this
marketing ploy?
As alway it is interesting reading the comments, This one I used a
watchful eye on Bruce Tabor's comments especially in the detail
reading and tracking down of cited studies used on the catalyst
program in question. Pay special interest to his comments made on
November 8, 2013 at 1:06 pm, November 8, 2013 at 1:43 pm, November
8, 2013 at 1:55 pm, November 8, 2013 at 2:28 pm,
Post by Genelle
You have to ask yourself what took him that long to respond to this
topic that goes back a few months and
It takes lots of time to read lots of articles, and do the follow-up
fact checking.
Really, so you admit this ..how refreshing.
Yes considering I read about 400-500 pages of material, including the
referenced studies. It called fact checking. Why don't you try it,
sometime?
Because depending on who wrote the article, you facts may still not be
right. There is a whole segment of establishment reading material that
is dubious. There is a whole history of everything that has been
rewritten also. The fact that you have done the recommended reading
just means you are good at reading documentation. But is that
information true? It would be a shame to read it then find out that it
had been put together to deceive academia and those who "do their
homework".
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Some of the information was posted in immediate replies, other things
like the drop in palm oil sales in Australia, and Boden's connection
to Sinatra, and both of their connection to Eades is amazing. and
took time for people to track down.
The drop in palm oil is due to loss of habitat for endangered
orangatangs who are having their habitat chopped down for profits.
No the supply was and still is increasing, Chaussette. The demand is
what has dropped.
The demand has dropped due to negative publicity which has been going
on for a while over raping of the orangatang habitat. There is
something called sustainable palm oil which is grown in plantations.
These days it has to be certified sustainable.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
What catalyst tried to present as three independent opinions turns
out to be just one highly conflicted of interest opinion, which one
person purporting to be a doctor, really wasn't one. The only real
medical doctor wasn't a specialist in the field in which he was
issuing an opinion as if he was an expert.
Bob, there is no such thing as good pharmaceutical drugs.
Tell that to the person whose life depends on the pharmaceutical
drugs. Tell the Type 1 Diabetic that the insulin which they must have
or they die, isn't "good". Tell the person that had Hashimoto's
syndrome that the Synthroid is not good. Tell the person without a
parathyroid gland that the calcitonin nasal spray isn't "good".
sure bob, you make a case there.
And my reply to that is show me the people who are dependent on
pharmaceutical drugs, and I will show you people who probably have had
their body compromised somehow, such as an organ that no longer works,
anti-rejection drugs where there should have been intervention before
a transplant was required and so on.
This is my understanding - I don't think there are good pharmaceutical
drugs.
In the case of asthma and allergies - they can be fixed with
alternative, diabetes2 fixed with diet.
Where there is genetic damage this is due to the mother not getting
proper diet.
Post by Bob Officer
This just another case where you make an asinine blanket statement
which tells the world you are an idiot.
I don't think so - you're the idiot because you default to mainstream
and think that reading 500 pages of propaganda that has been compiled
by a team of "mainstream experts" somehow makes you "informed".
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
There is always an alternative that is safer and more effective
without side effects.
Not there isn't. That is the problem you make silly and stupid
claims, which are without foundation. The reason you do this must
because you are really, really stupid.
All the alternative remedies that work are suppressed using various
different deception techniques. DDT (Destroy, distract and trash),
wreck laboratories, disinformation campaigns, delicensing of
alternative therapists etc.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
and
Post by Genelle
why he doesn't address the main
thrust of the ABC program which was statins being over-prescribed.
I did. and you didn't read it or didn't understand it.
So I will repost it for you.
http://broomedocs.com/2013/11/letter-registrars-statins-stuff/
<cite>
So my fellows where does this leave us?
We are back in 2002. You need to go back to the classroom and
relearn – educate yourself about cardiovascular risk, statins and the
like. Realise that we are talking about drugs that have a minor
effect if any on the long term health and well-being of your patient.
You need to understand the magnitudes of the benefit and risks
involved, not blindly follow guidelines.
Here is a starting point: check out theNNT.com - look at the numbers.
Read the papers that they use to generate the numbers, read the
editorial commentary in the big journals and then read some more.
I'm not interested in reading about the benefits of pharmaceutical
drugs - as far as I'm concerned there are none - maybe emergency use
although if alternatives weren't so suppressed I'm sure there would be
better alternatives even for emergency use.
Post by Bob Officer
Then you will be in a great place to have a real discussion with your
patients. Forget the hype, know your stuff and understand that you
are fiddling around the margins of risk.
</cite>
I consider myself in a great place to have a discussion on
pharmaceutical drugs - ie they're poisons and usually do nothing that
can't be done much better by good diet or nutritional supplements.
No you don't. you neither have the required background in medicine,
chemistry or biology. What is even worse, when do you read something
you don't understand it. The lack of reading ability is a big barrier
I don't consider having a background in medicine as necessary to have
a discussion on what works or doesn't. Anybody can see the deception
that goes on.

If a person goes to uni and gets a degree in science and tries to
build a career, they have to go along with the party line or risk
their careers. After spending so much time and money they don't really
want to get into things that could jeopardise their careers. Plus you
also have the situation where these people have become a little mind
controlled by the time they get through their course/s.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
You then cut away my own recap. but then you seldom understand
anything you read, right chaussette?
Don't you talk bob, you often cut my good posts.
It was payback.
Nothing you post is worth reading the second time around, carole.
Sorry no carole here.
The system is rigged fred.


Clayton

The Hot Chick: "you can put your weed in here"

Bob Officer
2014-01-17 06:40:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:50:49 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
<snip>
Post by Clayton
Why did he push the pharmaceutical products?
who said he did? The author you've cited in the past had no evidence
to that claim. It is what is called a post hoc fallacy.

<snip>
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
I consider myself in a great place to have a discussion on
pharmaceutical drugs - ie they're poisons and usually do nothing that
can't be done much better by good diet or nutritional supplements.
No you don't. you neither have the required background in medicine,
chemistry or biology. What is even worse, when do you read something
you don't understand it. The lack of reading ability is a big barrier
I don't consider having a background in medicine as necessary to have
a discussion on what works or doesn't. Anybody can see the deception
that goes on.
You have to be able to tell what works and what doesn't./ like your
foot fungus it doesn't what you are doing really doesn't work.
Post by Clayton
If a person goes to uni and gets a degree in science and tries to
build a career, they have to go along with the party line or risk
their careers. After spending so much time and money they don't really
want to get into things that could jeopardise their careers. Plus you
also have the situation where these people have become a little mind
controlled by the time they get through their course/s.
and

you know this because you attended uni and got a degree and had the
experience to write about it 1st hand? Or are you taking other
peoples Post hoc declarations and creating dogmatic beliefs?


<snip>
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-17 12:41:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:50:49 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
<snip>
Post by Clayton
Why did he push the pharmaceutical products?
who said he did? The author you've cited in the past had no evidence
to that claim. It is what is called a post hoc fallacy.
Who said he did what?


"The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”. Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations
totaled over $550,000,000. In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical
schools across 14 countries.The modern FDA. came into being in 1913 —
the same year that the Rockefeller Foundation was created. The FDA
works hand-in-hand with the Rockefeller Foundation and the American
Medical Association."
Read more at
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/#o3fP3Z881tqjMx9S.99



Now if John D. Rockefeller had a preference for homeopathy in his
personal life but yet insisted on selling pharmaceutical drugs to the
public, what does that make him? You would be correct if you responded
"hypocrite".

What have you got to say about John D. Rockefeller preferring
homeopathy for his own personal use.
Post by Bob Officer
<snip>
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
I consider myself in a great place to have a discussion on
pharmaceutical drugs - ie they're poisons and usually do nothing that
can't be done much better by good diet or nutritional supplements.
No you don't. you neither have the required background in medicine,
chemistry or biology. What is even worse, when do you read something
you don't understand it. The lack of reading ability is a big barrier
I don't consider having a background in medicine as necessary to have
a discussion on what works or doesn't. Anybody can see the deception
that goes on.
You have to be able to tell what works and what doesn't./ like your
foot fungus it doesn't what you are doing really doesn't work.
But I don't have foot fungus bob, you must have me mixed up with
somebody else.

Why don't we discuss some of your health issues for a change.
You're getting on a bit now, you must have some health issues that you
work with. Tell us about them and how you handle them.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
If a person goes to uni and gets a degree in science and tries to
build a career, they have to go along with the party line or risk
their careers. After spending so much time and money they don't really
want to get into things that could jeopardise their careers. Plus you
also have the situation where these people have become a little mind
controlled by the time they get through their course/s.
and
you know this because you attended uni and got a degree and had the
experience to write about it 1st hand? Or are you taking other
peoples Post hoc declarations and creating dogmatic beliefs?
People spend a lot of time and money getting qualifications as a basis
for starting a career. It is easy to jeopardise a career by making the
wrong moves, being associated with the wrong people, doing anything
that would draw the wrong kind of attention.

A career is built over time and depends a lot on character references.
A person doesn't rock the boat or take on the system if they are
trying to build a career.

But in your case you have technical ability with an emphasis on
reading and absorbing technical information with particular attention
to manuals of technical information which you have the ability to read
and absorb this information fairly readily. This appears to be your
area of expertise, and whatever falls outside this area is that which
requires original thinking or thinking outside the box. Unfortunately,
you don't have these skills and need to leave this type of thinking to
others.
Post by Bob Officer
<snip>
Clayton

The Hot Chick: "you can put your weed in here"
http://youtu.be/nsFPBoVuNgo
Bob Officer
2014-01-17 14:31:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:41:24 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:50:49 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
<snip>
Post by Clayton
Why did he push the pharmaceutical products?
who said he did? The author you've cited in the past had no evidence
to that claim. It is what is called a post hoc fallacy.
Who said he did what?
Pushed "pharmaceutical products"?
Here is your citation,
Post by Clayton
"The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”. Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations
totaled over $550,000,000. In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical
schools across 14 countries.The modern FDA. came into being in 1913 —
the same year that the Rockefeller Foundation was created. The FDA
works hand-in-hand with the Rockefeller Foundation and the American
Medical Association."
Read more at
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/#o3fP3Z881tqjMx9S.99
here is how poorly you read.

