Sunday, July 22, 2012

This is Truther "Science"

Previously Steven Jones, in addition to his 9/11 quackery, has promoted perpetual motion machines, man made weather and earthquakes, and bogus archaeology, so I suppose it shouldn't be too big of a surprise that he is into "alternative medicine".  From 911 Flogger.

A friend and fellow 9/11 researcher recently wrote to me that he has cancer. I wrote to him regarding alternative treatments, with summaries of articles by Dr. Mercola, MD, an advocate of alternative health approaches. As my friend replied, "Once having seen the truth about 9/11 it becomes easier to see that other authorities may be concealing important truth. I have been suspicious of "big pharma"... for some time. "



Well I guess if you believe in supermagiconanothermite, homeopathy isn't much of a stretch.

88 Comments:

At 22 July, 2012 10:39, Blogger Matt Sean Bachman said...

I've always wondered about why truthers tend to believe a multitude of conspiracy theories rather than just one. You rarely see someone who just doubts the official story of 9/11--often that same person thinks fluoride's a poison, government is adding poisons to jet fuels, etc.

 
At 22 July, 2012 10:59, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Once you "open" your mind to one load of nonsense it so much easier for more to fall in.

I love the big pharma conspiracy. Apparently the $3 billion in fines last month was just a way to throw off the scent.

 
At 22 July, 2012 11:00, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Once you "open" your mind to one load of nonsense it so much easier for more to fall in.

I love the big pharma conspiracy. Apparently the $3 billion in fines last month was just a way to throw off the scent.

 
At 22 July, 2012 12:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

James, to characterize Dr. Jones's intuitions about connections between the banksters and big pharma as "truther science" is a big leap. This is a clear case of quote mining. Dr. Jones's post did not appear on the front page of 911blogger. In the week since its appearance, not one person commented on it.

How would you like it if I started a blog called "ScrewDebunkerLoons" and presented Ian's claims that there are no widows as if it were typical debunker logic? (Actually, the reluctance of y'all here to disavow Ian's blatant lies is extremely discrediting.)


GMS, Since the prescription drug market is worth over $500 billion a year, $3 billion in fines can be considered mere window dressing.

 
At 22 July, 2012 12:02, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

How would you like it if I started a blog called "ScrewDebunkerLoons" and presented Ian's claims that there are no widows as if it were typical debunker logic?

I think that's a great idea.

 
At 22 July, 2012 12:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's a dumb idea. Nobody would believe that Ian's lies are typical debunker logic.

Does the fact that Dr. Jones's post gets not one comment not tell you something?

 
At 22 July, 2012 12:50, Blogger James B. said...

Yes, that the increasingly inaccurately named 9/11 "truth" movement is dead. Most of the posts on 911 Blogger receive little or no comments.

 
At 22 July, 2012 13:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Of 21 posts on the front page of 911blogger, 9 received 10 or more comments. (13,11,21,10,10,17,17,11,16)

 
At 22 July, 2012 13:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Nobody would believe that Ian's lies are typical debunker logic."

Right! After all, the reader would consider the source--an insane sex predator and compulsive liar with boundary issues--and instantly reject your fallacious argument.

 
At 22 July, 2012 13:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, no reasonable person would consider your lies to impugn facts. The reaon no one would believe that Ian's lies represent the debunkers is because they don't--though your refusal to disavow them is another in a long list of factors that destroy your credibility.

 
At 22 July, 2012 13:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...no reasonable person would consider your lies to impugn facts.

Babbling again, cretin? Poor goat fucker, I've humiliated him again and all he can do is babble like an idiot.

"... The reaon [SIC] no one would believe that Ian's lies represent the debunkers is because they don't--though your refusal to disavow them is another in a long list of factors that destroy your credibility."

See what I mean?

Tell us more about "credibility," while every word that proceeds from your semen-encrusted keyboard is a lie.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

Sexually harassed any innocent married women lately, scum.bag?

 
At 22 July, 2012 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Do you have a point? Why do you continue to cite the post of a blatant bigot and proven liar? Are you a Jew-hater like Barrett is?

 
At 22 July, 2012 13:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Do you have a point?"

Yeah, you'll find a point on the top of your shit-filled head.

"... Why do you continue to cite the post of a blatant bigot and proven liar?"

Proven? LOL! You haven't proven a damned thing, sex predator.

