sci.med
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their Mon

Subject: Re: WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their Monopolies
From: "cathyb"
Date: 23 Sep 2005 17:07:00 -0700
Newsgroups: sci.med, misc.health.alternative, misc.kids, uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine
PeterB wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> > In article <1127495900.944407.203520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >David Wright wrote:
> > >> In article <1126881518.967447.32960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > >> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their
> > >> >Monopolies
> > >> >
> > >> >To : All participants and readers of misc.health.alternative + other
> > >> >health-related newsgroups
> > >> >
> > >> >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 engaging an effort to
> > >> >shape public sentiment about the risks of mainstream medicine while
> > >> >denigrating the benefits and validity of natural medicine.
> > >>
> > >> OK, PeterB, I see there is actually some value to your presence here.
> > >> Many of our readers may never have seen a genuine paranoid in action.
> > >> Now they can observe you, if they wish.
> > >
> > >Thanks, Dr. David.
> >
> > Don't mention it.  I didn't want people to think you lacked any
> > redeeming social value, even if you did retire ignominiously from
> > our little chat about the value of vaccination.
>
> I so appreciate your generosity.  I didn't retire from the debate about
> vaccine, though.  The readers were told in item 3 of my "warning" post
> that pharma bloggers work hard to have the last word, and so you did.
> There is only so much time available to repeat oneself and show that
> cathy was struggling to come up with shreds of evidence in defense of
> vaccine.  My call for randomized, double-blind, long-term studies
> proving the effectiveness of vaccine went unasnwered, by you, cathy, or
> anyone else.  I understand, of course.  There are no such studies.  I
> can only hope that readers had an opportunity to sift through a hundred
> posts and find the 3 or 4 paragraphs that really mattered.

Bless his little cotton socks. Still blundering around with his fingers
in his ears, eyes squinched shut and singing "la, la, la".

Leave the halfwit to it.


Cathy

> 
> PeterB


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Privacy Policy