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

[Peterb]

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

To : All participants and readers of sci.med,
misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health,
talk.politics.medicine

Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to
this forum are not those of casual posters interested in an
honest exchange. A number of individuals with ties to industry
are attempting to shape public thinking about the risks of
mainstream medicine while attacking the benefits and validity
of natural medicine. I refer to these individuals broadly as
"Pharma-bloggers" (see footnote). For obvious reasons,
pharma-bloggers on usenet don't promote a specific company or
product, as might be the case with standard "blogging" on a
weblog, but there is a common thread between industry blogging
in a web blog and industry participation in a newsgroup: both
are done under the pretense that the poster is not
professionally affiliated. Most of these people are likely to
be associated with a PR project whose "blogging" efforts are
underwritten anonymously by the media or marketing groups of
industry. They are not difficult to identify due to specific
patterns in their posting. Please familiarize yourself with
these tactics so you can identify them.

See: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q1/monger.html See:
http://emord.com/stories/cherish.htm

What to look for while participating in usenet newsgroups:

1. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use intimidation, mockery, and
insults to silence those who express belief or interest in
natural medicine. They actively discourage a scientific
discussion and disrupt ongoing discussions that explore
alternative treatments in healthcare.

2. Pharma Bloggers on usenet attack those who question the
effectiveness of mainstream medicine, asserting that
disease-management "healthcare" is the only viable form of
treatment. Their comments are frequently embedded in
pseudo-scientific jargon, but without supporting
scientific documentation.

3. Pharma Bloggers on usenet post the majority of their
responses simply to bury the comments of others; they also
strive obsessively to have the last word.

4. Pharma Bloggers on usenet are much faster at posting than
casual participants; they almost always respond first to a
new thread, question, or observation.

5. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use a "pile on" tactic to create
an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to isolate
posters who disagree with them. You will experience this
if you express a belief in natural medicine or holistic
healing. You will also see this tactic used more often
than any other.

6. Pharma Bloggers on usenet refute numerous quality studies
published in major medical journals showing the benefits
of natural medicine applied in naturopathic healthcare,
including nutrient supplementation, exercise, stress
reduction, biofeedback, accupuncture, accupressure,
reflexology, and other approaches. You can find the
science supporting a variety of natural medicine methods
at http://www.newstarget.com.

7. Pharma Bloggers on usenet frequently refer readers to
"quack-busting" websites designed to attack natural
medicine approaches and their proponents. Under the guise
of "consumer protection," the extreme bias of these
promoters belies their true motives and reveals their ties
to industry.

8. Pharma Bloggers on usenet rely on junk science references
to support their attacks on natural healing methods. They
decline to provide meaningful scientific references in
support of their defense of most conventional treatments.
Since most conventional medicines are either marginally
effective, unproven, or dangerous, it is not suprising
that purely anecdotal or observational studies (usually
sponsored by the drug makers) are the only "science"
available to them.

9. Pharma Bloggers on usenet assert that conventional
medicine is "evidence based," however the lack of
corroborating science disproves that claim. Chemotherapy
drugs, for instance, are unproven in the majority of
cancers, yet FDA permits these drugs to remain in use as
"experimental trial" medications, as has been the case for
more than thirty years. For most cancer patients, there is
no proven benefit in the use of these expensive and toxic
chemicals.

10. Pharma Bloggers on usenet ignore iatrogenic studies that
show the dangerous side effects of prescription drugs
(ie., at least 100,000 deaths annually), as well as a 20%
recall for all previously approved drugs. They also
ignore hundreds of studies showing a disease relationship
to use of such drugs and other unsafe medical treatments.

Tip: If you find yourself engaging a poster whose defense of
mainstream medicine is unusually dramatic in tone, or
inexplicably vicious toward others, and if that response is an
attempt to attack natural medicine, you can be sure you have
stumbled upon a PR grunt whose mission is preventing a
critical mass of consumer awareness about disinformation
regarding matters of public health. Unfortunately, there are
more of these individuals posting to usenet on a daily basis
than almost anyone else, which is why I am posting this alert.
If you find it odd that so few people on health-related usenet
newsgroups are expressing an interest in natural medicine, it
isn't because they aren't there, it's because they have been
intimidated into silence. The pharma-bloggers have over-run
the various newsgroups with their industrial brand of dogma,
mockery, and ridicule. Many casual posters are simply
frightened away, which is the objective of these PR-sponsored
media grunts.

* Comment on objections about use of the word "blogging" in
this newsgroup

>From Wikipedia:
"An internet forum is not a blog (technically speaking), but a
blog can function as an internet forum. Internet forums
typically allow any user to post (into the discussion). Blogs
typically limit posting to the blogger or to the blogger and
approved others. The distinction between blogs and forums is
sometimes gray. Sites such as Slashdot, Indymedia and Daily
Kos combine elements of the two...many bloggers differentiate
themselves from the mainstream media, while others are members
of that media working through a different channel. Some
institutions see blogging as a means of "getting around the
filter" and pushing messages directly to the public. Some
critics worry that bloggers respect neither intellectual
property nor the role of the mass media in presenting society
with credible news."

