Re: Questions For Dr. Pilcher

[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?