WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: The best way to identify a pharmablogger is to recognize the
: nature of "pharmablogging," ie., a repudiation of ethics and the
: absence of evidence by those professing to believe in "evidence based
: medicine."

Do you not consider the results of double-blind studies "evidence"? If
not, how do you explain the rejection by the FDA of drugs that fail to
show significant effect in such studies?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

<coonskin@amestwp.com> wrote in message
news:45648876$0$24654$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cm u.edu...
> "I blog for credible regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and greater
> reliance on natural medicine. If that makes me an "alterblogger," so be
> it. The best way to identify a pharmablogger is to recognize the nature
> of "pharmablogging," ie., a repudiation of ethics and the absence of
> evidence by those professing to believe in "evidence based medicine." I
> hope you know I saw you coming a mile away..."
>
> I too want better oversight of medical drugs, and "alternative" drugs.
> I don't care if a method is "natural" or not, only that it can be shown
> to work as claimed external to those selling it.

"Oversight"? By the government? We have that now.

>
> So, to cast a light on and critically question the behavior of the
> "alternative" industry is unethical? What of the ethics of asserting
> without proof the charge of the subject line? When evidence in support
> of "reflexology" is presented, as requested, then we can speak of
> evidence based medicine and scientific validity.

So, the entire credibility of alternative medicine lays in Reflexology? If
only the same were applied to Viox and ANY statin. At the worst,
reflexology is psychosomatic and does no physical, uncorrectable damage
other that possibly forestalling an effective treatment.

Government oversight and approval ONLY leads to unqualified confidence in a
drug "identified" as dangerous and thus controlled.

>
> So you saw me coming, darn it, I need to get the stealth function on my
> black helicopter working again.

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> When asked to present an example to illustrate the subject line we get:
>
> "Do not hold your breath..."
>
> So it is all hand waving and foot stomping and smoke and mirrors is it?
> As you say elsewhere, content matters, and we now have our answer;
> "alterbloggers" are more adept at rhetorical tap dancing then facts.
>

When Petey is at a loss for anything remotely rational, he redefines
reality, makes up words, and uses alternative logic.

Richard Schultz wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> You forgot the part where when I gave you a list of references showing
> :> negative effects of food supplements, you refused to read any of the
> :> references on the list.
> :
> : You failed to respond to my invitation to provide these in an online
> : resource, insisting I take time to dig through public archives, which
> : unfortunately my schedule will not permit.
>
> "I will not do your homework for you." Now where I have heard that before?

Your reading list is not my "homework." Besides, the validity of any
reference not conveniently accessible to *all* readers is highly
suspect.

> : Medically relevant citations (or ones equivalent in scope) are rarely
> : unavailable in digital format. . .
>
> All of the papers I cited are available in digital format. In fact, I
> found other papers on the subject, but since I only had access to their
> abstracts, I did not want to cite the full paper as if I had seen it.
> If you can't figure out how to get from the citation I posted to the
> article, that's not my problem.

Nor mine. I am already familiar with the slight allergic risks posed
by dietary supplements, and their potential for toxicity in extremely
high doses, and have discussed these issues at length more than a few
times. If you are unwilling to familiarize yourself with the Usenet
archives, that is not *my* problem.

> I should also point out that your objection is blatantly hypocritical.
> When you posted a reference to a book, and I explained to you that the
> book was unavailable in the library at Bar-Ilan University, so that I would
> prefer a specific page citation before going to the trouble of getting the
> book on interlibrary loan, you refused point-blank to provide the page
> citation.

Are you still crying about that? I normally would have provided the
page number, but as I later explained, the book was not in my
possession at the time. I later provided the page number, immediately
after which you claimed to have found the reference on your own (highly
doubtful.) Either way, this exchange speaks volumes about your
obsession with me, and your denials relating to industry ring
incredibly hollow.

> I eventually found the page, no thanks to you, given that you
> had misspelled the names of the authors. Given that track record on your
> part, you have absolutely no right to expect that I will give you anything
> more than I did, namely, the full citations.

What you give, or don't give, is irrelevant to me. Your efforts to
distort the evidence proving the toxicity of drugs and their ability to
induce a disease response is most telling.

> And that's leaving out the part where your excuse suddenly changed from
> your claim that you had no need to read the references, since you already
> knew what they would say, to you don't have time to find them.

Both are true. If you had posted something relevant *out of the
research* and used the citations as support, it would help to make your
case. Instead, you post citations as if they alone validate your
views, and that is absurd. Waiting for me to evaluate the research is
just as ridiculous. That is why I say I will not do your homework for
you.

> :> And you also forgot the part where I quoted
> :> a book that *you* referenced, and demonstrated that it did not say what
> :> you claimed that it did.
> :
> : You were challenged to explain how my paraphrase differed from the
> : authors' synopsis, and you never responded. Here is the challenge
> : again:
> :
> : For the record, here is the paragraph in which I cited the study:
> : "Researchers found that 3.5%, at most, of the decline in infectious
> : disease mortality during the period 1900 to 1975, was concomitant with
> : use of vaccine. Put simply, there is no evidence that vaccine is
> : responsible for even the majority of such declines."
>
> You have yet to provide a *specific page* of the reference on which that
> quote can be found.

You are quoting me, fool. I was paraphrasing (not so loosely) what the
authors' remarked. Are we to believe you are this stupid?

> Unlike me, who posted the number of page in the book
> in which the citation to the study you claim to be quoting was found.

The book you claimed you couldn't find? Brilliant.

