"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > > except that however you dress it up, less and less people die every
year of
> > > > nvCJD
> > >
> > > You can't know that.
> >
> > Yes I do, the figures have been published, remember, Oz published them
and
> > you didn't understand them,
> >
> > Jim Webster
>
> No you can't know that, because the people who published your figures
> can't know that those figures are complete. It can be mistaken for, and
> even be present, in other neurological disorders, and very few autopsies
> are actually carried out to ascertain the cause, or causes, of death.

They are not my figures, they are the UK government figures and appart from
a few kooks who talk to inner earth beings I haven't come across anyone with
a decent science or statistics background who reckons there will be more
than 10% out.

So that means that it is still under 20 a year and still falling.

Sorry the real world doesn't support your preconceptions

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > Your ongoing evasion is noted, jim.
> >
> > > > American readers please note, no matter what the reality is, there are
> > > > people out there who want it to look better than it is because it suits
> > > > their own interests and lines their own pockets.
> > >
> > > Yes, but everyone knows I am a beef producer, tell them what you do for a
> > > living.
> >
> > Has it any bearing on the subject under discussion, or vested interest,
> > as yours does? No.
> >
> > > In fact I actually post under my real name because I'm not ashamed of how I
> > > earn my living
> >
> > I'm not either, to the contrary, but you should be.
>
> OK so tell all these good people what you do for a living, assuming you
> don't channel inner earth beings professionally
>
> Jim Webster

I work in the field of naturopathic medicine.

Now, which out of the two of us has a vested interest in people eating meat?

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> .
> > >
> > > Great! Makes me feel a bit safer.
> > >
> > > -Rubystars
> >
> > Oz is in the UK, Rubystars.
>
> If you want to eat decent meat,

No thanks.

<snip>

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "OrionCA" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 06:31:58 +0000, Oz > wrote:
> > >
> > > >OrionCA > writes
> > <..>
> > > >>(a) a large number of people ate "prion-contaminated" beef,
> > > >
> > > >That is beyond dispute for the UK. There are a number of surveys, one by
> > > >anderson (oxford university) being the best known. Refs will be in the
> > > >BSE progress report previously cited. About 1M subclinically BSE
> > > >infected cattle were eaten by the UK population.
> > >
> > > Prions are not found in the usual cuts of beef you get from the
> > > butcher. Whether it was 1 Million or 100 Million is irrelevant if the
> > > beef does not contain the "deformed" prions.
> >
> > Does beef contain blood? Nerve and lymphatic tissues? .. Yes.
> >
>
> but as we have less than 20 cases a year of nvCJD and the number is falling,
> it obviously isn't a problem

You don't know any of that for a fact.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > > > > except that however you dress it up, less and less people die every year of
> > > > > nvCJD
> > > >
> > > > You can't know that.
> > >
> > > Yes I do, the figures have been published, remember, Oz published them and
> > > you didn't understand them,
> > >
> > > Jim Webster
> >
> > No you can't know that, because the people who published your figures
> > can't know that those figures are complete. It can be mistaken for, and
> > even be present, in other neurological disorders, and very few autopsies
> > are actually carried out to ascertain the cause, or causes, of death.
>
> They are not my figures, they are the UK government figures

The figures you wave around as though they were carved on a stone tablet.

> and appart from
> a few kooks who talk to inner earth beings I haven't come across anyone with
> a decent science or statistics background who reckons there will be more
> than 10% out.

You're rabbiting on as if research hasn't been posted in this thread.

> So that means that it is still under 20 a year and still falling.

There are currently 750,000 cases of dementia in the UK, jim.
A study you've seen a cite from showed that six out of nineteen CJD
sufferers presented as simple dementia. You've seen that CJD can
be mistaken for Alzheimer's.. Furthermore, you are aware that the
rate of autopsies has been falling and is typically less than 5%.

Sorry the real world doesn't support your preconceptions
>
> Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > > >What bearing has that on mistaking CJD for other neurological
> > > disorders?
> > > > >
> > > > > Plenty. I have searched the literature and can come up with little
> > > > > other than Laura Manuelidis who has taken this tack. SHe is quoted
> > > > > over & over & over again, yet no succeeding studies have verified
> > > > > these numbers since her or your other article were published.
> > > >
> > > > Typical- if you can't argue against the evidence, try to discredit the
> source.
> > >
> > > when the source is wrong, then it is stupid to base your decisions on it
> >
> > Let's see you demonstrate in what way the source is 'wrong', jim. ..
>
> I think Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case pretty
> convincingly

I must have missed that. Why don't you summarize it here for us.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:23:35 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Jim Webster wrote:
>> > > except that however you dress it up, less and less people die every year of
>> > > nvCJD
>> >
>> > You can't know that.
>>
>> Yes I do, the figures have been published, remember, Oz published them and
>> you didn't understand them,
>>
>> Jim Webster
>
>No you can't know that, because the people who published your figures
>can't know that those figures are complete. It can be mistaken for, and
>even be present, in other neurological disorders, and very few autopsies
>are actually carried out to ascertain the cause, or causes, of death.

Actually, although this is a miniscule point, more people died from
nvCJD in 2003 than in 2002 -- according to the published figures.