Fact #one, #two
The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”.

Fact#3
Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations totaled
over $550,000,000.

Fact #4
In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical schools across 14
countries.

Nothing there about pushing anything, Chaussette. You read as poorly
as carole did. Maybe because you are carole.


This is not part of your citation but idiotic and wild speculation
which facts:

Fact we everyone seems to agree upon.
Post by Clayton
Now if John D. Rockefeller had a preference for homeopathy in his
personal life
but yet insisted on selling pharmaceutical drugs to the
public, what does that make him? You would be correct if you responded
"hypocrite".
Where is the evidence he "insisted on selling pharmaceutical drugs"?
Post by Clayton
What have you got to say about John D. Rockefeller preferring
homeopathy for his own personal use.
I think in considering the time period he was misguided.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
<snip>
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
I consider myself in a great place to have a discussion on
pharmaceutical drugs - ie they're poisons and usually do nothing that
can't be done much better by good diet or nutritional supplements.
No you don't. you neither have the required background in medicine,
chemistry or biology. What is even worse, when do you read something
you don't understand it. The lack of reading ability is a big barrier
I don't consider having a background in medicine as necessary to have
a discussion on what works or doesn't. Anybody can see the deception
that goes on.
You have to be able to tell what works and what doesn't./ like your
foot fungus it doesn't what you are doing really doesn't work.
But I don't have foot fungus bob, you must have me mixed up with
somebody else.
Sure, carole.
Post by Clayton
Why don't we discuss some of your health issues for a change.
You're getting on a bit now, you must have some health issues that you
work with. Tell us about them and how you handle them.
None, Health and getting ready to retire. Even my old tired eyes are
stable, the prescription hasn't changed in 15 years.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
If a person goes to uni and gets a degree in science and tries to
build a career, they have to go along with the party line or risk
their careers. After spending so much time and money they don't really
want to get into things that could jeopardise their careers. Plus you
also have the situation where these people have become a little mind
controlled by the time they get through their course/s.
and
you know this because you attended uni and got a degree and had the
experience to write about it 1st hand? Or are you taking other
peoples Post hoc declarations and creating dogmatic beliefs?
People spend a lot of time and money getting qualifications as a basis
for starting a career. It is easy to jeopardise a career by making the
wrong moves, being associated with the wrong people, doing anything
that would draw the wrong kind of attention.
You didn't answer the question chaussette, did you. Evasion noted
Post by Clayton
A career is built over time and depends a lot on character references.
A person doesn't rock the boat or take on the system if they are
trying to build a career.
And you know this by personal practice?
Post by Clayton
But in your case you have technical ability with an emphasis on
reading and absorbing technical information with particular attention
to manuals of technical information which you have the ability to read
and absorb this information fairly readily. This appears to be your
area of expertise, and whatever falls outside this area is that which
requires original thinking or thinking outside the box. Unfortunately,
you don't have these skills and need to leave this type of thinking to
others.
Sadly you are mistaken. I read and connect dots. Just like the study
with the apples, it connected with something I read years ago. It
took a matter of minutes and math to find the fallacy in both the
story and medical article.

What you are doing is trying to project what you feel onto other
people. PRojection is a psychological defect. Fallacies are defects
in logic.

Using your own writings I can determine not only who you are but how
poorly you read understand the material.

If you believe the above citation about rockefeller shows he "pushed
pharmaceutical drugs" you are sadly mistaken.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
<snip>
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-17 16:42:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:41:24 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:50:49 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
<snip>
Post by Clayton
Why did he push the pharmaceutical products?
who said he did? The author you've cited in the past had no evidence
to that claim. It is what is called a post hoc fallacy.
Who said he did what?
Pushed "pharmaceutical products"?
John D. Rockefeller was involved in building the pharmaceutical
industry in combination with IG Farben.
Now why would he promote pharmaceutical drugs if he personally didn't
believe in them?
Post by Bob Officer
Here is your citation,
Post by Clayton
"The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”. Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations
totaled over $550,000,000. In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical
schools across 14 countries.The modern FDA. came into being in 1913 —
the same year that the Rockefeller Foundation was created. The FDA
works hand-in-hand with the Rockefeller Foundation and the American
Medical Association."
Read more at
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/#o3fP3Z881tqjMx9S.99
here is how poorly you read.
Fact #one, #two
The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”.
Fact#3
Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations totaled
over $550,000,000.
Fact #4
In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical schools across 14
countries.
Nothing there about pushing anything, Chaussette. You read as poorly
as carole did. Maybe because you are carole.
So obviously you aren't so interested in facts but in how an issue is
debated. Obvioiusly Rockefeller was involved in the building and
promoting of medical and pharmaceutical industry.
Post by Bob Officer
This is not part of your citation but idiotic and wild speculation
Fact we everyone seems to agree upon.
Post by Clayton
Now if John D. Rockefeller had a preference for homeopathy in his
personal life
but yet insisted on selling pharmaceutical drugs to the
public, what does that make him? You would be correct if you responded
"hypocrite".
Where is the evidence he "insisted on selling pharmaceutical drugs"?
Why would he build a pharmaceutical industry unless to promote and
sell product?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
What have you got to say about John D. Rockefeller preferring
homeopathy for his own personal use.
I think in considering the time period he was misguided.
That's a convenient solution to reach based on your own
misconceptions.
If Rockefeller was building a massive pharmaceutical industry, surely
he would be using the products himself - if he believed in his product
- unless he realised his product was crap and merely a deception to
remove symptoms on a temporary basis rather than cure.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
You have to be able to tell what works and what doesn't./ like your
foot fungus it doesn't what you are doing really doesn't work.
But I don't have foot fungus bob, you must have me mixed up with
somebody else.
Sure, carole.
Post by Clayton
Why don't we discuss some of your health issues for a change.
You're getting on a bit now, you must have some health issues that you
work with. Tell us about them and how you handle them.
None, Health and getting ready to retire. Even my old tired eyes are
stable, the prescription hasn't changed in 15 years.
ie no health issues that you care to mention.
I'm not talking about anything severe or life threatening, but
everybody has little things that play up here and there - eg joint
pains, headaches, wheeziness, stomach issues, cramps - that sort of
thing. They're not cancer, not high blood pressure, nothing
degenerative, just niggling little things.

And remember bob, one day you will die as we all will - people usually
don't just go from fighting fit and radiantly healthy one day to dead
the next. There is usually some sort of gradual decline with
associated symptoms. So you can fool some of the people some of the
time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
If a person goes to uni and gets a degree in science and tries to
build a career, they have to go along with the party line or risk
their careers. After spending so much time and money they don't really
want to get into things that could jeopardise their careers. Plus you
also have the situation where these people have become a little mind
controlled by the time they get through their course/s.
and
you know this because you attended uni and got a degree and had the
experience to write about it 1st hand? Or are you taking other
peoples Post hoc declarations and creating dogmatic beliefs?
People spend a lot of time and money getting qualifications as a basis
for starting a career. It is easy to jeopardise a career by making the
wrong moves, being associated with the wrong people, doing anything
that would draw the wrong kind of attention.
You didn't answer the question chaussette, did you. Evasion noted
I answered.
What sort of answer did you want?

Do you think if you ask a question such as "You are a moron who makes
grammar and spelling mistakes, aren't you?" Do you really expect a
person to respond to such a question?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
A career is built over time and depends a lot on character references.
A person doesn't rock the boat or take on the system if they are
trying to build a career.
And you know this by personal practice?
I know this as a member of the human race, by observation and hearing
stories. On a similar note, I have also heard stories of
whistleblowers who get treated badly for disclosing deceit and
deceptions in mainstream areas of government and industry. It is a
recognised phenomenon that there is no protection for whistleblowers.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
But in your case you have technical ability with an emphasis on
reading and absorbing technical information with particular attention
to manuals of technical information which you have the ability to read
and absorb this information fairly readily. This appears to be your
area of expertise, and whatever falls outside this area is that which
requires original thinking or thinking outside the box. Unfortunately,
you don't have these skills and need to leave this type of thinking to
others.
Sadly you are mistaken. I read and connect dots. Just like the study
with the apples, it connected with something I read years ago. It
took a matter of minutes and math to find the fallacy in both the
story and medical article.
Sure you can connect dots, all the wrong way.
You only have the ability to connect the dots how you have been
trained, like a trained monkey.
Post by Bob Officer
What you are doing is trying to project what you feel onto other
people. PRojection is a psychological defect. Fallacies are defects
in logic.
Hiding your head in the sand is what is known as the ostrich syndrome.
I have noticed how you avoid thinking outside the limits of your
conditioning.
Post by Bob Officer
Using your own writings I can determine not only who you are but how
poorly you read understand the material.
If you believe the above citation about rockefeller shows he "pushed
pharmaceutical drugs" you are sadly mistaken.
I recall reading at one point that you didn't even think that
Rockefeller was involved in the pharmaceutical industry. This is the
level of your ignorance on the origins of mainstream medicine.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
<snip>
Clayton

"When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have
a thousand reasons to smile." - Anonymous
Poor Peter Bowditch
2014-01-17 21:23:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clayton
John D. Rockefeller was involved in building the pharmaceutical
industry in combination with IG Farben.
IG Farben did not exist at the time you claim that Rockefeller was
creating and controlling the pharmaceutical industry, medical schools
and general education.
--
Poor Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Blog at http://peterbowditch.com/wp/
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter
Bob Officer
2014-01-18 01:15:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:23:56 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, Poor
Post by Poor Peter Bowditch
Post by Clayton
John D. Rockefeller was involved in building the pharmaceutical
industry in combination with IG Farben.
IG Farben did not exist at the time you claim that Rockefeller was
creating and controlling the pharmaceutical industry, medical schools
and general education.
She won't believe you. She will not even fact check other people's
post hoc claims.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
carole's foot fungus
2014-01-18 05:38:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:23:56 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, Poor
Post by Poor Peter Bowditch
Post by Clayton
John D. Rockefeller was involved in building the pharmaceutical
industry in combination with IG Farben.
IG Farben did not exist at the time you claim that Rockefeller was
creating and controlling the pharmaceutical industry, medical schools
and general education.
She won't believe you. She will not even fact check other people's
post hoc claims.
"Among medical schools which have received appropriations from the
General Education Board are Washington University, $2,345,000; Johns
Hopkins, more than $2,200,000; University of Chicago, $2,000,000 (joint
fund with Rockefeller Foundation 1916); Vanderbilt $4,000,000 (1919);
Rochester, $5,000,000 (1920); Yale Medical School, $1,582,000; and the
Meharry Medical College (for Negroes), Nashville, Tenn., $150,000 (1920)."