> That is, on page 43 of _Public Health at the Crossroads_, the entire
> reference to McKinlay and McKinlay was one sentence, namely,
>
> For example, it has been estimated that, at most,
> only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
> United States of America between 1900 and 1973 [sic]
> could be ascribed to medical measures introduced
> for the major infectious diseases.[72]

Thus, my comment that 3.5% of concomitant use of vaccine during those
years was the total mortality impact for which such intervention might
have been responsible. In fact, we have no way of knowing that vaccine
was responsible for even 1% of that decline. It would be quite
remarkable if the entire 3.5% decline could be attributed soley to
vaccine.

> In the book that *you* cited as citing McKinlay and McKinlay, the above
> sentence is *immediately* *followed* by the following one:
>
> On the other hand, targeted public health interventions
> *including vaccination* [emphasis mine], personal
> hygiene campaigns, and improved child health care
> services, were of major importance.

There is no contradiction. The earlier statement was a clear reference
to mortality, whereas this statement makes no such reference. This
portion of the paragraph simply says that such inititiatives were of
"major importance." In terms of healthcare, many medical researchers
still believe that vaccine is a necessary tool for prevention, however
the research cited by these authors shows that vaccine was not
responsible for most of the decline in infectious disease mortality.
The point is that you cannot have a dramatic reduction in infectious
disease mortality without a dramatic reduction in the severity of the
disease response. There is no way around it.

> : Do explain what "radically different" conclusion (your words) you
> : believe the authors came to. Read the actual excerpt and then read my
> : paraphrase, and tell us where they differ.
>
> The authors of the chapter in _Public Health at the Crossroads_ in which
> the reference to McKinlay and McKinlay appears follow that reference by
> an explicit statement that vaccination was of "major importance" in lowering
> the mortality rate in the U.S. during the 20th century. That is (I
> would think fairly obviously) the exact opposite of what you write above.

The words "of "major importance in lowering the mortality rate..." are
clearly *not* stated by these authors, and you know it. Otherwise the
paragraph would contain a gross contradiction. You are, once again,
deliberately distorting what the research says.

> :> I'm still waiting for your yes-or-no answers to my three questions.
> :
> : You'll have to repost them if you want them considered. Searching
> : through your puerile mountain of inanities is not a productive use of
> : my time.
>
> You have claimed that I have some kind of personal interest (professional
> or monetary) in the pharmaceutical industry. A list of recent publications
> of mine is publically accessible via the Bar-Ilan University Chemistry
> Department web page. I asked you the following:
>
> (1) Have you read any of the references listed?
> (1a) Have you even read the list of references?
> (2) Do any of the references have anything whatsoever to do with
> pharmaceutical chemistry?

What is it you need to prove, and to whom? I never said your work at
the university explained why you are here. You yourslef haven't
bothered to explain it. I'm sure when you do it will be appropriately
self promoting.

PeterB

In article <4563417a$0$17471$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com> ,
Vernon <anere@anhere> wrote:
>
><coonskin@amestwp.com> wrote in message
>news:45630ff8$0$24652$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.c mu.edu...
>> With no substantive answer nor example to demonstrate "pharmablogger"
>> activity on these newsgroups, we must conclude same exists only in the
>> mind of the one asserting it. It was a deft rhetorical move set up in
>> such a way that even to not agree or to question the conclusions meant
>> confirmation of the charges. It looks like in hind sight that it was an
>> attempt to "vaccinate" "alterbloggers" from serious questioning of their
>> assertions.
>>
>> It failed, any assertion should recieve the same kinds of hard look as
>> any other using the commonly accepted scientific proceedures.
>> Handwaving and foot stomping does not serve in its place. It can be
>> shown to work or it doesn't, it can be shown to be safe or not shown, it
>> relies on pseudoscience or it does not, it is accepted as effective
>> marketing or it doesn't. Every assertion from any quarter deserves a
>> hard look using these questions.
>
>Spoken like a true pseudo scientist who can't even figure out netiquette,
>even after multiple posts.

Sez Vernon, the "true scientist", who, when challenged to provide
evidence for his many wild assertions, just tells us that "it's out
there."

Very convincing.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher

The statement reading: "Thus, my comment that 3.5% of concomitant use
of vaccine during those years was the total mortality impact for which
such intervention might have been responsible..." should have read:
"Thus, my comment that 3.5%, at most, of the total decline in
infectious disease mortality over 7 decades can be associated (but not
definitively linked) to concomitant use of vaccine."

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

:> : You failed to respond to my invitation to provide these in an online
:> : resource, insisting I take time to dig through public archives, which
:> : unfortunately my schedule will not permit.
:>
:> "I will not do your homework for you." Now where I have heard that before?
:
: Your reading list is not my "homework." Besides, the validity of any
: reference not conveniently accessible to *all* readers is highly
: suspect.

That is, of course, insane. All of the references that I provided are
conveniently accessible to anyone who cares to make the effort to
obtain them. In addition to being insane, your remark is blatantly
hypocritical. What online resource makes the articles and books that you cite
"conveniently accessible to *all* readers"?

: Nor mine. I am already familiar with the slight allergic risks posed
: by dietary supplements, and their potential for toxicity in extremely
: high doses, and have discussed these issues at length more than a few
: times. If you are unwilling to familiarize yourself with the Usenet
: archives, that is not *my* problem.

That is a hoot, considering that you have demonstrated a total inability
to use said archives, or even to understand how usenet articles are archived.

: Are you still crying about that? I normally would have provided the
: page number, but as I later explained, the book was not in my
: possession at the time.

That is a lie.

: I later provided the page number, immediately
: after which you claimed to have found the reference on your own (highly
: doubtful.)

