Depression Recovery

Question:

Ooops sorry forget to address this point. > I’m old enough to have been there and done that. Life experiences rule >every > time. >Here’s where we disagree.

We sure do. >Individual life experience is too subject to totally >extraneous influences.

Maybe for you, certainly not for me. > I’m reminded of this every time I have a business >trip to Las Vegas (I hate that city.)  You always overhear someone going on >and on about their big win ten years ago.  Me, I look at all that lavish >construction, cheap entertainment, cheap good food, etc. and figure that >it isn’t being paid for because the average visitor wins.

Sorry I find this has nothing whatsoever to do with true personal experience. Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->| I’m old enough that I don’t have to pretend to be grown up.|

Response:

>Since you only go for what is proven, please do tell us how much of conv. >medicine *IS* proven? The not proven trick is just another excuse to stop >anything new. >Jan

Jan,  do you expect there to be double blinded, placebo controlled trials to see if direct pressure helps stop bleeding?  Do you expect to see such experiments done to see if using a catheter works? Your pathetic reading comprehension and disdain for science have again put you in the position of taking pure crap.   You need to understand that medicine is a science, not a game.   Medical science has been the instrumental force in alleviating your depression and giving you back the quality of life you now enjoy.   Accept that your recovery is just another example of better living through chemistry AND accept that the alt-methods you tried only relieved you of money and time. Grow up, Jan.

Response:

>Well that is my condition. I have spent far too many years serving others, >now >it is my turn. >Jan

Jan, I agree.  You are one of the most self-serving & self-deluded people I have ever known.

Response:

>>Individual life experience is too subject to totally >extraneous influences. > Maybe for you, certainly not for me.

I am glad to know that there is someone on Earth whose life is so totally controlled that no unexpected factors enter into it. > I’m reminded of this every time I have a business >trip to Las Vegas (I hate that city.)  You always overhear someone going on >and on about their big win ten years ago.  Me, I look at all that lavish >construction, cheap entertainment, cheap good food, etc. and figure that >it isn’t being paid for because the average visitor wins. > Sorry I find this has nothing whatsoever to do with true personal experience.

Of course you don’t see any connection.  Your personal experiences are Universal Truth, theirs are self-delusion. — | I’m old enough that I don’t have to pretend to be grown up.|

Response:

>>>Individual life experience is too subject to totally >>extraneous influences. > Maybe for you, certainly not for me. >I am glad to know that there is someone on Earth whose life is so >totally controlled that no unexpected factors enter into it.

Ooops I think you are reading things here that were never said. Oh well, that’s what the debunkers usually do, when one has an opinion that differs with theirs. You’ll find it here. Sometimes the dunkers will use they all in one sentence. http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/skeptictricks.html >> I’m reminded of this every time I have a business >>trip to Las Vegas (I hate that city.)  You always overhear someone going on >>and on about their big win ten years ago.  Me, I look at all that lavish >>construction, cheap entertainment, cheap good food, etc. and figure that >>it isn’t being paid for because the average visitor wins. > Sorry I find this has nothing whatsoever to do with true personal >experience. >Of course you don’t see any connection.  Your personal experiences >are Universal Truth, theirs are self-delusion.

http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/skeptictricks.html >| I’m old enough that I don’t have to pretend to be grown up.|

And use stupid skpetic tricks,,,,,,,,,,,,,a grown up bully tactic. Jan

Response:

>>>>Individual life experience is too subject to totally >>>extraneous influences. >> Maybe for you, certainly not for me. >I am glad to know that there is someone on Earth whose life is so >totally controlled that no unexpected factors enter into it. > Ooops I think you are reading things here that were never said. Oh well, that’s > what the debunkers usually do, when one has an opinion that differs with > theirs.

