On 12/18/2013 12:31 PM, [email protected] wrote:
BTW, you do realize the guy who wrote the article is a nutcase, right?
I mean, he claims that medicines are never tested for effectiveness
while supplements always are. That's just cuckoo; it's exactly the
opposite.
He's not a nutcase. I've read his articles and a heard him on radio.
He's a smart guy. He's referring to the well known cases of medicines
which have had to be recalled or taken off the market that didn't have
enough testing. Supplement manufacturers for alternative care
professionals are very fussy about testing and their sources. But it's
obvious you're *not* familiar with that.
You do know when you use the terms "nutcase" and "cuckoo" you sound like
a demented old woman?
On 12/18/2013 10:09 AM, authfriend@... <mailto:authfriend@...> wrote:
Translation: Bhairitu can't figure out why he (and the writer of the
article) contradicted himself either...
Can anyone else here explain it?
Bhairitu wrote:
<< Apparently this issue for discussion is above your pay grade. ;-) >>
On 12/18/2013 06:37 AM, authfriend@... <mailto:authfriend@...> wrote:
*Wait. First you said Big Pharma wanted the supplement market all to
itself. That doesn't jibe with making the public terrified of
supplements, period.*
*Bhairitu wrote:*
Because the public doesn't know which are theirs and which are not.
They just want the public terrified of supplements period and then
sell them the higher profit "Brave New World" pharmaceuticals.
On 12/17/2013 02:48 PM, authfriend@... <mailto:authfriend@...>
wrote:
*Bhairitu wrote:*
<< Big pharma is after the supplement market and wants it all to
themselves. >>
*But but but...according to the Natural News article you linked to,
Big Pharma arranged for all the testing to be done on its own
supplements. Why would it do that knowing the study results would
be negative and that folks would be discouraged from using
supplements generally?*
*
*
