donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
and it followed in all other first world countries?
Like I suggested; do your own research. I just helped you out.
and it followed in all other first world countries?
These numbers should trouble you—Natural News has an uncanny ability to move unsophisticated readers from harmless dietary balderdash to medical quackery to anti-government zealotry.
That right there shows why these people who are bound to bring their agenda here are detrimental to the liberty movement.
And liberal publications have the uncanny ability to move unsophisticated readers from harmless dietary balderdash to medical quackery to anti-government zealotry.
That right there shows why these people who are bound to bring their agenda here are detrimental to the liberty movement.
And liberal publications have the uncanny ability to move unsophisticated readers from harmless dietary balderdash to medical quackery to anti-government zealotry.
The editor of Natural News was/is a huge Ron Paul supporter.
that's a good thing? LOL
Quackery is defined as unproven or fraudulent medical practices. Anecdotal evidence isn't proof, as the MSG allergy syndrome succinctly proves. So with all due respect, I stand by my assertion.
I understand that, but there are also things that the so-called experts in western medicine didn't acknowledge for many years and in fact labeled any doctor who did, a quack.
What about it? Lyme disease wasn't recognized as a disease?Get lyme disease sometime and you will get quite an education in what I am talking about.
For which we apply the same standard : do they or do they not use the scientific method to determine if something works?
That's the problem with Natural News crowd, no science will ever convince them that they are completely and utterly wrong.
That's where you are wrong. But you go one believing your nonsense, I am sure that makes you feel better.![]()
That's the problem with Natural News crowd, no science will ever convince them that they are completely and utterly wrong.
That's where you are wrong. But you go one believing your nonsense, I am sure that makes you feel better.![]()
Oh really? So what would convince you you are wrong?
Real scientists whose findings are not bought and paid for by the medical monopoly.
Can you provide any peer-reviewed evidence from you supposed 'real scientists' to support your claims that vaccines do no work and cause autism?
Of course he can! Wakefield and the recent Italian court ruling! checkmate!
You mean the guy who was being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR and whose results have never been able to be reproduced by other scientists because they were falsified?
For which we apply the same standard : do they or do they not use the scientific method to determine if something works?
What about it? Lyme disease wasn't recognized as a disease?