Then there *are* unexpected factors in your life? That would imply that sometimes you do things towards a desired effect, and the effect happens (unexpectedly). Does that ever happen to you?  (Or, properly, can you be sure it never happens to you?) — | I’m old enough that I don’t have to pretend to be grown up.|

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>Individual life experience is too subject to totally >>>>extraneous influences. >>> Maybe for you, certainly not for me. >>I am glad to know that there is someone on Earth whose life is so >>totally controlled that no unexpected factors enter into it. > Ooops I think you are reading things here that were never said. Oh well, >that’s > what the debunkers usually do, when one has an opinion that differs with > theirs. >Then there *are* unexpected factors in your life? >That would imply that sometimes you do things towards >a desired effect, and the effect happens (unexpectedly). >Does that ever happen to you?  (Or, properly, can you >be sure it never happens to you?) >– >| I’m old enough that I don’t have to pretend to be grown up.|

Me thinks you are a bit too concerned about me. Jan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I demand proof in a >>>>form that is reproducible in a double blind study, so be it. >>> Do you realize that 80% of conventional medicine has never been proven? >>Since I strongly suspect that you’re doing the "telephone" thing with >>something you’ve been told > Of course you do, however your assumptions are wrong. >Excellent!  Then you won’t mind pointing us to the primary source material >whence this figure comes. >I could ask wake MVS and ask, but don’t >really want >to bother.

> , I’ll start by pointing out that the original >>assertion was an oral comment at a conference, and the claim was >>that <specified percentage> of medical procedures had never been >>confirmed in a _double-blind_ study. > And? What is the specified percentage? >I’ve seen differing accounts of the exchange.  One version has an >original value of 90%, another has 95%.  You use 80%.  The exact >value is far less important than the scope of the subject.

Yes, one could just say a large measure, would that make you happier? >>Now, in that context, the statement is trivially true.  Nobody, to my >>knowledge, has ever done a double-blind study of the effectiveness of >>fracture reduction, volume replacement for shock, bed rest vs. up and >>about for post-surgical recovery, pushing fluids during infections, >>diet modification for hypertension or diabetes, exercise for arterial >>disease, etc. > That’s one example. How about surgery? >fracture reduction *is* surgery.  Appendectomy is another example, if you >want >it spread thicker.  Medicine abounds in procedures supported by nothing more >than common sense (such as airway maintainence) through epidemiology, >case-control studies, and on to the classic double-blind placebo-controlled >honkers.

So you wouldn’t abject to using common sense say with an alternative method? >>And, yes, these are trivial cases of things that are pretty much impossible >>to blind. > Trivial? I don’t think so. >I use the term in the sense of "easy to prove." >Of course, if you want to have a go at proposing a double-blind protocol >for an exercise program all I can say is, "more power to you."

Well that is exactly my point. So many here holler *it hasn’t been proven, we can’t accept alternative on that basis* yet they have done eactly that with conventional medicine. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->  Which was, in context, the speaker’s point: that the absense >>of double-blind testing is not, in itself, conclusive.  Which is not to say >>that where it’s possible we shouldn’t bother. > OK. >>>>If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe in the >>>>scientific method, mathematics, biology, and the other sciences as >>>>taught in the major colleges today, so be it. >>> No problem. How about all the methods that have NOT been proven? >>Jan, we’re looking for people to participate in a study of the >effectiveness >>of fracture reduction.  Will you sign up to be one of the controls, so that >>in the event that you break a bone the study will just monitor your >progress >>without intervention? > Sure will. If you provide any money involved and it doesn’t interfere with >my > retired life. >I don’t think that being the control in a study of fracture reduction can be >guaranteed to not interfere with your lifestyle

Well that is my condition. I have spent far too many years serving others, now it is my turn. Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m old enough to have been there and done that. Life experiences rule >every > time. >Here’s where we disagree.  Individual life experience is too subject to >totally >extraneous influences.  I’m reminded of this every time I have a business >trip to Las Vegas (I hate that city.)  You always overhear someone going on >and on about their big win ten years ago.  Me, I look at all that lavish >construction, cheap entertainment, cheap good food, etc. and figure that >it isn’t being paid for because the average visitor wins. >– >| I’m old enough that I don’t have to pretend to be grown up.|

Response:

>>>>If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I demand proof in a >>>form that is reproducible in a double blind study, so be it. >> Do you realize that 80% of conventional medicine has never been proven? >Since I strongly suspect that you’re doing the "telephone" thing with >something you’ve been told > Of course you do, however your assumptions are wrong.