IOW, the very dataset the maroon bases his statement on would have
proved to him, that his statement is -false-, if he had bothered to
look at it :-)

"Torsten Brinch" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:23:35 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:

> Actually, although this is a miniscule point, more people died from
> nvCJD in 2003 than in 2002 -- according to the published figures.

In fairness, unless you have the updated figures, the table at
http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm shows one less death from
vCJD in 2003 compared to 2002. (and 26 less referrals).

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:17:48 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:

>"Torsten Brinch" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:23:35 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:
>
>> Actually, although this is a miniscule point, more people died from
>> nvCJD in 2003 than in 2002 -- according to the published figures.
>
>In fairness, unless you have the updated figures, the table at
>http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm shows one less death from
>vCJD in 2003 compared to 2002. (and 26 less referrals).

Here are the updated figures http://www.doh.gov.uk/cjd/stats/jan04.htm
showing one more death from vCJD in 2003 compared to 2002.

As to referrals it is much to early to make a judgement, historically
they are subject to major upwards adjustment for many months after
present date, same with sporadic CJD. If we want to compare we must
do it on a 'same time last year' basis.

Looked at that way, referrals are currently one more in 2003 than 'same
time last year' showed for 2002, and sporadic CJD 5 more for 2003
than 2002.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > except that however you dress it up, less and less people die
every year of
> > > > > > nvCJD
> > > > >
> > > > > You can't know that.
> > > >
> > > > Yes I do, the figures have been published, remember, Oz published
them and
> > > > you didn't understand them,
> > > >
> > > > Jim Webster
> > >
> > > No you can't know that, because the people who published your figures
> > > can't know that those figures are complete. It can be mistaken for,
and
> > > even be present, in other neurological disorders, and very few
autopsies
> > > are actually carried out to ascertain the cause, or causes, of death.
> >
> > They are not my figures, they are the UK government figures
>
> The figures you wave around as though they were carved on a stone tablet.

no, it just happens they are the most definitive work, as I said, I
apologise if reality clashes with your preconceptions

>
> > and appart from
> > a few kooks who talk to inner earth beings I haven't come across anyone
with
> > a decent science or statistics background who reckons there will be more
> > than 10% out.
>
> You're rabbiting on as if research hasn't been posted in this thread.
>
> > So that means that it is still under 20 a year and still falling.
>
> There are currently 750,000 cases of dementia in the UK, jim.
> A study you've seen a cite from showed that six out of nineteen CJD
> sufferers presented as simple dementia. You've seen that CJD can
> be mistaken for Alzheimer's.. Furthermore, you are aware that the
> rate of autopsies has been falling and is typically less than 5%.

Alzheimers can be retarded with drugs, a friend of a friend is currently
undergoing treatment. nvCJD cannot be

so sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that

Jim Webster

"Torsten Brinch" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:17:48 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> >"Torsten Brinch" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:23:35 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, although this is a miniscule point, more people died from
> >> nvCJD in 2003 than in 2002 -- according to the published figures.
> >
> >In fairness, unless you have the updated figures, the table at
> >http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm shows one less death from
> >vCJD in 2003 compared to 2002. (and 26 less referrals).
>
> Here are the updated figures http://www.doh.gov.uk/cjd/stats/jan04.htm
> showing one more death from vCJD in 2003 compared to 2002.
>
> As to referrals it is much to early to make a judgement, historically
> they are subject to major upwards adjustment for many months after
> present date, same with sporadic CJD. If we want to compare we must
> do it on a 'same time last year' basis.
>
> Looked at that way, referrals are currently one more in 2003 than 'same
> time last year' showed for 2002, and sporadic CJD 5 more for 2003
> than 2002.

note that I allowed a 10% error,

but alas for Pearl, Torsten isn't going to tell her the figures are a
figment of some dark imagining

Jim Webster
>
>
>

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > Let's see you demonstrate in what way the source is 'wrong', jim. ..
> >
> > I think Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case pretty
> > convincingly
>
> I must have missed that. Why don't you summarize it here for us.

explain why I should repeat what you were too idle to see first time, seeing
as how you replied to it
Do you often reply without reading the message you are replying to?

Jim Webster
>
>
>
>

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > Your ongoing evasion is noted, jim.
> > >
> > > > > American readers please note, no matter what the reality is, there
are
> > > > > people out there who want it to look better than it is because it
suits
> > > > > their own interests and lines their own pockets.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but everyone knows I am a beef producer, tell them what you do
for a
> > > > living.
> > >
> > > Has it any bearing on the subject under discussion, or vested
interest,
> > > as yours does? No.
> > >
> > > > In fact I actually post under my real name because I'm not ashamed
of how I
> > > > earn my living
> > >
> > > I'm not either, to the contrary, but you should be.
> >
> > OK so tell all these good people what you do for a living, assuming you
> > don't channel inner earth beings professionally
> >
> > Jim Webster
>
> I work in the field of naturopathic medicine.
>
> Now, which out of the two of us has a vested interest in people eating
meat?

hmmmm

Lets see, one channels for inner earth beings and runs a scam where they
sell snake oil to the simple minded

the other sells meat

me, I like selling meat, I meet such nice people, and like 95% of the UK
population I enjoy what I eat
But I realise there are people with an ideological object to it. So what, I
smile sweetly at them secure in the knowledge that lapsed vegetarians always
outnumber vegetarians

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > .
> > > >
> > > > Great! Makes me feel a bit safer.
> > > >
> > > > -Rubystars
> > >
> > > Oz is in the UK, Rubystars.
> >
> > If you want to eat decent meat,
>
> No thanks.
>

the old inner earth beings told you not to?

