Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [DrClark] Re: Bill Ross's Websites

Expand Messages
  • Jason Eaton
    In reference to QuackWatch s Clark page: What data? Where? I don t see any data. But thanks for sharing that Barrett did his page soley based on the fact
    Message 1 of 16 , May 1, 2000
      In reference to QuackWatch's Clark page:

      What data? Where? I don't see any data. But thanks for sharing that
      Barrett did his page soley based on the fact that he got her book from you,
      Bill. What a Doctor!

      All that Barrett says, and, mind you, he says it very unethically and with
      complete disregard to scientific analysis, is that look, the sky is blue,
      there is no such thing as clouds.

      Stating that something is true or false does not make it so. Barret makes
      no attempt at science, most probably because he does not understand science.
      There is no science on that page, nor is there any logic. Par for the
      course. What a con man!

      I am interested in the alleged case that is stated regarding the lady with
      breast cancer.

      Nothing personal, Bill, but DATA is achieved through rigorous analysis. It
      should be VERY simple to disprove the Clark protocol. If QuackWatch really
      wanted to be what it claims it is, then it would DO THE WORK. Sadly, I
      don't think QuackWatch has the core ability to do any such work.

      In fact, with so many forces out there against Clark, I'm surprised that no
      real attempt has been made to disprove her theory. The best I've seen is
      attacks against the synchrometer. It would cost less than, I'd say,
      $1000.00 to disprove her key concepts with the right lab equipment.


      Bill, if you are the voice of science, medicine, or common sense, then DO
      THE WORK FIRST. Otherwise, you're just another wacko sitting in front of a
      computer.

      I am not certain if the Clark Protocol cures cancer. I am certain that
      Clark's suggestions only benefit the human system.



      >From: JDrew63929@...
      >Reply-To: DrClark@egroups.com
      >To: DrClark@egroups.com
      >Subject: Re: [DrClark] Re: Bill Ross's Websites
      >Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 00:48:20 EDT
      >
      >
      >
      ><< If you read Barrett's site I link to above, you may agree. If you
      >don't
      > agree, please explain where Barrett is wrong.
      > Don't just personally attack the man with "bluntness" and unfounded
      >allegations. Give reasons and facts,
      > not vicious personal attacks. >>
      >
      >Give me a break..............it would take several years to address where
      >Barrett is wrong. He even calls Linus Pauling a quack. And you don't want
      >us
      >to attack him with *bluntess*? What would you call his websites? They
      >aren't blunt?? In my opinion, he is a sicko. And he has NO PROOF of all
      >his
      >garbage. But there seem to be some who fall for it hook line and sinker.
      >
      >Jan

      ________________________________________________________________________
      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
    • Bill Ross
      ... Jason: Thanks for commenting on the site. Barrett presents quite a lot of data mostly footnoted references to Dr. Clark s book and other sources. Why
      Message 2 of 16 , May 1, 2000
        Jason Eaton wrote:

        > In reference to QuackWatch's Clark page:
        >
        > What data? Where? I don't see any data. But thanks for sharing that
        > Barrett did his page soley based on the fact that he got her book from you,
        > Bill. What a Doctor!
        >

        Jason: Thanks for commenting on the site. Barrett presents quite a lot of data mostly footnoted
        references to Dr. Clark's book and other sources. Why don't you comment on the 100 alleged cancer cases
        Dr. Clark gives to support her cure rate, and that Dr. Barrett took the time to analyze and write about?

        >
        > All that Barrett says, and, mind you, he says it very unethically and with
        > complete disregard to scientific analysis, is that look, the sky is blue,
        > there is no such thing as clouds.

        Jason: I think he says quite a bit, so we disagree.

        >
        >
        > Stating that something is true or false does not make it so. Barret makes
        > no attempt at science, most probably because he does not understand science.
        > There is no science on that page, nor is there any logic. Par for the
        > course. What a con man!

        Jason: No logic huh, and no science? Again I disagree.

        >
        >
        > I am interested in the alleged case that is stated regarding the lady with
        > breast cancer.

        Jason: Me too. I'll try to get more information.