"... Are you a Jew-hater like Barrett is?"

No, I'm a goat fucker hater.

Are you a Jew hater? After all, the American 9/11 "truth" movement was started by an anti-Semite (ie., Eric Hufschmid).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 22 July, 2012 14:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ah, thanks for showing that you have no point. All you have is a paper bag of shit. It's dripping on your shoes.

 
At 22 July, 2012 14:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I made my point at time stamp 22 July 2012, 13:07, cretin.

Learn to read--you thumb-dicked, chronic online onanist.

 
At 22 July, 2012 14:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

I see. Your point is to libel the messenger. Thanks for making that clear.

What was the name of your legal counsel again? I forgot.

 
At 22 July, 2012 14:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Then why don't you take your accuser, Carol Brouillet, to court and sue her for defamation?

You won't take her to court BECAUSE YOU KNOW DAMNED WELL THAT SHE'LL PREVAIL.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

You're a typical thumb-dicked, chronic online onanist. All you have are idle threats and lies.

Carol Brouillet will clean your clock in a court of law--and you know it, coward.

 
At 22 July, 2012 14:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

You are a liar and a libeler, Guitar Bill. Carol Brouillet has accused me of nothing more than evil thoughts for which she can provide not a shred of evidence and which in fact I did not have.

She was trying to defend her con-artist and bigot friends and, like you, she could not find any actual facts to advance her case.

 
At 22 July, 2012 14:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Answer the question, asshole: Then why don't you take your accuser, Carol Brouillet, to court and sue her for defamation?

You won't take her to court BECAUSE YOU KNOW DAMNED WELL THAT SHE'LL PREVAIL.

And that's all we need to know.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 22 July, 2012 14:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 July, 2012 15:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Carol didn't defame me. You're lying when you claim she did. She shared an opinion for which she had no evidence. She was wrong.

Quite some time ago that guy from Johnstown emailed Carol to try to get something on me. She gave him nothing.

 
At 22 July, 2012 15:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bullshit!

You're threatening to sue me for "libel." But the source of the "libel" is Carol Brouillet.

You're a liar and a duplicitous asshole. One minute Carol Brouillet's accusations are "libel" and the next minute they morph into an "opinion."

Contradict yourself much, shit-for-brains? Talk out of both sides of your mouth much, Onan?

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 22 July, 2012 15:18, Blogger Ian said...

How would you like it if I started a blog called "ScrewDebunkerLoons" and presented Ian's claims that there are no widows as if it were typical debunker logic? (Actually, the reluctance of y'all here to disavow Ian's blatant lies is extremely discrediting.)

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because I've debunked his ridiculous claims about "widows".

 
At 22 July, 2012 15:19, Blogger Ian said...

Also, let's not forget that Brian has been kicked out of the truth movement for being a liar, lunatic, and sex stalker. A movement with serious researchers like Bill Deagle and Jim Fetzer wants nothing to do with someone as pathetic as Brian. Just look at Brian's haircut!

 
At 22 July, 2012 15:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, I didn't threaten you with anything. I asked you for the name of your legal counsel.

Your claim that your source for your libel is Carol Brouillet is a lie.

Carol expressed an erroneous opinion. You are asserting a lie as a fact.

 
At 22 July, 2012 16:22, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, everyone knows that you are a disgusting pervert and sex predator. Lying about Carol Brouillet won't change these facts.

Also, the widows have no questions.

 
At 22 July, 2012 17:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your lies waste everyone's time.

 
At 22 July, 2012 17:42, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"A friend and fellow 9/11 researcher recently wrote to me that he has cancer. I wrote to him regarding alternative treatments, with summaries of articles by Dr. Mercola, MD, an advocate of alternative health approaches. As my friend replied, "Once having seen the truth about 9/11 it becomes easier to see that other authorities may be concealing important truth. I have been suspicious of "big pharma"... for some time. ""...

...Okay. So I follow this correctly...the government lied about 9/11, so established medical treatments for cancer(s) is also suspect because Pharmaceutical companies are greedy...

Here's where this logic falls apart:

The company or person who develops a 100% effective cancer treatment will be able to name their price. They will end up with a notable percentage of all the world's money in their account.