Jim Webster
>
>

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "OrionCA" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 06:31:58 +0000, Oz >
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >OrionCA > writes
> > > <..>
> > > > >>(a) a large number of people ate "prion-contaminated" beef,
> > > > >
> > > > >That is beyond dispute for the UK. There are a number of surveys,
one by
> > > > >anderson (oxford university) being the best known. Refs will be in
the
> > > > >BSE progress report previously cited. About 1M subclinically BSE
> > > > >infected cattle were eaten by the UK population.
> > > >
> > > > Prions are not found in the usual cuts of beef you get from the
> > > > butcher. Whether it was 1 Million or 100 Million is irrelevant if
the
> > > > beef does not contain the "deformed" prions.
> > >
> > > Does beef contain blood? Nerve and lymphatic tissues? .. Yes.
> > >
> >
> > but as we have less than 20 cases a year of nvCJD and the number is
falling,
> > it obviously isn't a problem
>
> You don't know any of that for a fact.

Hey, I will not be lectured on facts by a snake oil saleswomen who tried to
tell us that the inner earth could be reached through a hole at the north
pole and hadn't realised that the whole icesheet is a play ground for
nuclear subs who really ought to have spotted this hole by now

Jim Webster

Beg pardon for topposting.

University of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh?! WTF?! Doesn't exist. Kinda
shoots your argument in the foot when you're quoting nonexistent
universities, don't it?

Lena

I know _all_ the universities in pittsburgh... and that ain't one of them.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, pearl wrote:

> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:00:44 -0000, "pearl" >
> > wrote:
> > >"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 01:01:47 -0000, "pearl" >
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > >> Truly, I am sorry, but you are quoting a journal article that is 9
> > >> years old.
> > >
> > >What bearing has that on mistaking CJD for other neurological disorders?
> >
> > Plenty. I have searched the literature and can come up with little
> > other than Laura Manuelidis who has taken this tack. SHe is quoted
> > over & over & over again, yet no succeeding studies have verified
> > these numbers since her or your other article were published.
>
> Typical- if you can't argue against the evidence, try to discredit the source.
>
> 'Currently four million Americans are diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.
> The percentage of cases is on the rise with solid research showing that
> there are about 360,000 individuals newly diagnosed each year.
>
> At Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania at Pittsburgh,
> researchers recently studied the brains of people who died of Alzheimer's
> disease (46 in the Yale case and 54 in the Pittsburgh study). Surprisingly,
> the autopsies respectively showed that 13 percent and five percent of the
> dead were actually CJD cases misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's disease.
>
> In a third (smaller) study published in the Journal of Psychiatry and
> Neuroscience (1995), investigators reported that three out of 12 patients
> diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease were found to have had CJD when
> autopsied. [Teixeira, F., et al. "Clinico-Pathological Correlation in
> Dementias." Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 20 (1995): 276-282.]
> It should be noted CJD symptoms may be remarkably similar to those of
> Alzheimer's disease.
>
> There are no accurate figures for the total number of U.S. Alzheimer's
> deaths each year, simply because it doesn't usually get reported as the
> cause of death. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported only
> 22,725 Alzheimer's deaths in 1998. However, a spokesperson for the
> National Alzheimer's Association, in a recent interview, agreed that the
> actual number could easily be 100,000, or even has high as 400,000
> per year. Because Alzheimer's patients usually die within 8 to 10 years,
> she agreed that the CDC numbers must be grossly understated. If new
> research supports that approximately 10 percent of all Alzheimer's
> disease related deaths are in fact misdiagnosed CJD cases, then 10,000
> to 40,000 CJD deaths will suddenly appear in America each year.
> That would be an epidemic. '
>
> > Knowledge of the disorders has come pretty far since then, as has, as
> > a matterof fact, knowledge of Alzheimer's. Predicating an entire
> > theory on such limited research with little corroboration over the
> > years makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> Huh. http://www.rense.com/general46/proofa.html
>
> > >> None of this has borne out with recent numbers.
> > >
> > >Provide citations.
> >
> > The chart of numbers from Britain was already posted in this thread
> > in tabular form. Did you miss it?
>
> Give us citations for the percentage of dementia sufferers autopsied in the
> UK, and the percentage with CJD that were misdiagnosed before death.
>
> > >> At the time
> > >> this article was published, the estimates of nvCJD that were to be
> > >> occurring were alarming everyone the same way. This, too, was in
> > >> error.
> > >
> > >It's too early to conclude anything of the sort, considering the
> > >lengthy incubation period.
> >
> > No it is not.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> > The same numbers chart posted yesterday or the day
> > before shows these numbers since 1990. That is long enough to track
> > the data through incubation and disease diagnosis.
>
> No, it isn't. Especially since your 'tracking' is a farce.
>
> > >> It is not that BSE, or nvCJD or CJD are pleasantries or fluff - all
> > >> are quite serious, but Chicken Little, Casandra and the Boy who Cried
> > >> Wolf only serve to raise rabble and make fancy sound bites, quick
> > >> headlines & flame wars.
> > >
> > >When the population is at risk, it is far better to be safe than sorry.
> >
> > The population is at far greater risk from any number of clear and
> > present dangers.
>
> So you say.
>
> > To siphon off funding and research monies to pursue
> > something that afflicts so few is cruel and wasteful.
>
> The entire system needs a good shake..
>
> > >> Hard numbers and facts that have been shown to
> > >> be solidly based in research are much more intelligent and ultimately
> > >> effective than unsubstatiated percentages, scare tactics or ****ing in
> > >> the wind.
> > >
> > >Give us citations for the percentage of dementia sufferers autopsied in the
> > >UK, and the percentage with CJD that were misdiagnosed before death.
> >
> > Non one in teh US except Laura Manuelidis seems to give a flying horse
> > pucky in the last 8 or 9 years, which leads me to think there is no
> > reason or interest in pursuing a blind alley. Even she is off on an
> > infectious agent angle nowadays.
>
> The alley isn't blind. You are though. Enjoying your beef, is it?
>
> > Look...I have a connection on the human subjects committee at a major
> > teaching hospital that is involved with Alzheimer's research. That
> > isn't much a citation for you , I am sure, but I do get to read quite
> > a bit of what comes up. Bark. Wrong tree.
>
> Well you can get to read a bit more, should you care to. See above.
>
>
>
>