        >
        >
        > Nothing personal, Bill, but DATA is achieved through rigorous analysis. It
        > should be VERY simple to disprove the Clark protocol. If QuackWatch really
        > wanted to be what it claims it is, then it would DO THE WORK. Sadly, I
        > don't think QuackWatch has the core ability to do any such work.
        >

        Jason: I don't think Quackwatch is set up to do scientific study. They comment on what others have done
        or say, much like others in the scientific media do. Has Dr. Clark done the "WORK" that proves chemo,
        surgery or radiation is not effective in stopping cancer in many cases? Dr. Clark and others are
        marketing "the cure for all diseases" all over the world, and treating desperate cancer victims in
        clinics. Shouldn't the responsibility be with her and others who make fantastic claims to offer
        verifiable proof? When her case was dropped in Brown County, Clark's own attorney made some interesting
        comments about her memory and record keeping skills, such as they are, according to the Brown County
        paper.

        >
        > In fact, with so many forces out there against Clark, I'm surprised that no
        > real attempt has been made to disprove her theory. The best I've seen is
        > attacks against the synchrometer. It would cost less than, I'd say,
        > $1000.00 to disprove her key concepts with the right lab equipment.
        >

        Jason: In a free country like to U.S., the main focus is not on disproving every unusual theory that
        comes along. It would also be quite expensive. Normally it is asked that those with scientific theories
        do their own proving first, and if the theory still looks good, others go about trying to replicate the
        findings and so on. Dr. Clark hasn't gotten over the first hurdle first with her way out ideas. Just
        because her ideas are "way out" of course, does not mean they are wrong, but even her own data on people
        she has claimed to help is very lacking, unimpressive, and hard to verfiy.

        >
        > Bill, if you are the voice of science, medicine, or common sense, then DO
        > THE WORK FIRST. Otherwise, you're just another wacko sitting in front of a
        > computer.
        >

        Jason: More name calling. Please calm down. Again, Dr. Clark started with the claims, and the work she
        has done is making others richer, but has not proven her theories work at all.

        >
        > I am not certain if the Clark Protocol cures cancer. I am certain that
        > Clark's suggestions only benefit the human system.
        >

        Thanks for your post Jason,
        Bill Ross
      • John Stone
        ... You are very much wrong here. It is not the duty of anyone to disprove anything. It *is* the responsibility of those who make a claim to prove their case
        Message 3 of 16 , May 1, 2000
          > >-----Original Message-----
          > >From: sentto-134727-933-jstone=sofnet.com@...
          > >[mailto:sentto-134727-933-jstone=sofnet.com@...]On
          > >Behalf Of Bill Ross
          > >Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 5:47 AM
          > >To: DrClark@egroups.com
          > >Subject: Re: [DrClark] Re: Bill Ross's Websites
          > >
          >
          > >>
          > >> Nothing personal, Bill, but DATA is achieved through rigorous
          > >analysis. It
          > >> should be VERY simple to disprove the Clark protocol. If
          > >QuackWatch really
          > >> wanted to be what it claims it is, then it would DO THE WORK. Sadly, I
          > >> don't think QuackWatch has the core ability to do any such work.
          > >>

          You are very much wrong here. It is not the duty of anyone to "disprove"
          anything. It *is* the responsibility of those who make a claim to prove
          their case ... a fact of Clark's claims that are *not* substanciated at
          every single autopsy. No flukes are found. Give a reference where
          liver/brain/intestinal/kidney flukes were found at autopsy and linked to the
          lung/thyroid/brain/liver cancer.




          > >>
          > >> In fact, with so many forces out there against Clark, I'm
          > >surprised that no
          > >> real attempt has been made to disprove her theory. The best
          > >I've seen is
          > >> attacks against the synchrometer. It would cost less than, I'd say,
          > >> $1000.00 to disprove her key concepts with the right lab equipment.
          > >>

          Same thing ... It's a waste to even discuss her and her ideas, since they
          make absolutely no sense, nor do they have any rational earthly relationship
          to observed fact.

          > >
          > >Jason: More name calling. Please calm down. Again, Dr. Clark
          > >started with the claims, and the work she
          > >has done is making others richer, but has not proven her
          > >theories work at all.
          > >
          > >>
          > >> I am not certain if the Clark Protocol cures cancer. I am certain that
          > >> Clark's suggestions only benefit the human system.
          > >>

          What the hell does that mean??? It has benefitted her. It has benefitted her
          hangers-on. Provide the evidence anywhere that in a scientifically
          acceptable form ... in other words ... put up or shut up.

          John Stone
          microbiology/genetics

          > >
        • mratchford@webtv.net
          ... Seems to me like this type of thinking was illustrated in Arthur C. Clark s 2001 dialogue when the crewman commented on the contents of the obelisk: My
          Message 4 of 16 , May 1, 2000
            Jason wrote [of Quackwatch]:
            >...What data?  Where?  I don't see any
            > data...

