I agree. and it is sometimes mind-boggling. Sally sol <[email protected]> wrote: Still, every claim he makes should be evaluated on it's own rather than just make blanket assumptions. I find blanket assumptions made by either side of the alternative/conventional medical issue are equally likely to be in error. Barrett is indeed a quack himself, but that does not necessarily mean he is always wrong. :-) . To throw out critical thinking and researching by oneself, is always a mistake, imho. And frankly the push against alternative medicine and supplements is so global, and so huge, that we as consumers desiring to keep access to alternatives open, simply cannot afford to support quacks just because they are "alternative". To do so is to fall into the hands of those, like Barrett, who are pushing for total eradication of any alternative access. However, doing the work at all to try to find out the truth of any particular assertion on the Barrett site, or any quack site, is very difficult. It is always easier to simply choose up sides and get out the pom-poms, but it just is not the path of finding out truth. sol
Sally Khanna wrote: > While I agree with you partly Sol, I sure can understand Marshall's > thoughts on this. > The problem when someone is so vehemently against something, I've > often found they either can't be trusted, or their judgement can't be > relied upon because it's so slanted. > > Sally > > sol wrote: > > As with everything it isn't wise to throw the baby out with the > bathwater. There is actually some valuable info on the quackwatch > site. > While I am certain he is totally wrong about CS and homeopathy, to > name > just two, my opinions are because I did my homework, researching the > other side..........however, there are some sound articles on at > least a > couple of real quacks, for which research turned up no adequate > refutation of the info at the Barrett site. > NOTHING is all good or all bad. It is up to us to do the work to form > our own opinions. No offense to you personally, Marshall, but my > opinion > is it is as counter-productive to the search for truth to throw > out the > entire body of info at the Barrett site, as it is for him to throw > out > the whole of alternative medicine, etc. > sol > > Marshall Dudley wrote: > > > Yes, you can! find him in the quack forum where he belongs with > all the > > other quacks. Use him as a good refercne for finding things that > > work, if he is against it, it works, and the more he is against it, > > the better it works. Anyway, nothing he has to say about CS is > true, > > check the archives. > > > > Marshall > > > > sid aust wrote: > > > >> I am new to the forum and wondering what the side effects of > taking > >> CS. I just read one of Dr Barrett's article on how it will turn > you > >> grey and all kinds of bad stuff..and of course Dr Barrett is > against > >> everything good in alternative medicine..you can fine him on the > >> quack forum...thanksSid > > > > > -- > The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > > Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org > > To post, address your message to: [email protected] > Silver List archive: > http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected] > OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html > > List maintainer: Mike Devour > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail > > - You care about security. So do we. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