"Torsten Brinch" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:17:48 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> >"Torsten Brinch" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:23:35 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, although this is a miniscule point, more people died from
> >> nvCJD in 2003 than in 2002 -- according to the published figures.
> >
> >In fairness, unless you have the updated figures, the table at
> >http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm shows one less death from
> >vCJD in 2003 compared to 2002. (and 29* less referrals).
>
> Here are the updated figures http://www.doh.gov.uk/cjd/stats/jan04.htm
> showing one more death from vCJD in 2003 compared to 2002.

Right.

> As to referrals it is much to early to make a judgement, historically
> they are subject to major upwards adjustment for many months after
> present date, same with sporadic CJD. If we want to compare we must
> do it on a 'same time last year' basis.
>
> Looked at that way, referrals are currently one more in 2003 than 'same
> time last year' showed for 2002, and sporadic CJD 5 more for 2003
> than 2002.

Ok. Thank you.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > > > except that however you dress it up, less and less people die every year of
> > > > > > > nvCJD
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can't know that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes I do, the figures have been published, remember, Oz published them and
> > > > > you didn't understand them,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jim Webster
> > > >
> > > > No you can't know that, because the people who published your figures
> > > > can't know that those figures are complete. It can be mistaken for, and
> > > > even be present, in other neurological disorders, and very few autopsies
> > > > are actually carried out to ascertain the cause, or causes, of death.
> > >
> > > They are not my figures, they are the UK government figures
> >
> > The figures you wave around as though they were carved on a stone tablet.
>
> no, it just happens they are the most definitive work, as I said, I
> apologise if reality clashes with your preconceptions

Reality doesn't. See research showing misdiagnosis. It's not my
fault if the research clashes with your 'most definitive work'.

> > > and appart from
> > > a few kooks who talk to inner earth beings I haven't come across anyone with
> > > a decent science or statistics background who reckons there will be more
> > > than 10% out.
> >
> > You're rabbiting on as if research hasn't been posted in this thread.
> >
> > > So that means that it is still under 20 a year and still falling.
> >
> > There are currently 750,000 cases of dementia in the UK, jim.
> > A study you've seen a cite from showed that six out of nineteen CJD
> > sufferers presented as simple dementia. You've seen that CJD can
> > be mistaken for Alzheimer's.. Furthermore, you are aware that the
> > rate of autopsies has been falling and is typically less than 5%.
>
> Alzheimers can be retarded with drugs, a friend of a friend is currently
> undergoing treatment. nvCJD cannot be

I haven't said that all cases of Alzheimer's are CJD.

so sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that
>
> Jim Webster
>
>
>
>

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > > Let's see you demonstrate in what way the source is 'wrong', jim. ..
> > >
> > > I think Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case pretty
> > > convincingly
> >
> > I must have missed that. Why don't you summarize it here for us.
>
> explain why I should repeat what you were too idle to see first time, seeing
> as how you replied to it

What Boron wrote, not only does not invalidate Manuelidis' research,
- it is plain false.

> Do you often reply without reading the message you are replying to?

You said 'Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case..'. He hasn't.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Jim Webster wrote:

>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Your ongoing evasion is noted, jim.
> > > >
> > > > > > American readers please note, no matter what the reality is, there
> are
> > > > > > people out there who want it to look better than it is because it
> suits
> > > > > > their own interests and lines their own pockets.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, but everyone knows I am a beef producer, tell them what you do
> for a
> > > > > living.
> > > >
> > > > Has it any bearing on the subject under discussion, or vested
> interest,
> > > > as yours does? No.
> > > >
> > > > > In fact I actually post under my real name because I'm not ashamed
> of how I
> > > > > earn my living
> > > >
> > > > I'm not either, to the contrary, but you should be.
> > >
> > > OK so tell all these good people what you do for a living, assuming you
> > > don't channel inner earth beings professionally
> > >
> > > Jim Webster
> >
> > I work in the field of naturopathic medicine.
> >
> > Now, which out of the two of us has a vested interest in people eating
> meat?
>
> hmmmm
>
> Lets see, one channels for inner earth beings and runs a scam where they
> sell snake oil to the simple minded
>
> the other sells meat
>
> me, I like selling meat, I meet such nice people, and like 95% of the UK
> population I enjoy what I eat
> But I realise there are people with an ideological object to it. So what, I
> smile sweetly at them secure in the knowledge that lapsed vegetarians always
> outnumber vegetarians

.... are you required to pay money to a meat-advocacy group, the way the
U.S. farmers are required to?