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/specials/rockefeller-gifts.html


"IG Farben came into being in 1925."

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-08-13/ig-farben-and-hitler-a-fateful-chemistry
--
"Athletes foot is a symptom of the blood being out of order
or toxic. Taking the right cellsalts (calcium and sodium to
regulate acidity) eliminates it. But it does come back although
each time with less severity ... You have to remember Michele
I don't take any pharmaceutical products at all except for
the occasional panadeine for the odd hangover." - carole
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

http://gsk.co.nz/panadeine.html
Bob's idiocy
2014-01-19 01:48:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
rOn Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:38:58 -0500, carole's foot fungus
Post by carole's foot fungus
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:23:56 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, Poor
Post by Poor Peter Bowditch
Post by Clayton
John D. Rockefeller was involved in building the pharmaceutical
industry in combination with IG Farben.
IG Farben did not exist at the time you claim that Rockefeller was
creating and controlling the pharmaceutical industry, medical schools
and general education.
She won't believe you. She will not even fact check other people's
post hoc claims.
"Among medical schools which have received appropriations from the
General Education Board are Washington University, $2,345,000; Johns
Hopkins, more than $2,200,000; University of Chicago, $2,000,000 (joint
fund with Rockefeller Foundation 1916); Vanderbilt $4,000,000 (1919);
Rochester, $5,000,000 (1920); Yale Medical School, $1,582,000; and the
Meharry Medical College (for Negroes), Nashville, Tenn., $150,000 (1920)."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/specials/rockefeller-gifts.html
"IG Farben came into being in 1925."
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-08-13/ig-farben-and-hitler-a-fateful-chemistry
There is dam good reason for considering that the public is fed a diet
of lies, misinformation, spin and hype on anything and everything.

The fact that bob and his company can't recognise this is suspect.

I would be very suspect of anything bob and co had to say as it all
points to the fact they are not just pawns but most likely some sort
of plants.
Bob Officer
2014-01-19 02:34:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:48:51 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, Bob's
Post by Bob's idiocy
rOn Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:38:58 -0500, carole's foot fungus
Post by carole's foot fungus
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:23:56 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, Poor
Post by Poor Peter Bowditch
Post by Clayton
John D. Rockefeller was involved in building the pharmaceutical
industry in combination with IG Farben.
IG Farben did not exist at the time you claim that Rockefeller was
creating and controlling the pharmaceutical industry, medical schools
and general education.
She won't believe you. She will not even fact check other people's
post hoc claims.
"Among medical schools which have received appropriations from the
General Education Board are Washington University, $2,345,000; Johns
Hopkins, more than $2,200,000; University of Chicago, $2,000,000 (joint
fund with Rockefeller Foundation 1916); Vanderbilt $4,000,000 (1919);
Rochester, $5,000,000 (1920); Yale Medical School, $1,582,000; and the
Meharry Medical College (for Negroes), Nashville, Tenn., $150,000 (1920)."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/specials/rockefeller-gifts.html
"IG Farben came into being in 1925."
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-08-13/ig-farben-and-hitler-a-fateful-chemistry
There is dam good reason for considering that the public is fed a diet
of lies, misinformation, spin and hype on anything and everything.
The fact that bob and his company can't recognise this is suspect.
I would be very suspect of anything bob and co had to say as it all
points to the fact they are not just pawns but most likely some sort
of plants.
Another sock exposed. Only Carole would froth over 'facts' which
shows she was taken in again with another deception.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
foot fungus of carole
2014-01-19 04:09:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob's idiocy
Post by carole's foot fungus
"Among medical schools which have received appropriations from the
General Education Board are Washington University, $2,345,000; Johns
Hopkins, more than $2,200,000; University of Chicago, $2,000,000 (joint
fund with Rockefeller Foundation 1916); Vanderbilt $4,000,000 (1919);
Rochester, $5,000,000 (1920); Yale Medical School, $1,582,000; and the
Meharry Medical College (for Negroes), Nashville, Tenn., $150,000 (1920)."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/specials/rockefeller-gifts.html
"IG Farben came into being in 1925."
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-08-13/ig-farben-and-hitler-a-fateful-chemistry
There is dam good reason for considering that the public is fed a diet
of lies, misinformation, spin and hype on anything and everything.
There are no lies in either of the linked sources cited above.
You can't disprove the facts shown therein.
Post by Bob's idiocy
The fact that bob and his company can't recognise this is suspect.
Puppeteer carole hubbard and her sock puppets are always full of
baseless suspicion. Unfortunately, carole has never shown any of what
she labels as suspect are in fact lies or misinformation.
Post by Bob's idiocy
I would be very suspect of anything bob and co had to say as it all
points to the fact they are not just pawns but most likely some sort
of plants.
The only pawn and dupe here is puppeteer carole hubbard and her sock
puppets, who are the product of a defective education. That's been shown
time and time again.
--
"Athletes foot is a symptom of the blood being out of order
or toxic. Taking the right cellsalts (calcium and sodium to
regulate acidity) eliminates it. But it does come back although
each time with less severity ... You have to remember Michele
I don't take any pharmaceutical products at all except for
the occasional panadeine for the odd hangover."
- carole hubbard of Melbourne, VIC, AU
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>
http://gsk.co.nz/panadeine.html
http://bitsy.spinics.net/849
The Other Guy
2014-01-19 05:57:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:09:09 -0500, foot fungus of carole
Post by foot fungus of carole
Post by Bob's idiocy
There is dam good reason for considering that the public is fed a diet
of lies, misinformation, spin and hype on anything and everything.
There are no lies in either of the linked sources cited above.
You can't disprove the facts shown therein.
The lies are FROM Carole and those who (fail to) think like her.








To reply by email, lose the Ks...


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Bob Officer
2014-01-18 01:28:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:42:44 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:41:24 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:50:49 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
<snip>
Post by Clayton
Why did he push the pharmaceutical products?
who said he did? The author you've cited in the past had no evidence
to that claim. It is what is called a post hoc fallacy.
Who said he did what?
Pushed "pharmaceutical products"?
John D. Rockefeller was involved in building the pharmaceutical
industry in combination with IG Farben.
Two separate period of time not overlapping. Add to the list of
subjects you don't know, History.
Post by Clayton
Now why would he promote pharmaceutical drugs if he personally didn't
believe in them?
I haven't seen any evidence Rockefeller promoted "pharmaceutical
drugs". Even the passages you've cited don't state that as a fact.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Here is your citation,
Post by Clayton
"The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”. Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations
totaled over $550,000,000. In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical
schools across 14 countries.The modern FDA. came into being in 1913 —
the same year that the Rockefeller Foundation was created. The FDA
works hand-in-hand with the Rockefeller Foundation and the American
Medical Association."
Read more at
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/#o3fP3Z881tqjMx9S.99
here is how poorly you read.
Fact #one, #two
The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”.
Fact#3
Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations totaled
over $550,000,000.
Fact #4
In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical schools across 14
countries.
Nothing there about pushing anything, Chaussette. You read as poorly
as carole did. Maybe because you are carole.
So obviously you aren't so interested in facts but in how an issue is
debated. Obvioiusly Rockefeller was involved in the building and
promoting of medical and pharmaceutical industry.
I posted and numbered the facts. Not one of the facts indicate
rockefeller tried to promote anything. 500million dollars, isn't
very much money when spread over 18 schools. certainly not enough to
gain control of the schools. You really are unaware of how much money
those 18 schools already had, and how much in yearly donation they
got.

Show me where in the facts listed anything is said anything about
pushing pharmaceutical drugs or promoting of medical and
pharmaceutical industry.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
This is not part of your citation but idiotic and wild speculation
Fact we everyone seems to agree upon.
Post by Clayton
Now if John D. Rockefeller had a preference for homeopathy in his
personal life
but yet insisted on selling pharmaceutical drugs to the
public, what does that make him? You would be correct if you responded
"hypocrite".
Where is the evidence he "insisted on selling pharmaceutical drugs"?
Why would he build a pharmaceutical industry unless to promote and
sell product?
You haven't shown that he " build (built) a pharmaceutical industry".
You are making claims not supported by facts again.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
What have you got to say about John D. Rockefeller preferring
homeopathy for his own personal use.
I think in considering the time period he was misguided.
That's a convenient solution to reach based on your own
misconceptions.
If Rockefeller was building a massive pharmaceutical industry, surely
If, but there is not any Evidence in your citation to support the
claim: "was building a massive pharmaceutical industry."