Excellent!  Then you won’t mind pointing us to the primary source material whence this figure comes. > , I’ll start by pointing out that the original >assertion was an oral comment at a conference, and the claim was >that <specified percentage> of medical procedures had never been >confirmed in a _double-blind_ study. > And? What is the specified percentage?

I’ve seen differing accounts of the exchange.  One version has an original value of 90%, another has 95%.  You use 80%.  The exact value is far less important than the scope of the subject. >Now, in that context, the statement is trivially true.  Nobody, to my >knowledge, has ever done a double-blind study of the effectiveness of >fracture reduction, volume replacement for shock, bed rest vs. up and >about for post-surgical recovery, pushing fluids during infections, >diet modification for hypertension or diabetes, exercise for arterial >disease, etc. > That’s one example. How about surgery?

fracture reduction *is* surgery.  Appendectomy is another example, if you want it spread thicker.  Medicine abounds in procedures supported by nothing more than common sense (such as airway maintainence) through epidemiology, case-control studies, and on to the classic double-blind placebo-controlled honkers. >And, yes, these are trivial cases of things that are pretty much impossible >to blind. > Trivial? I don’t think so.

I use the term in the sense of "easy to prove." Of course, if you want to have a go at proposing a double-blind protocol for an exercise program all I can say is, "more power to you." >  Which was, in context, the speaker’s point: that the absense >of double-blind testing is not, in itself, conclusive.  Which is not to say >that where it’s possible we shouldn’t bother. > OK. >>>If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe in the >>>scientific method, mathematics, biology, and the other sciences as >>>taught in the major colleges today, so be it. >> No problem. How about all the methods that have NOT been proven? >Jan, we’re looking for people to participate in a study of the effectiveness >of fracture reduction.  Will you sign up to be one of the controls, so that >in the event that you break a bone the study will just monitor your progress >without intervention? > Sure will. If you provide any money involved and it doesn’t interfere with my > retired life.

I don’t think that being the control in a study of fracture reduction can be guaranteed to not interfere with your lifestyle > I’m old enough to have been there and done that. Life experiences rule every > time.

Here’s where we disagree.  Individual life experience is too subject to totally extraneous influences.  I’m reminded of this every time I have a business trip to Las Vegas (I hate that city.)  You always overhear someone going on and on about their big win ten years ago.  Me, I look at all that lavish construction, cheap entertainment, cheap good food, etc. and figure that it isn’t being paid for because the average visitor wins. — | I’m old enough that I don’t have to pretend to be grown up.|

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I demand proof in a >>form that is reproducible in a double blind study, so be it. > Do you realize that 80% of conventional medicine has never been proven? >Since I strongly suspect that you’re doing the "telephone" thing with >something you’ve been told

Of course you do, however your assumptions are wrong. , I’ll start by pointing out that the original >assertion was an oral comment at a conference, and the claim was >that <specified percentage> of medical procedures had never been >confirmed in a _double-blind_ study.

And? What is the specified percentage? >Now, in that context, the statement is trivially true.  Nobody, to my >knowledge, has ever done a double-blind study of the effectiveness of >fracture reduction, volume replacement for shock, bed rest vs. up and >about for post-surgical recovery, pushing fluids during infections, >diet modification for hypertension or diabetes, exercise for arterial >disease, etc.

That’s one example. How about surgery? >And, yes, these are trivial cases of things that are pretty much impossible >to blind.

Trivial? I don’t think so.  Which was, in context, the speaker’s point: that the absense >of double-blind testing is not, in itself, conclusive.  Which is not to say >that where it’s possible we shouldn’t bother.

OK. >>If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe in the >>scientific method, mathematics, biology, and the other sciences as >>taught in the major colleges today, so be it. > No problem. How about all the methods that have NOT been proven? >Jan, we’re looking for people to participate in a study of the effectiveness >of fracture reduction.  Will you sign up to be one of the controls, so that >in the event that you break a bone the study will just monitor your progress >without intervention?