That is another lie (the part about your providing the page number). You
specifically refused to provide the page number, claiming that it was not
your job to do my homework for me. When I found the page -- despite your
misspelling of the names of the authors of the study -- I found it through
the search function at amazon.com, and I posted it, along with the direct
quote from the book. You then continued to claim that the quotation from
the book was not in direct contradiction of your description of it, no
matter how many times I reposted it.

: Either way, this exchange speaks volumes about your obsession with me, and
: your denials relating to industry ring incredibly hollow.

Why does it speak "volumes" about my obsession with you, and not the
other way around?

You still have not answered the three simple yes or no questions that I
posed to you .

: What you give, or don't give, is irrelevant to me. Your efforts to
: distort the evidence proving the toxicity of drugs and their ability to
: induce a disease response is most telling.

Your claim that a side effect is identical to a disease is most telling.
Considering that, unlike you, I provided a direct quote from the conclusions
of the study in question, it seems that if my intention were to distort
those conclusions, I was going about it in a remarkably poor way.

:> Unlike me, who posted the number of page in the book
:> in which the citation to the study you claim to be quoting was found.
:
: The book you claimed you couldn't find? Brilliant.

I didn't claim that I could not find the book. I claimed (correctly) that
the book was not in the Bar-Ilan University library, and that if I wanted
to obtain a copy, I would have to get it through inter-library loan.

[further evidence of PeterB's total inability to read English for
comprehension deleted]


-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
-- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_

PeterB wrote:
> Johnny Huang wrote:
> > PeterB wrote:
> > > coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> > > > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn
> > > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify
> > > > myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to
> > > > respond.
> > >
> > > Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
> > > Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.
> > >
> > > > The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to
> > > > pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such
> > > > alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion.
> > >
> > > If it feels like "sandbagging," you're being too sensitive. As for
> > > examples of such tactics, it happens every day here in the newsgroups.
> >
> > Yes, this thread you started is a very good example. As a matter of
> > fact, your sandbagging is the reason that Coonskin called you on your
> > sandbagging.
>
> Calling out the players in a virtual community is not sandbagging,
> especially not in context of broader discussions that are topically
> relevant. I don't make discussions of industry central to my premise
> that natural medicine is superior to drugs, for example.
>
> > > If you mean you would hope to evaluate such behaviour "clinically," I
> > > would ask how you intend to do this.
> > >
> > > > Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidence be
> > > > identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example.
> > > > Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article
> > > > results to be one to include.
> > >
> > > You'll need to structure your experiment in detail. I've conducted
> > > many such experiments here myself, without announcing it. The results
> > > have been fascinating.
> >
> > Do you mean your declaration that Vitamin C turns Hydrogen into Oxygen?
>
> You are well aware that I said no such thing. I used a perfectly
> acceptable alternate useage of the word "convert" to simplify my
> discussion of complex features of the Krebs cycle.

Oh, please. I don't have time for this, but...


Petey had clearly never heard of the Krebs cycle at that point, and is
by now well aware that vitamin C is not involved. His original claim
was that: "Ascorbic acid is the redux [sic] agent necessary for
conversion of hydrogen to oxygen, so we don't even breathe without
it"



He defended this statement as is for quite some time (even claiming
that Linus Pauling describing the oxidation of ascorbic acid backed him
up; how we giggled), before finally conceding that it wasn't
"chemically accurate" (the original thread is here:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...9ab3742efefe85

He then took a lot more time to finally come up with an "alternate
usage" from Merriam Webster that he thought, because his English is
almost as awful as his chemistry, would make sense of his nonsense.

Here it is:

"to alter for more effective utilization"


Embarrassingly for PeteyB, he was unable to discern that this
definition, applied to his statement, would still have vitamin C
turning hydrogen into oxygen (for the better utilisation of hydrogen,
by his preferred definition) because he said that hydrogen was
converted *to oxygen*; possibly he missed most of his high school
education, being confined to bed by all those nasty little diseases
against which the rest of us are vaccinated.


> If my shorthand is
> over your head

Ah. "shorthand". This is the word Petey uses when the rest of us
would just say "colossal and stupid error".

Oh, BTW, before Petey brings it up, I once quoted the actual number of
cases of measles (˜ 4 million) rather than the number of recorded
cases (˜400,000) prior to vaccination being introduced in the USA. I
immediately admitted the mistake, but it'll be a miracle if Petey
doesn't bring it up again. He doesn't seem to understand that
it's ok to make a mistake; it's pretending that you haven't
that's the problem



> just think how lost you would be with a detailed
> discussion.
>
> > Fascinating or hallucinating, Peterb?
>
> In your case, masturbating.

PeteyB's usual magnificent standard of debate.

>
> > >
> > > > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to
> > > > mind.
> > > >
> > > > On the short list of kinds of methods said to be victims of
> > > > "pharmabloggers" was "supplements". If drug companies are suspect for
> > > > profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be
> > > > suspect on the same grounds?
> > >
> > > Of course. But financial wherewithal is a huge factor in the level of
> > > penetration industry is capable of in terms of affecting public debate.
> > > The drug makers have far more resources than the supplement makers.
> > > The supplement industry is doing well, but with market share rising for
> > > them, they have far less to lose than the pharmaceuticals.
> > >
> > > > To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in
> > > > evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices?
> > >
> > > The "Warning" post does not describe normal marketplace strategies for
> > > selling products, however many of us are discussing such issues here.
> > >
> > > > For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger" when it says "quack
> > > > buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect, considering thetwo
> > > > links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerningthe
> > > > alleged abuses?
> > >
> > > Language is very dual.
> >
> > Oh, so that's your secret! You give words alternative meanings in
> > order to make your case.
> >
> > > Readers must decide when it is being used
> > > unfairly. I do not appeal to authority. I will tell you what I think
> > > and offer to support it.
> >
> > Why don't you answer questions about the books on your suggested
> > reading list?
> > Why do you refuse to answer my question as to why you'd recommend NAC
> > or milk thistle to anyone who has been given anesthesia?
> >
> > > If you disagree with me, I will ask you why.
> >
> > What you really mean is that you will accuse anyone that disagrees with
> > you of being paid by the pharmaceutical industry. You accused me, an
> > herbalist, of being a pharmablogger. How intellectually dishonest can
> > a person get?
> >
> > > If you refuse to engage and attempt to control the language, your
> > > motives will be identified. It's really just that simple.
> >
> > What you mean is that if he uses the denotations instead of your
> > connotations, he must be a paid disinformation agent. You, Peterb, are
> > just that simple.
> >
> > > PeterB

