Re: Reread the Lancet article (Quackery Debate Forum) 6/22/2005 567072

Re: Reread the Lancet article

New lower prices!
Hulda Clark Cleanses

New lower prices!
Hulda Clark Cleanses

Views: 3,019
Published: 20 y

This is a reply to # 567,071

Re: Reread the Lancet article

that's nice, but, i've heard your points on this before, and conclude you are incorrect. let me know when you get the missing information. thank you.

john g

All of my messges on this board All of my messges anywhere

Add To Favorites!

Like Dislike

Alert Moderators

DISCLAIMER

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!

Expand the next 20 of 57 messages

Zapper resurrectionist 20 y 4,954
- not so fast... johng 20 y 3,403
- Re: Zapper johng 20 y 3,199
  - You seem to imply that the Zapper is being adopted... resurrectionist 20 y 3,186
- You are proof enough of how parasites manifest; fo... Ohfor07 20 y 3,414
  - supreme wit resurrectionist 20 y 3,176
    - You are quite a witt yourself #21219 20 y 3,275
      - You seem to imply that the Zapper is being adopted... resurrectionist 20 y 3,142
        
        You seem to imply that the Zapper is being adopted... #13594 20 y 3,197
        
        another Oscar Wilde in the making. you would I fee... resurrectionist 20 y 3,241
- resurrectionist - Why are you here?? #40837 20 y 3,250
  - EDIT: #40837, my apologies, at the time I first... Ohfor07 20 y 3,267
  - Read the Lancet article resurrectionist 20 y 3,298
    - I think I agree with you, that liver flushes are n... ktb 20 y 3,210
      - Re: Reread the Lancet article resurrectionist 20 y 3,185
        
        Yep that’s true only FOOLS would ignore alternativ... johng 20 y 3,147
        
        Again you show an ability to analyse the results o... resurrectionist 20 y 3,129
        
        i don’t think so Res, when i raised this to you be... johng 20 y 3,087
        
        i don’t think so Res, when i raised this to you be... resurrectionist 20 y 3,218
        
        the only relevant point was that 25% of the materi... johng 20 y 3,087
        
        Expand the next 20 of 57 messages
        
        Well the only point relevant to you maybe. I obser... resurrectionist 20 y 3,374
        
        Well the only point relevant to you maybe. I obser... johng 20 y 3,019
        This is the position of the above message within the thread.
        
        You conclude I am incorrect. About which points sp... resurrectionist 20 y 3,308
        
        yawn yawn. johng 20 y 3,223
        
        Dissonance and how to deal with it. resurrectionist 20 y 3,366
        
        Changing subject matter wont save you MStroll! Chaz 20 y 3,288
        
        read some chemistry resurrectionist 20 y 3,247
        
        enough already #41554 20 y 3,288
        
        so do you believe that the green blobs are gallsto... resurrectionist 20 y 3,202
        
        ”so do you believe that the green blobs are gallst... nick5 20 y 3,276
        
        Restroll a continuing embarrassment to her peers! Chaz 20 y 3,307
        
        Re: enough already #41554 20 y 3,303
        
        I don’t call the statement ”I debate when the moro... resurrectionist 20 y 3,160
        
        I don’t call the statement ”I debate when the moro... resurrectionist 20 y 3,229
        
        unless it is an article that hasn’t been posted he... #41554 20 y 3,210
        
        unless it is an article that hasn’t been posted he... resurrectionist 20 y 3,081
        
        If you understood the continuous barrage of these ... Chaz 20 y 3,141
        
        listen, i do understand the concept of ’trolling’ ... #41554 20 y 3,350
        
        I definetely agree on that point - there is far to... resurrectionist 20 y 3,246
        
        Science vs empiric resurrectionist 20 y 3,085
        
        Expand the next 17 of 57 messages
        
        This quote supports us not you nick5 20 y 3,214
        
        This quote is a comment on SCIENCE - you know that... resurrectionist 20 y 3,165
        
        Lad analysis of L-F results confirms they are gall... nick5 20 y 3,342
        
        which lad? what's his name? resurrectionist 20 y 3,024
        
        You think I remember everything? I dont keep every... nick5 20 y 3,132
        
        The FAQ certainly doesn’t prove that the liver flu... resurrectionist 20 y 3,297
        
        ”The FAQ certainly doesn’t prove that the liver fl... nick5 20 y 3,315
        
        No answers resurrectionist 20 y 3,124
        
        No answers... by you nick5 20 y 3,203
        
        Where's the proof? resurrectionist 20 y 3,092
        
        Empirics are very convincing. This forum is for de... nick5 20 y 3,168
        
        Empirics are very convincing. This forum is for de... resurrectionist 20 y 3,199
        
        More empty messages nick5 20 y 3,089
        
        If you don't understand the science... resurrectionist 20 y 3,439
        
        i can’t say that i know much about the relationshi... nick5 20 y 3,176

Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

0.250 sec, (1)

Re: Reread the Lancet article

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!

This is the position of the above message within the thread.