Sure will. If you provide any money involved and it doesn’t interfere with my retired life. Jan I’m old enough to have been there and done that. Life experiences rule every time. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->| I’m old enough that I don’t have to pretend to be grown up.|

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I demand proof in a > >form that is reproducible in a double blind study, so be it. > Do you realize that 80% of conventional medicine has never been proven? >Jan – how are you defining "proven"?  Once you do that, how about some >examples of "unproven" conventional (I’m assuming allopathic?) that we >can discuss.  Then, how about some "proven" "unconventionally" >treatments as a comparison.

I don’t have a big hang up with absolutely proven. The debunklers here want double blind studies in a controlled setting and peer-reviewed. But they over look that most of conventional medicine isn’t. > >If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe in the > >scientific method, mathematics, biology, and the other sciences as > >taught in the major colleges today, so be it. > No problem. How about all the methods that have NOT been proven? >OK – how about them.

I see you haven’t been here very long. I tried one that hadn’t been absoutely proven (the only reason being the close minds of organized medicine) and it paid off. I am now alive and well, after coming close to death. > >If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe that modern > >medicine, the FDA, the AMA, the US Govt, and others are not part of a > >grand conspiracy, and that they are not frauds, cheats, or charlatans, > >or liars, so be it. > You are seriously mislead. >I’m a supporter of the scientific method – I’m not fond of anecdotes >or testimonials.  You’re entitled to your opinions. > Jan

Yep, sure am and I have the results. It seem doctors aren’t fond of anecdotes and testimonials. So why bother to ask a patient what is their symptoms? If it isn’t in the little scientific box, must be a mental condition. Since you only go for what is proven, please do tell us how much of conv. medicine *IS* proven? The not proven trick is just another excuse to stop anything new. Jan

Response:

>>If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I demand proof in a >form that is reproducible in a double blind study, so be it. > Do you realize that 80% of conventional medicine has never been proven?

Since I strongly suspect that you’re doing the "telephone" thing with something you’ve been told, I’ll start by pointing out that the original assertion was an oral comment at a conference, and the claim was that <specified percentage> of medical procedures had never been confirmed in a _double-blind_ study. Now, in that context, the statement is trivially true.  Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever done a double-blind study of the effectiveness of fracture reduction, volume replacement for shock, bed rest vs. up and about for post-surgical recovery, pushing fluids during infections, diet modification for hypertension or diabetes, exercise for arterial disease, etc. And, yes, these are trivial cases of things that are pretty much impossible to blind.  Which was, in context, the speaker’s point: that the absense of double-blind testing is not, in itself, conclusive.  Which is not to say that where it’s possible we shouldn’t bother. >If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe in the >scientific method, mathematics, biology, and the other sciences as >taught in the major colleges today, so be it. > No problem. How about all the methods that have NOT been proven?

Jan, we’re looking for people to participate in a study of the effectiveness of fracture reduction.  Will you sign up to be one of the controls, so that in the event that you break a bone the study will just monitor your progress without intervention? — | I’m old enough that I don’t have to pretend to be grown up.|

Response:

>If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I demand proof in a >form that is reproducible in a double blind study, so be it.

If you operate a double standard, then yes, you can be counted among the quack/healthfrauds Do you demand double blind studies for surgery for example? I am quite happy with controlled studies.   Some procedures cannot be blinded, but it does not mean valid studies cannot be done. >If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe in the >scientific method, mathematics, biology, and the other sciences as >taught in the major colleges today, so be it.

If you believe without evidence, yes, you can be counted among the quack/healthfrauds >If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe that modern >medicine, the FDA, the AMA, the US Govt, and others are not part of a >grand conspiracy, and that they are not frauds, cheats, or charlatans, >or liars, so be it.

If you believe that there is no fraud, cheats or liars, yes, you can be counted among the quack/healthfrauds. Any large organisation will contain an element of these problems. >If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe what my eyes >have seen regarding the positive effacy of vaccines, that bacterial and >viral infections do exist, and the positive effects of balanced diet >which includes protein, so be it.

If you believe without proof, yes, you can be counted among the quack/healthfrauds. >I just don’t think a lot of people would agree with you if you did label >me a quack/healthfraud, but if you do, that is fine by me.  Just don’t >expect me to return your insults with insults.  I will not lower myself >to that level.