In misc.health.alternative cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

: http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...9ab3742efefe85

Could you please do those fuddy-duddies among us who still use 80-column
terminals and old-fashioned newsreaders by converting URLs such as the
above to more conveniently usable ones of the type provided by tinyurl.com?

Thank you.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"

Richard Schultz wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> : http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...9ab3742efefe85
>
> Could you please do those fuddy-duddies among us who still use 80-column
> terminals and old-fashioned newsreaders by converting URLs such as the
> above to more conveniently usable ones of the type provided by tinyurl.com?
>
> Thank you.

Oh dear. I would if I wasn't too fuddy-duddy to know how. I'd better go
do some research

Cathy


>
> -----
> Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
> -----
> "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"

Richard Schultz wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> : http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...9ab3742efefe85
>
> Could you please do those fuddy-duddies among us who still use 80-column
> terminals and old-fashioned newsreaders by converting URLs such as the
> above to more conveniently usable ones of the type provided by tinyurl.com?
>
> Thank you.

Okay, I looked, and I hope this works: http://tinyurl.com/yn6kvn

It worked when I used it; let me know if it doesn't for you.

Cheers,

Cathy


>
> -----
> Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
> -----
> "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"

In misc.health.alternative cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

: Okay, I looked, and I hope this works: http://tinyurl.com/yn6kvn

That link works fine. Thanks.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

In message <ekduof$7lc$5@news.iucc.ac.il>, Richard Schultz wrote:

> In misc.health.alternative cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> : http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...9ab3742efefe85
>
> Could you please do those fuddy-duddies among us who still use 80-column
> terminals and old-fashioned newsreaders by converting URLs such as the
> above to more conveniently usable ones of the type provided by tinyurl.com?

Keep in mind that tinyurl conversions are transitory.
I'll grant that there's little chance that future generations
will want to study this thread, and if they did the full URL
might be gone from the archives too.

Would posting both help?

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

cathyb wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > Johnny Huang wrote:
> > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> > > > > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn
> > > > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify
> > > > > myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to
> > > > > respond.
> > > >
> > > > Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
> > > > Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.
> > > >
> > > > > The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topicto
> > > > > pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such
> > > > > alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion.
> > > >
> > > > If it feels like "sandbagging," you're being too sensitive. As for
> > > > examples of such tactics, it happens every day here in the newsgroups.
> > >
> > > Yes, this thread you started is a very good example. As a matter of
> > > fact, your sandbagging is the reason that Coonskin called you on your
> > > sandbagging.
> >
> > Calling out the players in a virtual community is not sandbagging,
> > especially not in context of broader discussions that are topically
> > relevant. I don't make discussions of industry central to my premise
> > that natural medicine is superior to drugs, for example.
> >
> > > > If you mean you would hope to evaluate such behaviour "clinically,"I
> > > > would ask how you intend to do this.
> > > >
> > > > > Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidence be
> > > > > identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example.
> > > > > Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article
> > > > > results to be one to include.
> > > >
> > > > You'll need to structure your experiment in detail. I've conducted
> > > > many such experiments here myself, without announcing it. The results
> > > > have been fascinating.
> > >
> > > Do you mean your declaration that Vitamin C turns Hydrogen into Oxygen?
> >
> > You are well aware that I said no such thing. I used a perfectly
> > acceptable alternate useage of the word "convert" to simplify my
> > discussion of complex features of the Krebs cycle.
>
> Oh, please. I don't have time for this, but...

Oh, Rosalind, don't ever feel you have to apologize for trying to
operate productively here in the newsgroups on behalf of your sponsors.
Maybe some day it will actually work out for you.

>
> Petey had clearly never heard of the Krebs cycle at that point, and is
> by now well aware that vitamin C is not involved. His original claim
> was that: "Ascorbic acid is the redux [sic] agent necessary for
> conversion of hydrogen to oxygen, so we don't even breathe without
> it"

Rosalind, you truly do need a life. You never disproved Klennar's
views, and I clearly predicated my comments on his. I made no argument
that the inevitably of death from lack of vitamin C meant that vitamin
C has been proven to drive the Krebs cycle directly. My central point
was that we cannot live without vitamin C, and that is certainly true.


>
>
> He defended this statement as is for quite some time (even claiming
> that Linus Pauling describing the oxidation of ascorbic acid backed him
> up; how we giggled), before finally conceding that it wasn't
> "chemically accurate"...

It wasn't intended to be a discussion of chemistry at all, for that
matter. I said so at the time.

> (the original thread is here:
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...9ab3742efefe85
>
> He then took a lot more time to finally come up with an "alternate
> usage" from Merriam Webster that he thought, because his English is
> almost as awful as his chemistry, would make sense of his nonsense.
>
> Here it is:
>
> "to alter for more effective utilization"

Which simply proved I was discussing the utilization of these nutrients
in human health, not their specific chemistry. Rosalind knows this,
but her sponsors think too little of her talents to suggest that she
move on. Poor thing.