< Snip of pointless nonsense>
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-18 23:43:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:42:44 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:41:24 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:50:49 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
<snip>
Post by Clayton
Why did he push the pharmaceutical products?
who said he did? The author you've cited in the past had no evidence
to that claim. It is what is called a post hoc fallacy.
Who said he did what?
Pushed "pharmaceutical products"?
John D. Rockefeller was involved in building the pharmaceutical
industry in combination with IG Farben.
Two separate period of time not overlapping. Add to the list of
subjects you don't know, History.
See bob, you like to get caught up in minituae and miss the main gist
of things.

http://hemphealer.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/the-rockefellers-from-drug-and-oil-monopoly-to-war-on-drugs-and-hemp-prohibition/

Bookmark the permalink.
The Rockefellers – From Drug And Oil Monopoly To War On Drugs And Hemp
Prohibition
Feb27
"Many people believe the Rockefellers began their fortune with oil.
However, it was wealth from drugs that enabled them to invest in oil
and create their vast fortune.

In the 19th century it was William Avery Rockefeller who hawked
remedies and medications; medications that had opiate bases. He was
literally a traveling salesman, a ‘hack doctor’ and a trickster. He
was, in fact, a drug dealer.

He called himself a ‘cancer specialist’, and eventually, with the
sales of his elixirs and growing ‘snake oil fortune’, was able to give
large amounts of money to his son, John Davison Rockefeller, who used
that money to start an oil business.

John Rockefeller saw that oil was going to bring in even bigger
profits than ‘snake oil elixirs’. He played the railroad companies
against each other, eventually gaining ‘control’. The railroads and
cheap transportation were key to transporting the oil; refiners who
could ship his oil for less would put the others out of business."

* * *

http://www.whale.to/b/ruesch.html
The Truth About the Rockefeller Drug Empire: The Drug Story
"The last annual report of the Rockefeller Foundation", reported
Bealle, "itemizes the gifts it has made to colleges and public
agencies in the past 44 years, and they total somewhat over half a
billion dollars. These colleges, of course, teach their students all
the drug lore the Rockefeller pharmaceutical houses want taught.
Otherwise there would be no more gifts, just as there are no gifts to
any of the 30 odd colleges in the United States that don' t use
therapies based on drugs. "


"Thus newspapers continue to be fed with propaganda about drugs and
their alleged value, although according to the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) 1.5 million people landed in hospitals in 1978
because of medication side effects in the U.S. alone, and despite
recurrent statements by intelligent and courageous medical men that
most pharmaceutical items on sale are useless at best, but more often
harmful or deadly in the long run.

The truth about cures without drugs is suppressed, unless it suits the
purpose of the censor to garble it. Whether these cures are effected
by Chiropractors, Naturopaths, Naprapaths, Osteopaths, Faith Healers,
Spiritualists, Herbalists, Christian Scientists, or MDs who use the
brains they have, you never read about it in the big newspapers.

To teach the Rockefeller drug ideology, it is necessary to teach that
Nature didn't know what she was doing when she made the human body.
But statistics issued by the Children's Bureau of the Federal Security
Agency show that since the all-out drive of the Drug Trust for
drugging, vaccinating and serumizing the human system, the health of
the American nation has sharply declined, especially among children.
Children are now given "shots" for this and "shots" for that, when the
only safeguard known to science is a pure bloodstream, which can be
obtained only with clean air and wholesome food. Meaning by natural
and inexpensive means. Just what the Drug Trust most objects to.

When the FDA, whose officials have to be acceptable to Rockefeller
Center before they are appointed, has to put an independent operator
out of business, it goes all out to execute those orders. But the
orders do not come directly from Standard Oil or a drug house
director. As Morris Bealle pointed out, the American Medical
Association (AMA) is the front for the Drug Trust, and furnishes the
quack doctors to testify that even when they know nothing of the
product involved, it is their considered opinion that it has no
therapeutic value."

* * *

There you are - I've just done your research for you since you are so
biased you will only read that which comes from mainstream sources.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Now why would he promote pharmaceutical drugs if he personally didn't
believe in them?
I haven't seen any evidence Rockefeller promoted "pharmaceutical
drugs". Even the passages you've cited don't state that as a fact.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Here is your citation,
Post by Clayton
"The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”. Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations
totaled over $550,000,000. In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical
schools across 14 countries.The modern FDA. came into being in 1913 —
the same year that the Rockefeller Foundation was created. The FDA
works hand-in-hand with the Rockefeller Foundation and the American
Medical Association."
Read more at
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/#o3fP3Z881tqjMx9S.99
here is how poorly you read.
Fact #one, #two
The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”.
Fact#3
Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations totaled
over $550,000,000.
Fact #4
In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical schools across 14
countries.
Nothing there about pushing anything, Chaussette. You read as poorly
as carole did. Maybe because you are carole.
So obviously you aren't so interested in facts but in how an issue is
debated. Obvioiusly Rockefeller was involved in the building and
promoting of medical and pharmaceutical industry.
I posted and numbered the facts. Not one of the facts indicate
rockefeller tried to promote anything. 500million dollars, isn't
very much money when spread over 18 schools. certainly not enough to
gain control of the schools. You really are unaware of how much money
those 18 schools already had, and how much in yearly donation they
got.
Show me where in the facts listed anything is said anything about
pushing pharmaceutical drugs or promoting of medical and
pharmaceutical industry.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
This is not part of your citation but idiotic and wild speculation
Fact we everyone seems to agree upon.
Post by Clayton
Now if John D. Rockefeller had a preference for homeopathy in his
personal life
but yet insisted on selling pharmaceutical drugs to the
public, what does that make him? You would be correct if you responded
"hypocrite".
Where is the evidence he "insisted on selling pharmaceutical drugs"?
Why would he build a pharmaceutical industry unless to promote and
sell product?
You haven't shown that he " build (built) a pharmaceutical industry".
You are making claims not supported by facts again.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
What have you got to say about John D. Rockefeller preferring
homeopathy for his own personal use.
I think in considering the time period he was misguided.
That's a convenient solution to reach based on your own
misconceptions.
If Rockefeller was building a massive pharmaceutical industry, surely
If, but there is not any Evidence in your citation to support the
claim: "was building a massive pharmaceutical industry."
< Snip of pointless nonsense>
Clayton


"The matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Businessmen,
Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that
system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of
these people are not ready to be unplugged. (told the truth). And many
of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they
will fight to protect it."

Morpheus, The Matrix. (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.)
Kaye
2014-01-19 06:07:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:42:44 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:41:24 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:50:49 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
<snip>
Post by Clayton
Why did he push the pharmaceutical products?
who said he did? The author you've cited in the past had no evidence
to that claim. It is what is called a post hoc fallacy.
Who said he did what?
Pushed "pharmaceutical products"?
John D. Rockefeller was involved in building the pharmaceutical
industry in combination with IG Farben.
Now why would he promote pharmaceutical drugs if he personally didn't
believe in them?
You haven't proven he was involved in building the pharmaceutical
industry. He donated money to medical schools. Medical schools do
not manufacture medications.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Here is your citation,
Post by Clayton
"The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”. Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations
totaled over $550,000,000. In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical
schools across 14 countries.The modern FDA. came into being in 1913 —
the same year that the Rockefeller Foundation was created. The FDA
works hand-in-hand with the Rockefeller Foundation and the American
Medical Association."
Read more at
http://naturalrevolution.org/the-rockefellers-the-fda-the-cancer-industry/#o3fP3Z881tqjMx9S.99
here is how poorly you read.
Fact #one, #two
The Rockefeller Foundation’s main focus is upon medicine and medical
education. Their motto, “to promote the well-being of humanity around
the world”.
Fact#3
Early on, the initial Rockefeller medical school donations totaled
over $550,000,000.
Fact #4
In 1928 alone, it gave money to 18 medical schools across 14
countries.
Nothing there about pushing anything, Chaussette. You read as poorly
as carole did. Maybe because you are carole.
So obviously you aren't so interested in facts but in how an issue is
debated. Obvioiusly Rockefeller was involved in the building and
promoting of medical and pharmaceutical industry.
Post by Bob Officer
This is not part of your citation but idiotic and wild speculation
Fact we everyone seems to agree upon.
Post by Clayton
Now if John D. Rockefeller had a preference for homeopathy in his
personal life
but yet insisted on selling pharmaceutical drugs to the
public, what does that make him? You would be correct if you responded
"hypocrite".
Did he, in fact, sell pharmaceutical drugs? You can prove this?
Don't cite a biased website here. If it's true, there will be more
neutral cites that have the same information.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Where is the evidence he "insisted on selling pharmaceutical drugs"?
Why would he build a pharmaceutical industry unless to promote and
sell product?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
What have you got to say about John D. Rockefeller preferring
homeopathy for his own personal use.
I think in considering the time period he was misguided.
That's a convenient solution to reach based on your own
misconceptions.
If Rockefeller was building a massive pharmaceutical industry, surely
he would be using the products himself - if he believed in his product
- unless he realised his product was crap and merely a deception to
remove symptoms on a temporary basis rather than cure.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
You have to be able to tell what works and what doesn't./ like your
foot fungus it doesn't what you are doing really doesn't work.
But I don't have foot fungus bob, you must have me mixed up with
somebody else.
Sure, carole.
Post by Clayton
Why don't we discuss some of your health issues for a change.
You're getting on a bit now, you must have some health issues that you
work with. Tell us about them and how you handle them.
None, Health and getting ready to retire. Even my old tired eyes are
stable, the prescription hasn't changed in 15 years.
ie no health issues that you care to mention.
I'm not talking about anything severe or life threatening, but
everybody has little things that play up here and there - eg joint
pains, headaches, wheeziness, stomach issues, cramps - that sort of
thing. They're not cancer, not high blood pressure, nothing
degenerative, just niggling little things.
So, what are your health issues? You insist on knowing Bob's.
Post by Clayton
And remember bob, one day you will die as we all will - people usually
don't just go from fighting fit and radiantly healthy one day to dead
the next. There is usually some sort of gradual decline with
associated symptoms. So you can fool some of the people some of the
time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
They call that the aging process, Carole.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
If a person goes to uni and gets a degree in science and tries to
build a career, they have to go along with the party line or risk
their careers. After spending so much time and money they don't really
want to get into things that could jeopardise their careers. Plus you
also have the situation where these people have become a little mind
controlled by the time they get through their course/s.
and
you know this because you attended uni and got a degree and had the
experience to write about it 1st hand? Or are you taking other
peoples Post hoc declarations and creating dogmatic beliefs?
People spend a lot of time and money getting qualifications as a basis
for starting a career. It is easy to jeopardise a career by making the
wrong moves, being associated with the wrong people, doing anything
that would draw the wrong kind of attention.
You didn't answer the question chaussette, did you. Evasion noted
I answered.
What sort of answer did you want?
The truth, maybe.
Post by Clayton
Do you think if you ask a question such as "You are a moron who makes
grammar and spelling mistakes, aren't you?" Do you really expect a
person to respond to such a question?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
A career is built over time and depends a lot on character references.
A person doesn't rock the boat or take on the system if they are
trying to build a career.
And you know this by personal practice?
I know this as a member of the human race, by observation and hearing
stories. On a similar note, I have also heard stories of
whistleblowers who get treated badly for disclosing deceit and
deceptions in mainstream areas of government and industry. It is a
recognised phenomenon that there is no protection for whistleblowers.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
But in your case you have technical ability with an emphasis on
reading and absorbing technical information with particular attention
to manuals of technical information which you have the ability to read
and absorb this information fairly readily. This appears to be your
area of expertise, and whatever falls outside this area is that which
requires original thinking or thinking outside the box. Unfortunately,
you don't have these skills and need to leave this type of thinking to
others.
Sadly you are mistaken. I read and connect dots. Just like the study
with the apples, it connected with something I read years ago. It
took a matter of minutes and math to find the fallacy in both the
story and medical article.
Sure you can connect dots, all the wrong way.
You only have the ability to connect the dots how you have been
trained, like a trained monkey.
Post by Bob Officer
What you are doing is trying to project what you feel onto other
people. PRojection is a psychological defect. Fallacies are defects
in logic.
Hiding your head in the sand is what is known as the ostrich syndrome.
I have noticed how you avoid thinking outside the limits of your
conditioning.
Post by Bob Officer
Using your own writings I can determine not only who you are but how
poorly you read understand the material.
If you believe the above citation about rockefeller shows he "pushed
pharmaceutical drugs" you are sadly mistaken.
I recall reading at one point that you didn't even think that
Rockefeller was involved in the pharmaceutical industry. This is the
level of your ignorance on the origins of mainstream medicine.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
<snip>
Clayton
"When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have
a thousand reasons to smile." - Anonymous
--
Kaye