Your behaviour labels you.   You are doing the things that quack/healthfrauds are claimed to do. >What I do believe is that any system will make errors.  

That’s better >If it involves humans, or items made by humans, there will be errors.  

Fine, keep that thought.   There may be hope for you yet.<g> Best wishes — John Bain UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html Surround Sound for Television

Response:

> >If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I demand proof in a >form that is reproducible in a double blind study, so be it. > Do you realize that 80% of conventional medicine has never been proven?

Jan – how are you defining "proven"?  Once you do that, how about some examples of "unproven" conventional (I’m assuming allopathic?) that we can discuss.  Then, how about some "proven" "unconventionally" treatments as a comparison. >If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe in the >scientific method, mathematics, biology, and the other sciences as >taught in the major colleges today, so be it. > No problem. How about all the methods that have NOT been proven?

OK – how about them. >If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe that modern >medicine, the FDA, the AMA, the US Govt, and others are not part of a >grand conspiracy, and that they are not frauds, cheats, or charlatans, >or liars, so be it. > You are seriously mislead.

I’m a supporter of the scientific method – I’m not fond of anecdotes or testimonials.  You’re entitled to your opinions. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Jan

Response:

>If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I demand proof in a >form that is reproducible in a double blind study, so be it.

Do you realize that 80% of conventional medicine has never been proven? >If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe in the >scientific method, mathematics, biology, and the other sciences as >taught in the major colleges today, so be it.

No problem. How about all the methods that have NOT been proven? >If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe that modern >medicine, the FDA, the AMA, the US Govt, and others are not part of a >grand conspiracy, and that they are not frauds, cheats, or charlatans, >or liars, so be it.

You are seriously mislead. Jan

Response:

Actually the post did mention implants quite a bit.  I do have to admit that I assumed the rest of the article was about that as I know that implants cover the majority of your postings.  If, in the future, I decide to read one of the URL’s you post, I will read the whole article instead of jumping to conclusions.  Sorry about that. You are the one who called me a healthfraud.  I maintain that I am not. I think that your definition of quack is a bit different than mine. I have never quacked and never will quack, except to imitate a certain bird.  I don’t understand your use of quacked in the statement "you Quacked". You attempt to insult me with words like "namby" and "pamby".  Don’t you realize your credibility suffers with the use of adjectives that are normally used by children?  Insults further reduce your credibility, Ilena.  Further more, don’t you realize that the addition of "ie" to the end of someone’s name further hurts your cause?  I, personally don’t care what you call me, so long as it is justified. If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I demand proof in a form that is reproducible in a double blind study, so be it. If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe in the scientific method, mathematics, biology, and the other sciences as taught in the major colleges today, so be it. If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe that modern medicine, the FDA, the AMA, the US Govt, and others are not part of a grand conspiracy, and that they are not frauds, cheats, or charlatans, or liars, so be it. If I am a quack/healthfraud in your eyes because I believe what my eyes have seen regarding the positive effacy of vaccines, that bacterial and viral infections do exist, and the positive effects of balanced diet which includes protein, so be it. I just don’t think a lot of people would agree with you if you did label me a quack/healthfraud, but if you do, that is fine by me.  Just don’t expect me to return your insults with insults.  I will not lower myself to that level. What I do believe is that any system will make errors.  If it involves humans, or items made by humans, there will be errors.  There is even a deity or two out there that has made errors.  Take for instance, the Judeo-Christian god.  He flooded the earth, and then regretted his action and promised to never flood the earth again.  Sounds like a classic mistake to me. rich – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > **I am totally confused now.  Can someone help out?  Can someone tell me > **what quack-logic is?  I thought I knew, but I realize that I don’t. > richie … that is actually quite a good question. > here is when you Quacked: > but now I am a healthfraud for > **> **agreeing with you? > that was an absurd leap in logic … i called you a HealthFraud because I > thought you were  one of the True Believers from the HealthFraud group > like Problet and Wyle the Fake Pediatrician … and Monica of course … > this post wasn’t about breast implants … in fact, i can’t recall > discussing them with you  … remind me of your comments > regarding them, your weak, namby pamby comment: >  Never once have I said that silicone implants > **> **were 100% safe. > is still 179% degrees away from my message … most will fail requiring > repeated surgeries, openness to many infections, and can break down the > immune system … not to mention necrosis and silicone stuffed lymph nodes > for a start … > **rich > ** > ** > ** > **> > **> **How quickly you forget Ilena.  I don’t disagree that there is a problem > **> **with silicone implants.  Never once have I said that silicone implants > **> **were 100% safe.  I have been critical about ones motivation for implants > **> **and some of the stories don’t hold water, but now I am a healthfraud for > **> **agreeing with you? > **> ** > **> **Oh well. > **> ** > **> **rich > **> ** > **> With that kind of QuackLogic … small wonder that I confused you with the > **> infamous others of Barrett’s HealthFrauders > **> ….http://www.hcrc.org/wwwboard/wwwboard.shtml > **> > **> If in fact you are not one of them, your criticisms that are just > **> criticisms because a Non-Believer like me posts something … may get you > **> confused with those of their Kult.

