Re: What is Quackery?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 "Jez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "Orac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >  "Jez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Orac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > >  "Marko Proberto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Jez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > > > > Ahh but as long as the studies are done on adults.....
> > > > > > it PROVES it's safe for kids to use.........
> > > > > > Great Science eh !!
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you claiming that it has *never* been studied on kids? Since you
> do
> > > have
> > > > > a problem answering a direct question. let me help you:
> > > > >
> > > > > [ ] Yes, I am claiming that it has never been tested on children.
> > > > > [ ] No, I am not claiming that it has never been tested on children.
> > > >
> > > > Sadly, it's useless to expect a straight answer from this guy. He
> hasn't
> > > > given one yet that I've seen.
> > >
> > > It has not been approved for use on children.
> >
> > See what I mean? He didn't answer the question.
> >
> And you can't read then.

I can read perfectly well. You didn't answer the question. You dodged 
it. The two are separate questions.
-- 
Orac        |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
            |
            |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
            | inconvenience me with questions?"