Also from Wikipedia:

"A blog is a website in which items are posted on a regular
basis and displayed in reverse chronological order. The term
blog is a shortened form of weblog or web log. Authoring a
blog, maintaining a blog or adding an article to an existing
blog is called "blogging". Individual articles on a blog are
called "blog posts," "posts" or "entries". A person who posts
these entries is called a "blogger". A blog comprises
hypertext, images, and links (to other web pages and to video,
audio and other files). Blogs use a conversational style of
documentation. Often blogs focus on a particular "area of
interest", such as Washington, D.C.'s political goings-on.
Some blogs discuss personal experiences."

Although the advent of blogging was preceded by newsgroups,
there are many similiarities in the nature of interaction
between posters in these venues (mainly distinguished by
their software platforms.) Also note that I didn't refer to
the newsgroup itself as a weblog, I referred to individual
posters as "blogging" here on behalf of industry. While my
focus is on nutrition and science, the pharma bloggers rely
on semantic and personal attacks in their effort to distract
from the real issues.

Pharma Blogger: An individual who uses the Internet, and
Usenet newsgroups, to: 1) promote and defend maintstream
medicine and disease management; 2) attack those who express a
preference for natural medicine; and 3) cite a variety of junk
medical science funded by industry for the purpose of
establishing markets for marginally effective, and often
dangerous, medical products and devices.

PeterB

[coonskin]

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.

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.

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.

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?

To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use
in evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices?

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?

[Peterb]

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. 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.

> 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 the two links to web sites presented as
> "authoritative/reliable" concerning the alleged abuses?

Language is very dual. 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. If you disagree with me,
I will ask you why. If you refuse to engage and attempt to
control the language, your motives will be identified. It's
really just that simple.

PeterB

[chatw]

PeterB wrote:
> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact the
> Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
>
> To : All participants and readers of sci.med,
> misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health,
> talk.politics.medicine
>
> Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to
> this forum are not those of casual posters interested in an
> honest exchange. A

The tactic was certainly used and exposed on the Stock Market
boards back during Boom Times (and I was probably a victim of
them more than once).

There can be as many, ir not more, organic/natural health
activists, or
MLM /supplement industry hacks trolling these boards. But the
Pharma industry has some of the very deepest pockets of
all (though they might have better/more profitable things
to do with their time/$ than to bother little old us).

[Johnny Hua]

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.

> 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?

Fascinating or hallucinating, Peterb?

>
> > 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 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

[Mark Probe]

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.

Yessir! You just conclusively proved you are a pharmablogger.
That was Petey's purpose.

> 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.
>
> 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.

Uh-oh, you are asking for evidence. MORE proof you are a
pharmablogger, whatever that is.

>
> 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?

You do not have a chance. Petey believes that BigSupplement is
altruistic and pure. All natural, too.

> To expand on that, could each and every item of abuse be use
> in evaluation of the "alternative" arena and its practices?
>
>
> 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?

[Mark Probe]

chatw@my-deja.com wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact
>> the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
>>
>> To : All participants and readers of sci.med,
>> misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health,
>> talk.politics.medicine
>>
>> Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to
>> this forum are not those of casual posters interested in an
>> honest exchange. A
>
> The tactic was certainly used and exposed on the Stock
> Market boards back during Boom Times (and I was probably a
> victim of them more than once).
>
> There can be as many, ir not more, organic/natural health
> activists, or
> MLM /supplement industry hacks trolling these boards. But
> the Pharma industry has some of the very deepest
> pockets of all (though they might have better/more
> profitable things to do with their time/$ than to
> bother little old us).
>

You just proved you are a pharmablogger (whatever that is).

[coonskin.a]

Propose an example, it is your claims of "pharmablogger" abuse
at hand. Or pick a post you think is one. The otherwise
general shotgun listing of alleged industry created abuses on
usanet groups remains yet unconfirmed and unidentified with
reference to actual practices. Amorphous discussion of yet
undefined unidentified postings profit readers nothing.

Finding one has oppisition to ones claims in posts does not
serve, examples real or invented will allow us to tease out
details that might permit supporting or excluding the claims
of "pharmablogger" / "alterblogger" activity.

>> 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. 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.
>
>> 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 the two links to web sites presented
>> as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the alleged abuses?
>
>Language is very dual. 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. If you disagree with
>me, I will ask you why. If you refuse to engage and attempt
>to control the language, your motives will be identified.
>It's really just that simple.
>
>PeterB

[Richard Sc]

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

: Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons for
: posting,
: Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your
: motives.

Do you honestly believe that people are incapable of reading
the content of your posts and concluding from that content (or
more frequently, complete lack of substantive content) what
*your* reasons for posting are?

-----
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
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to
salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst
any more?"

[Peterb]

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.
If my shorthand is over your head, just think how lost you
would be with a detailed discussion.

> Fascinating or hallucinating, Peterb?