Everyone here has lost a family member or friend to cancer. Some of us have had cancer. The fact is we would willing pay whatever the price was to be free of cancer. We would force our Congress to subsidize this wonder drug, as we did the Polio vaccine, so that all could afford it. We wouldn't even question the price tag.

So why would the drug companies willing sit on the one drug that would put them in their own financial dimension? They wouldn't, nobody is that stupid.

 
At 22 July, 2012 17:56, Blogger Goat Fucker's Advocate said...

So why would the drug companies willing sit on the one drug that would put them in their own financial dimension? They wouldn't, nobody is that stupid."

MGF, your erroneous belief that no one could be that stupid is incomplete, unscientific and unbelievable. Obviously I'm that stupid. Your continued refusal to acknowledge my advanced state of stupidity exposes your crippled epistemology.





My motto: Internet--the final frontier. The gobbledegook you're about to read are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out and formulate new logical fallacies; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.

 
At 22 July, 2012 19:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, let me make clear that I am not advocating any pharmaceutical conspiracy theories. I know nothing about cancer treatments. My purpose here is only to shoot down your very silly and stupid argument.

It seems that you don't perceive that a cancer cure would be a razor, and cancer treatments are razor blades.

There's much more money in razor blades than razors.

 
At 22 July, 2012 19:06, Blogger Ian said...

I know nothing about cancer treatments.

This is the first thing that Brian has ever posted here that has any basis in truth.

The rest of his post is what we expect from him: dumbspam from a lunatic failed janitor who lives with his parents.

 
At 22 July, 2012 19:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, where did you get the idea that I live with my parents?

 
At 22 July, 2012 19:31, Blogger Goat Fucker's Advocate said...

The rest of his post is what we expect from him: dumbspam from a lunatic failed janitor who lives with his parents.

Ian, your erroneous belief that I live with my parents is incomplete, unscientific and unbelievable. I barbecued my parents and ate them in 2005. Your continued refusal to acknowledge my love of cannibalism exposes your crippled epistemology.

My mom's liver served with fava beans and Chianti, anyone?





My motto: Internet--the final frontier. The gobbledegook you're about to read are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out and formulate new logical fallacies; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.

 
At 22 July, 2012 20:24, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, where did you get the idea that I live with my parents?

Thanks for proving my point. You live with your parents.

 
At 22 July, 2012 21:03, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"t seems that you don't perceive that a cancer cure would be a razor, and cancer treatments are razor blades.

There's much more money in razor blades than razors."

Add business to the long list of things Brian will never grasp.

As for you stupid razor example, how much would men pay never to shave again? If there was some super razor out there, men would lined up at clinics for their last shave.

If you'd rather be the idiot who'd rather make razor blades instead of the super razor then you should think about a janitorial job, and moving in with your parents...oh wait...

 
At 22 July, 2012 21:05, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, let me make clear that I am not advocating any pharmaceutical conspiracy theories."

...and then you advocate one. You lie to yourself. It's a problem.

 
At 22 July, 2012 21:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF wrote: "how much would men pay never to shave again?"

Ummm, not nearly as much as they'll spend on razor blades in their lifetime.

 
At 22 July, 2012 21:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

If there were a medicinal cure for cancer, do you think the drug companies could charge top dollar for it? What would that do to their public image when some people could afford it and some people could not?

As usual, you have not thought this through.

 
At 23 July, 2012 04:46, Blogger SnowCrash said...

There is a cure for cancer and it's called "wealth". It's not guaranteed to work but it significantly improves your chances. Example:

preview (dot) tiny (remove space) url (dot) com (slash) bmj6ygm

 
At 23 July, 2012 04:48, Blogger Ian said...

If there were a medicinal cure for cancer, do you think the drug companies could charge top dollar for it? What would that do to their public image when some people could afford it and some people could not?

As usual, you have not thought this through.


Yup, this is the kind of "thinking" one would expect from a mentally ill unemployed janitor who lives with his parents. Also, Brian's understanding of the pharmaceutical industry is about as good as his understanding of physics.

 
At 23 July, 2012 07:07, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, Since the prescription drug market is worth over $500 billion a year, $3 billion in fines can be considered mere window dressing.

GSM made $42 bill. in 2011. Not sure about you Brian but I make over 60K a year and if I was fined a few thousand I wouldn't consider that "window dressing". And if I get fined that doesn't affect my stock.
http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/IncomeStatement.jsp?tkr=GSK

 
At 23 July, 2012 09:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, when you routinely engage in criminal and unethical conduct, paying a few bribes and a few fines is just part of the cost of doing business.

In the college in my home town, pharmaceutical companies were writing scientific papers and then paying Med School professors to put their names on them.

Big Pharma has to allow the FDA to give the impression that it's doing its job.

 
At 23 July, 2012 09:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

When the news of the $3 billion fine hit (July 5), the stock went up.

Forbes says: "Feds Hit Glaxo for $3 Billion -- Market Yawns"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ycharts/2012/07/05/once-more-with-feeling-feds-hit-glaxo-for-3-billion-market-yawns/?partner=yahootix

Forbes says fines "will not sink pharma stocks. That’s because the companies make far more from sales than they pay when caught."

 
At 23 July, 2012 13:43, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I guess if you're avoiding the facts about nanocomposite research, you can continue using childish, made-up words like "supermagiconanothermite". How long have you been milking that term, James? Are you purposely touting yourself as a piss-poor researcher who makes an ass of himself? Or should I say Cass?

 
At 23 July, 2012 14:49, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"If there were a medicinal cure for cancer, do you think the drug companies could charge top dollar for it? What would that do to their public image when some people could afford it and some people could not?

As usual, you have not thought this through."

Nope, I just read the news:

New lung cancer drug costs $10,000:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/05/15/152741613/cost-of-cancer-pills-can-be-hard-for-medicare-patients-to-swallow

Provenge costs 31,000 per infusion, and there are 3 in the series:

http://keionline.org/node/1298

Jevtana costs $48,000 for treatment cycle.

Yervoy costs $30,000 per infusion. The series is four infusions totalling (because I know you suck at math) $120,000.

Capresla costs $10,454 per 30-day supply.

Adcetris costs $13,500 per dose, $94,500 to $121,000 per series.

I could go on. It's already expensive. People are already getting these drugs even though they can't pay for them through various state, federal, and charitable programs.

 
At 23 July, 2012 15:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're proving my point. Why should they sell a cure when they can make a lot more money selling treatments?

 
At 23 July, 2012 16:12, Blogger James B. said...

Uhh, yeah, and because research shows that because nanotechnology exists I can just speculate that my neighbor has built the Starship Enterprise out of carbon nanotubes in his backyard. Because, you know, it is entirely possible.

 
At 23 July, 2012 16:43, Blogger Ian said...

You're proving my point. Why should they sell a cure when they can make a lot more money selling treatments?

We should listen to Brian. He's the former CEO of Pfizer.

Oh wait, no, he's a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State and now lives with his parents and posts dumbspam about invisible widows all over the internet all day.

 
At 23 July, 2012 16:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 July, 2012 16:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, what I said about the GSK fine turned out to be exactly what Forbes was saying.

I bet you read Fortune, the People Magazine of business. Is that why you lost your job, 'cause you wrote too many memos evaluating CEOs' haircuts?

 
At 23 July, 2012 17:21, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, what I said about the GSK fine turned out to be exactly what Forbes was saying.

False.

I bet you read Fortune, the People Magazine of business. Is that why you lost your job, 'cause you wrote too many memos evaluating CEOs' haircuts?

I've never written memos about anyone's haircut, and I'm not unemployed. Your desperate attacks on me just demonstrate your crippled epistemology.

 
At 23 July, 2012 17:23, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"You're proving my point. Why should they sell a cure when they can make a lot more money selling treatments?"

First off, this is the best science can do at the moment. You'd know this if you weren't a college dropout gas-bag. Those treatments are the only options available. Period.

Second, these treatments work, and they've begun to lose money as the certain cancer rates have begun to drop. So those companies are all working to develop new drugs, and vaccines to stay in the game.

The pinnacle would be the magic-bullet cure for even one cancer, or cancer class.

This shows your ignorance about real science. There is no way any researcher would sit on a cure. The years of research, the hours of lab-time, and the money spent working toward the goal all preclude non-disclosure. Then there is the mountain of overlapping research already done which means there are almost no secrets within the community.
If Pfizer sits on a cure, they risk losing their patent to a competitor who goes public. Then Pfizer is out of the game all together, their CEO has to explain this gaff to share holders, and no CEO would be this stupid.

