Date:   10/5/2005 12:53:58 AM ( 19 y ago)
Hits:   7,278
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=344596

2 of 2 (100%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

Criticising requires that you don't take something out of context--if you are honest.
Facts stand on their own merit, regardless of the credentials of the person who is saying them.

If you want to criticize a work that is based on someone else's work who received a Nobel Prize in medicine or Science for it, don't you have to understand some Science to do that? The problem you've created is that you don't use Science to confirm or deny what Trudeau states. Trudeau did not make up the facts in his book out of his head. What he said is generally accepted by scientists and doctors and those who work in the alternative field.

Their work is based on science. Unlike your comments.

You are simply speaking your opinion without defending it or explaining it.

You said that Trudeau took lots of info that you could get anywhere, was pie in the sky and so on. What is that supposed to imply? Yours is a very general statement. Here's some insight into general statements that allow you to read into it whatever you want. (..click below then scroll down to the 4th link called "Glittering Generalities" & click..)
http://www.propagandacritic.com

Do people want the pie in the sky that your method is offering to them as a way to heal or get well? I don't see that you offered or explained a better method than the one you criticized. If most people want your pie in the sky, and scientists' research is behind you, why worry? Why do people of your persuation usually worry a lot when they see desperately ill people reach out their arms to pay $29 for a book like Trudeau's?

And what are those questions you said were so obviously being raised? You didn't say.


 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.03 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=344596