In your case, masturbating.

> >
> > > 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 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

[Peterb]

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> "Johnny Huang" <johnny_huang_2005@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >You, Peterb, are just that simple.
>
> Which could also be written as "You, Peterb, are just that,
> simple".

I've always associated simplicity with honesty, Bowdick. Which
is why I have never associated you with Bugs Bunny. Plus, I
can't see Buggs getting spanked in court. You didn't kiss the
judge did you?

[coonskin]

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.

[Peterb]

chatw@my-deja.com wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact
> > the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
> >
> > To : All participants and readers of sci.med,
> > misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health,
> > talk.politics.medicine
> >
> > Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to
> > this forum are not those of casual posters interested in
> > an honest exchange. A
>
> The tactic was certainly used and exposed on the Stock
> Market boards back during Boom Times (and I was probably a
> victim of them more than once).

Consider that no discrete group of economists employed
federally or otherwise has ever forecast a single recession,
yet they have *always* forecast every inevitable upswing. What
is that telling you?

> There can be as many, ir not more, organic/natural health
> activists, or
> MLM /supplement industry hacks trolling these boards.

Why would such people "troll" the boards? All I see in that
regard are spammers who have a product to sell, which only
bothers me because it isn't appropriate to the purpose of the
newsgroups. Am I a troll because I discuss natural medicine
*and* the media efforts of industry? Quite often, I am not the
one who brings it up. Whether you believe industry is here in
the newsgroups or not (they are), that element of my
discussion is not central to the discussion (except in threads
like this one devoted to the issue.) My focus is on the idea
that people should take responsibility for their own health,
that nutraceuticals outperform pharmaceuticals, and that the
public is under educated on the risks of prescription drugs.

> But the Pharma industry has some of the very deepest pockets
> of all (though they might have better/more profitable things
> to do with their time/$ than to bother little old us).

Do you see them doing something "better" several hours each
day on all the broadcast network channels in
direct-to-consumer advertising? Do you think the newsgroups
and the Internet represent a poor cost/exposure ratio in terms
of audience reach? As "little old us" continue to wake up and
use natural medicine as an alternative to drugs, Big Pharma is
becoming more desperate, not less.

PeterB

[Peterb]

Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > Richard Schultz wrote:
> >> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> : Content is the real criteria for assessing one's
> >> : reasons for posting,
> >> : Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your
> >> : motives.
> >>
> >> Do you honestly believe that people are incapable of
> >> reading the content of your posts and concluding from
> >> that content (or more frequently, complete lack of
> >> substantive content) what *your* reasons for posting are?
> >
> > I'm counting on it. A review of the history of my posts
> > shows that my purpose here is to advocate the use of
> > natural medicine, support dismantling of the FDA in an
> > effort to (effectively) regulate the pharmaceuticals,
> > promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure. If
> > those topics are lacking in substance,
>
> Oh, there is plenty of substance to your posts. Most would
> call it "cleanse by-product".
>
> what does that say about you
> > and your motives?

What does your opinion as a pharmboy say about me and my
motives? Nothing at all.

[Peterb]

coonskin.amestwp.com wrote:
> Propose an example, it is your claims of "pharmablogger"
> abuse at hand.

The attributes of grunts working here on behalf of industry
have been listed in the original post already. If you cannot
identify those tactics during actual exchanges, why concern
yourself with it? As it is, I am already resisting efforts to
draw me into *more* discussion about the politics of public
relations and use of the media to impact market share.

> Or pick a post you think is one. The otherwise general
> shotgun listing of alleged industry created abuses on usanet
> groups remains yet unconfirmed and unidentified with
> reference to actual practices. Amorphous discussion of yet
> undefined unidentified postings profit readers nothing.

So let readers ignore it. People can think for themselves.

>
> Finding one has oppisition to ones claims in posts does not
> serve, examples real or invented will allow us to tease out
> details that might permit supporting or excluding the claims
> of "pharmablogger" / "alterblogger" activity.

Sounds like you have an interesting project on your hands. You
can easily find a few hundred such examples by doing a search
on the word "pharmablogger." Good luck.

> >> 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. 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.
> >
> >> 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 the two links to web sites presented
> >> as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the alleged
> >> abuses?
> >
> >Language is very dual. 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. If you disagree
> >with me, I will ask you why. If you refuse to engage and
> >attempt to control the language, your motives will be
> >identified. It's really just that simple.
> >
> >PeterB

[Peterb]

Mark Probert wrote:
> chatw@my-deja.com wrote:
> > PeterB wrote:
> >> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These Newsgroups to Impact
> >> the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
> >>
> >> To : All participants and readers of sci.med,
> >> misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health,
> >> talk.politics.medicine
> >>
> >> Please be aware that many comments and responses posted
> >> to this forum are not those of casual posters interested
> >> in an honest exchange. A
> >
> > The tactic was certainly used and exposed on the Stock
> > Market boards back during Boom Times (and I was probably a
> > victim of them more than once).
> >
> > There can be as many, ir not more, organic/natural health
> > activists, or
> > MLM /supplement industry hacks trolling these boards. But
> > the Pharma industry has some of the very deepest
> > pockets of all (though they might have better/more
> > profitable things to do with their time/$ than to
> > bother little old us).
> >
>
> You just proved you are a pharmablogger (whatever that is).

