On 06/05/2014 6:04 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> > wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 7:12:22 PM UTC-4, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>>>
>>>>>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>>>
>>>>>> animals?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>>>
>>>>> proffer it first?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
>>>
>>>> quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie. They
>>>
>>>> know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> It is also interesting to see what "peer reviewed" really means and how
>>>
>>>> it works in real life. Businesses have few problems finding people to
>>>
>>>> stick their names on articles written by writers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would wager most people have no idea what "peer reviewed science" really
>>>
>>> means other than knowing that they should put a religious-grade belief in
>>>
>>> anything that happens to be peer reviewed. Nowadays peer review is a tool
>>>
>>> that the state can use to justify actions it wanted to take, a tool for big
>>>
>>> pharma and big ag to shove more magic poisons down our gullets, and I could
>>>
>>> go on but it seems pointless. People will believe what they wish, whether
>>>
>>> their religion is based on magical characters or the scientific
>>>
>>> priesthood.
>>
>> You're a real half-wit.
>
> Oh did I offend your religious beliefs? That must be sad for you.
>
I think it was when you used the magic phrase "big pharma". Whenever I
see that, it's usually from the mouths of those that believe in quack
medicine.
Graham