> Embarrassingly for PeteyB, he was unable to discern that this
> definition, applied to his statement, would still have vitamin C
> turning hydrogen into oxygen (for the better utilisation of hydrogen,
> by his preferred definition) because he said that hydrogen was
> converted *to oxygen*; possibly he missed most of his high school
> education, being confined to bed by all those nasty little diseases
> against which the rest of us are vaccinated.

As we see, the oppty to promote vaccine is one of Rosalind's favorite
(read: profitable) past-times. How telling.

> > If my shorthand is
> > over your head
>
> Ah. "shorthand". This is the word Petey uses when the rest of us
> would just say "colossal and stupid error".
>
> Oh, BTW, before Petey brings it up, I once quoted the actual number of
> cases of measles (˜ 4 million) rather than the number of recorded
> cases (˜400,000) prior to vaccination being introduced in the USA. I
> immediately admitted the mistake, but it'll be a miracle if Petey
> doesn't bring it up again. He doesn't seem to understand that
> it's ok to make a mistake; it's pretending that you haven't
> that's the problem

Rosalind, who claims to edit scientific publications, finds time to
obsess over me and my posts periodically. We go way back.

>
>
> > just think how lost you would be with a detailed
> > discussion.
> >
> > > Fascinating or hallucinating, Peterb?
> >
> > In your case, masturbating.
>
> PeteyB's usual magnificent standard of debate.

It's alright when your pharmbuddies use it, right Rosalind?

> >
> > > >
> > > > > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to
> > > > > mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the short list of kinds of methods said to be victims of
> > > > > "pharmabloggers" was "supplements". If drug companies are suspect for
> > > > > profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be
> > > > > suspect on the same grounds?
> > > >
> > > > Of course. But financial wherewithal is a huge factor in the levelof
> > > > penetration industry is capable of in terms of affecting public debate.
> > > > The drug makers have far more resources than the supplement makers.
> > > > The supplement industry is doing well, but with market share risingfor
> > > > them, they have far less to lose than the pharmaceuticals.
> > > >
> > > > > To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in
> > > > > evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices?
> > > >
> > > > The "Warning" post does not describe normal marketplace strategies for
> > > > selling products, however many of us are discussing such issues here.
> > > >
> > > > > For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger" when it says "quack
> > > > > buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect, considering the two
> > > > > links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the
> > > > > alleged abuses?
> > > >
> > > > Language is very dual.
> > >
> > > Oh, so that's your secret! You give words alternative meanings in
> > > order to make your case.
> > >
> > > > Readers must decide when it is being used
> > > > unfairly. I do not appeal to authority. I will tell you what I think
> > > > and offer to support it.
> > >
> > > Why don't you answer questions about the books on your suggested
> > > reading list?
> > > Why do you refuse to answer my question as to why you'd recommend NAC
> > > or milk thistle to anyone who has been given anesthesia?
> > >
> > > > If you disagree with me, I will ask you why.
> > >
> > > What you really mean is that you will accuse anyone that disagrees with
> > > you of being paid by the pharmaceutical industry. You accused me, an
> > > herbalist, of being a pharmablogger. How intellectually dishonest can
> > > a person get?
> > >
> > > > If you refuse to engage and attempt to control the language, your
> > > > motives will be identified. It's really just that simple.
> > >
> > > What you mean is that if he uses the denotations instead of your
> > > connotations, he must be a paid disinformation agent. You, Peterb, are
> > > just that simple.
> > >
> > > > PeterB

"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1164613827.225418.325640@j72g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Richard Schultz wrote:
>> In misc.health.alternative cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> :
>> http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...9ab3742efefe85
>>
>> Could you please do those fuddy-duddies among us who still use 80-column
>> terminals and old-fashioned newsreaders by converting URLs such as the
>> above to more conveniently usable ones of the type provided by
>> tinyurl.com?
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> Okay, I looked, and I hope this works: http://tinyurl.com/yn6kvn
>
> It worked when I used it; let me know if it doesn't for you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cathy

Still harping on the same thing over and over, huh, Rosalind?
>> -----
>> Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
>> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
>> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
>> -----
>> "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
>

PeterB wrote:
> cathyb wrote:
> > PeterB wrote:
> > > Johnny Huang wrote:
> > > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > > coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> > > > > > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn
> > > > > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem to identify
> > > > > > myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the firstto
> > > > > > respond.
> > > > >
> > > > > Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
> > > > > Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to
> > > > > > pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such
> > > > > > alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it feels like "sandbagging," you're being too sensitive. As for
> > > > > examples of such tactics, it happens every day here in the newsgroups.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, this thread you started is a very good example. As a matter of
> > > > fact, your sandbagging is the reason that Coonskin called you on your
> > > > sandbagging.
> > >
> > > Calling out the players in a virtual community is not sandbagging,
> > > especially not in context of broader discussions that are topically
> > > relevant. I don't make discussions of industry central to my premise
> > > that natural medicine is superior to drugs, for example.
> > >
> > > > > If you mean you would hope to evaluate such behaviour "clinically," I
> > > > > would ask how you intend to do this.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidencebe
> > > > > > identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example.
> > > > > > Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article
> > > > > > results to be one to include.
> > > > >
> > > > > You'll need to structure your experiment in detail. I've conducted
> > > > > many such experiments here myself, without announcing it. The results
> > > > > have been fascinating.
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean your declaration that Vitamin C turns Hydrogen into Oxygen?
> > >
> > > You are well aware that I said no such thing. I used a perfectly
> > > acceptable alternate useage of the word "convert" to simplify my
> > > discussion of complex features of the Krebs cycle.
> >
> > Oh, please. I don't have time for this, but...
>
<snip crap pertaining to nothing>

>
> >
> > Petey had clearly never heard of the Krebs cycle at that point, and is
> > by now well aware that vitamin C is not involved. His original claim
> > was that: "Ascorbic acid is the redux [sic] agent necessary for
> > conversion of hydrogen to oxygen, so we don't even breathe without
> > it"
>
> Rosalind, you truly do need a life. You never disproved Klennar's
> views

Well, actually, you never provided any reason for his view, simply
saying that he had concluded that vitamin C was essential for
respiration based on his “clinical observations.� Heh.