Not so, Markey. But to help you out, I suggest you focus on
the verb form of the term instead -- "pharmablogging."
Then, whenever you are reading what you write, you will
know what it is.

PeterB

[chatw]

PeterB wrote:
> isn't appropriate to the purpose of the newsgroups. Am I a
> troll because I discuss natural medicine *and* the media
> efforts of industry?

Actually, I pretty much a supplement and natural health "nut"
and very cynical and suspicious of the Drug companies.****

But some of the blatant fanaticism, paranoia or spamming I see
(moreso on some other groups) would neutralize most of the
criticism one would direct at the suspected pharma-trolls and
their supposed serpentine subtelty.

>Do you think the newsgroups and the Internet represent a poor
>cost/exposure ratio in terms of audience reach?

Yes. The stockboard trolls directly profited by their
influence on other shareholders in the particular stock
discussion group. But I tend to think Pharma would marginalize
the people, and the influence of these little alt. health
newsgroups/sewing circles.

OTOH, they DO have some very deep pockets. So if we posed any
real threat or exposure to their wares and profits, I could
easily imagine them trying to stir up some mud here to
obfuscate the issues. Otherwise, I think it's mostly cranks
and self-described "rationalists" whose hobby is to bait and
"debunk" the abovementioned health fanatics and spammers.

**** You gotta luv those drug companies. :-) One has a
commercial on now with a sincere young researcher telling
about how much her corporation cares and works hard to cure
this or that. All I can think is "Honey, they just spent more
money broadcasting this one 30 sec. ad slot than they probably
budget for you and your whole dept. for a year!"

Kinda like the tobacco companies that spent $1 mil. on a flood
relief charity and then spent another $10 mil. to tell
everyone about it!

[Vernon]

<coonskin@amestwp.com> wrote in message
news:45630ff8$0$24652$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu.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.

The pharmbloggers make no counter assertions. Occasionally
someone with a Doctor's degree or training will come up with a
counter assertion. It is VERY seldom a pharmblogger. (I call
them Pharmer trolls). They have little or no scientific
knowledge, just rote repetition of pharm propaganda. (Before
you go ballistic, Doctors are typically not scientists and are
very good at rote learning)

There is a difference between an interested person and someone
who has a monetary interest or seemingly just has to defend
what they have done in the past or justify continued poor
practices.

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> Richard Schultz wrote:
>> In misc.health.alternative PeterB
>> <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> : Content is the real criteria for assessing one's reasons
>> : for posting,
>> : Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your
>> : motives.
>>
>> Do you honestly believe that people are incapable of
>> reading the content of your posts and concluding from that
>> content (or more frequently, complete lack of substantive
>> content) what *your* reasons for posting are?
>
> I'm counting on it. A review of the history of my posts
> shows that my purpose here is to advocate the use of natural
> medicine, support dismantling of the FDA in an effort to
> (effectively) regulate the pharmaceuticals, promote consumer
> rights, and demand public disclosure. If those topics are
> lacking in substance,

Oh, there is plenty of substance to your posts. Most would
call it "cleanse by-product".

what does that say about you
> and your motives?
>
> PeterB

[Richard Sc]

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

: I'm counting on it. A review of the history of my posts
: shows that my purpose here is to advocate the use of natural
: medicine, support dismantling of the FDA in an effort to
: (effectively) regulate the pharmaceuticals, promote consumer
: rights, and demand public disclosure. If those topics are
: lacking in substance, what does that say about you and your
: motives?

It is clear from anyone who reads your posts that your purpose
is to sell "natural medicine" even (or rather, especially) if
it means lying about the content of sources you claim to be
citing, hiding your relationship to the "natural
medicine"/"food supplement" industry, and projecting upon
others your own dishonesty.

-----
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_

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> PeterB wrote:
>>> Richard Schultz wrote:
>>>> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> : Content is the real criteria for assessing one's
>>>> : reasons for posting,
>>>> : Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even your
>>>> : motives.
>>>>
>>>> Do you honestly believe that people are incapable of
>>>> reading the content of your posts and concluding from
>>>> that content (or more frequently, complete lack of
>>>> substantive content) what *your* reasons for posting are?
>>> I'm counting on it. A review of the history of my posts
>>> shows that my purpose here is to advocate the use of
>>> natural medicine, support dismantling of the FDA in an
>>> effort to (effectively) regulate the pharmaceuticals,
>>> promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure. If
>>> those topics are lacking in substance,
>> Oh, there is plenty of substance to your posts. Most would
>> call it "cleanse by-product".
>>
>> what does that say about you
>>> and your motives?
>
> What does your opinion as a pharmboy say about me and my
> motives? Nothing at all.
>

Thanks for proving my point.

