Posted by ronaldo on January 21, 2007, at 14:29:57 [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
Believe me one woman cine I am just an average citizen living in the United Kingdom. I had no idea that Nathaniel S Lehrman had had his licence revoked. I had no idea that the CCHR was funded by the Church of Scientology. I first learnt of the existence of Nathaniel Lehrman and the CCHR on the 19th of January.
One thing I will say, and perhaps you can comment on this, Nathaniel S Lehrman is mentioned in page after page on the internet and in every case he is referred to as Dr Nathaniel S Lehrman MD or as Dr Lehrman or as Nathaniel Lehrman MD. WHY? This is a man whose licence to practice was revoked. How come is he in such demand five or more years later to speak and to review books etc.? One woman cine I think you owe me the courtesy of an answer to this question. I suggest you try entering Nathaniel S Lehrman MD into your search engine and see the results for yourself. Why I ask do people refer to him as an MD and as a Dr years after his licence was revoked?
If perhaps you know something that I don't then I would be grateful to you if you would share it. You say you seek transparency well I seek the very same thing.
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/726242.html