By all means keep arguing, Brian, you are out of your league and we all need the laugh.

 
At 23 July, 2012 18:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

How do you know this is the best science can do at the moment?

How do you know that GSK didn't buy up promising companies only to squelch their disruptive products (as MSFT did)?

Your habit of pretending to knowledge you can't possibly have only demonstrates the limitations of your intellect.

So now you say that treatments that work are causing the pharma companies to lose money. That's my point. Treatment is more profitable than a cure would be.

And then you seem to naively believe that squelching a cure would require that a researcher sit on it. Maybe your chem classmates didn't sabotage each other's experiments but it happened in my school. A little bit of manipulating the research could do a lot to discourage a scientist. Nobody needs to overtly squelch a cure. All that happens is that a formerly promising project turns out to be a dead end.

Almost no secrets within the community? You think Big Pharma shares its proprietary research?

You also seem to believe that sitting on a cure requires forgoing a patent. It doesn't. They can patent the cure and sit on it. It's not an either-or proposition.

You make stuff up. You live in a fantasy world. I am not arguing that there's a conspiracy to squelch cures. I'm just pointing out that your arguments that such behavior is impossible are as silly as your arguments about what's impossible on 9/11.

 
At 23 July, 2012 18:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...How do you know this is the best science can do at the moment?...How do you know that GSK didn't buy up promising companies only to squelch their disruptive products (as MSFT did)?...[blah][blah][blah]."

More arguments from ignorance, goat fucker?

Are fallacious arguments all you have, cretin? Your constant reliance on logical fallacies demonstrates the limitations of your twisted "intellect."

FAIL.

"...Maybe your chem classmates didn't sabotage each other's [SIC] experiments but it happened in my school."

Yeah, and given your utter lack on character, we can rest assured that you were the one who sabotaged the experiments.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 23 July, 2012 19:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you don't know what an argument from ignorance is.

If I'd argued that Big Pharma has conspired to squelch cancer cures because you can't prove they didn't, that would be an argument from ignorance. I did not argue that. I simply pointed out the fact that MGF's claimed omniscience is contrary to reality.

Nobody sabotaged my chemistry experiments and I did just fine.

 
At 23 July, 2012 19:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"Nobody sabotaged my chemistry experiments and I did just fine."

Yeah, sure you did, liar. Tell us more about ΔT, charlatan.

"...If I'd argued that Big Pharma has conspired to squelch cancer cures because you can't prove they didn't, that would be an argument from ignorance. I did not argue that. I simply pointed out the fact that MGF's claimed omniscience is contrary to reality."

You didn't read the link I provided, did you, jackass?

Your fallacious argument is an argument from ignorance called God of the gaps. And if you had a real education--and you don't--you'd know that you're exploiting gaps in scientific knowledge in order to "prove" that a cancer cure may have been suppressed, while offering not a scintilla of evidence to support your fallacious argument. Thus, your argument is an argument from ignorance.

If you made it through the first quarter of your freshman year without flunking out or being expelled for academic dishonesty I would be shocked.

Arrogant, intellectually dishonest and a idiot. What a charming combination.

Now go play in the freeway, douche-bag.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 23 July, 2012 19:56, Blogger mischy said...

compare electricity companies

Its okay to believe in different alternative medicines. As long that it wouldn't cause harm to the person. We would do anything just to treat out illness.

 
At 23 July, 2012 20:19, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He's posting all this spam about cancer cures because he's trying to obscure the fact that he STILL hasn't gotten the widows their questions answered. Not one.

 
At 23 July, 2012 20:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your belief that there is something to tell about ΔT only demonstrates your ignorance.

I'm not mounting a scientific argument at all and I'm not out to prove anything except that MGF's fantasies about how scientific research is conducted and drugs are patented are disconnected from reality.

 
At 23 July, 2012 21:21, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"How do you know this is the best science can do at the moment?"

It is. Just a basic fact. Wander over to Stanford's medical school and ask them.

How do you know that GSK didn't buy up promising companies only to squelch their disruptive products (as MSFT did)?"

Uh huh...

"Your habit of pretending to knowledge you can't possibly have only demonstrates the limitations of your intellect."

Coming from you, a mentally ill sex preditor, I will wear that with honor.

"So now you say that treatments that work are causing the pharma companies to lose money. That's my point. Treatment is more profitable than a cure would be."