You are so predictable.

Go bark!

[Vernon]

<coonskin@amestwp.com> wrote in message
news:45634f95$0$24650$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu...
> "The pharmbloggers make no counter assertions. Occasionally
> someone with a Doctor's degree or training will come up with
> a counter assertion. It is VERY seldom a pharmblogger. (I
> call them Pharmer trolls). They have little or no scientific
> knowledge, just rote repetition of pharm propaganda. (Before
> you go ballistic, Doctors are typically not scientists and
> are very good at rote learning)
>
> There is a difference between an interested person and
> someone who has a monetary interest or seemingly just has to
> defend what they have done in the past or justify continued
> poor practices."
>
> All doctors are not scientists by training or practice. No
> one mentioned doctors, only the value of accepted scientific
> proceedures for evaluating claims of "alternative" methods.
> Can the last part apply equally to "alterbloggers" as to
> practice and motive and experience?

For sure, for sure There are only a few and easily recognized
alties with a monetary interest or connection. The usually are
spammers, sooner or later.

You say that no one has mentioned Doctors. Doctors prescribe.
Standard medication is a prescription by doctors.

[Peterb]

Richard Schultz wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB
> <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> : I'm counting on it. A review of the history of my posts
> : shows that my purpose here is to advocate the use of
> : natural medicine, support dismantling of the FDA in an
> : effort to (effectively) regulate the pharmaceuticals,
> : promote consumer rights, and demand public disclosure. If
> : those topics are lacking in substance, what does that say
> : about you and your motives?
>
> It is clear from anyone who reads your posts that your
> purpose is to sell "natural medicine" even (or rather,
> especially) if it means lying about the content of sources
> you claim to be citing, hiding your relationship to the
> "natural medicine"/"food supplement" industry, and
> projecting upon others your own dishonesty.

A review of the history of my posts shows that my purpose
here is to advocate the use of natural medicine, support
dismantling of the FDA in an effort to (effectively) regulate
the pharmaceuticals, promote consumer rights, and demand
public disclosure. If those topics are lacking in substance
as you claim, what does that say about you and your
loyalties, pharmboy?

PeterB

[Mark Probe]

coonskin.amestwp.com wrote:
> Propose an example, it is your claims of "pharmablogger"
> abuse at hand. Or pick a post you think is one. The
> otherwise general shotgun listing of alleged industry
> created abuses on usanet groups remains yet unconfirmed and
> unidentified with reference to actual practices. Amorphous
> discussion of yet undefined unidentified postings profit
> readers nothing.

Do not hold your breath...

>
> Finding one has oppisition to ones claims in posts does not
> serve, examples real or invented will allow us to tease out
> details that might permit supporting or excluding the claims
> of "pharmablogger" / "alterblogger" activity.
>
>>> 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. 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.
>>
>>> 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 the two links to web sites presented
>>> as "authoritative/reliable" concerning the alleged abuses?
>> Language is very dual. 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. If you disagree
>> with me, I will ask you why. If you refuse to engage and
>> attempt to control the language, your motives will be
>> identified. It's really just that simple.
>>
>> PeterB

[Richard Sc]

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."

[Richard Sc]

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

: I blog for credible regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and
: greater reliance on natural medicine.

Why do you not blog for credible regulation of "natural"
medicine, aka "food supplements"? Given the known detrimental
effects of some so-called "natural" medicines, and the known
problem of interactions with other drugs, why are you not
demanding that "natural" medicines be required to show the
same relative benefit to risk of "pharmaceutical" drugs? Why
are you not demanding that makers of food supplements be
required to put drug interaction information on the labels of
their products? Why are you not demanding that the FDA rescind
its decision not to regulate "food supplements"?

-----
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_

[Mark Probe]

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.

[Peterb]

David Wright wrote:
> In article
> <1164123001.808848.291910@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >coonskin.amestwp.com wrote:
> >> Propose an example, it is your claims of "pharmablogger"
> >> abuse at hand.
> >
> >The attributes of grunts working here on behalf of industry
> >have been listed in the original post already. If you
> >cannot identify those tactics during actual exchanges, why
> >concern yourself with it?
>
> Ah, PeterB, it must be so soothing for you to live in
> your own version of reality. No bumping up against
> inconvenient facts that would dispell the illusions of a
> less walled-in mind.

There are walls?

> Of course, you'll be unable to recognize that you are
> committing the fallacy of assuming your own conclusion.

Sounds like advice you've been running from for a long time,
doesn't it?

> You define a set of behaviors that you assure us are
> identifiers of those awful "pharmabloggers." Those
> despicable paid agents of the drug companies, all of them in
> cahoots.

Yes, you've denied it at least a few hundred times by now,
with little or no variation. Do you think it's sticking?

> Trouble is, you've never presented a shred of evidence that
> any poster is, in fact, being paid for posting. You just
> insist that it's true, and that you can spot it (while
> wearing your tinfoil beanie, I suspect). Reminds me of those
> professional witnesses in the 50s who could spot a communist
> at 500 paces and were happy to testify about it to Congress.