Lena

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
<..>
> > I work in the field of naturopathic medicine.
> >
> > Now, which out of the two of us has a vested interest in people eating meat?
>
> hmmmm
>
> Lets see, one channels for inner earth beings and runs a scam where they
> sell snake oil to the simple minded

'Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression
by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate
in the world of dealing with truth, lies, and suppression of
truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums.
...
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull his strings who
stand to suffer should the crime be solved, and therefore, who
stand to benefit should it be the opposite outcome. In ANY
such case, they MUST seek to prevent rational and complete
examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them.
Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be
overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in
the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community
and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least
working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and
observable tools in this process. However, the public at large
is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led
astray by these time-proven tactics.

The overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of
evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times,
to use clever deceptions or lies to make the links seem
weaker than they are, or better still, cause any who are
considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways,
including the method of questioning the credentials of the
presenter. ..

So, as you read here in the News Groups the various
discussions on various matters, decide for yourself when
a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation,
psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the
tool. ...'

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

> the other sells meat

And therefore has a vested interest in people eating meat.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "OrionCA" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 06:31:58 +0000, Oz > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >OrionCA > writes
> > > > <..>
> > > > > >>(a) a large number of people ate "prion-contaminated" beef,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >That is beyond dispute for the UK. There are a number of surveys, one by
> > > > > >anderson (oxford university) being the best known. Refs will be in the
> > > > > >BSE progress report previously cited. About 1M subclinically BSE
> > > > > >infected cattle were eaten by the UK population.
> > > > >
> > > > > Prions are not found in the usual cuts of beef you get from the
> > > > > butcher. Whether it was 1 Million or 100 Million is irrelevant if the
> > > > > beef does not contain the "deformed" prions.
> > > >
> > > > Does beef contain blood? Nerve and lymphatic tissues? .. Yes.
> > > >
> > >
> > > but as we have less than 20 cases a year of nvCJD and the number is falling,
> > > it obviously isn't a problem
> >
> > You don't know any of that for a fact.
>
> Hey, I will not be lectured on facts by a snake oil saleswomen who tried to
> tell us that the inner earth could be reached through a hole at the north
> pole and hadn't realised that the whole icesheet is a play ground for
> nuclear subs who really ought to have spotted this hole by now

lol. Jim's bolted.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...

> so sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that

why, I'm not the one frantically trying to discard data that doesn't fit
with my preconceptions

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > > > Let's see you demonstrate in what way the source is 'wrong', jim.
...
> > > >
> > > > I think Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case pretty
> > > > convincingly
> > >
> > > I must have missed that. Why don't you summarize it here for us.
> >
> > explain why I should repeat what you were too idle to see first time,
seeing
> > as how you replied to it
>
> What Boron wrote, not only does not invalidate Manuelidis' research,
> - it is plain false.
>
> > Do you often reply without reading the message you are replying to?
>
> You said 'Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case..'. He
hasn't.
>

no, he hasn't managed to convince you which is entirely different.


Jim Webster
>
>

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> <..>
> > > I work in the field of naturopathic medicine.
> > >
> > > Now, which out of the two of us has a vested interest in people eating
meat?
> >
> > hmmmm
> >
> > Lets see, one channels for inner earth beings and runs a scam where
they
> > sell snake oil to the simple minded
>
> 'Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression

forgot the 14th

When people point out a truth that you don't like, change the subject

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...

> > Hey, I will not be lectured on facts by a snake oil saleswomen who tried
to
> > tell us that the inner earth could be reached through a hole at the
north
> > pole and hadn't realised that the whole icesheet is a play ground for
> > nuclear subs who really ought to have spotted this hole by now
>
> lol. Jim's bolted.

Was that the 15th way to suppress the truth?

I see that you have forgotten you claims
Don't worry, it is all there on google

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
<..>
> > > If you want to eat decent meat,
> >
> > No thanks.
>
> the old inner earth beings told you not to?

I worked it out, jim. I wouldn't like to be treated the way
most livestock are treated,- not mutilated without anaesthetic,
nor confined, .. nor killed young or in my prime, however
'humane' you say it might be. So how could I impose such
conditions on other sentient creatures? We've no reason to.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > so sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that
>
> why, I'm not the one frantically trying to discard data that doesn't fit
> with my preconceptions

That is exactly what you are doing.

> Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > > Let's see you demonstrate in what way the source is 'wrong', jim.
> ..
> > > > > I think Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case pretty
> > > > > convincingly
> > > >
> > > > I must have missed that. Why don't you summarize it here for us.
> > >
> > > explain why I should repeat what you were too idle to see first time, seeing
> > > as how you replied to it
> >
> > What Boron wrote, not only does not invalidate Manuelidis' research,
> > - it is plain false.
> >
> > > Do you often reply without reading the message you are replying to?
> >
> > You said 'Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case..'. He hasn't.
>
> no, he hasn't managed to convince you which is entirely different.

