Re: Questions For Dr. Pilcher

[Guest guest]

I really don't understand the problem here.

The moderators of this group censor what they consider to be abusive

or insulting posts (sometimes over-zealously I think, but that's their

privelege).

ALL posts have the posters name to the side of it. If you are not

interested in the views of Marjorie, myself, or anyone else for that

matter, then why read them?

While it could be claimed with some justification that my posts are

confrontational, I don't think the same could be said for Marjorie's.

If you don't like the medical jargon between physicians, medical

students, veterinarians and the like, absolutely nobody is forcing

anyone to read them are they?

[Guest guest]

I really don't understand the problem here.

The moderators of this group censor what they consider to be abusive

or insulting posts (sometimes over-zealously I think, but that's their

privelege).

ALL posts have the posters name to the side of it. If you are not

interested in the views of Marjorie, myself, or anyone else for that

matter, then why read them?

While it could be claimed with some justification that my posts are

confrontational, I don't think the same could be said for Marjorie's.

If you don't like the medical jargon between physicians, medical

students, veterinarians and the like, absolutely nobody is forcing

anyone to read them are they?

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, it's not a matter of medical jargon or expertise, or

even mere expression of ideas, opinions or beliefs. When those who

post new material or info regarding potential new treatments are so

vilified as was Dr. Pilcher, people will be discouraged from posting

new ideas, period.

The whole point of this forum is to discuss ideas; both medical and

non-medical. Ignoring any one or group of individual's posts does not

solve the problem at hand--that of **discouraging** people from

posting potentially valuable information.

> I really don't understand the problem here.

>

> The moderators of this group censor what they consider to be abusive

> or insulting posts (sometimes over-zealously I think, but that's

their

> privelege).

>

> ALL posts have the posters name to the side of it. If you are not

> interested in the views of Marjorie, myself, or anyone else for that

> matter, then why read them?

>

> While it could be claimed with some justification that my posts are

> confrontational, I don't think the same could be said for

Marjorie's.

> If you don't like the medical jargon between physicians, medical

> students, veterinarians and the like, absolutely nobody is forcing

> anyone to read them are they?

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, it's not a matter of medical jargon or expertise, or

even mere expression of ideas, opinions or beliefs. When those who

post new material or info regarding potential new treatments are so

vilified as was Dr. Pilcher, people will be discouraged from posting

new ideas, period.

The whole point of this forum is to discuss ideas; both medical and

non-medical. Ignoring any one or group of individual's posts does not

solve the problem at hand--that of **discouraging** people from

posting potentially valuable information.

> I really don't understand the problem here.

>

> The moderators of this group censor what they consider to be abusive

> or insulting posts (sometimes over-zealously I think, but that's

their

> privelege).

>

> ALL posts have the posters name to the side of it. If you are not

> interested in the views of Marjorie, myself, or anyone else for that

> matter, then why read them?

>

> While it could be claimed with some justification that my posts are

> confrontational, I don't think the same could be said for

Marjorie's.

> If you don't like the medical jargon between physicians, medical

> students, veterinarians and the like, absolutely nobody is forcing

> anyone to read them are they?

[Guest guest]

- When those who

> post new material or info regarding potential new treatments are so

> vilified as was Dr. Pilcher, people will be discouraged from posting

> new ideas, period.

I think " vilified " is a bit strong. Dr. Pilcher made some statements

and was asked to justify them. He did not. I suspect vilification will

come, though, if this investigation is reviewed by a board of his peers.

> The whole point of this forum is to discuss ideas; both medical and

> non-medical. Ignoring any one or group of individual's posts does not

> solve the problem at hand--that of **discouraging** people from

> posting potentially valuable information.

I agree wholeheartedly.....it should be open for discussion of ideas

both medical and non-medical. The point is, this discussion WAS

medical from the outset. Dr. Pilcher is a scientist and he presented

his claims with a research investigation as evidence of authenticity.

If that investigation is fundamentally flawed, I believe it is of

everyone's benefit that it be exposed. You apparently disagree, though

for the life of me I don't understand why.

>

>

> > I really don't understand the problem here.

> >

> > The moderators of this group censor what they consider to be abusive

> > or insulting posts (sometimes over-zealously I think, but that's

> their

> > privelege).

> >

> > ALL posts have the posters name to the side of it. If you are not

> > interested in the views of Marjorie, myself, or anyone else for that

> > matter, then why read them?

> >

> > While it could be claimed with some justification that my posts are

> > confrontational, I don't think the same could be said for

> Marjorie's.

> > If you don't like the medical jargon between physicians, medical

> > students, veterinarians and the like, absolutely nobody is forcing

> > anyone to read them are they?