I've said your words identify your motives, and they do.

> All you've done is assume that these "pharmabloggers" (which
> is still an idiotic term and will continue to be an idiotic
> term no matter how many times you use it, by the way) exist,
> and then whipped up a convenient list that you claim
> identifies them. Evidence for all this: zero. Evidence that
> you are a loon: increasing.

Darn, I thought you said I was a loon for sure. I guess you
had to leave some wiggle room to help explain why you keep
responding to me. Good job, pharmboy.

> >So let readers ignore it. People can think for themselves.
>
> Most people can. You, I have my doubts about.

See, there's another example of the dynamic at work here. I
don't have any doubts about you at all.

PeterB

[David Wrig]

In article
<1164123001.808848.291910@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>coonskin.amestwp.com wrote:
>> Propose an example, it is your claims of "pharmablogger"
>> abuse at hand.
>
>The attributes of grunts working here on behalf of industry
>have been listed in the original post already. If you cannot
>identify those tactics during actual exchanges, why concern
>yourself with it?

Ah, PeterB, it must be so soothing for you to live in your own
version of reality. No bumping up against inconvenient facts
that would dispell the illusions of a less walled-in mind.

Of course, you'll be unable to recognize that you are
committing the fallacy of assuming your own conclusion. You
define a set of behaviors that you assure us are identifiers
of those awful "pharmabloggers." Those despicable paid agents
of the drug companies, all of them in cahoots.

Trouble is, you've never presented a shred of evidence that
any poster is, in fact, being paid for posting. You just
insist that it's true, and that you can spot it (while wearing
your tinfoil beanie, I suspect). Reminds me of those
professional witnesses in the 50s who could spot a communist
at 500 paces and were happy to testify about it to Congress.

All you've done is assume that these "pharmabloggers" (which
is still an idiotic term and will continue to be an idiotic
term no matter how many times you use it, by the way) exist,
and then whipped up a convenient list that you claim
identifies them. Evidence for all this: zero. Evidence that
you are a loon: increasing.

>So let readers ignore it. People can think for themselves.

Most people can. You, I have my doubts about.

-- 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

[David Wrig]

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.cmu.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

[coonskin]

As soon as you provide an example we can discuss the topic. As
long as it is a hypothetical "evil them" it is a meaningless
bit of hand waving. At very very best you suggest that anyone
who points a sharp stick at the "alternative" industry is self
identified is rhetorical sandbagging of the crudest kind.
"Where's the meat?"

[Richard Sc]

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

: I've said your words identify your motives, and they do.

You've also said that the motives are irrelevant if the
words are true.

-----
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."

[Cathyb]

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 ident=
ify
> > > > 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 arti=
cle
> > > > 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/misc.health.alternative/bro-
wse_frm/thread= /b383f0745f5685c/cb9ab3742efefe85?lnk=3Dgst&q-
=3Dvitamin+c+hydrogen+oxygen&r=
num=3D21&hl=3Den#cb9ab3742efefe85

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 (=98 4 million) rather than the
number of recorded cases (=98400,000) 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 co=
me 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 debat=
e=2E
> > > The drug makers have far more resources than the
> > > supplement makers.
> > > The supplement industry is doing well, but with market
> > > share rising f=
or
> > > 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 "qua=
ck
> > > > 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.
> > =20
> > > PeterB

[Cathyb]

Richard Schultz wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative cathyb
> <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> : http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.health.alternativ-
> : e/browse_frm/thread/b383f0745f5685c/cb9ab3742efefe85?lnk-
> : =gst&q=vitamin+c+hydrogen+oxygen&rnum=21&hl=en#cb9ab3742-
> : efefe85
>
> 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?"

[Cathyb]

Richard Schultz wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative cathyb
> <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> : http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.health.alternativ-
> : e/browse_frm/thread/b383f0745f5685c/cb9ab3742efefe85?lnk-
> : =gst&q=vitamin+c+hydrogen+oxygen&rnum=21&hl=en#cb9ab3742-
> : efefe85
>
> 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?"

[David Wrig]

In article
<1164428411.147193.215240@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>David Wright wrote:
>> In article
>> <1164123001.808848.291910@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >coonskin.amestwp.com wrote:
>> >> Propose an example, it is your claims of "pharmablogger"
>> >> abuse at hand.
>> >
>> >The attributes of grunts working here on behalf of
>> >industry have been listed in the original post already. If
>> >you cannot identify those tactics during actual exchanges,
>> >why concern yourself with it?
>>
>> Ah, PeterB, it must be so soothing for you to live in
>> your own version of reality. No bumping up against
>> inconvenient facts that would dispell the illusions of a
>> less walled-in mind.
>
>There are walls?

Big, thick walls. I'm not surprised you can't see them.

>> Of course, you'll be unable to recognize that you are
>> committing the fallacy of assuming your own conclusion.
>
>Sounds like advice you've been running from for a long time,
>doesn't it?