He hasn't managed to convince me because what he wrote is completely false.

He has managed to convince you, because your a wilfully ignorant clown.

> Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...

> When people point out a truth that you don't like, change the subject

Yep, like question the presenter's credentials.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Hey, I will not be lectured on facts by a snake oil saleswomen who tried
> to
> > > tell us that the inner earth could be reached through a hole at the
> north
> > > pole and hadn't realised that the whole icesheet is a play ground for
> > > nuclear subs who really ought to have spotted this hole by now
> >
> > lol. Jim's bolted.
>
> Was that the 15th way to suppress the truth?

Your '14th' was "When people point out a truth that you don't like,
change the subject". ..

> I see that you have forgotten you claims
> Don't worry, it is all there on google

... like, questioning the presenter's credentials.

>
> Jim Webster

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:15:55 -0500 (EST), Lena B Katz
> wrote:

>Beg pardon for topposting.
>
>University of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh?! WTF?! Doesn't exist. Kinda
>shoots your argument in the foot when you're quoting nonexistent
>universities, don't it?
>
>Lena
>
>I know _all_ the universities in pittsburgh... and that ain't one of them.

Careful of your attributions posting, please...you are criticizing a
quotation provided by another poster, "Pearl, " not me.

Carry on...

Boron
>
>On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, pearl wrote:
>
>> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:00:44 -0000, "pearl" >
>> > wrote:
>> > >"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 01:01:47 -0000, "pearl" >
>> > >> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Truly, I am sorry, but you are quoting a journal article that is 9
>> > >> years old.
>> > >
>> > >What bearing has that on mistaking CJD for other neurological disorders?
>> >
>> > Plenty. I have searched the literature and can come up with little
>> > other than Laura Manuelidis who has taken this tack. SHe is quoted
>> > over & over & over again, yet no succeeding studies have verified
>> > these numbers since her or your other article were published.
>>
>> Typical- if you can't argue against the evidence, try to discredit the source.
>>
>> 'Currently four million Americans are diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.
>> The percentage of cases is on the rise with solid research showing that
>> there are about 360,000 individuals newly diagnosed each year.
>>
>> At Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania at Pittsburgh,
>> researchers recently studied the brains of people who died of Alzheimer's
>> disease (46 in the Yale case and 54 in the Pittsburgh study). Surprisingly,
>> the autopsies respectively showed that 13 percent and five percent of the
>> dead were actually CJD cases misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's disease.
>>
>> In a third (smaller) study published in the Journal of Psychiatry and
>> Neuroscience (1995), investigators reported that three out of 12 patients
>> diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease were found to have had CJD when
>> autopsied. [Teixeira, F., et al. "Clinico-Pathological Correlation in
>> Dementias." Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 20 (1995): 276-282.]
>> It should be noted CJD symptoms may be remarkably similar to those of
>> Alzheimer's disease.
>>
>> There are no accurate figures for the total number of U.S. Alzheimer's
>> deaths each year, simply because it doesn't usually get reported as the
>> cause of death. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported only
>> 22,725 Alzheimer's deaths in 1998. However, a spokesperson for the
>> National Alzheimer's Association, in a recent interview, agreed that the
>> actual number could easily be 100,000, or even has high as 400,000
>> per year. Because Alzheimer's patients usually die within 8 to 10 years,
>> she agreed that the CDC numbers must be grossly understated. If new
>> research supports that approximately 10 percent of all Alzheimer's
>> disease related deaths are in fact misdiagnosed CJD cases, then 10,000
>> to 40,000 CJD deaths will suddenly appear in America each year.
>> That would be an epidemic. '
>>
>> > Knowledge of the disorders has come pretty far since then, as has, as
>> > a matterof fact, knowledge of Alzheimer's. Predicating an entire
>> > theory on such limited research with little corroboration over the
>> > years makes no sense whatsoever.
>>
>> Huh. http://www.rense.com/general46/proofa.html
>>
>> > >> None of this has borne out with recent numbers.
>> > >
>> > >Provide citations.
>> >
>> > The chart of numbers from Britain was already posted in this thread
>> > in tabular form. Did you miss it?
>>
>> Give us citations for the percentage of dementia sufferers autopsied in the
>> UK, and the percentage with CJD that were misdiagnosed before death.
>>
>> > >> At the time
>> > >> this article was published, the estimates of nvCJD that were to be
>> > >> occurring were alarming everyone the same way. This, too, was in
>> > >> error.
>> > >
>> > >It's too early to conclude anything of the sort, considering the
>> > >lengthy incubation period.
>> >
>> > No it is not.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>> > The same numbers chart posted yesterday or the day
>> > before shows these numbers since 1990. That is long enough to track
>> > the data through incubation and disease diagnosis.
>>
>> No, it isn't. Especially since your 'tracking' is a farce.
>>
>> > >> It is not that BSE, or nvCJD or CJD are pleasantries or fluff - all
>> > >> are quite serious, but Chicken Little, Casandra and the Boy who Cried
>> > >> Wolf only serve to raise rabble and make fancy sound bites, quick
>> > >> headlines & flame wars.
>> > >
>> > >When the population is at risk, it is far better to be safe than sorry.
>> >
>> > The population is at far greater risk from any number of clear and
>> > present dangers.
>>
>> So you say.
>>
>> > To siphon off funding and research monies to pursue
>> > something that afflicts so few is cruel and wasteful.
>>
>> The entire system needs a good shake..
>>
>> > >> Hard numbers and facts that have been shown to
>> > >> be solidly based in research are much more intelligent and ultimately
>> > >> effective than unsubstatiated percentages, scare tactics or ****ing in
>> > >> the wind.
>> > >
>> > >Give us citations for the percentage of dementia sufferers autopsied in the
>> > >UK, and the percentage with CJD that were misdiagnosed before death.
>> >
>> > Non one in teh US except Laura Manuelidis seems to give a flying horse
>> > pucky in the last 8 or 9 years, which leads me to think there is no
>> > reason or interest in pursuing a blind alley. Even she is off on an
>> > infectious agent angle nowadays.
>>
>> The alley isn't blind. You are though. Enjoying your beef, is it?
>>
>> > Look...I have a connection on the human subjects committee at a major
>> > teaching hospital that is involved with Alzheimer's research. That
>> > isn't much a citation for you , I am sure, but I do get to read quite
>> > a bit of what comes up. Bark. Wrong tree.
>>
>> Well you can get to read a bit more, should you care to. See above.
>>
>>
>>
>>

