Re: The Shady History Of Standard Process Laboratories
- From: Mark Thorson <nospam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:32:33 -0700
Tunderbar wrote:
On Apr 16, 2:47 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
GMCarter wrote:
Why in the world would I read anything at the discredited, delirious
organization's website?
You shouldn't. You're mind is already made up.
The web site backs up it's statements with
references. It cites evidence. You hate that.
If you were to even look at the web site,
you'd find your beliefs being challenged
successfully right and left. You couldn't
handle that.
No, you definitely should not visit http://www.quackwatch.org
Sorry, but you are wrong.
The "quackwatchers" have little to no credibility.
Just because you pronounce it so?
That's not a very strong argument, but I guess
it's the strongest one you can make.
If quackwatch were to make such an assertion
about you, you can be sure that assertion
would be backed up by quotations from you
and references to reliable sources of information
proving you wrong, along with links to primary
sources.
But that's because quackwatch adheres to
a high standard of evidence. Nobody expects
you to meet that standard.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Shady History Of Standard Process Laboratories
- From: Tunderbar
- Re: The Shady History Of Standard Process Laboratories
- References:
- The Shady History Of Standard Process Laboratories
- From: Mark Thorson
- Re: The Shady History Of Standard Process Laboratories
- From: GMCarter
- Re: The Shady History Of Standard Process Laboratories
- From: Mark Thorson
- Re: The Shady History Of Standard Process Laboratories
- From: Tunderbar
- The Shady History Of Standard Process Laboratories
- Prev by Date: Re: The Shady History Of Standard Process Laboratories
- Next by Date: Re: qPCR Newsletter
- Previous by thread: Re: The Shady History Of Standard Process Laboratories
- Next by thread: Re: The Shady History Of Standard Process Laboratories
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|