No.

>> You define a set of behaviors that you assure us are
>> identifiers of those awful "pharmabloggers." Those
>> despicable paid agents of the drug companies, all of them
>> in cahoots.
>
>Yes, you've denied it at least a few hundred times by now,
>with little or no variation. Do you think it's sticking?

Your mind is coated with teflon when it comes to facts that
you don't want to deal with.

>> Trouble is, you've never presented a shred of evidence that
>> any poster is, in fact, being paid for posting. You just
>> insist that it's true, and that you can spot it (while
>> wearing your tinfoil beanie, I suspect). Reminds me of
>> those professional witnesses in the 50s who could spot a
>> communist at 500 paces and were happy to testify about it
>> to Congress.
>
>I've said your words identify your motives, and they do.

Indeed they do. But you're not capable of interpreting my
motives, due to the strange filters through which you see
the world.

>> All you've done is assume that these "pharmabloggers"
>> (which is still an idiotic term and will continue to be an
>> idiotic term no matter how many times you use it, by the
>> way) exist, and then whipped up a convenient list that you
>> claim identifies them. Evidence for all this: zero.
>> Evidence that you are a loon: increasing.
>
>Darn, I thought you said I was a loon for sure. I guess you
>had to leave some wiggle room to help explain why you keep
>responding to me.

Why shouldn't I? It's not as though you're going to stop
spewing your accusations.

>> >So let readers ignore it. People can think for themselves.
>>
>> Most people can. You, I have my doubts about.
>
>See, there's another example of the dynamic at work here. I
>don't have any doubts about you at all.

Yet another sign of your being a loon. The truly open-minded
individual recognizes that there is no such thing as
certainty.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If George
Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that James
Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins

[Jan Drew]

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:6otah.15856$Sw1.12667@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> In article
> <1164428411.147193.215240@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>David Wright wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <1164123001.808848.291910@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >coonskin.amestwp.com wrote:
>>> >> Propose an example, it is your claims of
>>> >> "pharmablogger" abuse at hand.
>>> >
>>> >The attributes of grunts working here on behalf of
>>> >industry have been listed in the original post already.
>>> >If you cannot identify those tactics during actual
>>> >exchanges, why concern yourself with it?
>>>
>>> Ah, PeterB, it must be so soothing for you to live in
>>> your own version of reality. No bumping up against
>>> inconvenient facts that would dispell the illusions of a
>>> less walled-in mind.
>>
>>There are walls?
>
> Big, thick walls. I'm not surprised you can't see them.
>
>>> Of course, you'll be unable to recognize that you are
>>> committing the fallacy of assuming your own conclusion.
>>
>>Sounds like advice you've been running from for a long time,
>>doesn't it?
>
> No.
>
>>> You define a set of behaviors that you assure us are
>>> identifiers of those awful "pharmabloggers." Those
>>> despicable paid agents of the drug companies, all of them
>>> in cahoots.
>>
>>Yes, you've denied it at least a few hundred times by now,
>>with little or no variation. Do you think it's sticking?
>
> Your mind is coated with teflon when it comes to facts that
> you don't want to deal with.
>
>>> Trouble is, you've never presented a shred of evidence
>>> that any poster is, in fact, being paid for posting. You
>>> just insist that it's true, and that you can spot it
>>> (while wearing your tinfoil beanie, I suspect). Reminds me
>>> of those professional witnesses in the 50s who could spot
>>> a communist at 500 paces and were happy to testify about
>>> it to Congress.
>>
>>I've said your words identify your motives, and they do.
>
> Indeed they do. But you're not capable of interpreting my
> motives, due to the strange filters through which you see
> the world.
>
>>> All you've done is assume that these "pharmabloggers"
>>> (which is still an idiotic term and will continue to be an
>>> idiotic term no matter how many times you use it, by the
>>> way) exist, and then whipped up a convenient list that you
>>> claim identifies them. Evidence for all this: zero.
>>> Evidence that you are a loon: increasing.
>>
>>Darn, I thought you said I was a loon for sure. I guess you
>>had to leave some wiggle room to help explain why you keep
>>responding to me.
>
> Why shouldn't I? It's not as though you're going to stop
> spewing your accusations.
>
>>> >So let readers ignore it. People can think for
>>> >themselves.
>>>
>>> Most people can. You, I have my doubts about.
>>
>>See, there's another example of the dynamic at work here. I
>>don't have any doubts about you at all.
>
> Yet another sign of your being a loon. The truly open-minded
> individual recognizes that there is no such thing as
> certainty.

