Originally posted by sodakboy93 [/i]
>>I do find it interesting that you're getting hung up on the label rather than addressing the point of contention, which was that you appear to approach topics not from a questioning standpoint but rather simply look for things to support a previously held belief.
Bunk. Your ad hominem attacks deflect from the point of contention and now, instead of addressing those points, you make another specious claim. The whole idea in these posts is to question much of the conventional wisdom of Modern Medicine.
>> Nowhere in any of your posts have I seen a reasonable attempt to look at alternative points of view or to even question whether Mendelsohn's claims are legitimate.
Alternative points of view??? No, you mean mainstream, conventional points of view. And that also begs the question, because you obviously cannot cite any examples. As to questioning Dr. M''s claims, it would be nice if someone on this board could try to refute them as opposed to simply attacking the man.
??So I called your thinking "woo". Big deal. Prove that it isn't, rather than whining about the fact I called you a name.
Childish nonsense. A mature thinking person knows that one cannot prove a negative -- especially your kind of negative. For example, I may think you are a complete jerk. Must be true. Can you prove it isn't? Grow up or I'll send you back to your silly putty.
>>And while you're at, you might want to evaluate your own statements - I'm sure doctors who post on this board love your ad hominem attacks on the "religion of medicine" (implies cult) and the "modern medical temple of doom". (implies doctors do things for malicious reasons) That's basically an attempt to negate the opinions of any doctor - or anyone who provides testimony or research by a doctor - that follows the mainstream medical paradigm. Can you honestly argue that's "different"?
It may cast aspersions on the Institution, but does not cast them on any individual. Big difference.
>>Ok, then what about the "training" part? Again, you're getting hung up on word parsing and semantics - rather than address the core argument. ...In most courts of law, there's a little thing called corroboration when it comes to witness testimony. Where is that? Where are the other doctors who have seen the things Mendelsohn has seen?
More silliness. I cited one example of such arrogant, harmful, institutional mal-practices. The examples I could cite are legion. For example, The deliberate continuation of live vaccination programs in the US with the full knowledge that polio vaccinations in the US would cause a certain number of cases of paralytic polio for over the last quarter of the 20th century and that these were virtaully the only cases of Polio.
And then there is the infamous case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, to wit:
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
"The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.
—President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997
For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,â€1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death.
“As I see it,†one of the doctors involved explained, 'we have no further interest in these patients until they die.'"
"
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html
>>And what exactly makes Mendelsohn a "proven, reliable" witness? Because he has an impressive looking CV
>> Because he is about as highly credentialed as you can get, and as time marches on, his claims are continually being affirmed. Moreover, no one, including Dr. Quackwatch Barrett has been able to lay a hand on him, except for the usual Ad Hominems.