Response:

**I am totally confused now.  Can someone help out?  Can someone tell me **what quack-logic is?  I thought I knew, but I realize that I don’t. richie … that is actually quite a good question. here is when you Quacked: but now I am a healthfraud for **> **agreeing with you? that was an absurd leap in logic … i called you a HealthFraud because I thought you were  one of the True Believers from the HealthFraud group like Problet and Wyle the Fake Pediatrician … and Monica of course … this post wasn’t about breast implants … in fact, i can’t recall discussing them with you  … remind me of your comments regarding them, your weak, namby pamby comment:  Never once have I said that silicone implants **> **were 100% safe. is still 179% degrees away from my message … most will fail requiring repeated surgeries, openness to many infections, and can break down the immune system … not to mention necrosis and silicone stuffed lymph nodes for a start … **rich ** **

**

**> **> **How quickly you forget Ilena.  I don’t disagree that there is a problem **> **with silicone implants.  Never once have I said that silicone implants **> **were 100% safe.  I have been critical about ones motivation for implants **> **and some of the stories don’t hold water, but now I am a healthfraud for **> **agreeing with you? **> ** **> **Oh well. **> ** **> **rich **> ** **> With that kind of QuackLogic … small wonder that I confused you with the **> infamous others of Barrett’s HealthFrauders **> ….http://www.hcrc.org/wwwboard/wwwboard.shtml **> **> If in fact you are not one of them, your criticisms that are just **> criticisms because a Non-Believer like me posts something … may get you **> confused with those of their Kult.

Response:

**How quickly you forget Ilena.  I don’t disagree that there is a problem **with silicone implants.  Never once have I said that silicone implants **were 100% safe.  I have been critical about ones motivation for implants **and some of the stories don’t hold water, but now I am a healthfraud for **agreeing with you? ** **Oh well. ** **rich ** With that kind of QuackLogic … small wonder that I confused you with the infamous others of Barrett’s HealthFrauders …http://www.hcrc.org/wwwboard/wwwboard.shtml If in fact you are not one of them, your criticisms that are just criticisms because a Non-Believer like me posts something … may get you confused with those of their Kult.

Response:

I am totally confused now.  Can someone help out?  Can someone tell me what quack-logic is?  I thought I knew, but I realize that I don’t. rich – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > **How quickly you forget Ilena.  I don’t disagree that there is a problem > **with silicone implants.  Never once have I said that silicone implants > **were 100% safe.  I have been critical about ones motivation for implants > **and some of the stories don’t hold water, but now I am a healthfraud for > **agreeing with you? > ** > **Oh well. > ** > **rich > ** > With that kind of QuackLogic … small wonder that I confused you with the > infamous others of Barrett’s HealthFrauders > ….http://www.hcrc.org/wwwboard/wwwboard.shtml > If in fact you are not one of them, your criticisms that are just > criticisms because a Non-Believer like me posts something … may get you > confused with those of their Kult.

Response:

>I am totally confused now.  Can someone help out?  Can someone tell me >what quack-logic is?  I thought I knew, but I realize that I don’t.