David is spewing accusations, after accusing Peter of same.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
> opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If
> George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often
> that James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on
> the Bush twins

[Richard Sc]

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

: http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.health.alternative/b-
: rowse_frm/thread/b383f0745f5685c/cb9ab3742efefe85?lnk=gst&q-
: =vitamin+c+hydrogen+oxygen&rnum=21&hl=en#cb9ab3742efefe85

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 Sc]

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"

[Peterb]

cathyb wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > Johnny Huang wrote:
> > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> > > > > As constructed the information presented would seem
> > > > > to self conde=
mn
> > > > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it would
> > > > > seem to ide=
ntify
> > > > > 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 postin=
g,
> > > > 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 su=
ch
> > > > > 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 newsgrou=
ps.
> > >
> > > 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 exampl=
e=2E
> > > > > Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while
> > > > > research journal ar=
ticle
> > > > > 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 resu=
lts
> > > > have been fascinating.
> > >
> > > Do you mean your declaration that Vitamin C turns
> > > Hydrogen into Oxyge=
n?
> >
> > 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/misc.health.alternative/b-
> rowse_frm/thre=
ad/b383f0745f5685c/cb9ab3742efefe85?lnk=3Dgst&q=3Dvitamin+c+h-
ydrogen+oxygen= &rnum=3D21&hl=3Den#cb9ab3742efefe85
>
> 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 (=CB=9C 4 million) rather than
> the number of recorded cases (=CB=9C400,000) 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 suspec=
t for
> > > > > profit motives would the 12 billion per year
> > > > > "supplement" industr=
y 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 deb=
ate.
> > > > 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 her=
e=2E
> > > >
> > > > > For example, is this very thread a "alterblogger"
> > > > > when it says "q=
uack
> > > > > buster" consumer advice type web sites are suspect,
> > > > > considering t=
he two
> > > > > links to web sites presented as
> > > > > "authoritative/reliable" concerni=
ng 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 th=
ink
> > > > 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 wi=
th
> > > 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, a=
re
> > > just that simple.
> > > =20
> > > > PeterB

[Jan Drew]

"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1164613827.225418.325640@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Schultz wrote:
>> In misc.health.alternative cathyb
>> <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> :
>> http://groups.google.com.au/group/misc.health.alternative/-
>> browse_frm/thread/b383f0745f5685c/cb9ab3742efefe85?lnk=gst-
>> &q=vitamin+c+hydrogen+oxygen&rnum=21&hl=en#cb9ab3742efefe85
>>
>> 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?"

[Richard Sc]

In misc.health.alternative Jan Drew
<jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
: "cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message ne-
: ws:1164613827.225418.325640@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.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"

[Peterb]

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 c=
ondemn
> > > > > > > anyone who responds to the contrary. Indeed it
> > > > > > > would seem to=
identify
> > > > > > > myself as a "pharmablogger" for being an early
> > > > > > > if not the fir=
st to
> > > > > > > respond.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Content is the real criteria for assessing one's
> > > > > > reasons for po=
sting,
> > > > > > Mr. Coonskin. In time, content will reveal even
> > > > > > your motives.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The rhetorical sandbagging aside, I think this
> > > > > > > an important t=
opic to
> > > > > > > pursue. I propose choosing a specific
> > > > > > > hypothetical example o=
f such
> > > > > > > alleged tactics in a newsgroup posting for
> > > > > > > purposes of discus=
sion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it feels like "sandbagging," you're being too
> > > > > > sensitive. As=
for
> > > > > > examples of such tactics, it happens every day
> > > > > > here in the news=
groups.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 premi=
se
> > > > that natural medicine is superior to drugs, for
> > > > example.
> > > >
> > > > > > If you mean you would hope to evaluate such
> > > > > > behaviour "clinical=
ly," I
> > > > > > would ask how you intend to do this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Further I propose ground rules for reasonable
> > > > > > > kinds of eviden=
ce be
> > > > > > > identified to be able to come to some conclusion
> > > > > > > about the ex=
ample.
> > > > > > > Opinion would seem to be one to exclude while
> > > > > > > research journa=
l article
> > > > > > > results to be one to include.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You'll need to structure your experiment in
> > > > > > detail. I've condu=
cted
> > > > > > many such experiments here myself, without
> > > > > > announcing it. The =
results
> > > > > > have been fascinating.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you mean your declaration that Vitamin C turns
> > > > > Hydrogen into O=
xygen?
> > > >
> > > > 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 =E2=80=9Cclinical
> observations.=E2=80=9D 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
> =E2=80=9Crespira=
tion
> cannot occur without vitamin C.=E2=80=9D Chortle.

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

> Oh, and =E2=80=9C Cellular respiration uses the redox
> function of vitamin=
C,
> combined with hydrogen, to generate oxygen.=E2=80=9D

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 =E2=80=9CIf ascorbic acid doesn't liberate oxygen
> from hydrogen, =
how
> does respiration occur at the cellular level?=E2=80=9D

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=E2=80=99t it? However that
> wasn=E2=80=99t your ce=
ntral
> 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 h=
im
> > > 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/misc.health.alternati-
> > > ve/browse_frm/=
thread/b383f0745f5685c/cb9ab3742efefe85?lnk=3Dgst&q=3Dvitamin-
+c+hydrogen+ox= ygen&rnum=3D21&hl=3Den#cb9ab3742efefe85
> > >
> > > 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:
> > >
> > > &