            Seems to me like this type of thinking was illustrated in Arthur C.
            Clark's 2001 dialogue when the crewman commented on the contents of the
            obelisk:
            "My god, its full of stars!"

            In this case, thanks to your observation of an authoritative salaried
            scientist without a scientific method 'quackwatching' for the protection
            of the consumer, we can say of this amazing 'organization' and its
            proponents:
            My god, its full of ****!
            Marve
          • JDrew63929@aol.com
            Message 5 of 16 , May 1, 2000
              << Jason: I don't think Quackwatch is set up to do scientific study. They
              comment on what others have done
              or say, much like others in the scientific media do.



              Exactly!! There is something *wrong* with this picture! Would it be
              outrageous for them to *prove* what they are saying also?? Just commenting
              doesn't cut it.





              Has Dr. Clark done the "WORK" that proves chemo,
              surgery or radiation is not effective in stopping cancer in many cases?
              Dr. Clark and others are
              marketing "the cure for all diseases" all over the world, and treating
              desperate cancer victims in
              clinics. Shouldn't the responsibility be with her and others who make
              fantastic claims to offer
              verifiable proof?



              Bill, if you are sincere, there is a bulletin put out by the Dr Clark
              Research Association, the latest one tells of the new research and that Dr
              Clark is planning a clinical study. It will be documented by research
              scientists.



              When her case was dropped in Brown County, Clark's own attorney made some
              interesting
              comments about her memory and record keeping skills, such as they are,
              according to the Brown County
              paper.

              Bill I was there. You didn't comment on how the law did NOTHING to try and
              find Dr Clark. Amy even admitted that she knew where she was in two days!!
              The judge knew that nothing was done. The whole thing had no importance,
              until Amy's husband became the prosecutor!! You are only picking up on what
              sounds good to prove your case.


              > In fact, with so many forces out there against Clark, I'm surprised that no
              > real attempt has been made to disprove her theory. The best I've seen is
              > attacks against the synchrometer. It would cost less than, I'd say,
              > $1000.00 to disprove her key concepts with the right lab equipment.
              >

              Jason: In a free country like to U.S., the main focus is not on disproving
              every unusual theory that
              comes along. It would also be quite expensive. Normally it is asked that
              those with scientific theories
              do their own proving first, and if the theory still looks good, others go
              about trying to replicate the
              findings and so on. Dr. Clark hasn't gotten over the first hurdle first
              with her way out ideas. Just
              because her ideas are "way out" of course, does not mean they are wrong, but
              even her own data on people
              she has claimed to help is very lacking, unimpressive, and hard to verfiy.


              And that why she is finally getting some studies done. If the naysayers
              weren't so anxious to keep getting in her way she may done it long before now.

              >
              > Bill, if you are the voice of science, medicine, or common sense, then DO
              > THE WORK FIRST. Otherwise, you're just another wacko sitting in front of a
              > computer.
              >

              Jason: More name calling. Please calm down. Again, Dr. Clark started with
              the claims, and the work she
              has done is making others richer, but has not proven her theories work at
              all.

              >
              > I am not certain if the Clark Protocol cures cancer. I am certain that
              > Clark's suggestions only benefit the human system.
              >

              Thanks for your post Jason,
              Bill Ross

              Please, just keep an open mind. There may be a little bit of truth from many
              people, but with closed minds, we will never learn.

              Jan
            • Bill Ross
              Marve, It would be more helpful if you just said what you have to say in a direct way. I think you re trying to be cute or clever or something, and on top of
              Message 6 of 16 , May 1, 2000
                Marve,

                It would be more helpful if you just said what you have to say in a direct way. I think you're trying to
                be cute or clever or something, and on top of that insulting. I apologize if I'm wrong about that.
                Exactly what does the " ****! " stand for? I'm not here to play games. I take this discussion seriously.

                Thank you,
                Bill Ross

                mratchford@... wrote:

                > Jason wrote [of Quackwatch]:
                > >...What data? Where? I don't see any
                > > data...
                >
                > Seems to me like this type of thinking was illustrated in Arthur C.
                > Clark's 2001 dialogue when the crewman commented on the contents of the
                > obelisk:
                > "My god, its full of stars!"
                >
                > In this case, thanks to your observation of an authoritative salaried
                > scientist without a scientific method 'quackwatching' for the protection
                > of the consumer, we can say of this amazing 'organization' and its
                > proponents:
                > My god, its full of ****!
                > Marve
              • John Counts
                Hi Bill, You know what Quackwatch is full of I know what Quackwatch is full of We all know what Quackwatch is full of Here s a hint: This group seems to be
                Message 7 of 16 , May 1, 2000
                  Hi Bill,

                  You know what Quackwatch is full of
                  I know what Quackwatch is full of
                  We all know what Quackwatch is full of

                  Here's a hint: This group seems to be attracting idiots faster than ****
                  attracts flies.

