|
Update on ecigs...
In article ,
says... On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote: On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote: In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote: Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that shows that second hand smoke causes health problems? The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions, sub-standard methods and politically driven persons. What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate medical research? You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's qualifications? I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable qualifications. And that might be relevant if you could show him some "peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications". Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications to judge it. I don't, and I have two university degrees. He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was. He obviously would like to see it. If one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much legitimate medical research is understandable - especially the conclusions. And I posted cites of MANY peer reviewed studies on second hand smoke. BAR and Scotty chose to ignore them! |
Update on ecigs...
In article , says...
On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote: In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X ` wrote: On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote: On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote: In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote: Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that shows that second hand smoke causes health problems? The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions, sub-standard methods and politically driven persons. What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate medical research? You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's qualifications? I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable qualifications. And that might be relevant if you could show him some "peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications". Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications to judge it. I don't, and I have two university degrees. He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was. He obviously would like to see it. If one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much legitimate medical research is understandable - especially the conclusions. He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I posted a long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs. Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs? I didn't see any URL's. I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I went to the next post... I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I wonder why.... |
Update on ecigs...
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote: In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X ` wrote: On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote: On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote: In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote: Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that shows that second hand smoke causes health problems? The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions, sub-standard methods and politically driven persons. What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate medical research? You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's qualifications? I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable qualifications. And that might be relevant if you could show him some "peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications". Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications to judge it. I don't, and I have two university degrees. He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was. He obviously would like to see it. If one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much legitimate medical research is understandable - especially the conclusions. He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I posted a long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs. Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs? I didn't see any URL's. I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I went to the next post... I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I wonder why.... Probably because you are a fruitcake. |
Update on ecigs...
On 2/28/2012 9:01 AM, oscar wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote: In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X ` wrote: On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote: On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote: In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote: Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that shows that second hand smoke causes health problems? The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions, sub-standard methods and politically driven persons. What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate medical research? You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's qualifications? I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable qualifications. And that might be relevant if you could show him some "peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications". Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications to judge it. I don't, and I have two university degrees. He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was. He obviously would like to see it. If one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much legitimate medical research is understandable - especially the conclusions. He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I posted a long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs. Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs? I didn't see any URL's. I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I went to the next post... I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I wonder why.... Probably because you are a fruitcake. I keep telling him he is in my filters but he chooses to ignore that... I wonder why....?? |
Update on ecigs...
In article , says...
On 2/28/2012 9:01 AM, oscar wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote: In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X ` wrote: On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote: On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote: In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote: Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that shows that second hand smoke causes health problems? The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions, sub-standard methods and politically driven persons. What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate medical research? You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's qualifications? I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable qualifications. And that might be relevant if you could show him some "peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications". Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications to judge it. I don't, and I have two university degrees. He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was. He obviously would like to see it. If one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much legitimate medical research is understandable - especially the conclusions. He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I posted a long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs. Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs? I didn't see any URL's. I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I went to the next post... I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I wonder why.... Probably because you are a fruitcake. I keep telling him he is in my filters but he chooses to ignore that... I wonder why....?? And you keep replying. SO you know the studies are here, go read them and get back to me. |
Update on ecigs...
On 2/28/2012 10:17 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 2/28/2012 9:01 AM, oscar wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, wrote: In , says... On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote: In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X ` wrote: On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote: On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote: In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote: Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that shows that second hand smoke causes health problems? The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions, sub-standard methods and politically driven persons. What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate medical research? You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's qualifications? I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable qualifications. And that might be relevant if you could show him some "peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications". Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications to judge it. I don't, and I have two university degrees. He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was. He obviously would like to see it. If one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much legitimate medical research is understandable - especially the conclusions. He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I posted a long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs. Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs? I didn't see any URL's. I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I went to the next post... I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I wonder why.... Probably because you are a fruitcake. I keep telling him he is in my filters but he chooses to ignore that... I wonder why....?? And you keep replying. SO you know the studies are here, go read them and get back to me. You sure are a bossy little girl, Plume. -- O M G |
Update on ecigs...
In article m,
says... On 2/28/2012 10:17 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 2/28/2012 9:01 AM, oscar wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, wrote: In , says... On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote: In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X ` wrote: On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote: On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote: In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote: Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that shows that second hand smoke causes health problems? The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions, sub-standard methods and politically driven persons. What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate medical research? You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's qualifications? I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable qualifications. And that might be relevant if you could show him some "peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications". Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications to judge it. I don't, and I have two university degrees. He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was. He obviously would like to see it. If one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much legitimate medical research is understandable - especially the conclusions. He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I posted a long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs. Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs? I didn't see any URL's. I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I went to the next post... I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I wonder why.... Probably because you are a fruitcake. I keep telling him he is in my filters but he chooses to ignore that... I wonder why....?? And you keep replying. SO you know the studies are here, go read them and get back to me. You sure are a bossy little girl, Plume. Uh, if he's not going to read them, why did he want them so badly? |
Update on ecigs...
On 2/28/2012 11:58 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 2/28/2012 10:17 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 2/28/2012 9:01 AM, oscar wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, wrote: In , says... On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote: In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X ` wrote: On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote: On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote: In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote: Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that shows that second hand smoke causes health problems? The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions, sub-standard methods and politically driven persons. What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate medical research? You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's qualifications? I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable qualifications. And that might be relevant if you could show him some "peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications". Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications to judge it. I don't, and I have two university degrees. He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was. He obviously would like to see it. If one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much legitimate medical research is understandable - especially the conclusions. He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I posted a long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs. Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs? I didn't see any URL's. I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I went to the next post... I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I wonder why.... Probably because you are a fruitcake. I keep telling him he is in my filters but he chooses to ignore that... I wonder why....?? And you keep replying. SO you know the studies are here, go read them and get back to me. You sure are a bossy little girl, Plume. I don't chase red herrings... |
Update on ecigs...
In article , says...
On 2/28/2012 11:58 AM, Oscar wrote: On 2/28/2012 10:17 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 2/28/2012 9:01 AM, oscar wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:53:39 -0500, wrote: In , says... On 2/27/2012 9:02 PM, BAR wrote: In articleEfydnbLGk7GcY9bSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X ` wrote: On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote: On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote: In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote: Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that shows that second hand smoke causes health problems? The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions, sub-standard methods and politically driven persons. What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate medical research? You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's qualifications? I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable qualifications. And that might be relevant if you could show him some "peer-reviewed medical research in scientific publications". Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications to judge it. I don't, and I have two university degrees. He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was. He obviously would like to see it. If one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much legitimate medical research is understandable - especially the conclusions. He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I posted a long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs. Mostly scientifically acceptable URLs? I didn't see any URL's. I saw World Health Organization, and when I stopped snickering, I went to the next post... I posted SEVERAL, but you and BAR choose to ignore them..... I wonder why.... Probably because you are a fruitcake. I keep telling him he is in my filters but he chooses to ignore that... I wonder why....?? And you keep replying. SO you know the studies are here, go read them and get back to me. You sure are a bossy little girl, Plume. I don't chase red herrings... Yeah, you'd rather stick your head in the sand. I simply can't imagine anybody who would just flat deny good sound science. My 12 year old knows better than that. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com