> and I clearly predicated my comments on his. I made no argument
> that the inevitably of death from lack of vitamin C meant that vitamin
> C has been proven to drive the Krebs cycle directly.

Actually, Petey, you little tinker, you did actually say “respiration
cannot occur without vitamin C.� Chortle.

Oh, and “ Cellular respiration uses the redox function of vitamin C,
combined with hydrogen, to generate oxygen.�

Oh, and “If ascorbic acid doesn't liberate oxygen from hydrogen, how
does respiration occur at the cellular level?�



> My central point
> was that we cannot live without vitamin C, and that is certainly true.

Scurvy is a bugger, isn’t it? However that wasn’t your central
point, which in that discussion was clearly that vitamin C turns
hydrogen into oxygen.

..


>
>
> >
> >
> > He defended this statement as is for quite some time (even claiming
> > that Linus Pauling describing the oxidation of ascorbic acid backed him
> > up; how we giggled), before finally conceding that it wasn't
> > "chemically accurate"...
>
> It wasn't intended to be a discussion of chemistry at all, for that
> matter. I said so at the time.
>
> > (the original thread is here:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...9ab3742efefe85
> >
> > He then took a lot more time to finally come up with an "alternate
> > usage" from Merriam Webster that he thought, because his English is
> > almost as awful as his chemistry, would make sense of his nonsense.
> >
> > Here it is:
> >
> > "to alter for more effective utilization"
>
> Which simply proved I was discussing the utilization of these nutrients
> in human health, not their specific chemistry.

Gosh, what a shame you didn’t simply say so, and admit to your error,
instead of carrying on making a fool of yourself for weeks. Added to
which, of course, is the entertainment you’ve provided us all by
insisting that you don’t understand the meaning of the word
“convert�.


> Rosalind knows this,
> but her sponsors think too little of her talents to suggest that she
> move on. Poor thing.

Petey’s projecting his sales job onto someone called Rosalind,
bless’im.

>
> > Embarrassingly for PeteyB, he was unable to discern that this
> > definition, applied to his statement, would still have vitamin C
> > turning hydrogen into oxygen (for the better utilisation of hydrogen,
> > by his preferred definition) because he said that hydrogen was
> > converted *to oxygen*; possibly he missed most of his high school
> > education, being confined to bed by all those nasty little diseases
> > against which the rest of us are vaccinated.
>
> As we see, the oppty to promote vaccine is one of Rosalind's favorite
> (read: profitable) past-times. How telling.

I see you really hadn’t noticed how ridiculous was your defence that
“convert doesn’t mean convert when I use it�.

Petey, your endless assertions that people who disagree with you must
be paid is very funny, since it’s clear to everyone that all you need
to disagree with Petey is an education to high school level in science
or English.



>
> > > If my shorthand is
> > > over your head
> >
> > Ah. "shorthand". This is the word Petey uses when the rest of us
> > would just say "colossal and stupid error".
> >
> > Oh, BTW, before Petey brings it up, I once quoted the actual number of
> > cases of measles (˜ 4 million) rather than the number of recorded
> > cases (˜400,000) prior to vaccination being introduced in the USA.I
> > immediately admitted the mistake, but it'll be a miracle if Petey
> > doesn't bring it up again. He doesn't seem to understand that
> > it's ok to make a mistake; it's pretending that you haven't
> > that's the problem
>
> Rosalind, who claims to edit scientific publications

What utter nonsense. If you are referring to Rosalind Dalefield, she is
in fact a PhD, a veterinary toxicologist working in the US.

I, on the other hand, have a mere BSc in chemistry, and I certainly do
edit scientific manuscripts. In Australia.

Please do tell why you insist on confusing the two of us? I realise
you’ve never answered this question before, but I live in hope.

> finds time to
> obsess over me and my posts periodically

Now there’s certainly an element of truth there. I find Petey’s
posts enormously entertaining. His habit of posting references that
contradict his position, or that he hasn’t read is another thing that
keeps me reading his posts for fun.

> We go way back.

Ew.

> S
>
> >
> >
> > > just think how lost you would be with a detailed
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > > Fascinating or hallucinating, Peterb?
> > >
> > > In your case, masturbating.
> >
> > PeteyB's usual magnificent standard of debate.
>
> It's alright when your pharmbuddies use it, right Rosalind?

If that sentence made sense, or was in fact addressed to me, I’d
probably still ignore it. Poor little Petey.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > That is my specific response for now. Some more general musings come to
> > > > > > mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the short list of kinds of methods said to be victims of
> > > > > > "pharmabloggers" was "supplements". If drug companies are suspect for
> > > > > > profit motives would the 12 billion per year "supplement" industry be
> > > > > > suspect on the same grounds?
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course. But financial wherewithal is a huge factor in the level of
> > > > > penetration industry is capable of in terms of affecting public debate.
> > > > > The drug makers have far more resources than the supplement makers.
> > > > > The supplement industry is doing well, but with market share rising for
> > > > > them, they have far less to lose than the pharmaceuticals.
> > > > >
> > > > > > To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use in
> > > > > > evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices?
> > > > >
> > > > > The "Warning" post does not describe normal marketplace strategies for
> > > > > selling products, however many of us are discussing such issues here.
> > > > >
> > > > > > For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger" when it says "quack
> > > > > > buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect, consideringthe two
> > > > > > links to web sites presented as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the
> > > > > > alleged abuses?
> > > > >
> > > > > Language is very dual.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, so that's your secret! You give words alternative meanings in
> > > > order to make your case.
> > > >
> > > > > Readers must decide when it is being used
> > > > > unfairly. I do not appeal to authority. I will tell you what I think
> > > > > and offer to support it.
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you answer questions about the books on your suggested
> > > > reading list?
> > > > Why do you refuse to answer my question as to why you'd recommend NAC
> > > > or milk thistle to anyone who has been given anesthesia?
> > > >
> > > > > If you disagree with me, I will ask you why.
> > > >
> > > > What you really mean is that you will accuse anyone that disagrees with
> > > > you of being paid by the pharmaceutical industry. You accused me, an
> > > > herbalist, of being a pharmablogger. How intellectually dishonest can
> > > > a person get?
> > > >
> > > > > If you refuse to engage and attempt to control the language, your
> > > > > motives will be identified. It's really just that simple.
> > > >
> > > > What you mean is that if he uses the denotations instead of your
> > > > connotations, he must be a paid disinformation agent. You, Peterb,are
> > > > just that simple.
> > > >
> > > > > PeterB

In misc.health.alternative Jan Drew <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
: "cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
: news:1164613827.225418.325640@j72g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

:> Okay, I looked, and I hope this works: http://tinyurl.com/yn6kvn

: Still harping on the same thing over and over, huh, Rosalind?

Well, you have to admit that it was pretty funny when "Mr. Scientist" (aka
"Vernon") told us that CO2 was not oxidized carbon.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

cathyb wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > cathyb wrote:
> > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > Johnny Huang wrote:
> > > > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > > > coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> > > > > > > As constructed the information presented would seem to self condemn
> > > > > > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would seem toidentify
> > > > > > > myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early if not the first to
> > > > > > > respond.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for posting,
> > > > > > Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your motives.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this an important topic to
> > > > > > > pursue. I propose choosing a specific hypothetical example of such
> > > > > > > alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for purposes of discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it feels like "sandbagging," you're being too sensitive. Asfor
> > > > > > examples of such tactics, it happens every day here in the newsgroups.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, this thread you started is a very good example. As a matterof
> > > > > fact, your sandbagging is the reason that Coonskin called you on your
> > > > > sandbagging.
> > > >
> > > > Calling out the players in a virtual community is not sandbagging,
> > > > especially not in context of broader discussions that are topically
> > > > relevant. I don't make discussions of industry central to my premise
> > > > that natural medicine is superior to drugs, for example.
> > > >
> > > > > > If you mean you would hope to evaluate such behaviour "clinically," I
> > > > > > would ask how you intend to do this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Further I propose ground rules for reasonable kinds of evidence be
> > > > > > > identified to be able to come to some conclusion about the example.
> > > > > > > Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while research journal article
> > > > > > > results to be one to include.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You'll need to structure your experiment in detail. I've conducted
> > > > > > many such experiments here myself, without announcing it. The results
> > > > > > have been fascinating.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you mean your declaration that Vitamin C turns Hydrogen into Oxygen?
> > > >
> > > > You are well aware that I said no such thing. I used a perfectly
> > > > acceptable alternate useage of the word "convert" to simplify my
> > > > discussion of complex features of the Krebs cycle.
> > >
> > > Oh, please. I don't have time for this, but...
> >
> <snip crap pertaining to nothing>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Petey had clearly never heard of the Krebs cycle at that point, and is
> > > by now well aware that vitamin C is not involved. His original claim
> > > was that: "Ascorbic acid is the redux [sic] agent necessary for
> > > conversion of hydrogen to oxygen, so we don't even breathe without
> > > it"
> >
> > Rosalind, you truly do need a life. You never disproved Klennar's
> > views
>
> Well, actually, you never provided any reason for his view, simply
> saying that he had concluded that vitamin C was essential for
> respiration based on his “clinical observations.� Heh.

It's enough for me to know that vitamin C is essential for life.

> > and I clearly predicated my comments on his. I made no argument
> > that the inevitably of death from lack of vitamin C meant that vitamin
> > C has been proven to drive the Krebs cycle directly.
>
> Actually, Petey, you little tinker, you did actually say “respiration
> cannot occur without vitamin C.� Chortle.

Unless you have found out a way to survive without it, respiration will
cease without it. It's a true statement.

> Oh, and “ Cellular respiration uses the redox function of vitaminC,
> combined with hydrogen, to generate oxygen.�

Again, based on what I remembered of Klennar's and Stone's writing.
Either way, it doesn't change the importance of vitamin C in human
health. Higher intake of vit. C has also been associated with longer
life. [ref. http://www.environmentalnutrition.com/pub/24_4/justin]

> Oh, and “If ascorbic acid doesn't liberate oxygen from hydrogen, how
> does respiration occur at the cellular level?�

The premise for the question was the possibility that Klennar and stone
were right. I don't know if ascorbic acid drives cellular respiration
directly, or not.

> > My central point
> > was that we cannot live without vitamin C, and that is certainly true.
>
> Scurvy is a bugger, isn’t it? However that wasn’t your central
> point, which in that discussion was clearly that vitamin C turns
> hydrogen into oxygen.