A common problem.  "QuackLogic" is a very broad term.  It includes the use of irony or sarcasm, Ilena being a wee bit irony-challenged.  It also includes the use of logic to reach a conclusion with which Ilena is unhappy.   — David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net      These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct.        "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants                   were standing on my shoulders." BTW, is it possible that "Humantics" is a contraction of the words "human" and "antics"?  It would be soooo appropriate… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> **How quickly you forget Ilena.  I don’t disagree that there is a problem > **with silicone implants.  Never once have I said that silicone implants > **were 100% safe.  I have been critical about ones motivation for implants > **and some of the stories don’t hold water, but now I am a healthfraud for > **agreeing with you? > ** > **Oh well. > ** > **rich > ** > With that kind of QuackLogic … small wonder that I confused you with the > infamous others of Barrett’s HealthFrauders > ….http://www.hcrc.org/wwwboard/wwwboard.shtml > If in fact you are not one of them, your criticisms that are just > criticisms because a Non-Believer like me posts something … may get you > confused with those of their Kult.

Response:

How quickly you forget Ilena.  I don’t disagree that there is a problem with silicone implants.  Never once have I said that silicone implants were 100% safe.  I have been critical about ones motivation for implants and some of the stories don’t hold water, but now I am a healthfraud for agreeing with you? Oh well. rich – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > **Ilena, > ** > **The link has nothing to do with science….. > ** > **here is an excerpt from the link. > You poor obsessed poster … can’t even find a letter on a webpage.. Here > it is you poor desperate HealthFraud. > ** > ** You might read, THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S GUARDIAN ANGELL at: > **> >  http://bsd.motherjones.com/mother_jones/MA98/backtalk.html > THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S GUARDIAN ANGELL > Michael Castleman correctly identified Dr. Marcia Angell, the executive > editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, as the pre-eminent > apologist for silicone breast implant manufacturers ("Implanted Evidence," > January/February. However, he did not go far enough in illuminating the > extent to which Angell has used the prestige of the NEJM to lend > credibility to the "junk science" agenda. Her book about the silicone > breast implant controversy, Science on Trial, reads like a manifesto for > industry-funded groups such as The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition > (TASSC) and the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), as well as > conservative think tanks like the anti-feminist Independent Women’s Forum > (IWF), which have promoted the junk science argument as a successful legal > strategy for manufacturers of faulty products or industries that pollute > the environment. It is not surprising that TASSC has made bulk purchases > of the book. > Angell gave the keynote address at an IWF symposium on junk science and > has presented a lecture to the "free market" Cato Institute. The NEJM > recently published a highly critical book review by Jerry Berke, chief > medical director at the chemical giant W.R. Grace, of Sandra Steingraber’s > Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment, > without revealing Berke’s conflict of interest. Stephen Safe, a scientist > who has received funding from the chemical industry and is an unofficial > spokesman for the industry, wrote an NEJM editorial that dismissed the > cancer risks of environmental pollutants. Safe’s industrial association > was not revealed. The NEJM has also published an opinion piece by Bert > Black, a CMA lawyer. Is it possible that the NEJM has compromised its > standards to accommodate industrial interests? Castleman and Mother Jones > could have done more to reveal the irregular company kept by the executive > editor of America’s most widely read medical journal. > ROBERT F. GARRY > Tulane University School of Medicine > New Orleans, La. > SCOTT A. TENENBAUM > Duke University Medical Center > Durham, N.C.

Response:

**Ilena, ** **The link has nothing to do with science….. ** **here is an excerpt from the link. You poor obsessed poster … can’t even find a letter on a webpage.. Here it is you poor desperate HealthFraud.