                  Regards
                  John


                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  ---------------
                  Long Distance LESS THAN 1 CENT/MIN
                  This is not Internet Telephony! We use Quest, MCI & AT&T
                  Lines for top quality.
                  Imagine being able to call anyone you want, anytime you want, almost
                  anywhere
                  in the world without ever having to worry about receiving the bill.
                  Now, imagine earning thousands of dollars monthly, weekly, or even daily!
                  call 888-816-2729
                  THIS MIGHT BE THE MOST IMPORTANT CALL OF YOUR LIFE!
                  If what you hear is of interest send your phone number and
                  a time for me to call you back via email to jcounts@...
                  and I will call you back with more details.
                  This is the best opportunity I've seen
                  in a long time!
                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Bill Ross" <rossviva@...>
                  To: <DrClark@egroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 12:38 PM
                  Subject: Re: [DrClark] Re: Bill Ross's Websites


                  > Marve,
                  >
                  > It would be more helpful if you just said what you have to say in a direct
                  way. I think you're trying to
                  > be cute or clever or something, and on top of that insulting. I apologize
                  if I'm wrong about that.
                  > Exactly what does the " ****! " stand for? I'm not here to play games. I
                  take this discussion seriously.
                • John Stone
                  ... No I don t know what quackwatch is full of ... other than people in medicine and science who find that the alt.med ers have fallen into the trap of what we
                  Message 8 of 16 , May 1, 2000
                    > >-----Original Message-----
                    > >From: sentto-134727-939-jstone=sofnet.com@...
                    > >[mailto:sentto-134727-939-jstone=sofnet.com@...]On
                    > >Behalf Of John Counts
                    > >Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 12:06 PM
                    > >To: DrClark@egroups.com
                    > >Subject: Re: [DrClark] Re: Bill Ross's Websites
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >Hi Bill,
                    > >
                    > >You know what Quackwatch is full of
                    > >I know what Quackwatch is full of
                    > >We all know what Quackwatch is full of


                    No I don't know what quackwatch is full of ... other than people in medicine
                    and science who find that the alt.med'ers have fallen into the trap of what
                    we called in my day ... the acid heads ... nowadays it is called the Jungian
                    Transpersonal Movement ... Oh, you don't know what that is ... look up the
                    histories of some of your favorite alt-med leaders .... and find out ...

                    John
                  • Regehr@compusmart.ab.ca
                    My fellow listers, if Bill Ross were not here to play games (on us) he would not use a reference to his own name which he has objected to before. Second, he
                    Message 9 of 16 , May 1, 2000
                      My fellow listers, if Bill Ross were not here to play games (on us)
                      he
                      would not use a reference to his own name which he has objected to
                      before. Second, he would get busy and give us a convincing
                      explanation
                      as to why the three people that he interviewed, are in such good
                      health today. I am personally not convinced that his mother died, nor
                      that she died of cancer, as he expects us to believe.
                      Leo.

                      --- In DrClark@egroups.com, Bill Ross <rossviva@e...> wrote:
                      > Marve,
                      >
                      > It would be more helpful if you just said what you have to say in a
                      direct way. I think you're trying to
                      > be cute or clever or something, and on top of that insulting. I
                      apologize if I'm wrong about that.
                      > Exactly what does the " ****! " stand for? I'm not here to play
                      games. I take this discussion seriously.
                      >
                      > Thank you,
                      > Bill Ross
                      >
                      > mratchford@w... wrote:
                      >
                      > > Jason wrote [of Quackwatch]:
                      > > >...What data? Where? I don't see any
                      > > > data...
                      > >
                      > > Seems to me like this type of thinking was illustrated in Arthur
                      C.
                      > > Clark's 2001 dialogue when the crewman commented on the contents
                      of the
                      > > obelisk:
                      > > "My god, its full of stars!"
                      > >
                      > > In this case, thanks to your observation of an authoritative
                      salaried
                      > > scientist without a scientific method 'quackwatching' for the
                      protection
                      > > of the consumer, we can say of this amazing 'organization' and its
                      > > proponents:
                      > > My god, its full of ****!
                      > > Marve
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.