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:37:50 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >
>> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> >
>> > Your ongoing evasion is noted, jim.
>> >
>> > > > American readers please note, no matter what the reality is, there are
>> > > > people out there who want it to look better than it is because it suits
>> > > > their own interests and lines their own pockets.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, but everyone knows I am a beef producer, tell them what you do for a
>> > > living.
>> >
>> > Has it any bearing on the subject under discussion, or vested interest,
>> > as yours does? No.
>> >
>> > > In fact I actually post under my real name because I'm not ashamed of how I
>> > > earn my living
>> >
>> > I'm not either, to the contrary, but you should be.
>>
>> OK so tell all these good people what you do for a living, assuming you
>> don't channel inner earth beings professionally
>>
>> Jim Webster
>
>I work in the field of naturopathic medicine.

Ahhh...a space cadet. Why or why am I not surprised one whit.

And behind a counter, I'd wager.
>
>Now, which out of the two of us has a vested interest in people eating meat?

I've none and yet I still seem to come to the same conclusions as Mr.
Webster. Your science is faulty, your citations suspect and you have a
political agenda.

Pure piffle.

Boron

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:31:56 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:

>"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > > Hey, I will not be lectured on facts by a snake oil saleswomen who tried
>>> > to tell us that the inner earth could be reached through a hole at the
>>> > north pole and hadn't realised that the whole icesheet is a play ground
>>>> for nuclear subs who really ought to have spotted this hole by now
>> >
>> > lol. Jim's bolted.
>>
>> Was that the 15th way to suppress the truth?
>
>Your '14th' was "When people point out a truth that you don't like,
>change the subject". ..
>
>> I see that you have forgotten you claims
>> Don't worry, it is all there on google
>
>.. like, questioning the presenter's credentials.

Well, at least he kept that off, until he was cornered. <VBG>

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:56:27 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:52:05 -0000, "pearl" >
>> wrote:
>
>> >http://www.rense.com/general46/proofa.html
>>
>>Rense is garbage. Why not improve your quoting source...say, from
>>Drudge? The Washington Times, perhaps? Maybe one of Murdock's
>>tabloids?
>
>Whatever you think of any particular news service is besides the point.

No, actually, it isn't, because if you cannot find the information
carried within the reputable press AND referred to as accepted within
the standard med publications it's likely to be the trip that I find
on the naturopathic medicine web pages that abound.
>
>>AND you have no dates for new studies. YOu are drawing on old info and
>>missing the point. If this were an avenue worth pursuing, if there
>>were some validity to this, it would be studied and shown with numbers
>>from later studies. It isn't.
>
>The research at the above link isn't 'old'. You're lying through your teeth.

Dear God, Almighty, Woman...can't you even see what you're reading on
that blasted page? the back & forth fluff (all non-professional) is
last year's, but the journal articles quoted in abstracts are from
1989, with some references within them going back over 20 years.

These teeth are biting you on your ill-informed butt, honey.

boron
>
>
>

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:57:55 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>>
>> > > >What bearing has that on mistaking CJD for other neurological
>> disorders?
>> > >
>> > > Plenty. I have searched the literature and can come up with little
>> > > other than Laura Manuelidis who has taken this tack. SHe is quoted
>> > > over & over & over again, yet no succeeding studies have verified
>> > > these numbers since her or your other article were published.
>> >
>> > Typical- if you can't argue against the evidence, try to discredit the source.
>>
>> when the source is wrong, then it is stupid to base your decisions on it
>
>Let's see you demonstrate in what way the source is 'wrong', jim. ..

You do realize that rense is one of the leading sites that promotes
UFO and ET blather, don't you?

