Replies

That is written by quacks, and refers to a lawsuit filed (and only filed) by quacks (ask your dentist) against quackwatch because they published that the quacks were quacks. lol

(I'm not calling Dr H a quack, just saying...)

72 posted on 02/25/2005 4:11:58 PM PST by Trinity_Tx (Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believin as we already do)

That is written by quacks, and refers to a lawsuit filed (and only filed) by quacks (ask your dentist) against quackwatch because they published that the quacks were quacks. lol

Mainstream medicine is reluctant to recognize anything out of their norm. Quackwatch testified against Dr. Hammesfahr and lost the case in 2003 as you can see in this publicity publication.

Quackwatch are quacks if they lose in court.lol If you don't like the guy that is fine, but you can't put anything on him other than your opinoin

http://www.hnionline.com/Sarah's%20Stuff%20Working%20On/LWF00082.jpg

74 posted on 02/25/2005 4:37:50 PM PST by bjs1779 (" It is unlikely that Terri currently needs the feeding tube." Examination by Dr. Hammesfahr 9/12/02)