Posted by ronaldo on January 20, 2007, at 5:54:45 [reposted on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:22 | original URL]
In reply to Re: CCHR, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2007, at 17:29:32
I have to plead ingnorance on both counts.
I did not know that Nathaniel Lehrman had had his license revoked.
I did not know that the CCHR was funded by Scientology.
I still would have posted what I did post though.
It surprises me that Nathaniel Lehrman was invited to speak just eight years after his licence was revoked. Nobody was complaining in 2001. Why are we complaining in 2007?
ronaldo
> My problem is with transparency of posts.
>
>
> The facts behind the posts are murky. A post with a link gets made, not that's an opinion, but that it's a fact - which is not true.
>
> When ronaldo posted something by an MD - he didn't qualify it by saying his license is revoked - & that takes away from the legitimacy of the link.
>
> & he didn't qualify the CCHR with who funds it. If a pharm company did this, it would count as a conspiracy.
>
> I would just like to see more transparent disclosure.
poster:ronaldo
thread:726227
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20070122/msgs/726239.html