Boron
>
>
>
>
>

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:55:17 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > > Let's see you demonstrate in what way the source is 'wrong', jim. ..
>> > >
>> > > I think Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case pretty
>> > > convincingly
>> >
>> > I must have missed that. Why don't you summarize it here for us.
>>
>> explain why I should repeat what you were too idle to see first time, seeing
>> as how you replied to it
>
>What Boron wrote, not only does not invalidate Manuelidis' research,
>- it is plain false.
>
>> Do you often reply without reading the message you are replying to?
>
>You said 'Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case..'. He hasn't.

She, darlin'. She. Really, you should not jump to so many conclusions
without evidence to back them up.

Boron
>
>

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:57:55 -0000, "pearl" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> > > >What bearing has that on mistaking CJD for other neurological
> >> disorders?
> >> > >
> >> > > Plenty. I have searched the literature and can come up with little
> >> > > other than Laura Manuelidis who has taken this tack. SHe is quoted
> >> > > over & over & over again, yet no succeeding studies have verified
> >> > > these numbers since her or your other article were published.
> >> >
> >> > Typical- if you can't argue against the evidence, try to discredit
the source.
> >>
> >> when the source is wrong, then it is stupid to base your decisions on
it
> >
> >Let's see you demonstrate in what way the source is 'wrong', jim. ..
>
> You do realize that rense is one of the leading sites that promotes
> UFO and ET blather, don't you?
>
> Boron

For some reason I read this thread all the way to here. Probably because we
are inundated by a small ice storm and cannot leave the house.

This naturopathetic bunch is actually entertaining aside from the damage
they cause to the health of innocents. We have them cropping up by the
dozens here and the trick is to get three of four of them in a huddle and
wait for the fight to break out. They can not even agree on what to argue
about. It appears that most of them can not remember from which state they
received their credentials nor give reference to last address or place of
business.

I do have a lady friend who works for one of the more credible ones that has
been around for a while and is actually a licensed doctor. She tells of
listening to the patient tell the doctor what they wish to acquire and then
observe how the doctor maneuvers them into rather harmless and pointless
solutions to their queries. Serious patients in this office are treated in a
more serous and professional manner but the majority of those who subscribe
to this balderdash are searchers or just plain kooks.

Jim said if best when he said earlier on that, "I smile sweetly at them
secure in the knowledge that lapsed vegetarians always outnumber
vegetarians."

Thanks for the laughs

James Curts

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:56:27 -0000, "pearl" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:52:05 -0000, "pearl" >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >http://www.rense.com/general46/proofa.html
> >>
> >>Rense is garbage. Why not improve your quoting source...say, from
> >>Drudge? The Washington Times, perhaps? Maybe one of Murdock's
> >>tabloids?
> >
> >Whatever you think of any particular news service is besides the point.
>
> No, actually, it isn't, because if you cannot find the information
> carried within the reputable press AND referred to as accepted within
> the standard med publications it's likely to be the trip that I find
> on the naturopathic medicine web pages that abound.

The information is all over the shop, including your so-called
reputable press and peer-reviewed publications.

> >>AND you have no dates for new studies. YOu are drawing on old info and
> >>missing the point. If this were an avenue worth pursuing, if there
> >>were some validity to this, it would be studied and shown with numbers
> >>from later studies. It isn't.
> >
> >The research at the above link isn't 'old'. You're lying through your teeth.
>
> Dear God, Almighty, Woman...

Right on.

> can't you even see what you're reading on
> that blasted page? the back & forth fluff (all non-professional) is
> last year's, but the journal articles quoted in abstracts are from
> 1989, with some references within them going back over 20 years.

There is more recent research towards the end of the page.

Here are relevant references (from
http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/greger060603.cfm ) :

'when researchers have actually gone back and looked at the brains of
presumed Alzheimer's deaths--where Alzheimer's was indicated on the
death certificate--anywhere from between 3%[186-187] to 25%[188-190]
had actually died of Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease.
...
[186] Mahendra, B. Dementia Lancaster: MTP Press Limited, 1987: 174.
[187] Wade, J. P. H., et al. "The Clinical Diagnosis of Alzheimer's
Disease." Archives of Neurology 44 (1987): 24-29.
[188] Boller, F., O. L. Lopez, and J. Moossy. "Diagnosis of Dementia."
Neurology 38 (1989): 76-79.
[189] Manuelidis, Elias E. and Laura Manuelidis. "Suggested Links
between Different Types of Dementias: Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease,
Alzheimer Disease, and Retroviral CNS Infections." Alzheimer Disease
and Associated Disorders 2 (1989): 100-109.
[190] Teixeira, F., et al. "Clinico-Pathological Correlation in
Dementias." _Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience 20 (1995):
276-282.

Considering the results, the lack of comprehensive follow-up
research speaks volumes.

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:55:17 -0000, "pearl" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > > > Let's see you demonstrate in what way the source is 'wrong', jim. ..
> >> > >
> >> > > I think Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case pretty
> >> > > convincingly
> >> >
> >> > I must have missed that. Why don't you summarize it here for us.
> >>
> >> explain why I should repeat what you were too idle to see first time, seeing
> >> as how you replied to it
> >
> >What Boron wrote, not only does not invalidate Manuelidis' research,
> >- it is plain false.
> >
> >> Do you often reply without reading the message you are replying to?
> >
> >You said 'Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case..'. He hasn't.
>
> She, darlin'. She. Really, you should not jump to so many conclusions
> without evidence to back them up.

'She hasn't'. Ok?