Calm down, Bhairitu. Does the fact that you're familiar with his articles and reports on the radio somehow make him immune from criticism? Why are you taking my comments about him so personally? Seems like it's maybe your ego that's bloated.
Bhairitu screamed: << What part of "I'm familiar with Mike Adams articles and his reports on the radio" DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND! I didn't even need to read the article to know his intent. Besides I heard an hour long discussion on it the other day. What is your point other than trying to discredit somebody to gratify your already bloated ego? If you think Mike Adams needs an editor then contact him. Maybe you can pick up a few extra bucks that way. >> On 12/18/2013 01:39 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Of course I'm "familiar with that." But go look at the article again. He says medicines are never tested: "In today's distorted system of quack medicine, junk science and pro-pharma propaganda, medications never have to be proven effective to be promoted and hyped." As to the terms "nutcase" and "cuckoo," they're no more demented than some of the extreme terms you use to describe the targets of your conspiracy theories. And then there was Share's brilliant "OMG, they must really think we're all idiots, to try and foist medicine on us as a source of nutrients!" (Which, of course, nobody had suggested in the first place.) Plus which, he says there's no evidence that chemotherapy "prevents the progression of cancer," which is also, sorry, bonkers. Did you understand what I explained about the contradiction, BTW? I notice you seem to have snipped all that. I'm going to predict that because I had some objections to that article, you will now label me as pro-Big Pharma. Also note that the person who first got hostile in this exchange was none other than you. Bhairitu wrote: On 12/18/2013 12:31 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... 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?