Carole asks herself:
Why do I killfile people rather than give myself a chance to respond?
Only an idiot would ask that question?
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Kaye
2014-01-18 22:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:30:16 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
You then cut away my own recap. but then you seldom understand
anything you read, right chaussette?
Don't you talk bob, you often cut my good posts.
It was payback.
What good posts? I haven't seen any. Yours are all nonsense.
Kaye
Bob Officer
2014-01-18 23:20:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:16:34 -0800, in misc.health.alternative, Kaye
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:30:16 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
You then cut away my own recap. but then you seldom understand
anything you read, right chaussette?
Don't you talk bob, you often cut my good posts.
It was payback.
What good posts? I haven't seen any. Yours are all nonsense.
It appears that chaussette doesn't understand in a dicussion/debate,
once a claimed fact has been shown to be wrong by EVIDENCE, then the
continue use of it is generally ignored. The use of fallacies, is
usually once pointed out ignored.

Frankly, I am tired of finding new and different web sites which
provide ample evidence that the chaussette's same old rants and
spittle sessions and citations are wrong.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
carole's foot fungus
2014-01-19 00:16:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:16:34 -0800, in misc.health.alternative, Kaye
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:30:16 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
You then cut away my own recap. but then you seldom understand
anything you read, right chaussette?
Don't you talk bob, you often cut my good posts.
It was payback.
What good posts? I haven't seen any. Yours are all nonsense.
It appears that chaussette doesn't understand in a dicussion/debate,
once a claimed fact has been shown to be wrong by EVIDENCE, then the
continue use of it is generally ignored. The use of fallacies, is
usually once pointed out ignored.
Frankly, I am tired of finding new and different web sites which
provide ample evidence that the chaussette's same old rants and
spittle sessions and citations are wrong.
Well, you have worked very diligently, replying to you-know-who, citing
evidence and other proofs. That type of effort has a reward of its own.
Yet you cannot ignore the fact that she continues with her same old
nonsense, ignoring your evidence and proofs as well as the same of
others here.

she has taken advantage of your good efforts to continue her nonsense,
as well as to attempt insulting for it.

It's gotten to the point where I wonder whether the adage, "don't feed
the troll" applies. she doesn't deserve your efforts, in my view. she
deserves to be ignored.

I don't care what her life has brought upon her. It's not an excuse for
her continued nonsense. she is a pig, and I'm probably insulting those
fine creatures by calling her such.
--
"Athletes foot is a symptom of the blood being out of order
or toxic. Taking the right cellsalts (calcium and sodium to
regulate acidity) eliminates it. But it does come back although
each time with less severity ... You have to remember Michele
I don't take any pharmaceutical products at all except for
the occasional panadeine for the odd hangover."
- carole hubbard in the land down under
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

http://gsk.co.nz/panadeine.html
Bob Officer
2014-01-19 01:03:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:16:51 -0500, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by carole's foot fungus
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:16:34 -0800, in misc.health.alternative, Kaye
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:30:16 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
You then cut away my own recap. but then you seldom understand
anything you read, right chaussette?
Don't you talk bob, you often cut my good posts.
It was payback.
What good posts? I haven't seen any. Yours are all nonsense.
It appears that chaussette doesn't understand in a dicussion/debate,
once a claimed fact has been shown to be wrong by EVIDENCE, then the
continue use of it is generally ignored. The use of fallacies, is
usually once pointed out ignored.
Frankly, I am tired of finding new and different web sites which
provide ample evidence that the chaussette's same old rants and
spittle sessions and citations are wrong.
Well, you have worked very diligently, replying to you-know-who, citing
evidence and other proofs. That type of effort has a reward of its own.
Yet you cannot ignore the fact that she continues with her same old
nonsense, ignoring your evidence and proofs as well as the same of
others here.
This is what tends to bother me the most. The continue effort to find
new and different sources of information which debunk her claims. and
They are out there.

Recent she has picked up on Rath's work. Rath has made Millions and
millions of dollars personally from selling vitamins to people with
AIDS, which in the end died.

See my very long post citing Ben Goldacre's excellent work. (his book
is worth the money too.)
Post by carole's foot fungus
she has taken advantage of your good efforts to continue her nonsense,
as well as to attempt insulting for it.
It's gotten to the point where I wonder whether the adage, "don't feed
the troll" applies. she doesn't deserve your efforts, in my view. she
deserves to be ignored.
It may have reached that stage. A good Chaussette FAQ might be the
thing. Until she comes up with a new speel.
Post by carole's foot fungus
I don't care what her life has brought upon her. It's not an excuse for
her continued nonsense. she is a pig, and I'm probably insulting those
fine creatures by calling her such.
I find it funny the chaussette de deuxième claims to have treated the
very same list of usually self limiting conditions as Carole has.
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
<cite>
Lots of things bob from stomach upsets, headaches, muscle and joint
pain, allergies.
</cite>

Now she is citing a self serving website called Hemphealer? Even with
the latest information on THC and the effect on mental ability of
children, no sane person should advocate the use of hemp products, as
a recreational drug.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/health-teen-pot/index.html
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/how-does-marijuana-use-affect-school-work-social-life
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775797000514
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/84/4/386/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893133X01002731
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
E. Peabody
2014-01-19 01:21:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:16:51 -0500, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by carole's foot fungus
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:16:34 -0800, in misc.health.alternative, Kaye
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:30:16 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
You then cut away my own recap. but then you seldom understand
anything you read, right chaussette?
Don't you talk bob, you often cut my good posts.
It was payback.
What good posts? I haven't seen any. Yours are all nonsense.
It appears that chaussette doesn't understand in a dicussion/debate,
once a claimed fact has been shown to be wrong by EVIDENCE, then the
continue use of it is generally ignored. The use of fallacies, is
usually once pointed out ignored.
Frankly, I am tired of finding new and different web sites which
provide ample evidence that the chaussette's same old rants and
spittle sessions and citations are wrong.
Well, you have worked very diligently, replying to you-know-who, citing
evidence and other proofs. That type of effort has a reward of its own.
Yet you cannot ignore the fact that she continues with her same old
nonsense, ignoring your evidence and proofs as well as the same of
others here.
This is what tends to bother me the most. The continue effort to find
new and different sources of information which debunk her claims. and
They are out there.
Recent she has picked up on Rath's work. Rath has made Millions and
millions of dollars personally from selling vitamins to people with
AIDS, which in the end died.
And you know this how?
Rath has hit the nail on the head and gives a good account of the
history of the pharmaceutical cartel. anything against him has been
drummed up to discredit him as a source.

I would say that big pharma makes billions from chemo and people still
die. That the cause and cure for cancer has been suppressed.


