Reply With Quote
Backing away from your own posts again. Good instinct.
I see no conspiracy accusations in this thread.
Guilty-minded?
Backing away from your own posts again. Good instinct.
this is why the issue gets muddled, you cant discuss on topic. its all your butthurt, all day.I see no conspiracy accusations in this thread.
Guilty-minded?
then you claim failed argument when in reality you never let the discussion take place. Chump is providing intelligent opposition, while you continue with the burning-buttring asides. why dont you sit this one out. You really are just in the way here.
the piranha crew. Winehole23, ChumpDumper, Blake, RandomGuy
They can smell the letters f-l-u-o-r-i-d-e from a mile away.
but funny how when the personal attacks cease, the place gets real quiet.
If a person can't afford water, he's not going to be able to afford a house for household use or food for cooking.
You don't wish to discuss fluoride?
@Parker:
Why don't you just present your case and ignore me?
I'm not in your way at all. Judging from the pattern of your own posts, you seem to actually prefer burning-buttring asides, shunning the reasonable conversation otherwise occurring at the margins.
will he also have t-shirts and coffee mugs for sale?
Apparently Connett is renowned in the anti-fluoride circles for his "Fluoride: A Statement for Concern" article written back in 2000.
Points 1-12 were/are mostly about how poor and questionable the initial studies of the benefits of fluoride and fluoridation are.
After points 13-14, I stopped reading when he stated:
"13. John Colquhoun's work is both revealing and inspiring.
14. In May 1998, I had the privilege of making a videotaped interview with Dr. Colquhoun in his Auckland home less than a year before he died. Seldom have I been so impressed with the integrity of anyone as I was with Dr. Colquhoun. I simply cannot believe that any dentist or scientist who watches this taped interview with an open mind could continue to promote fluoridation. (This taped interview can be obtained from GG Video, 82 Judson Street, Canton, NY 13617). "
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-statement.htm
A Parker2112 thread.
the letters e-n-t-e-r-t-a-i-n-m-e-n-t can be seen from a mile away.
think about retired diabetic on dialysis with paid for house on a fixed income who cant afford *bottled* water and who, through no fault of his own (he is not disobeying a dr. who advises him not to drink fluoridated water) actually gets fluorosis or has organ failure of some sort,
- and you must get expert testimony to show causation,
- which must overcome the defendants expert witnesses who will cite mountains of evidence on the other side showing the water is safe3 to drink, though not necessarily addressing general public members who are sensative to fluoride, like your plaintiff,
- but who nonetheless will muddle the issue for the jury,
- who no doubt believes as you, that the govt would never harm us, and that fluoridated water is fine.
If you look at the first big time plaintiff winner vs tobacco it was a dream scenario like the one stated above. but when the wall fell, the defendant crumbled. and how long did that wall stand? 50+ years or so?
actually, chump, gotta go, but let me know if you wanna go. you to, WH. I am going to talk to my wife, the water quality professional, tonight about attending. It may be good for laughs. you guys can tell her how much I talk about my genitals on Spurstalk.
how many doctors advise patients not to drink fluoridated tap water?
how many retired diabetics have developed fluorosis from fluoridated tap water?
I don't understand why you need to resort to ad hominems after whining that others have done the same to you.
If a person is going to dialysis and is at a higher stage of kidney disease, his doctor should tell him about fluoride and the person can obtain unfluoridated water.
give us a report on what you find at the seminar.
I'm ready for some good laughs.
$$$$. he must be unable to afford. The other scenario is Plaintiff who is uneducated about the possible affects and trusts the city (as most everyone does) regarding the safety of the water for all. Then if he gets sick, where the doc doesnt warn him there can be no contributory negligence claim.
Doctors know about fluoridated water exacerbating certain conditions. You act like thats news. Roll into the doc with a kidney ailment, and a good doc will tell you to stop using tap water.
Right. You described a malpractice case, not a landmark fluoridation decision.
comparative negligence, apportioned among the two defendants.
No. Nestle has never been successfully sued by a diabetic whose doctor neglected to tell him to ease up on the Crunch bars.
causation is the key there. your aim is off. you would have to prove plaintiff only ate Nestles, that the candy was the sole cause (he only eats whole grain cardboard otherwise?)and that there wasnt sufficient ken to provide for contrinutory negligence.
Chocolate does not = medication. easily distinguishable scenario.
Those are differences without relevance to the argument. You missed the point entirely.
There is a substance out there a doctor has a duty to tell his patient to avoid. It could be fluoride or chocolate or ibuprofen.
What is "sufficient ken"?
ken is short for knowledge
Sufficient Ken sounds like an anatomically correct doll.
You have pretty much been the only person making personal attacks here.
Go back, re-read the thread and tell me that statement is incorrect.
Im telling you why nestles hasnt been sued successfully. But even with dr.'s existing duty, municipality can be found responsible for x amount of damages to old poor diabetics liver and kidneys. In a comparative negligence state such as texas, one tort doesnt bar recover from second tortfeasor, it means apportionment.
So breach of doctors duty has no bearing here.
And further, chocolate is not toxic without overconsumption, which is the fault of the plaintiff. so that argument will always be too attenuated.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions