Re: link about Chet and the CA Dental Board


<clintonz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1116947436.439632.48940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Lets take a few key points, such as:
>
> Was Chet Y fired from his post?
>
> Was the dental board subsequently sued for illegally
> taking over the fact *** committe?
>
> Did the CDA bring in an "expert" to testify for amalgam?
>
> Did this or previous dental boards take any illegal action to stop
> distribution of a fact *** and are many of the appointees holdovers
> from the previous pro-amalgam law defying dental board.
>
> Or is your $1000 bet going to be you weaseling out by making me do
> > the work? Since you opened your mouth, I'll take your bet, now prove
> your
> > position.
>
> It must be obvious to you that on key points you will lose the
> bet. Notice how Dr. Bill Combs is suddenly silent.
> If you want me to take your money I will.
> 3 key points, make it $2000. If you lose you have to
> donate the money to TT.net and as in survivor you will
> be forever banished from sci.med.
>
> Id also like to start a bet with Steve F that no amalgam
> ever loses more than 5% of its Hg nor can significant amounts
> be methylized. EASY money. Why didn't I think of this before?
>

I made general comment about web sites like toxicteeth, not any one specific
story. Your reply to my comments was...

"You want to bet $1000 that the information posted is accurate?"

As I wrote, if you want to take up the task of proving to me and others that
these web sites are 100% accurate, I'll take that bet.

I'll remind you, for what is either the third or 4th time, I did not
question the validity of the information, my comment was only that these web
sites seem to be accepted as truth despite the fact many are sponsored by
companies or individuals who stand to profit from the views they espouse. If
I linked to a site that was allegedly a volunteer group of concerned
citizens FOR amalgam, and you found the web site was actually owned by a
company that made or profited from the results, you would be 100% correct in
being somewhat suspect of the motivation behind these "volunteers". All I am
asking is why that is not a concern here?. A few years ago I pointed out
that a similar relationship existed between IAOMT and its director, who
happened to be president of a company that stood to profit from the
information reported by the IAOMT.

T


.