james Bruch (?spelling, if its wrong: sorry James) wrote:
Betty Martini <betty at noel.pd.org> wrote:
[Lots & lots &lots of drivel deleted]
BS-Betty strikes again! If we _have_ to have a CDA, why can't our
congressional bozo's point it at BS-B's sort of stuff? You can be
sure it does a lot more harm than anything you'll see in alt.sex.kinky_stuff!
In reply, Betty Martini wrote:
>Dear James: What have you got against Dr. Morgan Raiford? He was "the
>specialist" in methanol toxicity in the United States! Many of the
>patients who went blind on NutraSweet were brought to Atlanta for him to
>diagnose. He testified before Congress and asked that NutraSweet be banned.
>He was an outstanding and renowned ophthalmologist who founded the
>Atlanta Eye Clinic. Even back in the 60's when I worked for a group of
>11 physicians anyone who had a serious eye problem was always referred to
THIS may be so Betty, but if you read the post properly, James did not
question the doctors reputation or expertise. He no doubt had a long
career trying to help people & coming up with ideas. Not all of his ideas
may be correct, though as you can only prove an idea WRONG.
What James is snarling at is YOUR lamentable behaviour distorting dAta,
quoting only those reports that support your own point of view & your
hectoring spammy attitude. I've heard Christain fundamentalists that are
more moderate in tone than you.
>>Most people would be glad to be warned that there is a product in 7000
>products that destroys the optic nerve, and the nervous system, and they
>would appreciate a report by someone tops in their field. Lost of sight
>is a serious thing. Lee Fuller came to see me some weeks ago after
>reading the article I wrote about Joyce Wilson who went blind and died on
>NutraSweet. There were tears in her eyes when she said: "I have her same
>symptoms and I'm going blind. How could they not warn us? Please help
>me so I can warn others."
again , emotional scumbaggery to support your argument...
>It seems inconceivable that someone would get upset that people are
>warned so they can save their health and their sight. What is your agenda
>that you would not want them to have this information?
what is your agenda that you implicate him in a "hush hush " conspiracy of
this person has not stated that he has a wish to deny people access to
data, instead voicing a complaint against your dietrary zealotry &
paranoid tendencies. Your gagging of dissenting voices is practiced in
most dictatorships....are you getting the hint?
If only we could return your posts as you urge us to return products.