Not in the long run, nor in the short run.

"And then you seem to naively believe that squelching a cure would require that a researcher sit on it. Maybe your chem classmates didn't sabotage each other's experiments but it happened in my school."

Not everyone goes to reform school, Brian. Plus we're not talking high school. We're talking about grown up science. I know this is beyond you.


" A little bit of manipulating the research could do a lot to discourage a scientist. Nobody needs to overtly squelch a cure."

Yet you just said they did. Make up you mind, butt-brain.


"Almost no secrets within the community? You think Big Pharma shares its proprietary research?"

Research doesn't happen in a vacuum. Researchers gather at conferences around the world every week to share their findings. Scientific research papers are released every day. Plus the drug companies spy on each other.

"You also seem to believe that sitting on a cure requires forgoing a patent. It doesn't. They can patent the cure and sit on it. It's not an either-or proposition."

Doesn't mean a rival can't file a patent for a similar process which apes theirs. Plus these days Chinese companies seem to care less about patents at all. And whatever money made will cover any fines or lawsuits.

"You make stuff up. You live in a fantasy world"

Ooohweee! Bwian's mad! Bwian the walking failure.

"I am not arguing that there's a conspiracy to squelch cures."

Funny, you just spent half a page claiming they do.

You know thanks to the pharmaceutical companies there are many drugs to help you cope with your mental illness. When you check in with your court-appointed psychiatrist you should ask about them, or maybe you should be taking the ones already prescribed for you.

 
At 23 July, 2012 22:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

It would appear that you just type out the first thought that pops into your head and never even bother to read it again.

Why would you expect Stanford scientists to know any more than you do about proprietary science?


I didn't say anybody squelched a cure at all, let alone that they did it overtly. Don't you know how to read? I did say there was no need to squelch a cure overtly when it could be done covertly.
"Oops, I guess we were wrong. This stuff isn't as promising as we'd hoped. Oh well, back to the drawing board."


The fact that some researchers share their findings at conferences and publish papers does not mean that Big Pharma shares its proprietary research.

Your inability to recognize that slapping down your stupid claims is not the same as arguing that the opposite is true is a severe intellectual limitation on your part.

 
At 24 July, 2012 04:47, Blogger Ian said...

Once again, I'd like to remind everyone that Brian STILL hasn't gotten a single question from a widow answered. Not one.

 
At 24 July, 2012 09:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

The corruption in DC is thoroughly bipartisan and the wheels of justice turn slowly.

I did not know, when I started this work, that the corruption was so deep and that so many like Ian and MGF would consider its tolerance admirably pragmatic. That makes the work all the more important, not less so.

Congress has an approval rating lower than porn, lower than the Gulf oil spill. We have people like you to thank for that, Ian.

 
At 24 July, 2012 09:19, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Uhh, yeah, and because research shows that because nanotechnology exists I can just speculate that my neighbor has built the Starship Enterprise out of carbon nanotubes in his backyard. Because, you know, it is entirely possible."
-James Bennett, "debunker".

...because that's exactly what people are claiming. James Bennett said so. Exactly how stupid do you want to pretend to be, James? Do you really think it's convincing?

 
At 24 July, 2012 16:07, Blogger Ian said...

I did not know, when I started this work, that the corruption was so deep and that so many like Ian and MGF would consider its tolerance admirably pragmatic. That makes the work all the more important, not less so.

Poor Brian. He thinks posting dumbspam on the internet and calling people "girls" all day is "work".

Congress has an approval rating lower than porn, lower than the Gulf oil spill. We have people like you to thank for that, Ian.

I'm not a member of Congress, Brian, so I have no idea what you're babbling about. I, too, have a low opinion of Congress, but I do give them credit for not wasting their time with the new investigation that pathetic liars like you want.

And I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of what a pathetic failure Brian is. He's not only unemployed and living with his parents, he still hasn't gotten a single question from the widows answered. Not one.

 
At 24 July, 2012 18:19, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Why would you expect Stanford scientists to know any more than you do about proprietary science?"

All you will ever need to know about Brian Goode, and 9/11 troofers is encapsulated in this one sentence.

 
At 24 July, 2012 18:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 July, 2012 18:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 July, 2012 18:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...your belief that there is something to tell about ΔT only demonstrates your ignorance."