<rubbish snipped>
Post by Bob Officer
Now she is citing a self serving website called Hemphealer? Even with
the latest information on THC and the effect on mental ability of
children, no sane person should advocate the use of hemp products, as
a recreational drug.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/health-teen-pot/index.html
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/how-does-marijuana-use-affect-school-work-social-life
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775797000514
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/84/4/386/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893133X01002731
Are you sure that hemp is the evil it has been painted as?
I hear that it used to be used to make car bodies and it was stronger
and more durable than steel.

I have also heard that hemp is a treatment / cure for cancer and other
medical conditions.

No doubt a lot of propaganda went on there to get it suppressed.



Emily

DDT: Decoy, Distract and Trash
by Steven M. Greer M.D. Director
http://siriusdisclosure.com/ddt/

Suppression of dissent in science
Brian Martin / Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, Volume 7
1999
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Suppression-Dissent-Science.htm


The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zgmi 


The History of the Pharma-Cartel
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cartel.html
Ernie
2014-01-13 18:58:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Genelle
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
This was the link Reg/carole posted.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
and here is ABC media watchdog site with a critique of the program.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
<cite>
Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly
unbalanced; and some of their so-called ‘experts’ had questionable
qualifications.
</cite>
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
Well, all cannot be lost when Genelle (sock of carole hubbard) suggests
laughter at her own failed attempt at humor.

Although there has been a growing concern for industry support of
medical education at all levels, the problem has not gone unnoticed by
those in mainstream medical education, nor has there been a lack of
proposals to address the problem.

In the mid 20th century, little attention was paid to ethical standards
for research that involved human subjects. But as the understanding of
these ethical issues in medical education and research has become more
sophisticated in the subsequent years, so has the awareness of clinical
studies performed by investigators whose financial well-being depends on
the results. Today, almost all universities and academic medical centers
enforce strict rules that prohibit those with financial interest in a
given treatment from studying it in patients.

That's called growth and progress.

https://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/20/2228.full

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/medical-education-united-states-and-canada-bulletin-number-four-flexner-report-0

http://bitsy.spinics.net/946

http://www.nofreelunch.org/
Post by Genelle
John D. Rockefeller donated money to medical schools who taught
drug-based medicine.
That's an overly simplified view of the history of American medical
education.

One of the stipulations for medical schools receiving money from
Rockefeller was to adhere strictly to the protocols of mainstream
science in their teaching and research.

Starr, Paul (1982). The Social Transformation of American Medicine.
Basic Books. pp. 514 pages. ISBN 0-465-07935-0.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FK4pBXGvQzoC&vq=%22The+Social+Transformation+Of+American+Medicine%22+Basic+Books&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

http://bitsy.spinics.net/947
Post by Genelle
I guess one of his mottos would have been that you've got to spend
money to make money.
Socialism, capitalism, feudalism, anarchism, and other civic theories
take markedly different views of the role of financial capital in social
life, and propose various political restrictions to deal with that.

However, all agree that the production, development, and management of
material wealth require a certain amount of capital investment.
Post by Genelle
The pharmaceutical business prime objective is to make money, not
heal anybody of anything. Big donations to medical schools are a
conflict of interest.
No way industry makes money and sustains itself without producing
medications that promote health and healing or the prevention of disease.
Post by Genelle
<snip all the bob trivia>
You have to ask yourself what took him that long to respond to this
topic that goes back a few months and why he doesn't address the main
thrust of the ABC program which was statins being over-prescribed.
The critique of the program did address the topic.

Genelle aka sock of carole hubbard glossed over them or otherwise failed
to note their merit.

The critique said the ABC catalyst program on statins was:
1) sensationalist and grossly unbalanced, and
2) some "experts" used had questionable qualifications.

Not unlike many of carole hubbard's biased and unsupported rants.
Ernie
2014-01-13 19:08:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ernie
Post by Genelle
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
This was the link Reg/carole posted.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
and here is ABC media watchdog site with a critique of the program.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
<cite>
Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly
unbalanced; and some of their so-called ‘experts’ had questionable
qualifications.
</cite>
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
Well, all cannot be lost when Genelle (sock of carole hubbard) suggests
laughter at her own failed attempt at humor.
Although there has been a growing concern for industry support of
medical education at all levels, the problem has not gone unnoticed by
those in mainstream medical education, nor has there been a lack of
proposals to address the problem.
In the mid 20th century, little attention was paid to ethical standards
for research that involved human subjects. But as the understanding of
these ethical issues in medical education and research has become more
sophisticated in the subsequent years, so has the awareness of clinical
studies performed by investigators whose financial well-being depends on
the results. Today, almost all universities and academic medical centers
enforce strict rules that prohibit those with financial interest in a
given treatment from studying it in patients.
That's called growth and progress.
https://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/20/2228.full
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/medical-education-united-states-and-canada-bulletin-number-four-flexner-report-0
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/sites/default/files/elibrary/Carnegie_Flexner_Report.pdf
Post by Ernie
http://bitsy.spinics.net/946
http://www.nofreelunch.org/
Post by Genelle
John D. Rockefeller donated money to medical schools who taught
drug-based medicine.
That's an overly simplified view of the history of American medical
education.
One of the stipulations for medical schools receiving money from
Rockefeller was to adhere strictly to the protocols of mainstream
science in their teaching and research.
Starr, Paul (1982). The Social Transformation of American Medicine.
Basic Books. pp. 514 pages. ISBN 0-465-07935-0.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FK4pBXGvQzoC&vq=%22The+Social+Transformation+Of+American+Medicine%22+Basic+Books&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0
http://bitsy.spinics.net/947
Post by Genelle
I guess one of his mottos would have been that you've got to spend
money to make money.
Socialism, capitalism, feudalism, anarchism, and other civic theories
take markedly different views of the role of financial capital in social
life, and propose various political restrictions to deal with that.
However, all agree that the production, development, and management of
material wealth require a certain amount of capital investment.
Post by Genelle
The pharmaceutical business prime objective is to make money, not
heal anybody of anything. Big donations to medical schools are a
conflict of interest.
No way industry makes money and sustains itself without producing
medications that promote health and healing or the prevention of disease.
Post by Genelle
<snip all the bob trivia>
You have to ask yourself what took him that long to respond to this
topic that goes back a few months and why he doesn't address the main
thrust of the ABC program which was statins being over-prescribed.
The critique of the program did address the topic.
Genelle aka sock of carole hubbard glossed over them or otherwise failed
to note their merit.
1) sensationalist and grossly unbalanced, and
2) some "experts" used had questionable qualifications.
Not unlike many of carole hubbard's biased and unsupported rants.
Bob Officer
2014-01-13 20:32:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:58:37 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Ernie
Post by Ernie
Post by Genelle
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
This was the link Reg/carole posted.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
and here is ABC media watchdog site with a critique of the program.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
<cite>
Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly
unbalanced; and some of their so-called ‘experts’ had questionable
qualifications.
</cite>
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
Well, all cannot be lost when Genelle (sock of carole hubbard) suggests
laughter at her own failed attempt at humor.
The really funny part is her claim of "mainstream" vs "alternative
sources she failed to read the addresses which were both abc.net.au
so if the second one is tainted so is the 1st one. Reading
comprehension and Logic has never been one of the chaussette's
strengths.
Post by Ernie
Although there has been a growing concern for industry support of
medical education at all levels, the problem has not gone unnoticed by
those in mainstream medical education, nor has there been a lack of
proposals to address the problem.
In the mid 20th century, little attention was paid to ethical standards
for research that involved human subjects. But as the understanding of
these ethical issues in medical education and research has become more
sophisticated in the subsequent years, so has the awareness of clinical
studies performed by investigators whose financial well-being depends on
the results. Today, almost all universities and academic medical centers
enforce strict rules that prohibit those with financial interest in a
given treatment from studying it in patients.
That's called growth and progress.
https://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/20/2228.full
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/medical-education-united-states-and-canada-bulletin-number-four-flexner-report-0
http://bitsy.spinics.net/946
http://www.nofreelunch.org/
Post by Genelle
John D. Rockefeller donated money to medical schools who taught
drug-based medicine.
That's an overly simplified view of the history of American medical
education.
One of the stipulations for medical schools receiving money from
Rockefeller was to adhere strictly to the protocols of mainstream
science in their teaching and research.
Starr, Paul (1982). The Social Transformation of American Medicine.
Basic Books. pp. 514 pages. ISBN 0-465-07935-0.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FK4pBXGvQzoC&vq=%22The+Social+Transformation+Of+American+Medicine%22+Basic+Books&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0
http://bitsy.spinics.net/947
Post by Genelle
I guess one of his mottos would have been that you've got to spend
money to make money.
Socialism, capitalism, feudalism, anarchism, and other civic theories
take markedly different views of the role of financial capital in social
life, and propose various political restrictions to deal with that.
However, all agree that the production, development, and management of
material wealth require a certain amount of capital investment.
Wealth uninvested looses value or time.
Post by Ernie
Post by Genelle
The pharmaceutical business prime objective is to make money, not
heal anybody of anything. Big donations to medical schools are a
conflict of interest.
No way industry makes money and sustains itself without producing
medications that promote health and healing or the prevention of disease.
Post by Genelle
<snip all the bob trivia>
You have to ask yourself what took him that long to respond to this
topic that goes back a few months and why he doesn't address the main
thrust of the ABC program which was statins being over-prescribed.
The critique of the program did address the topic.
Genelle aka sock of carole hubbard glossed over them or otherwise failed
to note their merit.
1) sensationalist and grossly unbalanced, and
2) some "experts" used had questionable qualifications.
Not unlike many of carole hubbard's biased and unsupported rants.
Exactly.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-17 02:32:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:58:37 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Ernie
Post by Ernie
Post by Genelle
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
This was the link Reg/carole posted.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
and here is ABC media watchdog site with a critique of the program.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
<cite>
Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly
unbalanced; and some of their so-called ‘experts’ had questionable
qualifications.
</cite>
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
Well, all cannot be lost when Genelle (sock of carole hubbard) suggests
laughter at her own failed attempt at humor.
The really funny part is her claim of "mainstream" vs "alternative
sources she failed to read the addresses which were both abc.net.au
so if the second one is tainted so is the 1st one. Reading
comprehension and Logic has never been one of the chaussette's
strengths.
And independent thinking has never been one of bob's strong points -
merely reading technical manuals and regurgitating words of "experts"
and "reliable sources".

