Re: CS>question...

Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:27:59 -0700

One of the most damning bits of evidence against Quack Watch is its listing of Y. Omura M.D.'s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. The site wrongly disparages a considerable amount of first-rate work, and displays a clear bias, with instances of willful ignore-ance of available evidence. I agree with sol that there are some bits of useful information on the site, but the fundamental bias against effective CAM is so strong that I myself steer clear of the site. 



JBB



On Wednesday, Oct 27, 2004, at 02:08 Asia/Tokyo, sol wrote:


Still, every claim he makes should be evaluated on it's own rather  
than just make blanket assumptions. I find blanket assumptions made by  
either side of the alternative/conventional medical issue are equally  
likely to be in error.
Barrett is indeed a quack himself, but that does not necessarily mean  
he is always wrong. :-) .
To throw out critical thinking and researching by oneself, is always a  
mistake, imho.
And frankly the push against alternative medicine and supplements is  
so global, and so huge, that we as consumers desiring to keep access  
to alternatives open, simply cannot afford to support quacks just  
because they are "alternative". To do so is to fall into the hands of  
those, like Barrett, who are pushing for total eradication of any  
alternative access. However, doing the work at all to try to find out  
the truth of any particular assertion on the Barrett site, or any  
quack site, is very difficult. It is always easier to simply choose up  
sides and get out the pom-poms, but it just is not the path of finding  
out truth.

sol

Sally Khanna wrote:


While I agree with you partly Sol,  I sure can understand Marshall's  
thoughts on this. The problem when someone is so vehemently against  
something, I've often found they either can't be trusted, or their  
judgement can't be relied upon because it's so slanted.

 Sally

sol <[email protected]> wrote:

    As with everything it isn't wise to throw the baby out with the
    bathwater. There is actually some valuable info on the quackwatch
    site.
    While I am certain he is totally wrong about CS and homeopathy, to
    name

    just two, my opinions are because I did my homework, researching  
the

    other side..........however, there are some sound articles on at
    least a
    couple of real quacks, for which research turned up no adequate
    refutation of the info at the Barrett site.

    NOTHING is all good or all bad. It is up to us to do the work to  
form

    our own opinions. No offense to you personally, Marshall, but my
    opinion
    is it is as counter-productive to the search for truth to throw
    out the
    entire body of info at the Barrett site, as it is for him to throw
    out
    the whole of alternative medicine, etc.
    sol

    Marshall Dudley wrote:

    > Yes, you can! find him in the quack forum where he belongs with
    all the
    > other quacks. Use him as a good refercne for finding things that

    > work, if he is against it, it works, and the more he is against  
it,

    > the better it works. Anyway, nothing he has to say about CS is
    true,
    > check the archives.
    >
    > Marshall
    >
    > sid aust wrote:
    >
    >> I am new to the forum and wondering what the side effects of
    taking
    >> CS. I just read one of Dr Barrett's article on how it will turn
    you
    >> grey and all kinds of bad stuff..and of course Dr Barrett is
    against

    >> everything good in alternative medicine..you can fine him on  
the

    >> quack forum...thanksSid
    >


    --

    The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal  
Silver.



    Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at:  
http://silverlist.org


    To post, address your message to: [email protected]
    Silver List archive:
    http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html

    Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected]

    OT Archive:  
http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html


    List maintainer: Mike Devour


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
--

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail  
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/security/*http:// 
promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/protection.html> - You care  
about security. So do we.