No, my central point was that vitamin C is crucial to cardiovascular
health, but you were too busy engaging in personal attacks to notice.
[ref. (1) Am J Epidemiol 1996 Sep 1;144(5):501-11, Carotenoids,
vitamins C and E, and mortality in an elderly population. Sahyoun NR,
Jacques PF, Russell RM. Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research
Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA. (2) N Engl J Med
1996 May 2;334(18):1156-62, Dietary antioxidant vitamins and death from
coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Kushi LH, Folsom AR,
Prineas RJ, Mink PJ, Wu Y, Bostick RM. Division of Epidemiology,
University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis
55454-1015, USA. (3) Am J Epidemiol 1995 Dec 15;142(12):1269-78,
Dietary vitamin C and beta-carotene and risk of death in middle-aged
men. The Western Electric Study. Pandey DK, Shekelle R, Selwyn BJ,
Tangney C, Stamler J. University of Texas School of Public Health,
Houston 77030, USA. (4) Stroke 2000 Oct;31(10):2287-94, Serum vitamin C
concentration was inversely associated with subsequent 20-year
incidence of stroke in a Japanese rural community. The Shibata study.
Yokoyama T, Date C, Kokubo Y, Yoshiike N, Matsumura Y, Tanaka H.
Department of Epidemiology, Medical Research Institute, Tokyo Medical
and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.]

>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > He defended this statement as is for quite some time (even claiming
> > > that Linus Pauling describing the oxidation of ascorbic acid backed him
> > > up; how we giggled), before finally conceding that it wasn't
> > > "chemically accurate"...
> >
> > It wasn't intended to be a discussion of chemistry at all, for that
> > matter. I said so at the time.
> >
> > > (the original thread is here:
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...9ab3742efefe85
> > >
> > > He then took a lot more time to finally come up with an "alternate
> > > usage" from Merriam Webster that he thought, because his English is
> > > almost as awful as his chemistry, would make sense of his nonsense.
> > >
> > > Here it is:
> > >
> > > "to alter for more effective utilization"
> >
> > Which simply proved I was discussing the utilization of these nutrients
> > in human health, not their specific chemistry.
>
> Gosh, what a shame you didn’t simply say so, and admit to your error,
> instead of carrying on making a fool of yourself for weeks. Added to
> which, of course, is the entertainment you’ve provided us all by
> insisting that you don’t understand the meaning of the word
> “convert�.

Which part of "I am not describing the actual chemistry of vitamin
C..." did you not understand? I do see why you stick with the first
word useage in any dictionary, of course. As is typical of PR grunts
working on behalf of industry, playing "gotcha" is the limit of your
intellect. Thanks for proving it for the millionth time.

> > Rosalind knows this,
> > but her sponsors think too little of her talents to suggest that she
> > move on. Poor thing.
>
> Petey’s projecting his sales job onto someone called Rosalind,
> bless’im.

Sure, Rosalind, whatever you say.

> >
> > > Embarrassingly for PeteyB, he was unable to discern that this
> > > definition, applied to his statement, would still have vitamin C
> > > turning hydrogen into oxygen (for the better utilisation of hydrogen,
> > > by his preferred definition) because he said that hydrogen was
> > > converted *to oxygen*; possibly he missed most of his high school
> > > education, being confined to bed by all those nasty little diseases
> > > against which the rest of us are vaccinated.
> >
> > As we see, the oppty to promote vaccine is one of Rosalind's favorite
> > (read: profitable) past-times. How telling.
>
> I see you really hadn’t noticed how ridiculous was your defence that
> “convert doesn’t mean convert when I use it�.

It's meaning is derived from the context of its usage and the author's
intent. What's important is that vitamin C is crucial in human health.
You have been consistently off topic when addressing my posts, further
demonstrating how the "Warning" post describes your purpose and your
tactics on mha. I won't allow you to make this about me, Rosalind.

> Petey, your endless assertions that people who disagree with you must
> be paid is very funny, since it’s clear to everyone that all you need
> to disagree with Petey is an education to high school level in science
> or English.

First, Rosalind, learn to avoid making 1000% errors in quoting measles
data, then perhaps someone will pay attention to you. Perhaps those
scientific journals you claim to edit (wink wink) are taking their
toll. Get some rest.

> >
> > > > If my shorthand is
> > > > over your head
> > >
> > > Ah. "shorthand". This is the word Petey uses when the rest of us
> > > would just say "colossal and stupid error".
> > >
> > > Oh, BTW, before Petey brings it up, I once quoted the actual number of
> > > cases of measles (˜ 4 million) rather than the number of recorded
> > > cases (˜400,000) prior to vaccination being introduced in the USA. I
> > > immediately admitted the mistake, but it'll be a miracle if Petey
> > > doesn't bring it up again. He doesn't seem to understand that
> > > it's ok to make a mistake; it's pretending that you haven't
> > > that's the problem
> >
> > Rosalind, who claims to edit scientific publications
>
> What utter nonsense. If you are referring to Rosalind Dalefield, she is
> in fact a PhD, a veterinary toxicologist working in the US.
>
> I, on the other hand, have a mere BSc in chemistry, and I certainly do
> edit scientific manuscripts. In Australia.
>
> Please do tell why you insist on confusing the two of us? I realise
> you’ve never answered this question before, but I live in hope.

You are in the thread that describes your behaviour in the newsgroups,
Rosalind. I understand why you must ask, but in this case, you're
actually somewhat ON topic. Good girl.

> > finds time to
> > obsess over me and my posts periodically
>
> Now there’s certainly an element of truth there. I find Petey’s
> posts enormously entertaining. His habit of posting references that
> contradict his position, or that he hasn’t read is another thing that
> keeps me reading his posts for fun.

Rosalind, who virtually never posts references in support of her own
positions, must re-frame every argument made by advocates o