Clayton

"When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have
a thousand reasons to smile." - Anonymous
Bob Officer
2014-01-17 04:39:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:32:00 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:58:37 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, Ernie
Post by Ernie
Post by Genelle
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
This was the link Reg/carole posted.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
and here is ABC media watchdog site with a critique of the program.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
<cite>
Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly
unbalanced; and some of their so-called ‘experts’ had questionable
qualifications.
</cite>
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
Well, all cannot be lost when Genelle (sock of carole hubbard) suggests
laughter at her own failed attempt at humor.
The really funny part is her claim of "mainstream" vs "alternative
sources she failed to read the addresses which were both abc.net.au
so if the second one is tainted so is the 1st one. Reading
comprehension and Logic has never been one of the chaussette's
strengths.
And independent thinking has never been one of bob's strong points -
merely reading technical manuals and regurgitating words of "experts"
and "reliable sources".
Trying to avoid the issue?

The chaussette's lack of logic means she can't understand simple
things.

If the web site:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
Is unreliable because <cited from what chaussette said about> "all
mainstream sources are questionable"
Then the news 'show/report' from
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
Must be equally "questionable" since they both come from the same
source.

If the source is the same one must assign an equal degree of "
'experts' and 'reliable sources'".

Serious, I used to give carole a little credit for intelligence, but
that credit has been used up over the years.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Clayton
2014-01-17 06:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Ernie
Post by Genelle
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
Well, all cannot be lost when Genelle (sock of carole hubbard) suggests
laughter at her own failed attempt at humor.
The really funny part is her claim of "mainstream" vs "alternative
sources she failed to read the addresses which were both abc.net.au
so if the second one is tainted so is the 1st one. Reading
comprehension and Logic has never been one of the chaussette's
strengths.
And independent thinking has never been one of bob's strong points -
merely reading technical manuals and regurgitating words of "experts"
and "reliable sources".
Trying to avoid the issue?
The chaussette's lack of logic means she can't understand simple
things.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
Is unreliable because <cited from what chaussette said about> "all
mainstream sources are questionable"
Then the news 'show/report' from
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
Must be equally "questionable" since they both come from the same
source.
You can't make a hard and fast rule like that - ie that one source is
good the other bad. There can be good and bad in either source through
various reasons including deception. It is necessary not to form
opinions based solely on the source.
Post by Bob Officer
If the source is the same one must assign an equal degree of "
'experts' and 'reliable sources'".
Serious, I used to give carole a little credit for intelligence, but
that credit has been used up over the years.
No bob, you've never given anybody any credit and look for and
contrive responses to rubbish alties whenever possible.
And if a plausible reason can't be found, make one up.



Clayton

The Hot Chick: "you can put your weed in here"
http://youtu.be/nsFPBoVuNgo
Bob Officer
2014-01-17 06:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:03:33 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Ernie
Post by Genelle
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
Well, all cannot be lost when Genelle (sock of carole hubbard) suggests
laughter at her own failed attempt at humor.
The really funny part is her claim of "mainstream" vs "alternative
sources she failed to read the addresses which were both abc.net.au
so if the second one is tainted so is the 1st one. Reading
comprehension and Logic has never been one of the chaussette's
strengths.
And independent thinking has never been one of bob's strong points -
merely reading technical manuals and regurgitating words of "experts"
and "reliable sources".
Trying to avoid the issue?
The chaussette's lack of logic means she can't understand simple
things.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
Is unreliable because <cited from what chaussette said about> "all
mainstream sources are questionable"
Then the news 'show/report' from
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
Must be equally "questionable" since they both come from the same
source.
You can't make a hard and fast rule like that - ie that one source is
good the other bad. There can be good and bad in either source through
various reasons including deception. It is necessary not to form
opinions based solely on the source.
This is opposite of what you said above, isn't it? The source of the
information is the same, in both cases. One can not be "Alternative"
and "Mainstream" at the same instance.

You are waffling and your thinking process is not logical or
consistent.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
If the source is the same one must assign an equal degree of "
'experts' and 'reliable sources'".
Serious, I used to give carole a little credit for intelligence, but
that credit has been used up over the years.
No bob, you've never given anybody any credit and look for and
contrive responses to rubbish alties whenever possible.
And if a plausible reason can't be found, make one up.
Your words continue to help you to "being made an idiot
out of ..."
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Clayton
2014-01-17 13:12:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:03:33 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Ernie
Post by Genelle
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
Well, all cannot be lost when Genelle (sock of carole hubbard) suggests
laughter at her own failed attempt at humor.
The really funny part is her claim of "mainstream" vs "alternative
sources she failed to read the addresses which were both abc.net.au
so if the second one is tainted so is the 1st one. Reading
comprehension and Logic has never been one of the chaussette's
strengths.
And independent thinking has never been one of bob's strong points -
merely reading technical manuals and regurgitating words of "experts"
and "reliable sources".
Trying to avoid the issue?
The chaussette's lack of logic means she can't understand simple
things.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
Is unreliable because <cited from what chaussette said about> "all
mainstream sources are questionable"
Then the news 'show/report' from
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
Must be equally "questionable" since they both come from the same
source.
You can't make a hard and fast rule like that - ie that one source is
good the other bad. There can be good and bad in either source through
various reasons including deception. It is necessary not to form
opinions based solely on the source.
This is opposite of what you said above, isn't it? The source of the
information is the same, in both cases. One can not be "Alternative"
and "Mainstream" at the same instance.
You can't make hard and fast rules over what is or isn't a reliable
source and simply believe whatever that reliable source says. There is
nobody who gets it all right all the time.

Well this is probably due to the fact that so much information in our
society is suppressed and replaced with propaganda and rubbish. Its
just par for the course - we get lied to about every facet of our
existence - history is rewritten, economy is rigged, war all lies,
terrorism is a sham, medicine is mostly rubbish and cures nothing etc.

All words and advice from experts and mainstream sources is nonsense.
Post by Bob Officer
You are waffling and your thinking process is not logical or
consistent.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
If the source is the same one must assign an equal degree of "
'experts' and 'reliable sources'".
Serious, I used to give carole a little credit for intelligence, but
that credit has been used up over the years.
No bob, you've never given anybody any credit and look for and
contrive responses to rubbish alties whenever possible.
And if a plausible reason can't be found, make one up.
Your words continue to help you to "being made an idiot
out of ..."
You know nothing.


Clayton

"The matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Businessmen,
Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that
system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of
these people are not ready to be unplugged. (told the truth). And many
of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they
will fight to protect it."

Morpheus, The Matrix. (Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.)
Bob Officer
2014-01-18 01:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:12:13 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:03:33 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Ernie
Post by Genelle
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
Well, all cannot be lost when Genelle (sock of carole hubbard) suggests
laughter at her own failed attempt at humor.
The really funny part is her claim of "mainstream" vs "alternative
sources she failed to read the addresses which were both abc.net.au
so if the second one is tainted so is the 1st one. Reading
comprehension and Logic has never been one of the chaussette's
strengths.
And independent thinking has never been one of bob's strong points -
merely reading technical manuals and regurgitating words of "experts"
and "reliable sources".
Trying to avoid the issue?
The chaussette's lack of logic means she can't understand simple
things.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
Is unreliable because <cited from what chaussette said about> "all
mainstream sources are questionable"
Then the news 'show/report' from
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
Must be equally "questionable" since they both come from the same
source.
You can't make a hard and fast rule like that - ie that one source is
good the other bad. There can be good and bad in either source through
various reasons including deception. It is necessary not to form
opinions based solely on the source.
This is opposite of what you said above, isn't it? The source of the
information is the same, in both cases. One can not be "Alternative"
and "Mainstream" at the same instance.
You can't make hard and fast rules over what is or isn't a reliable
source and simply believe whatever that reliable source says. There is
nobody who gets it all right all the time.
Exact;y/ And it takes knowledge and the ability to check facts while
abandoning Dogmatic beliefs.
Post by Clayton
Well this is probably due to the fact that so much information in our
society is suppressed and replaced with propaganda and rubbish.
yes the catalyst program was one such item which is classified as
rubbish and turns out to no more than a propaganda piece.
Post by Clayton
Its
just par for the course - we get lied to about every facet of our
existence - history is rewritten, economy is rigged, war all lies,
terrorism is a sham, medicine is mostly rubbish and cures nothing etc.
Sorry, The evidence shows what is generally classified as alternative
medicine is actually the rubbish and cures nothing at all. The lie,
which was the catalyst program is what I am talking about. The
rewrite of history is what you attempted several times in the last
day. all as a diversion showing you can not read and understand what
you have read; You can not think for yourself (the use of logic and
reason seems to have escaped you) and you can't check facts and data
to even tell what claims are real and which ones to be suspect about.
Post by Clayton
All words and advice from experts and mainstream sources is nonsense.
Another baseless assertion, without evidence or any support other
than your post hoc declaration.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
You are waffling and your thinking process is not logical or
consistent.
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
If the source is the same one must assign an equal degree of "
'experts' and 'reliable sources'".
Serious, I used to give carole a little credit for intelligence, but
that credit has been used up over the years.
No bob, you've never given anybody any credit and look for and
contrive responses to rubbish alties whenever possible.
And if a plausible reason can't be found, make one up.
Your words continue to help you to "being made an idiot
out of ..."
You know nothing.
I know far more than you ever will.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
E. Peabody
2014-01-19 01:28:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:12:13 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:03:33 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Ernie
Post by Genelle
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
Well, all cannot be lost when Genelle (sock of carole hubbard) suggests
laughter at her own failed attempt at humor.
The really funny part is her claim of "mainstream" vs "alternative
sources she failed to read the addresses which were both abc.net.au
so if the second one is tainted so is the 1st one. Reading
comprehension and Logic has never been one of the chaussette's
strengths.
And independent thinking has never been one of bob's strong points -
merely reading technical manuals and regurgitating words of "experts"
and "reliable sources".
Trying to avoid the issue?
The chaussette's lack of logic means she can't understand simple
things.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
Is unreliable because <cited from what chaussette said about> "all
mainstream sources are questionable"
Then the news 'show/report' from
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
Must be equally "questionable" since they both come from the same
source.
You can't make a hard and fast rule like that - ie that one source is
good the other bad. There can be good and bad in either source through
various reasons including deception. It is necessary not to form
opinions based solely on the source.
This is opposite of what you said above, isn't it? The source of the
information is the same, in both cases. One can not be "Alternative"
and "Mainstream" at the same instance.
You can't make hard and fast rules over what is or isn't a reliable
source and simply believe whatever that reliable source says. There is
nobody who gets it all right all the time.
Exact;y/ And it takes knowledge and the ability to check facts while
abandoning Dogmatic beliefs.
Dogmatic beliefs like yours bob?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Well this is probably due to the fact that so much information in our
society is suppressed and replaced with propaganda and rubbish.
yes the catalyst program was one such item which is classified as
rubbish and turns out to no more than a propaganda piece.
The ABC networt from what I hear has become a voice of establishment
propaganda. I was surprised to see this show went to air - although
there was a lot of criticism over it.