** ** You might read, THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S GUARDIAN ANGELL at: **>  http://bsd.motherjones.com/mother_jones/MA98/backtalk.html THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S GUARDIAN ANGELL Michael Castleman correctly identified Dr. Marcia Angell, the executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, as the pre-eminent apologist for silicone breast implant manufacturers ("Implanted Evidence," January/February. However, he did not go far enough in illuminating the extent to which Angell has used the prestige of the NEJM to lend credibility to the "junk science" agenda. Her book about the silicone breast implant controversy, Science on Trial, reads like a manifesto for industry-funded groups such as The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) and the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), as well as conservative think tanks like the anti-feminist Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), which have promoted the junk science argument as a successful legal strategy for manufacturers of faulty products or industries that pollute the environment. It is not surprising that TASSC has made bulk purchases of the book. Angell gave the keynote address at an IWF symposium on junk science and has presented a lecture to the "free market" Cato Institute. The NEJM recently published a highly critical book review by Jerry Berke, chief medical director at the chemical giant W.R. Grace, of Sandra Steingraber’s Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment, without revealing Berke’s conflict of interest. Stephen Safe, a scientist who has received funding from the chemical industry and is an unofficial spokesman for the industry, wrote an NEJM editorial that dismissed the cancer risks of environmental pollutants. Safe’s industrial association was not revealed. The NEJM has also published an opinion piece by Bert Black, a CMA lawyer. Is it possible that the NEJM has compromised its standards to accommodate industrial interests? Castleman and Mother Jones could have done more to reveal the irregular company kept by the executive editor of America’s most widely read medical journal. ROBERT F. GARRY Tulane University School of Medicine New Orleans, La. SCOTT A. TENENBAUM Duke University Medical Center Durham, N.C.

Response:

Ilena, The link has nothing to do with science….. here is an excerpt from the link. MICROSOFT’S WORDS I was disappointed to read Rachel Burstein’s "Overseas Invasion " (January, February) regarding the Business Software Alliance (BSA), Microsoft, and other software companies. For a more complete analysis of that story, please visit www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/myths.htm. The BSA has brought anti-piracy lawsuits on behalf of its member companies, including Novell, Lotus, Adobe, Autodesk, and Microsoft. Settlements are not finalized

ancer risks  You might read, THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S GUARDIAN ANGELL at: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> http://bsd.motherjones.com/mother_jones/MA98/backtalk.html

Response:

>Ilena, >The link has nothing to do with science….. >here is an excerpt from the link.

At least Ilena is consistently off-topic…

Response:

Dear Mr. Collins, Thank you so much for this website exposing so called "Scientists" with Corporate Ties. I must admit, however, that I almost choked when I read the quote from Marcia Angell on your site ~ many consider her to be the Queen of the Conflicts of Interest. For years, as Editor of the NEJM, she took the silicone manufacturers’ public relations efforts and pawned them off as "science," lambasting the doctors and scientists who were linking breast implants with high rupture and certain diseases as "junk scientists." In fact, she was the Junk Science campaign’s most visible SpokesDoctor, appearing with John Stossel on 20/20 many times, and the silicone manufacuters and the Plastic Surgeons oft quoted her as gospel. Her highly publicized book, "Science on Trial" was nothing more than politics fueled by corporate purchased pseudo-science … Her "best estimate" of rupture was 5% over time, which we in the Breast Implant Awareness groups knew was "wishful thinking" at best. Recent FDA studies reveal that 2 out of 3 women will have a ruptured silicone breast implant within just 17 years. There are many other "scientific" conflicts of interest that revolved her, and her "Oooops" ratio in favour of the pharmaceutical and chemical industries did not go unnoticed. I respectfully request that you not taint your fine website with her quote which is but a smokescreen for her own scientific misdeeds. Please recall the debacle she created by using the Medical Director of W.R. Grace to write an "unbiased" and "critical" review of Sandra Steingraber’s Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment, without revealing Berke’s conflict of interest. Stephen Safe, a scientist who has received funding from the chemical industry and is an unofficial spokesman for the industry, wrote an NEJM editorial that dismissed the cancer risks of environmental pollutants. You will recognize him in your own list of scientists. You might read, THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY’S GUARDIAN ANGELL at: http://bsd.motherjones.com/mother_jones/MA98/backtalk.html Thanks again so much for your site … the highly funded "Junk Science" campaign has it all upside down and backwards. Ilena Rosenthal Director, Humantics Foundation for Women Breast Implants: Recovery & Discovery http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/database.html http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/about.html