On the contrary, liar. You demonstrated your severe intellectual limitation and utter lack of understanding of the fundamentals of physical science when you repeatedly refused to provide the definition for ΔT. Instead you ran squealing, pettifogging and crying as you always do when challenged to put up or shut up. And you refused to answer the question because you didn't know the answer until I provided the answer for you. Thus, I doubt that you ever had a course in high school chemistry let alone a college-level course in the subject.

Thus, you are a charlatan--a blowhard who lives to nurture his own delusional feelings of superiority. Pathetic.

"...I'm not mounting a scientific argument at all and I'm not out to prove anything except that MGF's fantasies about how scientific research is conducted and drugs are patented are disconnected from reality."

I never said that you were "mounting a scientific argument," dingbat. After all, you're not qualified or sane enough to offer a "scientific argument." Logical fallacies, moreover, hardly qualify as a "scientific argument." Furthermore, your so-called argument is an argument from ignorance called God of the gaps.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with MGF's argument. In fact, his argument is infinitely more in-line with reality than your half-baked, contrarian, pseudo-conspiratorial bullshit.

Don't you have a happily married troofer to sexually harass?

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 24 July, 2012 18:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your continued prattling about such trivialities as ΔT only demonstrates your ignorance.

What's wrong with MGF's argument is what's wrong with all his arguments--he makes stuff up, and he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 
At 24 July, 2012 19:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 July, 2012 19:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...your continued prattling about such trivialities as ΔT only demonstrates your ignorance."

On the contrary, liar. Your inability to answer the question is proof positive that you never took a course in Chemistry, and brings the lie to your pseudo-science and self-righteous prattle.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

"...What's wrong with MGF's argument is what's wrong with all his arguments--he makes stuff up, and he doesn't know what he's talking about."

If that's the case, you certainly failed to present a convincing argument. Or are you so delusional as to believe that your fallacious arguments are a substitute for a logical argument, troll?

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 24 July, 2012 21:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 July, 2012 22:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, it seems you're unable to recognize that my refusal to answer a stooooopid question does not mean I don't know the answer.

"Your question is too stupid to answer" has always been my answer.

 
At 24 July, 2012 22:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...it seems you're unable to recognize that my refusal to answer a stooooopid question does not mean I don't know the answer."

See what I mean? All you can do is pettifog. The question, as I've pointed out over-and-over again was germane to the subject; yet, you couldn't answer the question. For a liar with an alleged "scientific reputation," you're reluctant to demonstrate your alleged "competence." Why is that, charlatan?

The truth? You're a typical troofer blowhard--a charlatan. And your continued reliance on logical fallacies brings the lie to your alleged "scientific reputation."

You're an idiot, home wrecker, a liar and a sex predator.

FAIL.

"Your question is too stupid to answer" has always been my answer."

Right, because you're too uneducated, dishonest and insane to provide an answer to an elementary question that any academically curious sophomore in high school can answer.

So what's your excuse, troll?

Right! You couldn't pass a California GED exam, let alone a formal examination in elementary logic.

And "[y]our question is too stupid to answer," doesn't cut it, liar.

FAIL.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 24 July, 2012 22:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

How was me defining the meaning of ΔT "germane to the subject"? Germane to what subject? Defining it wouldn't demonstrate any competence. Even MGF could google "ΔT" and find out what it means--if he wasn't too lazy.

It must be very frustrating to be you.

 
At 25 July, 2012 00:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...How was me defining the meaning of ΔT 'germane to the subject'? Germane to what subject? Defining it wouldn't demonstrate any competence. Even MGF could google [SIC] "ΔT" and find out what it means--if he wasn't too lazy."

More pettifoggery, jackass? Is your senile dementia acting up again, dim-bulb? We've been over this a thousand times, and your dumbspam won't change a thing. Anyone can read the original thread and determine that you're a liar. You ran squealing and crying from the question because you don't know a thing about HIGH SCHOOL-LEVEL CHEMISTRY.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"google"? [SIC]

It's already an established fact that you can't "google" to save your life.

That doesn't change the facts: You ran squealing, pettifogging and crying as you always do when challenged to put up or shut up.

Face it, goat fucker. You didn't know the answer. And you didn't know the answer because you're an arrogant, mentally ill blowhard with boundary issues.

"...It must be very frustrating to be you."