Anything which points the finger at pharmaceutical drugs being useless
is always met with lots of hysteria and propaganda to the contrary.
No doubt this is where some of big pharma's spending on marketing and
promotion goes, to get these people speaking for it.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Clayton
Its
just par for the course - we get lied to about every facet of our
existence - history is rewritten, economy is rigged, war all lies,
terrorism is a sham, medicine is mostly rubbish and cures nothing etc.
Sorry, The evidence shows what is generally classified as alternative
medicine is actually the rubbish and cures nothing at all. The lie,
which was the catalyst program is what I am talking about. The
rewrite of history is what you attempted several times in the last
day. all as a diversion showing you can not read and understand what
you have read; You can not think for yourself (the use of logic and
reason seems to have escaped you) and you can't check facts and data
to even tell what claims are real and which ones to be suspect about.
Sorry, you're wrong.
Big pharma has had a concerted campaign to eliminate any / all
competition for a long time, going back 100 years or more.

* * *
http://www.whale.to/b/ruesch.html

The Truth About the Rockefeller Drug Empire: The Drug Story

By Hans Ruesch
When the FDA, whose officials have to be acceptable to Rockefeller
Center before they are appointed, has to put an independent operator
out of business, it goes all out to execute those orders. But the
orders do not come directly from Standard Oil or a drug house
director. As Morris Bealle pointed out, the American Medical
Association (AMA) is the front for the Drug Trust, and furnishes the
quack doctors to testify that even when they know nothing of the
product involved, it is their considered opinion that it has no
therapeutic value.

Persecution

Wrote Bealle:

"Financed by the taxpayers, these Drug Trust persecutions
leave no stone unturned to destroy the victim. If he is a small
operator, the resulting attorney's fees and court costs put him out of
business. In one case, a Dr. Adolphus Hohensee of Scranton, Pa., who
had stated that vitamins (he used natural ones) were vital to good
health, was taken to court for 'misbranding' his product. The American
Medical Association furnished ten medicos who reversed all known
medical theories by testifying that 'vitamins are not necessary to the
human body'. Confronted with government bulletins to the contrary, the
medicos wiggled out of that one by declaring that these standard
publications were outdated!"

In addition to the FDA, Bealle listed the following agencies
having to do with "health" —. i.e., with the health of the Drug Trust
to the detriment of the citizens —. as being dependent on Rockefeller:
U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Veterans Administration, Federal
Trade Commission, Surgeon General of the Air Force, Army Surgeon
General's Office, Navy Bureau of Medicine & Surgery, National Health
Research Institute, National Research Council, National Academy of
Sciences.
* * *


So you see the deception goes right to the top of all government
agencies which have been infiltrated and taken over by those who
support the pharmaceutical drug cartel.



Emily



The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zgmi 


The History of the Pharma-Cartel
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cartel.html
Poor Peter Bowditch
2014-01-20 00:17:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clayton
When the FDA, whose officials have to be acceptable to Rockefeller
Center before they are appointed
In Australia, officials of the TGA have to be acceptable to the Sydney
Opera House before they are appointed. Nobody knows how buildings got
this power in society because the knowledge has been suppressed by Big
Architectya.

Loading Image...

Loading Image...
--
Poor Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Blog at http://peterbowditch.com/wp/
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter
Fungus Fred
2014-01-20 00:23:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Poor Peter Bowditch
Post by Clayton
When the FDA, whose officials have to be acceptable to Rockefeller
Center before they are appointed
In Australia, officials of the TGA have to be acceptable to the Sydney
Opera House before they are appointed. Nobody knows how buildings got
this power in society because the knowledge has been suppressed by Big
Architectya.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Rockefeller-Center.JPG
http://www.sydney.com.au/images/sydney-opera-house.jpg
LOL!


--
"Athletes foot is a symptom of the blood being out of order
or toxic. Taking the right cellsalts (calcium and sodium to
regulate acidity) eliminates it. But it does come back
although each time with less severity ... You have to
remember Michele I don't take any pharmaceutical products
at all except for the occasional panadeine for the odd
hangover." - carole hubbard
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>
http://gsk.co.nz/panadeine.html
http://www.anosvic.org.au/ANOS_Vic_Contacts.html
http://bitsy.spinics.net/849

"I do binge a little here and there - so what?"
- carole hubbard
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

"Back off cunt."
- carole hubbard
Message-ID: <4BDGo.2944$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Lu
2014-01-14 00:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ernie
Post by Genelle
Post by Bob Officer
Remember When Carole/Chaussette de Deuxième was posting about the ABC
catalyst program on Statins?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: The cholesterol myth being the cause of heart disease hits
the dust
This was the link Reg/carole posted.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
and here is ABC media watchdog site with a critique of the program.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm
<cite>
Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly
unbalanced; and some of their so-called ‘experts’ had questionable
qualifications.
</cite>
That's a laugh ...all mainstream sources are questionable since they
are trained in schools that have been funded by drug money.
Well, all cannot be lost when Genelle (sock of carole hubbard) suggests
laughter at her own failed attempt at humor.
Although there has been a growing concern for industry support of
medical education at all levels, the problem has not gone unnoticed by
those in mainstream medical education, nor has there been a lack of
proposals to address the problem.
In the mid 20th century, little attention was paid to ethical standards
for research that involved human subjects. But as the understanding of
these ethical issues in medical education and research has become more
sophisticated in the subsequent years, so has the awareness of clinical
studies performed by investigators whose financial well-being depends on
the results. Today, almost all universities and academic medical centers
enforce strict rules that prohibit those with financial interest in a
given treatment from studying it in patients.
That's called growth and progress.
https://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/20/2228.full
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/medical-education-united-
states
Post by Ernie
-and-canada-bulletin-number-four-flexner-report-0
http://bitsy.spinics.net/946
http://www.nofreelunch.org/
Post by Genelle
John D. Rockefeller donated money to medical schools who taught
drug-based medicine.
That's an overly simplified view of the history of American medical
education.
One of the stipulations for medical schools receiving money from
Rockefeller was to adhere strictly to the protocols of mainstream
science in their teaching and research.
Starr, Paul (1982). The Social Transformation of American Medicine.
Basic Books. pp. 514 pages. ISBN 0-465-07935-0.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FK4pBXGvQzoC&vq=%22The+Social+Transformation+
Post by Ernie
Of+American+Medicine%22+Basic+Books&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0
http://bitsy.spinics.net/947
Post by Genelle
I guess one of his mottos would have been that you've got to spend
money to make money.
Socialism, capitalism, feudalism, anarchism, and other civic theories
take markedly different views of the role of financial capital in social
life, and propose various political restrictions to deal with that.
However, all agree that the production, development, and management of
material wealth require a certain amount of capital investment.
Post by Genelle
The pharmaceutical business prime objective is to make money, not
heal anybody of anything. Big donations to medical schools are a
conflict of interest.
No way industry makes money and sustains itself without producing
medications that promote health and healing or the prevention of disease.
Carole always gets stumped by that little fact that the product has to work
as intended or it sits on the shelves, like all those alleged cures that
Carole says works but have been suppressed.

With pharmaceuticals they better work as advertised or they get to explain
why to the government, pay a lot of fines to the courts and the enormous
judgements awarded to all consumers who were injured by their product.

She also does not understand that ALL business has the same main objective.
They want to make money. They are in business to make money. They have to
make money or they fail.
Post by Ernie
Post by Genelle
<snip all the bob trivia>
You have to ask yourself what took him that long to respond to this
topic that goes back a few months and why he doesn't address the main
thrust of the ABC program which was statins being over-prescribed.
The critique of the program did address the topic.
Genelle aka sock of carole hubbard glossed over them or otherwise failed
to note their merit.
1) sensationalist and grossly unbalanced, and
2) some "experts" used had questionable qualifications.
Not unlike many of carole hubbard's biased and unsupported rants.
--
Lu
Loading...