Health

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

3. Sorry, I forgot the rule of woo.

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:39 PM

Nov 2012

Ten thousand studies against what you want to believe: They're all biased and wrong - I get to ignore all of them!
One study that almost looks like it might support what you want to believe: It's completely accurate and true - you're stupid to ignore it!

Here's a question: why didn't chelation eliminate further heart issues? Why ONLY a reduction in incidence of 4%? Why isn't this woo-favorite treatment for pretty much everything under the sun more effective?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Chelation may help some heart patients: study [View all] Celebration Nov 2012 OP

Dangerous and expensive and totally unwarranted. trotsky Nov 2012 #1

sounds like you are ignoring the study that came out Celebration Nov 2012 #2

Sorry, I forgot the rule of woo. trotsky Nov 2012 #3

Mayo Clinic trotsky Nov 2012 #4

TIME magazine writeup trotsky Nov 2012 #5

NY Times writeup trotsky Nov 2012 #6

I can also selectively quote Celebration Nov 2012 #7

I totally agree with this part: trotsky Nov 2012 #8

How much sugar was there? Celebration Nov 2012 #11

It's your claim, your preferred study. YOU get the info. trotsky Nov 2012 #15

actually it is YOUR claim Celebration Nov 2012 #17

Nope, that's the claim of the NY Times. trotsky Nov 2012 #20

well it could be Celebration Nov 2012 #21

Write to the New York Times and correct them, then! trotsky Nov 2012 #23

How exactly does Chelation Dorian Gray Nov 2012 #9

Binds to heavy metals in particular. trotsky Nov 2012 #10

except in this case Celebration Nov 2012 #12

If you needed a triple bypass heart surgery Dorian Gray Nov 2012 #13

Did I say that Celebration Nov 2012 #14

Wrong. trotsky Nov 2012 #16

for the last time Celebration Nov 2012 #18

I never said the placebo WAS sugar. I said it contained sugar. trotsky Nov 2012 #19

I guess we'll have to wait until the study is published Celebration Nov 2012 #22

Write to the New York Times and correct them, then! trotsky Nov 2012 #24

those recommendations are the ones I referred to Celebration Nov 2012 #25

Oh, I am quite familiar enough with your history and agenda. trotsky Nov 2012 #27

you are truly in lala land Celebration Nov 2012 #28

Nice insult. trotsky Nov 2012 #29

just STOP Celebration Nov 2012 #30

"Lala land"? trotsky Nov 2012 #31

you are a complete liar, then Celebration Nov 2012 #32

Because you personally have been burned in the past on DU2 for promoting treatments... trotsky Nov 2012 #33

you are the one that made the claim that I am recommending this treatment Celebration Nov 2012 #34

Answer the question and prove me wrong. trotsky Nov 2012 #35

LOL Celebration Nov 2012 #36

I'm not asking you to make a recommendation. trotsky Nov 2012 #37

no, no Celebration Nov 2012 #39

You can deny your past behavior all you want. trotsky Nov 2012 #42

As usual Celebration Nov 2012 #44

I'm sorry you chose this path. trotsky Nov 2012 #45

Never put words in my mouth Celebration Nov 2012 #46

I would give you the same advice. trotsky Nov 2012 #47

You know, I've thought about this, and decided I need to apologize. trotsky Nov 2012 #48

thanks for the apology Celebration Nov 2012 #49

Nonetheless, I am relieved to know you agree with me about the dangers of chelation... trotsky Nov 2012 #50

did I say all that? Celebration Nov 2012 #51

Why yes, yes you did. trotsky Nov 2012 #52

Absurd Celebration Nov 2012 #53

You have just finished promoting chelation, and yet you say you didn't? trotsky Nov 2012 #54

Yet more information: trotsky Nov 2012 #26

+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB Nov 2012 #41

Nature: Chelation trial results come under fire HuckleB Nov 2012 #38

The Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy: Equivocal as Predicted (Not To Mention Unethical) HuckleB Nov 2012 #40

Goodness, the more information that comes out about this study... trotsky Nov 2012 #43