Project much, old man?

So how did it feel to be banned from TroofAction? After all, you were described as a "miserable troll." A "badge of honor" in your twisted opinion, I'm sure.

If your mother was smarter, she would have tossed you in the garbage and raised the placental expulsion.

Would you care to impress us with the breadth and depth of your ignorance and insanity again, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?

Now spam the thread again with your inane, lying, idiotic prattle.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 25 July, 2012 00:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

So many words, so little substance. That's why I call you ButtGale.

Me defining ΔT was germane to nothing. Even MGF could google "ΔT" and find out what it means--if he wasn't too lazy.

 
At 25 July, 2012 01:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"... Even MGF could google "ΔT" and find out what it means--if he wasn't too lazy."

Really? Then why did you refuse to answer the question, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?

Since you NEVER tell the truth, I'll answer the question: You didn't answer the question because you had never encountered the Greek letter, Δ (delta), in your life, let alone ΔT in a high school-level chem course. After all, glue sniffing degenerates don't study the Greek language, let alone rudimentary high school-level chemistry. Thus, your "google search," which you refused to do, was impossible for you because you have no idea what the Greek letter Δ (delta) stands for, cretin. Thus, you couldn't so much as begin the "google search."

You're as transparent as a piece of Saran Wrap, liar.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The truth hurts, doesn't it, charlatan?

Tell us more about ΔT, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Squeal, squeal, squeal!

So goat fucker, when do you plan to launch your mythical "new investigation"? Yeah, I know, just as soon as you answer the "widows" loaded questions. Right, Mr. logical fallacy?

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 25 July, 2012 09:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

I've told you several times why I won't answer the question. Because it's stupid, and because I knew that not answering it would annoy you, and it amuses me to see you make such a fool of yourself stamping your little pigfeet about it.

 
At 25 July, 2012 15:27, Blogger لورنس said...

برامج سطح المكتب

برامج شهاب سوف - عالم من البرامج

برامج استعادة الملفات المحذوفة

برامج الرسوم والتصاميم

برامج اساسية

برامج استعراض الصور

برامج الفلاش

برامج ايفون برنامج آيفون

برامج تحرير الصور

برامج تسريع الانترنت

برامج جوالات Samsung السامسونج

برامج جوالات سوني أريكسون

برامج مشاهدة القنوات الفضائية

 
At 25 July, 2012 16:45, Blogger Ian said...

I've told you several times why I won't answer the question. Because it's stupid, and because I knew that not answering it would annoy you, and it amuses me to see you make such a fool of yourself stamping your little pigfeet about it.

Brian, I told Laurie Van Auken that you refuse to answer GuitarBill's question, and she collapsed on the floor in anguish.

Why do you delight in the widows' pain? What's wrong with you?

 
At 25 July, 2012 21:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

It thinks it's funny.

 
At 26 July, 2012 09:54, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Big Pharma has to allow the FDA to give the impression that it's doing its job.

It wasn't the FDA Brian, it was the Dept of Justice. As usual none of hte facts & an admission of unfalsifiable beliefs. Sorry Brian but your handwaving doesn't make 3 billion go away.

 
At 26 July, 2012 09:55, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Big Pharma has to allow the FDA to give the impression that it's doing its job.

It wasn't the FDA Brian, it was the Dept of Justice. As usual none of hte facts & an admission of unfalsifiable beliefs. Sorry Brian but your handwaving doesn't make 3 billion go away.

 
At 26 July, 2012 10:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Gosh, thanks for clearing that up! The fact remains that sources like the NYT and Forbes validated my point that for GSK $3 billion was just part of the cost of doing business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/business/glaxosmithkline-agrees-to-pay-3-billion-in-fraud-settlement.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ycharts/2012/07/05/once-more-with-feeling-feds-hit-glaxo-for-3-billion-market-yawns/?partner=yahootix

 
At 28 July, 2012 15:21, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The fact remains that sources like the NYT and Forbes validated my point that for GSK $3 billion was just part of the cost of doing business.

Actually that wasn't your claim.

Big Pharma has to allow the FDA to give the impression that it's doing its job.

So where in either of those articles is the claim that the FDA is trying to look like its doing its job?

 
At 29 July, 2012 08:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Do you have some reasonable basis for disputing the claim that the FDA is trying to look like it's doing its job?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home