Suzanne Somers Promotes "Bioidenticals"

Thank you, scotth. I must say, Neil certainly has a lot of chutzpah thinking he can hustle this crowd.
 
debv said:
Thank you, scotth. I must say, Neil certainly has a lot of chutzpah thinking he can hustle this crowd.
Click to expand...

And not much brains to be using such a clear name of who he is, and not properly identifying himself.

Welcome to the the forum
 
Will nraden have the courage to return and defend his (apparently) lie infested 3 posts? Or will he be smart enough to realize that he'd only be digging a deeper hole?
 
Katana said:
.
Click to expand...

I'll make a deal with you. If this is truly a skeptics site, and not just a place where you rearrange your prejudices, then do this. Apply your skepticism to RhythmicLiving.com and Debv's cohorts and if you do, including deconstructing Bent Formby, whose scinece is laughable, and the stories about the sick (but nameless) women there, I will never write another thing about Wiley.

Fair is fair, but these hate mongers operate without scrutiny. They are a moderated site and do not allow dissenting commentary on thier site. If you are truly skeptics, then you will out ******** wherever you find it.
 
nraden.... before I bother looking at the message bringers, lets look at the factualness of your statements.

You've been called out as being factually wrong (deliberately so, I'd say) by existing members of this board. When I personally check the discrepancies, your version always comes up wanting.

You've been associated with T.S. Wiley by debv as the husband of. Who cares if debv is Satan incarnate or what his/her motives might be? I don't see you denying the connection.

We had the rest already, debv just supplied the motive. But, nice try with the ad hom.
 
nraden said:
I'll make a deal with you. If this is truly a skeptics site, and not just a place where you rearrange your prejudices, then do this. Apply your skepticism to RhythmicLiving.com and Debv's cohorts and if you do, including deconstructing Bent Formby, whose scinece is laughable, and the stories about the sick (but nameless) women there, I will never write another thing about Wiley.

Fair is fair, but these hate mongers operate without scrutiny. They are a moderated site and do not allow dissenting commentary on thier site. If you are truly skeptics, then you will out ******** wherever you find it.
Click to expand...

That would properly be the domain of a separate thread, but if you want to start one feel free.
 
luchog said:
Tactilely, I'd agree. Chemically, no, since the salt cannot be tasted until after it's dissolved in saliva. The molecules affect the receptor in precisely the same way, since they're all identical molecules. The crystal size and shape affects one thing and one thing only, how quickly it dissolves, and therefore the intensity of the taste. The only way to change the taste is to change the molecule.
Click to expand...

Even so crystal size can affect taste.

Suppose we have a salt that is a mix of two different kinds of salt, with different sizes of crystals. Suppose the sodium chloride crystals are large, and the potassium chloride crystals are small. Then the potassium chloride crystals will dissolve faster, and their initial impact on taste will be more intense than would happen if you reversed the sizes of the crystals.

Cheers,
Ben
 
Although I don't have a degree in anthropolgy (apparently, not required), I have contributed to the understanding of steroid biosynthesis:
"Mechanism of Mevalonate Pyrophosphate Decarboxylase" - Biochemistry, 1994, 33:45 pp. 13355-13362. Despite this, I find the metabolism and pharmacology of steroids quite complex. So, please forgive some naive questions.

Where do the Wiley compounders get their "identical" hormones? For a while the local quacks were promoting "bioidentical" phytoestrogens. Doesn't the prefix "phyto" mean plant-derived? More recently, the quacks have been advertizing "bioequivalent" hormones; do you suppose they recognized the problem? Isn't a mare (mammal) more likely to provide "identical" hormones than shrubbery?

Also, Mr. Raden wrote of Premarin as "a conjugate of 39 SUBSTANCES." What does this mean?

Apparently Raden does not understand his own homework. From the Merck Manual (11th edition), it is a "form of conjugated estrogens." Now, I don't know exactly to what those estrogens are conjugated; but it has a meaning which a scientist can comprehend.
 
nraden said:
I'll make a deal with you. If this is truly a skeptics site, and not just a place where you rearrange your prejudices, then do this. Apply your skepticism to RhythmicLiving.com and Debv's cohorts and if you do, including deconstructing Bent Formby, whose scinece is laughable, and the stories about the sick (but nameless) women there, I will never write another thing about Wiley.

Fair is fair, but these hate mongers operate without scrutiny. They are a moderated site and do not allow dissenting commentary on thier site. If you are truly skeptics, then you will out ******** wherever you find it.
Click to expand...

Let me make sure I undersand. You came onto our site, one based on a respect for critical thinking, you made claims, those claims have been questioned, and now you respond by offering a deal with (I guess) me that requires me to go to a site whose rules preclude my ability to call their claims into question just so you will never write another thing about Wiley?

Why don't you tell us what reasons you have for writing another thing about Wiley independent of that site?

When Debv makes a claim, we will expect no less of her than we did of you. Having said that, the one that she has made so far should rightfully be answered by you and that is that you're T.S. Wiley's husband. It's one which you, quite conspicuously, have not denied.
 
Last edited:
Please, scrutinize. I'm confident what you find will only substantiate what I and my "cohorts" have said about the Wiley protocol and its stakeholders. If it turns up any errors and inaccuracies, I'll gladly correct them. I don't recall that it's happened yet, but I'm fallible and at times have to rely on judgments of character. Allegations I've made but have not (yet) substantiated, I don't expect anyone to take on faith.

It's nice that for once I'm not the one pointing out the diversionary tactics. Neil's comments and arguments predominantly consist of ad hominem, recriminations, and general water-muddying, and I don't allow that sort of junk through.

(My site, BTW, is Wiley Watch. I hope it's okay to mention that, though forum policy prevents me from linking.)

EDIT: http://wileywatch.org. The only cash flow from it is the one going out of my pockets. :) Thanks, Huntsman.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
debv:

We generally don't have problems with linking, as long as it isn't commercial in nature (i.e.-"Cum C my l33t new sit and by my stuff!!1!1!"). The no linking rule is primarily to stop spam-bots that create a forum account and post hundreds of links in every thread.

If you type in your web site without the "http:" and "www" part, it should accept it (not as a link, but we can cut 'n' paste) :)
 
And finishing Huntsman's thought..... you'll be able to post links after some small number of posts (10 or 20 I think).
 
debv, so good to have you here-awesome website you have, and Katana, you're the coolest too.

Here I was kind of hoping for a new woo to toy with, but don't really have time anyway, unless ol' raden wants to go for a few more rounds :p That big hypocrite is essentially just parroting the same old same old though. Can't any of these people ever come up with something original?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom